Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate United Parcel Service (UPS) and its employees for its generosity.

For the past nine years, UPS has consecutively led the nation in donations to United Way. This year's annual campaign raised over $53 million for United Way and with a matching contribution by the UPS Foundation, the total is expected to exceed $60 million--more than any other participating company. In total, over the past twenty-five years UPS has contributed over $924 million to United Way. Their charity extended beyond their financial contributions. Employees gave generously of their time with over 900,000 hours of community service through the Global Volunteer Month and UPS's Neighbor-to-Neighbor program. The emphasis on philanthropy and improving local communities through its partnership with United Way can be seen at all levels of the organization.

Madam Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in expressing our heartiest congratulations to UPS on this remarkable achievement and for their commitment to helping others.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Christina Melton Crain who is being recognized by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) with the dedication of a unit after her namesake.

Christina was first appointed to the Texas State Board of Criminal Justice (TBCJ) in April 2001 and in February 2003 she became the first woman in Texas history to lead the nine-member board as its new Chair. Under her leadership, she worked closely with the TDCJ,

determined to make its operations more efficient and effective. Her passion stems from her professional career as an attorney where she encountered numerous cases of minors that had been negatively impacted by a parent under correctional supervision. She personally committed herself to the GOKIDS (Giving Offenders' Kids the Initiative and Direction to Succeed). Initiative, which launched in 2004 and is dedicated to reaching out to the offenders and their families. Christina foresaw a safer and better Texas and a brighter future for all Texans and took every effort to make this goal a reality. The State of Texas has greatly benefited from her dedication, passion, leadership and her vision.

Madam Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in congratulating Christina on her hard work and dedication that has led to this great honor.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida as we begin a new year and a new Congress with an opportunity to work not only with the gentleman, but also my colleagues from the Rules Committee, and you, Madam Speaker, during this new Congress. And I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time that he has done.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this rule and to the ill-conceived underlying legislation. I think the premise that I have heard my friends on the other side of the aisle talk about today of making sure that we just expand this program to meet every single need of every single child is not what this program was designed for, and a $35 billion expansion of the program will help bankrupt this country and the States that try and provide the services also.

I do not support this bill or the way it has been brought to the floor either. My Democrat colleagues on the other side of the aisle who promised to be the most open and honest ethical Congress have once again given Republicans absolutely no say in the process, and they are completely disregarding President-elect Obama's promises to work together to solve the problems of this country.

Today, House Democrats have once again chosen to force their own legislation through a biased rule that we are here debating on the floor of the House right now. This bill has been brought to the floor today without one committee hearing or markup. The current SCHIP program expires on March 31, and so I would ask my colleagues, why aren't we having hearings? Why aren't we having input from House Members? Why aren't we consulting Republicans in this process? In fact, Republicans only received the text yesterday morning. And today's rule once again limits the Republican opportunities for any chance of reform or ideas, confirming the Democrats' plans to govern this House without any input from Republicans.

Democrats over the past few years have demonized me and my Republican colleagues for not expanding the current State Children's Health Insurance Program to unprecedented levels, and they continue to cry out that Republicans are anti-children. I would like to remind them that it was a Republican Congress that initiated this program over a decade ago. It was begun to make sure that children that had no health coverage could gain that coverage.

However, my colleagues and I recognized the need for SCHIP, and we see that we need to help low-income, uninsured children whose families earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to buy private coverage. For that reason SCHIP was created and today covers about 6.7 million children in our country.

However, today we find that the Democrats' proposed $35 billion expansion of a program that has not yet accomplished its original intent is now being taken to unprecedented levels by my friends on the other side of the aisle. My Democrat friends want to continue to push their government-run health care agenda even though this legislation moves some 2.4 million children who are currently on private health insurance to an inferior public program with less access.

I'll repeat that. The numbers that my friends have been talking about of expanding this to children across this country, 2.4 million of them already have private insurance.

That's a mistake. It's a mistake. So now what we're looking at is that Medicaid programs facing extreme shortfalls and physicians who are scaling back on Medicaid and SCHIP patients due to extremely low reimbursement rates will now take on these additional children.

Why would we want to subject 4 to 6 million more children to this kind of care? Madam Speaker, it seems like my Democrat colleagues are putting their agenda first, not our American children.

This legislation turns an innovative idea on its head by increasing government spending exponentially, leaving taxpayers to foot the bill when their budget gimmicks fail to create the necessary ability to fund properly these programs. This bill has no income limits for eligibility. None. And it allows coverage for families making up to $83,000 a year and has no annual authorization limit and allows States to decide who qualifies, leaving adults and illegal immigrants to compete against low-income American children.

Madam Speaker, it should be important that we should meet the current goals of the program and expectations before we expand that program. For that reason some of my Republican colleagues and I sent a letter to our new President-elect, President Obama, and Speaker Pelosi outlining what we think Republicans would like our Democrat colleagues to understand and consider before expanding the current SCHIP program. I would like to include this as part of our deliberations today.

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, January 12, 2009.

President-elect Barack Obama,

Presidential Transition Office,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker, U.S. Capitol,

Washington, DC.

Dear President-elect Obama and Speaker Pelosi: Thank you

for expressing your desire to work with us to address the

needs of the American people. We recognize that reauthorizing

the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is an

early legislative priority, and we hope that you will

consider this legislation to be one of the first

opportunities for bipartisan cooperation.

During the last Congress, significant efforts were made in

an attempt to address concerns raised by House Republicans

about how the underlying bills would impact uninsured

children. Despite the progress that was made, there are still

a few outstanding issues that we hope you agree should be

addressed when we work to reauthorize the program this year:

Serving Eligible Low-income Children First

SCHIP is intended to serve those that are neediest first.

As low-income families continue to face more economic

insecurity, providing access to affordable health care

coverage, regardless of any job change or displacement,

should be our first priority. The legislation should demand

success from the states in enrolling poor and low-income

children below 200 percent of the federal poverty level,

especially those who are currently eligible for Medicaid and/

or SCHIP, but are not yet enrolled. Demanding success from

the states could be as simple as requiring that states meet a

threshold of enrollment before further expansions. Nearly all

the states have demonstrated over the past year to the

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services that meeting this

standard is indeed possible.

Furthermore, in the current economic environment, several

states have indicated that they will be experiencing

shortfalls that could impact their ability to provide

Medicaid benefits and services. Asking states to expand their

SCHIP program before they are able to finance their existing

Medicaid program would be a mistake. Expanding SCHIP to

higher income families will only exacerbate the real access

to care problem in the Medicaid program.

Citizenship Status

We believe that only U.S. citizens and certain legal

residents should be permitted to benefit from a program like

SCHIP. We also think it is fair to say that both parties

believe that our immigration system is broken. That is why it

is so important that the legislation include stronger

provisions to prevent fraud by including citizenship

verification standards to ensure that only eligible U.S.

citizens and certain legal residents are enrolled in the

program.

Protecting Private Insurance Options

We agree that those with private coverage should not be

forced into a government-run plan. SCHIP legislation should

focus expansion efforts on children who are currently

uninsured instead of moving children who have private health

insurance options into government-run health insurance.

Moving a child from private health insurance to government-

run health insurance should not be part of your stated goal

of providing SCHIP for 10 million children, a number we

assume to be targeted towards low-income uninsured children.

Stable Funding Source

In order to guarantee access to the program and long term

stability, SCHIP should be funded through a stable funding

source, not budget gimmicks. Further, the legislation should

not include extraneous provisions unrelated to SCHIP that

limit patient choice or prohibit access to quality medical

care. Our nation's Governors need a stable SCHIP program so

they may properly budget. Every American faces the crushing

burden of a declining economy. This should not be a time

Congress raises taxes, especially on the poorest Americans,

to finance program expansions as part of the SCHIP

reauthorization bill.

We believe these to be critical elements to improve this

vital program that if fully incorporated would dramatically

increase bipartisan support for the legislation. Thank you

for the consideration of this request. We look forward

hearing from you and working with you towards a bipartisan

agreement.

Sincerely,

Robert Aderholt, Steve Austria, Michele Bachmann, Spencer

Bachus, Gresham Barrett, Roscoe Bartlett, Joe Barton,

Judy Biggert, Gus Bilirakis, Rob Bishop, Marsha

Blackburn, Roy Blunt, John Boehner, Mary Bono Mack,

John Boozman, Charles Boustany, Kevin Brady, Paul

Broun, Henry Brown, Ginny Brown-Waite, Michael Burgess,

Dan Burton, Steve Buyer, Ken Calvert, Dave Camp, Eric

Cantor, John Carter, Bill Cassidy, Jason Chaffetz,

Howard Coble, Mike Coffman, Tom Cole, Michael Conaway,

Ander Crenshaw, John Culberson, Geoff Davis, Nathan

Deal, David Dreier, Mary Fallin, Jeff Flake, John

Fleming, Randy Forbes, Jeff Fortenberry, Virginia Foxx,

Trent Franks, Rodney Frelinghuysen, Phil Gingrey, Louie

Gohmert, Bob Goodlatte, Kay Granger, Sam Graves, Ralph

Hall, Doc Hastings, Dean Heller, Jeb Hensarling, Wally

Herger, Peter Hoekstra, Duncan Hunter, Bob Inglis,

Darrell Issa, Lynn Jenkins, Sam Johnson, Walter Jones,

Jim Jordan, Steve King, Jack Kingston, Mark Kirk, John

Kline

Doug Lamborn, Christopher Lee, Jerry Lewis, Blaine

Luetkemeyer, Cynthia Lummis, Daniel Lungren, Don

Manzullo, Kevin McCarthy, Thaddeus McCotter, Patrick

McHenry, John McHugh, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Jeff

Miller, Sue Myrick, Devin Nunes, Pete Olson, Erik

Paulsen, Mike Pence, Joe Pitts, Todd Platts, Ted Poe,

Bill Posey, Tom Price, Adam Putnam, George Radanovich,

Hal Rogers, Mike Rogers, Thomas Rooney, Peter Roskam,

Paul Ryan, Steve Scalise, Jean Schmidt, Aaron Schock,

James Sensenbrenner, Pete Sessions, John Shadegg, John

Shimkus, Bill Shuster, Michael Simpson, Adrian Smith,

Lamar Smith, Cliff Stearns, John Sullivan, Lee Terry,

Glenn Thompson, Patrick Tiberi, Fred Upton, Greg

Walden, Zach Wamp, Lynn Westmoreland, Ed Whitfield, Joe

Wilson, Robert Wittman

The first priority should be to make our Nation's poorest, uninsured children covered. This is the intent of the program, and we should fulfill that program and that goal. Currently, at least two-thirds of children who do not have health insurance are already eligible for Federal help through either SCHIP or Medicaid. We should enroll these children first before expanding to higher income brackets.

The second priority is to ensure that SCHIP does not replace or significantly impact those who already have private health insurance with a government-run program. Last year Hawaii created a new government-financed program to fill the gap between private and public insurance in an effort to provide universal coverage for children. But State officials soon found that families were dropping private coverage to enroll their children in the government plan. The Governor of Hawaii terminated the plan when she realized Hawaii could not and should not subsidize the cost for children already receiving private health insurance.

Madam Speaker, should this legislation pass, we know that 2.4 million more children will be ``crowded out'' from their private insurance plan and moved to SCHIP. In days where Congress is faced with a second $350 billion bailout plan and a possible $1.3 trillion stimulus package, is the Federal Government in any financial shape to be financing health care costs for children who are already receiving private health insurance?

Lastly, a citizenship verification standard is critical to ensuring that only U.S. citizens and certain legal immigrants are allowed to access the taxpayer-funded benefits, not illegal immigrants. The underlying legislation offers no safeguards to ensure American children come before illegal immigrants.

Republicans understand how important and personal health care decisions are for individuals and families. We believe in freedom of choice, and allowing patients and doctors to make health care decisions, not government bureaucrats, is the direction we should go. Allowing for a tax credit or tax deduction for the purchase of health care insurance would give an individual or a family the choice of an affordable health care plan that fits their needs.

Said another way, a family and their children should be able to choose their own doctor and go to that doctor day in and day out, not simply to have to shop to find what is then available through a government-run program. This would bring the ownership and control back to the individual and the family.

Madam Speaker, additionally, if we allow individuals to purchase health insurance across State lines and let businesses and associations band together to purchase insurance, we guarantee choice, portability, and flexibility for families and employees. Rather than limiting choice like my Democrat colleagues, Republicans strive for quality, affordable health care for every single American.

Madam Speaker, another fatal flaw with this huge government expansion is how our Democrat colleagues are going to pay for this plan. The proposed budget uses gimmicks to comply with PAYGO rules, masking the true cost of the expansion. Democrats will increase taxes on cigarette packs by 61 cents to $1 and included taxes on cigars of up to $3 to come up with the majority of the $35 billion expansion. The problem is that this tobacco tax disproportionately burdens low-income Americans because the majority of smokers are young adults and individuals and families making less than 300 percent of the Federal poverty level. To produce the revenues that Congress needs to fund the $35 billion SCHIP expansion would require a tax for 22.4 million new smokers by 2017 or 80 percent of the beneficiaries would lose coverage in 5 years. That means that we are going to tax these users and rely on that stream of revenue that will be diminishing very quickly. That is not a responsible way to fund the program.

Eliminating physician ownership and health care practices is another way that the Democrats plan to pay for expansion. The current state of our community hospitals is in disarray. Community hospitals are overcrowded and understaffed. Physician-owned hospitals run more efficiently, have higher patient satisfaction and higher quality outcomes than their community counterparts. Yet my friends on the other side of the aisle want to eliminate that option for individuals. So while dumping children in a government-run health care plan, they also want to limit health care choices for everyone by eliminating physician-owned facilities.

Rather than limiting choices, Congress should be in the business of creating more avenues and opportunities for individuals and families to find affordable insurance for their choices that provides them and leads them to quality care. This legislation does the opposite.

I encourage my colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying legislation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from San Dimas, California (Mr. Dreier).

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

Madam Speaker, you know, it's pretty incredible. A number of speakers that we've had here today sat through the hearing yesterday and understood that this bill is not going to become law anytime soon. Yet we are down on the floor of the House of Representatives touting how this will be the first bill that our new President, President Barack Obama, will sign; and yet, testimony in the Rules Committee yesterday, a full admittance that we don't know whether this is all going to make it or not. It will be interesting to see.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Energy and Commerce, Mrs. Blackburn.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the Energy and Commerce Committee, Dr. Gingrey.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1\1/ 2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1\1/ 2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Miami, Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).

Madam Speaker, we believe we are in agreement with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) that we will allow their side to catch up at this time.

We continue to reserve.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Lewisville, Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Lincoln, Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

Madam Speaker, the gentleman, the majority leader, indicated he had not had an opportunity to see the Congressional Budget Office report to the gentleman Mr. Waxman, dated January 13. I would like to insert this into the transcript of today's debate.

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

H.R. 2--Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization

Act of 2009

Summary: The legislation would authorize the Children's

Health Insurance Program (CHIP) through fiscal year 2013 and

increase federal funding for the program above current

levels. The bill would provide performance bonus payments to

states for enrollment costs resulting from specified

enrollment and retention efforts. H.R. 2 would establish a

child enrollment contingency fund to cover state CHIP

expenditures beyond the amount allotted in statute for the

2009-2013 reauthorization period. The bill also would add an

additional state option to use CHIP funding to provide a

premium assistance subsidy for children enrolled in a

qualified health insurance plan, provide additional funding

for outreach grants, and improve access to dental benefits

and mental health parity in CHIP plans.

H.R. 2 includes other provisions related to the Medicaid

program and CHIP. These provisions include ones that would

allow states the authority to waive the restriction on

providing Medicaid and CHIP coverage to certain legal

immigrants before five years of

residency, provide an alternative citizenship verification

process for states when determining Medicaid eligibility, and

provide grants for increased outreach and enrollment

activities. Finally, the bill would increase the federal

excise tax on tobacco products.

The effects on direct spending and revenues over the 2009-

2013 and 2009-2018 periods are relevant for enforcing pay-as-

you-go rules under the current budget resolution. CBO

estimates that enacting H.R. 2 would increase direct spending

by approximately $32.3 billion over the 2009-2013 period, and

by $65.4 billion over the 2009-2018 period. In addition, the

Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimates that certain

provisions of the bill would increase federal revenues by

$31.3 billion over the 2009-2013 period and $64.7 billion

over the 2009-2018 period. Accounting for those effects and

other revenue effects stemming from provisions in H.R. 2, CBO

estimates that enacting the legislation would reduce deficits

by $1.1 billion over the 2009-2013 period and by $1.7 billion

over the 2009-2018 period.

CBO has reviewed the nontax provisions of the bill (Title I

through Title VI, excluding section 311(a)) and determined

that they contain no intergovernmental mandates as defined in

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). CBO has determined

that those provisions contain private-sector mandates on

group health plans and issuers of group health insurance. In

aggregate, the costs of the mandates on private entities in

the nontax provisions of the bill would not exceed the annual

threshold established by UMRA for private-sector mandates

($139 million in 2009, adjusted annually for inflation).

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: CBO's estimate of

the impact of H.R. 2 on direct spending and revenues is shown

in the following table. The costs of this legislation fall

within budget function 550 (health).

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

By fiscal year in billions of dollars--

Madam Speaker, we reserve our time.

Madam Speaker, we continue to reserve our time.

Madam Speaker, we will continue to reserve our time.

Madam Speaker, we will continue to reserve our time.

I thank the gentleman. I have no further speakers and would yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Madam Speaker, I will be asking for a recorded vote on this closed rule.

With the current program not expiring until March 31 of this year, we have seen enough Members question the underlying legislation, and I think we deserve an open and honest debate in the committees of jurisdiction before we take a vote on such a large expansion--$35 billion more of government programs.

This legislation spends billions of dollars to substitute private health insurance with government-run coverage. It enables illegal aliens to fraudulently enroll in Medicaid and in SCHIP. The bill creates the most regressive tax increase in American history, using funding gained from taxing the poor to pay for expanding SCHIP eligibility to higher income families. This legislation increases the number of adults on SCHIP, allowing even more resources to be taken away from the low-income, uninsured children who need it the most.

Madam Speaker, this legislation moves us closer and closer to a government-run program and further and further away to access for quality health care of our choice.

I encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and to vote ``no'' on the underlying legislation. We should ensure that SCHIP meets its original intent and that it covers the poorest children first.

We have been very clear about saying that the Republicans in this body have asked for the opportunity to have regular order to discuss this issue in committee and have asked for the opportunity to have Republicans and Democrats present their ideas and hear them accepted for amendments before the Rules Committee. We object to the way that this Rules Committee has handled this issue.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, by the direction of the House Republican Conference, I send to the desk a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the observance of America's annual National Folic Acid Awareness Week, which began on January 5, 2009.

It is my hope that this awareness week gives the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) further awareness to reduce the prevalence of preventable serious birth defects in women of childbearing age across all segments of our population. Enriched cereals and grain products are fortified with the B-vitamin folic acid, but only one-third of U.S. women of childbearing age consume the scientifically recommended daily amount. Folic acid, a B-vitamin, is particularly critical for proper cell growth and has been scientifically proven to prevent birth defects of the brain and spine, called Neural Tube Defects (NTD).

Women especially need folic acid, even if not planning to become pregnant since 50 percent of all pregnancies are unplanned. Consuming the recommended amount of folic acid each day before pregnancy can reduce the risk of a birth defect of the brain and spine by seventy percent. The prevalence rates of NTDs has declined by 27 percent since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's mandatory addition of folic acid to enriched grain products in 1998. Even with this improvement in the reduction in the Neutral Tube Disorders of Spina Bifida and Anencephaly birth defect births, there still are 3,000 babies born each year with serious birth defects, and an estimated 5,000 that die from a serious birth defect.

Since 1998, over 100 peer-reviewed scientific studies have been published and been reviewed by a distinguished group of leading birth defect scientists and researchers. These individuals concluded that more folic acid to already fortified enriched grain products, and folic acid to corn-based products, is important to our country's public health and should be examined by the DFA. In 2006, the Congressional Spina Bifida Caucus petitioned the FDA for review and the FDA refused the request, saying there was not enough science to merit the agency's review.

A recent Center for Disease Control (CDC) study, published in December of 2008, the agency found that only 21 percent of Hispanic women of childbearing age are consuming the recommended amount of folic acid to effectively prevent serious birth defect births, compared with 40 percent of Caucasian women. Hispanic babies are 1.5 to 2 times more likely than other children in the U.S. to be born with a neural tube defect (NTD). The CDC reports that Hispanics across the United States consume the least amount of folic acid, and have the least knowledge about the role that folic acid plays in preventing a serious birth defect birth among all racial or ethnic groups in our country. This leads to an important goal of National Folic Acid Awareness Week, education. Birth defect prevention education is alarmingly low, so public education is essential. Surveys since 1998 have found that only 24 percent of women know that folic acid helps prevent birth defects. Of those who do know, only 40 percent know how much should be taken every day. Over ten years, public education efforts on the parts of the CDC, various birth defect prevention groups, and State and federal prevention awareness programs have been a great start in informing women of the necessity of folic acid during childbearing years, but we still have our work cut out for us.

I would like to recognize the National Folic Acid Awareness Week and increase public awareness of the need for all women of childbearing age to get the recommended amount of folic acid each day. A continued effort on all fronts is necessary, I encourage the FDA to look at the research and consider adding more folic acid to enriched grain products and corn-based products.

I will be reintroducing a resolution calling for this action and I ask my colleagues to join me in this education effort.

I want to thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me the time and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to these new record-breaking 65th and 66th closed rules being offered by this Democrat-led Congress under their ``anything goes'' martial law and to this process which continues to elevate politics over good policy and which continues to produce legislation that even Senate Democrat Majority Leader Harry Reid has referred to as an attempt to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

These last few hours that we're here, this Democrat majority continues to do that because it guts a carefully negotiated and bipartisan compromise reached in the Senate, leaving many of the deal's most important provisions in limbo rather than addressing them responsibly today.

Earlier this week, the Senate passed a comprehensive tax extenders package by an overwhelming and bipartisan vote of 92-3. This legislation included an $18 billion, fully offset energy tax policy proposal as well as a partially offset tax relief package, including an AMT patch to prevent middle class families from being hit with an unprecedented and unintended tax bill, along with important extensions of current tax policy, disaster-related tax provisions for the victims of the Midwest floods and Hurricane Ike, and mental health parity legislation.

Understanding the delicate balance in his Chamber, Democrat Majority Leader Harry Reid begged Speaker Pelosi not to send the Senate back a different bill, he said, ``because it won't pass'' and that, if the House ``messes with our package, it will die.''

Rather than heeding these dire warnings from their own party leader, this Democrat leadership has decided to chop the legislation up into a number of separate pieces, making substantive and negative changes to many of them, engaging in a game of legislative chicken with the Senate rather than doing the responsible thing in making sure that important measures like help for victims of natural disasters, tax relief for middle class families who are at risk of being unintentionally caught by a tax created for the super wealthy and fairness for our Nation's rural schools are passed by this Congress before we leave town.

I am disappointed that this Democrat majority thinks that scoring political points on the eve of an election is more important than passing these measures.

But, unfortunately, this kind of political gamesmanship has become all too common in what Speaker Pelosi once promised would be the most honest, open and ethical Congress in history. This new House Democrat package, just introduced as a legislative package at 5:30 this evening, includes much of the same legislative trickery that Democrats have already employed this week. Just before that, the Senate had already pronounced it dead on arrival, making it a pointless and wasted endeavor, and also making it yet another missed chance for this Democrat House to do the right thing for American businesses, families and for rural schools.

Since this legislation was just introduced, neither I nor most of my colleagues in the House know what is actually included in this legislation. If this rush to the floor with tax legislation feels familiar to some Members, it should. They have seen this in the past, and we have had enough. My colleagues and the colleagues on the other side of the aisle will remember that earlier this week, when this legislation was first rushed to the floor without proper review, it contained a $100 million disparity that forced the House to pull their first rule from the floor and amend it to correct their work in the Rules Committee.

According to the Democrat staff, the legislative gimmick now being used consists of bringing two separate bills to the floor. The first includes a number of energy tax incentives for energy efficiency and conservation, which along with the upcoming October 1 expiration of the ban on drilling for American energy will go a long way towards fulfilling the House Republicans' long-term commitment to making sure we have an all-of-the-above strategy to achieve America's independence.

The second bill includes important tax provisions for America's families trying to make ends meet and for American businesses trying to create jobs here in America, and to be competitive with companies around the world. Measures like the research and development tax credit, the State and local sales tax deduction, and the deduction for out-of-pocket expenses for teachers are particularly important for families, schools and businesses in my home State of Texas, and I am sure it would be true across the country.

I strongly support their inclusion in this legislation.

I do not support, however, the inclusion of measures to permanently raise taxes on the American economy during a time when the economic crisis is so great. To simply extend these, they could have simply extended tax policies, which would give people more money back home. Instead, we see what we have on the floor tonight.

I ask all of my colleagues to vote with me to defeat this rule so that this House can end this political charade and cover vote for its vulnerable Members and take up the better Senate option, which has already passed, to provide American families and businesses with the tax relief they deserve.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of my colleague from New York if he has any speakers on his side.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from San Dimas, California (Mr. Dreier).

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

Mr. Speaker, I really do enjoy having our colleagues come down and debating the issues at hand. I have heard over and over that there is really nothing objectionable in this bill, except there is a new billion dollar permanent tax that is in the bill.

I object to that. I object to that because what this is about is to tax employers a billion dollars more over a period of time than what they pay today. That's how you lose jobs.

The gentleman wants to suggest that tax cuts is the reason why we have this horrible economy. Oh, not true. It is because we spend too much. We spend too much money.

What we ought to be doing is we ought to be having more and more tax cuts to spur this economy, just like these tax cuts are doing here. We need to have a real energy plan, not a fake energy plan, and the plan we need supplies more gasoline and the availability for America and Americans to have more energy prepared and ready for us rather than having to seek what we need from overseas.

We need to quit paying an extra incremental $400 billion to our friends across the ocean who we buy oil from. They are using this $400 billion to build new cities and new countries. That is what Dubai is about. So it is not just a matter of blaming this on tax cuts. It is a reality that today what we need to do is to have a comprehensive plan that deals not only with energy and the tax cuts that are on the floor tonight, but to make sure that we quit spending so darn much money. That's what the problem is.

If we would approach that from a perspective that the American people understand, just like they do in their own homes, then I think we would get a better sense of things.

The bottom line is we are here. We are here on a weekend, after we should have been at home, because we are dealing with a national crisis, a national emergency. There is no question about that. But the way you deal best with it is not to then have new tax increases to take care of and pay for the tax cuts that you wanted that would offset each other.

So on the one hand you say sure, we are for you having a tax cut, but somebody else has to pay for it. In this case it is the employers. The employers in this country are the people who employ people. We should not be placing the tax on employers.

This is a similar plan to what has taken place all around the country. Many States tax employers. We can take one, for example, Illinois. The State of Illinois, 48 out of 50 in job creation because they enjoy doing what the bill does tonight, taxing employers. That is not a way to run a railroad.

It is very difficult for me to hear people say it is just a de minimis tax, but we are providing all of these tax cuts for business and research and development and all these things, and then turn around and say on the other side, it is not much of a tax. It is just de minimis. Well, it is equal. It is equal. That is what happened, they equaled this out. It is a offset. And the offset is a big tax on employers. That's a problem.

The Republican Party is pleased to be here tonight. We are pleased to argue the important issues of the day. But we are going to vote no on raising taxes. We are going to vote no on the things that will hurt employers and employment in this country.

It is a very difficult thing for the country to look up and know who to believe any more. That is why this Congress is at a 9 percent approval rating. You can't say on one side you've just got to do this and help out all these people, and then call whatever you did a de minimis tax on the other side because it is equal, it is harmful,

and it hurts people and it hurts employers.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from San Dimas, California.

Mr. Speaker, we will reserve our time.

Mr. Speaker, it's my understanding the gentleman is going to pull the bill, and that's okay. I can understand that. And I appreciate the gentleman letting me know that.

As best I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, you have heard very eloquent discussions tonight by both the majority leader of the United States House of Representatives, from the gentleman, Mr. Dreier, former chairman of the Rules Committee.

I would have added that there is one common denominator between the good times and the bad times, and that common denominator is the House of Representatives that was run by the Republican Party.

If you look at the first 4 years of President Clinton's tenure, it was a horrible economy. Once Republicans came in, it was all about getting a balanced budget. And we did achieve a balanced budget. We had to fight to do that. That's what 1994 was all about; 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001--until 2001, surpluses. During that period of time, we doubled the size of the economy in 12 years. Doubled the size of the economy in 12 years. That was a goal. That's growing the economy.

We did that because we need to do that in the face of world competition.

During our first 219 years, we went from a zero to a $6.5 trillion economy, and then in 12 years doubled it to $13.8.

I do admit, and I'm sorry, and I have to take the blame for it, we have had too much spending under Republicans not last year and this year, but for the years prior to that because we did things that were necessary to protect this country. Finally secured our border, made sure that we had, within this country, a safe airline system, the Department of Homeland Security. Lots of spending. Lots of money. Lots of employees. We've avoided getting an attack on this country since 9/ 11/2001.

I'm proud of what we're doing, and we need to keep giving confidence to the American people that the United States Congress can debate the ideas, and present them to the American public.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to recognize the life of my good friend and co-chair of the Capital Fraternal Caucus, Stephanie Tubbs Jones. Stephanie and I shared a passion to help ensure a secure future for fraternities and sororities on campuses all across the country. Together, we worked to form and mature the Capital Fraternal Caucus to be an organization to celebrate Greek Life both as an undergraduate and throughout post-collegiate years.

Stephanie dedicated her life to ensuring that every young person had the opportunity for a college education. As a member of the Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Stephanie understood first-hand the life-long friendships that fraternities and sororities foster in young people during their undergraduate years. It was these friendships which fostered mutual respect and collaboration of ideas. I am so honored to have shared this friendship with Stephanie and to have enjoyed our bonds of Greek Life as co-chairs of the Capital Fraternal Caucus.

As the first African-American Chairman of the Capital Fraternal Caucus, Stephanie used her position to champion the Greek cause and quickly became a favorite member of interns working on Capital Hill who are affiliated with Greek organizations. While always lending a helping hand to students in Washington, Stephanie never forgot about the hundreds of thousands of students on every college campus. Through her dedicated work, she helped to pass the College Housing and Infrastructure Act. This leadership was recognized by the North- American Interfraternity Conference who presented her with the NIC's Silver Medal. This is one of the Conference's highest honors which recognizes significant leadership for causes that advance the highest ideals of fraternalism.

In honor of her dedication and enthusiastic work, the North-American Interfraternity Conference is naming a summer program for young people in Washington DC after her. The ``Stephanie Tubbs Jones Memorial Legislative Fellowship'' will afford outstanding student leaders from fraternity and sorority chapters throughout the country to work with legislative leaders on Capitol Hill to help preserve the rich undergraduate traditions represented by the communities on campuses across the Nation. I look forward to meeting the next generation of leaders which Stephanie's legacy will bring to Washington.

A wonderful example of the type of person our public school system produces, Stephanie went on to attend Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. Following her graduation from college she began her career in public service by earning a degree in Social Work. This passion for helping others led her to pursue a law degree from Case Western Reserve School of Law in 1974. Ultimately, Stephanie was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1998 and served the 11th Congressional District of Ohio until her untimely and unfortunate death in August of this year.

During her time as a Congresswoman, Stephanie never lost her zeal for public service nor her passion to help young people. She constantly sought to improve public schools and ensure that every American student had the best possible education. Stephanie was a well-respected member of this Congress and her presence will surely be missed.

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

Requesting Member: Congressman Pete Sessions.

Bill Number: H.R. 2638.

Account: Defense, Navy, RDT&E; Manned Reconnaissance Systems.

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: L-3--Geneva Aerospace.

Address of Requesting Entity: 4240 International Parkway Carrollton, Texas 75007.

Description of Request: I received an earmark of $2,400,000 for the Unmanned Force Augmentation System, UFAS, project which supports research, development and testing of advanced Unmanned Aerial Systems, UAS, technologies. Specifically, $1,600,000 is for engineering; $400,000 is for materials procurement; and $400,000 is for field testing. The program is intended to facilitate the rapid transition of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, UAV, systems to the warfighters that offer order-of-magnitude improvements in usability, capability, and, hence, operational effectiveness.

Requesting Member: Congressman Pete Sessions.

Bill Number: H.R. 2638.

Account: Defense, Army, RDT&E; Advanced Weapons Technology.

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Jim G. Ferguson, Inc.

Address of Requesting Entity: 4727 Cherokee Trail Dallas, Texas 75205.

Description of Request: I received an earmark of $1,600,000 to design, develop, and construct a cross-scale airship serving as a platform / test-bed for airborne and space sensor technology development, demonstration and testing. Specifically, $416,000 is for management, $832,000 is for technical and engineering, $96,000 is for administration, $96,000 is for patent maintenance and development, $80,000 is for legal, and $80,000 is for travel. The airship will also provide a low cost solution to the military need to rapidly and economically transport very large, very heavy and outsized cargos strategic distances in support of global military surge, support and logistical operations.

Requesting Member: Congressman Pete Sessions.

Bill Number: H.R. 2638.

Account: Defense, Army, O&M; Central Supply Activities.

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: PulseTech Products Corporation.

Address of Requesting Entity: 1100 South Kimball Ave. Southlake, Texas 76092.

Description of Request: I received an earmark of $800,000 to provide battery maintenance management systems that incorporate pulse technology to increase equipment readiness, reduce hazardous material/ environmental waste and reduce operating costs. Among these systems are rolling chargers for motor pool operations, pallet chargers for use in battery shops throughout the Army, and solar chargers for on-vehicle applications when vehicles are stored for extended periods of time. PulseTech will continue, at no cost to the government, to offer battery management training.

Requesting Member: Congressman Pete Sessions.

Bill Number: H.R. 2638.

Account: Defense, Army, RDT&E; Medical Technology.

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: National Neurovision Research Institute.

Address of Requesting Entity: 11435 Cronhill Drive, Owings Mills, MD 21117-2220.

Description of Request: I received an earmark of $800,000 funding to continue its expansion and operation of the ``National Eye Evaluation and Research Network'', NEER Network. This Network was established to enhance and accelerate military and civilian patients' accessibility to specialized centers for evaluation of serious eye diseases affecting the retina and facilitate their rapid referral for treatment and possible participation in research studies and clinical trials. The budget breakdown shows that $104,853 will be spent on the National Neurovision Research Institute's budget which will include materials and supplies, travel and salaries. Another $648,766 will be spent on the Clinical Trial and Evaluation Units which will be used to study the inherited orphan retinal degenerations of the eye. The remaining $46,381 will be used for contracts and medical review boards.

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

Requesting Member: Congressman Pete Sessions.

Bill Number: H.R. 2638.

Account: Defense, Army, RDT&E; Night Vision Advanced Technology.

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Optex Systems (subsidiary of Irvine Sensors Corp.)

Address of Requesting Entity: 1420 Presidential Drive Richardson, Texas 75081.

Description of Request: I received an earmark of $800,000 for the InfraRed Goggle Upgrade System (IRGUS) which is a miniature system that adds thermal imagery to standard issue Night Vision Goggles. Specifically, $400,000 is for the design for unit production cost, $100,000 is for production readiness, and $300,000 is for Block 1 build, integration, and testing. This technology allows legacy NVGs to be upgraded to provide fused thermal/Image Intensification (I\2\) imagery for improved threat detection, target identification, and situational awareness in low or no light or obscured battlefield conditions.

I want to thank the gentleman, my friend, Mr. Arcuri, for the time that he has yielded me, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

``Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this martial law rule and in opposition to the outrageous process that continues to plague this House. We have before us a martial law rule that allows the leadership to once again ignore the rules of the House and the procedures and the traditions of this House. Martial law is no way to run a democracy, no matter what your ideology, no matter what your party affiliation.''

I strongly agree with these words, but I cannot, in good faith, take credit for them because I did not write them. I simply just read them. My staff did not write them, nor did any of the Republican staff on the Rules Committee.

In fact, as far as I know, not one Republican had any hand in the composition of this eloquent defense of democracy in the House of Representatives, because their author is actually the gentleman from Massachusetts and a senior member of the Democrat Rules Committee, the gentleman, Mr. McGovern.

He spoke these exact same words on the floor 2 years ago regarding what he eloquently and accurately called a martial law rule, which is what we are being asked to consider here today.

Although these are not my words, I associate myself with them fully because they are as true and relevant today as when they were first used. And since I have already borrowed one selection of the gentleman's words, I would like to point out another comment my esteemed Rules Committee colleague made regarding martial law rules. On December 6, 2006, just 1 month before Democrats were to take control of the House of Representatives, Democrats made a number of promises on how they would run the House which, unfortunately, have not held up well in the contrast to reality.

Before they had control, Mr. McGovern said, ``Mr. Speaker, there is a better way to run this body. The truth, Mr. Speaker, is that the American people expect and deserve better. That's why the 110th Congress must be different. I believe we need to rediscover openness and fairness in the House. We must insist on full and fair debate on the issues that come to this body.''

I would like to ask my friends on the Democrat Rules Committee and this Democratic leadership: What happened? What happened? Where is that openness and the fairness? Where was the openness on the no-energy bill rule where over 90 amendments were closed out, including a Republican substitute?

Where was that openness when we first considered SCHIP reauthorization and we were handed two closed rules by the Democrat leadership? Where has it been over these last 2 years when Democrats have forced a record number of lock-down, closed rules through this House of Representatives with no opportunity for Members, Republicans or Democrats, to improve that legislation? And where is that openness today when we are being asked to consider this tax extenders rule by once again suspending regular order in this House of Representatives?

I know where it is. Our friends, the Democrats, left it out on the campaign trail. And with an upcoming election, I suspect that is where we will be able to find these broken promises once again this next January. It was an empty promise when they made it, and the emptiness of this promise was fulfilled on the opening day of the new majority when the Democrats wrote into the rules of the House closed rules for consideration of the first six bills that they were able to take up, in effect discharging the Rules Committee from its duties for the first six bills they were going to consider. Ah, yes, 6 in '06.

The remedy for examples of unfairness, they criticized the Rules Committee for the way they did their work, and that trend has started, sadly, and continues today.

As the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) said, ``Mr. Speaker, there is a better way to run this body. The truth, Mr. Speaker, is that the American people expect and deserve better. That is why the 110th Congress must be different. I believe we need to rediscover openness and fairness in this House. We must insist on full and fair debate on the issues that come before this body.''

Mr. Speaker, with these wise words, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have several speakers.

At this time I yield for such time as he may use to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) has now for at least the last 2 years made himself available, built bipartisan support, spoken to people in both parties, built a case, invited people to see the circumstance, and talked on behalf of 42 States, people who live in rural areas that have timber.

The gentleman invited me out this last August, notwithstanding that I am a friend of his, but he invited me out. I landed in Portland, drove east on the beautiful highway that goes to Hood, Oregon, and had an opportunity to meet a lot of the people in the area. They are fabulous. They are outstanding people who live in the very midst of Mount Hood.

I had an opportunity to see Mount Hood from a different perspective than the three climbers from Dallas who were trapped and who died earlier last winter. I had a chance to see Mount Hood in the summertime. As I was there with the gentleman, Mr. Walden, he told me the story about the big blowout in the mountain which happened on a separate event, that devastated the area as a result of what Mother Nature had done. He spoke about how the communities got together, how they worked together and solved their problems, just as they did when the three climbers from Dallas perished on the mountain.

But he forthrightly, along with others, reminded me that it is really up to us to get our work done here in Washington. And by no means did the gentleman task me with doing it, but he knew, he knew that I would have the opportunity, along with our colleague, the gentleman from Pasco, Washington, Doc Hastings, who is also greatly affected, that we could come back to a committee that we have served on for 10 and 12 years respectively between the two of us, that we would be able to talk to our colleagues whom we have served with on that committee for the past 10 years, that we would be able to express to them the need and the desire for public policy to be addressed at the appropriate time.

Well, the appropriate time is now. The Senate has spoken. Today the bill came over from the Senate, overwhelming vote, and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) rushed to me to find out what the Rules Committee would do, really just to find out what was in the bill. We found out about the bill only minutes before, which once again is against the rules of the House that you don't consider a bill until it is laid out publicly for 24 hours. But that didn't matter again today.

And so we asked on behalf of the gentleman, Mr. Walden, the other members of the Rules Committee what we thought was a bipartisan basis because I believe it is true to say that there are five people on the committee who serve rural areas also or who had heard the compelling story that impacts people all across this country.

So I told Mr. Walden, I think we stand a good chance because we are able to come to our colleagues whom we have spent hundreds of hours with over the last 10 years and to say if it is not in your bill, and we found out it was not, but it is in the package that came from the Senate, will you please just include that?

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, you're hearing a story that happened just minutes ago up in the Rules Committee where the members of the committee had within their sole jurisdiction the ability to handle this issue, to take what is referred to as the ping-pong, the bill that moved over, that was completely in the bill that the gentleman, Mr. Walden, and the gentleman, Mr. Hastings, have worked so diligently for the last few years to do.

The Rules Committee chairman, the gentlewoman, Ms. Slaughter, said, well, you know, I had to wait 13 years for one of my bills. That was the response.

The answer was, we came back and reasked the Rules Committee if they would please vote for it. Well, what they did is they turned it down on a voice vote. So we asked for a recorded vote.

On a party-line basis, every single Democratic member of that Rules Committee said no to something that is completely within their jurisdiction, completely within their endeavor. And I fail to know where there's any opposition.

It was obstinate, and it was a slap in the face to the members of the committee who have served with them for making a very simple, honest request.

Open, honest, and ethical. These were the words that we were told and the American people were told. Well, the people in these 41 States are going to have to judge that, but they will know, they will know that it was the Rules Committee and the Speaker of this House, not the United States Senate, who voted 93-2. It's not the President of the United States. He's already said he'd sign the bill. It was the Rules Committee, under the complete jurisdiction of the gentlewoman, Ms. Slaughter, and the Speaker of this House.

So we're on the floor today, a little upset. Being slam dunked I can handle. I think being treated in the way that we were is wrong. I think it's wrong to this committee. I think it's wrong to the members who are on it.

We reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, if I could inquire the time remaining on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pasco, Washington, a gentleman who has spoken very eloquently and consistently up in the Rules Committee, and has worked his heart out for the needs of the 41 States that fall within the same position that the gentleman Mr. Walden and the gentleman Mr. Hastings have. He's a strong advocate. I would like to yield him 5 minutes.

I will yield the gentleman 1 additional minute with only 2 minutes remaining.

I thank the gentleman for his courtesy.

So as I said from the outset, Mr. Speaker, sometimes I don't understand how this process works because these extenders have to pass. We know that. And further, we know that the President will sign this bill with the Secure Rural Schools language in it. We know that. We know that.

So, Mr. Speaker, I'm kind of frustrated here, and I think this issue should pass. I think the best way to do that, frankly, is to pass the Senate bill and be on with it.

I would like to reserve my time

Mr. Speaker, in the remaining time I have, I want you to know that, however, despite everything you have heard, I have good news, good news for the American people. Right now with the passage of this continuing resolution yesterday, Republicans have finally removed the main Democrat roadblock to increasing the domestic production of American energy.

This underlying legislation--which I am going to put on the floor right now--which contains tax credits for energy efficiency and conservation will also help this House to implement what Republicans have advocated for months: an all-of-the-above strategy, including nuclear power.

So today I urge my colleagues to demonstrate the courage of these convictions by voting with me to defeat the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will move to amend the rule to allow this House to take up a measure right now right here today that will prevent Members from going home to campaign for reelection without actually passing a comprehensive energy bill into law.

It would make it plain and permanent for their support. It would allow States to expand their exploration and extraction of natural resources along the Outer Continental Shelf; it would open the Arctic energy slope and oil shale reserves to environmentally prudent exploration and extraction; it would extend expiring renewable energy initiatives; it would encourage the streamlining approval and refining of capacity for nuclear power facilities; it would encourage research and development of clean coal, coal-to-liquid, and carbon sequestration technologies and minimizing drawn-out legal challenges that unreasonably delay or prevent actual domestic energy production.

This requirement would force the Democrat leadership to take positive, comprehensive, permanent, and meaningful action to increase the supply of American energy.

Mr. Speaker, all across this country there are cities without gasoline--there are cities without gasoline--and it stands exactly at the feet of the Democrat leadership, the new majority, who is making sure that the American consumer pays record high prices and yet we've done nothing to make sure that the supply side is taken care of.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I want to thank the gentleman, my friend from New York, for yielding the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this new record-breaking 64th closed rule being offered by this Democrat-led Congress, the most open, honest and ethical Congress in the history, proclaimed by our Speaker, Nancy Pelosi. But we have this new record-breaking 64th closed rule, so it makes me kind of wonder which conference she was really in reference to.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this underlying legislation also. Just in the last 24 hours, Senate Democrat Majority Leader Harry Reid referred to the introduction of this bill as the ability to ``snatch defeat from the jaws of victory,'' because it guts a carefully negotiated and bipartisan compromise reached in the Senate. So what the Senate has worked very closely and clearly on and passed the bill, this Speaker decided we are not going to do it that way. In the waning days of this session, we are not going to play ball with our colleagues in the Senate. So what it does is it leaves many of the deal's most important provisions in limbo, rather than addressing them responsibly today.

Two evenings ago, the Senate passed a comprehensive tax extenders package by an overwhelming and bipartisan vote of 92-3. This legislation included an $18 billion fully offset energy tax policy proposal, as well as a partially offset tax relief package, including an AMT patch to prevent middle class families from being hit with an unprecedented and unintended tax bill, along with important extensions of current tax policy, disaster-related tax provisions for the victims of the Midwest floods and Hurricane Ike, and for mental health parity legislation.

Understanding the delicate balance in that Chamber, Democrat Majority Leader Harry Reid 2 days ago begged Speaker Pelosi not to send the Senate back a different bill, because it won't pass, and that if the House messes, and I quote, ``messes with the package, it will die.''

Today, news reports have surfaced that he is ``furious'' that House Democrats refuse to accept his bipartisan deal and has retaliated with procedural tactics intended to delay the House from continuing along the House Democrat leadership's preferred course of action.

But rather than heeding these dire warnings from their own leadership, from the Senate leadership of their own party, this House Democrat leadership has decided to chop up this legislation into pieces, making substantive and negative changes to many of them, and to engage in a game of legislative chicken with the Senate, rather than doing the responsible thing and making sure that important measures like, we will just name one, like helping the victims of natural disaster, or, as we have heard, tax relief for middle class families who are at risk of being unintentionally caught by a tax created for the super-wealthy, and fairness for our own Nation's rural schools. Each of these passed. They passed in the Senate bill, and we could do it here today.

I am disappointed, Mr. Speaker, that this Democrat majority thinks that scoring some sort of political points on the eve of an election is more important than passing these measures. But, unfortunately, this kind of political gamesmanship has come up all too often in what Speaker Pelosi once again, and we reiterate, promised would be the most open, honest and ethical Congress in history.

Included in this House Democrat package are a number of energy tax incentives for energy efficiency and conservation, which, along with the upcoming October expiration on the ban of drilling for American energy, will go a long way to fulfilling House Republicans' long-term commitment to an all-of-the-above strategy, which helps America achieve energy independence.

Also included in this legislation are important tax provisions for American families trying to make ends meet and for American business trying to create jobs here in America and to be competitive with companies around the world. These include measures like the Research and Development Tax Credit, the State and local sales tax deduction, and the deduction for out-of-pocket expenses for teachers. This is particularly important for families, schools and businesses in my home State of Texas, and I strongly support their inclusion in this legislation.

I do not support, however, the inclusion of measures to permanently raise taxes on the American economy during an economic crisis to simply extend these current job-creating tax policies. Tax increases are never the way to solve a soft economy.

I ask all of my colleagues to vote with me to defeat this rule so that the House can end this political charade and cover a vote for its vulnerable Members, and take up the better Senate option to provide American families and businesses with tax relief they deserve.

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

Mr. Speaker, it sounds like our friends on the Democratic side are talking off talking points of the Republican Party today, cutting taxes, keeping jobs in America, expanding our economy. We can sure use a little bit of this. It goes a long way. We ought to make it permanent, but we shouldn't do it with a tax increase attached to it.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 5 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairman, the gentleman from New York, coming down and being on the floor. I really do respect and appreciate that.

It's my hope that the gentleman from New York also heard, and I am not claiming any insensitivity here at all, but I hope that he has heard the story about these 41 States and these, in particular, communities that had counted on and received this money for a long time.

The actual impact, and I am going to yield in just a minute to the gentleman from Oregon, who can more clearly enunciate, but the real impact on 41 States, rural communities, that have forests in their areas, is a real and genuine problem. I had an opportunity this year in August to go out to Oregon and see firsthand.

I had an opportunity firsthand to meet with people who tried to explain to me. They said, Congressman Sessions, please look at what we are asking for and the need.

It is my hope, and I would like to know that the gentleman who is the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee would be able to hear firsthand.

And so at this time I would like to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

I yield the gentleman an additional 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman, my friend, the majority leader of the House, for coming down and being on the floor. I would, if I can, not take his words but to take his feelings and understandings in the way I accept this, as well as the gentleman from Oregon, that the majority leader has indicated that he will try before this session is over to address this issue. It is my hope that the majority leader, and so that we don't engage in talking past each other, would not do what happened on July 30 when the gentleman, the chairman of the Agriculture Committee said in a colloquy that he would also work with another Member of the Republican team before the bill came back on an amendment. That never happened.

It is my hope, without calling anyone's bluff around here, to take the gentleman's words that I believe he very sincerely stated, that he would initiate the opportunity to find a place in the budget, I'm sorry, in an appropriation bill, to get passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate because that's what we are talking about. We are talking about a bill today that could have passed because the President would sign it and the Senate would agree to it. So I have taken it that way.

Now, the gentleman from Maryland also indicated that he saw nothing controversial in this bill, but extending future taxes for 1 year, this provision is going to cost employers $1.474 billion. That is a tax increase. That means it makes it more difficult for employers to hire employees. It sounds like the same type of arrangement that some of our other States have done, up to and including the State of Illinois that raised taxes just like this which puts Illinois where they are 48 out of 50 in job creation. It places States in a position and employers in the position where they lay off employees. So there is a controversial piece in this package that I am disappointed is in there as a permanent tax increase.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle).

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York has hit upon a great idea, which means we can do this today, which means, if the previous question is defeated, we can just add the gentleman, Mr. Walden's amendment right to the bill. We can get it accepted. There's no need to go back to committee. It'll just be accepted as it is.

We've heard lots of people from the majority, including the majority leader, the gentleman from New York, who does care about schools. He cares about education. But today we can resolve this.

You see, what happened is I was just upstairs, Mr. Speaker, at the Rules Committee, and we lost 9-4 on a party-line vote. We tried the process. Republicans respectfully came and tried. Evidently we're making progress today. That makes me happy.

So the gentleman can, with respect, whatever his words may be, will have a chance today. We're not going to send anything back to the committee. We'll just add the amendment to the bill once the previous question is defeated.

I would yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, I would like to ask the gentleman. It's my understanding that this was a conference report.

Well, I thank the gentleman. Reclaiming my time, you know, we could sit here and ping-pong back between you and me too. I'm trying to say that the gentleman, Mr. Walden, has respectfully brought the issue for over 2 years.

We were upstairs yesterday in the Rules Committee. The gentleman from Pasco, Washington, Doc Hastings, politely asked. He served on the committee 12 years. I've only served on it 10 years. We politely asked if we could get it in. And now we're down being nice to each other on the floor.

All I'm suggesting to you is we can go through our own parliamentary procedure properly. We can get it included in and then we know that all of our words did matter.

But without that, without that, the gentleman from Oregon is correct. Otherwise, then it is only the Democrat leadership, the Speaker and the Rules Committee who will be responsible for it not making it. The committee had that opportunity yesterday. We're going to give every single Member of this body the opportunity in just a few minutes. I'm hopeful that people take us up on it.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

I'm going to offer and place forward this amendment to H. Res. 1501. It will allow this body to be able to vote, when we defeat the previous question, to add in the amendment directly to the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we will reserve our time.

We will reserve our time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we will reserve our time.

Mr. Speaker, it's my understanding that the bill that we're debating now and that was passed by the Rules Committee is not the package that is on the floor now, that there was a change that was made upwards of $100 million, and that the Rules Committee, in fact, met--and in my opinion should not have--and we passed a bill that's not on the floor.

And I don't know--I'm looking for some clarification on this. I'm saying that right now on the floor. This is not the same bill that is presently on the floor that we passed in the Rules Committee.

And I'm asking for the Speaker to rule this bill out of order or to tell me what we believe is the correct thing to do because we think that there's been a huge mistake.

I would say I have a point of parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, what version of the bill do we presently have on the floor, and was it the same that was passed by the Rules Committee this morning?

Then I would ask the gentleman from the Rules Committee, and I would say directly to the gentleman, we do not believe that the bill that is presently on the floor today was exactly the same bill that was considered and passed in the Rules Committee and we are asking for clarification. We believe there is at least a $100 million difference.

So you believe it is exactly the same bill that we passed in the Rules Committee?

I was looking for a direct answer from the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, we've made our point today that we're going to ask that the gentleman, once the previous question is defeated, the gentleman from Oregon will have a chance to not send the bill back to committee; just to accept the amendment. And we have made our case on the floor today. We asked for and received clarification about the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Parliamentary Inquiry

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

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object.

Under my reservation, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

I would like to yield to the ranking member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier.

I would yield.

I would continue to yield to the gentleman.

I would yield to the gentleman.

Continuing my reservation, I would say to the gentleman that we're not in any hurry over here in doing it right. The Republican Party is not in a rush, and we would wish for us to do very deliberately that which needs to be done.

I would yield to the gentleman from Washington.

I would yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman, my friend from New York, for coming back down to redo this rule.

Madam Speaker, we are here because earlier in the day, just a few hours ago, it was discovered that the 64th closed rule, which set a brand new record for a United States Congress, contained several errors. And so we debated this issue already on the floor.

Here we are for the 65th now closed rule, a brand new record for the United States Congress--one which I'm not proud of--and from a Speaker who says that this Congress would be the most open, honest, and ethical Congress ever, a brand new closed rule record has occurred today.

Madam Speaker, we went back up to the Rules Committee just a few minutes ago. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) came back and was present to hear the Rules Committee slam dunk his request again, which was an opportunity based upon a colloquy that took place this afternoon just a few minutes ago between the majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, and myself, about

consideration of Mr. Walden's amendment. The amendment is of grave nature not only to 41 States but thousands of communities.

And at this time I would like to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) to explain where we are in this process and what we're going to do on moving forward.

Madam Speaker, I thought we were going to get done real quickly here. We're not.

The gentleman is right. It's a simple matter. Republicans are upset, also, about the high price of oil. We do not want to pass on higher taxes. The Democrat majority seeks something every single day to have Big Oil pay more and more and more money in taxes. Well, all that does is raise the price of oil. And you're right. You're darn right. The Republican Party is not for that.

I would also remind the gentleman that it takes a two-thirds vote, not a simple majority. And so it failed on a higher standard.

I would yield at this time 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon.

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Sali).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho.

Madam Speaker, I'd like to inquire, if I could, from the gentleman from New York if he has any additional speakers?

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I think unfortunately this whole argument today has boiled down to a desire from the Democrat majority to simply tax Big Oil, and it's used over and over and over and over and over and over and over again as the reason we ought to have pay-fors to get taxes paid for, to get schools paid for, stick it to Big Oil. There's almost no germaneness. There's no reason to do that.

The opportunity that we have in this country, the Republican Party stands here day after day saying we need oil companies to be able to deliver American resources in this country. And every time you just go and raise their taxes, all you do is do what we're very effectively doing, and that is, we have to buy our resources from somewhere offshore. That's why we've almost doubled the amount of payment now overseas. I mean, it's gone to $800 billion our foreign payments, and it's double. That's how they keep building Dubai, that's how they build big cities, big countries, because the Democratic Party wants that. They want America to come to its knees, to have to pay higher and higher taxes.

They don't like oil. They want oil to have to dwindle to nothing, and I think it's a sad day. I think it's a sad day that we have to do it in this bill.

We already know where they are. We know where the Democrat Party is. They do not like oil companies. They do not want to drill. They do not want the price of energy to come down.

If this election is held, the American people will have a chance to decide what the answer is. We already know what that answer is, but once again, on a simple bill, stick it to Big Oil. Well, that's how you stick it to consumers, and I think it's pretty sad.

Madam Speaker, we've been through this all day. The bottom line is that the gentleman from Oregon is going to get a vote on the amendment that we talked about. The Rules Committee did not make it in order, not once but twice did not make it in order.

I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the vote on the previous question, of which I'm going to ask that the opportunity for the amendment offered by myself for Mr. Walden be a part of what the previous question, when it's defeated, we will do.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge October 10, 2008 as the 97th anniversary of the Republic of China, more commonly known as Taiwan.

It is important for Congress to recognize the accomplishments of Taiwan and its democratic government. Taiwan is a loyal friend of the United States and a staunch ally in Asia. Taiwan is a shining example of a solid democracy, recently exemplified by the free and orderly Presidential elections in April and the peaceful transfer of power to President Ma. This transfer of power is a hallmark of a true democracy.

On the eve of Taiwan's anniversary I congratulate President Ma, Washington Representative Ambassador Jason C. Yuan, and all of the Taiwanese people for their unwavering pursuit of freedom.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for extending me the time.

I rise in opposition to this new, record-breaking 62nd closed rule being offered by this Democrat-led Congress, and I object to the timing of bringing this underlying legislation to the floor at a particularly fragile and vulnerable time for American consumers, for American small businesses, and for the entire American economy.

As every Member of this House, in fact, probably every single person on this planet with a working television already understands and they're very acutely aware, the United States capital markets for commercial credit have been frozen. And later this week, this Congress is going to be asked to vote on a massive and currently unfinished proposal to try to stem this enormous threat to our economy and to prevent it from spilling over into everyday Americans' lives who are simply trying to make ends meet.

The enormity and complexity of this crisis and its corresponding legislative solutions makes me question why, Mr. Speaker, why, with all the other problems in our financial markets that require our immediate, fixed and unwavering attention, this House leadership would bring this bill to the floor under a closed rule, instead of focusing on the much larger problem that economists and editorial boards across this country believe has the potential to do catastrophic damage to global financial systems.

Additionally, Mr. Speaker, I'm confused as to why this Congress is choosing this path because, despite whether the House considers this Democrat majority's 62nd closed rule, or this legislation today, it makes no difference, absolutely no difference as to whether the issues contained in this legislation to protect consumers from unfair or deceptive practices will even be addressed in a timely fashion.

To protect consumers from questionable practices, the Federal Reserve has already proposed broad new rules. But rather than allowing the Fed to finish its job, this Congress thought it was important enough to pass a new law to give to them, and this Congress is passing a bill that preempts all of the work that Congress has asked these regulators to do, while doing nothing to strengthen the Federal Reserve's already existing consumer protection mandate.

Like every other Member of this House, I am concerned about the crushing economic impact that rising food and fuel prices are having on American families. I'm even more concerned that passing legislation like this will discourage investment in credit card lending to fewer consumers and smaller businesses getting access to the credit that they need to stay afloat.

Unlike the Democrat leadership bringing this bill to the House floor, I do not believe that it is wise policy to create a consumer credit crunch at the same time that our economy is already experiencing a massive commercial credit crunch. And I'm greatly concerned that current market conditions have the potential to greatly amplify the unintended consequences of this legislation at a time when families and small business need it the most. The ``it'' is credit.

Limiting the ability of consumer credit issuers to base their prices according to risk, as this legislation proposes to do, will only increase rates and fees for everyone, while also severely constricting the availability of credit to higher risk consumers altogether.

So, at a time when our constituents most need the flexibilities of these products, i.e., credit, this Democrat Congress is trying to preempt the focused efforts of three different regulators and restricting the access to credit card credit that is made available to American families and to small businesses.

Mr. Speaker, I believe a far more reasonable course of action would have been the one that was suggested by 14 members of the Financial Services Committee, a bipartisan group of seven Democrats and seven Republicans, when they asked the chairman of the committee to hold hearings on the Federal Reserve proposed rules before deciding whether passing legislation limiting consumer credit was necessary.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record a copy of this bipartisan letter to Chairman Frank, as well as a copy of the administration's statement of administrative policy on this bill, which makes their concerns about unfair and deceptive practices as clear as their opposition to this underlying legislation that would ``result in less access to credit and higher interest rates for consumers.''

That is what the White House has said, and I will once again quote: This legislation will ``result in less access to credit and higher interest rates for consumers.''

Mr. Speaker, this comes at a particularly bad time, when consumers in our economy already have had enough stress to deal with without having to worry about unintended consequences of legislation passed by Congress that would make it even more difficult for families and small businesses to make ends meet.

Executive Office of the President, Office of Management

and Budget,

Washington, DC, September 22, 2008.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 5244--Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act of 2008

The Administration is concerned about unfair and deceptive

credit card practices and supports efforts to protect

consumers. Credit card plans have become more complex, and it

is important that disclosures are transparent and clear so

that consumers can understand their contracts and compare

products. Transparency alone is insufficient to protect

consumers from all unfair credit card practices, and

legislation likely to result in higher interest rates for

consumers is not the answer; deceptive practices must also be

prohibited.

The Federal Reserve, Office of Thrift Supervision, and

National Credit Union Administration are currently finalizing

regulations to prohibit unfair and deceptive credit card

practices and make disclosures more transparent. The proposed

regulations, which are expected to be finalized in December,

address a number of goals of this bill. Those proposed

regulations eliminate universal default, prohibit double-

cycle billing, require advance notice of rate increases, and

rein in over-the-limit fees. Regulations are better suited to

addressing these problems than legislation because they can

be adapted more readily to changes in market conditions. The

proposed regulations are the result of extensive research and

consumer input, have received extensive public comment, and

should be finalized without legislation.

The Administration opposes H.R. 5244, particularly section

2 of the bill, because it would broadly constrain the ability

of financial institutions to price risk, likely resulting in

less access to credit and in higher interest rates for

consumers. For the credit market to operate efficiently,

creditors must have the flexibility to react to changes in

customer risk and market conditions. Section 2 would restrict

when lenders may change terms of the credit agreement,

significantly constraining the ability of financial

institutions to adapt to changing credit risks and market

conditions.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

I would like to yield the gentleman an additional 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of my colleague, the gentleman, Mr. Welch, if he has additional speakers. I, at this time, do not appear to have any additional speakers.

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

Mr. Speaker, we reserve our time.

Mr. Speaker, it's my understanding that the gentleman from Vermont is through with his speakers at this time, if I could confirm that.

I thank the gentleman.

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

Mr. Speaker, since taking control of this House, this Democrat Congress has totally neglected its responsibility to address the domestic supply issues that have created the skyrocketing gas, diesel and energy costs that Americans are facing today, and no doubt, part of the credit crunch that we are facing today and credit card costs that Americans are facing today is as a result of the high cost of gasoline right now that all Americans are paying.

By going on vacation for 5 weeks over August, while I and 138 others of my Republican colleagues stayed in Washington to talk about real solutions for American families, this Democrat majority has proven that they do not believe that the energy crisis facing American families and business was important enough to cancel their summer beach plans or book tours to get the job done.

So, again, today, the Republicans are here on the floor of the House of Representatives asking each of our colleagues to vote with me to defeat the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will move to amend the rule to allow this House to take up a measure that will allow Members to be able to vote for a pro-energy bill and

prevent Members from going home to campaign for reelection without actually passing a bill which will pass and have meaningful reform so that we can lower the price of gasoline at the pump.

This legislation that I will be proposing that can be voted on today and that would turn into law would allow States to expand the exploration and extraction of natural resources along the Outer Continental Shelf. Not allowed in the Democrat bill that passed one week ago.

It would open the arctic energy slope and oil shale reserves to environmentally prudent exploration and extraction. Not included in the Democrats' bill of a week ago.

It would extend expiring renewable energy incentives. It would encourage the streamlining approval of new refining capacity and nuclear power facilities. Not included in the Democrat bill of a week ago.

It would encourage advanced research and development of clean coal, coal-to-liquid, and carbon sequestration technologies, which was not included in the Democrat bill a week ago.

Perhaps most of all, it would minimize drawn out legal challenges that unreasonably delay or prevent actual domestic energy production. Not included in the Democrats' bill of a week ago.

Mr. Speaker, this requirement would finally force the Democrat leadership to take positive, meaningful action to increase the supply of American energy. It would reduce the price at the pump for American families and use, what we term in the Republican Party, an all-of-the- above strategy combining increased supply of American-made energy, improved conservation and efficiency, and provide for new and expanding energy technologies to achieve American energy independence.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, we're here on the floor debating a bill today that may have unintended consequences of drying up the ability that families have and people have and small businesses have for getting credit.

I do acknowledge, I think every Member of this House acknowledges, that gasoline prices, energy prices are way too high. Food prices are way too high. But people who are trying to live their lives need the opportunity to have credit, the opportunity to be able to have a credit card, and to be able to place those expenses on their credit card, and then manage their own ability to pay back. That is the essence of what we should be about is trying to help people do that today.

Not about creating another credit card crunch. Not about creating credit cards where people don't know whether they're going to be able to get credit or not, and perhaps, more importantly, the opportunity for us to give this marketplace for American consumers stability where they know what they can count on and move forward to take care of their families and their small businesses.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say also that we believe that the provisions that were put in the rule specifically addressing the earmark reform or earmarks is unacceptable. It's unacceptable to say that this House will quite likely be voting on a massive bill only to find out weeks later we'll find out what was in the bill and those earmarks that accompany that.

As the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) noted, that is disappointing. It's disappointing because this House was advised over 2 years ago that this would be the most honest, open, and ethical Congress in history.

Mr. Speaker, I have seen very little to no action on behalf of this new Democrat majority that is open about what they do, that is transparent in what they do. And once again, today, with a record shattering breaking new closed rule, we find that they aren't even willing to take ideas from people in their own party, and I think that's disappointing.

As we wind down this last week that we're here before the election, we find that there are new tricks of the trade that take place in this Rules Committee. I'm disappointed that this new Democrat majority continues that. I support the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and what he said; and, Mr. Speaker, I would say that that's why I'm asking Members of this body not to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

I yield back my time, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman, my friend from Ohio, for extending the time to me.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this once again closed rule, and to the underlying previously failed legislation that this Democrat majority is bringing to the House floor, without having made any substantive improvements to it since it last failed on this House on July 30, and despite an agreement during that time that they would work with members of the Republican Party to try and better the bill.

Like every other Member of this House, I'm concerned about the crushing economic impact that rising food and fuel prices are having on American families. That is why I strongly support the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's recent steps to increase transparency in the oil futures market and their continued vigor in enforcing existing laws governing U.S. futures markets, including the long-time prohibition against market manipulation.

My concern for the economic and retirement security of American families is also why I do support certain parts of this bill, including its increased data reporting requirements, and its authorization of at least 100 new full-time employees to increase the public transparency of operations in agriculture and energy markets, and otherwise monitor price manipulation and commodities futures market.

However, it is this same concern for American families and our American economy that forces me to oppose a bill that has the potential to destabilize commodity prices and dry up market liquidity at a particularly vulnerable time for our entire economy, instead of simply increasing transparency and improving enforcement.

While I disagree with his approach to improving our Nation's commodities market, the chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture and I do agree about several things. First, yesterday evening in the Rules Committee, my friend, Collin Peterson, chairman of the Agriculture Committee, testified that he was not, was not bringing this bill to the floor because he thought that it would bring down the price of energy at the pump for American families. He does not believe it will. I don't believe it will bring down prices at the pump. And he's exactly correct.

This bill, like the no-energy sham legislation that the Democrat majority brought to the floor just earlier this week, this bill will do absolutely nothing, absolutely nothing to increase the supply of American-made energy that is the root of the high energy prices that are taking an enormous toll on American families and businesses.

Second, I agree with Chairman Peterson's assertion in his testimony yesterday to the Rules Committee that he did not believe this bill would actually become law.

So here we are, taking time on the House floor, when the American people need action by this Congress to do something about energy legislation that will be signed into law, that will include doing something about the price at the pump. And instead, Chairman Peterson said, I don't even think this bill's going to become law. We're not going to agree to this.

Like him, I do not think that this bill represents a serious attempt, which is what Congress should be about, especially as we near the end of the session, a serious attempt at providing legislative solutions to the very serious problems facing our economy, and that it is little more than a second opportunity this week for Members to claim, ah, but we're up there doing something, up there working 5-day workweeks.

We need to be doing something about addressing the high cost of energy. Without taking real and meaningful action to open up energy reserves, it simply will not happen. That's what the economy needs. We need to do something about the high price of energy.

If this were a serious attempt to solve our Nation's problems, Democrat leadership forcing this bill onto the floor would have made more than technical changes to the bill that failed just last time it was here, July 30, changes like the one proposed by my good friend and former CPA, Mike Conaway of Texas, where he, in a colloquy with Chairman Peterson, talked about the need to create a common understanding of risk management needs which market participants should be eligible for in a bona fide hedge exemption.

Of course there was an agreement on the floor, talk is cheap, about, yes, we'll work with you. And, in fact, that never happened. Never happened.

And then last night, given an opportunity in the Rules Committee, the Rules Committee, once again, even seeing the agreement that was made and that the offer was not accepted, did not even want to make Mr. Conaway's amendment in order. A real shame. A real shame for a House where there was a promise of the most open, honest and ethical Congress in history.

Instead, this House is getting something that is even worse than nothing, a bill that the Democrat majority didn't even see fit to include in its first so-called energy bill this week, which is also bringing to the floor its record-shattering 61st closed rule for this Congress.

Open. Honest. Ethical.

Madam Speaker, yesterday we had a chance to help just correct that just a little bit and level the playing field. Mr. Conaway was slam dunked in the Rules Committee again, despite what was said on this floor about working with members of the Republican Party. Better idea, a better way to make the bill happen.

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, this kind of closed process and this kind of cynical, political motivated work product has become characteristic of what we have seen now for almost 20 months. The most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history, as promised by Speaker Pelosi back in 2006, and it's no wonder that the American people are giving Congress historic low, record low ratings on approvals for the job that Congress is trying to do.

I think we ought to be serious about our work. I think we should not bring bills to the floor where the committee chairman, at the time he presents his bill to the Rules Committee, admits this is never going to become law. It's a shame.

So, Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying legislation which the Democrats don't believe will bring down energy prices when they crafted this supposedly comprehensive energy package earlier this week, and which the chairman of jurisdiction does not believe is a good reason for doing so now.

The American people are hurting. Our economy is hurting. People back home want leadership in Washington, and once again, the majority party has failed.

I think we should deserve more from the leadership. I believe that the Democrat Party should not have a closed process. I believe running for political cover for a vote that will go nowhere is a mistake. But I do know it's for their vulnerable Members, Members who want to pretend that they're doing something. What a shame.

I oppose this process. I oppose this rule. I oppose the underlying legislation, and I hope all of my colleagues will do the same.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Can you please tell us when the majority leader gave an announcement to this Congress that this bill would be considered? That's fair game.

Will the gentleman yield?

Is the gentleman aware that Republicans and others in this House were given less than 3 hours' notice for the bill?

I would like to extend to the gentleman 3 additional minutes.

The Republican Members in this body and the rest of the Members were given 3 hours' notice that this bill would be on the floor.

Do you believe that 3 hours' notice--you had indicated there were no Republican amendments--would be enough time for a Member that's a Republican to go down to Leg Counsel to get an amendment that's prepared to get it to Rules Committee? Do you believe that could be done? Because what you're saying is, well, no Republican even submitted an amendment.

I thank the gentleman.

I would also like to ask the gentleman, was the gentleman aware that the gentleman, Mr. Conaway, had asked on this floor of the House of Representatives and was given, through your words of support, that you would work with him before the bill came back to the floor?

Can you please tell me exactly what you think it was?

I appreciate the gentleman, my friend, the gentleman who's chairman of the committee.

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

Madam Speaker, this is why last night or yesterday afternoon in the Rules Committee there was a very polite discussion and a request made by Republicans in the committee once we recognized that there were some problems that took place that were unavoidable on behalf of the chairman of the committee, on behalf of notice to Republicans, on behalf of a colloquy that engaged Members on this floor where we realized, Oh, I'm sorry. That just didn't happen. And we will not say it was anybody's fault, but there was agreement that there was a problem.

This is where the Rules Committee comes into play. The Rules Committee is a body that should have the ability to look fairly and equitably at an issue and then make a decision.

I had a discussion with the committee. I have only served on the committee 10 years. But I have seen people bring legislation to the committee and ask for relief and receive relief. Normally, if we were in January, February, March, April, May, some other time, open rules are not always allowed or amendments aren't always allowed

because they seem to open up all other issues and ideas.

This was a very specific idea. This was an idea that was agreed upon that there would be a discussion, and the Rules Committee slam dunked the gentleman from Texas as well as Republican Members after hearing positive testimony from both sides, not even giving relief.

This is exactly what Republicans are talking about, and I believe the American people, that this Democrat majority and the Rules Committee, which set a record-shattering 61 closed rules--for any Congress a record--simply is so flatlined upon doing politically what they choose to do and by showing their power that there is not even a voice that's open.

What the gentleman has suggested to us today is that he knew of no other process for the gentleman to go through. Well, it's called an amendment that would be on the floor of the House of Representatives where our colleagues cannot only hear the issue but then get a chance to vote on it.

So today we're here without the ability to vote on it, but we have the gentleman, Mr. Conaway, and I would like to yield him 5 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I really agree a lot with the gentleman from Vermont. What I disagree with and believe the problem is that we don't have enough oil that's available to the marketplace, and that's where Republicans are trying to bring more oil where we don't have to have speculation for people who absolutely, positively must have the oil available.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Midland, Texas (Mr. Conaway).

I would like to advise the gentlewoman that I do have an additional speaker.

Madam Speaker, last night on the floor of the House of Representatives, the gentleman, Zach Wamp, came down to make a thoughtful argument about the predicament that this country is in with not having enough energy available at the gas pumps and that that has caused prices to rise very dramatically and that there really is an answer and something that can be done. I'm pleased to welcome the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), and I'd like to extend him 4 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for his thoughtful comments.

Madam Speaker, since taking control of this House, this Democrat Congress has totally neglected its responsibility to address the domestic supply issues that have created skyrocketing gas, diesel, and energy costs the American families are facing. We heard the gentleman, Mr. Wamp, talk about how there were good ideas that should have been available, including a bipartisan working group and bipartisan legislation that, when it really came down to it, somebody put pressure on a whole bunch of our friends in the Democrat Party to then vote against even their own bill so that it was not bipartisan.

By going on vacation for 5 weeks over August, while I and 138 other of my Republican colleagues stayed in this body on this floor to talk about real energy solutions with American families, this Democrat majority has proved that they do not believe that the energy crisis facing American families and businesses is important enough to cancel their summer beach plans or book tours. They claimed they were going to come back and do something about it. However, enough of their Members must have heard from frustrated constituents over August who were tired of this shell game that the Democrat political leadership is pushing off on the American people.

We would think that it should warrant some kind of action. Because today we are considering yet another measure to provide their Members with political cover, we're going to see that there will be nothing that will be done. Even their own chairman of the committee said this isn't going to become law. It's not going to pass. We didn't even really know it was going to come up. No notice was given to Republicans till 3 hours before it was going to come to the Rules Committee, and perhaps worse than that, then people said, and Republicans didn't even present any amendments.

So today I urge my colleagues to vote with me to defeat the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will move to amend the rule to allow this House so that we can take up the measure that prevents Members from going home to campaign for reelection without actually passing an energy bill that will be signed into law.

Madam Speaker, we should do better. We should allow States to expand the exploration and extraction of natural resources along the Outer Continental Shelf. We should open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and oil shale reserves in this country, and we can do it in environmentally sensitive and prudent ways. We should extend expiring renewable energy incentives. We should encourage the streamlined approval of new refining capacity and nuclear power facilities. My gosh, if France can have 82 percent of their power from nuclear, why can't the United States get above where we are?

We should encourage advanced research and development of clean coal, coal-to-liquid, and carbon technologies, and perhaps more importantly, which is the sham about the entire Democrat leadership's bill is, we should do something about stopping the lawsuits which are creating a circumstance in courts to where none of these leases are able to move forward for production because they're in lawsuits, and the Democrat leadership did not even address this. It's simple. Consolidate and expedite the drawn-out legal challenges that unreasonably delay or prevent actual domestic energy production.

Why wouldn't we want, if we're going to pass this bill, to make sure that it would happen, when in fact every Member of this body knows that for every single, 100 percent, of all the leases that have been agreed to are wrapped up in court right now, in Federal court right now. Why not do something that would give relief to the American people? Why not say let's at least one of these opportunities take place for drilling, just one? How about 10 percent? No, it's got to be 100 percent, and the American people are going to learn what the Democrat Party already knows, and that is, that the Democrat leadership does not want any drilling. They want no drilling.

Senator Obama, I'm sure was correct. He is opposed to drilling so that America can be competitive with the world.

This requirement would finally force the Democrat leadership to take meaningful action.

If we were going to get what I just talked about, that would mean somebody who's in control of both Houses of Congress wanting to do something. And we stand here today, the Republican Party, once again, as we did all of August, asking for us to do something that will work to bring relief. It's a supply side issue.

So, Madam Speaker, here we go. A shell game, a Rules Committee that allows no good ideas--except their own that the Democrat leadership has; agreements, which were talked about on the floor, which, when it really came down to it, not sure we really want to live up to at all. There is always a bigger problem. Well, that's not what this floor of the House is for, that's not really what the Rules Committee is for. That's not what Congress is for. Congress should be about, especially in a crisis, coming to an agreement and working together.

I think we can do better. I think it's going to be something that the American people are going to have to decide what the tie is between Republicans and Democrats. I guess it's going to come to an election, where the American people are going to be told the facts of the case, and they will see what kind of action is necessary in Washington, D.C.

Madam Speaker, the Republican Party is again on giving the American people and this body notice that the Republican Party is for us doing the things which will bring down the price of energy, which will create long-term economic stimulus and opportunity for this country. Because we recognize that energy prices are too high and it impacts every sector of our economy--trucking, the food that's made, produced, the food that gets to marketplace, the opportunities for school systems to operate within their budget, the chance for American families who have to go to their job, many times who have to commute.

We need real action, not a slam-dunk Rules Committee that will set a record every time they go to meet for a new closed rule, not offering new ideas, not listening to the American people about the ability that we need to have to bring to bear American energy products. Instead, we get the same worn-out message of what's happened over the last 2 years where America has lost 14 percent more of market shares, where we have to go overseas to those countries that will produce and will drill.

The American people look up and find out now that this Congress says no, no drilling in Florida, and so other countries will come off our shores and take our energy.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.