Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), a former member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, this rule marks the 60th time that the leaders of this Congress have totally closed down the House floor by refusing to allow any Member of this House to offer an amendment to a bill pending and have it debated and voted upon. This is more closed rules than any Congress in the history of our country, which is exactly the opposite of the promise that the Democrat leaders made to the American people when they promised to run the most open and honest House ever. The House is not open when no amendments are allowed to be offered and when a Republican alternative is blocked from even a minute of debate and denied a vote on the House floor. And it is not in the most honest House when the Rules Committee Democrats block the Republican plan to prevent tax increases from being considered, using the excuse that it doesn't meet House PAYGO rules, especially, Mr. Speaker, when it was just one week ago that the same Democrats were blatantly violating PAYGO rules by billions of dollars in the farm bill. Under this liberal Congress, it is only okay to break the House rules, apparently, when you are increasing spending by billions of dollars, but not by preventing tax increases on the American people. The Republican plan that was denied, that the Democrats refused to allow the House to vote upon, would provide the following: 1 year of relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax, or the AMT; a 2-year extension of the State and local sales tax deduction for those States that do not have a State income tax; 2 more years for the research and development tax credit; 2 years for the tuition tax credit; and extensions for more expiring tax provisions. This Democrat bill, for example, does absolutely nothing, nothing at all, to fix the AMT tax for 2008. Twenty-one million middle class individuals will pay an additional $61.5 billion in higher taxes next April if the AMT is not fixed and addressed. That is an average of over $2,800 per affected taxpayer, Mr. Speaker. The Republican plan fully fixes it, but today that fix is not even allowed to be considered on the House floor. Instead, the House is given one choice, and that is a fool's choice bargain to raise taxes by $54 billion in order to simply extend existing tax policies that are due to expire. Mr. Speaker, current provisions in tax law are expiring, and Congress needs to act to keep these taxes from going up. But, Mr. Speaker, we all know that is no excuse to raise other taxes by billions of dollars. I and many of my Republican colleagues support a great number of the tax relief extensions included in this bill, including the State and local sales tax deduction, the research and development tax credit, education and tuition tax credits, tax credits for teachers, and several renewable income tax credits. These low tax policies have been law for many years, Mr. Speaker, and they have been extended multiple times, multiple times, and always without raising taxes. My Democrat colleagues will try to defend their tax-raising ways by invoking the PAYGO rules they ignored just last week. They will claim that this is just being responsible and it is not about increasing the national debt, that it is about government living within its means. If only that were true, Mr. Speaker. But it is not. All you have to do is to read the final budget plan for next year that this House will vote on later today. Their budget reveals this Congress as what they truly are, and what they truly are, Mr. Speaker, is old time tax-and- spend liberals. In their budget, spending increases by $250 billion over the next 5 years. They increase the debt limit in 2008 by $654 billion, which is the largest increase in history, and they raise taxes by $683 billion, which is the largest amount in American history. More spending, higher debt, record tax increases. That is obviously the plan of this liberal Congress. Now, my Democrat colleagues will also try to claim the tax increases that are in this bill aren't really that bad. But the facts are the facts, and the facts are that this bill unnecessarily increases taxes by over $50 billion. And that is just the beginning. Remember that their budget would increase taxes by over two-thirds of a trillion dollars. If they aren't raising your taxes this time in this bill, I can assure you, your time is coming. They will get you the next time. When this liberal Congress imposes the largest tax increase in American history to pay for more government spending, don't think that you can escape permanently their tax-and-spend ways. Their tax increase plans include cutting the child tax credit, cutting that in half; reinstating the marriage penalty and the death tax; and a tax increase for every single American taxpayer. It would even levy taxes on low- income workers who currently pay none. But if there is a ray of sunshine, and there always is a ray of sunshine in bills, there is a newly created tax break, one that will put a big smile on the faces of some in this country, and it is worth over $1.5 billion. The only problem, Mr. Speaker, is that this new tax break is only for trial lawyers. So the only people who will be smiling are the trial lawyers and presumably the Democrats that they give tens of millions of dollars in campaign contributions to each year. Under this bill, the American taxpayers will be subsidizing speculative lawsuits by trial lawyers to the tune of $1.5 billion. This special interest tax break will allow trial lawyers to make special arrangements that essentially allow them to gamble on lawsuits where they get paid on contingency fees if they win. Meanwhile, taxpayers will be footing the bill for trial lawyers writing off the expenses of conducting these ``sue them and see what we can win'' lawsuits. Count me among those, Mr. Speaker, who believe we already have too many lawsuits in this country and that we shouldn't be inventing new special tax breaks that may and probably will encourage more lawsuits. Our justice system can operate fairly, as it has done so for many years, without having to give special tax treatment to trial lawyers. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to specifically mention the extension of the State and local sales tax deduction that is included in this bill. For nearly 20 years, Americans who paid State income taxes could deduct those taxes from their Federal tax bill, while Americans who paid State sales taxes but had no State income tax were not allowed to do so. In 2006, the Republican Congress restored the sales tax deduction after years of bipartisan effort from the congressional delegations of the affected States, including my home State of Washington. The initial reinstatement of the deduction was for 2 years, 2004 and 2005. In 2006, the Republican Congress extended the sales tax deduction for 2 more years, 2006 and 2007. That deduction has now expired, and this deduction does not exist for this year, 2008. Efforts last year to extend this deduction and ensure it didn't expire were unfortunately blocked by the Democrat leaders. I regret that the extension provided for the sales tax deduction in this bill is for 1 year only. Mr. Speaker, this is a step backwards. This deduction has been extended 2 years each time in the past, and it should be extended 2 years now. Otherwise, we face expiring in about 6 months from now because, as I mentioned, there is no sales tax deduction for the calendar year 2008. So if we are to pass this and it were to be signed into law, we would have 6 months on it from right now. The bipartisan Senate bill introduced last month by the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee includes a 2-year extension of this sales tax deduction. The Republican plan that House leaders and the Rules Committee last night blocked from being considered and debated on the floor today provided for a 2-year extension. An amendment was filed with the Rules Committee by Mr. Brady of Texas which also would have extended the deduction for 2 years, but that too was blocked by the Rules Committee from being debated on this floor. It is very unfortunate that this bill moves sales tax deduction fairness backwards, not forwards. Taxpayers in income tax States have a permanent tax deduction, and taxpayers in sales tax States that have no State income tax deserve, in my view, equal treatment. The sales tax deduction should be made into permanent law. Even though I think a 2- year extension is better than 1, it should be made permanent. At the very least, they deserve at least a 2-year extension. What really is more upsetting, Mr. Speaker, is that this bill could have provided very easily under existing PAYGO rules a 2-year extension. The over $1.5 billion cost of the tax deduction given to trial lawyers could instead have been used to give a 1-year extension of the sales tax deduction for those States. So this bill chooses to create a new billion-plus-dollar tax cut for trial lawyers over tax fairness for the millions of residents in the State of Washington, my State, the State of Florida, the States of Texas, Tennessee, Nevada, South Dakota, and Wyoming. Mr. Speaker, I have supported every bill that has passed this House to reinstate and extend the State sales tax deduction, but none of these bills, none of these bills that extended that was being held hostage for another tax cut for another special interest. Restoring and continuing the State sales tax deduction is a matter of fairness. The residents of sales tax States shouldn't have their fair treatment conditioned upon passing huge tax increases. The rule that is currently before the House and the underlying bill reveal this Congress for what it really is. The rule is totally closed and does not allow debate or a vote on any amendments or an alternative Republican plan. It violates Speaker Pelosi's promise to the American people to run an open and honest House. The bill itself is just the opening act of a move to impose the largest tax increase in history on the American people. Mr. Speaker, under this liberal Congress the only tax bill allowed on the floor of the House is one that will raise taxes. Under this liberal Congress, tax relief is a myth and tax increases are a certainty. Mr. Speaker, under this liberal Congress, Americans will be sending more and more of their hard-earned dollars to Washington, DC so this Congress can increase spending and the size of the Federal Government. My colleagues should oppose this closed rule and this tax increase bill. We should demand a clean tax relief extension bill that doesn't include new tax breaks for trial lawyers and over $50 billion in tax increases. This bill we know will never pass the Senate, and it will never be signed into law, if on the slim chance that it should pass both Houses and be sent to the President. Raising taxes right now on the American economy is simply the wrong thing to do, Mr. Speaker. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague and friend from New York (Mr. Arcuri) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. In that case, Mr. Speaker, I will yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to ask my colleagues to vote against the previous question so we can address the issue of high gasoline prices. But before I make my motion and explain what my motion would be if we defeat the previous question, I want to quote several parts of an editorial that was written by Tracy Warner who is the editorial writer for the Wenatchee World newspaper in Wenatchee, Washington, in my district. He kind of hits some of the issues of what we are doing, or probably I should say not doing, on the head. [From the Wenatchee World, May 14, 2008] Irrational Policy Part of the Show (By Tracy Warner) The Keystone Cops of Congress wave their truncheons, circle and bump and wriggle their mustaches, then rush to the paddy wagon in search of greedy oil companies. In this time of hardship, this will have to suffice for energy policy. The goal of the troupe is to somehow make the price of gasoline lower. High gasoline prices are extremely unpopular. If they could be forced downward, this would please Americans at an advantageous time on the political calendar. If that is not possible, and likely it is not, then complaining loudly will do. Or, for a real show of statesmanship, you can dole out financial punishment to the companies that make the product you want more of. The most recent gesture was a vote Tuesday to have the government cease stockpiling oil in the strategic petroleum reserve, where some 700 million barrels are kept for national emergencies. This halt, passed by the Senate 97-1 and the House 385-25, will reduce federal petroleum purchases by 70,000 barrels a day. The hope is this will affect world oil markets, which are based on global production of 87 million barrels a day. Congress has increased supplies by 0.08 percent. We should be grateful. In a very small way this shows our representatives have some understanding of economics. Oil markets are mainly a supply-and-demand issue. Raise supply and the price should drop, if demand is steady. Raise supplies by 0.08 percent and the price will drop, maybe by a like amount. We will watch with great anticipation. The other legs of the constantly evolving federal oil policy are not so easily explained. Congress remains adamant that we will not attempt to affect supplies by drilling on a few thousand acres of the vast Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, where production could exceed 1 million barrels a day. The reason given is this is part of an ``oil friendly policy'' and we cannot ``drill our way'' to ``energy independence'' because the effect of a million barrels is so small. So we deny ourselves a million barrels a day because it is so little, and then demand the federal government cease purchasing 70,000 barrels a day, because that is too much. Some propose sending the Justice Department to file an antitrust case against OPEC, because its members scheme to limit the supply of oil and thus drive up the price. So, we do not wish to drill ourselves, because that would be wrong, but we demand OPEC sell us more, and if they don't we will send lawyers. And oh, we want ``energy independence.'' And with lawyers after OPEC, the cops will still be after the oil companies. The line is oil companies get ``tax subsidies'' they do not deserve. So the House has voted to rescind a tax break for the five largest oil companies. The ``subsidy'' to which these congressmen refer was no special deal. It was a two-point corporate tax cut given to all manufacturers in 2004. In the meantime, oil companies pay taxes. According to the Tax Foundation, based on data from the Energy Information Agency, it is only in the last three years that after-tax profits of the oil industry have exceeded its taxes paid to federal and state governments. In the last 25 years, oil company taxes were nearly double oil company profits--government makes twice off oil what oil companies make off oil. On we go. Newly popular in Congress is a windfall profits tax, to collect for government the oil profits government considers ``obscene.'' Oil company profit margins are less than many other industries, but setting that aside, what would be the effect of confiscating them? When this was tried in 1980, oil companies stopped selling the product from which only government would profit, and we went from expensive gas to no gas.' And, we can make price gouging a crime, even though it already is a crime in most states. Make it a crime to sell fuel when prices are high. Won't that increase supplies? The sum of all this policymaking is astonishing incompetence. Playing for the crowd usually leads this way. Let me just make a few points here that he raised that I thought were rather interesting. He talks about what Congress is doing or not doing, and he says then, and I will quote verbatim, Mr. Speaker, from his editorial, ``The most recent gesture was a vote Tuesday to have the government cease stockpiling oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, where some 700 million barrels are kept for national emergencies. This halt, passed by the Senate 97-1 and the House 385-25, will reduce Federal petroleum purchases by 70,000 barrels a day. The hope is this will affect world oil prices or oil markets which are based on global production of 87 million barrels a day. Congress has increased supplies by 0.08 percent.'' He then goes on to say, after I quote there, he goes on to talk then about things that we probably are not doing and should be doing otherwise. He goes on to compliment Congress by saying that ``at least they have some understanding of economics.'' If you're going to not put oil in a reserve, you presumably have more supply. He then goes on to talk about what we haven't been doing, which of course is looking at more known reserves we have in our country to be energy independent. Again I would like to quote, then, verbatim as he makes, I think, a very good point: ``Congress remains adamant that we will not attempt to affect supplies by drilling on a few thousand acres of the vast Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, where the production could exceed 1 million barrels a day. The reason given is this is part of an `oil friendly policy' and we cannot `drill our way' to `energy independence' because the effect of a million barrels is so small. So we deny ourselves a million barrels a day because it is so little, and then demand the Federal Government cease purchasing 70,000 barrels a day, because that is too much.'' Mr. Speaker, he goes on to talk about other things here, but they make a very good point. The bottom line is our energy policy is not looking at the supply side of it. We import so much of our crude oil and we aren't energy independent in that sense. Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so I have an opportunity to amend the rule. Since the Democrats took control of Congress in January of 2007, the cost of gasoline has risen to record-setting prices. According to a report from just 2 days ago by the AAA in my State of Washington, the price of gasoline is at a record $3.86 per gallon. That's 24 cents higher than just last month. The average price of a gallon of diesel is $4.69, which is $1.61 higher than a year ago. In the Tri-Cities where I live, a gallon of gas is $3.83. In Yakima, in the central part of my district, it's $3.84. [From the Seattle Times, May 19, 2008] AAA: Average Gallon of Gas in Washington Hits $3.86 The AAA auto club says the average price of a gallon of gasoline in Washington continues to climb into record territory at $3.86. That's up 24 cents in the past month and 42 cents in the past year. It's seven cents higher than the national average. The AAA survey for today found that the average price of a gallon of diesel in the state is $4.69. That's up 29 cents in the past month and $1.61 in the past year. The AAA says the highest gas prices in the state are at Bellingham at $3.93 and the lowest in Spokane at $3.70. Prices in some other cities, according to the AAA: Olympia $3.89, Seattle $3.88, Tacoma $3.87, Vancouver $3.84, Tri- Cities $3.83, Yakima $3.84. This increase in prices is causing real strain on family budgets, farmers, and for small businesses. This Congress needs to act, and we can't afford to sit and do nothing while prices continue to climb. The American people deserve action. Speaker Pelosi made a promise that the Democrats had a ``commonsense plan'' to ``lower the price at the pump.'' But this Democrat Congress has done nothing but see fuel prices rise. One of the most important things that this House can do is recognize a basic economic principle of supply and demand. Mr. Speaker, the laws of supply and demand cannot be changed by wishful thinking. At times, I get the distinct impression that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe that wishful thinking will actually lower gas prices. I support proposals to invent and to develop new sources of energy. I think we should have a diverse portfolio of energy, and I believe a vast majority of my colleagues do as well. But gas, diesel, and oil are absolutely vital to our economy and our way of life and our future. The problem we are facing at the gas pump is one of high demand and limited supply, and it's part of a global economy and a global product. With India and China suddenly consuming enormous amounts of oil, the price of it is being bid up around the world. The way to combat rising prices due to high demand is to increase supply. And yet proposals to increase oil and gas production and exploration in our country have faced years and years in opposition. Mr. Tracy, in his article, points that out as it relates to ANWR. We've been stymied by Democrats in the House, blocked by Democrat Senators, and vetoed by a Democrat Senator specifically with ANWR. This liberal Congress is continuing to say ``no'' to developing energy in our country, to block any bill from being considered or voted upon that would allow for oil and natural gas exploration in Alaska or in the oceans on the Outer Continental Shelf, while at the same time they pass bills threatening to sue foreign countries to produce more oil. That doesn't increase supply, Mr. Speaker. We are now paying the price for so many years of repeated refusal to make use of our country's own natural resources. Not only are we seeing gas prices going up and up, but our country is even more dependent on foreign sources of oil. Often the response to this argument from the other side of the aisle is that even if we approve production in ANWR or coastal reserves today, it wouldn't come on line for years and wouldn't really help much. The hollowness of this argument in my mind, Mr. Speaker, is astonishing. We are paying the price today for their years of opposition to real solutions, and they want to keep saying ``no'' and blaming somebody else. America can't afford to keep sticking its head in the sand when it comes to building more refineries and developing our own oil and gas reserves. It's time for the House to act. It's time for the House to debate ideas for lowering prices, and it's time for the majority to reveal their promised plan. By defeating the previous question, Mr. Speaker, this House can finally consider solutions to rising energy costs. When the previous question is defeated, I will move to add a section to the rule, not rewrite the rule, that would lower the gas prices of unleaded gasoline. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I would inquire of my friend from New York how many speakers he has.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, once again, can I inquire of the time on both sides.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to two young women who showed extraordinary character during a recent college softball game in Ellensburg, Washington. Last month, the women's softball team at Central Washington University played Western Oregon University for a spot in the NCAA Division lI playoffs. During the second inning of this scoreless game, Western Oregon senior Sara Tucholsky hit the first home run of her college career, only to fall to the ground with a knee injury after rounding first base. Unable to finish running around the bases, the only option available to Ms. Tucholsky was to bring in a new runner at first base, which would replace her home run with a single. At this point, a truly amazing thing happened. Believing that Ms. Tucholsky should not be cheated of her first home run, Central Washington University senior first baseman and White Salmon native Mallory Holtman asked the umpire if the rules would allow members of the opposing team to assist her around the bases. When the umpire agreed, she and shortstop Liz Wallace carried the injured opponent to each bag to complete the home run. By placing the interests of an athlete from the opposing team above their own, Ms. Holtman and Ms. Wallace, along with the rest of the Central Washington University softball team demonstrated outstanding sportsmanship. Although Central Washington University lost the game, they revealed a level of maturity well beyond their years by helping Ms. Tucholsky to achieve a major softball accomplishment. I am honored to have this opportunity to recognize Mallory Holtman and Liz Wallace and the rest of the Central Washington University softball team for their selfless actions and generosity, which have moved people across the Nation. These young women exemplified strong character and true sportsmanship with their selfless act. Their university, teammates, Coach Gary Frederick. and the people of Washington are proud of these individuals. I wish them the very best in their future endeavors.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of a final farm bill, a farm bill that is over 7 months late. It was supposed to be completed last September when the old farm bill law expired. It's long past time for Congress to be voting on a final farm bill, and the one the House will consider today is far from perfect. It spends billions more than it was supposed to. Mr. Speaker, in fact, despite this being called the farm bill, nearly 75 percent of the spending in this bill doesn't even go to agriculture or farming. It goes to pay for government food assistance programs. Mr. Speaker, let me repeat that. In fact, despite this being called a farm bill, nearly 75 percent of the spending in this bill doesn't even go to agriculture or farming. It goes to pay for government food assistance programs. To me, that is very concerning. There's also considerable dissatisfaction with the income limitations being too high for farmers who may receive payments under this bill. There are also concerns that while commodity prices in the marketplace have risen since the last farm bill, the guarantees in this farm bill have also gone up. There are also special interest provisions that are unrelated to farming or food stamps that have been stuck on this bill. Now, Mr. Speaker, I agree that this farm bill is very far from perfect, but like many of my colleagues in the House, I must measure this bill by the impact on my constituents in my district. And as the representative of one of the most diverse and productive agricultural areas in this country, I will vote for the farm bill because it does more to support the specialty crops that are grown in my district than any other farm bill in history. I must point out that the assistance provided for the specialty crops grown in my district are not direct subsidy payments or handouts. What matters most to farmers and growers in central Washington are research dollars and help in opening up new markets abroad. Specifically, I'm pleased that the farm bill includes a new initiative to fund research projects for these specialty crops. The conference report also expands the successful fresh fruit and vegetable SNACK program to children in all 50 States. This worthwhile program provides fresh fruits and vegetables for schoolchildren. The Market Access Program is also very important in central Washington and something that I've worked very hard on to support for many years. The Market Access Program, or MAP, assists our agriculture community in expanding access to markets overseas. For far too long, American farm products have had difficulty getting into foreign countries, and sometimes are unfairly blocked outright. Fair market access and fair trade agreements help our farmers compete, and the MAP program has proven this to be very successful. While I will vote to pass this farm bill, Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this unfair rule because it shuts down fair opportunities for debate and votes on the House floor and because, Mr. Speaker, it waives new anti-earmark and PAYGO rules written just last January, a year ago last January, by the Democrat majority. And already today, Mr. Speaker, we have had a great deal of discussion on PAYGO and the ramifications. We heard it says it complies with the spirit of PAYGO and so forth. Let me just make a point of what happened last night in the Rules Committee. In the Rules Committee, there is a provision in this rule that waives all points of order. We had discussion up there on PAYGO. So the ranking member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier, offered an amendment to keep all the waivers, all the waivers in the farm bill with the exception of the PAYGO provision that was adopted just a year ago last January by the new majority. That amendment simply said if there's no problem with PAYGO, then why not keep that provision in there. It was voted down, Mr. Speaker, on a direct party-line vote. So it appears what has happened here in this instance--because I think the rules are very clear. I think Mr. Ryan from Wisconsin pointed out exactly where we are on this and what the procedures are. Apparently what we have done--and this to me I think is probably unprecedented--we have adopted Senate rules in the House for consideration of the farm bill. Maybe that's a pattern that we will see hopefully in other things that we'll debate, like, for example, maybe having more debate on issues because the Senate does have unlimited debate under their house rules. So, if we're going to start adopting Senate rules, maybe we ought to do that on the debate area. Mr. Speaker, a conscious decision has been made to break the PAYGO rules to increase spending by several billions of dollars. The farm bill, Mr. Speaker, is long overdue, and I'm disappointed that a bill that provides new levels of recognition to specialty crops, as I pointed out in my earlier remarks, from central Washington is coming before the House with so many other questionable provisions within the bill. And with that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from California (Mr. Cardoza) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself as much time as I may consume. (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that we can consider this vitally important issue for America's families; workers; truckers; small businesses; and, for that matter, our entire economy. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, of course, which we already did on H. Res. 1036, which my good friend managed on the floor here just a couple of months ago. Mr. Speaker, let me talk about an issue that's been talked a great deal about here on the House floor by colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and I certainly hear about it when I go home. Mr. Speaker, since the Democrats took control of Congress in January of 2007, the cost of gasoline has risen to record-setting prices. In fact, the cost of gasoline has gone up more in 16 months than it had gone up in the prior 6 years. According to a report from just 2 days ago by AAA in my State of Washington, the price for a gallon of gasoline is at a record $3.80. That's 26 cents higher than it was just last month. The average price of a gallon of diesel is $4.53, which is $1.46 higher than a year ago. Speaker Pelosi made a promise that the Democrats had a ``commonsense plan'' to ``lower the price at the pump.'' But this Congress has done nothing and has only seen fuel prices rise. Mr. Speaker, I really believe it's time for the House to act. It's time for the House to debate ideas for lowering prices, and it's time for the Democrats to reveal their promised plan. So by defeating the previous question, this House can finally consider solutions to rising energy costs. When the previous question is defeated, I will move to add a section to the rule, not rewrite the entire rule, just to add a section to the rule, that would allow the House to consider H.R. 5984, the Clean Energy Tax Stimulus Act of 2008, introduced by Representative Bartlett of Maryland, as well as ``any amendment which the proponent asserts, if enacted, would have the effect of lowering the national average price per gallon of regular unleaded gasoline and diesel fuel by increasing the domestic supply of oil by permitting the extraction of oil in the Outer Continental Shelf.'' Mr. Speaker, the United States is the only developed nation in the world that forbids safe energy production on its Outer Continental Shelf. This puts our country and economy at a disadvantage to other countries. According to the U.S. Minerals Management Service, America's deep seas on the Outer Continental Shelf contain 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 86 billion barrels of oil. Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker. The Outer Continental Shelf contains 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 86 billion barrels of oil. That's 86 billion barrels of American oil that sits waiting while we import a little over 4\1/2\ billion barrels from foreign countries each year. So, Mr. Speaker, if we are serious about addressing gas prices and energy costs in America, we need to get serious about accessing our country's energy resources. Some will declare that it's unsafe to produce energy from reserves beneath the ocean in the Outer Continental Shelf. But other countries do it safely all around the world. As a matter of fact, our country utilizes deep sea production in the Gulf of Mexico. Mr. Speaker, this technology was severely tested, severely tested, and proven safe when two back-to-back category five storms hit the Gulf of Mexico in 2005. Almost 3,000 offshore platforms were in the direct path of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Some experienced 5 to 6 hours of sustained winds at 170 miles per hour and gusts over 200 miles per hour. Now, to be sure, production was halted and platform workers were evacuated during these terrible hurricanes; so there was no loss of life. But, Mr. Speaker, do you know how many of these rigs ruptured? The answer is zero. Zero. Some tops fell off but no platforms ruptured. So I think we must make a distinction between concerns that production can be done safely and scare tactics that oppose efforts to make use of America's resources and reduce imports from foreign nations. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I would like to ask my good friend from Massachusetts just a very straight-up question, and I will be happy to yield to him. Why are we addressing and debating this redundant rule today? I yield to my friend.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire from my very good friend from Massachusetts if he has any more requests for time on his side.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. David Davis).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, this rule is redundant and totally unnecessary. The House doesn't need to pass this rule to go to conference with the Senate. Democrats already have all the power they need to go to conference on the budget. The Budget Committee chairman already has the ability to make a motion to go to conference, and a rule that this House passed 2 months ago also provides that authority. We have already done this with the rule, H. Res. 1036, which my very, very, very good friend, Mr. McGovern, managed only a couple of months ago. There is no reason for the House to be considering this rule, except perhaps one, Mr. Speaker, and that's so that the Democrat majority can deny Republicans their rights as the minority party. Democrats are going to get their way at the end of the day; majorities always do that. But in putting this rule on the floor, Democrats are saying that they needn't even bother with respecting minority rights. This rule exists solely as an abuse of power. Mr. Speaker, when Democrats won control of the Congress in 2006, they promised the American people that they would run the most open and honest House in history. They would seek to work in a bipartisan manner. Instead of keeping that promise, the Democrat majority has stooped to depths and gone to extremes that no previous majority in the House has ever dared. When it comes time to shutting down debate, silencing ideas, restricting minority rights, ignoring rules they themselves wrote, and running the House in a top-down, shut-up, sit- down manner, this Democrat majority has no peer. The Democrat promise to run the most open, honest House in history has been revealed as a hollow charade. They have passed more closed rules that block all amendments and debate than any House in history. They wrote new rules to prohibit votes from being held open to change the vote's outcome, and then violated that rule time after time. They passed new rules to ensure House and Senate conference committees are more open and public, but instead they turn around and retreat even further behind closed doors. They almost totally abandon even holding conference committees. Mr. Speaker, why is this rule suddenly on the House floor today? Why the sudden interest of Democrats in the House to go to conference with the Senate on a budget? The House passed their version of the budget on March 13. The Senate passed their version on March 14. Today is May 14. Why didn't we go to conference 2 months ago? Never mind, of course, that the law sets April 15 as the deadline for Congress to pass a final budget resolution. The facts are that this House could and should have gone to conference 2 months ago. But Democrats have instead hid behind closed doors to negotiate, bargain and cut deals to write a final budget. By reading media reports, Mr. Speaker, it appears the Democrat majority in the House and Senate have reached a final agreement on the final budget for fiscal year 2009. That agreement will apparently increase spending by billions of dollars and include the largest tax increase in history. So now they apparently are going to go to a phony conference after all the true tax and spend work has been done in secret. Mr. Speaker, they aren't doing this to be more open and honest. They are doing this to force through their plan to massively increase taxes and increase government spending. Mr. Speaker, the news media also reports that the Democrat majority has abandoned another of their promises it made to the American people when they wrote the new law for the House that is known as PAYGO. This is a rule that was sought by the Blue Dog Democrats. This rule places a blanket requirement that any bill that lowers taxes or increases spending must be correspondingly offset. Under the secret budget agreement, it appears that the Democrat PAYGO rule was jettisoned. Blue Dog Democrats have given up on their rule and their PAYGO principle. They traded an enforceable House rule for a meaningless promise from a Senator. It's meaningless because everyone knows that this one Senator will in all likelihood be overridden by his Senate colleagues. Mr. Speaker, one can respect my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for standing on principle, but this is a principle that's being abandoned. This rule isn't necessary. The Democrats already have all the power they need to go to conference. So the only reason we are here is because the majority is trying to restrict the rights of the minority to be heard and for the Republicans to have a fair opportunity to offer alternative proposals to legislation Americans care about most, taxing and spending. We are being blocked, shut down, and unfairly restricted in our rights. And as a result, our constituents will potentially be subjected to higher taxes and more government spending. I really don't think Americans want that. When it comes to Democrat plans for billions of dollars in new government spending, Republicans have the right to protest, to demand votes in the House, to have the voices of Members representing almost half of this country to be heard. We especially have the right to protest the Democrat majority's writing of a $200 billion appropriations bill that just completely skips over any hearing or markup in the Appropriations Committee. Instead of passing a bill to fund our troops who are fighting to protect America, Democrats are short-circuiting the legislative process, shutting out Republicans and larding the bill up with billions and billions of dollars of unrelated spending. Right now, Mr. Speaker, upstairs in the Capitol on the third floor, the House Rules Committee is meeting to consider this massive $200 billion supplemental spending bill. The text of this bill was just released an hour before the committee met. It never went before the Appropriations Committee. Republicans have obviously just had minutes to read the bill. This is wrong and is abuse of power by the Democrat majority. The American people deserve to have a more open process on how their tax dollars are spent. So, Mr. Speaker, I repeat again that this rule is totally unnecessary. Democrats already have the power to go to conference. They're just 2 months late in doing so. The Democrats have broken their promise to the American people to operate the House in an open and honest manner. They are conspiring in secret to write a budget that increases taxes by the largest amount in history and use a vital troop funding bill to try to pass billions and billions of new dollars in unrelated government spending. So for these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my very, very, very good friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself as much time as I may consume. (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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