Floor Statements

Mr. Markey, before you yield back, could you answer a question if you still have time?

We have a fundamental difference on the data, which is part of what our Special Order is going to be. We have verifiable data that the temperature has gone down the last 11 years in a row, and yet you alluded to some data points about the hottest years on record and stuff; I mean, how do we reconcile that?

We can't both be telling the truth. We can't say the temperature has gone down 11 years in a row and you have data that says 2005 was the second hottest year on record and all of that. I mean, how do we reconcile these data points? I mean, is there a way, a methodology that we can supply our data and you can supply your data and we can try to reconcile them? I mean, the facts ought to be the facts. We can have different opinions, but we ought to agree on what the facts are.

Are those data points public?

Well, one of the things that I hope we can agree, we can have different opinions, different views on issues, but between you as chairman of the Climate Committee and Mr. Waxman as chairman of the Energy Committee and Mr. Sensenbrenner, who is your ranking member, and myself, who is the ranking member on Energy, we should be able to get a data set that we both agree is what the facts are, and I would like your cooperation in doing that.

Our data sets that I'm going to allude to are different. Now, I know enough to know what I don't know. And I don't know if that's a surface temperature, I don't know if that's a tropospheric temperature in the upper atmosphere, I don't know if that's a local temperature that's some sort of an annual mean. There are all kinds of different ways to describe it and to calculate it, but we ought to agree, as policy leaders, on a way to get a data set that everybody says, then we are going to debate the implications of that data set, whatever it is. And I hope that you and Mr. Waxman----

We are going to introduce, in our Special Order, some serious concerns that some of the scientists that maintain these data sets manipulate, change and eliminate for their own conclusions. And again, it's very fair to have an opinion and have a scientific debate, but it shouldn't be fair to manipulate the data in a way that at best is disingenuous, or in some cases deceitful, and I hope you would agree with that.

I encourage you to listen, and if you wish to stay and maybe participate in our Special Order, you would be welcome.

Madam Speaker, I do think that I will use the 1 hour. I understand there's going to be a rule reported in the time, and we'll certainly yield to the person from the Rules Committee to file that rule.

Madam Speaker, I wish to rise to discuss a topic that's already been discussed on the House floor this evening. It's the issue of climate change or global warming. Next week, I am honored to be one of the congressional delegation attending the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, that's going to be led by our esteemed Speaker, the Honorable Nancy Pelosi. I also attended Kyoto, Buenos Aires, and The Hague. I'm the ranking Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee and formerly also on the Science Committee, and I have been a participant at the congressional level on the climate change debate for the last 20 years.

I'm going to start off by putting into the Record a suppressed report that Congressman Poe just talked about that has never before this evening been made public in its entire, unexpurgated form. The title of the report is Comments on the Draft Technical Support Document for the Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act. This report was compiled by Dr. Alan Carlin, who is a career scientist and investigator at the EPA. At one time, he self-described himself, I'm told, as a global warming believer. He prepared this report. He works in a group within the EPA that is responsible for conducting an internal review of some of these draft orders before they go public. And I'm not going to read the entire report. I'm going to read excerpts of the preface and the executive summary, and then I will put the entire report into the Record.

This is from the executive summary and the preface, and I quote, ``We have become increasingly concerned that EPA has itself paid too little attention to the science of global warming. EPA and others have tended to accept the findings reached by outside groups, particularly the IPCC,'' which is the International Protocol on Climate Change under the auspices of the United Nations, ``and the CCSP, as being correct without a careful and critical examination of their conclusions and documentation. If they

should be found to be incorrect at a later date, however, the EPA is found not to have made a really careful independent review of them before reaching its decision on endangerment, it appears likely that it is the EPA rather than these other groups that may be blamed for any errors.

Further down on the executive summary, Page 1, ``Our conclusions do represent the best science in the sense of most closely corresponding to available observations that we currently know of, however, and are sufficiently at variance with those of the IPCC, CCSP, and the Draft TSD that we believe they support our increasing concern that the EPA has not critically reviewed the findings by these groups.''

Further, ``we believe our concerns and reservations are sufficiently important to warrant a serious review of the science by EPA before any attempt is made to reach conclusions on the subject of endangerment from greenhouse gases.''

And on Page 2, ``What is actually noteworthy . . . is not the relative apparent scientific shine of the two sides''--those that oppose and those that support the global warming argument--``but rather the relative ease with which major holes have been found in the greenhouse gas/CO2/global warming argument. In many cases the most important arguments are based not on multimillion dollar research efforts, but by simple observation of available data, which has surprisingly received little scrutiny. The best example of this is the MSU satellite data on global temperatures. Simple scrutiny of this data yields what to us are stunning observations. Yet this has received surprisingly little study or at least publicity. In the end it must be emphasized that the issue is not which side has spent the most money or published the most peer-reviewed papers, or been supported by more scientific organizations.'' This is very important, the next sentence. ``The issue is whether the greenhouse gas/CO2/AGW hypothesis meets the ultimate scientific test--conformance with real world data. What these comments show is that it is this ultimate test that the hypothesis fails.'' That the hypothesis fails. ``This is why EPA needs to carefully reexamine the science behind global warming before proposing an endangerment finding.''

Now, this is from Dr. Carlin in the EPA. This is not some disgruntled Republican Congressman. This is a professional scientist, Ph.D., in an office within the EPA that is tasked with reviewing this endangerment document before a final decision is made. And in his words, the ultimate test is whether the greenhouse gas CO2 hypothesis meets the ultimate scientific test conformance with real world data. These comments show that it is the ultimate test that the hypothesis fails.

Further, on Page 3 of the executive summary, there are several principal comments that they wish to raise in their review. ``As of the best information we currently have''--and this was in March of 2009-- ``the greenhouse gas/CO2 hypothesis as the cause of global warming, which the Draft TSD supports, is currently an invalid hypothesis from a scientific viewpoint because it fails a number of critical comparisons with available observable data. Any one of these failings should be enough to invalidate the hypothesis; the breadth of these failings leaves no other possible conclusion based on current data.'' As Feynman said in 1975, ``failure to conform to real world data makes it necessary from a scientific viewpoint to revise the hypothesis or abandon it. Unfortunately this has not happened in the global warming debate, but needs to if an accurate finding concerning endangerment is to be made.''

The failings listed below why we should not have an endangerment finding in order of importance in our view:

Number 1, the lack of observed upper tropospheric heating in the tropics;

Number 2, the lack of observed constant humidity levels;

Number 3, the most reliable sets of global temperature data we have, using satellite microwave sounding units, show no appreciable temperature increases during the critical period from 1978 to 1997. Satellite data after 1998 is also inconsistent with the greenhouse gas/ CO2/AGW hypothesis;

Number 4, the models used by the IPCC do not take into account or show the most important ocean oscillations which clearly do affect global temperatures;

Number 5, the models in the IPCC ignored the possibility of indirect solar variability;

Number 6, the models in the IPCC ignored the possibility that there may be other significant natural effects on global temperatures;

Number 7, surface global temperature data may have been hopelessly corrupted by the urban heat island effect.

Now, this one is the one that I was asking Mr. Markey about to see where he got his data set, because surface global temperature, if you take it in downtown Manhattan, for example, is going to be very different than if you take a surface temperature in a rural area. The actual urban effect, the concrete, the asphalt, the buildings raise the temperature, and there is some concern that this urban heat island effect has corrupted the temperature.

Those are just seven reasons in this draft document why this author had skepticism about going forward with an endangerment finding. And yet, this report was not made a part of the record. This report was not made public. In fact, this report was suppressed, and because of considerable anxiety on the part of people like myself and Congressman Issa, Congressman Sensenbrenner, the author was allowed to put a redacted version of this report on his personal Web site. Then we were able to get the unredacted version provided to us by the EPA, and that's the version that I'm going to put in the Record.

As this author says, Dr. Carlin, he was prophetic because we're now seeing that some of the climatologists--maybe more than some--have attempted to suppress certain data, to destroy data sets, to manipulate data sets, to not get a true scientific review, but to reach a preconceived conclusion.

Madam Speaker, I think that is wrong.

I will yield to the distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

I thank the gentleman for bringing that to our attention, and it sounds like a worthy proposal.

I would like to yield such time as he may consume to a member of the committee from the great State of Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

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

When was that email? Was that 10 years ago? Was that a decade ago? When was that?

So that was 2 months ago.

Now Mr. Phil Jones, he is the head of the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University in Great Britain. Is he the gentleman that just resigned?

And is Michael Mann the professor at Penn State that is the proponent, initially, of the hockey stick theory, which has been shown to be discredited and was actually using data sets that were manipulated in a way that they shouldn't have done? Those are the two gentleman, the author and the recipients of this email?

And are these two gentlemen two of the leading proponents in the IPCC that climate is growing warmer because of manmade CO2 emissions?

Now my assumption, and this is an assumption, is that the gentleman that wrote those emails and that received them by and large are in the inner circle of the climate change community; and in all probability, they are in Copenhagen right now.

And if the President were to commit the United States to a legislative path that these scientists support, and if we were to adopt as law the climate change bill that passed the House that requires a reduction of 83 percent of emissions from CO2, manmade sources, 2005, by the year 2050, and we implemented that, we would have a CO2 emissions level in this country that we last experienced in 1910. And if we do it on a per capita basis that we last experienced per person in 1875, is it the gentleman's position that if we were to do that, our lifestyle in the year 2050 would be anywhere comparable to where it is today?

In a negative way.

They can't even prove it apparently with tricks.

If it were, the floor of the House would be a toxic waste dump because there is more CO2 created here than in any other size room in the country, with the exception of perhaps the Senate floor.

I would now like to yield to one of the most informed Congressmen on the issue of climate change, the Honorable John Linder of the great State of Georgia.

That means that temperature is the dominant variable, and that it drives the dependent variable, which is CO2. Temperature goes up and then CO2 goes up.

So Vice President Gore is only off by 180 degrees?

And we believe that the Atlantic and Pacific are in a cooling period.

Something called a PSO and an AMO or something?

I know it's dangerous for Congressmen to actually

think. We are not accused of doing that very often, but there are sometimes some Congressmen, you and I, I think, are two, not that others don't, but we actually think.

Now I want to build on what you just said. These ice core samples that you got the data that show temperature goes up, and then CO2 goes up. And if temperature were to go down, then CO2 would go down.

We are in a situation right now where it appears, it depends on the data that you believe; but if the data points that we think are correct are correct, we are in a cooling period. Temperature has gone down at least 8 years in a row and probably 12 years in a row, and we appear to be in a cooling period. But at the same time, we have to admit that CO2 concentrations are going up.

So I would hypothesize that the CO2 concentrations going up are going to prevent as much cooling, and it will keep the planet warmer than it would be otherwise, but still cooler overall, which would be a good thing for mankind. We don't want another ice age, do we?

I'm told this, you probably know, that there are more glaciers in the world that are growing than there are that are in decline.

But it would have been a little warmer than it is today. We might not have been comfortable wearing a woolen sweater back then.

All I know is when people retire, they move to Florida and Texas.

They don't move to Iceland or Greenland.

One of whom just resigned from his position in East Anglia.

It would be similar if we held an election and if we just said, Assume that I won----

But we didn't release the documents, and we didn't release the ballots, and we didn't let them be audited, and we didn't have a canvassing committee.

We just said, We'll assume that, since Congressman Linder says he won, he did win.

Then we want to go to Mr. Scalise.

Well, they should be in the public domain anyway.

I agree.

We want to now turn to the Congressman from New Orleans, Louisiana, a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Congressman Scalise.

The AR4 data set is the data set that was used in the IPCC report in 2007, so it's a seminal document that has been used for policymaking decisions, not just in the United States but all over the world.

What you are saying is they went to some lengths to manipulate the data that that report is based on.

May I ask the Chair how much time we have remaining in our Special Order?

There are 12 minutes. Okay.

At about 10 minutes to go, I have got some documents I want to put in the Record.

I want to thank Congressman Scalise, Congressman Linder, and Congressman Shimkus for participating in this Special Order.

What we are attempting to do is to actually use the scientific method to determine what steps, if any, the United States Government should take policy-wise if, in fact, climate change or global warming is a major problem that needs to be addressed. It does appear, in my opinion, that there is reasonable doubt about whether we should

take some of the radical steps that have been espoused in the climate change bills which have passed the House and which are pending in the Senate.

I want to take the remaining time and go through a series of emails that have just become public--we've alluded to them--and go into a little more depth.

The first email which we have already alluded to is from Michael Mann. Michael Mann is a climatologist at Penn State University. He is one of the leading scientists in the IPCC. He is the author of the original hockey stick theory that is kind of the genesis, the seminal document, for the theory that manmade CO2 is the cause of the climate warming in the world. This is a document from him to Phil Jones, who was, until recently, the head of the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University in Great Britain.

Now, Dr. Jones resigned in the last week or so, but in it, he says, Can you delete any emails that you've have had with Keith--Keith is Keith Briffa--regarding AR4?

AR4 is a U.N. IPCC fourth assessment document from 2007. It's one of these policy documents that is used around the world.

You can see that he says, I am going to contact Gene about this.

Okay. Gene is actually Eugene Wahl. He is at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's office in Boulder, Colorado. That's with the U.S. Department of Commerce.

He said, I am going to contact Gene about this. Can you delete any emails that you have? I'll get Caspar to do likewise.

Caspar is Caspar Jones--I mean Caspar Ammann. He is at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, or NCAR, in Boulder, Colorado. It's a federally supported consortium.

So, in this email, we have collaboration between NOAA, NCAR--both in the United States--the Climate Research Unit, which is CRU in East Anglia, Great Britain, and many prominent IPCC contributors coordinating document destruction. I think that is something that policymakers here in the United States should be concerned about.

Now let's go to the next document, email No. 2. Now, the first one was from Michael Mann to Phil Jones. This is from Phil Jones to a gentleman named Tom Wigley. Its subject is: Schles suggestion. This is last year, December of 2008. It says, I am supposed to go through my emails, and he can get anything I've written about him. About 2 months ago, I deleted loads of emails, so we have very little, if anything, at all.

So what this is showing is, or one could say, they have conspired to delete data. This is of Ben Santer, who is Santer 1, who is a prominent climate modeler at the Department of Energy's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and of Tom Wigley, who is a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado.

The gist of this is he has already deleted a lot of emails from 2 months ago. What are they trying to hide here?

Now, let's go to email number 3. Email number 3 shows an unprecedented data purge at the CRU in East Anglia, Great Britain. Here is a public index of documents on one day and then here is the public index on the next, very quickly, after they have gone through and purged all, purged all of this. It says the next day, on July 28, Phil Jones deleted data from his public files, leaving online a variety of files from the 1990s. This morning, everything in Dr. Phil's directory had been removed.

It's not just the emails that have been deleted, in a widely reported event. Steve McIntyre, who is a Canadian researcher who testified before Congress several years ago when I was chairman, and who has been attempting to get these data sets, to get these documents, he has been trying to get, through the Freedom of Information Act, the public documents that some of these studies are purported to be based upon. Instead of releasing them, they purged them. They took them away in what is reported to be an unprecedented data purge.

They have deleted files pertaining to station data from the public directories. Why? Where are the data now if they are still in existence? What is it they are trying to hide? If the temperature data records really proved their theory, they would want to publicize them. At least I would think that they would.

Let's go to number 4. This is an email from Phil Jones, who we know well now, to a gentleman named Neville Nicholls. Mr. Nicholls, let's see, Mr. Nicholls, I am not sure who Mr. Nicholls is, but here it says, I hope I don't get a call from Congress. I am hoping that no one there realizes I have a U.S. Department of Energy grant and have had this with Tom W. for the past 25 years.

This is back in 2005. This is when I was chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and we were conducting the investigation into Dr. Mann's hockey stick proposal, hockey stick theory, and we had asked for some documents from Professor Mann, or Dr. Mann, and this gentleman is saying we hope the Congress doesn't realize that we are getting Federal money; we don't want them to be asking us about documents.

Of course, as we now know, they have destroyed many of those documents or apparently have destroyed many of those documents.

Let's go to number 5. Now, this documents shows the lengths to which they will go to suppress information, says if they ever hear that there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I will delete these rather than send them to anyone.

Now, Congressman Markey, who is a good friend of mine and who is a believer, a proponent of manmade global warming, has got data sets that he says justify some of the policies that he supports. But here we see that some of these documents and some of these data sets that Mr. Markey and others have--who sincerely believe that there is a problem-- appear to be very suspect. In fact, they are so suspect that if they have to release them publicly, they would rather delete them than to comply with the Freedom of Information Act.

Tom Wigley had sent me a worried email when he heard about it. He thought that people might ask him for his model code. My heavens, you know. Keep in mind that this theory that mankind-made CO2 emissions is driving the temperature upwards, it's just that; it's a theory. These researchers have built these models to try to replicate the planet's temperature mechanism, and all these models show the temperature going up.

But that's the conclusion that the modelers want. It is not factually correct to say the temperature is going up; it's factually correct to say the modelers, who want to prove that the temperature is going up, are putting variables and assumptions in these models that drive them up, but they apparently don't have the data to back that up.

Let's go to number 6. This is again from Mr. Jones, a gentleman named Gavin Schmidt, concerning the revised version of something called the Wengen paper, W-e-n-g-e-n. It says all of our Freedom of Information officers have been in discussions and are now using the same exceptions not to respond--the advice that they got from the information commissioner. The Freedom of Information line that we are using is that the IPCC--now keep in mind the IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change--is funded primarily by the U.S. taxpayer, not exclusively, but primarily, is exempt from any country's Freedom of Information, because the skeptics have been told this. Even though we possibly hold relevant information that the IPCC is not part of our remit, i.e., mission statement, therefore we don't have an obligation to pass it on.

To me that's just irresponsible to say that the IPCC, which is a total governmental agency, admittedly through the U.N. and a large number of nations, but the U.S. as the primary funder, is above Federal Freedom of Information laws, not only in the United States but in every other country. This information that has been collected and paid for by U.S. taxpayers and funded by U.S. scientists is now out of reach of the U.S. taxpayer? I think that's just flat wrong, Madam Speaker.

My last email is number 7, and this shows, while they accuse people like myself of trying to be bullies and to ostracize people, here is an email where

again this Professor Mann, Michael, it's to Michael Mann from a gentleman named Malcolm Hughes, just a heads up; apparently the contrarians now have an in with GRL.

GRL, which is the Geophysical Research Letters, a prominent climate journal--this guy Sayers has a prior connection with the University of Virginia Department of Environmental Sciences that causes me some unease. Then later on--this is truly awful. If you think that Sayers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official ATU channels to get him ousted. They are trying to ostracize those that are honest enough to say that they have some doubts about the theory.

I will end with this: The theory of global warming caused by mankind is just that, it is a theory; it is not a fact. As U.S. taxpayers and as the guardians of the U.S. taxpayers, we should demand that the facts be made public so that we can make a relevant policy decision.

I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Satellite Home Viewer Update and Reauthorization Act of 2009. I want to thank the majority in both the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Judiciary Committee for working with the minority. This is one of those rare instances in this Congress when there has been bipartisan cooperation and the result is a bill that both sides can support.

The bill itself is an example of what Congress should be about. It is an authorization bill with a finite authorization--in this case, 5 years--that authorizes the transfer of satellite signals to home viewers who cannot get cable or over-the-air broadcast signals. The industry today is much different than it was 20 years ago when we first authorized the Satellite Home Viewer Act, and this bill reflects that. As we are transitioning to digital television and high-definition television, this bill takes those technical advances into consideration, which I think is a good thing.

There is one provision in the legislation that is nettlesome from my point of view. We have adopted a provision that I opposed in committee that forces the DISH Network to carry high-definition signals for public broadcast stations. I'm not opposed to public television being broadcast in high definition, but I don't think it's the end of the world if DISH chooses for right now not to carry those signals because they're engaged in an upgrade of their base and won't be able to do so in their business model until 2013. So congressional intervention in this bill in that case is something that I wish was not in the bill. There is a chance, however, that the parties will negotiate and this provision of the bill will become moot by the time the bill moves to the other body.

With that said, Madam Speaker, this is a good piece of legislation. I want to compliment Ranking Member Stearns, who's worked very hard on it, and the staffs on both sides of the aisle for their hard work, and I would hope the House will pass this bill at the appropriate time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Spirit of

Waxahachie Indian Marching Band for officially being recognized as one of the top 10 high school bands in the State of Texas. This achievement represents the highest marching award that the Waxahachie Marching Band has earned in the school's history.

This is ``the little band that could.'' With only 122 members on the field, they were the smallest band in the UIL 4A State Band Contest to make the finals. And from all accounts, their performance of their 2009 marching show entitled ``A Kinetic Mind'' encompassed every meaning within ``kinetic''--constant motion, fast-paced, and high energy, literally electrifying the crowd inside the Alamodome.

Now let me explain how big this accomplishment actually is. There are hundreds of Division 4A bands in the State of Texas, and in November, only 26 qualified to compete for the title. The Spirit of Waxahachie Indian Marching Band finished eighth and I couldn't be more proud of what these students accomplished on the field.

But it is what they do in the classroom and in the community that makes them even more special. These teens begin practicing and training over the summer, dedicating several hours each day to learn the music and routines required to achieve excellence. This alone is quite a feat when you consider just how hot it is in Waxahachie in August.

But these are first and foremost students whose determination and dedication not only applies to the band program, but to their academic and community efforts as well. Once they leave class and band practice ends--these teens keep working. A majority of them are involved with community service projects and volunteer with organizations all over the city.

These students, their directors and their supporters have truly exemplified their title as The Spirit of Waxahachie. I am proud to represent them here in Congress and once again congratulate them for proving that hard work and dedication lead to great accomplishments.

The Spirit of Waxahachie Indian Marching Band includes:

Directors: Rich Armstrong--Head Director, Reggie Cook--Assistant, Kendra Ray--Assistant, Dan Francis--Assistant, Donnie Owens--Assistant, Johnny Young--Percussion Instructor, Layci Dagley--Percussion Instructor, Denise Armstrong--Color Guard Instructor.

Drum Majors: Tiffany Neal, Haley Nutt.

Section Leaders: Scott Tipton--Drumline Captains, Tiffany Hinman-- Color Guard Captain, Ashley Maass--Flute, Brittany Haines--Clarinet, Kaitlyn O'Brien--Saxophone, Ryan Popp--Trumpet, Carissa Needham--Horn, David Hale--Trombone, Trey Speer--Baritone, Mikey Kirton--Tuba.

Band Members: Samuel Allelo--Euphonium, Eline Andreasen--Bb Clarinet, Jack Ansell--Trombone, Sarah Arnold--French Horn, Maria Baez--Trumpet, Katy Behning--Trumpet, Michelle Boggs--Color Guard, Logan Bowers-- Drumline, James Bridges--Trumpet, Jessica Cadena--Bb Clarinet, William Carter--Tenor Sax, Jerrin Castillo--Drumline, Jake Chastain--Trombone, Kyle Clayton--Drumline, Ethan Craig--French Horn, Alyssa Cupp--Bb Clarinet, Ben Davis--Front Ensemble, Maddie Devore--Drumline, Jesse Dillinger--French Horn, Justin Donelson--French Horn, Kendall Drew-- Tuba, Dayvetta Dvorak--Bb Clarinet, Tedra Edmonson--Color Guard, Jacob Engel--Front Ensemble, Taylor Engel--Trumpet, Stephen Erickson-- Trumpet, Travis Featherston--Drumline, Marrisa Gallegos--Color Guard, Miranda Galvan--Color Guard, Dan Gandara--Front Ensemble, Hannah Gentry--Color Guard, Richard Gonzales--Trumpet, Ellen Gordon--Color Guard, Sydney Graf--Color Guard, Victoria Guajardo--Flute, Tiffany Haines--French Horn, Allison Hale--Flute, Sha' Quita Hall--Color Guard, Shane Hartis--Front Ensemble, Andrew Harwell--Trumpet, Zachary Hatchel--Trumpet, Marieta Hawkins--Flute, Kelsey Hayes--Bb Clarinet, Jackie Hernandez--Color Guard, Jack Herrington--Euphonium, Jacob Hill, Drumline, Hayli Howard--Tuba, D'Layni Huff--Drumline, David Hummer-- French Horn, Cameron Ingram--Flute, Lauren Johnson--Drumline, Kallen Jones--Trumpet, Brady Kelley--Alto Sax, Kaitlynn Kerbow--Flute, Chelsea Kimberlin--Bb Clarinet, Sarah Kinney--Bb Clarinet, Albreshia Lawrence-- Flute, Nicholas Lopez--Bb Clarinet, Melinda Louque--Tenor Sax, Toni Madrid--Alto Sax, Kimberly Mares--Color Guard, Hannah Marshall-- Trombone, Melissa Martinez--Alto Sax, Manny Mata--Euphonium, Caleb McCutchen--Front Ensemble, Karis McGrew--Color Guard, Kaci McMahan-- Drumline, Josh McMurray--Trumpet, Reagan McMurray--Euphonium, Alex Meade--Bb Clarinet, Michael Mederos--Trumpet, Max Mills--Tuba, Carlos Monge--Alto Sax, Ashley Moon--Flute, Tanner Morehead--Euphonium, Faith Morgan--Bb Clarinet, Lauren Moritz--Flute, Yousef Muwaquet--Trombone, Laura Nottingham--Flute, Tiffany Oglesby--Alto Sax, Nathan Owens--Tuba, Jordan Palmer--Alto Sax, James Perkins--Euphonium, Kelsey Peyrot-- Drumline, Danielle Phillips--Bass Clarinet, Molly Prescott--Color Guard, Marisa Price--Drumline, Dillon Pryor--Front Ensemble, Jeremy Quintana--Trumpet, Scott Quintana--Trombone, Bridget Reid--Bb Clarinet, Craig Renfro--Tuba, Milka Reyna--Flute, Bradley Richardson--Trumpet, Daniel Richardson--Alto Sax, Hannah Ritchie--Color Guard, Marissa Rodriguez--Bb Clarinet, Emily Rolen--Bb Clarinet, Jacque Rosso--Color Guard, Audra Russell--Bb Clarinet, Adrian Salvador--Front Ensemble, Sara Sanchez--Drumline, Jared Schueler--Alto Sax, Dillon Shepherd-- Trumpet, Natalie Shoemake--French Horn, Breanna Simpson--Flute, Taylor Smith--Drumline, Brooke Stembridge--Bass Clarinet, Cole Stembridge-- Trombone, Collin Stephenson--Tenor Sax, Tiffany Sweet--Bass Clarinet, Rance Taylor--Trombone, Jenna Thomas--Trumpet, Corey Troxell--Trombone, Felcia Tunson--Color Guard, Amanda Unarut--Percussion, Christina Unarut--Color Guard, Tanner Underwood--French Horn, Samuel Vasquez-- Alto Sax, Sarah Warren--Euphonium, Wiebke Wenholt--Color Guard, Reed White--Trumpet, Kora Woodard--Front Ensemble, Taylor Wright--Drumline, Andrew Zimmerman--Trumpet, James Zimmerman--Trombone.

I ask unanimous consent that of the 30 minutes that I control, the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), control 15 of those minutes.

I would yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, the only fix that's in this bill before us is ``the fix is in.'' This is nothing more than a repayment to the American Medical Association for endorsing the larger health care bill that was on the floor several weeks ago. There is not one dime of pay-for in this bill. It is a wave the magic wand, erase the accumulated deficit of the last 10 years or so in the SGR formula, and let's kick the can on down the road.

The bill is so narrowly construed that we couldn't offer in the motion to recommit a real pay-for because this bill doesn't have a pay- for. This is nothing more than a political payoff to the American Medical Association. Republicans support really fixing the SGR system, but we think it ought to be done all at the same time. So we would hope that we would vote against this sham today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Parliamentary inquiry.

Under the rules that we operate where we alternate back and forth, is it allowable for myself to make a rebuttal and then recognize the gentleman from Indiana? Or do I have to do one or the other?

I am going to recognize myself for 1 minute to comment on my friend from Maryland's comments. Then hopefully the Chair will let me recognize the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) for 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, under Republican control, every bill that we brought to the floor, except one bill, was paid for either in that bill or in our budget resolution. There was one exception to that where we did not pay for it. So that is answer number one. Answer number two, this is not paid for. Under a bill that my friends in the majority passed in July, they say we're going to start pay-for, but it doesn't count for the doctors fix, it doesn't count for the alternative minimum tax, and it doesn't count for the estate tax.

But once we do all that without paying for it, then the pay for will kick in. So in that sense, my good friend from Maryland is accurate. But in the sense of this bill, he is totally inaccurate. This bill is not paid for.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if I am allowed to, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), a member of the Health Subcommittee.

I yield myself 1 minute.

I would ask the distinguished chairman of the Health Subcommittee:

Where is the fix? There is no fix in this bill.

They split one formula into two, but there is no reform in it. It is not based on medical expenses. It is not based on anything. There is no automatic reduction. It simply erases the current deficit in the account, has two formulas instead of one, and then 4 or 5 years from now, we will kick the can down the road again.

If there really is a fix, let's have somebody on the majority side explain it. You can't explain it because it is not there.

I yield 1 minute to a member of the Health Subcommittee, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Since my friends on the Democrat side won't explain their procedure, their bill, I am going to try and do it, and if I am wrong, I am sure that they will correct me.

Current law, we have one SGR formula. It is based on GDP and inflation. It is not based on any kind of medical index. Whatever that is perceived to be each year, that is the amount of increase we can pay our physicians. All physicians get the same increase.

Under this bill, they say if you are a primary care doctor, you get the formula plus 2 percent. If you are a specialist, you get the formula plus 1 percent, but they don't change the formula. The formula is the same as it is under the current law, and they don't change the enforcement mechanism. The enforcement mechanism is the same as it is under current law; i.e., Congress has to vote to either accept the cuts or to not accept the cuts and provide a temporary fix. As I understand it, that is their fix. Now, if I am wrong in that, I want my friend Mr. Waxman or Mr. Pallone or Mr. Rangel or Mr. Stark to tell me how I am wrong.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished minority leader from the great State of Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to how much time I still control, please.

I want to yield 1 of those 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nashville, Tennessee, a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not used to dealing with a warm and fuzzy Pete Stark. I have to admit that was a very good speech.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my good friend from Michigan from the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Rogers.

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

I'd like to put into the Record a statement from the vice chairman of the American Medical Association on March 20, 1997, where they went on record before the Ways and Means Committee subcommittee supporting the current system. And now, I understand and I accept what Subcommittee Chairman Stark said, that mistakes have been made, and I think, in hindsight, both sides can agree that a mistake has been made.

It is my opinion, and I think most of the Republicans would share this opinion, that this is not the solution. When all you do is change which formula gets reimbursed, either primary care or specialist, but you use the same underlying formula, the same lack of enforcement, that's not, in my opinion, a fix. So respectfully, I believe that we should defeat this bill and then work together.

I do sense some bipartisanship on this floor. Let's work together to come up with a real fix. It will not be easy. It's not easy to come up with $350 billion. It's not easy to allocate that. It's not easy to change the formula to something that more accurately reflects the costs of practicing medicine in the modern era. But, we can do it. This is not the solution. I hope we'll vote this down.

As has been pointed out, this bill isn't going anywhere in the Senate. This is an act, in my opinion, of paying off a political debt to the American Medical Association for endorsing the larger health care bill several weeks ago. Please vote ``no.''

Statement of Thomas R. Reardon, M.D., Vice Chair, American Medical

Association

Mr. Chairman, my name is Thomas R. Reardon, M.D. I am a

general practitioner from Boring, Oregon, and a member of the

Board of Trustees for the American Medical Association (AMA).

On behalf of the 300,000 physician and medical student

members of the AMA, I thank you for this opportunity to

testify before the Subcommittee today regarding Medicare

physician payment issues.

A wide range of experts have independently concluded that,

despite Medicare's clear success in improving the health

status of our elderly and disabled citizens, the program

cannot be sustained without fundamental restructuring. The

Hospital Insurance Trust Fund faces bankruptcy in five years

or less, and Medicare's current overall expenditure growth

cannot be sustained. Medicare faces a much more serious long-

term problem as the ``baby boom'' generation ages and the

number of workers paying taxes for every Medicare

beneficiaries will decline from 3.9 currently to only 2.2 in

the year 2030.

The high growth rates for many of the services are due to a

combination of factors, including increased beneficiary

demand for new services, flaws in payment rules which

encourage high volume growth in some categories of service,

insulation of most beneficiaries from cost considerations,

and ineffective approaches to cost control. However, as the

chart below indicates, physician spending growth is well

below the rate for any other major sector of Medicare, and

well below overall Medicare growth. The AMA is pleased that

the President's 1998 budget proposal explicitly recognizes

this fact.

We are also pleased that the Administration's budget

supports the development of innovative provider sponsored

organizations in order to offer greater choice to Medicare

beneficiaries. We believe these types of options hold the

promise of enhancing beneficiary choice while controlling

Medicare's costs. The AMA also supports the President's

investment in preventive health care to improve seniors'

health status by covering colorectal screening, diabetes

management, and annual mammograms without copayments, and by

increasing reimbursement rates for immunizations to ensure

that Medicare beneficiaries are protected from pneumonia,

influenza and hepatitis.

Unfortunately, the Administration's budget primarily adopts

the strategy of cutting physician and other provider payments

in hopes of getting more services for less money. We believe

this approach will ultimately divorce the Medicare system and

its beneficiaries from the mainstream of American medical

care, while postponing the major restructuring needed for

Medicare's long-term survival. In the meantime, the long-term

problems will only grow larger, requiring more draconian and

expensive solutions.

AMA's Proposal For Medicare Transformation

The AMA has a plan which addresses both the short and long-

term problems with Medicare, while preserving the bond of

trust between a patient and physician that makes medicine

unique. The AMA's Transforming Medicare proposal is based on

the idea of a competitive market-driven system as the best

option for the future of the Medicare program because it

offers more choice to senior citizens and the disabled. We

must give the patient both the opportunity and the

responsibility to make wise prospective choices of physician

and health plan, with the reasonable opportunity to change

either if they prove unsatisfactory.

Our plan would modernize traditional Medicare, eliminating

the need for Medigap, while preserving the security and

quality of care beneficiaries now receive. It would create a

new MediChoice option, which would provide a broad menu of

health plan choices for Medicare beneficiaries to choose

from, including medical savings accounts and provider

sponsored organizations. And finally, it would ensure that a

healthy Medicare is available for future generations. The AMA

would welcome the opportunity to discuss our Transforming

Medicare proposal with the Subcommittee in greater detail at

an appropriate forum.

Improving the Physician Payment System

The Administration's 1998 budget proposal targets $5

billion in savings over five years from refinements to the

Medicare physician payment schedule. In particular, the

Administration proposes moving to a single conversion factor

(CF) for the payment schedule, and replacing the current

Medicare Volume Performance Standard (MVPS) update formula

with a Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) formula.

Under the Administration's budget proposal, the overall

payment update for 1998 would be set at 1.9%, yielding an

overall CF of $36.63 in 1998. With the move to a single CF of

$36.63, surgical service payments would fall by 10.6%

compared to 1997 levels, while primary care payments would

increase by 2.4% and other service payments would increase by

8.2%. The payment reductions for surgical services are

further exacerbated by the implementation of resource-based

practice expense relative value units scheduled for 1998, as

discussed below.

The AMA has consistently sought a return to a single growth

standard and conversion factor for physician services. We

adopted this position well before any indication of which

services would benefit from multiple standards. At our Annual

House of Delegates meeting in 1996, AMA policy was modified

to adopt a compromise that responds to two realties. First,

because moving to a single conversion factor could lead to

large single year cuts for some services and specialties, we

support a transition of as close to three years as possible.

Second, because we also recognize that one of the purposes of

a transition is to allow those who face cuts time to adjust,

and that there has been ``fair notice'' of a shift to a

single conversion factor, our House of Delegates voted that

the ``clock should start running'' on such a transition on

January 1, 1997.

In addition to moving to a single conversion factor, the

AMA supports replacing the MVPS system of updating physician

payments. There is widespread agreement that the current

method of updating physician payments, the MVPS system, is

fundamentally flawed. The Congress, the Administration, and

the Physician Payment Review Commission (PPRC) have all

proposed replacing the current MVPS update formula with a

sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula, which uses real per

capita gross domestic product (GDP) to adjust for volume and

intensity.

The Administration's fiscal year 1998 budget proposes

implementing an SGR formula, with the volume target in the

SGR formula initially set at growth in real per-capita GDP

plus one percentage point. However, the Congressional Budget

Office (CBO) scoring of the proposal apparently failed to

yield the targeted savings of $5 billion in savings from the

Medicare fee schedule, and the volume allowance in the SGR

was reportedly reduced to GDP+0.

In general, the AMA supports implementing the SGR approach

as a needed correction for the MVPS. Fundamentally, the

question for policymakers is determining the level of annual

spending growth for physician services that best balances

patient care

needs and the federal budget. Under the current MVPS

physician update formula, the projected Medicare payment

level for physicians is a steep actual decline, while

hospital and other provider payment rates go up, as the chart

below indicates. Although these non-physician services are

unlikely to see their full projected increases, their

budget savings will be charged against this rising

baseline, while further savings from physicians require

even steeper cuts.

Budget reconciliation for Medicare should reflect the fact

that physician spending is under better control than any

other major Medicare segment, and that the budget baseline

already assumes steep annual payment cuts. Physician practice

costs, as measured by the Medicare Economic Index (MEI),

continue to rise while physician reimbursement under Medicare

is projected to fall. Physicians are only asking for the

opportunity to have Medicare payments keep up with the costs

of providing care to Medicare beneficiaries, and are willing

to accept the challenge of maintaining volume growth at

current low levels.

While we believe that MEI is the appropriate goal for

physician updates, we understand that budgetary constraints

may not presently allow for a full MEI update for physicians.

Physicians are willing to do their part to put Medicare's

fiscal house in order, as we have repeatedly done in the

past. Physicians, who accounted for 32% of combined physician

and hospital Medicare spending from 1987 to 1993, absorbed

43% of Medicare provider cuts over the same time. We would be

willing to accept GDP+2 under an SGR system as a temporary

measure, if there were assurances that this could be

increased to cover MEI once the necessary Medicare savings

were obtained. In contrast, under GDP+O as the Administration

proposes, physician payments would continue to fall well

below MEI, as they are projected to do under the current MVPS

system.

Given a new SGR, with a realistic growth allowance, we

could also support a new ceiling on positive MVPS

adjustments, which would provide direct financial benefits to

the federal budget if actual volume is below target.

Moreover, the federal government receives a very real

additional benefit--the ability to pay for the payment rates

needed to maintain the viability of Medicare fee-for-

service out of reduced service volume. At the same time,

like the PPRC, we believe it essential to maintain the

current 5% maximum payment reduction from the MEI

(increased from 3% by OBRA 93) and to reject

Administration proposals to lower the floor to MEI minus

8.25%.

Resource-Based Practice Expense

As mentioned above, many physicians face additional extreme

payment reductions due to the implementation of the resource-

based practice expense in 1998. The Social Security Act

Amendments of 1994 requires the Health Care Financing

Administration (HCFA) to implement a ``resource-based''

practice expense component of the Medicare fee schedule by

January 1, 1998. That is, the payment for this component--

which represents over 40 percent of the payment for physician

services--is to be based on the actual expenses incurred in

delivering each service. Currently, the practice expense

allowance is derived from a formula based on the prior

reasonable charge payment system.

The AMA supports resource-based practice expenses so long

as they reflect actual practice expenses, but is seeking a

one-year extension of the implementation date. The 1994

legislation said that HCFA should ``recognize the staff,

equipment, and supplies used in the provision of various

medical and surgical services in various settings.'' HCFA

contracted with Abt Associates to conduct a two-part study of

3,000 physician practices expenses. When the survey was

pulled back due to poor response rates, HCFA was left without

adequate data to meet the intent of the law.

HCFA is relying primarily on data derived from clinical

practice expert panels, or CPEPs. Early review of the

recently-released CPEP findings suggest that they contain a

number of errors. HCFA has even rejected certain direct costs

that its expert panels found were part of the cost of surgery

when doctors supply their own staff and supplies in hospital

operating rooms. The AMA and medical specialties are working

to identify and correct those flaws but more time is needed.

Those who want to adhere to the current January 1, 1998,

deadline argue that any problems can be corrected later

through a refinement process similar to the one used when new

work values were implemented in 1992. The AMA believes this

is an inappropriate comparison. HCFA invested nearly three

times as much time and money on the design of new work values

as it has spent to revise practice expense values. Whereas

thousands of doctors were surveyed to come up with the work

values, in the end, there was no broad survey of practice

expenses. Simply put, with work values, the product being

tested was much further along in the development process than

is now the case with practice expense values.

Opponents of an extension also maintain that there is no

point in waiting another year because the demise of the

indirect cost survey shows that it will never be possible to

collect this information independently. We believe that with

another year, HCFA could develop alternative relative values

that bear some relationship to actual practice expenses.

There would be adequate time to validate and correct the CPEP

data. Better indirect cost allocation methodologies could be

developed and tested. Missing data could be collected,

perhaps through an expansion of existing surveys.

The cuts HCFA projected in January are so extreme that they

would nearly eliminate practice cost reimbursement for some

procedures and specialties. Many inpatient surgical

procedures and two specialties could suffer cuts of more than

80% in their practice expense values, and at least 40% in

their total payments. Under HCFA's projections, payments for

many surgical procedures would fall below Medicaid levels.

Thus, there is good reason to fear that if Medicare makes

deep cuts in its payments for complex procedures, doctors

performing these services may find that they can no longer

afford to accept Medicare patients.

In addition, even some of the specialties which seem

relatively unscathed in HCFA's projections could actually

experience significant cuts if other payers pick up the new

Medicare values because the projections do not show the

impact of cuts in procedures usually done on patients under

age 65. To impose such deep payment cuts based on such spotty

research seems certain to undermine physician support for the

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I first want to apologize to my wife, Terry. Back in September for my 60th birthday, she gave me a birthday present of a weekend in Las Vegas today. I obviously can't be there because I have to be here doing my duty for the 6th District of Texas. But like many of us, we wear two hats. So to my wife and all the families that had things planned this weekend, I do want to apologize.

I would also point out that my wife works for a public hospital in Fort Worth, Texas; and this is something that's very, very dear to her heart.

Mr. Speaker, there are many reasons to oppose the bill before us, H.R. 3962. There are numerous policy reasons. It's going to cost over $1.2 trillion over 10 years if you include the physician reimbursement fix in the separate bill. When fully implemented, it's my opinion that two-thirds to three-fourths of every dollar spent on health care in America is going to be spent by the Federal Government in some shape, form, or fashion. It's going to create, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, a two-tiered health care system: the public system for most of us and then a private system for the elites of the country that can afford to go outside the public system.

It's a bad deal for average Americans. The average person today who works and has a health care plan through their employer, the average plan costs about $10,000 a year. The employee pays $3,500; the employer pays $6,500. Since there's an 8 percent payroll tax, on the average of $40,000, that would be about $3,200. Most employers, when this plan is implemented, can pay the 8 percent tax, which is $3,200, or the $6,500 premium that they pay for their employees.

They're going to stop providing health care through the employment and they're just going to put them in the public option. The employee is going to take that $3,500 that he or she was paying for their premium for a $10,000 plan and they're going to find out that when they go into the health care exchange, their $3,500 doesn't buy a $10,000 policy. It buys a $3,500 policy. It's a bad deal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 more minute.

So there are lots of policy reasons.

But the real reason, Mr. Speaker, is that I just don't think it's right, in the guise of helping Americans, to mandate what they have to do. I don't think it's right to mandate that you have to have health insurance or you might go to jail. I don't think it's right that you mandate an employer to provide health care insurance or they're going to pay all these penalties. I don't think it's right that we set up a health choice administration that sets what the health care plans have to be. I don't think it's right that you say that 70 to 90 percent of those premiums of the benefit package that is mandated has to be paid by the employer.

I just don't think mandating to Americans is a good idea, except in a few cases. To protect the country in times of war, we have on occasion had to mandate our young men, and now our young women, to have to serve. We mandate we have to pay our taxes. But we don't have to mandate that you need health insurance.

Vote ``no'' on the bill and ``yes'' on the Republican substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a member of the committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono Mack), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal), a subcommittee ranking member.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to another member of the committee, Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn of Nashville, Tennessee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request to the former chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Bill Young of Florida.

(Mr. YOUNG of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield a clock 3 minutes to the minority leader, Mr. Boehner. This is not his leadership imperial minute. It is the clock 3 minutes.

I yield 2 minutes to a member of the Republican leadership, Mr. McCarthy of California.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished ranking member of the Science Committee and a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Rockwall, Texas, Congressman Ralph Hall.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, one of our ranking members of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished former mayor of Fort Worth, Texas, the Honorable Kay Granger.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to one of the distinguished ranking members of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Cliff Stearns).

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

I yield 1 minute to another of my distinguished ranking members on the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from the Bluegrass State of Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).

I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady who has the privilege of representing Key West, Florida, the Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes now to the leader of the Republican Health Care Task Force and a member of our committee, the deputy ranking member, Mr. Roy Blunt.

Mr. Speaker, I see that we have changed from the Jets and the Giants to the Green Bay Packers in the chair.

I would like to yield 1 minute to a Ramblin' Wreck from Georgia Tech, a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Dr. Gingrey.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Missouri, who represents the hometown of Rush Limbaugh, Cape Girardeau, Missouri, Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize one of my ranking subcommittee members, Mr. Radanovich, who represents Fresno, California, for 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the honorable gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), a cancer survivor.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the sixth Frelinghuysen to represent a district from the Garden State of New Jersey, the Honorable Rodney Frelinghuysen.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), one of the strong pro-life leaders in the U.S. Congress, a combat veteran of Vietnam, and a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis), who represents the entire State.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry), who represents Omaha, Nebraska, the home of the College World Series.

I would like to recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Congressman Frank Wolf, for a unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the former FBI man from the great State of Michigan (Mr. Rogers), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the Pelican State, Congressman Scalise from New Orleans, a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, could I ask how much time. You said it a minute ago, but I was not listening.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was listening to my distinguished friends on the majority raptly.

I now yield 1 minute to one of our doctors, physicians, the gentleman from Lewisville, Texas, the Honorable Michael Burgess, also a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Phoenix, Arizona, Congressman John Shadegg, a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the Hoosier State of Indiana, Mr. Steve Buyer, another member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and the ranking member on the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I will yield 1 minute to the gentleman, if that's allowed.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished ranking member of the Financial Services Committee from the great State of Alabama, Mr. Spencer Bachus.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 1 minute to Congressman Fortenberry of Lincoln, Nebraska, which today, since Oklahoma is playing Nebraska at Lincoln, is the largest city in Nebraska.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Lubbock, Texas, a recent beneficiary of the best health care system in the world, Congressman Randy Neugebauer.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

We respect the ruling and the admonition about members of the gallery, but is it acceptable under the rules for the Members of Congress to show approval or disapproval of a speech on the floor?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We approve the Speaker's ruling.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my privilege to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the State of Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), and it is with great pleasure that I announce that the entire Oklahoma and Nebraskan delegation who disagree on the outcome of the football game are all in agreement in opposing this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to one of our pro- life leaders, the Honorable Chris Smith of New Jersey.

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Who has the right to close this part of the debate? Does Chairman Waxman have the right to close or does the ranking minority member have the right to close?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to Congressman Jeb Hensarling from the great State of Texas for 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize a Member from the great State of Georgia (Mr. Kingston) for 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the Energy and Commerce time.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me tell you how proud I am of the members of the Energy and Commerce Committee on both sides of the aisle who have participated in this debate since January, and who have participated on the floor debate today. It makes me proud to be a member of that committee.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard all of the policy arguments pro and con for this bill. I am going to end the Republican side of the Energy and Commerce debate simply by saying that I think this bill should be defeated because it is an imposition on personal freedom here in America. I just simply don't think that it is right to tell people that they have to have insurance, tells employers they have to provide insurance, to set up a bureaucracy that advises a bureaucracy what that insurance should be, that then determines what the insurance itself should be, what the minimum premium should be, what has to be covered, what shouldn't be covered, and then over time almost guarantees that everybody, except the richest people in America, are in some version of the public option.

I just think that is wrong in America, Mr. Speaker, and for that reason alone I am against this bill.

There is an alternative. The Republican alternative covers many of the things that my friends on the majority side say they are for. We simply do it without mandating and imposing government will on the American people. Please vote ``no'' on the majority bill, and vote ``yes'' on the minority substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I asked to go after the distinguished chairman of the Education and Labor Committee because what we have here is a failure to communicate, or perhaps a difference in philosophy.

The Democrats have decided that the bottom line is coverage. By golly, coverage no matter what. Whether you want to be covered or not, you are going to be. We are going to have an employer mandate. We are going to have an employee mandate and an individual mandate. We are going to have a premium mandate.

We are going to have how you cover the insurance, a ``comparative research council,'' to dictate the practice of medicine. We are going to raise Medicaid to 150 percent of poverty, and automatically enroll every individual in this country who is unmarried, whether they want to be or not.

We are going to tell every young American who has decided that they don't want to pay those premiums, they want to save up to get married or to buy a home, that, by golly, they are going to have to take insurance, and they are going to pay three to four times what they would under the current system because there is only a two-to-one ratio. So they are going to get their coverage, at a cost of $1.2 trillion.

Now, we have a different philosophy. We think you need to control costs, but we also agree that you have to provide access to the private insurance market if you can't get it today and you want it.

Congressman Miller talks about the 40 to 50 million Americans that are not insured, and he is right. But of those 40 to 50 million, 15 to 20 million are in this country illegally. Ten or 15 million are young Americans who don't want insurance.

When you really boil it down, there are 5 to 10 million Americans who have a preexisting condition or work where insurance is not provided and they can't afford it.

Our plan covers them. It gives them the opportunity. That doesn't give them the money, but it gives them the opportunity. So we have a difference in a philosophy.

We don't believe in mandates and make no apology about it, but we do believe in the individual opportunity. We believe in individual choice. We believe in the American system of free enterprise. We believe in lowered taxes, and we believe in a plan that's going to lower premiums an average of $5,000 per person per year for the next 10 years. That's what CBO says. That's not me. That's the CBO.

So there is a choice. Bigger government, more mandates, more control, less freedom, or lower costs, more opportunity, more freedom, more choice. I vote for more freedom.

Vote ``no'' on the Big Government plan. Vote ``yes'' on the individual opportunity plan.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the manager's amendment.

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, normally, you do not object, even in the minority, to a manager's amendment that supposedly is a technical manager's amendment, technical in nature, so it is unusual for myself as the ranking minority member of the Energy and Commerce Committee to rise in opposition to this particular amendment. But I am doing so for one reason: It is not a technical amendment.

Now, here is the manager's amendment; and, if you could read it, for the first two to three pages, it is very technical. It is just changing one word here or there, or putting a sentence here, or a semicolon, or something like that.

But then you get down to the bottom the third page, and I am going to read this so that the distinguished chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, the gentleman from Mississippi, understands exactly what the opposition is.

``Page 48, strike lines 3 through 17 and insert the following:''

So we are getting away from a technical amendment and you are actually putting substantive policy into the manager's amendment.

``Exclusions. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, the term `protected information' does not include (A) information, other than a security vulnerability assessment or site security plan, that the

Secretary has determined by regulation to be (i) appropriate to describe the facility compliance with the requirements of this title and the Secretary's implementation of such requirements; and (ii) not detrimental to the chemical facility security if disclosed; or,'' and this is where it gets really interesting, ``(B) information, whether or not contained in the security vulnerability assessment, site security plan, or in a document, record, order, notice, or letter, or portion thereof, described in subparagraph (B) or (C) of paragraph (1), that is obtained from another source.''

So what we are doing here, Mr. Chairman, is saying, as the distinguished chairman said, we don't want to try to give the Department of Homeland Security the ability to prevent information that has already been publicly disclosed by somebody we regulate as part of the site security plan. But then they are creating this new loophole, that if a group that is not controlled by Homeland Security somehow gets information, they can publish it. They can put it on their Web site, and they're not liable.

They are not subject to the penalties.

That's wrong, Mr. Chair. That's just wrong. It does it in not only one place. These are three different bills that were merged. It goes on in other parts of the manager's amendment and makes those same changes in two to three other places. That's not a technical manager's amendment. That's a substantive policy change that's detrimental to the security, in my opinion, of the United States of America.

So while it is somewhat unusual to object to the manager's amendment that's portrayed as a technical amendment, this is not a technical amendment--or at least those portions of it. So I am very strongly in opposition to this.

I think on a day on which we have another reported shooting in Orlando, Florida, which may or may not be of a terrorist nature, and a shooting at Fort Hood, Texas, yesterday which was, we think, possibly of a terrorist nature, that if we're going to have a terrorist security bill on the floor for chemical plants and water facilities, it ought to be a real terrorist security bill.

But the underlying bill is not about more guards and more physical security and more computer protections, as we said in the general debate yesterday. The underlying bill is about enforcing this new standard of IST, or inherently safer technology. In my opinion, it is a radical environmental bill masquerading as a security bill. So I am strongly opposed to Mr. Thompson's manager's amendment because it is a substantive policy amendment, in my opinion, that fundamentally weakens the ostensible purpose of the bill.

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

Can I inquire how much time I have remaining.

I assume Chairman Thompson has the right to close?

Well, I will let Mr. Thompson close.

In the remaining 30 seconds, let me simply say that I agree with what Mr. Markey said, but I will also say to the gentleman from Massachusetts that this bill doesn't do any of that. I wish we were debating a true safety bill, a true antiterrorism bill, but inherently safer technology deals with processes and chemical manufacturing. It doesn't deal with real security.

In Chairman Thompson's manager's amendment, some of which is technical, the part that I oppose is a glaring creation of a loophole to give environmental groups and other outside groups the ability to put information on their Web sites that's not subject to the penalties of this bill. So I would oppose the manager's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, would it not be parliamentarily correct to now call for the yeas and nays on that vote since we requested it?

Further parliamentary inquiry, so I will have to ask for that when we come back into the Whole House?

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the podium.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The merged bill that's before us gives States the right, if they want to do things that are more strict or different than in the pending bill, they have the right to do that. The Federal Government, which normally in a bill of this sort there would be a Federal preemption standard that would preempt States from doing things differently than the Federal standard, this bill sets a floor but does not set a ceiling on what the States can do.

So the amendment that we have before us, Mr. Chair, does create the traditional Federal preemption in these areas. There are three sections in today's bill that allow State, local, or tribal governments to enact more stringent laws and regulations from chemical, drinking water and wastewater treatment facilities. This is not only a new standard for chemical security legislation. It is a new standard, and I think a troubling standard, for comprehensive security legislation.

Where did this come from? Like many other provisions in this legislation, the standard is borrowed directly from Federal environmental law, the Clean Air Act, the Solid Waste Disposal Act and the Superfund law, to name a few.

This so-called new stringency standard appears only once in the Homeland Security Act of 2002. In there, it relates to information protection, not to security operations. Allowing State, local, or tribal governments to be more stringent in the context of national security, in my opinion, is problematic because it means that there will be no certainty associated with the Federal standard.

Why have a Federal standard, Mr. Chair, if any State, local, or tribal government can supersede it? Proving my point, other national security laws, including nuclear, hazmat, aviation and port security make the Federal Government the dominant regulator with clear Federal preemption standards.

In the 111th Congress, the Democrat majority specifically included Federal preemption provisions in both the TSA Authorization Act and the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010. These were both security-related legislative vehicles. Mr. Chair, we should not import environmental provisions into security law. Local pollution control is obviously much different than terrorism protection and prevention.

Unlike local pollution problems, security at chemical and water facilities does require national coordination. The principle is simple: national problems should have national solutions. This is why Federal preemption has always been the norm in aviation security, nuclear security, hazardous materials transportation security, and port security.

My amendment is very simple. It would replace the State's stringency standard with provisions allowing the Federal Government to preempt State and local law that ``hinder, pose obstacles to, or frustrate the purpose of the Federal program.'' This would allow the Federal Government to operate a truly national network to fight terror in the same way the Armed Forces are coordinated through a central command.

Mr. Chair, I have several other written comments that I will submit for the Record, but my amendment is straightforward. It sets a Federal preemption standard as opposed to the State-by-State or local stringency standard under the current bill.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Could I inquire as to the time I have remaining.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent), a distinguished minority member of the Homeland Security Committee.

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

My friends, let's be clear. I oppose the underlying bill. I'm going to vote ``no'' on the underlying bill. But if we're going to have a Federal bill, we ought to have a Federal bill. It should preempt the States.

My friends on the other side are trying to have it both ways. You want a Federal bill that does lots of things that I don't support, but then you want to let the States that want to to go beyond the Federal bill. If that's the case, you don't need a Federal bill. I'd be happy to let each State decide what they wanted to do.

I would point out to my good friend from New Jersey, who was such an excellent baseball player in our congressional baseball game, that what has to be implemented in this bill is stronger than what currently exists in New Jersey. But if we don't accept the Barton amendment, New Jersey could go beyond what's in this bill. And, again, if you're going to have a Federal system for security, it should be a Federal system.

So I very respectfully ask my friends on the majority to accept the Barton amendment, and if we are going to have a Federal standard within a Federal bill, let's have a Federal standard in a Federal bill.

I ask for a ``yes'' vote on the Barton amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, first, let me express my heartfelt condolences to my friend from Massachusetts on the Yankees' ascendancy last night. I am one of many, many, many people in this country who, while I'm not a Red Sox fan, do not put me down in the Yankee Blue column. So maybe my Rangers one of these days will come up and at least tussle with the Red Sox and the Yankees for the American League pennant.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. Before I go into my prepared remarks, I think it's educational to explain to the body what we're actually marking up.

We had two bills that came out of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and I would assume out of the Homeland Security Committee that were marked up and subject to debate. We had a bill in the Transportation Committee that, from what I can tell, was never marked up, and we now have merged the two work products from Homeland Security, the two work products from Energy and Commerce, and a work product from the Transportation Committee that was never publicly marked up and changed them in this bill and then it's going to be yet changed again in the manager's amendment in the nature of a substitute tomorrow so that the bill that we will actually be voting on is a bill that has never seen the light of day as a single bill.

Now, on the surface all these bills, or this bill, this merged bill, should pass 435-0. The Chemical and Water Security Act sounds like something that's a suspension calendar bill. The problem is, Mr. Speaker, that the bill before us has almost nothing to do with security in the sense of protection against terrorism. It has everything to do with what I consider to be radical environmentalism under the guise of homeland security. Let me elaborate on that in the written remarks.

The approach in this legislation is deeply flawed. The overreaching problem is simply this: Protecting chemical facilities and drinking water systems from terrorist attacks should not be done under the umbrella of environmental law. If it's about stopping terrorism, we ought to be talking about computer security and fiscal security and prevention and terrorism tracking and all of the things that really make these facilities safer against terrorism. Instead, we're debating something called IST, inherently safer technology, which is a chemical process, a manufacturing process, so that you process the water, you process the chemicals in a fashion that is safer from an environmental standpoint or perhaps from a safety standpoint for the workers in the surrounding community.

Mr. Chair, that has nothing to do with protecting against terrorism. H.R. 2868 goes beyond the reasonable requirements that have been the core of many Homeland Security programs for several sectors. Vulnerability assessments, site security plans, emergency response plans, these are real things that should be done and are being done to protect our chemical and water facilities against terrorism, but we're substituting in this bill for this IST and these environmental requirements that really have nothing to do with security.

We have an existing security regime in place for chemical facilities and water systems, including a chemical security program that the Congress passed 3 years ago, which is still in the process of being implemented by the Department of Homeland Security. My good friend from Massachusetts talked about how that was put into law back in 2006 and seemed to intimate that it was not thoughtfully done. I would assure my friend that it was very thoughtfully done.

The Energy and Commerce Committee at that time had primary jurisdiction, and my concern, as chairman of the committee at that time, was that we really shouldn't do something on an appropriations bill. We should do it through the regular process. But because it came late in the year, we did yield to the appropriators and put it in the omnibus bill. But even doing that, we spent weeks debating and working with the Homeland Security Committee and the stakeholders to come up with what, today, I think is a better process than what is in this bill.

It is considered that the existing chemical plant security program that we already have is going to cost $18.5 billion in public and private investment right now. The reasonable thing to do, in my opinion, is to let that program be implemented before we scrap it with a totally new concept from this Congress. We need to know what the deficiencies, if any, are in the existing program before we move to a brand new program and a brand new concept.

This legislation refuses to honor common sense when simplistic ideology seems to offer a quick return on a political investment. More to the point about this being an environmental bill is the fact that I am struck by some of the key words used in the entire legislation to address terror prevention. For example, page 10, line 20 of the amendment in the nature of a substitute--and I want to be very clear about this--defines a ``chemical facility terrorist incident'' as a ``release of a substance of concern.'' If you look up the definition of ``release,'' starting on page 12, line 19, that mirrors the exact language of the toxic waste cleanup law, which we call Superfund, right down to making its covered universe of ``hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants.''

Mr. Chair, this means that the Department of Homeland Security is now going to treat an environmental accident or an environmental cleanup as a terrorist incident. Now, I don't want to imply that an environmental accident is not a serious issue that needs to be dealt with seriously, but it's not a terrorist attack if you have a spill of a toxic chemical at a chemical facility. It's an accident. It's a problem. It needs to be dealt with. There are environmental issues. But it is not a terrorist incident. It is not a terrorist attack. But if this bill becomes law and you have that type of an accident, it is going to be a terrorist incident, and it has to be considered by the Department of Homeland Security. I think that is ludicrous. I think it's wrong. I think it is shortsighted, and I think it is unnecessary.

I'm an industrial engineer. I understand, to some extent, plant processes and chemical processes and things like that. I think we're very blessed in this country to have a robust chemical industry, much of which is located in the States of Texas and Louisiana on the Texas and Louisiana gulf coast. If this bill becomes law, my projection is that within 10 years or so, many of those facilities are going to be closed down and inoperable, and tens of thousands of jobs are going to be lost because our chemical industry is simply going to move offshore. They're not going to stay under a legislative proposal that, on the surface of it, is almost impossible to be implemented.

I am not convinced that there is a single, true, security-enhancing thing about the specific requirements in this bill, and I know for certain that we're already making these facilities do types of things under the EPA's risk assessment program and OSHA's process safety management program that this bill then doubles down on.

We have existing laws and existing processes to handle the issues these bills really do handle. The concept is an engineering process philosophy. Congress has repeatedly heard expert testimony that the provisions in section 2111 of this bill are expensive, hard to define because of significant technical challenges, and very tough, if not impossible, to enforce.

Further, even if these problems did not exist, the Department of Homeland Security does not even have the professionals it needs to make informed decisions on how to operate the program or give guidance to those who have to implement the program. Let me repeat. This legislation is not directed at preventing terrorist attacks. It is, instead, directed at setting up a regulatory regime under which the Department of Homeland Security and EPA employees, who really don't know much about production processes at the Nation's chemical and drinking water facilities, are going to force and have to make key technical decisions--not security decisions--technical, manufacturing, process decisions about those processes.

As if this were not enough, the legislation weakens the protections traditionally given to high-risk security information by treating need- to-know information like environmental right-to-know data. I am for transparency in government, but why should we give the terrorists that we're trying to prevent from attacking these facilities almost an open book to go in and, under those open meeting requirements and open record requirements, get information that could allow them to concoct schemes to destroy those various facilities?

These provisions are not just troubling to me because this legislation will allow for more information, ironically, to be made publicly through litigation but, more so, because it's going to be very hard to penalize people that reveal this information to the public. As one of my Democrat friends said in the committee markup in the Energy and Commerce Committee, ``Loose lips sink ships,'' and there are few repercussions under this bill for somebody with loose lips.

I could go on and on, Mr. Chairman, but let me simply say, this is a bad bill at the wrong time. It's unnecessary. I hope that we can have a bipartisan vote against it, and I hope that we can defeat it.

I do want to say one good thing about the process. Mr. Waxman and Mr. Markey did have a subcommittee markup. They did have a full committee markup, and a number of amendments have been made in order by the Rules Committee for the minority to try to improve the bill, and for that, I am thankful.

Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to my good friend from Florida (Mr. Stearns) to control.

Mr. Speaker, when the Democrats finally unveil their manager's amendment later this week, we will have 72 hours to look at it and decide whether we want to vote for it. But one thing we know for sure, it will cost at least $1 trillion; more than we are spending today on health care, more than we are spending in the Federal budget. One trillion dollars over 10 years.

As I look around the gallery, Mr. Speaker, I see many folks about my age, but I also see some constituents who are young, just getting started. Do they want to spend an average of $10,000 a person right now if this bill becomes law? I think not.

Republicans have a better idea. We will unveil our Republican leadership alternative later today or tomorrow. It will actually save money. And by the way, it will cover preexisting conditions. And by the way, it won't have all of the mandates. And by the way, it won't have the health choices administrator telling us what is good for us rather than our doctor telling us what is good for us.

Vote against the Democratic plan and vote for the Republican alternative.

Mr. Speaker, my friends on the majority side have stood before this body today asking about the Republican alternative, where it is. Well, I would ask my friends on the majority side, where is their bill? The three committees in the House of Representatives each passed different bills back in the summer. Those bills haven't been merged. The Senate passed a conceptual document. Legislative language is not yet public on that bill.

We will have a Republican alternative, and I can tell you right now what will not be in it. There won't be individual mandates that millions of Americans can't afford. There won't be employee mandates that thousands of small businesses can't afford. There won't be a health care choices administration that tells the private insurance sector what kind of coverage they have to provide. And there won't be a comparative research bureaucracy that could easily lead to rationing of care.

There will be a national pool that covers all preexisting conditions. There will be subsidies for low-income Americans. There will be some sort of a compensation package for our health care providers. So I would ask my majority: Where is their bill?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for his leadership on this issue until I could arrive on the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act of 2009. This is the second reauthorization of this piece of legislation. It was originally passed approximately 10 years ago. It was reauthorized the first time, I believe, 4 years ago and expired at the end of this month. And so with the leadership of Chairman Waxman and Subcommittee Chairman Pallone, with the support of Ranking Member Deal, myself, and Congresswoman Mary Bono, we have been working with the majority to bring this bill to the floor and reauthorize it because of the importance of the programs which it has jurisdiction over.

This is a program which has provided care for millions of Americans that have been affected by HIV and AIDS. It provides primary care services and drug assistance as a payer of last resort for those individuals that have these afflictions.

The bill before us includes several legislative priorities that I would like to highlight. It does allow States additional time to report their HIV/AIDS cases by names versus the old, inaccurate code-based system but does not release States of the requirement to move towards the more accurate name-based reporting.

The bill also continues reforms that were put in place 3 years ago that will move these programs closer to ensuring that funds are allocated to the existing need--and I am going to highlight existing need--for States and localities. The legislation establishes a new HIV/ AIDS testing goal of 5 million citizens through Federally supported HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment, and care programs.

The bill also reestablishes the notification of possible exposure to infectious disease provisions, which will allow notification to emergency responders of a possible communicable infectious disease.

Mr. Speaker, I am an original cosponsor of this legislation in this Congress and was chairman 3 years ago when we reauthorized it. This is a high priority for the country and the committee. And again, I am very pleased that Chairman Waxman and Subcommittee Chairman Pallone agreed to a regular order process so that we could reauthorize this bill in a timely fashion.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

I continue to reserve, Mr. Speaker.

We continue to reserve, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I appreciate the opportunity to close the debate.

This is an important piece of legislation. It has been worked over several years on a bipartisan basis. Chairman Waxman and Chairman Pallone have been extremely positive and very gentlemanly in their approach to this bill. We are glad that it is being reauthorized in a timely fashion. We urge a strong bipartisan vote of ``yes'' on this bill.

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

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

We are here today because the Democrat leadership apparently doesn't know what our senior citizens have known for the last 6 months. I held a town meeting in Wortham, Texas, in August. The population of Wortham, Texas, is approximately 1,100 people perhaps. A constituent, a senior citizen, stood up at my town hall meeting and asked me if it was true that their Medicare part B premiums were going to go up while their Social Security COLA did not increase. I said that I did not know, but I would check it out. I had my staff check it out, and sure enough, they were telling the truth.

Well, yesterday, right before the Energy and Commerce Committee markup was scheduled to conclude, I got a note from my staff that there was going to be a special meeting of the Rules Committee last evening and that we were going to have a same-day rule and have an emergency bill put on the floor today to hold harmless our senior citizens who choose Medicare part B and who are having their premiums go up. I asked the distinguished subcommittee chairman, Mr. Pallone, if he knew anything about it, and to his credit, he said he was aware of it, but he had just become aware of it. I said, Well, why didn't we have a hearing on this? Why didn't we have a markup? Why didn't we find out what the policy is? Why didn't we do all kinds of things? To his credit, his answer was that it was just something that had to be done.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm tired of the Democratic leadership waiting until the last moment. And to give them the benefit of the doubt, they don't know what's happening in these programs, so they have to scramble. Or they do know, and they don't give a darn about what the process is and what the policy is.

I think it's inexcusable that we are here on the House floor today on a bill that there's not any serious opposition that we need to do something but I think there is a real policy debate about how to prevent this from happening in the future.

For my friends who don't really know a lot about Medicare part B, Medicare part B is voluntary. It is the part of Medicare that handles physician payments and outpatient reimbursement. Now, most Medicare recipients choose part B. About 98 percent choose part B.

Within part B there are three classes of Medicare beneficiaries. There are Medicare beneficiaries that have a high income. There are Medicare beneficiaries that have average incomes, and there are Medicare beneficiaries that have low income.

Under current law if you have been covered in Medicare in a prior year and you don't have a high income, you don't have a low income, you are held harmless by the current law. But if you're a new Medicare beneficiary, in other words, you weren't on the program last year, if you're a high-income Medicare beneficiary, or if you're a low-income Medicare beneficiary, then you're not held harmless.

And those groups, about 25 percent of the total Medicare population, are the people that were going to have their Medicare premium increased. The current premium this year is about $96, and under current law if you weren't protected, it would go up to about $104. So that's about an $8 increase or a little over maybe 7 or 8 percent.

So under years when the average inflationary and the consumer price index goes up, there's a Social Security COLA increase. So if Medicare expenses go up, which they did last year, the Medicare part B premium goes up but the Social Security benefit goes up, and since Medicare part B premiums

are deducted from Social Security, then that is kind of offset.

But this year we didn't have inflation. The consumer price index, because of the recession, didn't go up; so our seniors didn't get their Social Security increase. But Medicare spending went up last year because we haven't reformed the program. So the Medicare part B premium, which is optional, went up; and if you weren't protected, your premium went up.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there are lots of policy questions there. Maybe we need to change the current law. Maybe we need to protect all Medicare part B beneficiaries. Maybe we need to look at these high-income seniors? Did we have that hearing? Did we have that policy debate? No.

The Democrat majority is simply putting this bill on the floor saying let's take $2.7 billion and let's hold everybody harmless. Well, now that's good politics. I am not negating the politics of it. But is that good policy?

My good friend Mr. Pallone from New Jersey said not one dime is going to be added to the deficit. Well, he didn't tell you where the money's coming from. Here's where the money is coming from, and I have read the bill. Luckily, it's only two pages; so it's not that hard to read. But here's where the money is coming from: It is coming from something called the Medicare Improvement Fund; $567 million is coming from the Medicare Improvement Fund. That's a fund that our majority has set up in a bill last year, and I think, and I could be wrong and Mr. Pallone could tell me, he probably knows, that there's about $20 billion in that fund. And the rest of it is a transfer that is coming from the Treasury of the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund, and they're going to take $567 million from this what I call a temporary fund, and then they are going to take the rest of it from the General Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund.

So they're taking money that has been paid in by our Medicare taxes and they're just saying we're going to use some of that money. That trust fund's going broke. It's in the red and going broke every year. We're just going to take some of that money and use it this year. Plus we're going to take some of the money from the special fund that we set up last year. Now, there are all sorts of policy questions there.

So our friends on the majority are right to say for this year, for this $2.7 billion, there's no added borrowing; but they are wrong to say, in my opinion, that it's not adding to the deficit because they are taking money out of the general Medicare fund that we're going to need in future years and they're taking money from this special fund which I may be wrong in but I think was set up with borrowed money from the general fund.

Again, the minority is not objecting to the fact that for that 25 percent of our seniors that are not protected by ``hold harmless'' that we do something to help them. But we are very upset that it has been done so cavalierly on such short notice with absolutely no process at all.

Democracy cannot work, Mr. Speaker, if we don't let the people know why we are making decisions, what the policy implications are, not to just our senior citizens but to all our citizens.

I am not going to ask for a ``no'' vote because we do need to do something. But I am going to ask that my friends in the majority really think about holding a hearing on this, even though it will be after the fact, so we can get the facts on the table and that we try to set up a process so that we don't have to next year and the next year and the next year come out here with absolutely no advance warning and no real understanding of what the long-term implications of this are.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) and ask unanimous consent that he control that time.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 709, I inadvertently missed the last vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Madam Speaker, I rise today to submit documentation consistent with the Republican Earmark Standards.

Requesting Member: Congressman Joe Barton

Bill Number: H.R. 3326--Department of Defense Appropriations Bill

Account: Army RDT&E

Legal Name of Receiving Entity: Federal Technology Group

Address of Receiving Entity: 2421 Thomas Rd., Haltom City, TX 76117

Description of Request: I have secured $1,500,000 in funding to be used to develop and produce an application called ``reactive materials,'' which is a system designed to defeat Improvised Explosive Devices, thus protecting America's war fighter.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to submit documentation consistent with the Republican Earmark Standards.

Requesting Member: Congressman Joe Barton

Bill Number: H.R. 3326 Department of Defense Appropriations Bill

Account: Navy RDT&E

Legal Name of Receiving Entity: Carbon-Carbon Advanced Technologies (C-CAT)

Address of Receiving Entity: 4704 Eden Road, Kennedale, TX 76060

Description of Request: I have secured $4,000,000 in funding to be used for the continuation of the fabrication development process by refining the design and manufacturability, improving the necessary subscale hardware durability and finally, conducting a full scale demonstration of the hypersonic weapons system at an approved test facility as it relates to the Strike Weapon Propulsion (SWEAP) system.