Relating to consideration of the bill (H.R. 6111) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that the Tax Court may review claims for equitable innocent spouse relief and to suspend the running on the period of limitations while such claims are pending.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1099, I call up from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 6111) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that the Tax Court may review claims for equitable innocent spouse relief and to suspend the running on the period of limitations while such claims are pending, with a Senate amendment thereto, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1099, I offer a motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, to make sure that Members understand what we are doing, and, quite frankly, why we are doing it today rather than yesterday, is that we are considering H.R. 6111. H.R. 6111 is a bill that passed the House on suspension by voice vote on December 5. It then passed the Senate by unanimous consent with an amendment yesterday, December 7.

We are doing this as the House of Representatives to assist the Senate under its rules to facilitate the handling of the amendment we are now discussing, and we are doing this because given the Senate rules, they

would require a 2-day layover, two cloture votes and a number of other procedures. By doing this this way, we will save them a day and a cloture vote. Once again, the courtesy and kindness of the House is assisting the Senate in accomplishing the work of the Congress.

So, if you will please understand, the gentleman from New York and I will lead a discussion on the amendment to H.R. 6111. In fact, the amendment is as though the entire text of H.R. 4608, the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, is before us. In addition to that, there are several other provisions that accompany the Tax and Health Care Relief Act.

So, notwithstanding the merits of H.R. 6111, the discussion will be on the so-called tax extenders bill; the energy extenders bill; Medicare, the so-called doctors fix; the health care provisions; certain wilderness designations; some tariff procedures and other items which will in fact be the subject of the debate we are about to be engaged in.

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

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

Perhaps again it is necessary to underscore the fact that the procedure we are going through is not the choice of the House. The current minority leader, to be the majority leader, and I know I am violating the rules when I say the gentleman from Nevada, personally called and asked that we engage in this procedure to assist the Senate. I do hope the gentleman from New York, when he assumes his majority rule, will see fit to accommodate even Members of the other party in making sure that the people's work is done in the most reasonable fashion possible.

So, yes, it seems a little bit complicated, but it is in large part because both the Democratic and the Republican leadership of the Senate asked for our assistance in doing it this way.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, so that people again understand the process, notwithstanding the fact we are dealing with what amounts to a tax bill, because of the unusual procedure of using H.R. 6111 as a vehicle, asked for by the bipartisan leadership of the Senate and provided by us as a courtesy, there would be no motion to recommit available to the minority. This is a substantive amendment which is functioning as a substitute for the motion to recommit.

It has been indicated to me directly by that bipartisan leadership and those individuals I mentioned that if what was to be a motion to recommit and which will now be a substantive amendment passes, in their opinion, this bill will not be able to move through the Senate.

It may surprise the gentleman from Massachusetts to know that I agree with virtually everything he said and would like to add additional items in terms of the OCS provision. In fact, an Outer Continental Shelf measure passed the House. The measure that is currently carried in this amendment is totally isomorphic, exactly the same as the Outer Continental Shelf legislation that passed the Senate, that the Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, that the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, and others supported 71-25. Need I say, this is an additional courtesy that the House is providing.

If, in fact, Mr. Markey's amendment passes, everything we will be talking about for the rest of the time on this amendment will be moot.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), an extremely valued member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate people and their passion getting a bit carried away.

This bill was signed into law by the last Democratic President, Mr. Clinton. It was on your watch. To stand in the well and tell us what is in the amendment that is going to be offered in a short time, after being criticized that they have only had 2 days on the content of our amendment, is absolutely unbelievable.

We made this amendment in order because you didn't have the right to the motion to recommit. The Rules Committee out of courtesy asked you, could we have a copy of your amendment? You told the Rules Committee ``No, you couldn't have a copy of the amendment.''

Mr. Markey earlier described your amendment as having more than one item. Mr. Hinchey talked about it being OCS. Mr. Markey said it was OCS and it was AMT and it may be something else.

What amazes me is that they can stand there with a straight face and criticize us because they only got the copy, the absolute legislative language, 2 days ago on our bill, and they have the audacity to go to the well and describe their amendment and what it is when they won't even give us a copy of it. Now, this is a preview of the coming majority in terms of their saying one thing and doing another. Buckle your seat belts. The piety and the arguments about how correct they are and how unfair it is was just said. This was done by this Congress, it was signed by President Clinton, and we have no idea what is in your amendment because you didn't even offer the courtesy of giving us the language of your amendment notwithstanding the fact that we gave you the privilege of offering an amendment. Now, that is what this is about. Okay?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, this is the third Member on the other side of the aisle who spoke passionately about an amendment that apparently they have had time to write, circulate and read. We have not been presented with that amendment. Obviously, with some fervor, I indicated that I didn't think that probably was the fair thing to do. They now know how the majority feels, having given them the right to offer an amendment. My assumption is that continued refusal to provide us with a copy of the amendment is willful.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

That was 2 days ago. What are you doing for me lately?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Massachusetts for providing the majority with the amendment.

Frankly, I was rather baffled why my friend from New York would yield half their time to the gentleman from Massachusetts since he has time under his own amendment. Having now seen the amendment, I find it interesting that it is an 11-page amendment, a portion of a page is on research credits, a portion of a page is on the alternative minimum tax. The Outer Continental Shelf portion of the 11-page bill, which has been the sole focus of my friends on the other side of the aisle, is six lines. Not six pages, six lines.

What in the world is in the rest of the 11-page bill: Eight pages address putting back into this, over the objections of the Democratic leader on the Senate side, the New York railroad bond provision. I now understand why Mr. Markey got his 15 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), the chairman of the Health Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield on my time?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman because I do appreciate the remarks that he just made. And we probably had not planned on highlighting it, but as the gentleman from Louisiana well knows, another portion of the changes that we are making in this package is to take what was known as the Katrina GO Zone, a benefit, and, after the time has passed, focus the money on those counties that still remain devastated by a high percentage of destruction. Rather than simply having money go where it may not be necessary, a portion of this bill focuses the money where it is absolutely necessary. And as the gentleman from Louisiana well knows, there are still major areas of his State and other States that can easily be defined as devastated.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure now to yield 2 minutes to a valued member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I will place a letter in the Record which is a clarification sought by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) to me.

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, December 8, 2006.

Representative J. Dennis Hastert,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Speaker: We would like to clarify the intent of

certain provisions in Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006,

Mr. Speaker, at this time the Chair would recognize the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) for 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, the Chair appreciates the vigor of the gentleman from Ohio on 6 lines out of an 11-page amendment.

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) for 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, would you indicate the time remaining for each manager?

And would the Speaker indicate who has the right to close?

Mr. Speaker, the chairman reserves the time.

I would tell the gentleman that I have the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee and the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.

Is the gentleman indicating that the gentleman from New York is the last speaker under his time control?

I thank the gentleman.

Does the gentleman from Massachusetts indicate that he is the last speaker under his time? I thank the gentleman.

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Barton, for 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I want to refocus our Members. We are not on the Markey amendment. The Markey amendment will be presented following the conclusion of the discussion on the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, the Nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation has made available to the public a technical explanation of the bill. This technical explanation expresses the committee's understanding and legislative intent behind this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation has made available to the public a technical explanation of the bill. This technical explanation expresses the Committee's understanding and legislative intent behind this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the spirit of H. Res. 1000, which the House passed this year to reform the legislative process, I note that the Joint Committee on Taxation has identified 2 provisions of H.R. 6408, introduced yesterday, as ``earmarks'' under the terms of that resolution. These provisions also appear in the amendment to H.R. 6111 which the House will consider today. A copy of the Joint Committee on Taxation's opinion letter is available for Members to review if they wish.

The identified provisions are Title I's Section 414. Modification of special arbitrage rule for certain funds made permanent, and Section 211 of Division C, Certain related persons and successors in interest relieved of liability if premiums prepaid. Section 414 was requested by Congressman Kevin Brady (R-TX). Section 211 is part of a comprehensive mining reform proposal requested by Senators Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Max Baucus (D-MT).

H.R. 6408's Division B--Medicare and Other Health Provisions, contains an earmark. Section 111, Clarification of hospice satellite designation, was requested by Senator Reid (D-NV). The amendment also contains this provision.

In addition, Division C, Title I, Gulf of Mexico Energy Security requested by Congressman Bobby Jindal (R-LA) and Title III, White Pine County Conservation, Recreation and Development requested by Senator Harry

Reid (D-NV) have been identified as containing probable earmarks.

December 8, 2006.

Hon. William M. Thomas,

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, 1102 Longworth House

Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Thomas: House Resolution 1000 provides that

the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation identify any tax

earmark in a bill carrying a tax measure reported by the Ways

and Means Committee or in a conference report to accompany a

bill carrying a tax measure. You requested that we review the

language of H.R. 6408, the ``Tax Relief and Health Care Act

of 2006'' as introduced in the House of Representatives on

December 7, 2006, and the House Amendment to the Senate

amendment to H.R. 6111 (``An Act to amend the Internal

Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that the Tax Court may review

claims for equitable innocent spouse relief and to suspend

the running on the period of limitations while such claims

are pending'') scheduled for consideration by the House on

December 8, 2006, to identify any provisions which would

satisfy the tax earmark standard of House Resolution 1000, if

applicable.

In response to your request, the staff of the Joint

Committee on Taxation has identified two provisions in each

piece of legislation that would qualify as tax earmarks under

House Resolution 1000, were they included in a bill reported

by the Ways and Means Committee or contained in a conference

report. The two provisions, which are the same in both bills,

are: (1) the provision to make permanent the modification of

special arbitrage rules for the Texas Permanent University

Fund (sec. 414 of Division A of each bill); and (2) the

provision of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act

Amendments of 2006 allowing release of joint and several

liability in the case of prepayment of liabilities to the

Combined Benefit Fund, section 9711 individual employer plan,

or 1992 UMWA benefit plan and modifying of the definition of

successor in interest (sec. 211 of Division C of each bill).

Sincerely,

Thomas A. Barthold,

Acting Chief of Staff.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the subject of the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from New York for the kind comments that he made. I would like to reference his statement about the other side. For those of you who may not have understood what he meant, the other side is not the other side of Jordan. It is the other side of the Capitol. Oftentimes in dealing with the other side of the Capitol, it feels like you have crossed over the other side of Jordan in trying to make sure various things happen.

There are a number of items, and I guess at some point, your entire presentation oftentimes in dealing with Congress was woulda, coulda, shoulda. And that is fine to debate woulda, coulda, shoulda, which is basically process.

We have reached a point where, through great difficulty, the House and Senate have agreed on a number of important measures to extend benefits and to at least keep open the opportunity to do additional items.

We happened to reach agreement at the very end of the session. The point I want to underscore is, we have reached agreement. The question will be on whether we decide to support that agreement or not support the agreement. I do appreciate all the time consumed in complaining about how we got there.

I have counseled my friends on this side that when they become the minority, I will provide them with all the yellow pages and the copies of the other side while they have been in the minority about the ``woulda coulda shoulda.'' Right now, it is about substance, it is about doing something, and we will have the vote on this measure following the debate on the Markey amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I believe perhaps we ought to proceed in the reading of the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I do think it is important to note there are a number of items in the bill, not just the Outer Continental Shelf. As was indicated by the gentleman from Massachusetts and indicated by the gentleman from New York, there is an alternative minimum tax provision in this amendment. One of the things that the Democratic leadership has said, since prior to the election is, that if they were elected, if they were chosen, if they were going to be dealing with items that cost money, they were going to submit themselves to the so-called PAYGO rules. PAYGO rules are exactly what it sounds like: you pay as you go.

I find it ironic that there is this great pressure to move this amendment now before they do come into the majority, because the alternative minimum tax provisions of this amendment have no PAYGO requirement.

What, in fact, they have is spend without covering the costs, and so I understand the urgency to get this done right now so that they don't have to follow the commitment that they have made.

Boy, is that typical. In terms of the railroad bonds, I will repeat, in a personal conversation with the Democratic leader of the Senate, he asked me to make sure, not withstanding previous support and structure that we were dealing with, in this extremely fragile measure, being carried in an unusual way to make sure that we can send it to the President, notwithstanding whether you believe the railroad bond provision has merit or doesn't have merit, it cannot be added at this time or you will lose the measure. I personally will put my trust in the judgment of the Democratic leader of the Senate.

Finally, on OCS. As I said to the gentleman from Massachusetts, in another time, in another place, in another circumstance for largely the same reason that I mentioned, we have to correct this. I appreciate it has been going on for 10 years. We do understand it was signed into law by President Clinton. I guess my question to you is, if it has been going on for 10 years, and you take over this place in less than a month, and you have 100-day priority structure, 100-hour structure, excuse me, were you not able to find room on the 100-hour structure to do this? It sounds to me, based upon the strength and the merit of your arguments, this would be number 1, 2 or 3 on the 100 hours.

Because in that same conversation that I had with the Democratic leader in the Senate, he said, Bill, please, we cannot have this added to the measure. It will split the Senate. We are very fragile, trying to hold ourselves together, notwithstanding the merits of this. Please, don't put it on this measure.

Time, place, manner, it is 10 years overdue. Can we make it 10 years and 20 days overdue so that you don't destroy all of the stuff that is in this bill so that we can get this done and then we turn the floor over to you in the first 100 hours? I am sure this would be number 1, 2 or 3 based upon the outrage that I think you justifiably present on this particular issue.

For all those reasons, unwillingness to follow their own rules they say they are going to follow on PAYGO for an alternative minimum tax, the fact that we looked at the railroad bonds, there was a bipartisan bicameral agreement, it was too sensitive at this time, and the fact that OCS will blow up everything else in this bill, I will ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment so we can vote ``yes'' on everything else.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1099 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1099 provides for the disposition of the Senate amendment to H.R. 6111. It makes in order a motion by the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means to concur in the Senate amendment with the amendment printed in the Rules Committee report accompanying this resolution. This resolution waives all points of order against the motion and it provides 1 hour of debate on the motion, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Finally, it provides one motion to amend which shall be separately debatable for 5 minutes by the proponent and 5 minutes by an opponent.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 1099 and the underlying bill, H.R. 6111, which is entitled the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006. Madam Speaker, I also rise today for what will likely be my last time managing a rule, at least perhaps until the 111th Congress. I would like to briefly take this opportunity to thank Speaker Hastert for allowing me to serve on this prestigious Rules Committee and also I would like to thank Chairman Dreier for his stewardship of the committee in addition to the committee staff who have been there each and every step of the way to assist me and my staff. It has truly been an honor to serve with my colleagues on the Rules Committee and I feel blessed for having had this opportunity to work with all the members, Republicans and Democrats, of this great committee.

Madam Speaker, from the extension of expiring tax credits and the strengthening of health savings accounts, to the exploration of the Outer Continental Shelf and an increase in payments for physician services, this bill provides the Congress with an opportunity to debate and pass a vast array of good policy initiatives. I know there are some who do not agree with the legislative agenda in the closing days of the 109th Congress. Indeed, most on the other side of the aisle have opposed the majority agenda every step of the way, perhaps so they could use the soundbite that this is a do-nothing Congress. However, the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 is a crucial piece of legislation that must be passed for the sake of taxpayers and their families

This bill demonstrates our commitment to returning more money to the taxpayers on top of creating more incentives for economic growth, innovation and entrepreneurship. Madam Speaker, at the end of last year and at the close of this current year, many important tax provisions and incentives will expire, thereby forcing hardworking Americans and their families to shell out more of their hard-earned money to the Federal Government. This bill will extend these expiring provisions through 2007, and it demonstrates our commitment to the American taxpayer and our commitment to fostering entrepreneurship and economic growth.

Specifically, this bill provides teachers with an important and a well-deserved deduction for higher education expenses as well as a deduction for their out-of-pocket classroom expenditures on behalf of their pupils. Our teachers should not be punished by the Tax Code for investing in their students and improving the quality of education in the classroom.

Also, this bill strengthens our rural communities by extending a new markets tax credit to help foster new industries and diversify our local economies.

Additionally, the bill extends the State and local sales tax deduction. This is most important in those States which have no income tax to deduct, but they are burdened with very substantial sales tax levies.

Madam Speaker, this legislation also extends the research and development tax credit. Technological innovation is absolutely vital to America's continued economic growth and prosperity. Without investment in research and development, all innovation and growth would come to a screeching halt, with catastrophic effects on our economy as we continue the fight to try and compete globally. We must do everything that we can to help incentivize research and development so that we keep the United States a leader in business and technological innovation.

Additionally, this bill also extends the welfare-to-work tax credit and the work opportunity tax credit, creating more chances to put people to work and further reduce the Federal welfare rolls. Recognizing our need to reduce energy costs and maximize energy efficiency, this bill also extends various energy tax credits for energy efficient homes and businesses, for methanol and ethanol fuel, and for businesses that produce electricity from solar energy, fuel cells or microturbines.

Also, the underlying legislation provides for the exploration, the development and production activities for mineral resources in the OCS, Outer Continental Shelf. In February of 2006, the Department of Interior released a comprehensive inventory of OCS resources, estimating approximately 8.5 billion barrels of oil and 29.3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Madam Speaker, the combination of energy-efficient tax incentives and increased domestic energy production are integral to reducing our dependence on foreign energy as well as finding new and cleaner ways to produce and use energy. I don't know whether the Iraqi Study Group included this as part of their 79 recommendations, but if they didn't, make this No. 80.

This bill also contains many important bipartisan health care provisions which represent the culmination of many hardworking hours spent by our committee chairs and our leadership on both sides of the aisle, in both chambers. The final product is one that communicates to the American people that Congress is dedicated to addressing the

problems in our health care delivery system.

First and foremost, this legislation reverses the scheduled 5.1 percent cut to physician's reimbursements for services rendered to Medicare beneficiaries. In 1997, Congress established this sustainable growth rate formula in an attempt to control part B utilization in the Medicare program by reducing physician fees. Unfortunately, the formula is so inherently flawed and it is estimated that physician reimbursement in the Medicare program will continue to decrease into the foreseeable future. In fact, MedPAC, the Medicare Payment Advisory Committee, has reported that physician payments are expected to be cut by a total of 37 percent over the next 9 years under this SGR formula. With the reality of the impending retirement of the baby boomer generation, the already strained Medicare program will reach a crisis state. By reversing this scheduled cut for one year, 2007, this legislation takes a step in the right direction to protect access to quality health care for our seniors. To state it simply, as a result of these changes, primary care and other physician specialists will be there when our seniors need them.

Madam Speaker, this legislation also includes very important and helpful revisions to current law in regards to health savings accounts. These changes are just another example of the forward-thinking ideas that are needed to reform our health care system. This bill provides more flexibility to individuals by allowing them to roll over assets from flexible health spending accounts and health reimbursement arrangements into health savings accounts.

Health savings accounts are growing in popularity among employers and employees, and when these accounts are coupled with a high deductible catastrophic health plan, they serve as an all-encompassing insurance solution for individuals of all ages and at all stages of life.

America's Health Insurance Plans conducted a study earlier this year that showed that over 30 percent of individuals enrolled in HSAs were previously uninsured. It also showed that one-third of purchasers had incomes of $50,000 or less. This really debunks the naysayers' claim that this choice, this health savings account option, benefits only the wealthy. Nothing could be further from the truth, Madam Speaker.

By tearing through the red tape and allowing people to consolidate and transfer their accounts into the increasingly popular HSAs, more consumers will have access to these insurance plans, putting themselves in the driver's seat of their health care decisions. And when they have skin in the game, both figuratively and literally, they will choose the best and most effective choice from the health care menu.

Madam Speaker, the list goes on as to what this legislation does for health care in America. From ensuring doctors are reimbursed for using the latest treatment therapy for prostate cancer, to extending the therapy caps exception process for an additional year, the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 continues the much-needed reform of our health care system, and this Republican-led Congress spearheaded this over the last years

With that, Madam Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just say to my friend from Massachusetts as he bemoans the provision in the bill regarding the provisions that allow for expansion of offshore exploration of natural gas off of the gulf coast States, he is right.

In this body, we have tried to be more comprehensive. That is no reason to oppose what little bit of agreement that we could get from the Senate in regard to an attempt at a comprehensive energy provision. Because of parochial opposition, we were not able to do the same thing off the coast of Florida and California. I indeed and many on

my side of the aisle were in favor of that and a more comprehensive, expanded opportunity for domestic production.

And another example I want to point out particularly for the gentleman from Massachusetts, there was a very interesting project off the coast of his State called Cape Wind that would have produced a tremendous amount of energy in the cleanest of clean ways, renewable energy, in that Cape Wind project, but it was parochial opposition from the Members of Congress and possibly the State legislature in the State of Massachusetts that did not permit that project to go forward.

So we have to deal with those. It is understandable, we can understand the opposition even though passage would be for the greater good of the entire country, but we do what we can do. There are very, very many energy provisions in this bill, a lot of tax credits to try to incentivize the use of cellulosity of products and biofuel to produce methanol and ethanol. And so I think we have a very good, comprehensive project here.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to myself 30 seconds before yielding to the gentlewoman from North Carolina just in response to my good friend from New Jersey. What a welcome relief to hear him say that as they ascend to the majority in the 110th Congress that he is going to fix permanently this physician shortfall.

As I said in my opening remarks, we are estimated by MedPAC that over the next several years we are going to have a 37 percent decrease in physician payments to permanently fix, CBO and OMB estimates, a $150 to $200 billion cost over 10 years. So it will be interesting to see how our friends on the other side of the aisle pay for that, but I am glad that they are going to step forward to the challenge.

At this point I want to yield to my good friend from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) for 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

I thank the gentlewoman from Texas. She started her discussion by saying that this bill has kind of been rushed through in the dark of night and there hasn't been an opportunity to study the details of the bill. But as a hardworking Member of this body, the gentlewoman from Texas clearly has had sufficient time to look at all those provisions, that litany of provisions, those line items that she went through and endorsed wholeheartedly because of the compassion that she has got in regard to the education of our children and public schools, the provisions in there that help to continue to rebuild the Gulf Coast States, one of which of course is her great State of Texas, and what that expanded ability to obtain natural gas in the Gulf of Mexico, what that means to the State of Texas and Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi. So, while she was decrying that the bill was rushed through and she doesn't understand it, I am glad to know that she fully understands it and endorses it. And I guess if she had more time she would have gone on and listed some other provisions that she is in favor of, and I thank her for that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute in response to the gentleman from Florida.

I'm sure the gentleman from Florida had a number of occasions over the last year to give that speech throughout the State of Florida, and I appreciate his position on this issue.

But I want to point out to him that of the Gulf Coast States, those four States of Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, Louisiana, we have seven Republican Senators, and that we have three Republican Governors, three out of four. Seven out of eight.

But when this bill was debated in the Senate, the vote was 71-25, and I remind the gentleman from Florida that there are only 55 Republican Senators in the other body. I can only say that Governor Blanco and Senator Landrieu must be awfully persuasive. This was a strong bipartisan support in the Senate, and I would guess it will have strong bipartisan support, including these provisions in regard to gas exploration in the Gulf of Mexico. It doesn't involve Florida or California

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

My able staff has just presented me with some fairly interesting statistics. I just said in my previous remarks that the vote on the Senate side was 71-25. Included in the 71 ``yea'' vote for this exploration off the gulf coast were 17 Democrats. The interesting thing about this is one of those is the incoming majority leader of the Senate, Harry Reid of Nevada, and Senator Clinton from New York, a Senator of some prominence in a neighboring State to Massachusetts, and last, but not least, Senator Nelson from the great State of Florida.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend Jim McGovern for those kind remarks. The feeling is indeed mutual. I certainly have enjoyed serving with him and all the members of the Rules Committee on both sides of the aisle, and I thank him for his kind remarks.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 1099.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I rise again in support of this rule and in recognition of the importance of the underlying bill. I do want to take this opportunity in closing to recognize the hard work and efforts of Chairman Thomas and Chairman Barton, as well as their respective committees, for the final product that we have before us today.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize and thank Chairman Thomas for his decades of service to this House and the people of his district, as well as Americans all across this Nation.

Bill Thomas, a brilliant professor from Bakersfield, has truly been a leader across the board, and his expertise and devotion of 28 years of service across this country will truly be missed.

Mr. Speaker, the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 is a very important piece of legislation that positively impacts each and every American by fostering economic growth, driving innovation, increasing our energy supply, and improving the quality of health care in this country. As the 109th Congress draws to a close, and the minority prepares to become the majority, I believe that we must work together to produce legislation like this that recognizes the fact that when the government gets out of the way, Americans can do what they do best, and that is what is best for America.

I want to encourage all of my colleagues to support this rule and support the underlying legislation

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6111, the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006. I do so for three reasons. First, the bill extends and modifies certain key tax relief provisions through 2007, which provide much needed relief to working and middle-class taxpayers.

Second, I believe that among the most urgent challenges confronting the Nation, none is more important than lessening, and ultimately ending, America's dependence on foreign energy sources. H.R. 6111 advances this goal in a small but appreciable way by permitting oil and gas production in an 8.3-million acre area of the Gulf of Mexico, with 37.5 percent of the lease income allocated to the Gulf Coast States closest to the drilling area, excluding the Florida gulf coast.

Third, the bill blocks the scheduled 5 percent cut in Medicare payments to doctors, and provides for a 1.5 percent increase in such payments next July for physicians who submit data relating to certain quality of care standards.

I. Extension of Tax Relief for Working and Middle Class

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6111 extends through 2007 several tax provisions under current law, including provisions that expired at the end of 2005 and some that are set to expire at the end of this year. Many of these provisions are targeted to middle- and working-class taxpayers. I strongly support this portion of the bill. I would like to discuss several of the more important middle class tax relief provisions.

State and Local Sales Tax Deduction

H.R. 6111 extends by 2 years the provision allowing taxpayers the option of deducting general sales taxes paid. This provision is of particular benefit to taxpayers living in States that do not impose a State income tax. Taxpayers have long been permitted to claim an itemized deduction for certain State and local taxes, including personal income tax, real property taxes and personal property taxes, but they have not been to deduct general sales taxes since 1986. The 2004 corporate tax bill allowed taxpayers, in 2004 and 2005 only, to claim instead an itemized deduction for State and local sales taxes, either by accumulating receipts and deducting the total amount or using tables produced by the Internal Revenue Service. In States without State income tax, this provision provided a new deduction for individuals.

Higher Education Expenses Deduction

Similarly, the bill renews and extends through 2007 the ``above-the- line'' deduction that taxpayers may claim for higher education expenses: An ``above-the-line'' deduction is a deduction that may be claimed by a taxpayer even if he or she does not itemize his or her deductions. Under the provision of law that would be extended, taxpayers can deduct up to $4,000 of such expenses if their adjusted gross income does not exceed $65,000 for a single return or $130,000 for a joint return, and up to $2,000 if their income does not exceed $80,000 for a single return or $160,000 for a joint return. In this increasingly globalized economy, a college education is becoming a necessity. We must do all we can to ensure that access to higher education remains affordable to the working and middle class. That is why I support strongly the renewal and extension of the deductibility of higher education expenses.

Teacher Classroom Deduction

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6111 also extends through 2007 a provision that expired at the end of 2005, under which teachers may claim an ``above- the-line'' deduction up to $250 of the expenses for certain supplies that they purchase for their elementary or secondary classrooms with their own money.

Mr. Speaker, my daughter taught in elementary schools and I know how devoted she and her colleagues were to providing their students with the most enriching educational experience possible. It is not uncommon for them to dip into their personal funds to buy supplies and materials to supplement those provided by the schools. Teachers go this extra mile because they love what they do; everyone knows it is not because they are overpaid. I approve the teacher classroom deduction included in the bill. I hope we will be able to increase the amount of this deduction in the future.

II. Energy Independence and Security

It is imperative that America achieves energy independence in the 21st century. We must end our addiction to foreign sources of oil, most of which are found in regions of the world which are unstable and in some cases, opposed to our interests. Accordingly, there is no issue more integral to our economic and national security than energy independence.

Although I must admit that I do have reservations about certain aspects of this bill and the process with which this bill has arrived on the House floor, I nevertheless support it as a step in the right direction of America achieving energy independence. I think many of us in the House would agree that the issues central to this bill, the future of energy exploration off of our gulf coastlines, deserves more time for deliberation, debate, and a process for amendment. Some of these provisions which were incorporated into H.R. 4671 include my amendments which supported minority-serving universities and minority- owned businesses.

These very important provisions were designed to ensure that sectors of our Nation and economy which are often overlooked, namely, minority- serving institutions and minority-owned businesses, were given an opportunity to benefit from and compete for the opportunities afforded in this bill.

Nevertheless, I still support H.R. 6111 because it is a step in the right direction, a step towards energy independence, and a step away from being eternally beholden to foreign sources of oil. Additionally, I believe the energy aspects of the bill lay the foundation for the development of a new model for reclaiming wetlands; will help the Gulf Coast States affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita to recover from the disaster and prosper in the future; provide thousands of good- paying jobs for the middle class; and serve as a blueprint for general revenue sharing in the 21st century.

In this connection, I would like to emphasize that the revenue sharing formula in the bill ensures that 37.5 percent of the revenue from

new areas of production and new leases go towards gulf producing States. Furthermore, 20 percent of the revenue allocated to gulf producing States must be allocated to the State's coastal subdivisions to be used for the purposes of: coastal protection, conservation, coastal restoration, hurricane protection, protecting coastal wetlands, and mitigating damage to fish and wildlife. In addition, 12.5 percent of the revenue will be allocated to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which ensures that the environmental impact of offshore drilling will be monitored, managed, and regulated to ensure that our coasts are protected.

Energy is the lifeblood of every economy, especially ours. Producing more of it leads to more good jobs, cheaper goods, lower fuel prices, and greater economic and national security. However, the U.S. is more than 60 percent dependent on foreign sources of energy, twice as dependent today as we were just 30 years ago. Although energy is the lifeblood of America's economic security, this growing and dangerous dependence has resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands of good American jobs, skyrocketing consumer prices, and vulnerabilities in our national security.

Energy imports now make up one-third of America's trade deficit. Through this bill, America could improve the supply-demand imbalance, lower consumer prices, and increase jobs by producing more of its own energy resources. With my district of Houston being the energy capital of the world, I support the efforts that this bill makes to recognize State stakeholders and incorporate their interests in revenue sharing.

According to the U.S. Minerals Management Service, MMS, America's deep seas on the Outer Continental Shelf, OCS, contain 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas--the U.S. consumes 23 TCF per year--and 86 billion barrels of oil--the U.S. imports 4.5 billion per year. Even with all these energy resources, the U.S. sends more than $300 billion--and countless American jobs--overseas every year for energy we can create at home.

In some cases, the U.S. is facing much-higher energy prices than other countries. Natural gas, for example, is as much as ten times more expensive in the United States than it is in foreign nations. This fact alone has led to the loss of hundreds of thousands of high-paying American jobs, as natural gas-dependent factories are forced to close their doors and move overseas in search of more affordable energy. The outsourcing of American jobs is an issue of central importance to me and my constituents, and I believe this bill is a step in the right direction of bringing jobs back to hard-working Americans.

iii. h.r. 6111 blocks medicare cuts in physician payments

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I support the bill because it blocks the 5 percent cut in payments to physicians who treat Medicare patients which otherwise would go into effect on January 1, 2007. Over the next 9 years, Medicare's trustees are projecting a total of 40 percent in Medicare payment cuts to physicians. If the January 1 cut is imposed, the average physician payment rate, accounting for increases in the cost of running a practice, will be less in 2007 than it was in 2001.

The Medicare sustainable growth rate, SGR, formula, used in establishing payment rates under the physician fee schedule under the Medicare program, resulted in significant payment cuts to physicians and health care professionals in 2002. These cuts were for doctors only, not for hospitals or other medical facilities.

The Medicare SGR formula would have resulted in payment cuts to physicians and health care professionals in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 had Congress not intervened.

According to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, MedPAC, and the board of trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund, the Medicare SGR formula will result in substantial payment cuts to physicians and health care professionals through at least 2015.

MedPAC is very well respected and a recognized authority on Medicare and healthcare issues. It does not support the impending payment cuts and is concerned that such consecutive annual payment cuts would threaten access to physician services over time, particularly primary care servIces.

MedPAC has raised concerns over current payment policies that may discourage medical students and residents from becoming primary care physicians because many Medicare beneficiaries rely on primary care providers for important health care management.

According to a 2006 American Medical Association, survey, if payment cuts to physicians under the Medicare program go into effect: half of physicians plan to decrease the number of new Medicare patients they accept; half of physicians plan to defer the purchase of information technology; 1 in 3 physicians who treat patients living in rural communities will discontinue rural outreach services; and almost half-- 43 percent--of physicians will decrease the number of new TRICARE patients they accept.

The annual actions by Congress that have overridden the Medicare SGR formula have only resulted in instability and unpredictability for physicians, health care professionals, seniors, and individuals with disabilities. It does not solve the long-term systemic problem of rising costs.

Stable, positive updates under the Medicare physician fee schedule that accurately reflect medical practice cost increases are vital for encouraging and economically supporting physicians' ability to make the significant financial investment required for health information technology and participation in quality improvement programs.

A stable payment system for physicians is critical to preserve Medicare beneficiaries' access to high-quality health care.

We cannot in good conscience establish barriers for doctors and health care professionals to surmount in order to continue to provide access to high-quality Medicare services for all Medicare beneficiaries. Congress must halt the impending January 1 cuts and develop an alternative payment system that accurately reflects the costs of providing care to Medicare beneficiaries.

The biggest single flaw is that this payment schedule rubric recently announced by CMS has no connection to the actual cost of providing patient care. Starving doctor's practices will not decrease healthcare prices, or change unethical behavior. It will drive doctors out of business who are desperately needed to provide care to our elderly.

In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6111 because it takes three steps in the right direction: (1) It provides much needed tax relief to working and middle class taxpayers; (2) It reduces the Nation's dependence on foreign energy supplies and ensures that Gulf Coast States share in the revenue from new areas of production while protecting our environment; and (3) It blocks draconian cuts by Medicare in payments to physicians. I urge all members to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I would say that there is a kinship with many of my colleagues about the necessity of regular order. In the best of all worlds, we would have had a number of days to debate many of the very pithy and challenging issues that are in this particular rule that now will, ultimately, if this rule pass, will bring up any number of issues that require our thoughtful deliberation.

But I would say that we are in the waning hours of the 109th Congress, and we look forward to a new day when the light of day will shine on issues dealing with conservation, dealing with the right relationship between patient and physician and the payment of their services and, yes, when we address the question of tax relief for people who really, really need it.

I want to rebut Lou Dobbs' attack on the middle class and say that we stand for working Americans. And so I believe that there is a great need for some of the aspects of this legislation. We need the college tuition deduction extension. We need the State sales tax exemption for States who do not have State income tax, but the burden of taxation falls unfairly on those who are least able to pay it because they pay a high sales tax. We need the welfare-to-work tax credit, and we certainly need the tax that relieves teachers who pay their own money for books and supplies for children in inner-city and rural schools. I know it firsthand because my daughter, as a teacher, had to go in, because she desired to do it, and take her resources so her class could have an enthusiastic and challenging way of learning. These are vital aspects of what needs to be done.

And then, who has not heard from their doctor who wants to do what is right in rural and urban areas who cannot get the complete respect, if you will, of CMS by the cuts in their Medicare payments every single year. We need this stability, this fund, that will help bring about stability in the payments to physicians.

My friends, not only are we losing medical students in medical schools, meaning that the numbers are declining, doctors are giving up the ship, and they are doing it because we have not been fair to them.

And now, of course, I am from Texas, and I believe in conservation. I had hoped that when we were talking about energy legislation, the President would open the door on conservation here in the United States. But let me tell you what this sharing of revenue is all about. It is not a giveaway. It is not a throwaway. I recognize that when we talk about the energy industry, we are certainly talking about those that cannot win a popularity contest. But we have got to address the question of coastal restoration. This is a key element to protecting the coastal line, not for the coastal States but for America.

Do you want to see the ticking clock on what we have now expended for those folk in Louisiana who are still in need? My visit to Louisiana tells me that they are still in troubling times. People can't go home. Homes are not restored. But we are spending billions and billions of dollars for the most catastrophic evacuation and tragedy that we have seen most in the history of the United States.

The coastal lines have deteriorated. The wetlands have deteriorated. And what this revenue sharing will do, in the exploration of the Outer Continental Shelf, it will provide it revenue to protect the coastal line.

My understanding is that our friends from Florida, at least those who have engaged in this discussion, believe that there is sufficient protection for them as well. We did not ignore the concerns of coastal States. But it is imperative that, one, we engage in conservation, but we also engage in safe, environmentally safe exploration of natural gas.

We are going to dispute this. We are going to disagree. We are going to castigate. We are going to suggest that we are falling victim to those who want to explore. We are going to be called the, if you will, explorer and giveaway on this particular bill.

I would have preferred a more thorough, ongoing debate on this question. But I believe this is the right way to go right now. We have got to provide the resources for the restoration of those coastal areas. We have got to provide an environmentally safe way of exploration. We have got to have some domestic production. And LNG, or the natural gas production that is going on and has the ability of being done in the Outer Continental Shelf is vital for the aspect of conservation and energy independence of the United States of America. I ask my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I think it is imperative that we all agree on the vital importance of America achieving energy independence in the 21st century. We must end our addiction to foreign sources of oil, most of which are found in regions of the world which are unstable and in some cases, opposed to our interests. Accordingly, there is no issue more integral to our economic and national security than energy independence.

Although I must admit that I do have reservations about certain aspects of this bill and the process with which this bill has arrived on the House floor, I nevertheless support it as a step in the right direction of America achieving energy independence. I think many of us in the House would agree that the issues central to this bill, the future of energy exploration off of our gulf coastlines, deserves more time for deliberation, debate, and a process for amendment. Some of these amendments which were incorporated into H.R. 4671 include my amendments which supported minority-serving universities and minority- owned businesses. These very important provisions were designed to ensure that sectors of our Nation and economy which are often overlooked, namely, minority-serving institutions and minority-owned business, were given an opportunity to benefit from and compete for the opportunities afforded in this bill.

Nevertheless, I still support H.R. 6111 because it is a step in the right direction, a step towards energy independence, and a step away from being eternally beholden to foreign sources of oil. Moreover, this step includes an integral revenue sharing formula which ensures that 37.5 percent of the revenue from new areas of production and new leases go towards gulf producing States. Furthermore, 20 percent of the revenue allocated to gulf producing States must be allocated to the State's coastal subdivisions to be used for the purposes of: coastal protection, conservation, coastal restoration, hurricane protection, protecting coastal wetlands, and mitigating damage to fish and wildlife. In addition, 12.5 percent of the revenue will be allocated to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which ensures that the environmental impact of offshore drilling will be monitored, managed, and regulated to ensure that our coasts are protected.

Energy is the lifeblood of every economy, especially ours. Producing more of it leads to more good jobs, cheaper goods, lower fuel prices, and greater economic and national security. However, the U.S. is more than 60 percent dependent on foreign sources of energy, twice as dependent today as we were just 30 years ago. Although energy is the lifeblood of America's economic security, this growing and dangerous dependence has resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands of good American jobs, skyrocketing consumer prices, and vulnerabilities in our national security.

Energy imports now make up one-third of America's trade deficit. Through this bill, America could improve the supply-demand imbalance, lower consumer prices, and increase jobs by producing more of its own energy resources. With my district of Houston being the energy capital of the world, I support the efforts that this bill makes to recognize State stakeholders and incorporate their interests in revenue sharing.

According to the U.S. Minerals Management Service, MMS, America's deep

seas on the Outer Continental Shelf, OCS, contain 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas--the U.S. consumes 23 TCF per year--and 86 billion barrels of oil--the U.S. imports 4.5 billion per year. Even with all these energy resources, the U.S. sends more than $300 billion--and countless American jobs--overseas every year for energy we can create at home.

In some cases, the U.S. is facing much-higher energy prices than other countries. Natural gas, for example, is as much as ten times more expensive in the United States than it is in foreign nations. This fact alone has led to the loss of hundreds of thousands of high-paying American jobs, as natural gas-dependent factories are forced to close their doors and move overseas in search of more affordable energy. The outsourcing of American jobs is an issue of central importance to me and my constituents, and I believe this bill is a step in the right direction of bringing jobs back to hard-working Americans.

Regarding the physician payment adjustment portion of this bill, beginning January 1, 2007, payments to physicians who treat Medicare patients will be cut 5.0 percent. Over the next 9 years, Medicare's trustees are projecting a total of 40 percent in Medicare payment cuts to physicians. If the January 1 cut is imposed, the average physician payment rate, accounting for increases in the cost of running a practice, will be less in 2007 than it was in 2001. This bill will eliminate that cut for at least 1 year. We certainly need to do more.

The Medicare sustainable growth rate, SGR, formula, used in establishing payment rates under the physician fee schedule under the Medicare program, resulted in significant payment cuts to physicians and health care professionals in 2002. These cuts were for doctors only, not for hospitals or other medical facilities.

The Medicare SGR formula would have resulted in payment cuts to physicians and health care professionals in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 had Congress not intervened.

According to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, MedPAC, and the board of trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund, the Medicare SGR formula will result in substantial payment cuts to physicians and health care professionals through at least 2015.

MedPAC is very well respected and a recognized authority on Medicare and healthcare issues. It does not support the impending payment cuts and is concerned that such consecutive annual payment cuts would threaten access to physician services over time, particularly primary care services.

MedPAC has raised concerns over current payment policies that may discourage medical students and residents from becoming primary care physicians because many Medicare beneficiaries rely on primary care providers for important health care management.

According to a 2006 American Medical Association survey, if payment cuts to physicians under the Medicare program go into effect: Half of physicians plan to decrease the number of new Medicare patients they accept; half of physicians plan to defer the purchase of information technology; 1 in 3 physicians who treat patients living in rural communities will discontinue rural outreach services; and almost half-- 43 percent--of physicians will decrease the number of new TRICARE patients they accept.

The annual actions by Congress that have overridden the Medicare SGR formula have only resulted in instability and unpredictability for physicians, health care professionals, seniors, and individuals with disabilities. It does not solve the long-term systemic problem of rising costs.

Stable, positive updates under the Medicare physician fee schedule that accurately reflect medical practice cost increases are vital for encouraging and economically supporting physicians' ability to make the significant financial investment required for health information technology and participation in quality improvement programs.

A stable payment system for physicians is critical to preserve Medicare beneficiaries' access to high-quality health care.

We cannot in good conscience establish barriers for doctors and health care professionals to surmount in order to continue to provide access to high-quality Medicare services for all Medicare beneficiaries. Congress must halt the impending January 1 cuts and develop an alternative payment system that accurately reflects the costs of providing care to Medicare beneficiaries.

The biggest single flaw is that this payment schedule rubric recently announced by CMS has no connection to the actual cost of providing patient care. Starving doctor's practices will not decrease healthcare prices, or change unethical behavior. It will drive doctors out of business who are desperately needed to provide care to our elderly.

In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6111 as a step in the right direction towards securing energy independence and ensuring that Gulf Coast States share in the revenue from new areas of production while protecting our environment.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Madam Speaker, I am disappointed but not surprised that this is how we are ending the 109th Congress. Like I said yesterday, old habits die hard. Once again, we are here on the floor debating an omnibus bill, a smorgasbord, if you will, a bill which cobbles together several bills and other provisions that have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

This process is unfortunate. The Republican leadership is forcing a bill through this body today that includes tax extenders, Medicare payments, offshore drilling and an expansion of the D.C. school voucher program. It is a 279-page bill that is date-stamped yesterday at 1:39 p.m. I wonder how many people in this House, Madam Speaker, have actually had the time to read and research what is in this bill and how it will impact current policy.

I would say to my colleagues, don't be surprised if in a week or two you pick up your local newspaper and that there is a story about other goodies that are hidden in this bill that we are about to consider today. Sadly, that is what we have come to expect from this Republican leadership.

There are at least four separate bills included in these 279 pages, each of which does a variety of things. First, the tax extenders bill. The tax extenders provisions include things like the R&D tax credit and Work Opportunity Act, just to name a couple. These tax extensions happen every year, are generally bipartisan and noncontroversial, and could and should be passed on their own and considered in the Senate under regular order.

Second, this bill includes Medicare payments to ensure our seniors are able to receive the health care that they have come to expect. The Republican leadership and the Republicans on the Ways and Means committee have known for an entire year about the need to address these Medicare payment issues. They just didn't care enough to act. They should have written a bill and brought it through the committee through regular order, but they just didn't seem to care enough to get it done.

Third, and most problematic, is the offshore drilling bill that has been inserted in this tax bill. This bill passed the House earlier this year but failed to get out of conference, so instead of the Republican House and the Republican Senate doing their job and sending us a conference report, we get instead a bill stuck in with tax extensions and Medicare payments that allows for offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. This bill is as far from a solid, comprehensive energy strategy as we can get, Madam Speaker, and yet another bow to the interests of Big Oil. And that comes as no surprise. That is what the majority has been doing for the past 6 years.

So let's be clear. Opening up these areas of the Gulf of Mexico will have no significant impact on oil and gas prices but it will benefit the oil and gas industry. This is the same industry that used a royalty relief loophole to swindle the American taxpayers out of at least $7 billion in royalties. And it is the same industry that received $7.5 billion in tax breaks in the so-called energy bill, all courtesy of the Republican leadership in this Congress.

Fourth and finally, Madam Speaker, we know there is an expansion of the school voucher program for Washington, D.C. Rather than advocate for more money to improve public schools, the Republican leadership has decided to divert funds to unaccountable religious and private schools. This is a highly controversial program that should not be stuffed in a catch-all bill as the Congress is trying to adjourn.

Madam Speaker, I support extending the noncontroversial tax credits and at long last fixing these Medicare reimbursement problems, but I cannot support efforts to open up offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico or expand the D.C. school voucher program. And I certainly cannot support the way the Republican leadership is forcing the House to consider this omnibus bill, under a closed rule, with no time for adequate review or amendment.

Madam Speaker, this is not the way the House of Representatives should be run. This is not the way we should legislate.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and vote ``no'' on the bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. Speaker, just so I can correct the record, I should tell the gentleman from Georgia that the Cape Wind project has not been blocked. And, in fact, those of us in Massachusetts, in New England, understand the need for increased energy and right now are working with our Governor to try to find an adequate location for a new LNG facility.

So it is incorrect to say that that Cape Wind project has been blocked.

Our problem here is that the energy policy of this Republican leadership is like going to the dentist. It's drill, drill, drill, drill. Those of us who believe that we should be pursuing alternative, renewable, safe and clean sources of energy are frustrated that those on the other side are all talk and no action. We have an opportunity to end our dependence on foreign oil. We have an opportunity to create a whole new energy economy based on renewable energy sources, and we have not been given the help or the support from this Congress or from this President. So that is what we are frustrated about. And also the constant giveaways to the oil companies who have gourged and who have ripped off the American taxpayer. It is obscene that in the energy bill over $7 billion in tax subsidies and tax breaks have been given to the oil industry. We need to change our direction

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from North Carolina has

made the case more eloquently than I could possibly make the case about the need to have a more open process and the need to follow regular order. If she objects to earmarks and certain provisions in the bill, she should have the opportunity to be able to introduce amendments to strike some of these provisions. If we followed a regular process that had some integrity in this Congress, then I think all of us here could be confident that the final product on some of these pieces of legislation are things that we can be proud of.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Speaker, let me close for our side here, once again reiterating that this is a lousy process, and that it is really unfortunate that the Republican leadership has decided to meld together provisions, some of which have broad bipartisan support, with a provision on this offshore drilling that is extremely controversial, that some of us believe will do great damage to the environment, and as my colleague from Florida has pointed out, poses potential risks for the State of Florida. This is not the way this should be done.

We should have a more open process. We should have regular order. We should have hearings. We should have committee markups. We should do this the right way. Unfortunately, a pattern has developed under this Republican leadership where process and rules haven't mattered, and that is, indeed, unfortunate. We need to do better, not just for the sake of this institution, but we need to do better for the American people.

I hope that in the next Congress that we will set a new standard, one that we can all be proud of, Democrats and Republicans together.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, let me also take this opportunity to say that notwithstanding the fact that I think this is a lousy process, I have great respect for the gentleman from Georgia, who is departing from the Rules Committee. It has been a privilege to serve

with him. I have enjoyed debating with him and listening to his perspective. There is not very much we agree on, but having said that, we have, I think, had a good relationship, a collegial relationship, and a respectful relationship. The committee will not be the same without his voice and without his insight, so I want to thank him.

Mr. Speaker, I again urge people to vote ``no'' on the rule and on the final bill because of the way it has been messed up.

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