Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Hispanic servicemen and women that have chosen honorable paths of public service and devoted themselves to the cause of defending this great Nation.

Since 1968, the United States has set aside a designated period of time to recognize the contributions of Hispanic Americans and to celebrate Hispanic heritage and culture. Our soldiers put themselves in harm's way and make sacrifices to protect the freedoms we enjoy. The uniform they wear knows no gender, no social status, and no political affiliation. It knows that these brave souls share only one thing--a deep love for America.

Master Sargeant Roy Perez Benavidez and Staff Sargeant Marcario Garcia were two remarkable individuals that proudly served in the U.S. Army. They were awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for their courage and heroic actions; Roy for his service in the Vietnam War and Marcario for his service in Germany during World War II. While these are two notable examples, there are many other Hispanic American soldiers that deserve our gratitude. These are the men and women who leave their loved ones to serve the greater good. They are the ones who put on the uniform everyday knowing that their sacrifices today guarantee us our freedom and safety tomorrow.

Madam Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in expressing heartfelt gratitude to these soldiers.

Mr. Speaker, as you might guess, I rise in opposition to this rule, to the underlying legislation, and, I believe, to the entire process that got this bill here today, which I believe represents little more than an opportunity for this Democratic majority to thumb its nose at the Supreme Court's recent ruling upholding an individual's right to keep and bear arms, while also providing some of its vulnerable Members with a meaningless political cover vote leading up to this fall's election.

Since taking control of this House almost 2 years ago, Mr. Speaker, this Democrat majority has done everything in its power to prevent Republicans who agree with the Supreme Court that residents of the District of Columbia have the right to self-defense, like every other American citizen, having a vote on this issue, is very important. In fact, last year it was the Democrats' need to prevent a vote on this very issue that brought the debate on providing the District of Columbia with a voting Member of Congress to a screeching halt.

Today, however, the Democrat majority has been forced to bring this measure to the floor because of a rapidly growing bipartisan support for a competing measure to comply with the Supreme Court's affirmation of D.C. residents' constitutional rights. Isn't it amazing? The District of Columbia went to court and found out that they had to follow constitutional rights.

And there's also a fear by the Democrat majority that a discharge petition that has already won the support of 166 Members of Congress, the passage of which the Washington Post has recently said would be ``deeply embarrassing to the House leadership and could infrastructure the party's House contingent.''

Mr. Speaker, instead of providing real, meaningful policy solutions to make the lives of law-abiding citizens of the District of Columbia safer, today we are taking up a measure that would continue to subvert the wishes of our Founding Fathers, as recognized and affirmed by the Supreme Court, while also allowing Members to have a vote on an excellent substitute amendment which I fear will be dead on arrival when it reaches the Democrat-controlled Senate.

This substitute amendment, which I strongly support and have cosponsored, along with 115 other bipartisan colleagues, would recognize that D.C.'s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the second amendment, as does the District of Columbia's prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.

To correct this injustice, the substitute amendment would repeal the District's illogical ban on the most popular home and self-defense weapons, restore the right of self-defense in the home, repeal the District's intentionally burdensome registration process, and allow D.C. residents to finally purchase handguns and defend themselves in their own homes.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that as early as today, that the D.C. City Council may be meeting to address this issue. But I remain concerned about what the same authors of the so-called ``emergency'' legislation that violated the Supreme Court's ruling just a few months ago, may try to pass in order to continue to drag their feet and to deny D.C. residents their constitutional rights to protect themselves and their families in their own home. This Congress should not be on record trying to avoid what is the law of the land.

Because of the Council's demonstrated past willingness to abide by our Nation's laws, I believe that it is important that this House pass the substitute amendment on behalf of all law-abiding citizens who want to exercise their constitutional rights within the District of Columbia.

Additionally, as the administration notes in their statement of policy on this legislation, the underlying bill in its current form would do nothing more than direct the D.C. City Council to reconsider within 180 days the emergency firearms legislation it passed in July, and which will expire in October, regardless of this House's action on this matter. This means that if this legislation is passed without the substitute amendment provided for by this rule, the legislation's only effect would be to give the City Council even more time to drag its feet and remain non-compliant with the directives of the highest court in our land.

Mr. Speaker, it really should not be so difficult to write a law that is compliant with the Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit this Statement of Administration Policy in opposition to this bill and in support of the substitute amendment in the Congressional Record.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 6842--National Capital Security and Safety Act

(Del. Norton (D) District of Columbia and Rep. Waxman (D) California)

The Administration supports the objective behind H.R. 6842

of revising the District of Columbia's firearms laws to

ensure their conformity with the Second Amendment as

interpreted by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v.

Heller. The bill in its present form, however, would do

nothing more than direct the District's City Council to

reconsider the emergency firearms legislation that it

unanimously passed in July. Because that emergency

legislation must by law expire in October, H.R. 6842 simply

requires the Council to do what it is effectively required to

do already (in far less time than the 180 days that would be

required by this bill). Therefore, the Administration

strongly opposes this legislation unless it is amended to

include the provisions of H.R. 6691, the Second Amendment

Enforcement Act.

The Administration strongly supports H.R. 6691 because it

would immediately advance Second Amendment principles by

directly protecting the individual right of law-abiding

District residents to keep and bear commonly used firearms

not only to protect themselves and their families but also to

protect their homes and property. H.R. 6691 would ensure that

law-abiding residents of the District have a meaningful

opportunity to procure lawful firearms without undue delay,

as well as the ability to keep those firearms readily

accessible for self-defense without having to unlock or

assemble them in the face of imminent danger. H.R. 6691,

which has bipartisan support, would responsibly balance

individual rights with the public safety by expanding the

practical opportunities to keep and bear arms for lawful

purposes in the District within the reasonable limits imposed

by the Federal firearms laws.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all my colleagues to support the substitute amendment to hold D.C. accountable to the Supreme Court, to the laws of this land, and to provide its residents with all the constitutional rights enjoyed by other American citizens, and to oppose the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, you know, I find it very interesting that the gentleman from Massachusetts talks about ``those Republicans that have forced us into having to bring this bill to the floor today.''

I will yield.

I appreciate the gentleman clarifying that.

Reclaiming my time, the gentleman accused those who are on the other side of the debate of forcing this issue today.

Well, Mr. Speaker, this is an internal struggle within the Democratic Party. The gentleman who brought the bill to the floor today chaired the Rules Committee last night. I heard no voice opposition to the rule, to the substitute; and yet today we hear they were being forced into doing this by the other side, those who opposed the bill. But it's their bill. It's their internal fight. It's their internal disagreement. It's their argument that they're having among their own family members.

So for the record, let me just state the Republican Party is for following the law. We do believe the Supreme Court got it right. We believe that it is wrong to bring a bill to the floor as the majority party, the Democratic Party, has done to try and circumvent and lengthen out the time that was given by the Supreme Court for someone to come into compliance with the law.

And we do believe that what the Rules Committee did last night was not open and honest and not about more accountability. We believe what they did was to handle a political matter that is a fight that they're having among themselves.

The Republican Party is pleased to be here on behalf of taxpayers and law-abiding citizens who want to protect themselves. We believe that this substitute amendment, which has been made in order by the Rules Committee, is the better of the two bills.

But to say that somebody is struggling or some outside forces are forcing this bill upon this Democrat majority is absurd.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia and my former colleague on the Rules Committee, Dr. Gingrey.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'd like to yield 5 minutes to the chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter).

Mr. Speaker, we respect this Congress's ability to consult with and work with city councils and local governments. But to suggest in any way that this Congress should be trying to help anyone or collude with them to extend time frames that have been established already by the highest court of this land, that I believe was a reasonable answer--the gentleman from Wisconsin believes it was a reasonable answer--is a different kind of issue.

And that's all this bill really does today, gives the city council more time; wait till after the election before this tough issue can be decided any further by that body and by this.

I think it's a mistake to wait. I think it's a mistake to intervene, and I think it's a mistake not to follow the law that the Supreme Court has laid out for the D.C. government. D.C. government needs to follow the law, needs to follow the Constitution. They've been told that a long time. They've fought it. They've done all they can. They lost. The Supreme Court issued the decision. It's time to follow the law.

Mr. Speaker, we reserve our balance.

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

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

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 American families today and in the future are facing.

By going on vacation for 5 weeks over August while I and 138 other of my Republican colleagues stayed in Washington to talk about real energy solutions for American families, this Democrat majority has proven 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 to get their work done.

However, enough of their Members must have heard from their frustrated constituents over August who are tired of the political games that the Democrats are playing and they want some kind of action. Because today, we are considering yet another measure to provide their Members with a political

cover vote that will do nothing to bring down the cost of energy at the pump because it does nothing to encourage participation by States in a program to increase the amount of American-made energy. We are simply wasting our time on a sham, and something that will not materialize to help energy prices.

Mr. Speaker, last Friday, an influential Democrat Senator stated what everybody in this House knows, that any bill excluding energy production revenue sharing for the States will never pass the Senate, making the cynical and political exercise that the House will engage in shortly even more transparent.

So today, I urge my colleagues to vote with me to defeat the previous question so this House can finally consider a real and comprehensive solution to rising energy costs in addition to today's bill to buy the District of Columbia more time to avoid compliance with the Supreme Court's ruling on the second amendment.

If the previous question is defeated, I will move to amend the rule to allow for additional consideration of H.R. 6566, the American Energy Act. This real, all-of-the-above bill would increase the supply of American-made energy, improve conservation and efficiency, and promote new and expanding energy technologies to help lower the cost at the pump and reduce America's increasing costly and dangerous dependence on foreign sources of energy.

I encourage everyone that believes a comprehensive solution to solving this energy crisis and achieving energy independence includes increasing the supply of American energy to defeat the previous question.

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, today, I pay tribute to Col. Michael Shupp, United States Marine Corps. His service to our country and the Corps has demonstrated true patriotism and exceptional military leadership. On September 17, I will have the personal honor of presiding over Colonel Shupp's retirement ceremony, and I want to take this moment to recognize his 28 years of dedicated service.

Colonel Shupp was born and raised in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, and is a graduate of the Virginia Military Institute and Marine Corps Officer Candidate School. Since the beginning of his career, he has been a true professional in every sense of the word. His assignments have ranged from serving as a young platoon commander in Japan, to instructing our future leaders at the Naval Academy, where his performance was recognized by President George W. Bush. He served combat tours in Iraq and a peacekeeping tour in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Wherever he was, he always set the highest standards of professionalism and leadership for all those around him. His superb leadership has been evident in numerous command and staff assignments throughout the Department of Defense, including a tour as the Marine Corps' Liaison to the House of Representatives and his current duty as the Legislative Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Washington DC.

Colonel Shupp served this Nation twice in combat. In 1990, Captain Shupp deployed Company ``A'' of the 1st Light Armored Infantry Battalion to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Once the ground war commenced, his company led the advance of the First Marine Division. His unit cut through Iraqi resistance and led the first Coalition Forces into Kuwait City. Company ``A,'' under Captain Shupp's leadership, then participated in the capture of the Kuwait International Airport. In 2004, Colonel Shupp returned to the Persian Gulf and assumed command of Regimental Combat Team-1 (RCT-1) at Camp Fallujah, Iraq. He commanded the Regiment during counter-insurgency operations, the second Battle of Fallujah, humanitarian assistance and reconstruction efforts, and the first free Iraqi National election. After leaving Iraq, the Marine Corps and Department of Defense chose to capitalize on his experience. He was selected to serve as the Chief of Staff for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization in Washington, DC.

For 28 years, Colonel Shupp has served this great country from locations all over the world. Whether he was training new recruits, commanding marines in combat or working with Congress, he served with both honor and distinction. He will indeed be remembered as an exceptional marine, a true patriot, a courageous warrior and a dedicated leader with the highest integrity and compassion for all who had the distinct honor of serving with him.

His loving wife, Sherrye, and daughter, Jessica, have demonstrated unwavering support throughout his time in service, and this Nation owes a debt of gratitude to their sacrifice.

I want to thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule which is a cynical attempt to cover political Members of this body who have chosen to elevate partisanship and politics above a real energy solution for American consumers and this economy.

Let me start by answering my good friend regarding the issues that he brought up and the things that he said.

First of all, the bottom line is that there could be 10 million acres or 20 or 50 million acres that could be, quote, ``given to or leased'' by oil companies. They don't want to drill every bit of acreage they have; they only want to drill where the oil is. Dry holes are not good for anybody.

Secondly, when you look at what the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is all about, it is there to protect this country. We should view that ANWR is also a strategic petroleum reserve here for the United States. There are 19 million acres in ANWR. Oil companies aren't after all 19 million acres, they are only after 2,000, just 2,000. That's where the oil is.

And perhaps number three, the gentleman needs to understand this, that energy companies are there to be in the business of providing energy. They are not there for any other reason. They are there to help the American consumer, to support our economy, and to

make sure that America is the greatest Nation on the face of this earth.

I am proud that we have the largest economy in this world and we use energy to make us more successful. We should not apologize or say it is a mistake that America utilizes energy. We simply need to make sure that what we are doing is having a comprehensive, across-the-board view, and not allowing drilling here in America and offshore is a national security issue. That's the side of the story that my friend did not tell this morning. That's why this bill is something we should oppose.

For the last 5 months, everyday consumers and our national economy have been suffering because of this Democrat majority's stubborn and mind-boggling unwillingness to increase the supply of domestically produced oil to reduce prices at the pump. And for over a year and a half, Republicans have been unified in a commonsense approach and a comprehensive approach to bringing down the price of gasoline for consumers, only to have that plan ignored by the new Democrat majority in favor of agenda that prioritizes scapegoats over solutions.

Rather than taking this opportunity to work in a constructive, bipartisan way to address the real domestic energy supply issues, they have let sky-high energy prices stand and continue for consumers.

Today, we are being asked outside of regular order and with no opportunity for Members to offer their own good ideas to bring down the price of gasoline, and we are spending only 40 minutes to debate a fig- leaf piece of legislation that releases 3\1/2\ days' worth of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

The gentleman is correct, when there is more oil supply that is available, the price does go down. The gentleman is correct, there have been previous orders by the President to reduce the supply that is in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve directly for consumers. But 3 days' worth is all we are talking about. That is not a long-term fix. We need a strategic petroleum reserve that is called ANWR to make America competitive.

So rather than doing something that would be long term, all they are trying to do is something that would be a political, short-term fix.

Madam Speaker, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is intended to deal with natural disasters and national security crises, not preventable, man-made political disasters like the short supply of energy that we have today in America because of the Democrat Party no-energy strategy.

The world understands it. As a matter of fact, I was out on the west side of the Capitol just yesterday as Republicans were talking about our ability to go drill here in America and offshore. And whole loads, bus loads of Democrat staffers and others are out front saying, No drill, shame on the Republican Party. My gosh, I do understand that that is the policy of the new Democrat majority. We're working their plan. That's why gasoline is at $4 a gallon. We simply disagree in the Republican Party.

However, there is one small bright spot associated with this legislation, and it is by bringing it to the House floor today, the Democrat leadership is finally admitting there is a supply-side component to addressing America's energy concerns. My colleague was very plain and forward when he said: When we dump oil into the marketplace, the price goes down. Unfortunately, seriousness of purpose in dealing with the problem has not accompanied this long-overdue revelation--which is why we are here debating this do-nothing cover vote today instead of real solutions to our problems.

Yesterday I joined my Republican colleagues when we proposed a smart, innovative and comprehensive approach to addressing our Nation's energy independence solution, a problem whose guiding philosophy can be summed up by one simple principle, use less and find more.

Rather than just releasing over a weekend's worth of energy and calling it a day, like the Democrat proposal does, the Republican plan is to increase the supply of American-made energy in an environmentally sound way. This is what Republicans are pushing on the floor of the House of Representatives yet again today.

We believe our deep-water oil resources, ocean resources, could provide an additional 3 million barrels of oil per day as well as 76 trillion cubic square feet of natural gas. These are proven reserves. We should open the Arctic coastal plain, which could provide an additional 1 million barrels of oil a day. We should allow development of our Nation's shale oil resources, which could provide an additional 2.5 million barrels of oil per day, and we would increase the supply of gas at the pump by cutting bureaucratic red tape that hinders the construction of new refineries.

To improve energy conservation and efficiency, our legislation will provide tax incentives for businesses and families to purchase more efficient vehicles. It will provide tax incentives for businesses and homeowners who improve their energy efficiency. To promote alternative and renewable energy technologies, this legislation will spur the technology of alternative fuels through government contracting by repealing the section 526 prohibition on government purchasing of alternative energy and promotion of coal-to-liquids technology.

We will establish a renewable energy trust fund using revenues generated by exploration in deep ocean and on the Arctic coastal plain. We will extend permanently the tax credit for alternative energy production, including wind, solar and hydrogen, and we will eliminate barriers to the expansion of emission-free nuclear power production.

Speaker Pelosi and this new Democrat majority have the power to bring these already-developed commonsense solutions up for a vote at any time. Trust me, Madam Speaker, the Republicans are here to help. But what we want is real solutions. We want to drill now to save America.

Speaker Pelosi should choose to be with Republicans in a bipartisan answer, but, instead, this Speaker is choosing to ignore the American public in favor of a radical environmentalist agenda. I will be giving every Member of this body the opportunity to show where they really stand on energy independence during the vote on the rule's previous question. I encourage every single Member who agrees with me that this country needs to increase its supply of safe and reliable American energy to force this Democrat leadership to finally act by rejecting the cynical rule and the meaningless underlying legislation so that this House and the American people will be prepared for real legislation that will have a real effect at the pump.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, you know, I would love to cut a deal with the gentleman right now and say Republicans would be completely for this bill if you would do something for more than the 3 days' supply if we would really approach the emergency that the American people are talking about, and let's do something long term. We have already had President Clinton 12 years ago sign the pen that said we are not going to go after ANWR. We would have had that online now.

Why do we assume that in 5 or 6 or 7 years we are not going to need this energy? We are going to need the energy.

This new Democrat majority, to a Member, is withholding from the American people the opportunity to get prices down now. To say that we would raid the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for 3 days' worth of gasoline is laughable. It's laughable because the American people understand that what this new Democrat majority is all about is having the energy prices stay where they are. They see that the Democrat plan evidently is working, the Democrat plan to squeeze American interests out and to send the money overseas.

We have seen that now for 18 months. That's the Democrat majority's plan. They want to keep building Dubai. They want to keep giving the money to countries who do war against the United States and don't hold us in favor. They want the money and the business to be done overseas. They want the jobs to go overseas. That's really where this new Democrat majority is.

If it were the Republican Party and reversed, it would be about all the special interests that we're trying to give. But in this case, it is about the American consumer that sees that their prices are at a high level simply to make sure that this Democrat majority sends the money overseas because they really don't like the energy companies here in America. That's anti-American.

Madam Speaker, the Republican Party has great alternatives that are on the table today. We want a long-term comprehensive fix for energy, and we will continue to tell the American people, just as we are here telling our colleagues here today, that we recognize who has the capacity and the ability to bring a bill to the floor today to answer the problem. The problem is the lack of resources of supply in the gasoline marketplace, and it's extending also to high fuel prices that will be paid in the Northeast this winter, and it is the new Democrat majority that is responsible for that. This is their plan. They're getting what they wanted, and we will keep building Dubais and keep sending our money overseas as long as we cut off American jobs and American energy companies.

I think it's a bad thing for policy for this country. That's why the Republican Party has an alternative. I wish that it would be heard today on the board to where we could vote for it.

Madam Speaker, we reserve the balance of our time.

Madam Speaker, let me agree with the gentleman. Psychology does have a lot to do with this. That's why Republicans, instead of trying to fall victim for a 3-day fix or for a long-term fix--so let's get into the psychology for just a second.

How about if somebody brought legislation to the floor that said, you know what? I think we ought to open up American deep-water oil resources, ocean resources, because we do understand there are war games that bipartisan Members of this House go attend to where we do understand that if international shipping where oil was concerned, if there was a bad mistake or a problem, that we would be in trouble.

So why don't we, as just a good idea, let's open up America's deep water ocean resources, which could provide an additional 3 million barrels of oil per day, but it doesn't end there, and 76 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Why don't we also bring to the table, let's open up the Arctic Coastal Plain, which could provide an additional 1 million barrels of oil a day. But there is more.

How about allowing the development of America's shale oil resources for an additional 2.5 million barrels a day?

So instead of having just a 3-day fix and arguing all these new issues that we bring up would take 10 to 20 years to bring to the consumer, not true. It can be done tomorrow. We could decide, and we should have decided 12 years ago. We should have decided last year. We should decide that today, what we want to do is to make available the resources of this country in the event, in the future, there really is a big problem.

So the Republican Party is here on the floor today with real live answers to real live problems that are happening every day.

And so once again, we will give this new Democrat majority credit. The energy prices are the way that the Democrat Party wants them to be. They do want prices to be high. They do not want a supply unless it is paid for by the government. And they are not for a long-term solution because it would mean that we would be using those big oil companies resources.

My gosh. We are going to hold the American consumer hostage. We are going to hold people in the Northeast who use and need this oil this winter hostage, when, in fact, when it is 100 degrees outside, we are saying, do this now; let's prepare. Let's be prepared for the future.

And instead, this new Democrat majority argues, time in and time out, not going to drill, not going to put any more supply in, and prices will simply continue to rise.

Madam Speaker, somebody will have to face up to the day of reckoning, and that day of reckoning is going to be when American consumers, in the dead of winter, are not only paying high prices at the pump, but also high prices to heat their home.

We are trying to do something today. We have been trying to do something for 18 months, and this new Democrat majority refuses, refuses to see the facts of the case.

We reserve the balance of our time.

We reserve our time.

You know, it's great to hear about this private meeting that took place in the year 2000, and to now learn about all the attributes of the meeting.

I would speculate, since I am sure the gentleman did, that ANWR would have been in that list of things that the President of the United States would have wanted, the consumers want, that ANWR would have been on there, that every place that we would drill economically, and ecologically, in a sound way, that that would have been on the table too. That is exactly probably what the President had in mind and probably what the energy companies had in mind.

Let's put American resources, jobs and national security to the advantage of the American people, instead of the plan to send all this money overseas to build Dubai. That is a mistake.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Boustany .

Madam Speaker, could I please find out how much time is left on both sides.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I believe I heard the gentleman say he has no additional speakers; is that correct?

Madam Speaker, we will reserve our time.

Just so the gentleman from Massachusetts has an opportunity to call my bluff, I'll take him up on it. I'll take him up on it.

We do believe there is something immediately that can be done, and we've been asking for this for years and years and years because the fact of the matter is, as we've already heard, there is a lot of psychology. The gentleman from the State of Washington talked about psychology just a few speakers ago. Well, here is the psychology. If you bring your own oil to the table, the other side sees what you're willing to do and their oil's worthless because they cannot hold you hostage.

So what the Republican Party does want to talk about today is today, tomorrow, Labor Day, and moving forward. And that's why we're talking about bringing 3 million barrels of oil per day, 76 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, 1 million barrels of oil from the Arctic coastal plane, and 2.5 million barrels a day from the shale that's in this country. Darn right we want to talk about today.

But the fact of the matter is that we've been talking about this for years, and now they make it seem like the debate just started today. The debate did not start today. The debate started back when President Clinton was in office. We asked for and passed a bill at that time, and the President said, ``No. You cannot have ANWR.''

And now we get to today and they act like, ``Well, it just started. But Republicans don't want to talk about today.'' Darn right we want to talk about today. We want to talk about what has been talked about, that is the psychological effort as well as a today's efforts; and that's why the Republican Party is here yet another day.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask how much time remains on my side.

Mr. Speaker, I understand the gentleman from Vermont is through with his speakers and wishes to close.

I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Mr. Speaker, today I urge my colleagues to vote with me to defeat the previous question so this House can finally consider real solutions to rising energy costs.

If the previous question is defeated, I will move to amend the rule to allow for the additional consideration of H.R. 6566, the American Energy Act.

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 our time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and to the underlying legislation, which is proof of not only the Democrat majority's careless disregard for the American taxpayer but also their complete disregard for the energy crisis facing Americans today. Mr. Speaker, today you will hear the other side of the story.

This legislation--submitted late last night after the House had already finished its business for the day--is proof that when the Democrats want to bring legislation to the floor in a hurry, they're very capable of that. It's just too bad that we aren't seeing some energy legislation which would make a difference to consumers all across America.

Mr. Speaker, despite the pleas of working families and small businesses across the country, Democrats have failed on every occasion to treat the serious issue of high energy costs with the same level of urgency that they're bringing to this debate over this massive bailout of two private companies.

This is not to say that there are not good parts to this hastily negotiated legislation. While I believe that Congressman Lee Terry, myself, and other Republicans had a better, more effective proposal, the inclusion of the first-time home buyer credit is wise and has the potential to help reinvigorate our slumping housing and homebuilding markets.

Additionally, I support the establishment of a more robust and competent regulator of the GSEs which will restore competence to the marketplace and ensure that these entities operate in a safe, sound, effective manner maintaining adequate capital and internal controls and ``contribute to the liquid, efficient, competitive, and resilient national housing financial markets that minimize the cost of housing finance.''

If this were all that the bill did, I'm confident that the bill would pass this House unanimously. Unfortunately, there are a number of extraneous provisions--cynically added by the Democrat majority to an emergency bill that they are bringing to the floor today under a rushed and closed process--that either weaken the financial position of the GSEs that they claim to be helping, provide a taxpayer bailout of reckless financial behavior, or simply don't make logical sense.

Most perplexing of all is the logical inconsistency underlying the entire bill. On the one hand, this Congress is being asked to declare an emergency and authorize the use of unlimited taxpayer funds to become a part of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac problem while also raising the debt limit by $800 billion to lend these companies as much money as they may need. On the other hand, this bill creates an affordable housing trust fund that taxes the GSEs to support questionably effective low-income housing activities and to cover the losses that the FHA will surely incur after the Federal Government accepts financial responsibility for the most toxic loans in the marketplace.

So, Mr. Speaker, I will ask my Democrat colleagues that drafted this legislation, which is it? Are Fannie and Freddie private companies teetering on the brink of financial disaster thereby justifying this unprecedented taxpayer exposure and government intervention into the marketplace? Or are they cash cows that can and should be forever milked to provide financial support to every low-income housing whim that this Congress can dream of? I ask this because the answer simply cannot be both.

Mr. Speaker, because this lockdown rule provides the minority with only 60 minutes to debate this 694-page bill, I'm going to use the little time that I have to let my Republican colleagues come to the floor and use this limited opportunity to discuss all of the shortcomings associated with this bailout of mortgage lenders, investors, and speculators. I will leave it to my Republican colleagues to talk about all of their problems associated with the creation of this permanent housing slush fund, this $800 billion debt-ceiling increase, and this new $4 billion liability that will allow local governments to expose themselves to the up-and-down risks of the real estate market. And perhaps most of all, I will leave it to my colleagues to let them explain why the multibillion-dollar tax increase included in this bill to fund all of the bad ideas I've just described and certainly many more is a bad idea.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are lots of reasons to oppose this bill. We've talked about the things that we have in common with the bill. But I think it's important that we talk about what this bill actually does.

First of all, the GSE bailout. The 18-month term of authority for the Treasury to extend Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's line of credit and purchase their equity is too long, we believe. Six months should be the limit. Not 18 months. The conditions under which a bailout is allowed should be clearly stated and should restrict the unlimited authority of the Treasury Secretary to act. The amount of Federal investment authorized should not be unlimited.

We've just given two great ideas, ideas that, because of a closed rule, you will not see on this floor of the House of Representatives. The conditions under which a bailout is allowed should be clearly stated and should restrict the unlimited authority of the Treasury Secretary to act.

Mr. Speaker, we believe the amount of Federal investment authorized should not be unlimited, and perhaps most importantly, we see that what Congress is doing is abdicating completely our authority and our role to the executive branch.

That's bad policy, and we should not be doing that on this floor of the House of Representatives today.

Secondly, the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, this legislation would place a permanent Affordable Housing Trust Fund mandate on the GSEs. In light of their current liquidity and capital conditions, taking money from Fannie or Freddie is a bad policy. Taking money from two of these instruments should not be done.

Moreover, the Affordable Housing Trust Fund could be used as a slush fund for political activity purposes. We see one of the housing groups that actively engages in open partisanship on a regular basis, and yet, they quite likely will qualify for a lot of taxpayer money. For what purpose? More politics.

Mr. Speaker, once again, the Republican Party is on the floor offering alternatives to this bad piece of legislation. We are not just saying ``no.''

What we're saying is this is an open slush fund and should not be allowed.

Mr. Speaker, we reserve our time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'd like to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Price.

(Mr. PRICE of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I would like to give the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Dallas, Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the gentlewoman from Florida if we could ask unanimous consent to extend on both sides, 15 additional minutes. We have a lot of speakers that are here on the floor, and it seems like a reasonable thing to do.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we tried to get additional debate on this issue, but I know the closed rule we have got is intended entirely to squeeze down time and the amount of debate that would take place, confirming that again.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute and 45 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

I give the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I will go ahead and close with the understanding that the gentlewoman is at that point in her presentation, also. Seeing an affirmation, I will go ahead and close.

Mr. Speaker, since taking control of this House, this Democrat Congress has totally neglected its responsibilities to address the domestic supply issues that have created the skyrocketing gas, diesel and energy costs that American families today are facing.

Today, they are proving that they can move a bill--like this housing bill--quickly when they choose to do so. However, they do not believe that the energy crisis facing American families and businesses is important enough to treat it with the same level of seriousness.

So today I urge my colleagues to vote with me to defeat the previous question so this House can finally consider real solutions to the rising energy costs in addition to this housing and GSE legislation.

If the previous question is defeated, I will move to amend the rule to allow for additional consideration of H.R. 6566, the American Energy Act. This bill would increase the supply of American-made energy, improve conservation and efficiency, and promote new and expanded energy technologies to help lower the price at the pump and help reduce America's increasing costly and dangerous dependence on foreign sources of energy.

I encourage everyone that believes that a comprehensive solution to solving this energy crisis and achieving energy independence includes increasing the supply of American energy should vote to defeat this rule and the previous question.

I ask unanimous consent to have the text of this amendment and extraneous material inserted in the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, we have given lots of reasons about ways we can make this bill better. The ways we can make it better is to make sure that what we do today is carefully understood, that we do not pass on to future taxpayers billions of dollars, and to any administration the opportunity simply to hand out money without an understanding and an expectation of performance.

Mr. Speaker, we've outlined our reasons today. We need to make sure that the Members of Congress who will vote today understand that opposing this bill and sending it back and making it better is the right thing to do. We also need to make sure that we take care of the American consumer who is having

increasing problems paying their bills, not just their housing bills, but also at the gas pump.

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, today, I have the honor of recognizing the 40th anniversary of Special Olympics. For four decades Special Olympics has been encouraging and empowering individuals with intellectual disabilities to become active and physically fit in athletics. Special Olympics have dedicated its efforts to provide productive and respected members of society through sports training and competition. With 30 Olympic-type summer and winter sports, Special Olympics offer children and adults with intellectual disabilities year round training.

Special Olympics currently serve 2.5 million people with intellectual disabilities in over 180 countries. Special Olympics give these individuals the gift of friendship and allow each of them to discover a talent of their own. One of Special Olympics main goals is to empower individuals with intellectual disabilities to realize their full potential and become productive members of their families and their communities.

As the father of a young man with Down syndrome who competes in Special Olympics, I have learned firsthand the endearing and valuable contributions Special Olympics have on these individuals. Special Olympics develop improved physical fitness and motor skills, greater self-confidence and a more positive self-image. Additionally, Special Olympics allow for individuals to grow socially and mentally through their activities, while exhibiting endless enthusiasm and joy throughout the games.

I am inspired by the dedication and enthusiasm for life that these individuals bring to Special Olympics. Once again, it is an honor to recognize the 40th anniversary of Special Olympics. Congratulations to all of the athletes who have competed over the past 40 years.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard about this rise in oil prices that is related to this meeting. And I would like to yield to the gentleman from Colorado to tell us about this meeting that took place and why he can make the accusation that George Bush and Dick Cheney as a result of this private meeting have raised oil prices. That meeting took place years ago. I would like to hear about this.

I would yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, it is obvious that the gentleman made a statement saying gas prices have risen because of this private meeting. And now the gentleman has not only no clue what took place in the meeting, as I don't either, but now makes the leap of assumption that 8 years later that gasoline is going to rise in price.

The facts of the case are this. The facts of the case are that this Congress refuses to provide the energy companies, the oil companies, with what they need where they say the oil exists. And this Democrat Congress is refusing to help consumers. And since this Democrat Congress, this new Democratic Congress has taken over, prices have risen dramatically.

There is not some plan that exists. There is no secret plan. There is no plan because the plan that is happening is what the Democrat plan is. It's working exactly as the Democratic Party wanted. Prices are rising significantly. And that is their plan. What I think would be disingenuous is to say, oh, my gosh, we wish prices would go down. That is just disingenuous if you don't back it up with facts of the case of how that could be done.

To go to the emergency petroleum reserves would be a disaster. And it would be a disaster because that is there in an extreme national emergency. We've heard this morning, we can think of no reason why that would not be used. Well, there are people who can think of reasons. And it's called if a group of terrorists wiped out every tanker that was coming to the United States and our military did not have any energy or oil. That could be a good reason not to go to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, is the new Democrat majority does not intend to do anything to help the American consumer to get more oil supplies and thus reduce the price of gasoline.

The fact of the matter is that this entire body, on virtually every single piece of legislation, sees where the energy and oil issue comes up because the Republican Party is trying to get the new Democrat majority to change the rules that are hamstringing consumers all across this country.

And what we're trying to say, whether it be an appropriations bill up in Rules Committee or here today, is that the American consumers, the American people deserve and want this Congress to act. And all we hear are excuses. We hear about all this land that is available out there. There sure is. Oil companies don't want to drill dry holes. They want to drill where the oil is. And we are coming here to the floor, virtually every piece of legislation, every single committee in this House of Representatives is asking for the opportunity to be for the American consumer as opposed to some special interest group.

And what we're told is that we need to change the way we do business and we need to be more like Europe. Well, being more like Europe is not an answer for America. We're not just a country. We're the greatest nation on the face of this world. And we need the ability--and the American people are asking all over this country for the new Democrat majority to quit what they're doing and allow our free enterprise system and the oil companies to bring to bear those oil resources that we have. And arguing all day every day that they have all that land is not the right answer.

What is the right answer is we need to go offshore. And we need to be able to go to ANWR. The amount of the acreage is 19 million acres in ANWR. But all they need is 2,000 acres. They don't need the other 18\1/ 2\ million. They need that 2,000. It is one-ninth the size of DFW Airport, my airport that I land at every week. That is all we need. We will not rest our case.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule which is a cynical attempt to provide political cover for Members of this body who have chosen to elevate partisanship and politics above American consumers and our economy.

Today, both everyday consumers and our national economy are suffering. Mr. Speaker, we are suffering because of this Democrat majority's mind-boggling unwillingness to increase the supply of domestically produced oil to reduce prices at the pump. That's why we are suffering. We are suffering because the policy here in this body in Washington, D.C., and you can read about it in articles in virtually every single paper across the country, and that is the leadership of this House of Representatives does not want to get the right thing done so consumers can have more energy and oil at the pump.

For weeks now, Republicans have been unified in a commonsense and comprehensive approach to bringing down the price of gasoline for consumers, only to have every single one of those plans and votes on the floor of this House of Representatives ignored by the Democrat majority in favor of an agenda that prioritizes legislation like naming historical trails and gaming the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to prevent the development of increased energy production in New England alone.

They are going out of their way to make sure that commonsense legislation that will help the free market and the energy companies, who should be our friends, to provide what consumers need and to produce a better economy.

These priorities completely ignore the wishes of the American people and will do absolutely nothing to bring relief to millions of Americans who are really suffering as a result of high energy prices. I think that if the American people knew that the plan, or part of the plan, was to sue OPEC, they would laugh just like Members of this body have done.

Rather than taking this opportunity to work in a constructive, bipartisan way, to address these domestic energy supply issues that have led to sky-high energy prices for consumers, today we are being asked outside of regular order, and with no opportunity for Members to offer their own good ideas to bring down the price of gasoline, to spend a whopping 40 minutes debating a fig-leaf legislation that wasn't even released to Republicans until late last night.

Republicans have already put forth a number of smart, innovative ideas to bring down gas prices like H.R. 3089, the No More Excuses Energy Act of 2007, which would reduce the price of oil by opening new American refineries, investing in clean energy sources such as wind, nuclear, and captured carbon dioxide, and making available more American energy through environmentally sensitive exploration of the Arctic energy slope and America's deep sea reserves.

But, of course, we know we can't get close to that. We also have H.R. 2279, the Expand American Refining Capacity on Closed Military Installations Act, which would reduce the price of oil by streamlining the refinery application process and by requiring the President to open at least three closed military installations for the purpose of setting new and reliable American refineries in place.

H.R. 5656, which would reduce the price of oil by allowing the entire Federal Government, not just the Department of Defense, NASA and our intelligence community, to procure advanced alternative fuels derived from diverse sources such as oil shale, tar sands and coal-to-liquid technology.

H.R. 2208, the Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Act, which would reduce the price of oil by encouraging the use of clean coal-to-liquid technology by authorizing the Secretary of Energy to engage and enter into loan agreements with coal-to-liquid projects that produce innovative transportation and fuel; and, H.R. 2493, the Fuel Mandate Reduction Act, which would reduce the price of oil by removing fuel-blend requirements and onerous government mandates that contribute to unaffordable gasoline. In other words, red tape.

Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic leadership have the ability to bring each and every one of these already developed commonsense solutions up for a vote at any time, but they have chosen to ignore the American public in favor of a radical environmentalist agenda, and each one of these bills is also the subject of a discharge petition that would force their consideration. Every single Member of this body, even though they may agree or disagree with Speaker Pelosi on whatever her agenda might be, can take a commonsense approach and come down and sign a discharge petition that would bring this legislation to the floor of the House of Representatives.

I encourage every single Member of this body who agrees that this country needs to increase its supply of safe and reliable American energy to force this Democrat leadership to finally act by joining me in signing each and every one of these.

It's simple, by the way, for the new Members, as you hear this, all you have to do is walk down to the very front, sign these discharge petitions, and we could, this afternoon, be debating and voting on commonsense ideas to bring down the price of gasoline.

Instead, this Democrat majority, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, has chosen to bring up redundant legislation that has been overtaken by events before it can even be considered. The Bush administration has already announced that a new round of leases will be held for the National Petroleum Reserve, making today's restatement of current policy as useless as the restatement of the current ``use it or lose it,'' or, said another way, making energy companies drill dry holes. So, what we need is commonsense activities that would bring commonsense prices down for the American public.

Perhaps the most galling of all is the inclusion of section 5 of today's legislation, which forces cumbersome requirements and restrictions on the construction of any new pipeline from Alaska to the rest of the United States simply on behalf of big labor bosses. While the inclusion of this requirement is no surprise coming from the Democrat majority that wants to take away a worker's right to a private ballot so that big labor bosses can more easily manipulate the outcomes, it is disappointing that this Democrat majority would blatantly include this requirement at a time when we can see that it should be addressed to make life easier for bringing down the cost of gasoline for all Americans.

Today's bill is being brought forth by the Democrat leadership in a weak attempt and effort that does nothing more than restate current law and restate existing requirements that oil production on lands be developed while adding new restrictions to pipeline construction for the benefit of big labor bosses. I challenge anyone on either side of this aisle to produce a study other than the partisan and logically challenged report developed by the Democrat staff of the Natural Resources Committee that reapplying the so-called ``use it or lose it'' provision to the National Petroleum Reserve will create even one additional barrel of oil. This is a supply-side problem. This is a problem that the new Democrat majority has made happen, and this is a problem that the American people are asking each of us to solve.

So, the Republican Party is here on the floor of the House of Representatives on behalf of the American people asking all the Members of this body to please understand what we are doing. I think it's a cynical rule that we are debating now, as well as the underlying legislation. We need real legislation. We need to put the American people first. We are not just some country, we are America, and we can win.

Mr. Speaker, we reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's interesting, he says ``drill now,'' but we can't drill where the oil is. ANWR is 19 million acres. We need less acreage than is the size of one-ninth of Dallas-Ft. Worth International Airport. We don't need the 19 million acres. We need one- ninth the size of DFW International Airport, or only 2,000 acres.

Oil companies would go drill in all these places, except they are dry holes. They want to drill where the oil is, and that's where the Republicans want to give them that opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, how much time is left on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield for such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California from the Rules Committee, our ranking member, Mr. Dreier.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the favorite son of the Volunteer State, Mr. Duncan.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, it seems like the Democrat Party has an argument with themselves on this one. They're arguing with themselves.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished second baseman from the Republican championship baseball team, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to let the gentleman from Vermont know that our time allocation is out of balance now, and I would appreciate if the gentleman would use up that time and make it more equitable between us.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we have one additional speaker, and I believe that the gentleman from Vermont has about twice as much time as we have. So I would like to inquire about his opportunity to utilize more of his speakers or to ask where he is in this process.

We reserve our time.

We reserve our time.

Mr. Speaker, English economist John Maynard Keynes said, ``When the facts change, sir, I change my mind. What do you do?''

Well, it's obvious today that the facts have changed, and our friends in the new majority don't change their thoughts or ideas to adjust to the facts of the case.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'd like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Ms. Fallin).

Mr. Speaker, I will take from those words that the gentleman from Vermont has no further speakers and would be interested in me closing at this time.

Mr. Speaker, since taking control of Congress in 2007, this Democrat Congress has totally neglected its responsibilities to do constructive things to address the domestic supply issues that have created today's skyrocketing gas prices, diesel prices, and energy costs that the American families are facing. And today, once again, they are proving to Americans that they have a failure of leadership and vision.

Mr. Speaker, we'll see what happens when the August break comes around and our friends in the new Democrat majority head home to find out how much home fuel prices are going to spike with home heating fuel, and we will find out what happens in September when we come back from the break.

So to avoid that, Mr. Speaker, today, I urge my colleagues to vote with me to defeat the previous question so this House can finally consider in July, as opposed to September, real solutions to the rising energy costs. If the previous question is defeated, I will move to amend the rule to allow for this House's consideration of H.R. 5984, H.R. 2208, H.R. 3089, H.R. 2493, H.R. 5656, and H.R. 2279.

Mr. Speaker, these may not be household understood names of bills, but in September, the new Democrat majority, after spending August at break, is going to find out they should have done something, rather than doing nothing.

Yesterday afternoon in the Rules Committee, hours before Republicans were even given a copy of today's legislation, the same amendment was defeated by the Democrat majority by a party-line vote.

While I do not have a great deal of hope that this Democrat majority will provide a better outcome than the one provided by my Democrat Rules Committee colleagues, the vote on this previous question will allow every single Member of this body, especially those Members of the much- and often-reported bipartisan working group on drilling, to stand up for real solutions to this energy crisis--it's easier to do it in July than it will be in September--not just ineffective restatements of current policy that do absolutely nothing to increase the production of American energy for consumers.

I encourage everyone that believes that a comprehensive solution to solving this energy crisis and achieving energy independence includes increasing the supply of American energy to join me and to defeat this rule and the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to place this motion and extraneous material in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Chris Murzin who was named University Park's 2008 Citizen of the Year.

Chris and his family moved to University Park in 2006 and have been active members of our local community. As a father of a child with special needs, he was quick to identify local accessibility issues and has dedicated himself to improving the lives of the disabled. He is constantly on the forefront of our community--educating the public, meeting with officials from Highland Park Independent School District and PTA members, and coordinating a citizen-based fund drive to build a barrier-free playground. I know he will continue to strive for a better life for the disabled by serving as a vocal advocate. His vision and commitment to this cause has already led to greater awareness in University Park and will soon be evidenced by a barrier-free playground at Coffee Park.

Madam Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in expressing our sincerest congratulations to him and our heartfelt gratitude for his dedicated efforts to better the lives of the disabled.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the National Association of Credit Management Southwest (NACMSW) who will celebrate its 100th birthday on July 18, 2008.

Since its founding in 1908, NACMSW has served as a primary learning, knowledge, and information source for its members. They provide valuable education and research programs to address the ever changing and growing needs of its members. NACMSW remains a vocal advocate for business credit and financial management professionals and pushes for the highest ethical and professional standards. I know NACMSW will continue to be a valuable resource for the local community and remain on the forefront of the credit industry.

Madam Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in expressing our heartiest birthday wishes to the National Association of Credit Management Southwest.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Vermont, for not only yielding me this time to discuss the proposed rule for consideration of the alternative minimum tax, but I want to thank him for his friendship in the committee and the professional nature of the way he conducts himself.

Mr. Speaker, today we are going to debate a tax increase on America. No surprise. The American public has gotten used to this. The tax-and- spend Democrat Congress, the new Congress, the new way to run Washington, D.C. has resulted in not only economic failures here in this country the last 18 months but also higher gas prices, the inability that we have to control the flow in energy that comes into this country and has made us now more than ever to where we have to go get our energy overseas, send our money overseas, and not be able to be energy sufficient here in this country.

But now I find out that the excuse for raising taxes on Americans today is that there's a loophole in the tax law--a loophole--and unintended consequences. The bottom line is that it's the tax law, it was therefore reasoned, and the opportunity for us to grow our economy and build jobs and have job creation and to protect the American consumer is why these were parts of the tax law. It is not unintended consequences, it is not a loophole, it is the law, the tax law of the United States that I am very proud of, and I am disappointed to see that the Congress today will be debating new tax increases on the American people.

So I rise in strong opposition to this closed rule, yet another closed rule by this new majority that we have here, and to the underlying legislation, which takes the baffling approach, once again, of raising taxes on Americans and on the American economy during a downturn of our economy, rather than taking a way to prevent a tax increase on hardworking and unsuspecting middle class taxpayers, which sets the stage for even more job-killing tax increases in the very near future just to prevent the current low-tax policies that Republicans in Congress worked so hard to pass and to support on behalf of American taxpayers.

I think it's interesting, Mr. Speaker, that when Republicans bring tax bills to the floor of the House of Representatives, we are able to tout how many jobs our tax bill will create, how many jobs the economy will create. I have never, ever heard of a Democrat tax-and-spend bill that then touts how many jobs will be created, because they don't. They kill jobs. They kill jobs in America every time we do what we are doing today with the new Democrat majority to raise taxes on America.

Under the Democrats' flawed policy of pay-as-you-go logic used to defend this legislation, in just 2 short years--when a number of critically important tax policies like the $1,000 Republican tax credit and the Republican lower tax rate on income and capital gains and dividends are set to expire, that created job growth--the new Democrat majority pay-as-you-go rules will require more than $3.5 trillion in tax increases, and that is what they stand for today, increasing taxes on the American people, killing jobs all across the country, and yet they want to blame President Bush. Just incredible.

It makes no sense to me why we are hamstringing our economy and saddling working families with higher taxes when revenues aren't the problem. Washington is already collecting more taxes as a percentage of GDP than the historical average over the last 40 years.

We don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem. What Washington really has is a spending problem that this new Democrat majority can't fix and can't solve because they are all about taxing and spending. Federal spending is higher by nearly $530 billion more than the Congressional Budget Office's 2000 projection for the year 2007. So going back to 2000, and they projected how much money we would need to spend, we are $530 billion more this year, thanks to a new Democrat majority, making increased spending the main reason why 99 percent of our Nation's worsened budget picture over the last 7 years is occurring. We have got a downturn in the economy because we are raising taxes and spending to support a bloated government.

Mr. Speaker, the American people have known for a long time that Republican Members of Congress support an economically responsible solution to solving the alternative minimum tax problem. Just contrast this year's Republican budget proposal, which prevented expansion of the AMT for the next 3 years and achieved full repeal in 2013, with the Democrat budget. If you compare them, the Democrat budget, which jammed a $70 billion tax increase into our economy to pay for simply a temporary 1-year fix, and did nothing about AMT for the next 5 years after that. A 1-year fix, raising taxes $70 billion, rather than fixing the problem.

Mr. Speaker, taxpayers are already aware that last month, House Republicans unanimously supported a clean AMT patch without tax increases to prevent more than 25 million families--including 21 million families who didn't owe AMT in 2007--from paying an additional $61.5 billion that's going to come due this next April, just like we did in December of last year and just like we will continue to do if Republicans once again become the majority party in Congress.

What taxpayers may not realize is that House Democrats used to be for the same thing--at least that was until they won the majority. And with it came the opportunity to salivate, to get all this money, and to couple what used to be a bipartisan, commonsense tax prevention policy with massive, unnecessary tax hikes that burden this country, and for 18 months we have seen the promise of higher taxes, and it's killing our economy. As recently as last December, the House passed a ``clean'' AMT patch, without crippling the economy with tax increases, by an overwhelming majority of 352-64.

The only thing worse than House Democrats' tax-and-spend flip-flops on this issue is the fact that their comrades in the other body-- including Finance Chairman Max Baucus--have already recognized the reality that at the end of this day, the AMT patch will not be paid for, and that this cynical exercise meant to provide political cover is in fact dead-on-arrival the moment it passes this House. But let it be said: It's another opportunity for the new Democrat majority to show how much they want tax increases to ruin our economy.

The cost of this political gamesmanship is really quite simple: the exposure of millions of middle class taxpayers to an average tax increase of $2,400, and the increased likelihood of a repeat of last year's mismanaged process in which the late enactment of the patch prevented the IRS from processing AMT-affected returns until about 4 weeks into the filing season. It was a disaster this year as a result of the new majority.

What is worse, Mr. Speaker, is how the Democrat Congress proposed to raise the additional $61 billion of additional taxes just to prevent this tax increase. That's right. We are going to have a tax increase on the tax increase on middle class families who were never intended to pay this.

First, and rather unsurprisingly, this Democrat ``Drill-Nothing'' Congress helps repeal a tax deduction that helps American companies to produce energy for American consumers, but they are going to take that advantage away from consumers. It will only hurt energy exploration in this country, and now what we are going to see is that the American consumer will pay more at the pump.

While this proposal is laughable at best for everyone tuning in on C- SPAN across America today, it is about par for the course for the Democrat Party that also thinks that suing OPEC, not increasing the supply of American energy, will help bring down prices for consumers.

Second, this bill increases taxes on entrepreneurs that create jobs and improve failing companies, and raises the long-term capital gains rate on them from 15 to 35 percent, or even higher. So the people that are the ``goose that are laying the golden egg'' are once again slaughtered by this new Democrat proposal.

Once again, I know that most people around this country watching this debate understand that raising taxes on job creators reduces jobs and hurts our economy. But don't worry. You can blame President Bush for that, for the actions of this Congress.

Unfortunately, this proposal is not a surprise, coming from a Democrat Congress that believes when real estate and credit markets are at their weakest, that is the optimal time to raise taxes and send our economy over the edge.

Finally, the bill goes back on America's word by increasing taxes on transactions with treaty countries by mandating a new reporting requirement on private companies so that the IRS can know directly how much is being paid to merchants every year, including the Social Security or tax identification numbers associated with those transactions.

Mr. Speaker, I have got to hand it to the new Democrat majority. Every single week, they find out a new way to assault the taxpayer, every single week they find a way to raise taxes, to increase spending, and more rules and regulations. They did it again this week. Congratulations to the new Democrat majority.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this tax increase, and I will tell you that I will continue to stand up on the side of taxpayers and middle class Americans who say enough is enough.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I will tell you--you've already heard me say it--this massive tax increase, once again, not only on the economy, but on Americans, could be done a different way. It could be solved. It could be solved by following through on promises that were made by both parties to do something about the AMT.

We've got to do something. We continue to see middle class Americans caught in the crossfire. Today, we see it's not just a crossfire with inability to solve the problem, it's partially solved for 1 year by raising $61 billion worth of new tax increases on Americans that they will have to pay this next April.

Mr. Speaker, since taking control of Congress in 2007, this Democrat Congress has totally neglected its responsibility to do anything constructive to address the domestic supply issues that have created skyrocketing gas, diesel and energy costs that American families are facing today. As a matter of fact, gas rose 10 cents a gallon across America just in the last few days.

So, today, I urge my colleagues once again to vote with me to defeat the previous question so this House can finally consider real solutions to the energy problems and the high costs that

we are facing. If the previous question is defeated, I will move to amend the rule to allow for consideration of H.R. 5656, which would repeal the ban on acquiring advanced alternative fuels, introduced by my good friend Jeb Hensarling of Texas back in March, almost 3 full months ago.

This legislation would reduce the price of gasoline by allowing the Federal Government to procure advanced alternative fuels derived from diverse sources like oil shale, tar sands and coal-to-liquid technology--in other words, marketplace answers--just by allowing the government to do that.

Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which this Democrat Congress passed, places artificial and unnecessary restraints on the Department of Defense in getting its fuel from friendly sources, like coal-to-liquid, oil shale and tar sands resources that are all abundant in the United States and Canada. Needless to say, it raises grave national and economic security concerns.

Mr. Speaker, this new Democrat Congress wants us to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to go build another Dubai. They want consumers in this country to pay higher costs. By doing so, it is a national security issue. We must do something. Adding alternatives to the supply chain is what is important.

Mr. Speaker, Canada currently is the largest U.S. oil supplier. It sent 1.8 million barrels per day of crude oil and 500,000 barrels per day of refined products to the United States in 2006. According to the Canadian Government, about half of the Canadian crude is derived from oil sands, with the oil sands production forecast to reach about 3 million barrels a day in 2015. Section 526, passed by this Democrat House, choked this flow of fuel from one of our Nation's most reliable allies and economic partners, and it increased our military's reliance on fuels from unfriendly and unstable governments around the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for our military, for energy independence for Americans, and to help American consumers in this time of need and to support our economy by increasing the amount of oil we import and produce from friendly and reliable sources like Canada and from our own American, buy-American proven resources, these advanced alternative fuels, by voting to defeat the previous question.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman, my friend from Ohio, for yielding me the time to discuss this proposed rule for consideration of the Americans with Disabilities Restoration Act of 2007. And a hearty congratulations to the new Democrat majority for their openness as we celebrate the 58th closed rule, a new record for the United States Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the underlying legislation, which would amend and improve the Americans with Disabilities Act, or ADA as it is called, that was enacted into law in 1990 by President George Herbert Walker Bush with the strong bipartisan support of Congress.

The ADA--which was passed to, and I quote, provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities--protects individuals from discrimination in hiring, firing, pay, and other terms and conditions of employment on the basis of a person's disability.

Often referred to as the world's first comprehensive disability anti- discrimination law, the ADA specifies what employers, government agencies, and the managers of public facilities must do to ensure that persons with disabilities have the opportunity to fully participate in our society.

The ADA consists of three major titles protecting Americans with disabilities:

Title I prohibits discrimination in public or private employment;

Title II prohibits discrimination at public entities, like public universities or hospitals;

And title III prohibits discrimination at places of public accommodations like hotels and restaurants.

Mr. Speaker, this law has made a world of difference for millions of Americans with disabilities. But, for all of the great results that have come from this law, I believe it can still be improved. For far too long, our Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have wrestled with some of the contents of Congress' intent in defining the ADA key concepts.

For example, the ADA requires employers to make reasonable accommodations to facilitate employees with disabilities but not if this causes undue hardship, leaving the courts to decide what is reasonable and what is undue. Most of all, Federal courts have spent years being puzzled over exactly who is considered disabled under the law. But, today, we have the opportunity to pass this legislation and to clarify Congress' intent, finally settling these outstanding questions of law once and for all, or so we hope.

I want to be clear that these shortcomings do not in any way minimize the great things that this legislation has achieved for disabled people in America. Today, many public accommodations like hotels, restaurants, and recreation facilities have opted for voluntary compliance. We have cut curbs, the areas where sidewalks slope down, to be at a level of the street to allow easy passage for wheelchairs and for other mechanisms that aid the disabled, which were virtually unheard of before ADA was passed and that now are in compliance in most major cities.

Unfortunately, since 1999, several U.S. Supreme Court decisions have narrowly provided the definition of disabilities so much so that persons with serious conditions, such as epilepsy, muscular dystrophy, cancer, diabetes, and cerebral palsy have been determined to not have impairments that meet the definition of ``disability'' under the ADA.

H.R. 3195 builds upon the ADA's original intent by clarifying what disabilities qualify an individual for coverage, and they address a number of the statute's further limitations that have been raised by disability advocates.

Because of this ambiguity, today, I join with more than 250 of my colleagues in supporting this legislation, which passed out of the Judiciary Committee by unanimous consent and out of the Education and Labor Committee by a vote of 43-1. Like my colleagues, I support expanding the definition of ``disabled,'' which was the main goal of this legislation, as well supporting to ensure that people with disabilities do not lose their coverage under the ADA because their condition is manageable and treatable with medication.

These policies have been endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Society for Human Resource Management, the Human Resources Policy Association, and many other pro-business organizations.

From the disability community, this legislation was also supported by the National Epilepsy Foundation, the American Diabetes Association, the American Association of People with Disabilities, and other leading advocacy groups.

Mr. Speaker, the ADA has transformed the American society since its enactment, helping millions of Americans with disabilities to succeed in the workplace and making transportation, housing, buildings, services, and other elements of daily life more accessible to individuals with disabilities.

I applaud my colleagues for bringing this legislation, an important action, to the floor today, and I look forward to its passage.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Since taking control of Congress in 2007, this Democrat Congress has totally neglected its responsibilities to do anything constructive to address the domestic supply issues that have created skyrocketing gas, diesel, and energy costs that American families are facing today, including costs that are unacceptable for many disabled Americans who are struggling to be able to get to work or to live their life.

So, today, I urge my colleagues to vote with me to defeat the previous question so this House can finally consider real solutions to the energy crisis. If the previous question is defeated, I will move to amend the rule to allow for consideration of H.R. 5656, yet another time this Republican party is on the floor to say we support consumers and that we support American independence and security. This bill, H.R. 5656, would repeal the ban on acquiring advanced alternative fuels, and this bill was introduced by my dear friend Jeb Hensarling of Texas way back in March, 3 months ago.

This legislation would reduce the price of gasoline by allowing the Federal Government to procure advanced alternative fuels derived from diverse sources like oil shale, tar sands, and coal-to-liquid technology, commonsense marketplace answers to make sure that the American consumer and America is competitive with the world, rather than sending billions of dollars overseas, funding American enemies and providing the world with jobs and opportunities outside of what the consumer intended in this country.

Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which this Democrat Congress passed, places artificial and unnecessary restraints on the Department of Defense. Perhaps it is no surprise that this Democrat Congress places artificial and unnecessary restraints on the Department of Defense in getting its own fuel from friendly sources, like the coal-to-liquid, oil shale, and tar sands resources that are abundant in the United States and in Canada, our friend to the north. Needlessly raising grave national and economic security concerns is what this Democrat Congress has done to our military.

Mr. Speaker, Canada is currently the largest U.S. oil supplier. It sent 1.8 million barrels every day of crude oil and 500,000 barrels per day of refined products to the United States in 2006. That is according to the Canadian government. About half of the Canadian crude is derived from oil sands, with the sands production forecast to reach almost 3 million barrels per day in 2015.

Section 526 is choking this flow of fuel from one of our Nation's most reliable allies and economic partners, and is increasing the military's reliance on fuels from unfriendly and unstable countries. On top of that, it is causing the American consumer to pay more at the pump. We saw a 10-cent rise in the price of each gallon of gasoline just in the last week.

Mr. Speaker, now is the time for action. Now is not the time to be suing OPEC and to be saying ``no'' to a balanced energy proposal.

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 urge my colleagues to vote for our military and for our economy, including many disabled people who are having a tough time paying for the high energy costs as a result of this Democrat Congress' insensitive position to not allow Americans to have their own energy independence. It is time that we produce more from America and from friendly places, like reliable sources like Canada.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor H.R. 6041.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Massachusetts for yielding me this time to discuss the proposed rule for consideration of the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act.

I rise in opposition to this so-called structured rule which makes in order no Republican amendments and the only amendment that it does allow is a Democrat manager's amendment, and to this legislation, which would provide government bureaucrats with benefits in excess of what four out of five hardworking private sector employees enjoy.

I disagree with the gentleman from Massachusetts, I think Federal Government work is very important to this country, but I believe that we do not need to extend benefits, to further ask for or to make ourselves available to as an incentive for hardworking people to come to work for the Federal Government. Thus, Madam Speaker, I am opposed to the underlying legislation.

Madam Speaker, as the father of two children, one of whom is a person with Down's syndrome and whose birth was more medically complicated than most children's, I understand the importance of families and their ability to deal with their problems. I return home each week to Dallas, Texas, after votes to be with my family, and families are important. I, like every other Member, understand the importance of family and how strong families are important to our country.

The question is not whether Congress should support families, but whether it makes sense when so many American families are already struggling with the high price of gas and other economic concerns to increase their tax burden to pay for this increased paid time off from work, especially in light of the fact that Federal workers don't really seem to need it or even be asking for it.

Currently, Federal Government employees between the ages of 20 and 45, those employees most likely to take advantage of this benefit expansion, have an average combined leave of over 7 weeks a year. But for even those workers with the least amount of Federal service, between 1 and 2 years, this program is duplicative because on average they already have a balance of 3.4 weeks of combined leave already at their disposal.

These generous paid leave policies already in place are why 88 percent of the 221,000 respondents to the 2006 Federal Human Capital Survey described themselves as ``very satisfied'' or ``satisfied'' with their paid leave for illness, including family care situations, for example what is talked about in this bill, childbirth, adoption or elderly care, and less than 5 percent described themselves as dissatisfied in any way.

What a shame we are trying to give away a benefit that taxpayers are going to pay for when it is not needed, and most of all, not even asked for.

Of course, creating this new, extra paid leave perk following the birth, adoption or fostering of a child, and include a provision that would allow the Office of Personnel Management to double the amount of paid leave to a total of 8 weeks, comes at a high cost. By the way, that 8 weeks may be asked for with no excuse or no reason necessary at all, simply by requesting it.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this new benefit in search of a problem would cost $850 million over 5 years. Pretty tough for a new majority that thinks that they want to have pay-as-you-go rules when now we are going to add a new $850 million worth of cost.

Madam Speaker, at a time when the average hardworking American families are already struggling and working more hours to fill their tanks because of this Democrat Congress's refusal to do anything constructive to address the high cost of energy, I don't believe it is appropriate for Congress to increase the paid leave of Federal bureaucrats beyond their already generous levels, and using taxpayer dollars.

As an alternative to today's legislation, the administration has proposed a fiscally responsible but functionally similar program: short-term disability insurance which would assist employees who need to use large amounts of time due to pregnancy, recovering from childbirth, accident or illness.

Because the majority of Federal employees, almost 60 percent, are not within the standard childbearing age, this proposal would be a better and more efficient fit for both employees and for the taxpayer and the Federal Government in dealing with the needs and costs associated with employees that need an extended period of time away for a number of reasons.

By providing Federal agencies with additional benefits that better meet the needs of the 21st century worker, the administration's short- term disability insurance proposal would safeguard Federal employees during a period of temporary inability to perform normal occupational duties while also safeguarding the pockets of the American taxpayer.

Despite the Office of Personnel Management providing this commonsense legislation proposal to Speaker Pelosi on March 4, 2008, today this Democrat-run House will only have the opportunity to vote on one functionally closed rule and the underlying legislation, with all of the other good ideas provided by Republicans completely shut out on this debate.

I encourage all of my colleagues to vote against this rule and the egregious underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I really do appreciate the gentleman, my friend from Massachusetts' characterization of Republicans wrecking the economy and all these things, negative things that the Republicans have done at the expense of the American taxpayer.

And yet I think that the American public understands who balanced the budget back in 1997. It was the Republican-led Congress. It was the American people who said we ought to balance the budget.

When I first came to Congress some 12 years ago, I did this under the pretext of balancing the budget and, secondly, growing the economy, growing the economy through the creation of new jobs.

So how well did Republicans do? Let's see. Balanced the budget in 1997 because we forced it; 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001. In 2001 this country was struck by terrorists. That's right. We've not balanced the budget since. But what we have done during that period of time is created economic opportunity, economic opportunity for millions of Americans, created 5.3 million new jobs. That was the free enterprise system that did that, but it was done through the policies of this body, lowering taxes, giving working families more money back home, taking 5 million people completely off the tax rolls so they could take care of themselves.

And now, here today what we see is a bigger government, a government that will cost almost a billion dollars more as a result of what we're doing here.

So it's amazing to see how my good friends on the other side come and talk about how irresponsible we were, and yet, what we've done, when Republicans led, was to create new jobs in this country, to make sure that we grew our economy.

I see nothing, nothing in the Democratic budget or the bills that they've passed that have created new jobs. As a matter of fact, the gentleman from Massachusetts referred to the Republicans and President Bush wrecking the economy.

In fact, what happened is, you can just look at it directly on a calendar. The day America began having economic problems was the day this new Democrat majority was elected; came in and promised higher taxes, promised the opportunity for a new direction, higher gas prices.

Then what are we told?

We're told by the leaders of the Democratic Party, America, you're going to have to change the way you live your life. This sounds a lot like the mid 1970s when we had President Carter around. We're going to have to change the way you live your life.

Government knows best. That's what we're here on the floor talking about today. Government knows best. We're going to give a group of very faithful Federal employees a new opportunity that will cost almost a billion dollars more to Federal employees. And yet, my colleagues will stand up and talk about Republicans ruining the economy.

Now that's not what ruins the economy. What ruins the economy is bigger government, bigger government, more spending and continuation of the assault on the investor in this country.

So the Republican Party, once again, is in favor of a balanced budget. We're not in favor of wrecking the economy.

The Republican Party is in favor of us allowing drilling to take place in this country. Some of my colleagues this morning talked about, you know, all these millions of acres. Well, there's not oil under all those millions of acres. Trust me. Energy exploration companies will go where the energy is.

And yet, now we're talking about adding almost a billion dollars' worth of new spending on the taxpayers that are already having trouble paying for their own gasoline. And we're going to talk about raising taxes. That is how you ruin the economy. That is how you lose jobs instead of job creation and balancing the budget.

The Republican Party does get it. We do recognize that there are tough times there. I go back every weekend. I've never missed a weekend going back home in 12 years. I do get it. I see people at the grocery store. I know how much the cost of a gallon of gasoline is. I'm not sure all the leaders of this House of Representatives do know that.

So we ought to be working to find ways to reduce cost, to make government more efficient, not to find a way to add overhead. Unfortunately, that's what this new Democrat majority is all about; raising taxes, more rules and regulation, making government more powerful by, in this instance, giving Federal employees who don't even ask for it, want it or need it, more time off, and have the taxpayer pay for it.

Madam Speaker, I do disagree with the legislation. And I will tell you that I think the American public, as they learn more about it during this debate, will come to the same conclusion.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I do not have any additional speakers other than myself.

Madam Speaker, I think what we have talked about today is an opportunity where the Republican Party presented an alternative to Speaker Pelosi, an alternative based upon a perception of a problem by the Democrat majority.

President Bush, last March, came to the table and said, let's use a free market approach that does allow families the opportunity, when they need time, to have that time and to utilize it. But let's let those individual families make their own decision, based upon disability insurance.

I understood a long time ago, from my previous job, when I had a very large team size of people that I worked with, that really, the American worker, at least where I was, was satisfied that they had a job and earned enough money to put food on the table, but also competed for family time and they needed time at home. That I understand.

But I encourage that in terms of being able to take time off. And having unpaid leave through a disability insurance program, is the right way to do this. So the Republican Party, through the President of the United States, brought this to Speaker Pelosi.

Instead, what we got was a billion-dollar answer to the taxpayer, a billion dollars more of spending, a billion dollars more of having the taxpayer have to pay things, and a billion dollars more, so the Republican Party comes to the table and says, why don't we try and balance our budget, rather than making government bigger and spending more money?

That's what we're doing here today. We are politely coming to the table in this constitutional body and saying, we disagree.

Since taking control of Congress in 2007, this Democrat Congress has totally been negligent in its responsibility to do anything constructive to address the domestic supply issues that have created the biggest problem that we have in America today, and that is energy and the cost of energy. Skyrocketing gas, diesel and energy costs are facing the American public today big time back home.

Meanwhile, we find that the Congress is trying to spend another billion dollars.

So today I urge my colleagues to vote with me to defeat the previous question so this House can finally consider real solutions to the energy costs.

If the previous question is defeated, I will move to amend the rule to allow for consideration of H.R. 2279, which would expand the American refinery capacity on closed military installations. That's right. We're suggesting that we will use Federal installations that have closed to have a better way to make sure that we have more gasoline available.

This bill was introduced by my dear friend, Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania, way

back in May of 2007, over a year ago. See, Republicans saw it a year ago as a problem, and came to the table with answers and questions about what we can do.

This legislation would reduce the price of gasoline by streamlining the refinery application process, and by requiring the President to open at least three closed military installations for the purpose of setting new and providing new, reliable American refineries.

Madam 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 urge my colleagues to take a second look, to become a student, just as we're asking the American public, to look at who really is trying to address the issue of the cost of energy. We're asking the American public to look into, and to see who's really getting gouged. Who really is getting gouged?

And it's families back home. It's businesses that are trying to provide services. It is our airlines that are trying to make sure that we keep this economy going.

And what do we hear back from Washington, DC? Let's sue OPEC. Let's tax Big Oil. Let's stick it to Big Oil.

Well, in fact, what we ought to be saying is that energy companies are our friends. Energy companies need to and want to supply cost- effective and reliable opportunities for the American public to have gasoline without long lines.

What are the energy companies saying? They're saying, Please give us the opportunity to go where there is oil or the perception that there's oil and go looking for it and provide it to the American public. It's American security. It is the opportunity for America to be able to use its own resources.

Is this the final answer? Heck no. That's not the final answer. What we're trying to do is bridge us through this until the technologies of, as we know, the battery-operated car and other technologies are coming to fruition, but in the meantime, we should not be spending our hundreds of billions of dollars that this Democrat majority is allowing to happen because they're cutting off American energy to go overseas to keep building Dubai and the next cities and countries that are after that off American money.

Madam Speaker, I really believe that the American public, when they understand, because they will become students of this issue, they will see that the opportunities for American energy, American security, American independence, and American jobs are what are on the line. And then they will look up and know that there's very consistent behavior. They will know which group of people in Washington, DC is really for them.

Today, we see where that same group of people, the United States Congress, is going to come together and say who is going to add another billion dollars to the price tag of running government, who is the same party that cuts off and won't even accept the good ideas of allowing more drilling here in the United States for American security. They're going to draw a conclusion. And that conclusion is going to be, they're going to see which group of people has the best ideas to empower job growth and investment in this country.

Who are the people that really are aiming at balancing our budget? Who is the group of people that are trying to do every single thing that we can to protect this country? Madam Speaker, that is the Republican Party. The Republican Party is trying to make sure that the taxpayer of this country does not pay higher taxes. The Republican Party is trying to make sure that we have enough energy, American energy, available for consumers of this country. And we are standing up today saying we do not believe adding almost a billion dollars worth of new spending for Federal employee benefits is the right thing to do right now.

So we're going to ask that our Members vote against this bill. We're going to ask that we do something by voting against this bill and voting for the motion to recommit.

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