Floor Statements

I thank you for not only taking time, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) for taking time to lead in this Congress the debate and the discussion on not only the fairness doctrine, which we oppose in this United States House of Representatives, perhaps, more importantly, a vision about what we are trying to have in this country, for not only free speech, but also the ability to speak fairly and freely about the things which we hold dear, not only in our hearts and in our minds, but also in this country and in America.

The gentleman from Oregon has already outlined previously that what happened is that prior to about 1987 we did have something that was called the fairness doctrine. The fairness doctrine essentially says this, that if you are on talk radio in this country that you would have to give the same time, the fair time, equal time to an opponent, someone who had an opinion different than your own.

As a result of the fairness doctrine, which I believe and others believe, and perhaps the Supreme Court believes, would be illegal, what has happened is that talk radio and the ability for the American people to speak freely, openly, without fear that what they are saying would be, they would be taken to task for. What has happened is that talk radio has flourished all around the country. Talk radio has flourished not only about thoughts and ideas, but about the greatness of this country.

I do believe that what the gentleman is talking about is the right thing to do. That is why I signed on as a cosponsor of H.R. 2905.

The gentleman from Oregon also talked rather freely and openly about my service and the service of three of my other colleagues who are Republicans on the Rules Committee. The Rules Committee is that body that is interested in making sure that the debate that comes to the floor of the House of Representatives has a chance, first of all, to be heard and all thoughts and ideas are debated.

We have rather openly, and the gentleman from Oregon knows this, whoever is in the majority, whoever is in the majority has a very difficult time as a result of the rules of the House with germaneness of amendments and the things which we do of trying to have a balance about hearing good thoughts and ideas, making in order amendments, without killing the general intent of what legislation is for. I think that that is part of what this fairness doctrine might be about from their perspective and where we disagree with the fairness doctrine, but being able to openly talk about things.

The fact of the matter is that the Rules Committee yesterday, or today, heard a discussion, and I think it was last week that the Democratic Party has a new record of closed rules, today a new record on closed rules to where they don't want any debate.

I thank the gentleman, my friend from Oregon, the distinguished gentleman from Oregon for trying to get more information out of it. That's right, a closed rule says that the committee, the Rules Committee, would make a determination about what would be made, what we call in order, which means what would be debatable and anything outside of that order, even if you had a good idea sitting on the floor of the House of Representatives, you could not engage in the debate. You could not put an amendment forward.

In fact, reclaiming my time, the gentleman would be correct. Mrs. Pelosi has stated, it is on her Web site tonight, has been, that this new Democrat majority would be the most open, honest majority in the history of Congress, and yet, they lead already a new record in terms of closed rules

Shutting down debate and amendments and making those in order. And so it's interesting that what has tried to be done here, with the fairness doctrine is actually, in this Member's opinion, a silencing. The fairness doctrine would silence talk radio, would put those that might be like Sean Hannity or might be like Rush Limbaugh or back home in Dallas, Texas, Mark Davis of a local radio station that we have in Dallas, it would mean that they would be required, if they're going to talk about a subject, that they would be required to have an opposing side to come and speak about that also. And I think that puts a chilling effect not only on free speech, one which I think is unconstitutional, but perhaps, more importantly, it is an intrusion upon the free thought processes of America and Americans.

And so tonight, what the gentleman is doing is correctly saying that we, in this body, the House of Representatives, believe that signing on to H.R. 2905 says that we're not going to go and step backwards in this country. We want free speech to continue and to flourish, and for talk radio and thought processes to be alive and well.

Now, I know, and I assume the gentleman from Oregon knows this too, that what's happened, what would happen as a result of this, or what is happening as a result of this is that Mrs. Pelosi and others recognize that talk radio talks about the Democratic agenda, the Democratic Party's agenda, raising taxes, more rules and regulations, more rules and regulations to where, on a regular basis, I feel compelled to tell the truth about the Rules Committee, that the Rules Committee seems to be a wholly owned subsidiary

of the AFL-CIO, that it appears as though the Rules Committee receives their instructions directly from union central, John Sweeney, telling them exactly which bills will be made in order. We've had so many bills which are under the construct of trying to say it's about worker safety or it's about making things fairness in the workplace, but in fact it is about further unionizing and empowering unions in this country against consumers and against the working people of this country with powerful unions.

And lastly, that the Republican Party will speak very openly about how dangerous we believe single-payer system to health care would be to this country. And so, there are, the Democratic Party in this country does not want those debates to take place. They want us to, talk radio and Republicans, if we're going to be heard, to allow the other side to have a chance to dispute everything we say. And I would say let the Democratic Party have their talk shows and let them speak freely about raising taxes, more rules and regulations, and empowering the unions in this country to become, once again, more powerful, and to talk about how the free enterprise system is something that they don't support, that they believe that raising taxes is the right thing to do. Let them have their own talk radio show. But I would say, equally, that they need to make sure that they are not intruding on the Constitution and people in this country who choose to stand up and speak about the things which we believe are important.

I thank the gentleman for allowing me time.

Actually a little bit more than two to one. It's 9 to 4, so it is a bit more.

And I thank the gentleman for asking about that. What's interesting is that in the Rules Committee, January, February and March, we heard our new colleagues, who are brand new freshman on the Rules Committee, in lockstep with Speaker Pelosi and lockstep with the chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter). And they attempted to justify everything they did by saying when we really get outside of our six for '06, which was their political agenda, you're going to start seeing lots of open rules. You will see lots of debate.

You know, we have not. And I thank the gentleman for asking that question. Have we seen this change from January, February, March, April or May? And the answer is no, we have not.

I think that the question that you raise is, do I believe that someone who said that they were going to not do that, that they sold to this House and their membership that that was the wrong way to run the railroad and that they would think of better ways, yes, I think that they did say that. And I think it's interesting, as the gentleman may remember, just 2 weeks ago, we had a bill that came from the Financial Services Committee, one in which the gentleman from Massachusetts, the gentleman, Mr. Frank, as the chairman, had worked very closely with his members about talking about what they would make in order, and then working, can I say that word ``bipartisanship'' down here? They worked in a bipartisan fashion in the committee, only to come to the Rules Committee and the chairman of the committee to ask and to say, it's okay. We've worked these through. As a matter of fact, the gentleman from Massachusetts said, I feel comfortable enough as chairman of the committee that you could make, Rules Committee Chairman Slaughter, you could make any amendment that you choose to in order, and I believe I have the ability and our committee has the ability to work forth to where we could prevail on any issue. Whereupon we found out no, that's not the way it's going to be.

I'm not doing that.

Yeah, it was another closed rule. And I think the gentleman makes a point. So I think the people on the committee have now figured out time after time after time after time when they're voting for a record number of closed rules that, in fact, I wonder what it was they meant when they said we were going to do that? I think they're questioning what was the intent they said one thing but they're doing something else.

Still up on the Speaker's Web site. And once again, new record. I think we'll have a new record virtually every time another rule comes out, a new record in this House that I think we have said openly, and the gentleman from Oregon is aware of this, that the Republican party has said we do recognize that there are times that you need to have closed rules. We support that. But if you're going to sell that you're about openness, then at least live up to what you say.

At least live up to what you said. And it's our job to try and point those factors out. I would also say that there's been a lot of frustration because what's happened is, in this process, Republicans, and I believe the number is 17, perhaps 18 now, motions to recommit that we have been accused of coming down and sabotaging their political agenda.

In fact, the gentleman is correct. While there may not be any procedure with an open rule, there generally have been, and it's what Republicans always allowed, a motion to recommit. And that means that we were able to, or whoever's in the minority is able to say I'm going to take a, just a piece part of this bill and try and include our ideas to better the bill.

An example of one of these might be, let's just think back to a bill that might be about homeland security. And in homeland security, we know that there was a fight that took place that said, and the Democratic Party was very open about it, that they did not want to have Amtrak passengers to have to go through what is called Customs and Border Protection Database that looked at what would be like the TSA no fly list; in other words, someone that might be considered a terrorist or have terrorist ties, they would not allow any matching of a database against potential terrorists for anybody that used Amtrak. And so we said we believe that what should happen is that every single person, we're not talking about going in New York City, riding the subway. We're talking about Amtrak, that Amtrak would be allowed to have that database.

We were accused of sabotaging the privacy of millions of Americans, accused of sabotaging their political agenda.

Well, the gentleman is correct. In fact, it is the Republican Party position, and continues today with FISA, that we're trying to gain as much information as we can to avoid a next attack, not just be attacked and then figure it out.

It appears to me as though that is really the Democrat Party's position. The Democratic Party leadership in this House is trying on take away the ability that people have to be able to know to thwart an attack. Now, that's off the subject that we are trying to get into tonight, but it's germane in that these are the things that we're trying to do to have with motions to recommit better ideas.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize a local community conservation organization of which I have been a volunteer and supporter, For the Love of the Lake.

This group of enthusiastic and dedicated volunteers generously gives of its time and effort to help preserve and enhance White Rock Lake Park in Dallas, Texas. As a member of this local community, I understand the desire to ensure White Rock Lake stays clean and beautiful. I also labor alongside many volunteers as an Adopt-a- Shoreline Leader by picking up litter and recyclables to maintain this urban oasis so that it can continue to be enjoyed by families, local citizens, and visitors. These regularly scheduled weekend clean ups help build a strong sense of community and civic duty, essential to the American spirit.

Beyond preservation, For the Love of the Lake has also sought out innovative opportunities to enhance and renovate White Rock

Lake Park. They have built partnerships with the Dallas Parks and Recreation Department to implement new programs such as the White Rock 'n' Roll Run and, have created ``Litter-free Louie,'' a mascot to help educate others on the importance of keeping our lake clean. I am proud to be associated with this valuable organization and am grateful for all that they do for White Rock Lake Park and the city of Dallas.

Madam Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in recognizing their passion and hard work.

Madam Speaker, I rise with great sorrow today as the House of Representatives mourns the passing of The Honorable Jo Ann Davis, Congresswoman from the First District of Virginia. Congresswoman Davis succumbed to breast cancer on Saturday after a lengthy struggle with the disease. I was greatly saddened when I heard the news of her passing. I will be keeping her husband Chuck, their surviving family, and her congressional staff members in my thoughts and prayers during this very difficult time.

I had the distinct pleasure of being able to know Jo Ann from her early days in Congress when she was first elected in 2000. She leaves behind a legacy of constant dedication to our men and women in uniform. Though she struggled with breast cancer the past 2 years, but she remained determined in her commitment to continue serving her district, and our service men and women. This same drive was evident at the beginning of her career in public service. Her first election to the Virginia House of Delegates in 1997 came as a result of her defeating a heavily favored 15-term incumbent. There was never a challenge too large for her to pursue, and her constituents were the benefactor of this unswerving commitment to public service. She will be greatly missed by me, our colleagues, and the people of Virginia. God Bless.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that there is anything even left to say about the depths to which the House has sunk under the ``broken promise'' Democrat majority. Today, once again, the American people are being forced to endure the results of yet another evening spent in the ``broken promise'' Democrat Rules Committee, with nothing to show for it except for yet another closed rule, which was referred to today as a ``traditionally closed rule'' on the floor of the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this completely closed rule, which denies the minority even with a basic substitute amendment in this process, and to the fiscally irresponsible underlying legislation.

I also rise with great regret to report to the American people that, once again, as I have been forced to report on multiple occasions over the course of this year, the Democrat leadership is bringing legislation to the House floor which stacks the deck in favor of big labor bosses at someone else's expense. Today, that expense is on the American taxpayer, who is being targeted on behalf of big public sector union bosses to the tune of $2.2 billion, to be exact.

I would like to take a few minutes to discuss a number of the myths that will be discussed surrounding this legislation and provide my colleagues and the American people who are tuning in

on C-SPAN with some of the facts about the real effect of this special interest legislation and what it would mean to the taxpayer.

In 2004, Congress gave the IRS the ability to utilize the best practices and advantages created by the private sector to address its growing backlog of unpaid debt. Today, it is estimated that $345 billion of these unpaid taxes exist. That means that every year the average taxpayer who plays by the rules must pay an extra $2,700 to cover taxes not being paid by those who should legally be paying their taxes.

This new program, which began as a small pilot program that grows as it continues to succeed, is estimated to bring in about $2.2 billion in its first 10 years. And under this agreement, the IRS would get the first 25 cents of every single new dollar to hire new collections professionals, a provision that would have a positive, compound effect by helping to bring in even greater amounts of this uncollected revenue for the government into the future.

The program, even in its beginning stages and despite numerous attempts by the Democrat majority to kill it before it could succeed, has been hugely successful, bringing in over $30 million worth of unpaid taxes. It has received a 98 percent rating from the IRS for regulatory and procurement accuracy, as well a 100 percent rating for professionalism. Additionally, less than 1 percent of the taxpayers contacted by these private agencies have filed complaints with the IRS, none which have ever been validated.

Despite this program's track record of success on behalf of taxpayers who do play by the rules and pay their designated share, not to mention the increased revenue that it brings in to fund the Democrats' other new, big-spending legislation, there are many opponents on the other side of the aisle that want to prevent it from continuing to work, supposedly to protect the dues of the big government union bosses.

They have claimed, despite the fact that 40 out of the 50 States in America already use these same contract services, that this is something that only the government can do. You don't have to take my word for it that this is untrue. Even the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, the GAO, has found that ``the IRS may benefit from using private collectors, and it is reasonable to assume that the IRS could learn from their best practices as it works to resolve long- standing problems with its debt collection activities.''

Opponents have also incorrectly claimed that private debt collectors do not follow the same rules as IRS collectors. Well, this one is partially true, because these private collection agencies are subject to both Federal and State laws that are collectively more restrictive than the laws that Federal employees must follow. Private collectors follow the same privacy protections, undergo the same background checks and are subject to the same penalties if they violate any of these laws.

Opponents have also claimed that allowing for private debt collection would cost untold union jobs, a statement which is also based in an alternate reality. The private collection agencies working in this program did not and do not replace a single IRS worker.

As of this past July, over 51,667 ``cold cases'' that the IRS was incapable of collecting were given to private agencies, resulting in over 5,300 full repayments to the Treasury and almost 2,000 agreements to repay these debts incrementally. This means that the government received over $24 million of gross revenue that it would not have received otherwise, of which only about one in eight went to pay for these otherwise nonexistent services. In fact, the IRS has publicly stated that no government employee will lose his or her job as a result of this highly effective private contracting. Instead, they will benefit from the opportunity to focus their talent, expertise and resources on high priority, more complex cases.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to understand all of the facts regarding this legislation before they are influenced by the scare tactics of a few Members who are determined to kill this highly- effective program that has already proven to be cost-effective in closing the ``tax gap'' of unpaid, hard-to collect taxes.

I wish I could say they would have plenty of time to learn all the facts surrounding this legislation that is being rushed to the floor today under a completely closed process. Unfortunately, last night in the ``Graveyard of Good Ideas in the House of Representatives,'' the majority Rules Committee Democrats voted three times along party lines to prevent any amendment authored by a Republican from being considered today. Despite numerous campaign promises by the highest ranking Democrats in the House to run the most ``transparent, open and honest'' House in history, this Democrat majority once again has provided the House with something which is a rule that is none of the above, which is the historical tradition. Instead, we have what is referred to as a closed rule. I wish I could say I am surprised by the Democrat leadership allowing politics to triumph over policy or fair procedure. Unfortunately, this is precisely what we have come to expect from the new ``broken promise'' Democrat majority.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this ill-conceived and costly legislation, and I encourage all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand up for taxpayers by voting against this rule and the underlying legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we continue to hear arguments from my good friends about how this just won't work. But for 10 years it has worked very well, with a 99 percent accuracy, in providing billions of dollars to the taxpayer.

The bottom line is that Treasury simply focuses their activities on major accounts, and the others on smaller accounts, which is who have been handling these accounts and been very good at it, which is what we are asking to continue today. What is happening is that we found out the unions simply don't like that. They don't like somebody else perhaps getting something that they in fact never wanted to work on themselves.

So we are trying to say to the American people today, don't take away this stream of revenue. Don't take away this opportunity. Because the private sector is working on these accounts. They are not given any advantage. The

people who really end up winning is not only the Treasury Department, but, more specifically, the taxpayer.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from San Dimas, California (Mr. Dreier), the ranking member of the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I don't know if this is a blatant attempt to mislead Members or not, but the gentleman, Mr. English, his bill is compliant with PAYGO rules. And to suggest on this floor that the Republican Party presented the bill, the amendment----

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Which one were you referencing, sir?

Reclaiming my time, and I will continue this dialogue, you know that we asked to have made in order one that would be in compliance with the PAYGO rules, and you and your colleagues turned that down. You specifically stated: We want an amendment that would be in compliance with the PAYGO rules; will you please give it to us. And we were turned down by the Rules Committee. I would engage the gentleman on that issue.

It was my amendment that I made, and I know how the gentleman voted, along with all of his colleagues. And to stand up on this floor and to say, Well, we would if they would abide by the rules, but they have to abide by the rules, is a blatant, blatant miscalculation and I think untrue and insincere. When we asked for that in the Rules Committee, we were turned down.

When we said, Give us an amendment we will make sure that the Parliamentarian and others say is compliant, we were turned down.

The gentleman, Mr. English, and I am getting ready to allow him to speak on this floor, he is in compliance with PAYGO rules. So there was not an opportunity that was given by the Rules Committee to allow us to do that. And then you stand up and say, Well, if Republicans played by the same rules as we do, then they would find them in order, that is not true.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 4 minutes to the co-chairman of the Zero AMT Caucus, the distinguished gentleman who has an amendment that would be compliant, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English).

I would like to inquire upon the time remaining on both sides, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let's go to the heart of this.

$30 million worth of uncollected taxes that, by the IRS's own admission, never would have been collected because they were accounts they did not want to or were not working, which are the only accounts that ever go to private debt collectors, who as private collectors receive a 98 percent rating from the IRS for regulatory procedural accuracy, as well as a 100 percent rating for professionalism, and less than 1 percent of those accounts have any sort of complaints that are filed with the IRS, and none which have been validated. That's the substance of the case. That's why we oppose this bill and this rule. It makes no sense unless you're simply trying to do what union bosses ask you to do, which is evidently what this bill is doing.

I would also like to point out that what's very interesting is that this bill is supported by the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee and has a whopping nine cosponsors, a whopping nine cosponsors, and we're bringing that to the floor of the House today. Utterly amazing.

Mr. Speaker, I insert into the Record at this time the Statement of Administration Policy by the President, which this White House says that they will veto.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 3056--To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the

authority of the Internal Revenue Service to use private debt collection companies, to delay implementation of withholding taxes on government contractors, to revise the tax rules on expatriation, and

for other purposes

The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R.

3056. The bill is not consistent with the Administration's

commitment to a balanced approach toward improving taxpayer

compliance and collecting outstanding tax liabilities. If

H.R. 3056 were presented to the President, his senior

advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

The Administration strongly opposes the provisions of the

bill that would repeal the current statutory authorization

for the Internal Revenue Service, IRS, private debt

collection program. Terminating this program would result in

a loss of significant revenue over the next 10 years. These

are tax dollars that are legally owed to the Government and

that are otherwise not likely to be collected by the IRS. It

is a disservice to all taxpayers who properly pay their taxes

to terminate this program that is efficiently recovering a

portion of the extra burden they shoulder from the ``tax

gap'' caused by those who do not pay their taxes. Moreover,

the Government Accountability Office, GAO, recently reported

that the IRS has made ``major progress'' in addressing

critical success factors for the private debt collection

program, including ensuring that both taxpayer rights and the

security of taxpayer information are protected.

The Administration also has concerns with the provision of

the bill that would impose additional tax rules on

individuals relinquishing U.S. citizenship or terminating

long-term residency. The Administration strongly supports

efforts to ensure that individuals renouncing their U.S.

citizenship pay their fair share of U.S. taxes. The bill's

``mark-to-market'' approach to valuation of expatriates'

property for taxation purposes, however, overrides existing

tax treaties and raises concerns about tax complexity.

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

I thank the gentleman for asking. In fact, I do not have additional speakers at this time.

I would be very pleased to do that. I would like to ask the question back, does the gentleman have any additional speakers?

Mr. Speaker, we have had a good debate here on the floor. We talked about from the Republican perspective, we're trying to follow the rules, not only of the House, but also the statements that have been made by our new Speaker, the Honorable Nancy Pelosi, who said she would have the most honest, open and ethical House in history and that that would also extend to processes of amendments.

We are here on the floor of the House saying today, that's not happening, has not happened all year, and I would predict to say today probably is not about to happen. Still on the Web site for the Speaker it says this. The American people are waiting for this promise to be made.

Today, we are debating a rule and a bill that would say to the American taxpayer that the IRS and their ability to collect taxes on behalf of the American people is going to be changed, changed from accounts that the IRS has no reasonable reason to believe that they will be chasing after or trying to collect. And that's why in the first place we said from doing audits, you've got all these accounts, please pass them to someone who will do it on behalf of the taxpayer. Because if you're not trying to collect these bills, it means that people will never pay.

The result has been over $30 million worth of uncollected taxes that never would have been collected, not by the IRS, and they're done by someone, these private collection agencies, that receive a 98 percent rating by the IRS for regulatory and procedural accuracy, as well as a 100 percent rating for

professionalism and less than a 1 percent complaint rate of which not one has turned out to be validated.

Mr. Speaker, this is an assault on not just the taxpayer. This is an assault on really good and effective and proper government, where the IRS utilizes best practice. They're utilized by over 40 State governments today to have help in collecting money that is owed not just to the government but to the taxpayers of this Nation. And today, despite the success, overwhelming success, that is occurring, the Democrat majority, with nine cosponsors plus the chairman, is interested in taking away this opportunity for the taxpayers, I will assume, because the taxpayer union of the Treasury Department does not like this happening.

Mr. Speaker, we need to have best practices. The President is right. He will veto this bill. This is a valiant effort by this Democrat majority to pay back AFL-CIO and the labor unions for their support, but it is not in the best interests of not only the taxpayer but of good and proper government.

The Republican Party is here on the floor of the House today saying that what has happened with best practices that is happening today should continue. We should have these private services that work in concert with the IRS. We should continue to give the IRS and those particular departments that do go after this money to receive directly more money that is collected that would help them hire more tax collectors, but we should not stop this process dead in its tracks because not only is it successful, but it is working as a best practice would for other people to see how important a public/private partnership is.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing us to be on the floor this evening to talk about very important issues.

And of course the House of Representatives, in recess right now, is beginning to prepare for the funeral for our colleague, Jo Ann Davis of Virginia, who passed away. Today, our colleagues came to the floor one by one to not only acknowledge the service that Jo Ann Davis gave to the United States of America, but also in her representation of her congressional district Jo Ann will be missed. Jo Ann courageously fought cancer. Jo Ann courageously went back home day after day, week after week, after serving the United States Congress, making sure that she talked about those things which she did in her job and her representation of people from Virginia, but perhaps more importantly, with the strength and character and courage that Jo Ann, even in the midst of adversity, brought to this body was an inspiration to Republicans and Democrats alike. It is with a heavy heart that we all will miss her, and we say to her family, how much they know they will miss her, too, and to her constituents, they were well served. Mr. Speaker, we will miss Jo Ann Davis from Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, tonight I come to the floor of the House of Representatives to talk about the things which I believe are important for so many people to understand, not just about what is happening here in Washington, DC between the two parties, the Republican Party and the Democrat Party, as we talk about public policy issues that are demanding on both parties, and certainly our President and the American people who want to, and do, recognize that America's greatest days lie in our future, but rather, not just understanding the philosophies which are talked about here, but they want to know more about them. What would those policies lead to? And tonight it is my intent, with several of my Republican colleagues, to talk about the Republican vision, the Republican vision that would be of a smaller, smarter,

commonsense government versus the Democrat agenda, which is ineffective, wasteful and intrusive government.

The Republican Party for so many years has been really the party of the free enterprise system, the free enterprise system which has made America the envy of the world, which has made the Republican Party and this great Nation to not only grow in stature, but to provide dreams, dreams to Americans and dreams for people around the world.

Mr. Speaker, just in March of this year, the Financial Times out of London put forth a pretty interesting editorial where they talked about that the EU, now 25 combined nations of the EU has a GDP that equals that of the United States of America, or at least where the United States of America was 25 years ago; meaning that Europe consolidated all of their resources to the EU, the European Union, to these 25 nations, and when they combine all that they have equal that of the United States GDP 25 years ago.

What is interesting is that they also look at the amount of spending that would take place within their medical system and within research and development in medicine, and both those lag 25 years behind the United States.

The United States of America has a strong and vibrant system, the free enterprise system, as a result of not just the United States Congress and tax cuts and making sure that we have the greatest health care system in the world, but it comes as a result of what you're going to hear tonight of a public policy that is ennunciated from a Republican vision. And certainly, as we look at what has made America great, you would want to look at, well, why has Europe lagged so far behind? I mean, after all, Europe could do the exact same things that America does. They have education. They have wonderful people. They have innovate ideas and opportunities. I would submit to you it is because of the public policy. And the public policy that they have in Europe really has three basic tenets that are entirely different than the United States has, our free enterprise system. And that was pretty much ennunciated by what you saw tonight; we're talking about health care, where it's a State-run program. This is what the Democratic Party is pushing for their public policy. They want a State-run, single-payer health care system, just like Europe.

We also see rules and regulations. Europe is completely covered up with rules and regulations that tell not only employers but also employees exactly how they will be treated. Forget the free enterprise system, forget innovativeness, forget the new opportunities that people might have to bring new products and services. You've got to look up the union rule book; you've got to find out what you can do.

And lastly, the third tenet that separates the United States of America from the European model is taxation. Taxes began as a battle point under Ronald Reagan here in this country. And we recognized that back under Ronald Reagan, and the President recognized it, that our taxes were not just too high, they were stifling innovativeness and the free enterprise system. They were stifling the ability that we had to grow our free enterprise system in favor of giving the money to the government, to grow the size of government. And as our President, Ronald Reagan, said, he hoped that he would change that to where America once again would be the shining city on the hill. In fact, that did take place. As we cut taxes, as we became prepared for the future way back when Ronald Reagan was President to be prepared today, and for the last few years, for America to propel itself forward.

Mr. Speaker, the Financial Times was right when they said in March that the European Union could not compete against the United States economically because of the three tenets that make the EU different, and that is, high taxes, more rules and regulations, and single-payer system for health care.

Tonight, you are going to hear members of the Republican Party talk about how that is virtually exactly what the Democrat Party agenda is for this great Nation. And tonight you're going to hear Republicans talk about smaller, smarter, commonsense government whereby we not only balance budgets, where we have tax reform, where we have health care that works on behalf of people to where we can maintain the greatest health care system in the world. We will talk about agriculture; the gentleman from the great State of Oregon (Mr. Walden) is here to do that. We will talk about intelligence and homeland security. And lastly, we intend to talk about education.

It is with great honor tonight that I am joined by a dear colleague who is from the State of Oregon, the gentleman from Oregon, and I would yield to him at this time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman.

You know, an example of this might be the recent election that we saw in France. And I'm going to let you amplify that, but as we in America looked at France, and just in the past few years as we looked at a closed system that they have to where they're not only having to have people to come through immigration to their country, they are not able to grow their economy, to be able to bring them into their economy so that they can be real positives. It's a closed system.

What we have seen is how the French people changed their government as a result of that. America still is the big dream. I think the French understand that.

Exactly what the gentleman is talking about, the newest word out today in the Wall Street Journal, last week the Bureau of Labor Statistics released new figures, 110,000 jobs created in September of this year.

September 2007 is the 49th consecutive month of job growth,

setting a new record for the longest uninterrupted expansion of the U.S. labor market. There is more good news. No surprise. We also learned that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the Federal deficit came in at $161 billion for the just-completed 2007 year, down significantly from $248 billion the year before, meaning that we are following exactly what the gentleman from Oregon is talking about. We are following through to make sure that with these tax cuts that not only do people have jobs, but the government increases the amount of revenue it has.

The point that the gentleman from Oregon is making is so true, and it seems like that we are always in gear for an election. The fact of the matter is that every 2 years there is an election, but now, the year before the election, we have engaged in so much bashing of not only America but really how great America is.

What the gentleman talks about here would also be true with trade, about how America has found a way to find trading partners all around the globe to reduce tariffs. And if there is one thing, and the gentleman knows that I am a big scouter with the Boy Scouts of America. I teach merit badge classes back home. All of my scouters learn right off the bat, what is a tariff? And they respond, it is a tax. We are reducing taxes and allowing countries all around the globe to be able to compete so that they better their own economic circumstances and end poverty in their own country. This is part of what that overall plan is.

Agriculture plays a key role in this.

The American is a farmer making sure that not only what we produce in this country that we get that opportunity for it, but making sure the rest of the world has that same opportunity. So this is where these trade bills which are languishing right now in the House of Representatives, the clock has already started. Please let everyone know back home if you can, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), that we need to continue these trade bills to make sure that American agriculture and our manufacturing pushes our products overseas and we take their products which helps not only these countries but also all of humanity.

Tonight we are talking about the Republican vision versus the Democrat agenda. Smaller, smarter, commonsense government versus ineffective, wasteful, intrusive government. Forestry may be one of those issues that would fit right in here.

So the opportunity to go in and clear, the opportunity to allow this burned timber to be harvested would mean that bugs and all the things which might find a way to eat this timber or weaken it, rather than clearing it and getting started again, is in the process of decay, not health at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I remember when the fires at Yellowstone were taking place, and I remember seeing how many of our friends who were environmentalists said, let it burn, let it burn, and yet I remember seeing the carnage that took place with wildlife and the millions of animals who not only lost their home but then would be thrust out in the cold as a result of the huge fire, when in fact I had learned from my being an Eagle Scout, and the gentleman from Oregon is an Eagle Scout, we learned in our forestry merit badges that healthy forests are those where you can come in and clear out those things that were from years of use, and come and clean the forest, and you could come and take sections so that you made sure that any fire did not destroy the whole thing. They would come and cut the forest and work with Mother Nature and then replant.

Mr. Speaker, in the last 5 or 6 years, and you can look at any National Geographic or perhaps the Discovery Channel and see where the people, the companies that grow trees, they have healthy forests. I think the healthiest forests are where private people and private companies own the trees, as opposed to the government, because the government has a policy of ineffective, wasteful and intrusive government in managing our forests.

I thank the gentleman from Oregon, who not only has persuasively brought forth arguments that he sees in his home State of Oregon, but also who amplified the Republican vision, smaller, smarter, commonsense government, almost something you can find in a Scout handbook, or a merit badge, versus the Democrat agenda, which is ineffective, wasteful, intrusive government, allowing not only for thousands of people to lose their job, but mismanagement of the natural resources that has been given to this great country that Lewis & Clark found out so much about, that we tout as not only the Teddy Roosevelt answer to the way America would be, but also how we are going to bring her on in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Oregon not only for his time, for his dedication, but also for the things which he believes in.

I yield to the gentleman.

I want to thank the gentleman from Oregon. There's only one thing you didn't mention, and that's the BTU tax that many of the new leaders of the United States Congress today, the new Democrat majority, right there with the BTU tax. They're back. What they are really saying is pretty simple: Don't use this electricity; sit in the dark. Don't go create something that is good or better, don't find a way to have less emissions; go and tax things.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for being here today. We have been joined also tonight by the gentleman, who is a dear friend of mine from Iowa, Mr. King. We are talking tonight, Mr. King, about the Republican agenda, smaller, smarter, commonsense government, versus the Democrat agenda, which is ineffective, wasteful and intrusive government. And perhaps the thing which I identify most, and particularly when I see you, is to talk about taxes and how important tax reform has been.

Mr. Speaker, it has been said a long time ago that the Republican party is here as the bull dogs for the taxpayer, to make sure that efficiency occurs, to make sure that the original mission statement of what a program might be for, to balance a budget is important. I don't know if the gentleman heard or not, but the Bureau of Labor Statistics released new job figures of 110,000 net

new jobs in September. September 2007 is the 49th consecutive month of job growth, setting a new record for the longest uninterrupted expansion of the U.S. labor market.

Since August of 2003, our economy has created more than 8.1 million jobs and today has the lowest unemployment that sits at 4.7 percent. There is more good news. You see, if you have a country that produces great dreams for people and they can go make things happen, like jobs, we also learned last week that the nonpartisan CBO, Congressional Budget Office, said the Federal deficit came in at $161 billion for the just-completed fiscal year, down from $248 billion the year before. I think we are headed in the right direction. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

As I recall, we spent at least one or two of those elections talking about how the stock market was down and how people had lost their savings and their pensions were in trouble, and how all of these terrible things were happening, cataclysmic events.

Then along came a market-based idea which we had known and understood not just from watching President Kennedy who cut capital gains and President Reagan to talk about you cut taxes you get more money because of invasion, isn't it true what this brave Republican Congress did is they cut taxes because they wanted to spur the American economy for people to have jobs and be competitive with the world, and so families would have an opportunity to keep more of what they made rather than giving it to the government.

And aren't we in that circumstance as we speak now with the SCHIP, which is children's health care, where this new Democrat majority has brought forth a bill that, among other things, more than half of the people who would be new to this SCHIP bill would be people who are already on insurance, who already have private insurance, and yet they are demanding, no, no, we have to add them to the government side.

What we are looking at here is a $6 billion program that Republicans invented because we believe in helping children because we know if you take care of children, immunize them and do things when they are children, then when they are adults, they not only do better in school they grow up and are healthier.

We are taking this from a $6 billion program a year to a $13 billion program. And to fund it, it would require, under the Democrat majority plan, 20 million new smokers to pay for the darn program. Is that what you are talking about where you all of a sudden shift from people who figure out you can get the government to pay for everything, a government-run health care program?

My guess is they would call that the doughnut hole then.

Where would the Canadians go if America has a single payer, Hillary-style health care plan? Where would the Canadians go when they need real medicine?

The gentleman, as he makes the point about how important it is that we have a market-based, free enterprise system health care, is so true.

If you look at America and leukemia versus Europe, America's survival rate is 50 percent; Europe's is 35 percent. Prostate cancer, America's survival rate is 81.2 percent; France, 61.7; England, 44.3 percent.

My gosh, it just tells you that what America has is not only the greatest health care system in the world, and one that is of envy, but one that produces results. And of course it is more expensive, and of course it costs money, but if the free enterprise system would support this because we don't tax the ability that people have to buy their health care, which is what the Democrat party mandate is, that you've got to tax people that don't belong in a corporation, then what it means is that you've got a bunch of people that can't afford it.

So that's another point that comes back to your tax element about health care. You should not have to pay after-tax money on health care. It should all be pre-tax, but the Democrats insist that, if you don't work for a corporation, you should not get this opportunity because it's not something that you negotiated with with a labor contract.

I thank the gentleman not only for being here this evening but a chance to join the gentleman from Oregon and, of course, Texan here.

Mr. Speaker, tonight we've had an opportunity to talk about the Republican vision and how important the Republican vision is for a smaller, smarter, common sense government, versus a Democrat agenda, ineffective, wasteful and intrusive government.

I want to thank my colleagues for being here this evening. Mr. Speaker, we appreciate your time. We know that the people of the good State of Tennessee have sent you here to do the people's work, and that's what we're here to do, same also, for good public policy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this modified closed rule that waives important portions of the Congressional Budget Act.

Last night in the Rules Committee, we learned that this special rule finds yet another way for the majority to break regular order. By waiving section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act, this rule undermines the integrity of the budgeting process by allowing legislation within the Budget Committee's jurisdiction to be considered by the House without the Budget Committee's review.

My friend from Pasco, Washington, Doc Hastings, asked the acting chairman of the committee, Mr. McGovern, if the rule being considered does indeed waive this budget rule that protects taxpayers and Members of this House of Representatives. The answer came back simple and clear: Yes, the rule waives this commonsense provision.

I wish that I could say that I am surprised by the Democrat leadership's decision to find yet another way to toss House rules and procedures out the window. Unfortunately, this is precisely what has come to be known as, and to expect from, the new broken promise Democrat majority.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us has the noble goal of strengthening and clarifying the authority, tenure, resources, oversight and independence of the Inspectors General in the various Federal Departments and agencies.

Many of the issues addressed by the legislation today enjoy bipartisan support and are of great importance to me and a huge number of my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle. The bill establishes a council to identify, review and plan to promote efficiency and address waste, fraud and abuse. It provides for greater integrity by establishing a new committee to investigate allegations of wrongdoing and to report on their efforts to the executive branch and to Congress.

It requires reports to Congress on the cooperation of all Federal agencies with the General Accountability Office and requires that semiannual inspection and evaluation reports, in addition to audit reports, be submitted to Congress.

Despite all of the noble goals of this legislation, I do regret that this bill was not crafted in closer coordination with the administration to resolve some of the outstanding issues that prevent it from being signed into law.

Like me, the administration has publicly stated its strong support for the work of Inspectors General and their overall mission to improve agency performance and to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse. However, the administration strongly objects to some of the provisions included in this legislation that are likely unconstitutional.

The end-run contained in this legislation around article II of the Constitution, which our Founding Fathers provided to the executive branch to ensure that all of our Nation laws are faithfully executed, guarantees that this

bill will not only be vetoed by the President but would also be overturned by the Supreme Court if this bill were ever passed by the House and the Senate.

Also, by requiring Inspectors General to circumvent the long-standing and constitutionally based budgeting process that currently exists, without even including the House Budget Committee in the decisionmaking process, is a thinly veiled political stunt intended to draw a veto threat from the President and to create a false disagreement over this bill when it is clear that both Republicans and Democrats support reducing waste, fraud and abuse at each of our Federal agencies.

Mr. Speaker, I insert in the Record a copy of the administration's statement of policy regarding their position on this legislation.

Executive Office of the President, Office of Management

and Budget,

Washington, DC, October 1, 2007.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 928--To amend the Inspector General Act of 1978 to enhance the

independence of the Inspectors General, to create a Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, and for other purposes

The Administration appreciates the work of inspectors

general (IGs) and their mission to improve agency performance

and eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse. IGs play an important

role in Executive Branch efforts to measure and achieve

success in program performance. Each agency's Office of

Inspector General (OIG) fills a vital role in these efforts

by reviewing operations and making recommendations for

improvements and corrective actions. By providing objective

information to promote strong management, decision-making,

and accountability, OIGs contribute to the success of each

agency and the Federal government as a whole. The

Administration strongly supports efforts to ensure that IGs

have: the skills and training they need to perform their

duties; fair pay; findings and recommendations that are

transparent to the public; and access to necessary legal

advice.

H.R. 928, the ``Improving Government Accountability Act,''

would further some of these objectives. However, the

Administration strongly objects to provisions that are

inconsistent with these goals, and with broader policy

considerations and constitutional requirements. If H.R. 928

were presented to the President in its current form, the

President's senior advisors would recommend that he veto the

bill.

H.R. 928 would permit the President to remove IGs only for

cause. The Administration strongly objects to this intrusion

on the President's removal authority and his ability to hold

IGs accountable for their performance. The responsibility to

``take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed''--which

Article II vests solely in the President--includes the

responsibility to supervise and guide how IGs and other

executive branch officers investigate and respond to

allegations of wrongdoing within the executive branch. IGs

already have the independence necessary to perform their

investigative functions with respect to individual agencies,

because agency heads generally may not supervise IGs' conduct

of investigations. H.R. 928's attempt to extend this current

independence to include independence from supervision by the

President does not enhance the function of IGs and raises

grave constitutional concerns.

The Administration also strongly opposes provisions that

would authorize IGs to circumvent the President's

longstanding, and constitutionally based, control over

executive branch budget requests by allowing IGs to submit

their budget requests directly to Congress and by requiring

the President to include each IG's request as a separate line

item in the President's annual budget request. Since its

inception, the current executive branch coordination process

has worked well for both the President and the Congress. The

process is deliberative and results in an agency and

government-wide coordinated submission that accounts for

long-range planning and priorities.

IGs have been a part of this process since their creation

in 1978, and there is no evidence that the current process

results in budgets that fail to enable appropriate IG

performance.

The Administration also objects to provisions that would

establish within the Executive Branch a freestanding,

independent Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity

and Efficiency. A similar council already exists under

Executive Orders. Statutory codification of such a council

would impede the President's ability to react swiftly and

effectively to problems with IGs or with the Council itself.

Furthermore, the council provisions in H.R. 928 raise

constitutional questions because they restrict the

President's authority to nominate individuals to serve on the

Council and contain ambiguous definitions of offices and

their respective roles and responsibilities. Finally, it is

critical that disclosure protections regarding the Witness

Security Program apply to the Department of Justice's

Inspector General's internal investigative procedures and

release of information, since the release of specific

information related to the program could endanger the

program's means and methods, personnel, and the continued

safety of the program's protected witnesses.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose the majority's unwillingness to work with the administration in a bipartisan way to create a bill that all Members of this body can support and that would also pass constitutional muster. I also oppose the Democrat leadership's willingness to once again subvert regular order for political purposes and to prevent my colleague from The Woodlands in Texas, Congressman Kevin Brady, from having an opportunity to offer his amendment to provide additional review of the work product of our Federal agencies.

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

I appreciate the gentlewoman engaging me at this time. Mr. Speaker, I would inform my colleague that I do not have any additional speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio and enjoy working with her.

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to oppose the previous question so that I may amend the rule to allow for consideration of H. Res. 479, a resolution that I like to call the Earmark Accountability Rule.

During last year's campaign and again at the beginning of this Congress, promises were made to the American people and to the new minority about the Democrats' supposedly new and improved earmark rules. As the year has worn on, however, I have noticed that while the Democrats' rules changes may sound good as a cynical sound bite for the evening news, they haven't actually accomplished much since the majority has repeatedly turned the other way when it comes to their own actual enforcement.

We continue to see nondisclosed earmarks appearing in all sorts of bills, and even the House Parliamentarian has determined that the hastily drafted and passed Democrat earmark rule ``does not comprehensively apply to all legislative propositions at all stages of the legislative process.''

I will insert this letter from the House Parliamentarian, John Sullivan, to the Rules Committee chairman, Louise Slaughter, into the Record at this point.

House of Representatives,

Office of the Parliamentarian,

Washington, DC, October 2, 2007.

Hon. Louise McIntosh Slaughter,

Committee on Rules, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairwoman Slaughter: Thank you for your letter of

October 2, 2007, asking for an elucidation of our advice on

how best to word a special rule. As you also know, we have

advised the committee that language waiving all points of

order ``except those arising under clause 9 of rule XXI''

should not be adopted as boilerplate for all special rules,

notwithstanding that the committee may be resolved not to

recommend that the House waive the earmark-disclosure

requirements of clause 9.

In rule XXI, clause 9(a) establishes a point of order

against undisclosed earmarks in certain measures and clause

9(b) establishes a point of order against a special rule that

waives the application of clause 9(a). As illuminated in the

rulings of September 25 and 27, 2007, clause 9(a) of rule XXI

does not comprehensively apply to all legislative

propositions at all stages of the legislative process.

Clause 9(a) addresses the disclosure of earmarks in a bill

or joint resolution, in a conference report on a bill or

joint resolution, or in a so-called ``manager's amendment''

to a bill or joint resolution. Other forms of amendment--

whether they be floor amendments during initial House

consideration or later amendments between the Houses--are not

covered. (One might surmise that those who developed the rule

felt that proposals to amend are naturally subject to

immediate peer review, though they harbored reservations

about the so-called ``manager's amendment,'' i.e., one

offered at the outset of consideration for amendment by a

member of a committee of initial referral under the terms of

a special rule.)

The question of order on September 25 involved a special

rule providing for a motion to dispose of an amendment

between the Houses. As such, clause 9(a) was inapposite. It

had no application to the motion in the first instance.

Accordingly, Speaker pro

tempore Holden held that the special rule had no tendency to

waive any application of clause 9(a). The question of order

on September 27 involved a special rule providing (in

pertinent part) that an amendment be considered as adopted.

Speaker pro tempore Blumenauer employed the same rationale to

hold that, because clause 9(a) had no application to the

amendment in the first instance, the special rule had no

tendency to waive any application of clause 9(a).

The same would be true in the more common case of a

committee amendment in the nature of a substitute made in

order as original text for the purpose of further amendment.

Clause 9(a) of rule XXI is inapposite to such an amendment.

In none of these scenarios would a ruling by a presiding

officer hold that earmarks are or are not included in a

particular measure or proposition. Under clause 9(b) of rule

XXI, the threshold question for the Chair--the cognizability

of a point of order--turns on whether the earmark-disclosure

requirements of clause 9(a) of rule XXI apply to the object

of the special rule in the first place. Embedded in the

question whether a special rule waives the application of

clause 9(a) is the question whether clause 9(a) has any

application.

In these cases to which clause 9 of rule XXI has no

application in the first instance, stating a waiver of all

points of order except those arising under that rule--when

none can so arise--would be, at best, gratuitous. Its

negative implication would be that such a point of order

might lie. That would be as confusing as a waiver of all

points of order against provisions of an authorization bill

except those that can only arise in the case of a general

appropriation bill (e.g., clause 2 of role XXI). Both in this

area and as a general principle, we try hard not to use

language that yields a misleading implication.

I appreciate your consideration and trust that this

response is to be shared among all members of the committee.

Our office will share it with all inquiring parties.

Sincerely,

John V. Sullivan,

Parliamentarian.

Mr. Speaker, even the nonpartisan House Parliamentarian acknowledges what Republicans have been saying since January: that the so-called Democrat earmark rule has more holes than a bowl of Cheerios and that earmark abuse by the broken promise Democrat majority continues to run rampant.

This rules change would simply allow the House to debate openly and honestly about the validity and accuracy of earmarks contained in all bills, not just appropriations bills.

If we defeat the previous question, we then can address that problem today and restore this Congress' nonexistent credibility when it comes to the enforcement of its own rules.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material appear in the Congressional Record just 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.

I thank the ranking member from California for not only putting together this Special Order tonight, but also talking about the Rules Committee which I think is so important. I have had an opportunity to serve on the Rules Committee for 9 years. For 9 years previous to this, I have seen the Rules Committee as being part of the process to make sure that the agenda of policy is done properly by the Speaker of the House through this committee. I would like to note to the gentleman from California, as he remembers that, Republicans utilized this committee to make sure that we balanced the budget, to make sure that we had responsibility and the opportunity to make sure that the American people benefited from that which we did here in Washington, D.C. by cutting taxes.

Republicans balanced the budget when they said it was not possible in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001. We went in and we balanced the budget. We utilized the Rules Committee to make sure that we had responsible government.

I have now seen during the last 10 months that we have been in the minority that it is also true that the new Democrat majority utilizes the Rules Committee to do things that I don't think that the American people can completely understand, and that is that they want to raise taxes, they want to raise spending, and they want to make sure that what happens is that loopholes are there in place for them to do earmarks despite the debate that has taken place on this floor.

So I am pleased to join the gentleman from California tonight in summarizing that the Rules Committee is a very difficult place for all Members. It is a difficult place whether you are in the majority or the minority, but it is still the place where the political work gets done, and nothing has changed. The Democrat Party is still here to raise taxes and raise spending and to take away from the American people that which they earn, and that is called their hard-earned money.

Mr. Speaker, I rise again today in strong opposition to this unnecessarily restrictive rule that completely closes down the legislative process to every single Republican amendment that was offered in hopes of bettering this bill before the Rules Committee. This modified closed rule is being offered by the broken-promise Democrat majority, is wrong on both process and on policy.

Yesterday evening, in the Rules Committee, the place where democracy goes to die in the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) stated that he welcomed debating any substantive amendment so long as the committee did not make in order multiple amendments with similar goals. Despite the chairman's wishes to allow for a fair and open debate on substantive amendments to this bill, Rules Committee Democrats, once again, instead chose to further solidify our committee's growing reputation as ``the graveyard of good ideas'' in the House of Representatives by rejecting five times each time, along straight party lines, attempts to improve this rule by including substantive amendments offered by Republicans.

Chairman Frank also testified that no amendment had been offered to the legislation that reflected the administration's opposition to this legislation, an inaccurate statement that I would like to clear up. First, my good friend from Georgia, the gentleman, Dr. Tom Price, electronically submitted a timely amendment to this bill that dealt with the substantive concerns raised by the administration. Dr. Price was then turned away from the Rules Committee and denied the opportunity to even offer this amendment when the paper copies reached the Rules Committee door 5 minutes after the arbitrary deadline that was set by the Rules Committee staff.

Next, Mr. Speaker, when it became obvious that the Rules Committee was going to silence Dr. Price, my good friend and Texas colleague, Congressman Jeb Hensarling, modified one of his amendments to address the substantive concerns over the addition of wind coverage to the National Flood Insurance Program that he shared in common with Dr. Price and President Bush. Unfortunately, Mr. Hensarling, too, has been shut out by this rule.

Despite numerous campaign promises by the highest-ranking Democrats in the House to run the most transparent, open and honest House in history, this Democrat majority has once again provided the House with the rule where none of this would be available.

Out of 26 amendments offered to this legislation, not one of the seven Republican amendments offered is made in order under the rule. It can't be for lack of time. There is simply no good reason to rush reauthorization for this legislation which doesn't even expire until next year. And the Democrats certainly found time enough to provide 13 Democrat amendment sponsors enough time to come to the floor to try

and change this legislation. It can't be because these Republican amendments are not substantive. The Hensarling and Price amendments would have addressed the most substantive and contentious part of this legislation: the inclusions of wind coverage into a flood insurance program. However, the Democrat majority, once again, decided that political expediency is more important than allowing the representatives of half of this country to be heard. I wish I could say that I was surprised by the Democrat leadership allowing politics to triumph over policy or fair procedure. Unfortunately, this is precisely what we have come to expect from the new broken-promise Democrat majority.

What is worse, Mr. Speaker, is that this bill's real-world impact is as bad or worse as the process that brings us here to the floor today. It would expand the flood program to include a new risk before the effects of this policy have even been studied. Both the GAO, the Government Accountability Office, and the Congressional Budget Office, the CBO, have reported to us that the program is already not financially sound. That means that, as the program exists that the new Democrat majority wants to put in place, we already know that it is not financially sound. And the addition of this new and untested liability threats to derail much of the much-needed reforms of this program, while vastly increasing taxpayer exposure for losses from natural disasters unrelated to flooding.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule. I oppose its exclusion of every single Republican amendment that was offered to improve it in the Rules Committee. I oppose the raw, political gain represented by the ill- conceived underlying legislation that puts our National Flood Insurance Program in jeopardy. Most of all, Mr. Speaker, I oppose the new earmark loophole, uncovered last night, that provides the broken-promise Democrat majority with yet another opportunity to waive their already loose earmark rules on every bill as they see fit.

While this new development made here to the strict letter of the smoke-and-mirrors earmark rule the Democrats rushed sloppily through the House at the beginning of the Congress, it certainly does not meet the spirit of that rule either. I encourage all of my colleagues to join me in opposing this rule, particularly Chairman Frank, who argued so eloquently for the inclusion of substantive amendments so that the new rule can be passed that would finally keep the Democrat promise of openness and inclusion alive.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, once again, in line with what we have stated earlier, that the 13 Republican amendments, which were presented to the Rules Committee, of course, there were others that were rejected because they were 1 or 2 minutes late, need to be discussed. The Rules Committee voted on a party line not to let them be on the floor today. But our Members represent important not only States, but important districts and important ideas. Another one of the persons who was denied the opportunity to have his amendment to be made in order is here with us today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) for that purpose.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I heard the gentleman say that he had spent time working with the chairman of the committee on this inequity to make sure that if you brought forward that amendment, that he would not oppose it.

Mr. Speaker, once again the Republican team that is on the floor today wishes to continue our voice of representation of millions of Americans for better ideas, to be included not only on this floor but in the Rules Committee for consideration and agreement to debate and vote on these good ideas.

We know that last night that there were 13 amendments that were made in order, all Democrat amendments, no Republican amendments. We know that several Republican amendments were rejected based upon being just minutes late, even though they had been electronically submitted.

So as a result of that, we are here on the floor today doing appropriately, properly, what we should be doing; we are talking about the good ideas that we have. You heard already a good idea from the gentleman from New Jersey. You heard already a good idea from the gentlewoman from Michigan.

At this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. Speaker, part of what our last three colleagues who have been to the floor spoke about was that as members of the Committee on Financial Services they worked very diligently, not only in their States, not only within their delegation, not only within the committee, but also with the chairman on trying to make sure that these good ideas might be included.

Now, the Rules Committee, which I have only served on for 9 years, always finds itself in a difficult position. Always. That is part of the dilemma of being on the committee, in particular when a committee chairman and a member show up before the Rules Committee and they talk about working together, finding a bit of compromise, working together to get a bill and thoughts and ideas to where they are not only germane, but to where they better the bill. The Rules Committee just sits back and we say, boy, that is such a wonderful thing. We are so happy and so pleased, Republicans and Democrats.

Something has happened, something has happened since January that has poisoned that well. Not only time after time after time did we see yesterday when Republicans showed up and said to the committee, oh, I have worked very carefully with my Governor, or I have worked very carefully with people back home, I've worked with the administration, I have put in a lot of time, this is a thoughtful amendment, I've tried to gain the concurrence of working through the committee; and, oh, by the way, I have even worked with my committee chairman, which says something also about the committee chairman, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), who yesterday on his own standing said, by and large, look, I understand every issue that is related to this. I don't mind if any amendment, as long as they are not duplicative, and as long as they have substance, I think they ought to be made in order. Once again, one of those times when the members of the committee, Republicans and Democrats, say, boy, that is great. Thank you so much, Chairman Frank.

Something's happened, however, where people who were from the committee working with the committee chairman come and agree, and all of a sudden every single Republican amendment was rejected. It wasn't because they were duplicative; it wasn't because they didn't have substance. I don't know what it is.

We have tried this morning to have several people who have come to the floor to say I'd like to engage the new Democrat majority, Rules Committee members, to find out--what is it--Why was every single Republican amendment rejected while 13 Democrat amendments were made in order? What is it?

There's a change. I don't think it's open, I don't think it's transparent, and I question some other things behind the decisionmaking that is being made.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) also took time to not only have thoughtful amendments, he not only sits on the committee, but also came to the Rules Committee, is here today also, because he believes, we believe, as Republicans we may get shut out, as we were in the Rules Committee; but we are still going to come to the floor and stand for the things which we believe in that would better the bill.

I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to oppose the previous question to give the Democrats yet another opportunity to live up to their broken promises and amend the rule to allow for consideration of H.

Res. 479, a resolution that I like to call the ``earmark accountability rule.''

Mr. Speaker, this Congress continues to see nondisclosed earmarks appearing in all sorts of bills. These rule changes would simply allow the House to openly debate and be honest about the validity and accuracy of earmarks contained in all bills, not just appropriation bills. If we defeat the previous question, we can address that problem today and restore this Congress's nonexistent credibility when it comes to the enforcement of its own rules.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, if I could inquire from my colleague from California if she has finished with her speakers.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio, the minority leader, Mr. Boehner.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Cousins Properties, TIAA Realty, and the Towers at Williams Square for winning the coveted 2007 International The Office Building of the Year (TOBY) Award.

The Towers at Williams Square made Dallas Building Owners and Manager Association, BOMA, history as the first local association to win an International TOBY in the over 1 million square feet category. After losing to The Crescent at the local level in 2001, the Towers at Williams Square re-entered in 2007; this time winning at the local and regional levels before advancing to the international competition. The TOBY Award recognizes excellence in building office management and operations worldwide and speaks loudly of the value and contributions that Cousins Properties and TIAA Realty have brought to the Towers at Williams Square and the surrounding local community.

It is home to the ``Mustangs of Las Colinas'' sculpture and museum and was originally created as the symbolic center of Las Colinas. The Greater Irving--Las Colinas Chamber of Commerce will gather members of the local community to celebrate this prestigious honor that has bestowed on the Towers at Williams Square. Madam Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in congratulating them.

Mr. Speaker, today is a defining moment for an insatiable appetite that the new Democrat majority has for spending, spending taxpayer dollars and going well beyond the mission statement of SCHIP. And that is what the day is all about. It is a defining moment with the new Democrat majority seeking a way to have single payer-funded health care for all America. And that is the road that we are defining and beginning again today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this completely closed rule that fails to even provide the minority with a motion to recommit, and to the underlying legislation that the minority did not receive until 6:30 last night.

When I came to the floor in the beginning of August to oppose the previous version of this legislation, I explained my opposition to the way that it had been brought to the floor without a single legislative markup. And, unfortunately, again today that fact has not changed. In fact, neither Republican leadership nor Republican members on the House Energy and Commerce Committee had an opportunity to participate in the crafting of the 250-plus pages of legislative language this entire House was provided with just a little bit more than 12 hours ago.

Despite the terrible process surrounding this legislation from start to finish, I would like to once again thank the Democrat leadership for one thing: By cramming this bill through the House for a second time, they are giving every single Member of this body another opportunity to go on record regarding which vision they have for the future of our Nation's health care system that they truly support.

The first vision for our future is to slowly shift away as many Americans as is possible into a one-size-fits-all Washington bureaucrat-run program. And, if nothing else, I congratulate the Democrat leadership for their clarity, because that vision is embodied in H.R. 976.

Rather than taking the opportunity to cover the children who cannot obtain coverage through Medicaid or the private marketplace, this bill uses these children as pawns in their cynical attempt to make millions of Americans completely reliant upon the government for their health care needs.

H.R. 976 also increases government spending and dislocates the private marketplace, leaving taxpayers holding the bag for these increased costs. This bill generally raises the income threshold for eligibility and allows States to qualify anyone receiving these funds, including childless adults and people making over $80,000 a year, despite the fact that this diverts these much needed funds away from helping our Nation's most poorest children.

It would also allow illegal immigrants and aliens to receive these benefits by forcing States to accept nonsecure documents as proof of citizenship for purposes of receiving these funds. I find it both ironic and unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that the party of Hillary Clinton and bureaucrat-run health care would float a proposal in which law- abiding citizens are made to show proof of insurance as a condition of employment, while this legislation would open the door for ineligible and illegal immigrants to receive federally funded benefits, no questions asked.

All of these problems exist on top of a current system which we know that some States already abuse. This bill grandfathers in New York's standard, which provides Federal assistance to those making four times the poverty level, and in New Jersey at 3\1/2\ times, while allowing every other State to expand coverage to three times the current poverty level.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the crowd-out effect created by this big government bill that replaces private insurance with a government program will not provide coverage to more kids. By the CBO estimate, it simply will shift 2.4 million children out of private insurance and into a Federal program that hurts doctors and hospitals by forcing them to deal with government bureaucrats that short-change both patients and providers by undercompensating them for medical services.

If Democrats were serious about ensuring that every American had access to inexpensive and high-quality health care, we would be talking about a different vision today for our health care, one that tackles the system's real underlying problems and revolutionizes our health care system to provide us

with better results. This other, Republican vision for improving health access to health insurance includes allowing families to have access to tax exemptions up to $15,000 a year for health care, not just those who work for large employers.

The Republican vision includes giving Americans the ability to purchase health insurance across State lines, because healthy insurance options should not be limited to the State you live in or your zip code. It also includes having Congress act to ensure that those who can't get insurance in the marketplace have access to coverage through high-risk pools and low-income tax credits.

Mr. Speaker, I am not here to oppose the idea of SCHIP. It was a Republican-controlled Congress that created SCHIP, and I support its original, true mission. But H.R. 976 is a camouflaged attempt at slowly siphoning Americans from insurance plans into a Washington, D.C., bureaucrat-run system.

Mr. Speaker, today we fail to address one of the most serious issues facing our Nation: how to make our health insurance system more affordable and accessible for all Americans. And by focusing on the wrong vision for our future, this bill does nothing to address either problem. It ignores the fact that our Nation has produced the greatest health care advantages in the world, many of which have come as a result of our competitive insurance market.

The American survival rate for leukemia is 50 percent; the European rate is just about 35 percent. For prostate cancer, the American survival rate is 81 percent; in France, it is 62 percent; in England, it is 44 percent.

Rather than trying to emulate Europe and its outdated socialized approach, we should be working on a vision to give every single American an opportunity to take part in our competitive insurance market. I encourage my colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying legislation to drag America into a one-size-fits-all European model.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to the gentleman from San Dimas, California, the ranking member on the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) 6 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ennis, Texas, the ranking member on Energy and Commerce (Mr. Barton).

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a father and a patriot (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to oppose the previous question so that I may amend the rule to allow for consideration of H. Res. 479, a resolution that I call the ``Earmark Accountability Rule.'' It seems like we need a lot more accountability. We had to learn today that through a loophole that evidently we don't have to have all earmarks to be accounted for in the bills that come to this floor of the House of Representatives despite what we were told just a few months ago.

Last night in the ``Graveyard of Good Ideas,'' which is the Rules Committee, I made a motion that would have the Democrats enforce their own earmark proposal by allowing points of order regarding earmarks to be raised on this legislation. As expected, the vote failed along party lines with every Democrat member present voting to waive their own earmark rules for this bill. I am greatly disappointed in that outcome. So today I am giving the entire House, not just the nine Democrat members of the Rules Committee, whose word we are expected to take that this legislation contains no earmarks, an opportunity to correct that mistake.

This rules change would simply allow the House to debate openly and honestly about the validity and accuracy of earmarks contained in all bills, not just appropriations bills. If we defeat the previous question, we can address that problem today and restore this Congress' nonexistent credibility when it comes to the enforcement of its own rules.

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

Mr. Speaker, today, once again, we have a rule that is on the floor of the House of Representatives that is neither open nor I think passes the standard of accountability to the American people nor fairness that they spoke about. Last night, the Rules Committee and minority received this bill just 1 hour and 15 minutes before the Rules Committee was to meet. It involved no feedback from Republican Members, especially those who have jurisdiction over this from the Energy and Commerce Committee.

I am disappointed. I am disappointed that, once again, we have to come to the floor of the House of Representatives after asking a straightforward question last night to the chairman of the Rules Committee, ``Are there any earmarks in this legislation? We think we found three,'' only to come to the floor today and find out, oops, no, we got a loophole, had to find a loophole.

This is crass. It is really politics over policy. I know many people want the United States House of Representatives to be higher in the polls. We are at 11 percent right now. People scratch their head and wonder why. Well, with the way that this House is running, not living up to their word, even the word in committee among colleagues who have been with each other for 9 years that I have been on the Rules Committee where a person looked right at me and said, ``There is nothing in that bill,'' I think we can do better.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this modified closed rule that shuts down debate in the House to every Member of this body, except the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, who has already had ample time and opportunity to modify this legislation, and to one token Republican amendment.

Two nights ago, in the Democrat Rules Committee, which over the last year has truly solidified its reputation as the graveyard of good ideas in the House of Representatives, we had a wide-ranging discussion from Members on both sides of the aisle about their

proposals to improve this legislation. We adjourned this meeting without reporting out a rule so that alternatives to subverting the Rules Committee jurisdiction, while sticking to the Democrat pay-for rule, could be studied. Unfortunately, when the opportunity came for the majority to make good on its campaign promises to run the most honest, ethical and transparent House in history by providing an open and transparent legislative process, Members of this House were, once again, silenced by the heavy-handed Democrat leadership.

While I am no longer surprised by the Democrat leadership's decision to allow politics to prevail over good government, I'm still disappointed, because as the sponsor of legislation to extend the TRIA program in the 108th Congress, I fundamentally believe that it has helped the private sector to stabilize our Nation's economy by providing a functioning marketplace for policyholders to acquire terrorism insurance and for insurers to provide it to them.

In fact, many of the positive aspects of this bill mimic policy proposals included in my legislation, and in legislation introduced last Congress by my good friend from Louisiana, Richard Baker. Like these Republican bills, today's legislation would extend the current program, providing both policyholders and insurers with the certainty needed for long-term projects and our domestic economic health to move forward.

And, like prior Republican legislation, today's bill would eliminate the false distinction between foreign and domestic acts of terror. As we have learned from the London bombings and from the recent foiled terrorist plots in Germany and in New Jersey, no country is insulated from home-grown terrorism, which can be just as destructive and as costly as terrorists from abroad.

Other aspects of this legislation, such as the inclusion of nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological coverage, mimic past Republican proposals without including market-based modifications that our proposals also contained in order to make this coverage both taxpayer friendly and cost efficient.

Unfortunately, there's one proposal in today's legislation that is unprecedented and that I simply cannot support. Written in the Rules Committee, without any consideration or debate in the Financial Services Committee, and then self-executed by the rule so that it receives no up-or-down vote, this rule contains language that skirts recent Democrat promises to abide by their own self-imposed PAYGO rules by shifting the responsibility of funding TRIA onto future Congresses.

By including this mandate on future Congresses, which the Supreme Court has roundly rejected as unconstitutional, the market stabilization benefits of TRIA completely evaporate.

Rather than helping to provide insurers and policyholders with the certainty that they need to manage their exposure to the financial costs of terrorism, this bill simply kicks the responsibility down the road and by and large says ``we will let somebody else worry about that.''

Rather than clearly signaling to the private sector what the Federal Government will spend in the event of another attack on the United States and what their own costs and responsibilities would be, this hastily drafted language, shoved in in the middle of the night, reintroduces political risk into this financial transaction by leaving these hard decisions up to the whims of a future Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I think this Congress should do better and they can do better than this. Instead of closed rules and artful dodges of the PAYGO rule, I think that Members and their constituents deserve the openness promised by Democrat leadership. Instead of procedural trickery and inserting language of a mysterious origin into this rule without any minority input or open debate, I think that Members and their constituents deserve transparency, which was promised by the Democrat leadership. And, most of all, instead of leaving the hard decisions and potential costs of this program to future Congresses, I believe that Members and their constituents deserve a bill that deals honestly with one of the most serious problems facing the American economy.

Unfortunately, this bill provides none of these things and is a far less responsible approach to dealing with the real-world economic problems posed by terrorism to our country, more than past Republican proposals. In fact, about the best thing that can be said about this bill and the process under which it is being considered today is the fact that perhaps it will spur the Senate to provide the American people with a more serious proposal in dealing with TRIA so that all of the flaws of this legislation can be worked out in conference.

I oppose this rule and encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am going to yield to the gentleman from California, who will help us to understand a little bit more clearly about the uncooked and, I believe, sloppy work that was presented to the Rules Committee such that many, many, many Members on a bipartisan basis questioned the decision that was made, and it will help us to reflect upon an opportunity about how it could be done better.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the gentleman for his fine remarks. As a matter of fact, I agree with him, that I do not believe that it is proper or correct to have a mandatory bill which requires mandatory spending, but discretionary funding that's available. And that is exactly what this new Democrat majority is doing. They are saying we would be absolutely required, mandatory, to spend the money, but discretionary as to whether we're really serious about providing that or not. And I believe that that is a serious question that comes under question today about the serious nature of the policy of this.

I don't attack the underlying legislation at all. The legislation does not bother me. I've supported this for years. That's what will be the underpinning of making our country stronger and better and preparing us for what may be in our future. But you can't require something and then not provide the money, especially under PAYGO rules that you had initiated yourself.

So this is simply a debate that the new Democrat majority is having within itself about whether they're really serious about their opportunity to bring to the table serious policy issues that face this great Nation.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Price.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman, once again, another speaker from our friends on the Democrat side, talking with us about how they are going to fix it. We appreciate that.

That is what we are asking for today. The best I can tell you is that the Republican Party is in favor of fixing it. We believe the best way to do it is on the floor of the House right now, because right now we could fix it where all the Members will understand what the ramifications are. The ramifications are either that we are going to say that terrorist attacks don't apply under PAYGO rules or that terrorist attacks would be in fine print, that now perhaps the Democrat majority wants to put in that all this spending applies but perhaps not under certain circumstances. I think we could craft a deal here.

But now what the gentleman is asking us to do is ``just trust me.'' Well, the first thing I would like to do is get a copy of the letter. It would be appropriate for me to ask for that. I know the gentleman, Mr. Ackerman, does not oppose my getting a copy of that letter. But what we are now being told is, ``now trust us that it will be brought back in a forum where there is debate, but it is either an up or down vote.'' We can't change that decision, nor can any other Member of this body change that. We have heard enough people talk today about how what is happening is wrong, should not happen, is bad policy. We ought to fix it today here on the floor if we are going to move forward and not say, ``trust me, trust me, wait for fine print or disagreement later.''

I appreciate the gentleman, Mr. Ackerman. I thought it was not only very nice what he did but well spoken, and I appreciate the gentleman very much.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. King).

Mr. Speaker, you know, I do appreciate my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts, coming in and arguing, but his side has already given in on this point. They have already conceded that they don't like the way the bill is, the self-executing rule. There is already agreement on his side, ``Whoa, this is wrong. We don't agree with this. We will agree to fix it.''

So, I love the gentleman from Massachusetts, he and I are very good friends, but they have already conceded that point. They have already said, ``We think there could be a better way to do it. We agree to fix it.'' So what did we say on this side? ``Thank you very much, Mr. Ackerman. We appreciate this. That is what we have been asking for. We are pleased that we got it.''

I wish we had the agreement here today. I wish we knew what that deal was going to be before you brought the bill to the floor. That's why we held off in the Rules Committee for an extra day waiting for a better answer. Didn't get it, get to the floor.

I would say to my good friends on this side, if you want us to be a better minority, you are going to have to be a better majority. We took seriously what Speaker Pelosi said, ``honest, open, ethical Congress.'' We are still waiting for that through the Rules Committee. When she said, ``PAYGO is going to apply to everything,'' it implied that Republicans didn't do that. Then we took that at the surface of the words, not looking for fine print, not looking for how they are going to try and get out of it. So we are trying to make sure that we simply know what we are supposed to count on.

They have come to the floor today, and they have said, ``We are going to work on it.'' I am pleased we are going to do that. I am simply saying that it should have been done before it got here. That is sloppy.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I have no additional speakers on the rule. I yield to the gentleman from New York to run down his time, then I will make my closing statement.

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to oppose the previous question so that I may amend the

rule to allow for the consideration of H. Res. 479, a resolution that I have not heard talked about today but the concepts are in that that I will call the ``Earmark Accountability Rule.''

At the beginning of this Congress, a number of promises were made to the American people about the Democrats' supposedly new and improved earmark rules.

As the Congress has worn on, however, I have noticed that while the Democrats' rule changes definitely sound good, they have not really lived up to their promise and have not really accomplished much, since the majority has repeatedly turned their head the other way when it comes to their actual enforcement.

I acknowledge that the majority has given into the minority demands for enforcement of their own rules a handful of times when it comes to appropriations conference reports. Unfortunately, we continue to see non-disclosed earmarks in all sorts of bills, also.

This rules change would simply allow the House to debate openly and honestly the validity and accuracy of earmarks contained in all bills, not just appropriations bills. If we defeat the previous question, we can address that problem today and restore this Congress' nonexistent credibility when it comes to enforcement of its rules, like we have seen once again today.

Mr. 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.