Floor Statements

I thank you, Congressman Westmoreland, for your leadership on this issue and that is really a great idea, and that is a petition that has a spot for every Member of the United States House of Representatives to sign that will say, ``I will vote to increase U.S. oil production to lower gas prices for Americans.''

As you said, it doesn't get any more simple than that. It's just as straightforward as it could be.

I am sorry I couldn't join you at the beginning. I was listening in my office to our friend from Ohio who had some comments, that I thought it was important to set the record straight a little bit. I know my good friend from Indiana has done so, but I thought I would mention a couple of things.

It's true, we do need to work together. We do need to work together, Democrats and Republicans on behalf of the American people. But as my mama used to say, it takes two to tango, and it's tough to dance by yourselves when the folks who are setting the agenda and setting the bills that come to the floor of the House, that will allow the bills that come to the floor of the House, when they won't tango, when they aren't interested, apparently, in solving this problem when the American people are crying out for a solution.

My good friend, Mr. Ryan from Ohio, talked about the issue of the oil companies, domestic oil companies, American oil companies who are trying to bring as much product out of the ground as possible. At these prices, one would think that they would. He talks about the fact that only a quarter of the lands are being used that are currently being leased to the oil companies.

He says, well, why don't they use the other 75 percent?

Well, that reminds me of the question that Willy Loman got, you know, Willy Loman was a bank robber. And they asked him, Willy, why do you rob banks? He thought a little bit and said, because that's where the money is, the money is there.

These oil companies don't drill on the other 75 percent of that land, not because they don't want to, it's because there are tests, remarkably efficient tests, that allow the domestic oil producers to tell whether or not there is oil down there. If they do those tests and they find that there is not any oil down there, then should we expect them to waste money and drill in those areas?

Will my friend yield?

That's an important figure. Over half of the time that the oil companies put a drill down to find oil, they didn't find anything, and this is on that leased land. That's on that leased land.

I appreciate my friend's comment. I could let them

drill in my backyard, but they are not going to find any oil there, so it's a waste of time to drill in my backyard. It's a waste of time for them to drill where there is no oil.

To underscore the point that my friend from Indiana made about Alaska, the proven reserves, the proven reserves that are there are more than twice as much as the oil reserves in all of Texas, more than twice as much as the oil reserves in all of Texas. That's where the oil is, that's why it's important to allow them to go there.

This would represent, the Alaska exploration, would represent a 50- percent increase in the total U.S. proven reserves. I would say that's a remarkable amount, incredible amount. You talk about something that would drive down the cost of gasoline, just the announcement that we would allow it to occur would drive down the price of oil across the world.

But I think it's extremely important.

We have a group called the Truth Squad that gets together to try to shed light on things because facts are stubborn things. Facts are stubborn things. Our motto is everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts.

When the American people look at the facts on this issue, they understand that we need to conserve more. Without a doubt. And they understand that we need to have a transition to alternative fuel, that we need to find that non-fossil fuel that will drive our economy and our Nation for centuries to come, hopefully.

But they also understand that it is foolish for a Nation that has incredible resources, like the United States, to let them just sit fallow and not take advantage of them and make it so that we are more reliant on foreign oil than ever before, and that we are buying oil from folks that frankly don't like us very much. They understand what this is about.

I believe that over the coming months as we see gas prices continue to increase, that they will pay more attention to what is going on in this room and in this building. And as they pay more attention, they will appreciate that there are a group of individuals who are interested in increasing supply. And then there are a group that have proven over and over and over that they are not interested in increasing supply. I hope as we work together, we will be able to increase those numbers of people who want to increase supply to more than 218 so we can move forward.

I think it is important that we discuss a little bit about Saudi Arabia and the issue that Senator Schumer brought up in the context of our President going to the Middle East. And the way my constituents saw it, why is our President going to the Middle East and begging for the production or for them to sell us more oil. That is just not befitting of what we ought to do for our Nation which has incredible reserves, incredible reserves.

And the facts will bear out what you said, and that is that the increase of oil that could come from Alaska is remarkable and would significantly lower the price. I am reminded of the Jay Leno line. Jay Leno said to his audience a couple of weeks ago, ``The Democrats say if we allow for drilling in Alaska, it will take 10 years before we see any gas.''

He said, ``That's just what they said 10 years ago.'' So it hasn't changed. It's the same old excuse.

I thank my friend from Indiana for bringing up the issue of national security because energy security is national security. There is no doubt about it. People at home understand this better than the folks in this room, apparently, as a whole. Energy security is national security.

I would suggest that it is irresponsible of us, it is an abrogation of our duty and our oath not to fulfill the requirements that would allow for us to be self-sufficient in energy. And we can with the resources that we have. There is no doubt about it.

The dirty little secret is 30 years ago when we had the challenge, the oil crisis where we all waited in lines to fill our gas tanks, all of us at the time said, all of us said we will never be this reliant on foreign oil again. The dirty little secret is at that time we were about 25 percent relying on foreign oil. And now we buy over 60 percent of our oil, not from ourselves, not from domestic producers. So the dirty little secret is that we have gone a long way in the wrong direction. We can turn it around. We can move it in the right direction in an environmentally sensitive and sound way, in a technologically sound way that will not have the kind of catastrophes that many on the other side say are a certainty.

I am pleased that you brought up Hurricane Katrina in a little different light. During Katrina, the thousands of rigs in the gulf, not one of them had a leak from Hurricane Katrina. In fact, there is more seepage naturally of oil out of the ground every day into the Gulf of Mexico than occurred during Hurricane Katrina because of a problem with the technology, the equipment.

We have come so far in this Nation over the last 30 years in terms of technology and being able to do energy production, oil production, getting it out of the ground, in an environmentally sensitive and sound way. There is no reason, no reason not to move forward.

In fact, the issue of Alaska and whether or not we ought to explore there, President Carter knew that we ought to. As my friends know, he signed a bill that provided for the 1002 area. That was in 1980. It is not a wildlife or a refuge at all, it is an area that was specifically designated for future exploration for oil. And our friends on the other side of the aisle won't allow that to happen.

I appreciate that. And this idea, the idea you came up with is so wonderful because what it's going to allow every Member of this House to see is who signs on the petition. You're going to come down here with some frequency, I suspect, and we'll review the individuals that are----

Absolutely. Within 5 or 6 minutes they walked by and said well, I'll sign up on that. But our colleagues here are going to be able to look on that petition and see who's interested in voting to increase U.S. oil production to lower gas prices for Americans. And so that's why your leadership on this is wonderful.

I'm reminded of the individual who said that every other nation on the face of this earth looks at their natural resources and views them as an economic asset. They view them as an economic asset, something that can help their nation.

The problem that we seem to have is that the majority leadership, at least, in this body, looks at our natural resources and views them as an environmental hazard, which doesn't make any sense. It certainly doesn't make any sense to the folks in my district, and I suspect it doesn't make any sense to the folks in your districts.

Sure.

Absolutely. Let's get together. And I appreciate you bringing up some of the other ways to increase our domestic resources or utilization of our resources. Offshore drilling, offshore oil, deep sea exploration, 85 percent of the lower 48 States, Outer Continental Shelf, energy resources remain under lock and key by the Federal Government. You can't go there. 85 percent.

In fact, as I mentioned, the United States is the only nation that has shoreline in the world that doesn't allow for exploration offshore to the degree that would allow for utilizing those resources that are available.

That lets you know how much of the shoreline of the United States is in Alaska, because that's what bumps that number way up.

I want to make just one brief comment about the oil shale that we've got available to us in the United States because I was astounded when I learned these figures. And again, these are facts. This isn't my opinion. This is a fact.

The Department of Energy estimates that the United States is endowed with more than 2 trillion, 2 trillion, that's T-R, 2 trillion barrels of oil from oil shale if we were allowed to move forward with that clean technology, environmentally sound way, 2 trillion barrels.

To put this figure in perspective, the world has used 1 trillion barrels of oil since the first oil well was drilled in Pennsylvania in 1859. So twice as much oil as the world has used in the past 150 years is available through environmentally sound technology, through the use of oil shale. To not take advantage of those resources is astounding to me.

That's exactly right. It wasn't well maybe we ought to give it a try in a little area and see how it works.

Yeah. We ought to, you know, at least try a little bit. Maybe we ought to see if it works, see if we can't make certain that the technologically sound and environmentally sensitive way to gain these resources is true. Shouldn't we just try a little bit? At $4 a gallon, doesn't that make sense? Or does it have to get to $5 a gallon, or is it $6?

Isn't that amazing. And it really begs the question, how high does the price of gas have to get before we use American resources? How high does it have to get?

Maybe that's the question we ought to be asking our friends on the other side. We'd love to work with you. At what price will you begin to work? Is it $10 a gallon that you'll begin to work with us?

And I thank you. And I know that you mentioned about the certain folks in the environmental community who do not want any exploration and do not want any greater production. But I can't believe that a significant number of folks on the other side don't believe in their heart, and their constituents certainly, that we ought to be able to solve this problem with our own resources and with our own ingenuity and our own spirit and genius and American entrepreneurship and American energy for Americans. I just have to believe that a significant number on the other side of the aisle believe that.

And all of those activities that burden our own American oil producers, all of them provide greater incentives for foreign oil producers and increase our reliance on foreign oil.

And I appreciate my friend from Indiana talking about the truckers, and if we were able to contact them and say, You ought to contact your Member of Congress because this petition is so simple, American energy solutions for lower gas. What could be more simple? And so you're talking about onshore oil, bringing more onshore oil on line, bringing deepwater oil on line, bringing new refineries on line.

One thing that I learned just recently is that on the north shore of Lake Erie, the north shore of Lake Erie is not the United States. It's Canada. Good friend, neighbor to the north. They've got--they are drilling on land and then under Lake Erie to get oil. Our good friends, the Canadians to the north. And what are they doing with that oil? They're selling it to us.

My folks at home, when I tell them these sorts of things, they shake their head. They say, You gotta be kidding me. And we won't allow our oil companies, American oil producers, to do the same sorts of things in environmentally sensitive and technologically sound ways.

Let me thank my friend and colleague from Georgia for his leadership on this.

As you say, it's as simple as it gets. American energy solutions for lower gas prices. Either you believe and will vote for allowing an increase in U.S. oil production to lower gas prices or you won't. It's as simple as that.

So I want to commend you for focusing this issue and making it very crystal clear for all of our colleagues who sign, who support increasing U.S. oil production to lower gas prices.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 7 o'clock and 23 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, June 13, 2008, at 10 a.m.

Madam Speaker, my constituents and Americans are asking, where is the bill? When will House Democrats bring forward a real plan for families being hammered by record gas prices?

Today, the majority will spend hours considering no less than 10 nonbinding resolutions. Yet this Democrat Congress will do nothing, nothing, about outrageous energy prices. We fill the day with recognitions and commemorations, but there is no urgency for struggling Americans.

It is shameful that with energy prices rising 70 percent on their watch, House Democrats remain stubbornly opposed to offering any ideas to increase supply and lower gas prices. All we see from this majority is brazen neglect.

Republicans, on the other hand, have brought forward an energy action plan. We are ready to act. We are ready to increase American-made energy resources. We are ready to provide a broad mix of energy options. We are ready to streamline regulations allowing for increasing refining capacity. We are ready to help.

Madam Speaker, we are ready. Americans are begging to know, when will this Democrat majority be?

Madam Speaker, I go home, as most Members of Congress do, every weekend and talk with constituents and try to get a sense of what their concerns are and make certain that we are representing them responsibly here, and upon my last visits home on the weekends over the past 3 or 4 months, their concerns are the concerns of Americans all across this country, and that is the concern of energy prices, of gas prices. They aren't just concerned, Madam Speaker; they are mad. They are mad because they see absolute and utter inaction here in the United States Congress. American values and American vision dictates that we do all we can to solve the challenge that we have before us as it relates to gas prices.

Four dollars a gallon, we hit that mark over this past weekend.

I wonder what price per gallon it will take to get this Democrat majority to act, to work to increase supply. Is it $5 a gallon, $6 a gallon, is it $10 a gallon? Will it happen then that this Democrat majority will then allow this Congress to vote on increasing supply?

Now, there are all sorts of things that ought to be done. The kinds of things that have been described by my friend on the other side of the aisle are appropriate, and we ought to do them. I support, strongly, conservation. We can do a lot more in the area of conservation and should incentivize conservation.

I support, strongly, finding that alternative fuel and incentivizing genius of the American people to identify what that is so that future generations won't be reliant on fossil fuel. But right now, it's imperative that we work to increase supply.

This problem isn't new. This distinction between folks on the Democrat side of the aisle and the Republican party on this side of the aisle isn't new. We have had vote after vote after vote over the past 10 or 15 years on increasing the supply of oil in this Nation, and time after time after time our friends on the other side of the aisle have not risen to the occasion. You talk about Alaska exploration, ANWR exploration, House Republicans have supported that 91 percent of the time, 91 percent of House Republicans have supported Alaska exploration; Democrats, 86 percent have opposed it.

Jay Leno, I don't know if you heard, Jay Leno said Democrats right now say that it will take 10 years if we explore in Alaska to realize any new gasoline, and then he said, that's exactly what they said 10 years ago.

It goes on and on. Coal-to-liquid technology, 97 percent of Republicans have supported coal-to-liquid technology, 78 percent of Democrats have opposed coal-to-liquid technology. Oil-shale exploration, every time it has come up 97 percent of Republicans have supported it; House Democrats, 86 percent have opposed it. Deep-sea exploration, House Republican support, 81 percent; House Democrats, 83 percent opposed.

What about increasing refining capacity? House Republicans, 97 percent support; House Democrats, 96 percent opposed. So 91 percent, in summary, of House Republicans, have historically voted to increase the production of American-made oil and gas and 86 percent of House Democrats have historically voted against increasing the production of American-made oil and gas.

It has been said that every other Nation on Earth views their natural resources as an economic asset. House Democrats, this majority, believes that natural resources in this land are an environmental hazard.

What do we do? Well, I want to commend Representative Tim Walberg of Michigan, who is leading the fight to decrease gas prices. He has filed a discharge petition on House Resolution 3089, which will increase refining construction and capacity, boost alternative energy development, provide incentives to increase nuclear energy and allow for environmentally friendly domestic oil production.

I call on the Speaker, and I call on the leadership of this House to bring this commonsense bill to the floor. These are real solutions for the American people, American energy for Americans. It's the American vision, it's the American values that are across this land.

The American people understand and appreciate the challenges we face. They just can't understand and appreciate why this majority won't act to increase supply.

Madam Speaker, Americans are demanding action as they're being battered by sky-high gas prices.

The relentless unwillingness to act by this majority has left my constituents fuming and looking for action, not more of the same rhetoric and politics.

We sit at the precipice of four dollar gasoline. How much higher do these costs have to go before the majority will act? Five dollars? Six dollars? Ten dollars? Is the Democrat majority so out of touch with the American people?

On this side of the aisle, we have produced an action plan to increase access to new sources of energy, increase American production, encourage alternative fuels, and incentivize conservation. We are ready to act.

Madam Speaker, gas prices have increased 70 percent since you took control of Congress, and it's your duty to act. I call on you to allow the responsible Republican energy plan to come to this floor.

Madam Speaker, idleness is not leadership.

I thank my good friend from Florida for his leadership on this issue and so many others.

Mr. Speaker, I came to the floor today. I wanted to talk about the amendments that I had offered to this bill that would have provided some accountability to the spending that's incorporated in this bill, but as we have heard, those amendments weren't made in order.

So, in addition to the majority not wanting to have accountability for the bill that we're talking about on school construction, the first time Federal moneys have been used for school construction, no accountability, what I thought I would do then is address the issue that we ought to be talking about today. That's the issue that we all heard about last week when we went home.

When I went home, what did I hear from my constituents? I didn't hear about school construction. I heard about gas prices. And I heard that people are tired, sick and tired, and fed up with inaction in Washington. They want solutions.

Mr. Speaker, there are three ways to address this issue. One is conservation, and we all can do more.

The second is to make certain that we put appropriate incentives in place for alternative fuels so that we can bridge to the next generation and American genius can be unleashed. This majority isn't doing anything about that.

But the way that we bridge to the next generation is to increase supply, and so I asked some folks on our side of the aisle to get the information that said what has the majority party, what have the Democrats, done in order to increase supply of American energy.

It won't surprise you, Mr. Speaker, to know that 91 percent of the folks on our side of the aisle, 91 percent, supported exploration in Alaska over the last 15 years; 86 percent on the other side opposed it to increase supply.

Coal-to-liquid technology, 97 percent on our side of the aisle supported increasing supply in coal-to-liquid technology; 78 percent on the other side opposed it.

How about oil shale exploration? Ninety percent on our side of the aisle support oil shale exploration increasing supply; 86 oppose it on the other side.

Deep sea exploration, Mr. Speaker, 81 percent on our side support it; 83 percent on the other side oppose it.

How about increasing refining capacity? There hasn't been a new refinery built in this Nation in over 30 years. Ninety-seven percent on this side of the aisle support it; 96 percent on the majority side oppose increasing refining capacity in vote after vote after vote.

Mr. Speaker, my constituents and I know Americans across this Nation are sick and tired, sick and tired of a majority that's keeping us dependent on Middle Eastern oil. So I call on this majority and I call on the Speaker to bring forward a positive bill that will increase conservation, increase incentives for alternative fuel, and make certain that we can use American resources, American energy for Americans.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your leadership on this issue. I want to thank the chairman of the committee and the ranking member for their work on this committee.

My amendment in this en bloc amendment addresses the issue of eliminating waste, fraud and abuse within the DOD system by addressing the issue of government-wide purchase cards. These cards are used to acquire supplies such as pencils, paper, computers, but also to even make payments on government contract. And these cards, while they've proven to be valuable as they reduce administrative costs and increase flexibility, they can be used or abused and misused, as has been evident by a recent GAO study. That study showed that, over a 1-year period of time, 41 percent of the purchase card transactions failed to meet basic internal standards.

My amendment will ensure that purchases are independently verified and received by an authorizing official. It asks for an inventory of property to be updated promptly. Without doing this, property such as laptops and computers can go missing or even stolen.

And for those personnel who abuse the purchase cards, this amendment would dictate that DOD will have the option of having them reimburse the government for unauthorized or erroneous purchases.

I know my colleagues will support this wise amendment to decrease waste, fraud and abuse. I thank my colleagues for their support.

Mr. Speaker, I include at this point in the Record excerpts of a memo written to Bill Dauster of the Senate Finance Committee from Ed Kleinbard, Chief of Staff at the Senate Joint Committee on Taxation.

Conclusion

While we recognize that colorable arguments can be made in

support of the contrary conclusion, we believe that Rule

XLIV's disclosure requirement for limited tax benefits is

applicable to Section 301.

Mr. Speaker, this new majority is all politics all the time.

Now, the Speaker gave seven reasons to vote for this bill. Funny, she didn't include the tax boondoggle for trial lawyers. That is right, a tax break for trial lawyers.

The bill allows plaintiffs' trial lawyers to take deductions for the payment of contingency fees. I ask you, under current economic conditions, should we be using the Tax Code to give the plaintiffs bar possible financial incentives to bring more and costlier lawsuits against American business?

Second, by definition, in the rules of this House this bill contains earmarks and pork. The restructuring of the New York Liberty Zone tax credits provide pork, a limited tax benefit of over $1 billion to New York City.

Pork for powerful Members of Congress. Pork for trial lawyers. Mr. Speaker, two good reasons to vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to welcome to Washington, DC, a special group of World War II veterans from Georgia's Sixth District. These proud patriots are here for one remarkable day as part of the Honor Flight Program.

Thanks to the generosity of the Roswell Rotary Club, these men and women will have the opportunity to visit the stirring World War II memorial built in their honor and to pay their respect to fallen comrades at Arlington National Cemetery.

As young Americans, these proud patriots showed courage and compassion, answering the call to serve at a time of great need. Through amazing sacrifice, they are responsible for the preservation of our treasured American way of life. Our community is extremely proud to be home to so many of the brave veterans who fought for freedom at a critical moment in our history.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Georgia's Sixth District, I offer our deepest appreciation. And I know that my colleagues will join me in welcoming our veterans to our Nation's capital and thanking them, these soldiers of the greatest generation, for their invaluable service.

I thank my good friend from Texas for organizing this period of time and for highlighting what Americans all across this land are concerned about, and that is the culture of spending that you talked about, and you mentioned these wonderful promises that were going to be enacted with this new majority.

And there is a culture of spending that continues and persists, but there's also a culture of hypocrisy. It's saying one thing and doing another. It's saying one thing on the campaign trail, and then when you come to Washington, you do something exactly the opposite. And when I go home to the Sixth District of Georgia, that's what I hear about. I hear people say, ``Why on Earth can't people live up to their word? Why can't they do what they said they were going to do when they ran for office?''

And the spending is one of the things that gets them so terribly irritated and so terribly annoyed because they see it. My good friend from Texas talked about selling a piece of the Green Mountains in Vermont to a specific entity. That's using hard-earned taxpayer money to benefit one entity. Madam Speaker, that's wrong. That's not the way we ought to do business here.

In fact, it hasn't been the way forever. There are some wonderful quotes about pork barrel spending, about earmarks. One from Thomas Jefferson, who said that, in essence, if we allow the process of earmarking, pork barrel spending, to go forward, ``it will be a scene of eternal scramble among the Members, who can get the most money wasted in their State; and they will always get most who are the meanest,'' which is a phenomenal quote when you think about it, Madam Speaker, because what we have now are individuals in this House of Representatives who have been so successful in getting earmarks, getting pork barrel money back to their districts that we now have defense contractors in this Nation who are moving their headquarters to one specific district in Pennsylvania because they believe it will benefit them to a greater degree in getting contracts from the Federal Government. A phenomenal thing.

Madam Speaker, this process is corrupt and it's corrupting. When I talk to folks back home about why it's imperative that we stop the earmarking process, something that I believe we must do, and I tell them that it's corrupt and it's corrupting, that didn't have the resonance until I put a face on that, a face that we have seen in this House by so many individuals but it's most championed in a corrupt way by a gentleman by the name of Duke Cunningham.

Duke Cunningham now sits in a Federal prison in California. He does so because he earmarked money for a personal company, that benefited one company, one company, and then they, in turn, benefited him politically. And it's happened on both sides of the aisle. But it's a process that's corrupt and it's corrupting.

Now, why do I mention Duke Cunningham by name, Madam Speaker? I do so because when he came to Washington, he was the individual who was the inspiration for the ``Top Gun'' movie. He was a war hero. He was an American hero. And what happened with the process of Washington was that the corruption and the corrupting influence of Washington spending that is being perpetrated and continued and expanded by this majority, that process corrupted that individual. Now, there were certainly some personal characteristic flaws, but the process itself that remains in place right now and, in fact, is being championed by this majority is a corrupt process and it's corrupting.

Madam Speaker, I would suggest to all of my colleagues that this is a process and a system that has got to end. It's got to end. The American people want fiscal responsibility. They want to make certain that they have financial security and peace of mind. That peace of mind will never come when we have a process that is this sordid, that is this offensive to the American people.

So I want to commend my good friend from Texas for his remarkable leadership in this and so many areas in Congress, a conservative stalwart, an individual who understands the importance of being fiscally responsible at the Federal level and the consequences of not being fiscally responsible, which means that middle class Americans all across this Nation are having more of their hard-earned taxpayer money taken out of their back pocket, out of their wallet, and out of their purses in order to fund the reckless spending, irresponsible spending, culture of spending, and culture of hypocrisy that this majority has brought to Washington.

So I want to commend my good friend from Texas, and thank you so very much for the opportunity and the privilege of joining you tonight. I thank you for your leadership in this area.

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I appreciate my colleague on the committee for attempting to clarify an issue which is, I think, significantly problematic.

The issue of defining foreclosure time, and length, the particulars have always been the purview of the States. And I know that this amendment is an attempt to try to clarify that. In fact, I think it confounds it, and my concern about the unanimous consent request is that it doesn't make it clear still. So I have significant concerns about the amendment.

I'm happy to yield to my friend from Ohio for any clarification that he might offer.

Reclaiming my time, I appreciate those comments and I would agree. I think that all of us, many of us in the House, many certainly on this side of the aisle, want to retain the States' prerogative in the area of foreclosure. And I would suggest to the gentleman that his comment about that, and the discussion that's gone on on the unanimous consent request and the language therein, is something that ``they can live with.''

And I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this probably should have been dealt with in committee, and it might have been able to be clarified to a much greater degree. My concern remains.

Yes, unless anybody else would like time on my reservation, I will object.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

There's a general sense, Mr. Speaker, that it's this bill or nothing, and that certainly isn't true. In fact, much has been done. As has been talked about, the FHA Secure program has created greater flexibility, helping hundreds of thousands stay in their homes. The Hope Now program has already helped 1.4 million individuals stay in their home, getting borrowers and lenders together. Loan limits have been increased, FHA, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac. The Federal Reserve has lowered interest rates. So the notion that the Federal Government has been unresponsive or slow to move is disingenuous and is repeated as fact solely as an excuse for the Democrats to continue outbidding each other on how much taxpayer funding they can spend or bail out imprudent borrowers who either bought too much house or lenders who were gladly willing to give them the money. So much has been done to date.

We have also heard the chairman and others say that it's unlikely that this will cost $300 billion, that it will only be $2.4 or $2.7 billion. Well, then why doesn't the bill say that? It doesn't, Mr. Speaker, because the taxpayer will be on the hook for risky loans and the number may significantly rise, and that's because this bailout plan irresponsibly disregards borrowers' payment history and credit scores. Borrowers could have missed the majority of their monthly payments over the life of the loan; yet those borrowers would still be eligible for a government-backed mortgage, and taxpayers would be on the hook. Americans don't believe that's fair.

There has also been discussion about the voluntary nature of this program. However, Federal Reserve Board Governor Randall Krozner said in our committee, ``If Congress decides to move down this road, then it should carefully consider the steps that should be taken to mitigate moral hazard, avoid adverse selection, and ensure that the financial interests of the taxpayer are adequately safeguarded.''

But if you listen to the chairman, this program isn't so voluntary. At that same hearing, the chairman said, ``If we were to get this approach adopted but we don't get much of a voluntary buy into this, then I have to say the response will probably be more regulation than people might like to see.''

He went on in an article quoted yesterday here in Washington to say, ``Meanwhile Chairman Frank has warned the mortgage industry that if it doesn't support something like this plan this year, it could be in for far more regulation next year.'' And that article went on: ``If after this we continue to get very little participation by servicers, I can guarantee you that the servicer industry will look very different . . . If after everything we do in this cooperative way falls short, then you are going to see legislation that puts some very real restrictions on the role of servicers.''

All of a sudden, Mr. Speaker, this program doesn't sound so voluntary. It seems to me that the chairman's comments will exacerbate the moral hazard that the Federal Reserve Governor warned us against.

In addition to the incentives, the chairman provides in his legislation for holders of mortgages, and they are real and enticing. We have actual threats of harmful regulation if they don't sign up dutifully for this program. That's not voluntary.

I thank the gentleman.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that these threats do no favors to the American taxpayers across our country. The chairman is ensuring that we will get full and active participation in this program, populated by the riskiest of loans with enormous redefault rates and cost to the American taxpayer of up to $300 billion. Mr. Speaker, that's irresponsible and it's unwise.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, the American people are fair people. And they expect their representatives to remain cognizant of and reflect that fairness in all actions.

This House has moved from fairness, from deliberation and from proper recognition that would allow all Members the opportunity to actively represent their constituents to repeated tyranny of the Majority. Madam Speaker, there is a crisis of leadership by this majority.

Every person in America has the right to have his or her voice heard. No Member of Congress should be silenced on the floor guaranteeing that the voices of the people are heard.

Do you recognize those words, Madam Speaker? You should, for they are yours. And they're being violated.

The minority possesses their equal rights, which equal law must protect and to violate would be oppression. Recognize those words, Madam Speaker? You should. They were spoken by Thomas Jefferson and quoted by you and they are being violated. Why? It's either political expediency or a broken promise, one or the other, neither of which the American people support because they are a fair people.

Madam Speaker, I submitted four thoughtful, substantive amendments which deserve the consideration of all 435 Members of this house. But they were denied that opportunity by this restrictive and unfair process. Madam Speaker, the American people understand that the rules aren't rules if you follow them only when you want to. Democrats promise to use fair and open rules for everything, but they're breaking rules and they're breaking promises to the American people.

I urge the Speaker and the majority to be true to their word. Stop playing politics. Stop breaking promises. Allow the Members of this House to represent their constituents. What idea, what amendment is so scary that it couldn't be considered on this floor? I call on

my colleagues not to destroy the very fiber of our representative democracy.

Vote ``no'' on this rule so that we may have an open and fair debate. The American people deserve no less.

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

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank my good friend from West Virginia for her leadership on this and for cogently bringing the debate forward and stating why this is the wrong bill at the wrong time.

I am pleased to hear from my friend, though, from Minnesota who said that this was going to save America money. If we keep saving money at this rate, our deficit ought to disappear in short order, $15 billion chunks going out the door. I'm not sure how that math adds up, but I'm certain that it works somewhere.

I want to commend my friend from Illinois for raising the point, as I know that the chairwoman acknowledged, and that is that there was no bidding process. There is really no accountability in this bill. Yes, there are plans that have to be proposed and submitted, but there's no oversight, there is no oversight of this money. Fifteen billion dollars could go to anybody, truly, who was a friend or a crony of any official in a State or a city. And we're going to trust the cities, as the chairman said, it was important that we trusted the cities. And I believe primarily that that is important that we do trust cities. If we trusted cities so much, though, then why would we not adopt an amendment that I proposed in committee that said that we ought to let the city do with the property what they deemed appropriate? But we haven't done that. We said oh, no, even if this facility, this housing facility is public housing and is absolutely dilapidated, you couldn't demolish it. Oh, no, we wouldn't want that to happen. We wouldn't want the city to make a decision that they could do something better with that property. In fact, this bill precludes that opportunity.

I heard the chairwoman say that she wouldn't want to add an amendment that would provide for that accountability or that oversight because it might bog down getting the money to the cities. Well, Madam Chairman, I'll tell you what will bog down getting money to the cities, if people were really sincerely interested in that, and that's a veto. And this bill will be vetoed by the President of the United States for appropriate reasons because it is irresponsible and it is not appropriate to spend the kind of money that we're talking about without any oversight and without any accountability. Remember, $15 billion.

I am constantly surprised, truly, by my friends on the other side of the aisle who don't seem to remember where this money comes from. Where does this money come from? It comes from hardworking Americans. And I would suggest, Madam Chairman, as my friend from Texas said, that hardworking Americans have a significant challenge right now in some aspects of their life, trying to make certain that they can afford the increase in gas prices under this majority, for the increasing prices for commodities under this majority. And so it would be appropriate that we remember that, and that we allow more Americans to keep more of their hard-earned money.

Now what is the solution? Well, I would suggest, Madam Chairman, that a couple of programs that are in place right now and are working diligently to make certain that people can stay in their homes, FHA Secure is a program that is administered by the Federal Housing Authority that provides greater flexibility for refinancing homes for hundreds of thousands of Americans. The Hope Now Alliance was a program that was put into place, a private sector cooperative effort that actually makes it so that struggling homeowners can get the kind of counseling and guidance to assist them to refinance their mortgages. More than 1.4 million Americans, Madam Chairman, have been shown the opportunity to be able to stay in their home.

These are positive and productive programs that make it so that individuals can stay in their home. They aren't a bailout that is being proposed by the other side. They aren't taking $15 billion of hard- earned taxpayer money and saying, ``It's okay. We'll cover it. Don't worry about that. The American people's pocketbook is absolutely endless.''

This is a bad bill, wrong bill, wrong time. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, the House is not in order.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Is it the role of the Speaker to make certain that the House is in order prior to Members speaking so that the gentleman can be heard? Isn't that appropriate?

Mr. Speaker, the House is not in order.

Mr. Speaker, the House is not in order.

Mr. Speaker, the House is not in order.

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I appreciate the offer of the gentleman, although I would suggest that if the unanimous consent request would also include the bill that has been included by Mr. Fossella in the Senate-passed FISA bill that we have, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that we have under a discharge petition, then I believe our side would be pleased to accept the unanimous consent.

I would be happy to.

We would be happy to accept the unanimous consent request if the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act will be allowed to come to the floor.

I object.