Floor Statements

I thank the distinguished chairman-to-be of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier of California, my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a bad compromise that's before us, but it is also not the best compromise. It's not a bad deal, but it's not the best deal.

The gentleman from California who spoke on the Democratic side just a few minutes ago I think said it best when he said, In January, our Republican friends will be at the table. We are making a compromise today on the Republican side, in my opinion, that we don't have to make. I think the tax

cuts should be permanent, not temporary. I think the additional spending should be paid for now, not just added to the deficit.

A funny thing happened in November: We elected over 80 new Republicans. The majority is going from about 255 Democrats to 242 Republicans. You cannot tell me that the week before Christmas that Americans in the business community are deciding what their capital investments are going to be for 2011. Those decisions have already been made. So I am going to vote against the rule and, with reluctance, vote against the bill, not because it's a bad compromise but because we can do better. And I fully expect in January, when the Republicans become the majority party in the House, that we will do better.

So again, this is not the worst bill that has ever been before us, but it could be better and it should be better, and so I would ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on the bill.

Thank you.

Madam Speaker, I apologize. I was in my office and listening to the debate. I heard my distinguished senior Republican rise in reluctant opposition to the bill. I had had a conversation which Mr. Terry was not aware of with the chairman of the committee, Mr. Waxman, in which I expressed the same concerns that Mr. Terry expressed, but because of the policy implications of the bill, agreed that it should be supported. I told him that I would encourage the Republicans on the committee and in the full House to support it. Mr. Terry did not know that, and he was doing what we had decided before I talked to Mr. Waxman.

I would not normally rush to the floor; but given that I had given my word to Chairman Waxman, I felt the necessity to express to the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Boucher, that while we agree with all the process arguments that Mr. Terry enunciated and think they are very valid, the policy in the bill is good policy, and I would ask that it be supported for that reason.

I thank the gentleman from Nebraska for yielding.

I rise for two reasons. One is to support this bill. I actually thought it had passed and become law because we pass it every Congress, and it goes to the other body and falls in the black hole over there. So it is good to know they are bringing it

back. I am told there is a two-word difference between the bill we sent to them and the bill they sent back to us. I guess we can accept a two- word difference. It is long overdue. I want to compliment Mr. Engel for his hard work and perseverance. And Mr. Stearns, Mr. Murphy, and others on our side, and of course Mr. Boucher for this bill.

The primary reason I am speaking, though, is I want to say some heartfelt words about Mr. Boucher. Sooner or later this Congress is going to mercifully adjourn--and I hope sooner rather than later--and so I don't know how many more times we are going to be on the floor, but I wanted to say in his presence what an honor it has been to serve with him. He is a workhorse Member; he is not a show horse. He doesn't get involved in many, many issues, but when he does get involved, he is meticulous in his preparation and understanding of the issue and his detail. His word is gold. It is always good.

On the rare occasions when I have disagreed with him, I have always been impressed with the merit of his argument. He will be missed. He is one of the Members who makes the institution work. He does it behind the scenes. He is always thoughtful and prepared and just a joy to work with.

I had the privilege to work with him when I was the subcommittee chairman and he was my ranking member, and I have had the privilege to work with him while he has been in the majority as a subcommittee chairman. The work he and Congressman Stearns have done on privacy is work that will bear fruit in the coming Congress I hope. The work he has done on energy issues and telecommunications issues, his work will stand the test of time.

I do want to support the pending legislation, but I also wanted to give the gentleman from Virginia my very best wishes. I look forward to working with him in whatever endeavors he pursues in the future. It has really been an honor to serve with you in the House of Representatives.

I thank the gentleman from Utah.

I want to thank the leadership on both sides for allowing and supporting this resolution. I'm happy in the House to be the primary sponsor. I also want to commend Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader Boehner for scheduling

this so timely. I was told yesterday it would be on the floor at 2:45, and I walked on the floor at 2:43, and it was on the floor at 2:45. So that shows that the House can work in a bipartisan, efficient fashion when it so desires.

Mr. Speaker, I was a White House Fellow in the class of 1981 and 1982 under President Ronald Reagan. I was one of 14 Fellows that year. I worked for the Secretary of Energy, the Honorable James Edwards of South Carolina, the former Governor of South Carolina. The Deputy Secretary was Ken Anderson, and my direct report was J. Hunter Child III, the director of the Office of Policy, Planning and Analysis.

In my class in 1981-82, we had Mike Ullman, who's now the CEO of J.C. Penney; we had Paul Applegarth, who was a senior official at the World Bank and later became a Presidential appointee under President Bush. We had several military officers, Tom Shul, Ellie Heineman. We had a police captain from Oakland, Chip Stewart. And we had a cheerleader from the New England Patriots who later worked for the director of the FBI. So we had a very diverse class.

The White House Fellows is nonpartisan. In fact, I don't recollect one political question being asked me in the interview process. To show you the caliber of the folks that interviewed me, in the semifinals at the LBJ School in Austin, Texas, I was interviewed by Hillary Rodham Clinton and Sarah Weddington, who was the chief attorney in support of Roe v. Wade. At the national finals in Washington, D.C., Ed Fuelner, who was then and now head of the Heritage Foundation, was one of the individuals who interviewed me. So you had very staunch Democrats and also very staunch conservative Republicans.

But they were interested then and now not in your political views so much as they were interested in your vision for America and where you had been and, even more importantly, where you might go in the future.

Most Fellows are in their late twenties to mid thirties. Some are as old as their mid forties. You serve for 1 year for one of the senior officials in the White House or the Office of the Vice President or a Cabinet Secretary. It's a very diverse experience. You have real work to do, as has been pointed out. You are paid at the GS schedule 14, but you also develop a friendship with your Fellows and you have what's called an educational program where you meet with officials of that administration but also leaders in the country.

We met my fellowship year with, of course, the President, the Vice President, all the Cabinet Secretaries, but we also met with Tip O'Neill. We met with Tom Foley. Tip O'Neill was then Speaker and Tom Foley, I believe, was the majority leader or the whip. I think Mr. Foley was the whip. We met with Leon Jaworski who was the prosecutor in Watergate.

Each fellowship class gets to go on some trips, both domestically and internationally. We took three domestic trips or four domestic trips. We went to California where Congressman Leon Panetta hosted us. We went to New York City, had a helicopter ride where we went over the old Yankee stadium. We went to Chicago, and I was able to get the class to come down to Texas, and we visited in Texas.

It is a tremendous program. Since President Johnson initiated it in 1965, over I think 672 young men and women have served as White House Fellows. Members of this body include, in addition to myself, former Congressman Tom Campbell of California, former Congressman and Senator Tim Wirth of Colorado, and in the other body, Senator Dave Karnes of the great State of Nebraska.

It's a program that encourages you once you've been a White House Fellow to be in public service or at least community service, either in the business world or in your civic or, in some cases, elective office. I wouldn't be on the floor of the House of Representatives today, Mr. Speaker, if it had not been for the White House Fellows Program. I believed before I became a Fellow that Washington was this mystic place that most of the time was nonfunctional and very difficult to navigate. The White House Fellowship Program gave me a window on government in Washington, in both the executive and the legislative branches, and it showed me that there were people of good will on both sides of the aisle, in the executive and the legislative branches. It showed me that in spite of what some people think this is a very transparent, open process. If you have an issue and you want to have an impact in our America, that is still possible; and I cannot say anything but the most positive things, Mr. Speaker, about the White House Fellows Program.

So I'm very glad on behalf of the other 671 former and current White House Fellows to be the chief House sponsor, very appreciative of it moving through the Senate, very appreciative of our Speaker and minority leader, Mr. Boehner and Ms. Pelosi, putting it up on the floor; and I would certainly encourage a unanimous vote in support of it.

I want to thank my good friend from Utah for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. Con. Res. 72, to recognize the 45th anniversary of the White House Fellows Program.

The White House Fellows Program, as envisioned by President Johnson, was designed ``to give the Fellows first hand, high-level experience with the workings of the Federal government and to increase their sense of participation in national affairs.'' In the fall of 1965, the first class of Fellows was named. The program is nonpartisan, and has remained so through nine administrations. Each year between 11 and 19 Americans are chosen for this once-in-a-lifetime experience. The Fellows are placed into various agencies of government and are then able to work hand-in-hand with leaders at the highest levels of government. In return for the Fellowship year, the Fellows are expected to repay the privilege of serving by continuing to work as private citizens on their public agendas.

To date, more than 600 White House Fellows have served the Federal government and established a record of leadership and service. A number of former Fellows have gone on to serve their government and communities in important ways, by receiving appointments as Cabinet officials and senior White House staff, election to the House of Representatives, Senate, and State and local government, appointments to the Federal, State, and local benches, appointments as United States Attorneys, leadership in many of the Nation's largest corporations and law firms, presidents of colleges and universities, deans of distinguished graduate schools, officials in nonprofit organizations, distinguished scholars and historians, and service as senior leaders in every branch of the United States Armed Forces.

In 1981, I was honored to be selected to serve as a White House Fellow in the Reagan Administration and was placed in the Department of Energy. This was an experience where I gained valuable insight and knowledge about leadership and public policy, and it was a privilege to serve in this unique capacity.

I believe the White House Fellows program is worthy of recognition, and I commend those who have worked to make it a success and a national resource for all branches of our government.

I thank the gentleman from California for his courtesy.

I would ask the Chair how much time I have remaining.

May I ask the Chair how much time my friends on the majority have remaining?

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

The Republicans do rise in support of this 1-year fix for the reimbursement rate for physicians. Having said that, I think I was able to listen to some of what my distinguished subcommittee chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Pallone, was saying as I was waiting for the tram to come over here. It is time, Mr. Speaker, for Members on both sides of the aisle to put aside partisan politics and in the upcoming year or years, if it takes more than 1 year, sit down and let's really come up with a new formula to fix permanently how we pay our physicians.

The current formula is based on an index that is based on inflation; and under the score keeping, any year in which medical expenses go up more rapidly than the general inflation rate, I am simplifying the index but this is the basic part of it, you have to find savings in that particular year or there is a negative balance created in the physician reimbursement fund. The current system is not sustainable. It doesn't work. It doesn't reflect the practice of medicine. But because of our score keeping, we keep getting further and further behind and so each year the 1-year cut gets bigger and bigger. This year it would be 25 percent.

Now obviously when most of our physician community claims, and I think with justification, that they are not being adequately reimbursed for treating Medicare patients, you have the situation as you have in my district, and I am sure each of us can say in our own districts, in their districts, physicians are not taking Medicare patients. In my home county of Ellis County, the county seat is a community of about 30,000, Waxahachie, Texas. The mayor of Waxahachie is a personal friend of mine, and I have known him for over 20 years.

His existing doctor retired. He is on Medicare. He is over 65. He went to find a new doctor who would treat him, and he couldn't find a doctor. Here is the mayor of Waxahachie, Texas, who at least temporarily cannot find a Medicare doctor who will accept him as a patient. That doesn't make sense. You can have the best health care system in the world, and if you don't have the doctors to implement it, you don't have a health care system.

So it is my strong recommendation that Republicans--the current minority, soon to be majority--vote for this 1-year fix, knowing that it is really not a fix, that it is another kick-the-can, kick-the- problem down the road. But in this case, at least it is for a year.

In the upcoming Congress and when the majorities switch, I am going to be a member of the committee of primary jurisdiction, the Energy and Commerce Committee. It will be my strong recommendation to our new chairman, Fred Upton of Michigan; to our new Speaker, Mr. Boehner of Ohio; and to our new majority leader, Mr. Cantor of Virginia, that we sit down with our stakeholders and with our friends on the soon-to-be minority side of the aisle to come up with a system that adequately reflects the will of both parties, that also gets buy-in from the stakeholders and reflects the cost of practicing medicine as it is today.

I know it is going to be expensive. I know it is going to be difficult, but it will be possible, and I hope that we can do that. I would ask for a ``yes'' vote when it comes time to vote for this under the suspension calendar.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a distinguished member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and of the Health Subcommittee, the current ranking member of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, Dr. Michael Burgess of Lewisville, Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I think all that needs to be said has been said; so let me simply say that this is a problem that needs to be dealt with.

I compliment those who negotiated the 1-year fix. Hopefully, in the next Congress, we will work together--and I mean that seriously--in a bipartisan fashion to replace the existing formula with one that doesn't have to be updated and fixed in every session of Congress. Yet, for today, I would urge all of those in the current minority to vote for the bill under suspension.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

I rise in respectful and regretful opposition to the continuing resolution. The primary reason that the Energy and Commerce Committee has time on the floor is because of the inclusion of the Food Safety Act in the continuing resolution.

The food safety bill that passed the House last year was the result of bipartisan cooperation between Chairman Waxman, Subcommittee Chairman Pallone, Chairman Dingell, myself, then-subcommittee Ranking Member Nathan Deal, and others on the Republican side. It was the result of a number of years of work. It was an open process, it was an inclusive process, and the result was a very strong bipartisan vote both in the committee and on the House floor. I believe on the House floor, 59 Republicans joined with almost every Democrat to send that bill to the Senate.

The bill that's come back from the Senate that's been included in the continuing resolution is not the House bill, as amended. It is a Senate bill that is significantly different in several respects.

The inclusion of what's called the Tester amendment in the Senate bill means that some farms, small farms along the borders between the United States and Mexico and the United States and Canada would be exempt from some of the requirements of the bill.

The methods of payment are different. The House had a registration fee, an annual registration fee. That is not included in the Senate version.

There are a number of tax issues with the Senate bill that we have a problem with here in the House; if it was not included in the CR, the food safety bill would, in all likelihood, be subject to what we call ``blue slipping'' here in the House of Representatives.

So it really is difficult to be in opposition to the food safety bill because of the unity of purpose and the spirit of cooperation that existed in the Energy and Commerce Committee when the food safety legislation was passed last year. But our friends in the other body, as is more often than not the case, have tended to ignore our work product and send us theirs at the last moment with a ``take it or leave it'' attitude.

Ranking member and soon to be Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas and I have sent a letter to our Speaker suggesting that we would be more than willing to go to conference with our friends in the other body. We're going to be in session at least another week, perhaps two. We could have a conference. We could probably agree on a bipartisan, bicameral food safety bill that would pass muster in both bodies. I'm still hopeful that that might occur.

With regards to other items in the continuing resolution that are not part of the Food Safety Act, there are numerous things that we find objectionable. The FCC, the Federal Communications Commission is going to receive $350 million, which is an increase of over 4\1/2\ percent from fiscal year 2010. It's even more than $14 million, as I understand it, than what they perhaps asked for.

In the continuing resolution in terms of health provisions, there is funding for several sections of the health care law that we believe to be objectionable. The funding for public awareness, for example--so far, HHS has spent over $3 million for television ads featuring one of my favorite actors, Andy Griffith. ``The Andy Griffith Show'' and Barney Fife were one of my favorite television shows when I was growing up, and I continue to watch it on reruns.

But I have a little bit of a problem watching Mr. Griffith extol to seniors the important new benefits of the current health care law simply as a kind of a pitch master for something that, in all likelihood, we're going to change, perhaps even repeal next year.

Independent groups have found that some of these ads have misled seniors. They claim benefits that will be available while ignoring cuts to Medicare Advantage and other reductions in the Medicare payment rate. I think this is misleading and unfortunate.

In the area of telecommunications, the continuing resolution exempts the Universal Service Fund from the Anti-Deficiency Act. This would allow the government to obligate money for carrier subsidies before we actually have the money in hand. Most of us on the minority side, soon to be the majority side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, find that to be very objectionable and, quite frankly, irresponsible.

So again, on the food safety bill that passed the House, I voted for it. I have nothing but respect and compliments for the leadership of Mr. Waxman, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Pallone, and others. But the CR version of the food safety bill that we're asked to vote on today is not the bill that came out of the House. And for that reason, regretfully, I oppose it.

And on the basic CR overall, there are numerous reasons from an Energy and Commerce perspective on the minority side of the aisle to oppose that.

So we would ask for a ``no'' vote, Mr. Speaker.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I continue to reserve, Mr. Speaker.

How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Speaker?

I will yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan.

On the House-passed bill, not this bill, but the House-passed bill.

I have no other speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I appreciate the gentleman's indulgence.

We are going to have to suggest that the Members on the minority side vote ``no'' on the CR because of a number of reasons that our friends on the Appropriations Committee have alluded to.

If we could have a conference between the House conferees and the Senate conferees on the food safety bill, we could come to some reasonable compromises where we could recommend a vote for the food safety bill as a stand-alone bill. That is still possible to do or would be possible if the Speaker of the House and the majority leader of the Senate and the chairmen of the appropriate committees in the House and Senate were willing to go down that road. In this Congress, those types of conferences have been few and far between. So we are stuck here in a situation where you have a reasonably good piece of legislation that passed the House, a not as reasonably good piece of legislation that came out of the Senate at the last moment and is being attached to a continuing resolution that shows that the majority in both this body and the other body have refused to take their funding responsibilities very seriously for the last year.

So as much as good as is in the food safety part of the bill, and as hard as Chairman Waxman and Chairman Dingell and Subcommittee Chairman Pallone have worked on that part of it, I still believe that the correct vote on this bill today is a ``no'' vote.

So, Mr. Speaker, we do ask that Members vote ``no'' on this. The good parts of the legislation we will hopefully bring back very quickly in the next Congress and have a vote in regular order early in the year.

With that, I would ask for a ``no'' vote on the bill today.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Under the rules of the House, when is it proper to request a rollcall vote on the item just debated?

When might that be, Mr. Speaker?

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the Republic of China's National Day on October 10th. Today I join the Taiwanese people as they celebrate their freedom. Taiwan has peacefully transformed itself from an authoritarian regime to full-fledged democracy. It will hopefully constitute a model for the eventual establishment of a genuine democracy in China.

The United States and Taiwan value human rights, civil liberties, a free press and the rule of law. Our shared values have produced a strong and dependable friendship for over sixty years. Today, the people of Taiwan determine their own destiny and government through free and fair elections.

The Republic of China was one of the first to come to our aid after the events of September 11th attacks and Hurricane Katrina devastations. Taiwan continues to be our ally in the war against terrorism by providing humanitarian assistance in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In honoring the Republic of China, we need to continue to sell defensive weapons to Taiwan fulfilling our commitments under the Taiwan Relations Act. Despite the goodwill that has been gradually built up between Taiwan and China, the possibility of military confrontation continues to exist in the Taiwan Strait. A well-armed Taiwan is the best guarantee to perpetuate peace and stability in the region.

To ROC President Ma Ying-jeou I say ``good luck.'' I remain hopeful that our relations will continue to be strengthened in 2011 and beyond. Certainly, the capable leadership of Ambassador Jason Yuan has helped to further our relations with the government and people of Taiwan.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in respectful but sincere opposition to the pending bill. I have no disrespect for the victims or for the namesake's sponsor and his family, but I also have a sincere regard for the United States taxpayer, who is going to have to pay for this new entitlement program.

The first myth that I want to relate is the implication that we don't have an existing victims' compensation fund. That is simply not true, Mr. Speaker. Twelve days after the attack back in September of 2001, we passed Public Law 107-42, the Victim Compensation Fund of 2001. We gave 2 years, or a year and a half, for people to submit claims, and 97 percent of the eligible victims or their families filed injury or death claims by December 22, 2003. Of the 2,973 victims, 2,880 families filed claims. The average award for the families of the victims actually killed in the attack averaged $2 million per victim while 70 people chose to file lawsuits and 23 eligible families took no action. In addition to death claims, 2,680 injury claims have been filed and processed. The average award for injured victims is nearly $400,000 per injury. Overall, this fund has paid out over $7 billion in the last 9 years.

We also passed the Victims of Terrorism Tax Relief Act back in 2001 so that the families of the victims would not be subject to Federal income taxes for the year of the attack and also for the previous year to the attack.

We currently have an existing 9/11 benefit program. President Obama requested $150 million for this budget year. In the years that this program has been in existence, in addition to the program I just explained, it has paid out $373 million.

As of September 30 of last year, there have been 55,331 first responders in the monitoring and treatment programs that I have just discussed. Of those, 44,754 have received initial exams, and 13,000 have been treated for World Trade Center-related health conditions in the past 12 months alone.

So, in point of fact, we have an existing fund that has paid out over $7 billion. We have an ongoing fund. The President has asked for $150 million per year, which the Republicans support.

On top of that, we are expected to vote for this new entitlement program, which is over $7 billion.

My good friend from New Jersey said that it is going to save $1 billion over the bill that was reported out of the Energy and Commerce Committee several months ago. What he doesn't tell you is the way they do that, which is by using a budget gimmick that simply doesn't fund the program in the year 2019. In fiscal year 2018, the amount provided in the bill would be $601 million. In 2019, that drops to $173 million. In fiscal year 2020, there is no funding at all. So they have simply decided that, at a date certain, they would start reducing the amount of money so they could get under their self-imposed budget window.

Mr. Speaker, we want to help the victims of 9/11 in New York City. We certainly want to help the first responders. What we don't want to do is put on the average American taxpayers all around the country a $7 billion to $8 billion brand new entitlement program that compensates at health care/Medicare rates of 140 percent above the baseline. As Congressman Smith just pointed out, it reopens some of these lawsuits and some of these cases that have already been solved.

So, if you want help, we are willing to help, but let's use the existing program. Let's not create a new program, especially a new entitlement program, which we simply cannot afford at this point in time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), the ranking member of the Health Subcommittee, be given the opportunity to control the balance of the time for the Energy and Commerce Committee's minority.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill before us today. I am going to ask my colleagues to vote ``no.''

We had a similar bill on the floor back in May; and in that bill we offered a motion to recommit, which passed, which struck the Home Star loan program.

This bill, the bill that we struck the loan program from back in May, was a $324 million authorization. This bill has come back to us at a $5 billion authorization. That is a little bit of a puzzlement. If it didn't make sense in May to start a new program for $300 million, it doesn't make sense in September to start the same program except for $5 billion. So, if for no other reason, we should vote against this bill.

The second point I want to make is that the programs in the bill are worthwhile. I know that seems to be a little bit inconsistent with what I just said, but it is not that these are bad programs. The question is can we afford them when we have a deficit that is going to be between $1.2 trillion and $1.4 trillion this year?

In another energy efficiency bill that has become law last year, we authorized, and I think we appropriated, $4.7 billion for the Department of Energy to do the same sort of programs that this bill would authorize. Today, the Department of Energy has spent about 10 percent of that, a little less than $500 million. So they have over $4 billion that has been appropriated that hasn't been spent. Now, I'm not casting stones on the Department of Energy. It probably makes sense to take your time setting up the program and making sure you get the processes and the requirements to participate in the right form. But if we have an existing program that has been appropriated and has over $4 billion surplus in it, I don't see the need for another program.

One may say, well, this is for rural America or for specific homeowners. But, to my knowledge, and I have got the Agriculture Committee here, there would be no exclusions because of the location under the program that the Department of Energy is currently implementing.

I would point out that 2 years ago the Federal debt was a little under $6 trillion. We have added almost $3 trillion to it in the last 2 years. I can't see that there is much net improvement that has happened to our economy with the expenditure of that much money, the addition of that much money to the debt.

It is not a case, Mr. Chairman, of coming to the floor and saying, This is a good program, support it. With these kinds of deficits, I think we need to think as a body, Is this a program that is absolutely essential and is it worth adding more to the public debt to pass this program? And with all due respect, while this is a good program, it is not a program that I think we should add to our children's and our grandchildren's debt. So I would urge a ``no'' vote at the appropriate time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the bill before us and urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

There is a growing tide of voices in this country calling for less government, less spending, and less debt. These concerns stretch across party and region. Our national debt presents a crisis we have mistakenly ignored for far too long. But after nearly two trillion dollars have been spent on a failed economic stimulus package and programs to prop-up our financial system, we need to examine every dollar authorized with the utmost scrutiny.

If we apply just the slightest amount of examination to this bill, it becomes difficult to defend the premise on which the Rural Energy Savings Program Act rests. Take the so-called stimulus bill for instance. In early 2009, Congress authorized the Department of Energy to spend an additional $4.7 billion on its home weatherization program. Improved home energy efficiency is a great way to ensure savings for the homeowner and helps lessen our overall consumption of electricity. Programs that speed efficiency measures along should be a no-brainer. But twelve months after $4.7 billion was handed to the Department of Energy for these purposes, we found out we had little to show for it. In that time, DOE had spent only 10 percent of its new funds to upgrade around 30,000 homes around the country. This was supposed to be another ``shovel-ready'' stimulus project that would create thousands of jobs and improve energy efficiency in hundreds of thousands of homes. In that pursuit, the program was a complete failure.

The bill before us today basically seeks the same goals using the same byzantine structures and bureaucracies that failed us before. If we can't trust DOE to handle increased funding for an already-existing program, how can we trust DOE and the Department of Agriculture to handle billions of dollars for an entirely new program? The simple answer is we can't.

On top of the issue of government shortcomings is the question of cost. H.R. 4785 authorizes $5 billion in taxpayer money without any means of finding a way of paying for it. Again, we're ignoring the Majority's own pay-as-you-go rules. These rules, as the voters were led to believe, were created to help stop the bleeding of funds into the pool of national debt. But over the past few years, we all realize it is a grand illusion. Our country is at its greatest level of debt since the end of World War II--62 percent of GDP. We cannot keep adding a billion dollars here and a billion dollars there thinking the cost of these programs have no effect. Somewhere we must put a stop to the bleeding. And if we look at government's past performance in improving home energy efficiency and weigh the costs with the benefits, we cannot logically justify tallying $5 billion in additional red ink.

I can only conclude from the reading of this bill that my opposition was not necessary from the outset. Had this bill properly made its way through the Energy and Commerce and Agriculture Committees, we would have had a better chance at learning more of the program's advantages and disadvantages and, through committee markup, had the opportunity to make improvements that would have eliminated the debt problem and further developed the accountability measures that are absent from this legislation. As we've seen so many times in this Congress and the one before, regular order has been ignored and incomplete legislation results.

Mr. Chair, it does not always have to be this way. I support making homes more energy efficient and government efforts that properly pursue that goal. H.R. 4785 will not accomplish that task and simply creates more problems than it solves.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

I'll make it short and sweet. This is the same bill that was rejected under suspension back in May, with the exception that the authorization on the Home Star program has been increased by 13-fold. I suggested a ``no'' vote then. I continue to suggest a ``no'' vote and would ask for a ``no'' vote at the appropriate time.

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

I too rise in support of the Holden amendment. It is not as good as our motion to recommit from back in May, it is not as good as the Barton amendment that was offered to the Rules Committee, but it is strangely similar. So if flattery is the most sincere form of compliment, then I am complimented that you have taken a page out of our playbook. It is going to make our coming motion to recommit much more difficult to develop, but I can assure you that agile minds are working as we speak on that motion to recommit. But for purposes of this debate, both Mr. Lucas and myself do support your amendment and urge its adoption.

I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

What is the protocol when the author of an amendment is not on the floor and the amendment is called?

Is there a prescribed waiting period? Are we in a holding pattern around an airport or, within a minute, no-show, no- go?

Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to continue with the bill. If the author is not here, he has lost his opportunity to offer it. So I would ask unanimous consent to move forward in consideration of pending business of the House and to skip over the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, requesting the right to object, I seek recognition to object if it is under the rules. We don't know. I have great faith in Mr. Butterfield, but I am not sure he has been authorized by Mr. Inslee. If Mr. Inslee is not here, I would object, with all due respect to Mr. Butterfield's substituting for him, without knowing whether Mr. Inslee wants him to.

Will the Chair give that consideration to Members of the minority if we happen to be tardy and dawdling? We certainly are cognizant of the graciousness, but the House of Representatives is a busy place, and I always thought if you weren't here, you lost your spot in the lineup.

I am not disparaging of the Chair's nonbiasness. I hope we will have that similar consideration.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

I would ask the author's designee, Mr. Butterfield, if he would engage in a colloquy on this amendment.

Would you define what a ``passive house'' is?

I yield to the gentleman.

Okay. So we're getting a pig-in-the-poke here; is that right?

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I am not totally opposed to this amendment. I don't know too much more about it than Mr. Butterfield, but I do know that this ``passive house'' concept, while it saves energy once it is in place, is more expensive to construct. It is my understanding that the concept that the amendment supports is substantially more expensive than

standard construction. That may be appropriate when people have high incomes and when the cost of construction is really of little interest; but for most of my constituents, Mr. Chairman, the initial cost is of significance.

Again, I don't think there is a tremendous downside to this amendment, but I think it should be pointed out that if the Department of Energy, which it is not under the amendment required to mandate this, did direct that it had to meet this test, you would raise construction costs substantially, and I think that is something that should be of concern.

I am going to oppose the amendment but not vigorously. I do think that the author of the amendment usually should be on the floor when the amendment is offered, and I would hope that we would take notice that the author was not. We should give kudos to Mr. Butterfield for substituting in his place.

I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

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

I am sorry, Madam Speaker, that we have to be here today to spend money that the taxpayers don't have, that Congress can't afford, for an economic stimulus program that doesn't work.

The provision that is in the jurisdiction of the Energy and Commerce Committee is the Federal Medicaid Assistance Program, specifically called FMAP. This is a program to help low-income constituents in a cost-share between the State government and the Federal Government.

Spending on this program over the last 2 fiscal years has gone up almost 50 percent. The stimulus package that was enacted last year increased it an additional 6 percent, I believe, through December of this year. The bill before us would extend that extension until June of next year.

There is no emergency in this program. There is no pending financial catastrophe in Medicaid. There is a long-term unfunded mandate, obviously, but in the short term this is not something that absolutely has to be done.

The $16 billion that would be spent on this program ostensibly is to be spent for Medicaid, low-income health care assistance, but if you read the fine print, it doesn't have to. As we all know, Madam Speaker, money is fungible, and under this particular bill, while the nameplate says for Medicaid, the truth is the money can be spent for whatever purpose the State wants to spend it for. I don't think that's appropriate.

We on the Republican side were prepared to offer an amendment in the Rules Committee last evening that would have at least said, if you're going to say the money is for Medicaid, it actually has to be spent for Medicaid. We were told that no amendments would be made in order and that they were put in what's called a martial law lock-down rule. So we did not offer that amendment, but it is an amendment that should have been offered and should be accepted.

What this bill really is about is, in my opinion, some sort of a panic attack on the Democratic leadership side, that they see the election coming up and they need to get more money to their special constituencies, and this is a bill that would do that. So we're going to spend $180 million a day. We're going to be paying taxes on this money for the next 10 years. This $180 million a day is only for 6 months. It's not going to reduce the unemployment rate, which right now is a little under 10 percent. It's going to be used, purely and simply, for some of those States to have more money that might help constituencies that might help our friends on the majority side of the aisle. As I said earlier, the money that is in the jurisdiction of the committee that I'm on, Energy and Commerce, doesn't have to be spent for Medicaid.

So I would urge a ``no'' vote, Madam Speaker.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a member of the committee from the great Hoosier State of Indiana (Mr. Buyer).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Republican Conference chairman from the great State of Indiana, Mr. Mike Pence.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the starting third baseman on the congressional Republican baseball team, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished member of the committee from the great Pelican State of Louisiana, Mr. Steve Scalise.

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

Madam Speaker, what we have here is a failure to communicate. My friends on the Democratic side are talking about things to help the economy. My friends and myself on the Republican side are pointing out that this is money that we don't have. There is no national emergency. The items that are being funded are items that historically have been funded at the State level with the exception of Medicaid, which is a State-Federal expenditure. And in that the program, the money doesn't absolutely have to be spent for low income health care assistance. If you look at the way the money is actually allocated, one State, the great State of New York, the Empire States, gets over 12.5, 13 percent of the funds. In fact, if you exclude California, New York gets more money than every State west of the Mississippi. As has been pointed out by Mr. Buyer of Indiana, New York has a Medicaid reimbursement rate at 350 percent of poverty, which is pushing about $80,000 for a family of four.

This is money we don't have being spent on programs that are not in dire emergency at a time when the unemployment rate is 10 percent. Please vote no on this bill.

I rise in opposition to this bill. Obviously, I am not opposed to improving safety and regulation in the OCS. But I do want OCS drilling to continue.

I want to thank Chairman Waxman and Subcommittee Chairman Markey. The Energy and Commerce bill that was reported out, I believe 48-0, did improve safety, but it did allow drilling to continue domestically. In my opinion, with the taxes in this bill, with the punitive nature of this bill, if it were to pass and become law we would not have OCS drilling, and it would lessen the ability to develop our domestic resources, would increase costs to the American consumer, and make us more dependent, not less dependent, on foreign oil.

There are some good things in the bill. Some of the safety provisions from the Energy and Commerce bill that are included on CEO certification and things of this sort are worthwhile. But overall, it is a bad bill, and I would ask for a ``no'' vote.

Before I give my statement, I wish to yield 11 of the 20 minutes to the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Smith of Texas, at the appropriate time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans are not opposed to compensating the victims and the first responders of the World Trade Center attacks. We created a compensation fund within 11 days after the original attack back on September 11, 2001. The bill before us today, however, Mr. Speaker, creates a brand new entitlement program that could last an additional 21 years. It creates a special compensation system for hospitals in the New York City area at 140 percent of Medicare rates, provides special protections for trial lawyers, and creates a host of special programs and special protections. It also does not require any kind of a citizenship test, Mr. Speaker, to receive a benefit. It is, in fact, apparently a $7.4 billion new entitlement program.

We know there are innocent victims in New York City that still need treatment, and we know that there are perhaps some participants who have fallen through the cracks who have not received exactly the treatment that they need, but this bill, quite frankly, is not the answer.

In the markup in the Energy and Commerce Committee, Republicans offered a number of amendments that would have provided treatment, would have monitored benefits, and would have authorized funding for the existing program at the level requested by the President of the United States, President Obama. That amendment was rejected.

H.R. 847 caps the number of people that can be enrolled in the program. As I said earlier, it doesn't require those enrolled, however, to verify their citizenship. We also offered an amendment to verify citizenship. That amendment was not agreed to.

We also offered an amendment to means-test benefits based on income and assets. I think the amendment was at $1 million. That amendment was also rejected. So under this bill, somebody making millions of dollars is at least technically eligible for this program. I don't think that is fair when we have a budget deficit of $1.5 trillion.

We also offered an amendment in the Energy and Commerce Committee to pay for the program by using money that has not been spent out of an existing program. That amendment was also

rejected as not being what the majority wanted.

As I said earlier, the bill before us would reimburse hospitals in New York at 140 percent of Medicare. We think that is not fair to the rest of the country to give a special rate above Medicare rates for this particular program.

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

And finally, last but not least, in the amended bill that was sent to the Rules Committee yesterday, Mr. Speaker, they have changed the spending profile. Under the bill before us this evening, the program, while it is a guaranteed entitlement, funding would be cut by two- thirds in 2019 and eliminated altogether in 2020. That is simply a budget gimmick and is patently unfair to the people, if it were to pass and become law, that would be depending on the program.

For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, we would ask for a ``no'' vote on the bill.

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

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Health Subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to how much time will be remaining, which I will control, after Mr. Stearns' 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield a very long 45 seconds to the gentleman from Buffalo, New York (Mr. Lee).

I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from The Woodlands, Texas (Mr. Brady).

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

Mr. Speaker, Republicans support helping the first responders and the victims of the World Trade Center attack. We support it at the President's request. We support it as an authorized program. We support it at paying existing Medicare rates. And, finally, we support it without raising taxes on the rest of the American people. This bill doesn't do that, so we would urge a ``no'' vote on this bill, and then perhaps we can work together on a bipartisan basis to do something that everybody in this Chamber can support.

Please vote ``no'' on this bill, and then let's work together to do it the right way.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

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

I rise in support of the reauthorization of H.R. 5320, the Assistance, Quality, and Affordability Act of 2010.

This is a bipartisan piece of legislation, which has been worked on, as Chairman Markey just indicated, on a bipartisan basis, both at the subcommittee and the full committee. It would reauthorize the Safe Water Drinking Act for the first time since 1996.

It includes some new information, requires some scientific studies, but says that those studies actually have to be based on best science.

It has an authorization level of a little over $4.8 billion. This is an increase of the existing authorization, but it is a compromise from the introduced draft which I believe was about $15 billion over 5 years.

So this is Congress at its finest. It did pass 45-1. I hope it passes the House unanimously. With that, I urge adoption of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5320, the Assistance, Quality, and Affordability Act of 2010.

Although H.R. 5320 is not perfect, it is, however, a good compromise that will ensure drinking water is safe.

The introduced bill authorized the Safe Drinking Water Act's Revolving Loan Fund at $14.7 billion over 5 years. This amount is nearly the entire amount appropriated by the Federal government for the program for the past 14 years combined.

After discussion, we agreed on $4.8 billion over three years.

H.R. 5320 also contains provisions dealing with substances in drinking water that might disrupt the human endocrine system. And H.R. 5320 now requires that best available science be used and that studies comport with requirements of valid science. They must have verifiable measurements with small error rates, and be both well-controlled and repeatable by independent scientists.

Mr. Speaker, I think the drinking water revolving loan fund is a real success in meeting the public health needs of 272 million public water system customers without imposing unfunded mandates on States.

The program has helped finance more than 6,600 drinking water projects throughout the country, using federal funds to supplement and leverage investment from other sources.

I support how this bill makes rural areas a priority in obtaining technical assistance for compliance with the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act. And I also support efforts to aid disadvantaged communities that have trouble meeting the requirements of the Act.

I remain concerned, however, about the expensive prevailing wage requirements in this bill and what they mean for federal and State governments.

But on balance, this bill is a solid step forward for safe drinking water. It spends much less than its Senate version and puts real science in the driver's seat at EPA.

I urge an ``aye'' vote.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I think the longer we talk, the less enthusiasm we have on this side for this bill, but we're still for it.

I want to yield 1 very quick minute to the distinguished Congressman from the Woodlands, Texas, Mr. Kevin Brady.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have a letter from the Associated General Contractors, which we will put in the Record, saying that they support the bill, but they hope certain changes are made in conference with the Senate.

And for those of us that have to be up, since my mother is watching, we want to say, Hi, mom. I support the bill and urge a ``yes'' vote.

The Associated

General Contractors of America,

Arlington, VA, July 29, 2010.

Re Key vote alert, H.R. 5320, ``The Assistance, Quality, and

Affordability Act of 2010''.

Hon. Joe Barton,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Barton: On behalf of the Associated

General Contractors of America, and our 33,000 member

companies, I am writing you today to support H.R. 5320, the

Assistance, Quality, and Affordability Act (AQUA) of 2010.''

AGC reserves the right to designate this bill and as a Key

Vote, which will be used in a report card to its membership

as an indicator of your support for issues of significance to

the construction industry. This legislation authorizes $4.8

billion over three years for the EPA Drinking Water State

Revolving Fund (SRF) which will help ensure consistency,

giving communities the ability to leverage federal funds and

plan capital investments, H.R. 5320 represents a smart

investment in the nation's outdated drinking water

infrastructure that will help put Americans back to work.

America's aging infrastructure is in need of replacement

and rehabilitation. According to the Environmental Protection

Agency's most recent Drinking Water Needs Survey, $334.8

billion is needed to close the investment gap over the next

20 years. Unfortunately, our nation's water infrastructure

needs have grown while federal funding for clean and safe

drinking water has steadily declined. The American Recovery

and Reinvestment Act did provide significant resources for

enhancing our water infrastructure; however, the years of

steadily declining federal investment continues to push costs

on local governments and rate payers. Furthermore, according

to the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) an average

of six billion gallons of potable water is lost per day in

the U.S. due to leaking pipes. Last year alone, American

communities suffered more than 240,000 water main breaks and

billions of gallons of overflowing combined sewer systems,

causing contamination, property damage, disruptions in the

water supply, and massive traffic jams.

However, AGC maintains serious objection to the inclusion

of ``Buy American'' provisions similar to those in the

Recovery Act that require that the iron, steel, and

manufactured goods used in projects funded by the bill be

made in the U.S. These requirements artificially constrict

the supply chain, particularly with projects in the water and

wastewater field as many of the products are unavailable

domestically as evidenced by the nonavailability waivers that

EPA has had to grant during the course of the Recovery Act.

AGC further believes that measures like this that lock many

of our trading partners out of projects opens U.S.

manufacturers up to retaliatory measures abroad, restricting

their ability to profit from contracts in other countries.

This market is not fully equipped to handle requirements like

these, and many of the provisions that simplify these

requirements at the federal level, like the trade agreement

exemptions, are a complicated morass at the state and local

level. For these reasons, AGC opposes this provision of the

bill and hopes it will be removed by amendment or in

conference.

By investing in our nation's critical water infrastructure,

H.R. 5320 will build a foundation for future economic growth

while generating the construction, manufacturing, and

engineering jobs that are needed today.

Sincerely,

Perry L. Fowler,

Director, Municipal &

Utilities Construction Division.

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

Madam Speaker, there have been those on the other side of the aisle who, from time to time, have spoken of the lack of generosity, of the stinginess, and of the coldheartedness of the Republicans, but the seventh inning last night should put that to rest forever. We were very generous. Every man of the Republican nine made some effort in generosity of spirit to drop balls, to misplace throws, or to go out of their way to make sure that, at least on the diamond, the Democrats would feel good.

Now, we don't want this to go to your head, though, Mr. Doyle. That trophy is on loan. If you would look wherever the records are kept, if you win the next 20 in a row, there would still be more ``R'' wins than ``D'' wins.

So in the spirit of the moment, we cannot say that Chairwoman Slaughter ran a closed rule out on us. It was an open rule. It was a fair competition. Luckily, for both sides, the real winners were, as you said it, the Boys and Girls Club of Washington, DC, and the Washington Literacy Council.

I do want to commend my Republican team. I am very proud of them. John Shimkus pitched his heart out. Bill Shuster made an almost unassisted double play when he caught the ball and picked somebody off at first base. Every member of our team got to play. They all were in good spirits and good fellowship.

We will show up next year with warmth in our hearts, and we will continue this tradition, hopefully, with a more pleasurable outcome for our side.

Congratulations to you, Mr. Doyle. You ultimately deserved the win. You played better. We congratulate you.