Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts, my friend Mr. McGovern, for yielding me the time this morning. And I would yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and to the underlying legislation. The structured rule does not call for the open and honest debate that we really had been promised years ago by our Democrat colleagues to have an open, honest debate on the issues that are before this country. But once again, time in and time out, here we are without an open rule.

Mr. Speaker, it's my intention today to discuss the dangerous precedent that this legislation sets forth on the future of business in America and the stranglehold that government will have over the free enterprise system.

Additionally, I offered two amendments in the Rules Committee last night, and I will discuss those here today. One would ensure this legislation would not create a bonanza for trial lawyers, and the other would provide for the necessary transparency and disclosure for shareholders. Both were rejected by the Democrats of the Rules Committee and eliminated from debate on the House floor today.

Mr. Speaker, government takeover of the free enterprise system seems to be a common theme with this Democrat Congress and with the Obama administration, a theme that has led to record deficits and record unemployment. This underlying legislation has masked itself as a bill to restrict CEO pay by giving shareholders a nonbinding vote on executive compensation. Yet in reality, it gives the government broad authority to review and determine appropriate compensation for every employee of a financial firm.

This legislation empowers the Federal Government to set unprecedented standards for annual shareholder votes while providing broad government authority for regulators who will have guidance to implement this and give authority to them over the free enterprise system.

We all agree that we need to curb abuses of the past and to promote responsible approaches to executive compensation. But this bill provides unprecedented government intervention in the free enterprise system. It is the wrong solution. The goal of regulatory reform should be to help, not hinder, our economy's ability to sustain economic growth and job creation.

This legislation does the opposite by legislating a one-size-fits-all rule for public companies that discourage private firms from going public. This will limit U.S. companies' access to the capital markets and undermine U.S. economic competitiveness. This legislation allows financial regulators the authority to determine wages for all employees, not just CEOs, officers, and bankers, but everyone.

The rank and file of community banks, minority banks, and credit unions could all have their compensation determined by unelected Washington bureaucrats. This perception undermines the confidence in corporate America and unfairly taints the vast majority of U.S. companies.

In an effort to provide the clarification necessary to ensure the intent of this legislation is not to create a bonanza for trial lawyers, I offered an amendment in the Rules Committee. The amendment would have clarified that this legislation simply creates no new private right of action in our courts, nor would its passage make a compensation committee's decisions to uphold its fiduciary responsibilities to shareholders subject to any existing private right of action.

Without this amendment, trial lawyers will be able to exploit a new opportunity to shake down companies for huge payments by challenging any action deemed non-compliant from this non-binding vote. This is a commonsense amendment that should have been considered on the House floor today, and it should be in the bill as law.

My second amendment would have provided sunshine and transparency for shareholders by requiring a full SEC disclosure about who is financing efforts to influence votes on this new congressionally mandated non- binding shareholder resolution. Put simply, this amendment would provide shareholders with access to information about who is spending money to influence that vote.

As Federal candidates, we're obligated to disclose to the Federal Election Commission the name, occupation, and amount given from each of our donors. We require this because the public interest is advanced by letting voters know who funds each candidate's campaign. My amendment asks the same disclosure so the shareholders know what people, what organization--whether they be labor unions, environmental groups, consumer advocates or simply a normal citizen of this country. We need to know who is spending money on influencing this new mandatory, non- binding vote.

Americans pride themselves on free enterprise choice and a marketplace

that works for all of us; yet today Congress will pass legislation that increases government intervention in the financial markets, rations resources, limits consumer choices, and dictates wages and prices. In a time of economic recession with record unemployment and record deficits, Congress should be enacting legislation to assist our economy.

Mr. Speaker, the motives are clear. This administration and this Congress are using policy and regulation to force a government takeover of the free enterprise system.

Mr. Speaker, this Congress should be doing things to encourage employment, to encourage people to go back to work, to encourage competitiveness, to encourage our country to be prepared tomorrow; not to have record unemployment, not to spend more money for record debts, but to give America and the free enterprise system the chance and opportunity it deserves to flourish in America.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote against this rule and the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to stress that while my friends on the other side of the aisle claim to be protecting consumers with this legislation, they refuse to protect all Americans in this legislation from trial lawyers benefiting from their tax dollars, and they also voted in the committee against transparency and accountability.

Mr. Speaker, as a Nation, we have many, many, many real problems to deal with that require leadership and dedication to ensure the future of this Nation. We need to provide for jobs, encourage economic growth and spur innovation and prosperity of this Nation, not to hamper the free enterprise system. This is, without question, further government control and muzzling of the free enterprise system. Some argue that this legislation is about executive compensation; but in reality, it continues to be the government takeover of the free enterprise system.

I encourage a ``no'' vote on this structured rule and a ``no'' vote on the underlying legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

I am.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to preempt a common protest by the gentleman, my friend from Massachusetts, and let my colleagues know that this motion will not ``kill the bill.'' In fact, it will not even send it back to committee. We have the authority right here, right now to provide for the appropriate transparency and accountability just by passing this motion.

The legislation that the Democrat majority has brought before the House today forces every publicly held company to bear the cost of administering a toothless, non-binding shareholder vote on pay packages during every proxy vote.

This motion to recommit would improve this interventionist legislation by providing sunshine and transparency for shareholders so that there is full disclosure about who is financing efforts to influence a vote on this new, congressionally mandated, nonbinding shareholder resolution.

Let me give an example of a substantially similar disclosure requirement that every Member of this body understands because it's already a current practice: As Federal candidates, we are obligated to disclose to the FEC the name, occupation, and amount given from each of our donors. We require this because public interest is advanced by letting voters know who funds each candidate's campaign.

My motion asks for the same disclosure so that shareholders know what persons or organizations are spending money to influence the new mandatory, non-binding vote.

The purpose of this motion is not to impede the ability of organizations to influence the vote. If they hold shares in stock, they will be able to express their opinion. The point of the motion is to simply provide voters, in this case shareholders, with access to information about who is spending money and what are they attempting to influence with their vote.

My motion tasks the SEC with setting a de minimus level of spending and with collecting important information about anyone or any organization that spends over that amount to influence a vote, including who is spending the money, what they are spending the money on, and how much they are spending to influence the votes of other shareholders.

This motion provides an appropriate level of transparency for shareholder elections. If we believe that voters deserve this information, we should also give to shareholders this same level of transparency.

Once again, I would like to make it clear that this legislation will not ``kill the bill,'' as its opponents might claim. It will not send the bill back to committee to fix its current lack of transparency because it allows it to be done right here, right now.

I encourage all my colleagues to support this commonsense motion to improve transparency for shareholders about who is trying to influence their votes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and I appreciate the opportunity for you to recognize me.

I would yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman, and I appreciate his help.

I thank the gentleman, the chairman of the committee, Mr. Murtha.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that this committee, as well as the Rules Committee, has been very open to receiving information about the current status of hyperbaric oxygen treatment as an opportunity for us to learn more about how we will help our returning veterans and those who have been injured in conflicts around the globe.

This body has worked very closely with not only Secretary Gates, General Casey, the Chief of Staff of the United States Army, but also with their designee, General Lori Sutton, who is working very closely with the Congress to make sure that we pay attention to the head trauma injuries of our soldiers as they engage in trying to help the United States win the war on terror.

I want to personally thank not only the gentleman, Mr. Young, and the

gentleman, Mr. Murtha, but also the appropriators, Mr. Wamp and Mr. Edwards. I would also like to thank the chairwoman of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, for not only making this amendment in order, but also the words of support that have been expressed on behalf of the Armed Services Committee, but also the Rules Committee.

I thank both these gentlemen for accepting my amendment.

I yield back my time.

Last week I came to the House floor to discuss how this Democrat Congress is bankrupting America. They continue to force massive spending through this body that has led to record unemployment and record deficits for America. Well, they're set to do it again this week with health care reform.

Three years ago, Massachusetts set out to accomplish universal coverage just like what the Democrats want to do for all of America. So far, the facts are plain. Insurance prices are higher than expected, safety net hospitals are struggling more than ever, doctors cannot keep up with the increased demand, and some people without insurance still cannot afford care.

The State legislature is already exploring options for rationed care to control health care spending, which, in Massachusetts, is 25 percent higher than the national average. This is a dangerous precedent to follow.

Many in Massachusetts are still uninsured, costs are skyrocketing, and the State is going bankrupt.

Mr. Speaker, not a good prescription for America.

Mr. Speaker, I also appreciate the gentleman from Florida yielding me such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, let's just go to the words that people have. Republicans cut taxes and employed people, 5.3 million new jobs. The Democrats put their spending plan on the floor and said we would have jobs and more jobs, and we don't. So regardless of what the gentleman talks about with all these big tax breaks, they worked. They employed people. People had jobs. And in the scheme of things, Mr. Speaker, that's good for all of us. So I will stand behind those tax cuts that employed this country, as opposed to unemployment, the highest unemployment in 26 years, by our friends, the Democrats.

Mr. Speaker, today I stand about this structured rule, and I stand in opposition. My friends on the other side of the aisle, for the first time in the history of the Republic, have shut down the appropriations process by placing an extremely restrictive rule on every single appropriations bill that has come to the floor this year.

Chairman David Obey of Wisconsin has set an arbitrary timeline to finish the fiscal year 2010 spending bills which has forced this Congress and the Democrat-run Rules Committee to limit every Republican's and Democrat's chance to offer an amendment on the floor. Hundreds of amendments have been offered by all of my colleagues, and they have been rejected in an unprecedented fashion. I ask, once again, Mr. Speaker, what is the majority afraid of? Why are we doing this for the first time in the history of this Republic? Why won't they allow for the open and honest debate that they called for just a few years ago?

In order to operate under the needlessly short debate that my friends on the other side of the aisle have forced Republicans to pursue, my colleagues and I offered 12 amendments to ensure that a thoughtful and constructive debate could take place. We helped manage ourselves before we came to the Rules Committee. Yet what happened? Only four were made in order, while the Democrats had seven of their offered amendments rolled right into the manager's amendment.

This Democrat Congress, in unprecedented fashion, continues to reject and silence the American public and to muzzle Members on the floor of the House of Representatives, not allowing their voices to be heard on the people's floor.

Mr. Speaker, today we are discussing the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2010. It is my intent to focus on this huge increase in spending over last year's level and to discuss the majority party's destructive initiatives that continue to kill jobs and lead to record deficits; that is, kill jobs and record deficits under control of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the Democrat-held Senate, and President Barack Obama. This is their policy that we are debating on the floor today.

This underlying legislation is a 7 percent, or $10.6 billion, increase above the current year's spending levels, and that's excluding the $126 billion in stimulus funding that these programs have already received. Since 2007, funding for programs under Labor, Health and Human Services and Education have increased a whopping 93 percent. This bill does not represent a commitment, or any commitment, to fiscal sustainability. We simply cannot keep doing this. But, here we are again today. It will cost us jobs.

Mr. Speaker, we will continue to ask, where are the jobs? With this legislation, Congress only further slows down economic recovery and increases the financial burden being placed on our children and grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, where are the jobs?

The Obama administration promised Americans that unemployment would not go beyond 8 percent, that they would create and save millions of jobs if Congress simply passed the stimulus. Here we are, months later, with a record 9.5 percent unemployment rate, the highest in 26 years, and 2 million Americans have lost their job since the passage of this massive $1.2 trillion stimulus plan. Mr. Speaker, where are the jobs?

Earlier this month, when discussing the stimulus, Vice President Biden said the Obama administration misread how bad the economy was. The Obama administration got it wrong when it came to $1.2 trillion of taxpayer spending by this Democrat Congress. The

American people can no longer afford for this Democrat-controlled House, Senate, and White House to get it wrong. Where are the jobs?

Last month, my friends on the other side of the aisle passed a cap- and-trade bill that top White House economic advisers had suggested could actually cost up to $1.9 billion, raising prices on energy, goods and services for every American, an increase for every American back home, between $1,200 and $1,600 a year. Additionally, this legislation would kill up to 2 million manufacturing jobs. Mr. Speaker, we have to ask again, where are the jobs? Oh, we are beginning to find out that they are in Washington, D.C.

Mr. Speaker, next week, this Democrat-controlled Congress wants to pass sweeping health care reform that effectively will kill employer- based insurance marketplaces and force 114 million Americans into a government-run program, a program where government bureaucrats will be choosing what doctor-and-patient relationships will be and what procedures will be covered by that doctor.

This $1.2 trillion package raises taxes on individuals and small businesses that do not participate in the government plan, and up to $818 billion will be the cost, which, according to a model developed by the President's own economic adviser team, will result in 4.7 million employees losing their job. Mr. Speaker, we ask, once again, where are the jobs?

This is economic insanity. The American people know that you shouldn't spend what you don't have. But that is exactly what Ms. Pelosi and this Democrat majority is doing. Mr. Speaker, we ask, once again, where are the jobs?

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Obama administration is on its way to doubling the national debt in 5 years. Mr. Speaker, we would ask, where are the jobs?

Earlier this month, the Congressional Budget Office released a Monthly Budget Review that states that the Federal budget deficit reached $1.1 trillion during the month of June. As of June 30, the national debt stood at $11.5 trillion. Mr. Speaker, we will ask again, where are the jobs?

Especially at a time of deep economic recession, Congress should be promoting progrowth policies that reduce spending, increase job growth, and give Americans confidence. Mr. Speaker, where are the jobs?

The deficit has increased $1.7 trillion, or 1,000 percent, since the Democrats took control of this House of Representatives 3 years ago. Mr. Speaker, where are the jobs?

It has gone from a $162 billion fiscal deficit to a projected $2 trillion this year. Mr. Speaker, we ask, where are the jobs?

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue to point out to our friends on the other side of the aisle that we cannot tax, spend, and borrow our way out of this country's economic recession. Our Democrat colleagues need to get a handle on this out-of-control spending that, once again, they are bringing to the floor of the House of Representatives today to pursue an ever-growing American government size. Rising unemployment and record deficits cannot be remedied with massive increases in government spending. Mr. Speaker, where are the jobs?

Huge energy and health care bills will raise taxes and kill jobs. Mr. Speaker, the American public understands this. They know that the Republican Party has better ideas, and that's why we're on the floor of the House of Representatives today. I encourage a ``no'' vote but will, once again, ask the question, where are the jobs?

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'm saddened that the gentleman from Wisconsin believes that if I bring up a question about jobs, that that's political. It shouldn't be. It's not on our side. It's just a fact of the matter. We don't know where the jobs are. We were promised these jobs.

Secondly, it's good for me to learn that now I know who runs the Rules Committee, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, because I thought that the chairman of the Rules Committee did, but I found out now it's run by the Appropriations chair. At least I know that answer today.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indianapolis, Indiana, Mr. Burton.

Mr. Speaker, this floor is home to lots of people and to lots of ideas, but once again, we see from a senior member of the Democratic Party the words ``fiscal responsibility'' attached to this Congress. Incredible. Secondly, we heard, ``and let's take the bank profits out of the equation.'' Once again, the dialogue from this floor is really to bankrupt this country and to kill the free enterprise system. I see it firsthand right here on the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman, the ranking member of Education, Labor and the Work Force, the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana, the Republican Conference chairman (Mr. Pence).

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tarkio, Missouri (Mr. Graves).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Mesa, Arizona (Mr. Flake).

I think the gentleman, Mr. Flake, makes a point that it's a shame that we have to come beg the Rules Committee for what for 229 years has been appropriate on the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa, the distinguished gentleman, Mr. King.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans are on the floor today asking the question, where are the jobs and what about the process of the ability to come and talk on this floor about issues and ideas, ideas that these Members have.

I was reminded again today in looking at Congress Daily dated Friday, July 24, and while it was talking about health care, it's really a philosophy, and they're quoting the House Rules Committee Chairman Louise Slaughter of New York. And I will quote what's in here: We can do anything up there in the Rules Committee. We can do anything.

What that really means is they can do whatever they want to do. Evidently Speaker Pelosi really does run the Rules Committee. We can do anything up there, even muzzle all of the Members of this floor.

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so we can amend this horrible rule, the muzzle rule, and allow for an open rule. There is no question that the rule the majority brings forth today will only submit the dangerous precedent the majority set earlier this year. Every single appropriations bill. It will only damage bipartisanship and, really, the nature of this body.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can allow free and open debate on the appropriations bills and uphold the right of millions of Americans, or perhaps more than that, just the Members of Congress who come here and do this work every day.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, Members of Congress need to get this. Every single one of us can say ``no'' to the way this body is being run and just put us on a different course, a course that we have had for all these years. We recognize what open and honest and ethical government is. And today, we had Members of this body come to the floor and talk about openness, about ethics with the gentleman, Mr. Flake, and about the ability of this body to run as it has in its entire history.

We Republicans don't understand why this big change. We do understand why we are in a deep recession. We do understand President Obama has an economic problem because he has helped create that, and we do understand Obama economics are about destroying the free enterprise system of this country on behalf of government. What we don't get is why can't Members of Congress openly debate this issue.

Vote for it and have openness and ethics at the same time. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to vote ``no.''

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, over 6 months ago, my Democrat colleagues and the Obama administration told the American people that if we passed the $1.2 trillion stimulus package, it would create jobs, halt the growing unemployment rate, and turn our economy around; yet here we are today with a 9.5 percent unemployment rate--the highest in 26 years-- and a record $1.1 trillion deficit that is growing and expected to be $2 trillion by year's end.

And yet this administration and Democrats want to push through another $1.2 trillion health care package, a health care package that, according to the President's own economic adviser, will result in 4.7 million people losing their jobs.

Just a few weeks ago when talking about the stimulus package, Vice President Biden said for the Obama administration, Well, we just guessed wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think that the American people can really afford for this Congress or this administration to guess wrong again. We need to make sure that we find the jobs in this country, not tax and spend.

I appreciate the gentleman from Colorado for yielding the time. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the structured rule, and I also rise in opposition to how my Democrat colleagues continue to shut out Republican voices on the floor of the House of Representatives in virtually every committee here in the House.

My friends on the other side of the aisle have set an historic precedent by shutting down the amendment process once again today in order to accomplish legislative business during the appropriations process, and Republicans disagree with this. Madam Speaker, you will continue to hear of our opposition, and the American people will hear the same.

Chairman Obey has set an arbitrary time line to finish the financial year 2010 spending bills, which has forced the Democrat-run Rules Committee to limit every single Republican and Democrat chance to offer amendments on the House floor. Hundreds of amendments have been offered by my colleagues, and they have been rejected in an unprecedented fashion.

What is this majority afraid of? Why won't they allow for an open and honest debate that has happened for hundreds of years in this body? Why won't we have open rules on appropriations bills?

Because of this historical new restrictive process, as part of my committee assignments, I had to go to the Rules Committee on Wednesday night just to offer three commonsense amendments. Not one was made in order for the debate today. Two dealt with allowing the same restrictions and opportunities for Federal Government employees and for private contractors.

In a time of record deficits by this Democrat Congress, Congress should find a better way to deal with the American taxpayer for the success of this country and for jobs. Instead, they chose to ignore these amendments and ideas.

My last amendment would have required this Obama administration to post any interaction or communication with General Motors as a public record. Since the American public was not consulted before the takeover of GM, they should at least be able to monitor now how their tax dollars are being spent.

Madam Speaker, today, we are discussing the Financial Services Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2010. It is my intent to focus on the huge increase in spending--no surprise--over last year's level and to discuss the majority party's destructive initiatives that have intruded into the private sector. It is my idea to talk about how

they will continue killing jobs and how we will continue having historic record deficits and to discuss the new Democrat priority of using TARP dividends for more housing handouts instead of using that money to be repaid to the taxpayer.

This underlying legislation is a 7 percent, or $1.6 billion, increase above the current year's spending levels, and that is excluding the massive stimulus funding. Even Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke recently stated, Unless we demonstrate a strong commitment to fiscal stability, in the long term, we will have neither financial stability nor healthy economic growth.

The Congressional Budget Office has stated that the budget is on an unsustainable path. This bill does not represent a commitment to fiscal sustainability. With this legislation, Congress only further slows down and impedes our economic recovery, and it increases the financial burden placed on our children, grandchildren and on our future.

With the facade of fiscal sustainability, the Obama administration is posing sweeping financial reforms that will further stretch rather than help the banking industry. The Obama regulatory plan calls for large, interconnected companies to pay a heavy price by limiting companies from mixing banking and commerce. This potentially forces companies like General Electric to spin off its largely lending subsidiary, GE Capital, and turn it into a bank holding company with more regulations, less revenue and less loan capacity.

Once again, this is the Democratic plan to kill private sector jobs and to further encumber and harm economic recovery.

Madam Speaker, what kind of precedent is this administration and Congress setting by forcing regulation on successful businesses while completely avoiding responsibility and transparency in their own spending habits? The American people know that you shouldn't spend what you don't have, and that's exactly what this Democrat majority is doing. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Obama administration is on its way to doubling the national debt in 5 years. Just last week the Congressional Budget Office released a monthly budget review which states that the Federal budget deficit reached $1.1 trillion, and this was reached during the month of June. According to the CBO, that is $800 billion more than the deficit record through June 2008. The bottom line is that the United States is looking at a possible $2 trillion record deficit for this year alone, a long stretch from the group of people who talked about fiscal insanity just before the election. I think we know what the truth is. The Democratic Party is tax and spend. Especially at a time of deep economic recession, this Congress should be promoting pro-growth policies that reduce spending and increase jobs. Unemployment continues to rise while our friends on the other side of the aisle consciously continue to tax, borrow and spend their way into record deficits. The CBO estimates that unemployment benefit spending is more than two-and-a-half times what it was at this point last year. The current unemployment rate is now over 9.5 percent, which is the highest level in 26 years, and their own budget estimates say it's going to rise.

Madam Speaker, with record deficits and growing job loss, you would think that this majority would want to bring the national debt down and try to curb spending. But nope, not going to happen. Not with what's on the floor again today. Last month Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank dropped a bill and held a hearing that would redesignate dividends from TARP funds to two housing slush funds. This would take the $6.2 billion in dividends paid back to the American people and would create a brand new spending program. It is unconscionable that any dividend received would be redistributed in new spending projects rather than returning it to the taxpayer. Again, my friends on the other side of the aisle continue to tax, borrow and spend money that not only they do not have, but the American public knows that it comes out of jobs and economic recovery for this country.

Madam Speaker, how is this economy supposed to bounce back with this Democrat Congress forcing Americans to pay for a failed trillion-dollar stimulus package, a bailout for those who defaulted on their own mortgages, a bailout for those who abused their credit cards, a bailout for corporate America's bad decision making, a new national energy tax, and a possible $1.5 trillion health care package that will force 120 million Americans out of their current health care coverage? When does this malaise stop? Where are the jobs? Why are we spending more and more money simply to get more unemployment? Madam Speaker, it should be asked on the floor of this House, where are the jobs? Where are the jobs that were promised by Speaker Pelosi? They evaporate again today.

In closing, Madam Speaker, I will continue to point out to our friends on the other side of the aisle that we simply cannot tax, we cannot simply spend and borrow our way out of the country's economic recession that comes from the Democrats running the House, the Senate and the presidency. Madam Speaker, the misery index of this country continues to rise under the leadership of the Democratic Party, and rising unemployment and record deficits cannot be remedied with massive increases in spending. Americans back home are tightening their belts, and the U.S. Congress should be doing the same. I encourage a ``no'' vote on this rule and a ``no'' vote on the previous question to amend the rule to allow for an open rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman coming down to talk about the muzzle that's been placed upon Members of this body by Speaker Pelosi. This muzzle affects not just Republicans but Democrats and millions of people's voices that might be heard on the floor of this House.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Concord Township, Ohio, (Mr. LaTourette).

I yield the gentleman 15 additional seconds.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado Springs, Mr. Lamborn.

Madam Speaker, I would remind the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia that the Democratic Party owns the majority in this House. It has 60 Senators in the Senate, it has the President of the United States, and that is how they can get their own things done.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Hood River, Oregon (Mr. Walden).

I appreciate the gentleman asking. Due to the limited time that I was allowed by the Rules Committee, I know that we have a lot of people, but we have at least three additional speakers.

Madam Speaker, just for the record, I think we are on even time about now that is left. Is that an indication, if I can engage with the gentleman, that he is through with his speakers?

I appreciate the engagement of the gentleman. We will go ahead and proceed and run through our speakers with an indication that he believes he is through at this time.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Clarence, New York (Mr. Lee).

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Mesa, Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Hamilton, New Jersey, Mr. Smith.

Madam Speaker, this debate today, once again focuses on jobs, more spending by this Democrat majority, higher unemployment, more taxation, further government intrusion into the financial sector of this country. And we've heard about even some issues dealing with abortion that the gentleman, Mr. Stupak, brought to this floor, that the gentleman, Mr. Smith brought to this floor. So I'll be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can amend the rule to do it right, to go back to what essentially has been 200 years worth of open rules on appropriations.

There's no question that this rule the majority brings forth today will only cement the dangerous precedent that the majority is setting every single day.

Madam Speaker, it's so sad because no new Member of this body in the last session or this session has ever seen an open rule. They're damaging bipartisanship in this body. It's sad.

I'll urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can allow a free and open debate on appropriations bills and uphold the right of millions of Americans who've been gagged, not only by Speaker Pelosi, but the Rules Committee.

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

I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, a ``no'' vote on the rule, and once again, a demand from the Republican Party where we want to know where are the jobs that were promised, Madam Speaker.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

I appreciate the gentlewoman's yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to a structured rule, a structured appropriations rule, and also I am opposed to how my Democrat colleagues continue to shut out the minority voice with this structured rule.

Before taking control of the House of Representatives in 2007, our Democrat friends promised the American public that this would be the most open, honest, and most ethical Congress in history. Yet that is not the case for the past 2\1/2\ years. You heard my colleague, the gentleman Mr. Flake, talking about the process, the process that's happening not just today but has been happening for now 2\1/2\ years on this floor.

For the last few weeks, this Democrat majority has been forcing spending bills through the House of Representatives. My friends on the other side of the aisle have been using extremely restrictive rules to accomplish this legislative business.

During the Republican majority, the most appropriations bills considered under a restrictive rule in any single season was four, and that was back in 1997.

This majority has set a new record forcing every appropriations bill under a strict structured rule. So far the Democrat majority has limited debate on the six spending bills that the House has already passed, and today's bill is the seventh. Mr. Speaker, that is not open, honest, or ethical. Chairman Obey set an arbitrary timeline to finish the fiscal year 2010 spending bills,

which has forced this Democrat-run Rules Committee to limit every single Republican and Democrat's chances to offer amendments on this floor. Hundreds of amendments have been offered by all of my colleagues, and they have been rejected also, rejected in an unprecedented fashion.

What the heck is the majority afraid of? Why don't they want to take the normal time, the normal process? Why won't they allow for an open and honest debate, the one that they called for?

Mr. Speaker, with that said, I would like to thank the majority in the Rules Committee for allowing at least my amendment to be made in order on the floor today. The care of our Nation's troops and veterans is extremely important to me and every single Member, I believe, of this body, and it's my hope that my amendment will pass on the House floor today. But, Mr. Speaker, every single Member should have had that opportunity. The opportunity to be able to come to this floor under an open rule to talk about the things that are important to them.

Today we are here to discuss the rule for the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act of 2010, and I note that my dear friend the young gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Zach Wamp, is the Republican lead on this bill. And I am very pleased with the work that not only Mr. Wamp has done but how he has led in such a way to make sure that the men and women of the military understand his dedication and devotion to this process.

It's my intent to discuss the importance of the underlying bill as well as some of the concerns in the legislation, and I would also like to highlight the Democrat majority's large increase in spending across the board for appropriations bills. This is unacceptable, especially in a time of huge deficits and exceptionally high unemployment.

Mr. Speaker, I think we should aim for a balanced budget, not unlimited spending. I think this body should have to make tough decisions and set priorities, not set the bar so high, or in this case so low, for just spending so much money that we cannot and do not have to make tougher decisions.

This bill provides crucial funding needed for military construction and housing funding for our troops and their families and other quality-of-life projects, and the Congress should have to go through those projects one by one and make a determination about what is in the best interest not only for the country but also for our military.

I know that the funding priorities for all essential programs the Department of Veterans Affairs and related agencies have asked for in their budgets are important. And I also know that this bill honors our Nation's heroes who are serving in our volunteer military, those who have served, and also honors those who are fallen victims as well. This bill illustrates the deep commitment that Congress has to our military and to our veterans. And I do recognize that the gentleman Mr. Wamp and the gentleman Mr. Edwards from Texas as they spoke to the Rules Committee yesterday not only told that story but also a source of pride about how this Congress needs to make sure that we're paying attention to those members of our military.

I join Ranking Member Lewis in his concern regarding the ability for the VA, however, to effectively absorb large funding increases provided by this bill. The Appropriations Committee report was critical of the slow rate of the multibillion dollar major construction account for the VA, and points out that the spending rates are ``woefully slow,'' having only spent $1.9 billion of the $4.4 billion that was appropriated between the fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2008. When you add fiscal year 2009 and this bill, that account then grows to $6.5 billion. I believe that the current funding project should be exhausted before receiving additional moneys. Mr. Lewis agreed also and so did all the Republicans on the committee.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today includes over a 15 percent increase from fiscal year 2009 spending, which assists with TRICARE, mortgage assistance, child care, and other necessary personnel-related accounts. Yet it is important to note that a couple weeks ago, Congress passed the Defense Authorization bill, increasing defense-related funding by only 4 percent. This Nation is at war, and my Democrat colleagues only modestly increased our defense and strategic capacities, while all other appropriations bills are increasing 10, 15, 19, and even 33 percent more than last year's levels. Mr. Speaker, this disparity sends a dangerous message to our enemies and one to our troops that are in the field.

To help curb some out-of-control Democrat spending, Ranking Member Jerry Lewis offered an amendment in the full committee that would prioritize funding increases for defense, military construction, and our veterans by providing a 6 percent increase for these programs, a 4 percent increase for homeland security, and holding all other subcommittees to a very reasonable 2 percent increase.

Unfortunately, the amendment was defeated. Out of the 12 appropriations bills, this amendment would have reduced the burden on the American public by $35 billion. The American people know that you shouldn't spend what you don't have, and that is exactly what this Democrat majority is doing and continues to do. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Obama administration is on its way to doubling the national debt in 5 years. In doing so, it would drive the debt-to-GDP ratio from 41 percent today to a staggering 71 percent in the near future, 2014.

The Congressional Budget Office on Wednesday of just this week released a monthly budget review that states that the Federal budget deficit was $1.1 trillion for the first 9 months of this fiscal year. CBO states that this is more than $800 billion greater than the deficit record in June of 2008. The United States is looking at a record $1.8 trillion deficit this year alone.

Congress should be promoting policies that reduce spending and grow job growth in this country. Unemployment continues to rise while our friends on the other side of the aisle continue to tax, borrow and spend their way into record deficits. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the unemployment benefits spending is now more than 2\1/ 2\ times what it was at this point last year. The current unemployment rate is over 9.5 percent for the first time since 1983.

Where are the jobs? It's a question that should continue to be asked on this floor. Where are the jobs that were promised from this economic stimulus from this President and our Speaker, Nancy Pelosi.

Mr. Speaker, now is the time when the economy should be bouncing back. But this is a time when the Democrat Congress is forcing Americans to pay for a failed trillion dollar stimulus package, a bailout for those who defaulted on their mortgages, a bailout for those who abuse their credit cards, a bailout for credit and America's bad decisionmaking from corporate offices, a new national energy tax and a possible $1.5 trillion health care reform package that will force 120 million Americans off their current health care coverage. When does the spending stop? Not today in this House.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, every Member of this body understands the importance of adequate and appropriate funding for our Nation's military and our veterans, and we give thanks to them. This bill provides the necessary benefits to our service men and women, their families and our veterans, and I am proud of that. But I would continue to point out to my friends on the other side of the aisle that we cannot tax, spend and borrow our way out of this recession. This recession is a national crisis and puts all of us at risk.

Rising unemployment and record deficits cannot be remedied with massive increases in spending. Americans back home are tightening their belts, and the United States Congress would be well advised to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage a ``no'' vote on the rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished young gentleman from Miami, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart.

Mr. Speaker, we have a lot of members of the Republican conference who want to come down and speak about this bill, but we are joined today by the gentleman, from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted today to yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the Rules Committee, the distinguished young gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 5 minutes to a young man who serves as coach of our baseball team, but perhaps even better than that, just showing his acumen really as an all-American, a dedicated veteran of the first gulf war and served as a colonel in the United States Army Reserves and he's the ranking member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnetonka, Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen).

Mr. Speaker, Republicans are down on the floor today talking a lot about process. But I think it's real interesting that two of our newest Members, who are from Colorado and Maine, have never even seen an open rule. They've only served for 6 months, but they could have served for almost 2 years and never would have seen an open rule on this floor. And that's really the measure of what Republicans are trying to talk about. We're teaching our newest Members what things should not look like. We need open rules.

As a result of that, Mr. Speaker, I am going to be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can amend this rule and allow for an open rule because that's the way we should teach, especially new Members, that open rules should be a part of regular process. There's no question that the rule the majority brings forth today will only cement the dangerous precedent that the majority has been setting now for over 2 years. It will only damage bipartisanship, and it harms us in our committees. It's a part of most conversations in committees about what this Speaker is doing.

I urge my colleagues to consider what we're about to do and to vote ``no'' to say no to this so we can allow free and open debate on appropriations bills and uphold the rights of millions of Americans-- and not just for Republicans but for Democrats also because they are also being shut out by their own party. This is not open; it's not honest; and I believe the majority will come to regret this decision to close down this deliberative process here on the floor during appropriations seasons.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you for listening to Republicans today. We believe it's not just our right but the right thing to do to come and speak forthrightly about our ideas about members of the military, about VA hospitals that are in our districts and about Veterans Affairs Centers that need to operate in a more efficient way. We're proud of the men and women who serve our military. I was proud today to have the gentleman, Mr. Buyer, a Gulf War veteran, come and speak forthrightly about what we think ought to happen. We're proud of this country. We're proud of our military. But we think we also ought to make more deliberate decisions in this House.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairman, the amendment that I bring forth today requires the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to submit a report to Congress on the use of hyperbaric oxygen therapy, commonly known as HBOT, in VA medical facilities. My active interests in hyperbaric therapy over the last 3 years has led me to more understanding of the critical function it has performed and performs even today, and the promising potential it has for injured active-duty soldiers and veterans.

I would like to briefly comment on the currently approved uses of HBOT and the promising research into hyperbaric therapy as a possible treatment for traumatic brain injury, known as TBI.

Hyperbaric oxygen therapy uses a chamber to administer oxygen in particular dosages for already FDA-approved treatments, many of which provide remarkable benefits to our injured veterans. The oxygen acts as a catalyst in healing wounds which often fail to respond to other medical and surgical procedures and usually lack the blood circulation and blood oxygen levels necessary to heal.

These treatments include, but are not limited to: treating nonhealing diabetic foot wounds; advancing healing for crush injuries such as gunshot wounds, falls, and vehicle accidents; support for individuals suffering from exceptional blood loss; and advanced assistance in reconstructing complex wounds which require the transferring of tissues from one part of the body to another.

HBOT frequently saves a veteran from an expensive, painful, life- altering, and potentially life-threatening amputation of an arm, a leg or a foot. This therapy has been extremely impressive, and I look forward to hearing the VA's report on its current and planned use of hyperbaric therapy in its medical facilities.

Since 2006, I have been actively engaged in researching a new cross- application of hyperbaric therapy for treating another very common and life-threatening nonhealing wound: TBI,

traumatic brain injury. I have held numerous meetings with physicians, Ph.D.'s, scientists, government officials, and our servicemen and women, the Department of Defense, the Department of Veterans Affairs, all regarding the treatment of TBI with hyperbaric therapy being available to them.

Over the past year, I have seen a multitude of evidence from numerous cases that show substantial progress in brain function of our injured soldiers after treatment with hyperbaric oxygen.

As we speak today, veterans all across our country are suffering from TBI, and they are in the process of receiving hyperbaric therapy from private physicians with amazing real-world results. Many of these soldiers who could not hold a job or properly care for their families, they sometimes can't even leave their own bed, or others who have suicidal tendencies, have returned to active duty, employment, school, and perhaps more importantly, to the life of their own families.

These results have led me to believe in the promising potential of healing our brain-injured soldiers suffering from TBI and PTSD.

The Defense Center on Excellence for Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury, under the command of Brigadier General Loree Sutton, is conducting a study into hyperbaric therapy for the treatment of TBI, and it is scheduled to be delivering study results in December of 2010. I highly encourage my colleague to join me over the next few months in engaging with General Sutton and the Department of Defense on this promising new application of hyperbaric therapy.

My amendment today is very simple. It asks for the VA to submit a report on their current and planned use of hyperbaric oxygen therapy. By knowing today how it is used, we can have a greater understanding of how we can assist our injured veterans tomorrow. So we are asking how the VA uses it today and where those facilities are so we can be prepared to work, when the Department of Defense has their answer available soon, to where we then coincide that with the veterans who are home with us today.

Madam Chairman, I want to say that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) both engaged me yesterday in the Rules Committee on this amendment. I believe there could be widespread agreement that this is a good application for both of us to vote for.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Officer Garland C. Thompson's retirement from the United States Capitol Police after thirty-five years of service.

Founded in 1828, the Capitol Police have protected countless lives and secured our nation's historic Capitol complex. Officer Thompson first joined the Capitol Police on June 6, 1975. His deep sense of patriotism and dedication to upholding the rule of law is evident to all. Known as a strict enforcer, Officer Thompson has ensured the safety of elected officials, staffers, journalists, and tourists alike and the corner of First and C Streets will not be the same without his friendly face. I have had the pleasure of knowing him and am proud to call him my friend. I know he will be greatly missed.

Madam Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in expressing our heartfelt gratitude for Officer Thompson's thirty-five years of dedicated service to the Capitol Police and this great Nation. I wish him and his family all my very best.

Madam Speaker, I would like to, on behalf of my Republican colleagues, congratulate you for your wonderful new responsibilities that you will have at the State Department, and congratulations on your Senate confirmation yesterday.

I would yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, and I thank the gentleman, but congratulations very much, Ellen.

At the very top, Madam Speaker, I would like to ask unanimous consent to the gentlewoman from California if we could extend the time of debate. I am inundated with the amount of requests and would like to ask that we extend it 30 minutes, extending both sides an additional 15 minutes.

You do object. I would like to ask the gentlewoman if we could extend the time on both sides by 5 minutes then.

I would like to see if we could extend by 1 minute this debate on both sides.

You object. Okay.

Madam Speaker, good morning. I yield myself such time as I may consume. And I appreciate the gentlewoman extending me these few minutes that she has given us to debate this very important bill.

I rise in opposition to this lockdown rule and the underlying legislation which, if passed, The Wall Street Journal correctly notes will become the ``biggest tax in American history.''

After limited committee hearings and only one markup on this 1,200- plus page bill, the negotiations that have brought this bill to the floor have completely excluded Republicans and ignored our good ideas on how to stop the most economically devastating and job-killing parts of this bill.

For example, during the bill's brief deliberation in committee, Republicans offered three commonsense amendments, one to suspend the program if gas prices hit $5 a gallon, one to suspend the program if electricity prices rise 10 percent over 2009, and one to suspend the program if unemployment rates hit 15 percent. But, unfortunately, the committee's Democrats defeated them all.

To make matters worse, for the past 2 weeks, despite numerous contrary promises to our Democrat colleagues and to the American people, Speaker Pelosi and her handpicked lieutenants on the Rules Committee have limited

open debate and, once again here on the floor, debate to talk about this unprecedented bill that is before the American people.

While this behavior is undemocratic and mildly irritating when dealing with bills like Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2009, it is simply unacceptable when it comes to legislation of such great importance to the future of American jobs and families.

So once again, early this morning in the Rules Committee, after--and by the way, that was about 2-3:30 this morning--after being handed a brand-new 309-page revision of the bill, this unacceptable behavior continued.

My Republican colleagues and I offered numerous good ideas and improvements to this brand-new bill this morning, which not one Member has even read. As a matter of fact, we even joked about that as we walked in at 2 o'clock this morning about, sure everybody had a chance to read the bill, that's why we were up so late last night. This legislation that Republicans proposed would have provided commonsense relief for farmers and small businesses that drive our economy. Unsurprisingly, each of these good ideas was rejected by our Democrat colleagues along party lines.

Whether or not to impose the biggest tax increase in American history is a very serious issue, and one that affects every American family, legislation that the Heritage Foundation estimates will cost working families in the 32nd Congressional District of Texas, just one district which I happen to represent, some 4,178 jobs in 2012. We believe that this bill should actually be debated and openly read so that everyone doesn't just rush through this day but, rather, understands the true impact of what we're doing.

The rule being proposed here today is a grave mistake and an undemocratic embarrassment. And I, for one, think this body can do better. We owe it to the American people to allow Members, Members of this body on both sides, who have good ideas to be heard, especially the ideas to address the needs of rural and working class people who will see their incomes and choices slashed by this bill.

Instead of an inclusive debate on how to conserve our resources and provide clean, affordable energy for American businesses and families, the Democrats' answer to the worst recession in decades is a national energy tax, thinly disguised as a climate change bill.

Billions of dollars wasted on extra energy costs and millions of jobs lost is an extremely high price to pay for a bill that is estimated, at best, to slow the Earth's temperature rises by one-hundredth of a single degree by 2050, and no more than two-tenths of a degree by the end of this century.

Madam Speaker, the facts are clear: Nancy Pelosi's national energy tax will kill American jobs, it will raise prices on hardworking Americans, and do almost nothing to clean up our environment. But the American people watching today's debate don't need to take my word for it. President Obama and his senior administration officials, and many prominent Democrats, agree that cap-and-trade is actually cap-and-tax.

In January of 2008, President Obama told the San Francisco Chronicle that under his preferred cap-and-trade system electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Then on February 26, 2009, the President's own budget estimates that the climate revenue generated by this legislation to pay for Washington bureaucrat-run health care and a jobless stimulus package would cost American manufacturers and energy producers $646 billion over 10 years. Three weeks later, the administration's top economic advisers disagreed with this lowball figure, suggesting that cap-and-trade could actually cost up to $1.9 trillion over 10 years.

Next, former Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman, John Dingell, stated in a hearing on cap-and-trade: ``Nobody in this country realizes that cap-and-trade is a tax, and it's a big one.''

As recently as this week, Congressman Gene Green of Texas stated in an op-ed: ``Instituting a cap on nationwide greenhouse emissions will raise the price of energy for consumers and businesses alike.''

Madam Speaker, I'm confused. Why on this Earth would my friends on your side of the aisle create such a big tax on all American families and businesses during a time that a recession is so serious? Why are we rushing to do this with a $1 trillion spending plan that will have such a large impact on the American people, killing jobs and making it more difficult for us to come out of this recession?

On June 15, I received a letter from the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts stating that the current plan to implement mandatory mission caps would weigh far more heavily on Texas than any other region in the country. It goes on to note that ``based on rising fuel prices as a result of the cap-and-trade provisions of this bill, Texas could see 135,000 to 277,000 fewer jobs in 2012, the first year of the bill.''

Madam Speaker, Texas leads this country in jobs, and people are coming to Texas from all over the United States just to have jobs. Why would we go and diminish the opportunities for people to find those jobs that were available to help their families?

Madam Speaker, families all over Texas are already hurting; and with all the other troubles plaguing the economy, they simply cannot afford the additional and completely avoidable economic assault that the new Democrat majority is placing on the American people.

Perhaps worst of all, Madam Speaker, the economic damage created by this legislation actually favors foreign companies over American ones. China, the number one emitter of greenhouse gases, and India, who is set to expand its emissions, will not be required to modify their behavior at all. That means that this new Democrat majority is taking the astonishing position of asking American small businesses and consumers to carry the global load for the world's carbon consumption because, as everyone understands, if only Americans tax their manufacturing and productions, then only Americans will be losing out while China, India and other countries gain an advantage over our domestic manufacturers, businesses, jobs and future.

Every Member of this Chamber understands that in an era of rising energy costs, Congress must and should be doing everything in its power to ensure that domestic production of clean energy is available at the cheapest price. However, I recently received a letter from the American Petroleum Institute expressing concern that this legislation could add as much as 77 cents to each gallon of gasoline.

Very simply, this legislation means that every American business and consumer will pay more to fuel their vehicles, heat their homes, and purchase everyday goods.

The facts are clear: Nancy Pelosi's national energy tax will kill American jobs, will raise prices on hardworking Americans, and do little to clean up our environment.

I encourage a ``no'' vote on this lockdown rule and a ``no'' vote on the underlying legislation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman, the ranking member of Energy and Commerce from Ennis, Texas (Mr. Barton).

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's coming down and speaking this morning. There's an estimate that in her congressional district, there will be 5,334 jobs that will be lost in the first year of this bill.

Madam Speaker, at 3 o'clock, 2:30 this morning, we received the manager's amendment, 309 pages, brand new. And this is the text of the ideas that Chairman Barton was talking about that were completely ignored by the Democrat majority last night in the Rules Committee. The Members had come up to speak plainly about their ideas. Completely ignored. Completely ignored.

At this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Upton.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman from Florida's coming down. A vote for this bill will lose 3,500 jobs in her congressional district in the year 2012, the first year of its implementation.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the Fifth Congressional District of Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman, the chairman of the Republican Conference, Mr. Pence.

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

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1\1/ 2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Broun.

Madam Speaker, could you please advise us how much time remains on both sides?

Madam Speaker, at this time I would yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.

Madam Speaker, if I can please ask my colleague, the gentlewoman from California, in an effort to get our time back to an even balance, if she could have one of her speakers up at this time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

At this time I would yield a grand total of 30 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

If I could, Madam Speaker, is the gentlewoman through with her speakers now? We still have some disparity in the little bit of time that was given. I would like for there to be some parity.

If she has additional speakers, I will reserve the balance of my time.

At this time I yield 1 minute to gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe).

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

At this time I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the ranking member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

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

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of this amendment which restores $1.2 billion to the Missile Defense Agency's budget. However, I would like to express my deep concern regarding the misguided and downright dangerous priorities of this Administration and the Democrat Majority with this Defense Authorization.

For the past three years, the defense of our nation has been ranked at the bottom of this Democrat Majority's agenda. Between FY 2007 and FY 2009, the Democrats have increased non-defense funding by 85 percent; an increase of $358 billion. However, funding for our national defense is found at the very bottom of the list with spending increases of only 9 percent.

With the increasing threats of nations like North Korea and Iran-- especially considering North Korea's preparations to launch a ballistic missile in the direction of Hawaii on or around July 4th--it is essential that Congress provides the U.S. with the appropriate defense mechanisms to protect our country. Yet the Democrat Majority still has the audacity to cut $1.2 billion from our missile defense systems.

Mr. Chair, this Majority has a false set of priorities which is not only misguided but endangers the security of our nation.