Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple, straightforward, and fiscally responsible. It would prevent any taxpayer funds from being wasted on operating Amtrak's worst-performing long-distance route.

Under this amendment, which is supported by Citizens Against Government Waste, Americans for Tax Reform and the National Taxpayers' Union, the determination about what constitutes Amtrak's most wasteful route will not be a political one made by Congress, it will instead be determined by Amtrak's own most recent monthly report, and it will not take effect if the Secretary of Transportation determines that the line is critical to homeland security.

Amtrak's most recent performance report produced in March 2008 lists the Sunset Limited as Amtrak's worst performing long-distance route. And for the few lucky people who actually buy a ticket on this route, this journey constitutes a 48-hour ordeal from New Orleans, Louisiana, to Los Angeles, California.

Amtrak's report indicates that this route had an astonishing loss of 26.3 cents per seat mile, which is unsurprising given the length of the trip coupled with the lowest ridership of all of Amtrak's long-distance lines.

Right before I came to the House floor today, I went to Amtrak's Website and looked up how much a round-trip ticket on this line would be. The answer: an astonishing $522. For the purpose of comparison, a bus ticket for a similar trip leaving on and returning the exact same days, it would cost only $366, and riding the bus would take 19 fewer hours to complete the trip.

Back in 1997, Congress passed the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act which required that Amtrak operate without any Federal operating assistance after 2002.

Despite this decade-old, commonsense requirement that Amtrak cease their fiscal irresponsibility and mismanagement, without my amendment, today's bill would continue to waste taxpayer money by forcing American families to subsidize Amtrak's worst line.

Amtrak's net loss in 2007 was over $1.12 billion, an increase of 5 percent over last year. In March of 2008 alone, Amtrak's net loss was $96 million. These awful performance figures prove that the time has come to restore commonsense fiscal responsibility at Amtrak, and that the time has come to at least take a small step in helping taxpayers' hard-earned money not to be used on long, expensive routes with low ridership.

This amendment simply seeks to prevent further good taxpayer dollars from being thrown after bad by limiting the cost of Amtrak's number one least-profitable route. And if Members cannot support this simple, security-conscious amendment on behalf of fiscal discipline, I don't know if there is anything else that we can do to help not only this Congress be responsible, but also to be in support of American taxpayers.

I encourage all of my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman. This is a preemptive strike to get the correct measure done so we are not arguing 10 years from now what should have been done 10 years before.

I now yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) in support of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we have now heard Chairman Davis talk about the articulation. We believe that something should be done immediately; that this is about the worst performing route that has existed for year after year after year.

And while I have great respect and appreciation, not only for the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) to work towards this, we believe it's time for action. We believe that the worst performing route, one which not only underperforms from the number of passengers, but also costs taxpayers a lot of money, that we, as Members of Congress, should have a say about this.

I will ask all Members to support this vote when it comes on the floor in this amendment.

I yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Highland Park Town Administrator George Patterson.

After graduating from Texas Tech University, he began his public service career as an Administrative Aide with the City of Lubbock. He then moved on to become the City Manager for Pecos City and Snyder before accepting the position of Town Administrator with Highland Park in 1979. George will be retiring on June 24, 2008 with twenty-nine years of dedicated service to Highland Park.

During his tenure, he has carefully managed and led his staff by example. With his vision and leadership skills, Highland Park is a better and safer community. His commitment to public service extended beyond the workplace. He is actively involved in numerous professional and community organizations such as the Texas City Managers Association and the Rotary Club. George leaves a legacy of civic duty that will be greatly missed.

Madam Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in expressing our best wishes to him and his family on this special day.

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

I rise today and want to thank my friend from California, a member of the Rules Committee, for yielding this time to me to discuss the proposed rule for consideration of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act.

I rise in opposition to this rule, and to the legislation, neither of which will meet the Democrats' campaign promises about how they said they would run the House in a fair and transparent manner, nor the American taxpayers'

expectations how the Federal Government should manage tax revenues that it takes from hardworking Americans.

The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 would reauthorize Government spending on Amtrak over the next 5 years at a cost of almost $15 billion without requiring any meaningful reforms in Amtrak's governance or operations and without allocating taxpayer dollars based on a demand for the service.

As we know, Amtrak is a private corporation that continues to receive large Federal operating subsidies, despite laws passed by Congress requiring after 2002, over 5 years ago, that they should be able to run their operations without Federal grant funds.

Despite the fact that the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee approved this legislation, I am not alone in believing that Amtrak should conduct its operations without picking the pockets of American families who are already being asked to do this by the do-nothing Democrat Congress to pay for record prices for energy, and can little afford to subsidize the inefficiencies of a transportation system that many of them will never use.

Like me and many of my Republican colleagues, President Bush has urged this Congress to pass legislation that would: (1) create a system driven by sound economics where services are provided based primarily on consumer demand; (2) promote competition; (3) focus Amtrak on core operating competencies; (4) establish funding partnerships with States; and, (5) improve investment in and management of the Northeast Corridor.

I include for the Record the Statement of Administration Policy for

Madam Speaker, the gentleman from New York, my friend, really made a great argument on exactly what I've been trying to say. But we've got to get our friends to come around the corner and see that if we would get Amtrak to do the things that are in their mission statement, rather than running all across the United States trying to do things that are not cost effective, are not within their main core mission, then we could find the money that would be available for them to support, as the gentleman said, the Northeast Corridor, to spend the money within the corridor to make them safer.

But, instead, what happens is Amtrak is not held accountable, not by this Congress. We tell them, just go ahead and do whatever you choose to do, rather than focusing on their mission which they have, which is that which is required for traffic on the coasts, the west coast and the east coast.

So, Madam Speaker, once again, we can't expect Amtrak to do the things that would be in the best interest if they won't stick to their mission, if this Congress will not hold them accountable for the taxpayer dollars that they are utilizing.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina, the distinguished gentleman, Mr. Brown.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 5 minutes to the ranking member of the subcommittee, the Republican from Pennsylvania, the gentleman, Mr. Shuster.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, the MVP of the Republican baseball championship team, the gentleman, Mr. Shimkus.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Madam Speaker, if I could inquire how much time remains.

I reserve my time.

Madam Speaker, you know, I think we've forgotten it's a private corporation, not a government entity, that we're attempting to help here.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Madam Speaker, if I could inquire on the time remaining.

If I could inquire of my colleague if she has additional requests for time.

I thank the gentlewoman for saying she has no additional speakers, so I will continue.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).

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

Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Thornberry, said it best: no excuses. It's time for us to get our work done, and the bottom line is is

that the supply side of the equation is the problem. If we had lots of supply, prices wouldn't be what they are. We need to bring to the table American energy for America's independence, but quite frankly, we're not only tired of paying higher prices, we're also tired of building new Dubais across the world. And that rests at the feet of our Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, who has a policy that restricts Americans from drilling for oil and having energy independence. Today is no excuses.

Madam Speaker, since taking control of Congress in 2007, this Democrat Congress has totally neglected its responsibility to do anything constructive, constructive, to address the domestic supply issues that have created the skyrocketing gas, diesel and energy costs that American families are facing today.

So, today, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so this House can address the real solutions to energy costs. That's the supply side. By defeating the previous question, I will move to amend the rule to allow for consideration of H.R. 3089, the No More Excuses Energy Act of 2007, introduced by my friend Mac Thornberry of Texas, that he introduced back 1 year ago in July 2007.

This legislation would reduce the price of gasoline by opening new American oil refineries; investing in clean energy sources such as wind, nuclear and captured carbon dioxide; and making available more homegrown energy through environmentally sensitive exploration of the arctic energy slope and America's deep sea reserves.

Madam 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.

I urge all of my colleagues to take this attempt to spend almost $15 billion of taxpayers' money on subsidized trains and turn it into something positive about energy prices for all of America and for American independence so that we can say we are finally working together and doing something positive about the rising price of fuel. By defeating the previous question, we can do that.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the gentleman Mr. Franks' amendment. Mr. Franks serves along with myself as cochairman of the Missile Defense Caucus.

This amendment restores critical funding to our layered missile defense system, which protects the United States and its allies from short and medium-range ballistic missiles. This bill that we have heard talked about cuts funding for missile defense to $719 million below the President's budget request of $9.3 billion, an unacceptable funding level to provide for our national defense.

The Democrats' authorization to the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System would not even cover the expenses incurred by the Missile Defense Agency to conduct what was recently the shootdown of the US-193 satellite, which cost the agency upwards of $100 million. I would add that the very recent successful shootdown of the satellite is evidence of the successes and importance of the missile defense program and the ongoing necessity to make sure these programs are fully funded and in development.

The Democrats have also authorized inadequate funding for the THAAD, or Theater High Altitude Area Defense System. I think it is an embarrassment that out of the $890 million requested for the project by the administration, only $75 million was authorized for THAAD; $75 million out of $890 million requested.

Finally, my friends in the Democrat majority inserted language into the bill that requires the Secretary of Defense to certify that the two-stage intercepter missile proposed for the European site ``has demonstrated through successful, operationally realistic testing, a high priority of operating in an operationally effective manner and the ability to accomplish the mission.''

Unfortunately, the Democrats only provide an additional $25 million for these tests and targets. This not-so-subtle attempt to starve the program puts our country at risk and it is an attempt that I oppose.

Congressman Franks' amendment restores the $719 million to our missile defense program, putting the necessary defense capacities in the hands of our commanders and providing for the continued success of our short and medium-range ballistic missile program.

Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a matter of national security and it is very important, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Assistant Special Agent in Charge (ASAC) Michael D. Dromgoole.

Prior to joining the DEA, Michael began his law enforcement career with the Texas Department of Public Safety as a Highway Patrol Trooper in 1973. In 1980, he began his DEA career as a Special Agent and completed assignments in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara, California before coming to Texas. His work ethic and dedication led to multiple promotions and in October 1998, he was reassigned as an Assistant Special Agent in Charge in the Dallas Field Division. After twenty- eight years of service with the DEA, Michael will be retiring this year.

The Dallas area has greatly benefited from his vision and leadership. He foresaw a safer and better community and took every effort to do make this goal a reality. He helped enhance the cooperation between the DEA and local and state agencies, making attempts to combat drug trafficking and the enforcement of controlled substance laws more successful. Michael leaves a legacy of civic duty that will be greatly missed.

Madam Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in expressing our deepest gratitude for his exemplary service to this great Nation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate Israel's 60th Anniversary and to recognize the strong partnership between my home State of Texas and Israel. Israel has made tremendous strides since its establishment in 1948--and today it is a strong security and trading partner with the United States. Israel's growing business sector has benefited the United States as a whole and the State of Texas.

Because of this growing partnership, the Texas-Israel Chamber of Commerce was established in Richardson, Texas. Texas is Israel's third largest U.S. trading partner--exporting over $1 billion in goods in 2007. The State's low taxes, affordability and strategic trade location make Texas is a great place for Israeli companies to do business. Additionally, Texas's reputation as a leader in telecommunications, energy and security technologies make the State very attractive to Israel. With the second highest number of companies on NASDAQ and strong investment incentives, Israel is equally attractive to U.S. investment. Israel boasts an extremely high level of skilled engineers and is the world leader in medical device patents.

Through the State's Department of Agriculture, the Texas-Israel Exchange program has encouraged the development of business relationships and joint technology research for agriculture and natural resources.

The strong ties Texas shares with Israel are reflective of our Nation's valued friendship with the Jewish community. I am grateful for the bonds our two countries share and I will continue to work to strengthen our relationship for the next generation.

I would like to thank the gentlewoman, one of the original cosponsors of this important bill, H.R. 5872, the Boy Scouts of America Centennial Commemorative Coin Act. The gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) is 1 of some 297 cosponsors of this very important bill.

Mr. Speaker, back in 1909, Chicago publisher W.D. Boyce was visiting London and got lost on a foggy street in London when a Scout came to his aid and guided him back to his destination. The Scout refused Boyce's tip, saying that he was simply doing his duty as a Boy Scout. So, inspired by this young man, Boyce met with Lord Baden-Powell, the founder of Scouting in England, who was the head of the Boy Scouts Association at that time. Shortly after his return, Boyce founded the Boy Scouts of America.

Mr. Speaker, we are now headed to the 100th anniversary of the Boy Scouts of America, and this simple act of kindness that was shown in London, England became the forerunner of the Boy Scouts of America today. Founded on February 8, 1910, the Boy Scouts have become an integral part of the American society and culture. The Boy Scouts of America is the largest youth organization in the United States with over 3 million youth members and 1 million adult leaders in traditional programs that include Cub Scouting, Boy Scouting, and Venturing. Since 1910 more than 111 million youth have participated in Scouting's traditional programs.

The Boy Scouts of America was granted a Federal charter in 1916 by an act of the 64th Congress signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson. Here in the 110th Congress, there are 248 Members of the House of Representatives and Senate that have participated in Boy Scouts of America as Scouts or adult leaders.

The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetime by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and the Scout Law. Every day, including for myself last night at Troop 890, Circle 10 Council, Boy Scouts of America, Dallas, Texas, I joined my troop in reciting what would be the Scout Oath:

``On my honor I will do my best,

to do my duty to God and my country

and to obey the Scout Law;

to help other people at all times;

to keep myself physically strong,

mentally awake, and morally straight.''

I joined in then with the Scout Law: A scout is ``trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent.'' The Scout motto, ``Be prepared''; and the Scout slogan, ``Do a good turn daily.''

In the past 4 years alone, Scouting youth and their leaders have volunteered for more than 6.5 million hours of service to their communities through more than 75,000 service projects, benefiting food banks, local

schools, charities, and many organizations that support disabled Americans.

H.R. 5872, the Boy Scouts of America Centennial Commemorative Coin Act, has vast bipartisan support with over 297 original cosponsors. We will celebrate and make this coincide with the celebration of the 100th birthday of Boy Scouting on February 8, 2010. This bill will create 350,000 $1 silver coins. At no cost to the American taxpayer, this coin raises also $3.5 million for the Boy Scouts of America Foundation for the purpose of serving Scouts in hard-to-serve areas. Boy Scouts of America will match this $3.5 million for the cause, totaling $7 million of nontaxpayer contributions to the Boy Scouts of America to help serve underserved areas.

I am confident that a commemorative coin would once again be a meaningful and well-liked gesture among Scouts young and old and would raise awareness of the importance of participating in the Scouting program for future generations. I am asking Members of this body to please join me in the recognition of the 100th anniversary of the Boy Scouts of America with this 2010 commemorative coin.

I would like to thank the following people for their support of this bill in addition to the 297 cosponsors: Bob Mazzuca, the Chief Executive Scout; James Terry, the Assistant Chief Scout Executive and Chief Financial Officer; my good friend John Green, the National Director of Programs for the Boy Scouts of America; Chris Frech, the White House Legislative Affairs Office; Marty McGuinness, the White House Legislative Affairs Office; Eagle Scout and Congressman Greg Walden, who serves in this body from Oregon; and Eagle Scout Jim Silliman, who works within my office.

Mr. Speaker, this opportunity for us to pass this bill today will lend not only support to the Boy Scouts of America but will help many underserved areas as they try to provide the same level of support that was provided to Mr. Boyce on that cold and foggy night in London, England.

We appreciate the time that the Speaker of the House has given for us to hear this bill, and I want to thank the gentlewoman for extending the time to me.

I understand that this procedure that we are going through is known as Calendar Wednesday.

Is it correct that any bill reported by a committee and placed on the Union or House Calendar could have been called up by the chairman as the committee name was read?

Further point of parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Does the jurisdiction of the Energy and Commerce Committee, as provided under clause 1 of rule X of the rules of the House of Representatives, include exploration, production, storage, supply, marketing, pricing and regulation of energy resources, including all fossil fuels, which includes legislation to lower the price of gasoline which has increased to over $3.60 a gallon under Speaker Pelosi's watch?

I have a further point of parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

H.R. 3236, introduced by Congressman Boucher of Virginia, to promote energy efficiency improvements in buildings and appliances was reported by the Energy and Commerce Committee on August 3, 2007, and placed on the Union Calendar.

Would it be possible for Mr. Dingell, the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, to call up this bill under his committee's jurisdiction to help the Speaker to implement her secret plan to reduce gas prices by diverting less of America's energy supply to buildings and appliances, or for any other membership of the Democrat majority to help their leadership to call up the bill?

Further point of parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Is it in order for any Member of the majority to call up H.R. 3239, also introduced by Mr. Boucher of Virginia and also available on the Union Calendar, to promote advancing plug-in hybrid vehicles and vehicle components through loan guarantees and grants, and if this would help the Speaker to implement her secret plan by reducing the demand for gasoline and bringing down the prices that have skyrocketed under this Democrat leadership?

Final point of parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Under the rules of Calendar Wednesday, is it in order for any Member of this body, including Speaker Pelosi, to call up H. Res. 1135, legislation drafted by Congressman Dean Heller of Nevada, which would call on Speaker Pelosi to reveal her secret commonsense plan to bring down gas prices since it's obviously not contained in the ``no energy'' energy bill passed by the Congress last December?

So in other words, Mr. Speaker, what you're saying is that the committee chairman and the Speaker have the ability to call up any bill that has been reported out.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Vermont for yielding me this time to discuss the proposed rule for consideration of this omnibus package of legislation being returned from the Senate.

On behalf of the Republican Conference, Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this closed rule and to this entirely closed process which is being manipulated for the sole purpose of silencing 430 Members of Congress and denying the Republican minority a motion to recommit.

I want every single Member to understand what today's vote really does mean. It means a vote for this rule is going to give only Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel, Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi the opportunity to determine the shape of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, that means that for anyone who is tuning in to watch today's debate on C-SPAN who is not sitting in Harlem, New York City; New Bedford, Massachusetts; or San Francisco, California, your vote is being silenced by the new majority's rule.

A vote for this rule is also a vote to once again break the Democrat leadership's numerous campaign promises to provide this House with regular order, including the bare minimum that can be done to protect minority rights through the inclusion of a Republican substitute.

I wish I could say that this disavowal of last year's campaign promises is precedent setting. Unfortunately, breaking these promises to the House and to the American people has become all too common in what has officially become the ``most closed Congress in history.''

What is precedent setting about this rule is that it directly contradicts the past statements of the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, Chairman Frank, who prior to today's rule had an unblemished record of at least asking for his party leadership and the Rules Committee to stick to their word.

In the past Rules Committee hearings, Chairman Frank has advocated allowing this House to debate amendments:

(1) where there is a genuine issue of public policy;

(2) that allow for debate of a significant issue; and

(3) when amendments are germane and not duplicative.

Despite the fact that the broken promises Democrat majority made it clear that no amendments, not even significant, genuine, germane and unique ones would be considered by this House, 10 Republicans brought amendments to the Rules Committee that would have met each and every one of these prior requirements.

Unsurprisingly, all of these thoughtful amendments were summarily denied by the Rules Committee last night in what might well be renamed the ``Graveyard of Good Ideas Committee'' in the House of Representatives.

So despite the fact that there is no policy reason for completely shutting down the legislative process and even going so far as denying the minority a basic motion to recommit in moving this unvetted omnibus through the House, the Democrat majority has once again taken the path of least political resistance. And in doing so, they have again diminished this institution and the rights of the overwhelming Members who have a privilege to serve in this body.

Because the Republican Members of this House overwhelmingly oppose this lock-down rule that denies our party any substantive input into this process, including any amendments from a taxpayer bailout that may or may not solve the problems that it claims to, I have a number of Members who are interested in speaking up against this rule. I plan to save the majority of my time for them to provide their own thoughts on the shortcomings of this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, for 17 months this new Democrat majority has led this country down their pathway of what they want, higher taxes, more spending, which has resulted in the gasoline crisis that we have today by cutting off supplies that would come to make America energy independent. And here we are now with a housing crisis. After all the years that we've had a growing economy, no wonder our country's in trouble. The new Democrat majority has taken over.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from San Dimas, California, the ranking member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama, the ranking member of the committee, Mr. Bachus.

Madam Speaker, my good friends on the other side need to bone up on their language, I believe. A recession is confirmed when there are two quarters where the economy is down. We have not even reached that point yet, and yet already we find out on the floor that the Democrat Party is willing to say we're in a complete crash equal to 1929. My gosh. Let's at least tell the American people the truth.

We can get over the problems that we have in this country, but let's not make things worse than what they already are. Let's not lie to the American people. Let's tell them the truth. Let's provide leadership. Let's show them the right way. Let's have an open bill. Let's get the things done that need to be done.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

I did not suggest that at all.

I will be point blank to the gentlewoman. The gentlewoman said, We are headed to a recession like 1929.

And that is not a true statement.

It's not a true statement.

We have not blown through any sort of recession.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer), a member of the Committee on Financial Services.

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

Madam Speaker, if I could inquire of the time remaining for both sides, please.

I thank the Speaker.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Dallas, Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart).

Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire of my colleague if he has any additional speakers. I have one additional speaker, then our close.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

Madam Speaker, I want to inquire of my colleague if he has any additional speakers or where he is in that process, as I am to close the next time I use my time.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I will be asking each of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question to this rule. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule to make it in order for the House to consider any amendment that would actually do something to reduce gas prices for consumers and to require the Speaker of the House to submit a plan for lowering gas prices.

Madam Speaker, back on April 24, 2006, over 2 years ago, Speaker Nancy Pelosi released the following statement, which I quote: ``Americans this week are paying $2.91 a gallon on average for regular gasoline, 33 cents higher than last month and double the price than when President Bush first came into office.''

Madam Speaker, most Americans would consider it a blessing if they were only paying $2.91 per gallon of gasoline. And the only thing that they really can't afford is the Head-in-the-Sand Democrat Congress's refusal to consider to do anything to help America achieve its energy independence.

In that same press release, Speaker Pelosi went on to claim, and I quote: ``Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices.''

Well, I'm not exactly sure what they are waiting for right now because even after passing the ``no energy'' energy bill through this House a number of times, the cost of the ``Pelosi Petroleum Price Increase'' continues to rise, with the average cost of a gallon of gasoline at over $3.60 now, hitting consumers at the pump every single time they fill up their cars.

By voting ``no'' on this previous question, Members can take a stand against high prices and demand to see this secret plan to reduce gas prices that the Democrat majority has been hiding from the American people since taking control.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material appear in the Record just prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I encourage a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I do want to thank my friend from New York, the gentlewoman and chairman of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me this time to discuss this proposed rule for consideration of H.R. 493, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act.

Like my colleague, I too rise in support of this rule which would allow the

House to agree with the Senate compromise and pass H.R. 493, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, or GINA.

As the gentlewoman knows, this legislation has a long history. She's worked on it for a long, long time, as we heard in testimony given to the Rules Committee yesterday and the accolades that were given the gentlewoman for her support of this, as well as the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert). First introduced in 1995, it has been cosponsored by 224 of our colleagues in this Congress. The House overwhelmingly passed this legislation last April, and with the Senate's recent approval and President Bush's pledged support, I look forward to seeing this legislation signed into law quickly.

Madam Speaker, genetics are extremely important to determining the health of every single individual. Each of us carries a handful of genetic anomalies, some of which might cause us to be affected by genetic conditions or affect the health of our children. There are currently 1,200 genetic tests that can diagnose thousands of health conditions. This number has grown exponentially from just around 100 genetic tests a short decade ago.

Every day scientists are learning more about the genetic causes of many devastating diseases. Stopping these debilitating illnesses will require the voluntary participation of hundreds of thousands of Americans in the clinical research area needed to identify, test, and approve effective treatments. This information is invaluable to managing our country's health and bringing down the overall cost of health care.

Currently, a few States provide protections for genetic information, but most provide none. This leaves Americans with little to no certainty about how their genetic rights are protected from State to State.

Additionally, genetic information is not properly covered under the current HIPAA regulations. It is necessary for Congress to provide legal protection for genetic information and clinical trials so Americans can get tested for health care concerns without fear of misuse or discrimination. This legislation ensures that all will be protected.

Currently, the fear of misuse of genetic information is preventing people from getting these important genetic tests done. The refusal to utilize effective genetic tests hurts individuals, researchers, and doctors alike. Lack of testing denies individuals important medical information that they could otherwise use to be proactively managing their health with their doctor. The information garnered by these tests also helps doctors to prescribe treatments and lifestyle changes with increased success. The same information can be used by researchers to effectively create targeted drugs and develop treatments.

Fear of discrimination has also caused a large number of people to opt out of clinical trials. With fewer participants in clinical trials, we will see slower development of treatments and beneficial drugs. In addition, clinical trials provide patients in late stages of the diseases with access to breakthrough treatments that might otherwise be unavailable.

This House has correctly recognized this issue by protecting those who obtain genetic tests in addition to those who volunteer to participate in clinical research for genetic diseases. I would like to commend my colleagues Sue Myrick, Kenny Hulshof, and Dr. Tom Price for leading the efforts to protect the importance of these clinical trials.

But none of this would be any good today, Madam Speaker, if the American public did not overwhelmingly support the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. About 93 percent of Americans believe that if someone has a genetic test, their employer should not have the right to know the results. Republicans and Democrats want to see their genetic information protected.

I rise in support of this rule and the underlying bill and look forward to its passage.

I once again want to thank the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) and the gentlewoman from New York, the chairman of the Rules Committee, for their hard work.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 10 minutes to the lead cosponsor from the Republican side, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Madam Speaker, I would like to notify the gentlewoman from New York that we do not have any additional speakers at this time, so we will continue to reserve our time.

We will reserve our time.

Madam Speaker, we will reserve our time.

Yes, ma'am, I am.

Madam Speaker, today I will be asking each of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question to this rule. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule to make it in order for the House to consider any amendment that would actually do something to reduce our high gas prices that we have in this country, to help consumers, and to require the Speaker of the House to submit her secret plan to lower gas prices.

Back on April 24, 2006, over 2 years ago, Speaker Pelosi issued the following statement, which I quote, ``With skyrocketing gas prices, it is clear that the American people can no longer afford the Republican rubber stamp Congress and its failure to stand up to Republican big oil and gas company cronies. Americans this week are paying $2.91 a gallon on average for regular gasoline, 33 cents higher than last month, and double the price that it was when President Bush first came into office.''

Madam Speaker, most Americans would consider it a blessing if we were only paying $2.91 today for a gallon of gasoline and the only thing they really couldn't afford is this head-in-the-sand Democrat Congress that refuses to consider or to do anything to solve the problem.

In that same press release, Speaker Pelosi went on to claim, ``Democrats have a commonsense plan to bring down skyrocketing gas prices.''

Well, I am not sure what they are waiting for, because even after passing the no-energy energy bill through the House a number of times, the cost of the Pelosi premium price increase continues to rise, with the average cost of gasoline over $3.62, hitting consumers at the pump every time they go fill up their cars.

In fact, Madam Speaker, as yesterday's Politico article Gas Prices Fuel Effort to Jam GOP makes clear, rather than seizing the opportunity to create opportunities to do something about these high gas prices, to bring in commonsense, bipartisan, supply-side solutions to the problem that help consumers, the Democrats are using them as a wedge issue, as they see it, to score political points, which does nothing to bring down the high cost of gasoline and only contributes to the Congress' abysmal low ratings.

Madam Speaker, I would suggest to you that it really might secretly be this secret plan. This secret plan, even though Speaker Pelosi said it was to bring down gas prices, I think it is all about raising gas prices closer to $5 a gallon. Of course, we know what this does. This causes an American transfer of payments to overseas places, just like Dubai. It is American consumers that are paying for and building Dubai. And the reason why is because the Democratic policies have taken off- limits the opportunity for Americans to be self-independent, because we can't do our own drilling in this country, where billions of barrels of oil reside.

By voting ``no'' on this previous question, Members can take a stand; a stand against the statements that we have heard about trying to increase gasoline prices, but while only taxing oil companies.

We demand to see this ``private'' and ``secret'' plan to reduce gas prices that the Democrats have been hiding from the American people since taking office and control of Congress. I for one would love to see this plan. But I am afraid that, much like their other campaign promises to run the most open, honest and ethical Congress in history, it simply does not exist.

Madam Speaker, American consumers cannot handle the high prices at the pump. We are demanding to know what this secret plan is to reduce gasoline prices below the level of 2 years ago. We need help. Americans all across this country will stand behind those that vote ``no'' to do something now about the problems, rather than trying to blame it on somebody else. If it was Congress' problem 2 years ago, it certainly should be Congress' problem today.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material placed in the Record just prior to the vote on the previous question.

I encourage a ``no'' vote on the previous question, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we just heard an argument. That is okay. I can understand that people want to blame President Bush for things. But the fact of the matter is that the pressure on this issue comes directly to the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party that absolutely cuts America off from being energy independent. They are the people, not OPEC, that have caused America to have to go to OPEC to get our oil. And in the time when there is competition for this oil because we don't produce our own here in the United States, of course you're going to pay more money.

To blame this on George Bush, when in fact it is the Democratic Party that has shut off America from energy independence, from the ability that it has to go, just one case, to the Arctic Wildlife Reserve to be able to get millions and millions of barrels of oil that reside within our own United States. We are the ones, as a result of the Democratic Party, that have to go to OPEC to buy the fuel we need.

It is an absolutely ridiculous argument to blame George Bush when in fact it was Bill Clinton as President who vetoed the bill which would have given us millions of barrels of oil back in 1995, available to consumers today. It is the Democratic Party and the ability from the Speaker, the current Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi, to follow what we have with their public policy to make sure that Americans are paying more at the pump today. But you can't blame George Bush.

Let's put the blame where it really is, and that is America is not energy independent. We have to go to other places, we have to get oil, and the world wants the same thing from that marketplace. So rather than throwing insults at each other, why don't we do something about it.

I thank the gentleman.

What we need to do is have a real live debate on this floor where we figure out that America should become energy independent. That means we would be able to not only produce the oil and the energy from this country, but we would be able to have the jobs that come from that.

I believe the charge that is equally fair today is to say that it is Ms. Pelosi's public policy that built Dubai. We should quit building Dubai.