Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, in Texas we implemented a program called Air Check Texas, which was designed to replace older, polluting vehicles with newer ones. The program succeeded in getting vehicles 10 years or older--or those that had failed an emissions test--off of the road. The program in Texas focused mostly on older vehicles because they emit 10 to 30 times as much pollution as newer vehicles. In fact, vehicles that are 13 years old and older account for just 25 percent of miles driven, but 75 percent of all tailpipe emissions.

While I support Representative Sutton in her Cash for Clunkers and I am a co-sponsor because I believe in both the stimulative and

environmental benefits of getting older vehicles off of the road, I don't believe that the arbitrary 18 mpg combined efficiency requirement for the trade-in vehicle is beneficial. Setting an arbitrary number like 18 mpg leaves a lot of folks with older, polluting vehicles behind the wheel of these cars because they can't afford a new car without the $3500 or $4500 this voucher would provide.

As the bill is currently written, a 1986 Peugeot station wagon with a 20 mile per gallon combined efficiency would not qualify for the voucher, but a 2009 Mercedes Benz station wagon would, because it has an EPA combined efficiency rating of 15.5 miles per gallon fuel. Clearly the intent of the bill is not to subsidize the new car purchase of a 2009 Mercedes driver. So let's think a bit more about our 1986 Peugeot driver and helping him or her improve the efficiency and tailpipe emissions of that car.

Expanding this program to model years and failed emissions tests-- like the successful program in Texas--will achieve a more far-reaching success than the program as written. I support this legislation, but as the legislation moves forward I believe the combined efficiency requirements for the trade-in vehicle should be dropped and a model- year approach should be explored.

Madam Speaker, on May 20th, Taiwan will celebrate its president's first anniversary in office. Mr. Ma Ying-jeou was inaugurated president of the Republic of China (Taiwan) last May. His inauguration marked the second peaceful transfer of power from one political party to another, a result of Taiwan's progress toward full democratization during the last two decades. Today Taiwan validates itself as a mature, successful democracy. We are proud of its political transformation and wish Taiwan well in its future.

In addition, Taiwan is our 9th largest trading partner and imports from the United States in 2007 totaled over $27 billion. In recent years, Taiwan has been fully collaborating with us to combat global terrorism, as evidenced in part by its participation in the Container Security Initiative and its generous contribution to the Pentagon Memorial Fund. Under President Ma's leadership, we look forward to a strong and deepening of relations between Taiwan and the United States.

In closing, we congratulate Taiwan for its participation in the World Health Assembly meetings this May and also Taiwan's rapid rapprochement with the Chinese mainland. Both sides have reached a number of significant agreements, thus vastly reducing tensions across the Taiwan Strait.

Congratulations to the people of Taiwan on their president's first anniversary in office.

Madam Speaker, today I, along with Mr. Stearns, introduce legislation designed to reform some of the Federal Communications Commission's byzantine regulatory processes. As the pace of competition and technological change increases in our country's communications markets, sound decision-making at the FCC and faith in how it makes those decisions become all the more important. Not only are the issues far more complex, they affect far more Americans and American businesses than ever before. The bill would do much to improve the quality of the FCC's decisions and the country's trust in the agency.

First, the bill would codify the not-so-radical notion that the FCC should let the public see proposed rules before it adopts them, and should provide everyone with a realistic amount of time to comment. If the FCC expects the American people and the regulated community to respect its decisions, I don't think it is too much to ask the FCC to show some respect for them in return. Not only will this improve everyone's confidence in the FCC's decisions, it will improve the decisions themselves, both because the agency will be forced to exert more rigor in developing policy, and because the public and the regulated community can often be the source of the best ideas. Secrecy breeds both inefficiency and distrust, and the FCC already has enough of both. Thus, the bill requires the FCC to provide at least 30 days for comments and 30 days for replies on published language of proposed rules.

Letting the sun shine in and the public have a say on what they see won't be worth much unless the commissioners are provided a reasonable amount of time to review the comments and evaluate any proposed decision document. The bill therefore requires at least 30 days after the submission of reply comments, as well as an adequate amount of time for Commission review of a draft document, before the FCC renders a decision.

Nor is it unreasonable for those waiting on a decision to know when resolution will come,

whether in their favor or against. In a rapidly evolving market, particularly in difficult economic times, uncertainty itself can be one of the greatest obstacles to investment and business planning. Consequently, the bill requires the FCC to set deadlines for action on the various types of decisions it makes.

And when the Commission adopts a decision, the text of that decision should march quickly into the public realm. The longer it takes for that language to come, the more it begins to look like the decision was not really made when the FCC said it was, but rather ironed out later through last-minute, back-room deals. Guilty or not, the FCC is widely suspected of changing its mind between decision and regulation. Under the bill, the FCC would have 30 days from adoption of a policy to release the actual text of the decision.

Statistics also are becoming increasingly important. The only reason for regulation should be a failure in the marketplace, and the American people deserve more than vague assertions from regulators that a rule is necessary. The bill therefore requires the FCC to publish a schedule of all its statistical reports, both to ensure that those reports are actually issued regularly and so that everyone can know when.

Transparency and good management should not be partisan issues, and I hope all my colleagues will join us in support of this legislation. I look forward to working with them, with the industry, with the public interest community, and with the FCC to help make commission decisions as well-crafted and unassailable as possible.

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

Requesting Member: Congressman Joe Barton.

Bill Number: H.R. 1105--FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act.

Account: Buses and Bus Facilities.

Legal Name of Receiving Entity: Fort Worth Transportation Authority (The T).

Address of Receiving Entity: 1600 E. Lancaster Avenue, Fort Worth, TX 76102.

Description of Request: I have secured $1,425,000 in funding in H.R. 1105 in the Buses and Bus Facilities account for CNG bus replacement by The T, Fort Worth, TX. The funding will be used to purchase coaches to replace the oldest vehicles in The T's fleet to be completed by October 31, 2010.

Requesting Member: Congressman Joe Barton.

Bill Number: H.R. 1105--FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act.

Account: Elementary and Secondary Education (includes FIE).

Legal Name of Receiving Entity: Ennis Independent School District.

Address of Receiving Entity: 303 W. Knox, Ennis, TX 75120.

Description of Request: I have secured $238,000 in funding in H.R. 1105 in the Elementary and Secondary Education (includes FIE) account for the Alternative Learning Center, Ennis ISD, Ennis, TX. The funding will be used to establish an alternative approach to education for some of its most needy students. The Alternative Learning Center (ALC) will provide flexible hours for students to take core academic subjects needed for graduation as well as to participate in a variety of work/ study programs to be better prepared for the workforce.

Requesting Member: Congressman Joe Barton.

Bill Number: H.R. 1105--FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act.

Account: Higher Education (includes FIPSE).

Legal Name of Receiving Entity: University of Texas at Arlington.

Address of Receiving Entity: 701 South Nedderman Drive, Arlington, TX 76019.

Description of Request: I have secured $143,000 in funding in H.R. 1105 in the Higher Education (includes FIPSE) account for the University of Texas at Arlington Systems Engineering Testbed: Systems Engineering Learning and Research Reinvented. The funding will be used to provide a unique simulation environment for students to study, predict performance, and analyze changes prior to project implementation; provide access to systems engineering tools at various phases of a project lifecycle; and serve as a resource for systems engineers to utilize for training.

Requesting Member: Congressman Joe Barton.

Bill Number: H.R. 1105--FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act.

Account: EERE.

Legal Name of Receiving Entity: University of Texas at Arlington.

Address of Receiving Entity: 701 South Nedderman Drive, Arlington, TX 76019.

Description of Request: I have secured $1,403,463 in funding in H.R. 1105 in the EERE account for the Center for Renewable Energy, Science and Technology (CREST). The funding will be used to build state-of-the- art facilities at UT Arlington. This funding will enable CREST researchers to fully explore National energy objectives by studying (1) alternative energy technologies, including clean coal, biomass feedstock, solar photovoltaic devices, wind, and fuel cells; (2) cost- effective delivery of energy for both vehicles and electric power generation via optimal planning and management of hydrogen distribution and power grid integration; and (3) intelligent energy decision-making, including power monitoring, environmental, and economic issues.

Requesting Member: Congressman Joe Barton.

Bill Number: H.R. 1105--FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act.

Account: COPS Law Enforcement Technology.

Legal Name of Receiving Entity: City of Arlington.

Address of Receiving Entity: 101 W. Abram St., Arlington, TX 76004- 3231.

Description of Request: I have secured $500,000 in funding in H.R. 1105 in the COPS Law Enforcement Technology account for the City of Arlington, TX. The funding will be used to purchase interoperable communications equipment and to help equip a secure, integrated Police, Fire, and Transportation preparedness and emergency response center in Arlington's Entertainment District (Texas Rangers Ballpark in Arlington, Six Flags Over Texas, the Arlington Convention Center, the GloryPark development and the Dallas Cowboys Stadium Complex).

Requesting Member: Congressman Joe Barton.

Bill Number: H.R. 1105--FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act.

Account: Corps of Engineers, Construction.

Legal Name of Receiving Entity: City of Arlington.

Address of Receiving Entity: 101 W. Abram St., Arlington, TX 76004- 3231.

Description of Request: I have secured $1,914,000 in funding in H.R. 1105 in the Corps of Engineers, Construction account for Johnson Creek, City of Arlington, TX. The funding will be used to reduce flood damage, stabilize Johnson Creek's streambed and stream valley, restore riparian areas and wildlife habitats, mitigate and prevent silt accumulation, improve water quality and provide an important recreational amenity that traverses the entire City of Arlington.

Requesting Member: Congressman Joe Barton.

Bill Number: H.R. 1105--FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act.

Account: Facilities and Equipment (FAA).

Legal Name of Receiving Entity: City of Arlington.

Address of Receiving Entity: 101 W. Abram St., Arlington, TX 76004- 3231.

Description of Request: I have secured $963,300 in funding in H.R. 1105 in the Facilities and Equipment (FAA) account for the Medium Approach Lighting System, Arlington Municipal Airport, Arlington, TX. The funding will be used for construction and installation of a Medium Approach Lighting System at the Arlington Municipal Airport to supplement and enhance the existing Instrument Landing System (1LS) for Runway 34.

Requesting Member: Congressman Joe Barton.

Bill Number: H.R. 1105--FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act.

Account: Economic Development Initiatives.

Legal Name of Receiving Entity: Arlington Chamber of Commerce.

Address of Receiving Entity: 505 East Border, Arlington, TX 76010.

Description of Request: I have secured $190,000 in funding in H.R. 1105 in the Economic Development Initiatives account for the Center for Innovation. The funding will be used to complete The Center for Innovation at Arlington, TX.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference report.

I want to start out by talking a little bit about the process. I know that is not very sexy. But when the President and people complain that Republicans are not being bipartisan, they need to know that we haven't been given much of a chance, if any of a chance, to be bipartisan.

As this bill started in the House, there were no hearings in the House of

Representatives. There was a markup in Ways and Means and a markup in the Approps Committee and a markup in the Energy and Commerce Committee. The Energy and Commerce Committee that I am on, Mr. Waxman, to his credit, had a 12-hour markup, and five Republican amendments were accepted. Three of those were stripped out before the bill came to the floor; one was kept in as is, and one was materially changed.

When we went to conference with the other body, our chairman Mr. Waxman was appointed a conferee, as he should have been, because it is about $200 billion of the bill is in the Energy and Commerce jurisdiction; but no Republican, no minority member was appointed. So we had no Republican input into the conference. Of course, that is probably okay, because it really wasn't a conference. There were five House conferees and five Senate conferees. The majority party Members, three on the House and three on the Senate, signed the conference report without anybody actually on the Republican side being given a copy to look at. So it was kind of a done deal.

So on process alone, when the President asks why Republicans tend to be appositive of the bill, it is because we really were not given any input into the finished project.

On the policy, the Energy and Commerce Committee has jurisdiction over energy, over telecommunication, and over health care. The energy section, they took out all the energy grants for things like clean coal technology. They left in a little thing called electricity decoupling; which means, in order to get some of these green energy grants, the Governor of a State has to certify to the Department of Energy's Secretary that they are going to do this decoupling. That means that you can allow the PUC to decouple the price you pay from the amount of electricity that you use. So it is a revenue guarantee for the utility; so as the utility gets the green grant and goes out and educates you on how to use less electricity, you use less electricity, your bill stays the same or goes up. It is the most anticompetitive, anticonsumer, antifree-market piece of legislation I have ever seen on the House floor and it is in this bill.

On health care, my friends on the other side have made a big point of talking about all the things they are doing on health care. Well, you have the health IT grants, which some of that may be good, but do you really need to give every doctor in America $44,000 to switch to electronic records? And, oh, by the way, a lot of that money is not available in 2011, until 2012? I am not sure that is very stimulative of the economy.

We give the States more FMAP money for Medicaid. It doesn't have to be spent on Medicaid. Fifty percent or 65 percent is allocated on the standard formula package, and the rest is allocated on high unemployment. But the once the State gets that Medicaid money, they can use it for other purposes. And, oh, by the way, that is theoretically temporary. But do you really believe that adding $90 billion to the baseline for Medicaid is going to be temporary? It is going to go into the permanent baseline, and it is going to raise the cost over time to the U.S. taxpayer.

I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker. But the point of the subject is those of us on our side, we understand that people are hurting, we understand that we need to do things to help the economy. Shouldn't we start by keeping the people that have a job, let them keep a little bit more of their money by doing some tax cuts? A lot of those got diluted in this bill. Shouldn't we require that, if you are going to spend money, it has a long-term effect, it helps basic infrastructure? This bill doesn't do that. Vote ``no.''

Thank you, Congressman Upton.

Mr. Speaker, we're here today to honor one of the true lions of the Congress. I feel like since this is the third time I've made this type of a speech that I'm at a funeral, except for the fact that our honoree is not only alive, but he's still kicking and has lots of life left to give to his constituency and to the Congress and certainly to the committee that he's served as chairman for so many years in the Energy and Commerce Committee.

I've known John Dingell in some ways since 1985 when I got sworn in as a freshman Member. I've served on the committee that he was the chairman of since 1987. I've served 22 years on the committee, and for the last 17 years, in some shape, form or fashion, I have sat beside him as subcommittee chairman, as ranking member, as full committee chairman, as ranking member of the full committee, and now again as ranking member with he as chairman emeritus.

There is a public side of John Dingell, and there is a private side of John Dingell. We have numerous stories about the public side of John Dingell, the powerful, gruff chairman. You know, some of the private sides of John Dingell, much less public but just as important, when I had my heart attack 3 years ago, John Dingell is one of the people that called and gave me solace and counsel and checked on my wife and made sure that she was okay.

When Terri and I had our son 3 years ago, John and Debbie called and asked what kind of a gift, and knowing of their association with the auto industry, I thought a Cadillac Escalade might be in order. But what we got were car seats, a car seat for Washington and a car seat for Texas, very practical gift, also within the House ethics rules and also very thoughtful.

One of the things that has not been said that I'm aware of is that in spite of the many legislative achievements, the Clean Water Act, Safe Water Drinking Act, the Clean Air Act Amendments, a lead role in the original Clean Air Act, John Dingell is a very humble man. He has not asked that his name be put on any of that legislation.

When I chaired the energy conference report that later became the Energy Policy Act of 2005, I wanted my name on the bill and Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman and Congressman Dingell. And so I went to Mr. Dingell. I said, Let's put your name on the bill; we will call it the Barton-Domenici-Dingell-Bingaman bill. And he said, no, he didn't want his name on the bill. I said, Is it because it's too controversial? He said, No, I don't believe that a man should be that presumptuous.

And I may be wrong, but I'm not aware of any piece of legislation that is called the Dingell bill because he just wants to get the job done. He's not interested in personal memorials.

As I've said numerous times, when they write the history of the Congress, of the 20,000 men and women who have had the honor to call themselves U.S. representatives, John Dingell will be one of those representatives that is highlighted.

I think he's probably the most influential House Member in the history of the Congress who has not been Speaker of the House, and he could have been Speaker at some point in time. And I don't mean that as a personal attack on our current Speaker. I'm just saying the esteem that this man has been held in for over 50 years is something that we should all try to emulate, because on both sides of the aisle, he is really, really held in high esteem and is considered, as I said earlier, one of the lions, not just of this Congress but every Congress.

I consider it one of the highest honors of my life that I have been able to serve with him and by him and learn from him and, on occasion, emulate him.

And, Mr. Speaker, I will also say that he still has work to do. The fact that we're all honoring him with this resolution today--

The fact that we're honoring this fine gentleman today does not mean that he can rest on his laurels. I fully expect within the month to be totally engaged on opposite sides in the public health care debate as he tries to fulfill one of his lifetime obligations of moving some sort of a national health care bill. I believe in a more market-oriented, private sector approach.

So, while part of me says I wish he would go ahead and retire, the better part of me says we want you here, Chairman Dingell. We want you engaged in the debate. We want you giving your ideas on what you think is right for the American people, just like you've been doing for the last 53-years-and-some-odd days, because on your best day you make this body and our country a better body and a better country, and even on your worst day, you improve the atmosphere and improve the prospects for a brighter future for our people of the United States of America.

God bless you.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Houston, Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. Speaker, I first want to say I support this particular bill. And I will vote for it based on Mr. Poe's recommendation.

But the real reason I'm here is that I'm getting a little bit frustrated on behalf of the American people of being shut out of the process. We have this suspension bill and then three or four others from the Science Committee this afternoon. We're basically treading water because a decision was made last night by our Speaker and the majority leader in the Senate and the President to lock down the stimulus conference. The Speaker apparently has a plane trip scheduled to leave to go to Italy on Friday at 6:00 and can't be bothered with an open and transparent process on spending in the neighborhood of $800 to $900 billion to theoretically stimulate the economy. And to put that number in perspective, that is larger than the entire economy of the nation of Australia. It is 20 years worth of State spending. The State budget of the State of Texas, which I represent, is the second largest in terms of population in the country, second only to California. You would think if we were going to spend that kind of money, and it is an issue of such importance, that we would have some sort of a process around here that would have input from everybody.

Well, the committee that I'm on, Energy and Commerce Committee, Chairman Waxman did hold a markup. But the Republican amendments that were accepted, most of them were stripped out when the bill came to the floor. They did allow a few Republican amendments on the bill that came to the floor. And one or two of those were accepted. It went to the Senate. The Senate has worked its will. We have come back here. And now we have a conference that has been appointed so-called, it is the ``no conference'' conference. It is not going to meet because the deal has been made. There are five Members from the House. There are five Members from the Senate. At some point in time, the two House Members, Mr. Lewis, the senior Republican on the Appropriations Committee, and Mr. Camp, the senior Republican on the Ways and Means Committee, are going to be given a report, probably just a document sheet, that says sign or don't sign, and oh, by the way, you can maybe offer minority views if you object.

There is no conference going on right now. There's nothing happening. And in the case of the committee that I'm on, for the first time that I can ever tell, we don't even officially have a conferree. Now Chairman Waxman is a conferree. And he should be. But as the ranking member, I'm not a conferee nor is the Health ranking Republican, Mr. Deal, or Mr. Stearns, the ranking Republican on the Telecommunications, or Mr. Upton, the ranking member on Energy. This bill only spends $200 billion under the jurisdiction of the Energy and Commerce Committee. It's only $200 billion. But, again, there is not going to be a conference.

Now I think the American people have a right to know. I think there ought to be a real conference. I think there ought to be a transparent process. I think we can take an extra day or two. If Speaker Pelosi doesn't get to leave to go to Italy until Monday or Tuesday, Italy is still going to be there. The ruins in the Forum are still going to be there. Venice is still going to be there. Pompeii is still going to be there. I'm not sure where she is going in Italy.

But I just think it is wrong. Eight hundred billion dollars or $900 billion is a lot of money. There is a process. We just honored John Dingell of Michigan for the being the longest-serving Member. He believes in process. He believed in it when he was chairman. He believed in it when I became chairman of the Energy Committee. If he told me once, he told me 100 times, you have got to have regular order. You have got to have hearings. You have got to have subcommittee markups. You have got to have full committee. You have got to have markup. You have got to go to the Rules Committee. You have to make sure that the minority views are heard. And I believed him. That is one reason he has got such acclamation.

So we're here doing the suspension bill. The people who are sponsors of it, bless their hearts. It is a good thing to do. But there are a lot of other things that we ought to be doing, Mr. Speaker, and we're not doing them. The American people are in the dark. We've got the ``no-conference'' conference with no Republican input from the House side. And we've got to vote it before 6:00 o'clock Friday. I think that is a tragedy. It is a disservice to the American people.

I thank the distinguished ranking member. I assume I'm rising in support of the bill, so I guess I need to compliment our distinguished chairman and our ranking member on this excellent legislative work.

But what I really want to talk about is the no-conference conference on the stimulus package. I just came out of a meeting with Leader Boehner, the minority leader. There is going to be some sort of a conference meeting at 3

o'clock this afternoon in the LBJ room on the other side of the Capitol. We've been told, though, that the Speaker and the majority leader have locked the conference down, and they want to have it voted on and passed by 6 o'clock Friday afternoon so that the Speaker can go on her trip to Italy and Afghanistan.

So, in this meeting in Leader Boehner's office, since I'm not a conferee, even though we've got about $200 billion of jurisdiction on the Energy and Commerce Committee, things like Medicare and broadband and something called electricity decoupling, where people that actually use less electricity are going to pay more for it, I'm not sure I understand how that's stimulative to the economy.

But I asked what the agenda was and nobody seems to know. The good news is there actually is going to be a conference meeting, although the decision has already been made. So my question to the majority in this body is, how do you move an $800 billion package, which is larger than the entire economy of the nation of Australia, with almost no transparency, no accountability, and a conference committee that's already been pre-ordained what they're going to report out some time tonight or tomorrow? Somehow that strikes me as a bad thing for democracy, a bad thing for the House and the Senate, and a bad deal for the American people.

So if I were a conferee, and there was a real conference I would ask questions, how does electricity decoupling really work? Why should we ask our consumers to use less electricity and pay for more the electricity that they use? Why is that a good thing? And why was it put in a bill that we haven't had a hearing on and most of the Members of the body on both sides of the aisle don't even know what the concept of electricity decoupling is.

So I guess, Mr. Speaker, I will end up by saying I wish that we ran the whole House like Chairman Gordon and Ranking Member Hall run the Science Committee, where there really is cooperation, there really is bipartisanship, and the result is that bills come to the floor that both sides can support.

I would be happy to yield.

That's correct.

I am not.

It's unprecedented.

First, let me say I rise in support of the motion to instruct. But what I really want to talk about is President Obama's call for bipartisanship. We heard it last night in his press conference; we have heard it in every major speech that he has given. And, somehow, it is just the Republicans' fault that we are not being bipartisan. Well, I have had it up to here with the rhetoric. The reality is totally different.

We have before us a motion to go to conference in which not one Republican amendment was accepted on the House floor, in which there were no hearings in any of the committees in the House of Representatives, in which in the Energy and Commerce Committee of which I am the senior Republican we didn't have any hearings. We

did have a markup. We got five Republican amendments accepted in the markup in committee, but three of those were stripped when the bill came to the floor. We are apparently going to have five House conferees out of 435 Members; we are going to have nobody from the Energy and Commerce Committee, nobody from the Education and Workforce Committee, nobody from the Ag Committee, nobody from Homeland Security, nobody from Veterans', nobody from Financial Services. The list goes on and on. That is not bipartisanship. I don't know what it is; but if President Obama is listening, if you really want to be bipartisan, pick up the phone and call the Speaker and say: allow the 41 percent of the House that represents the Republicans to be a part of the process. It is not bipartisan where we are presented a bill and told ``take it or leave it.''

Now, I understand that if one side has 59 percent and the other side has 41 percent, the 59 percent can win every vote; but that doesn't mean that the 41 percent has no say. And we have a bill somewhere between $820 billion and $850 billion, which is more than the entire economy of the country of Australia, which is 20 years of state spending of the State of Texas, which is equal to almost the entire discretionary budget of United States of America, and we are going to pass it after a floor debate 2 weeks ago of 3 to 4 hours, and I don't know how many hours of debate we are going to have today and tomorrow, but it is 3 or 4 hours. Now, that to me is shameful.

The regular appropriation process, which Mr. Obey is the chairman of, they have 12 subcommittees; they have hearings in every subcommittee; they have markup in every subcommittee. They take each bill to the full committee and have a markup. The bills, theoretically, come to the floor separately and under an open rule where any Member of the House can stand up and offer an amendment.

This process is a dictatorship. I could talk about the substance of the bill, but at least know, the American people, that the process that we are spending $800 billion to $900 billion is a closed system. I strongly oppose it.

Madam Speaker, I recognize myself for 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, we're here today to have another debate about SCHIP, another incidence of where we have a bill that's come over from the Senate slightly different than came from the House. In the case of this SCHIP bill, I don't recall there being a hearing on it. I don't recall there being a hearing last year before we had the vote.

So, let us simply say from the Republican perspective that we're very supportive of continuing the State Children's Health Insurance Program. We do think that it should be limited to families that are under 200 percent of poverty. We do think this is a children's health program. It ought to be for children. And we do think that there should be a verification to make sure that the program benefits go to citizens of the United States.

None of those things are in this bill. So we would oppose the bill and hope at the appropriate time the House would also oppose it.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Health in the Energy and Commerce Committee, the Honorable Nathan Deal from Georgia.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the committee, Dr. Gingrey of Georgia.

Madam Speaker, I am going to be magnanimous and give the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Madam Speaker, can I inquire of the time remaining on each side?

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Madam Speaker, my admiration for the majority leader knows no bounds. Mr. Hoyer is a great man, and he is an institutionalist, and he was personally involved in the negotiations of the last Congress who tried to get a compromise. But sometimes he doesn't tell the entire facts of the matter. So I want to just point out a few things that our distinguished majority leader failed to mention.

Right now in America, the SCHIP law that we're operating under is a Barton-Deal bill--Mr. Deal and myself, two Republicans--that extends the existing program. And to Mr. Hoyer's credit and Ms. Pelosi's credit, they passed that extension in the last Congress when we couldn't get a political compromise.

Under current law, if you're low income, below 200 percent of poverty, your children are covered under Medicaid 100 percent, 100 percent. If you're a working family that's under 200 percent of the Federal poverty limit, you're automatically covered. In some States, they go up to 250 percent of poverty, and in some States they have asked for waivers to go even higher than that. I think Mr. Pallone's State of New Jersey may be at 300 percent. I think the State of New York may be at 300 percent.

So it is a misnomer to say that there are all of these children out there that don't have health insurance. There are some.

Now, the bill before us today really doesn't have an income test. It officially takes it to 300 percent of poverty but allows the States to ask for waivers and do what are called income disregards, which basically means you could have families at 400 or 500 percent of poverty and if that State disregards their income, they can be covered. That was admitted on the House floor in last year's debate, and that provision is unchanged in the bill before us.

Now, President Obama has already scheduled a signing ceremony so there is no real suspense about whether this bill is going to pass with a Democrat majority of 258 votes and a Republican minority of 178 votes, we're pretty sure that this bill is going to prevail.

But the record should show that low-income children are covered, that children up to 200 percent of poverty are covered, and in some states it goes to 250 percent. This debate is about raising the level.

This debate is about do we want a children's health insurance program that covers every child in America with State and Federal dollars regardless of their ability to pay; do we want to freeze out the private sector for health insurance. That's what this debate is about.

Republicans are for children's health insurance. Republicans do believe, though, that we should target the help to those families that have less ability to help themselves.

And on the question of citizen verification, since we didn't have a legislative hearing, I'm not sure what the verification measurement is, but I think it's personal affirmation.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

If it is personal affirmation, when you sign up for SCHIP they say, ``Are you U.S. citizen?'' And if your parent says you are, you are. That's what personal affirmation is.

So I hope we could somehow pull out a miracle and defeat this bill and then do the bipartisan compromise that we almost pulled off in the last Congress.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California, Congressman McClintock.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal).

May I inquire on the time remaining?

How about my friends on the majority?

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time until they are ready to close. We have one speaker remaining.

I am going to yield my last potent 45 seconds to a distinguished member of the committee, Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, to close.

I thank the gentlelady from North Carolina.

Madam Speaker, we are here on the same issue that we were here on last week when, under the suspension of the rules, the House tried to pass a bill to delay the digital television transition period from February 17 to June 12. Wisely, the House rejected that on a bipartisan vote.

Our friends in the other body slightly changed the bill and did a procedure called hotlining it, which brought a basically identical bill back to the House.

The new chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Waxman, has gone to the Rules Committee and asked that the bill be reported to the floor under a rule, which is not a bad idea. The problem is, this is a closed rule.

Now, I want to point out to the newer Members of this body what a closed rule is. It means there can be no amendments. Now, there may be occasions when that's in order, but this is not one of those occasions.

There's been no legislative hearing in the committee. There's been no markup in the committee. In fact, two markups have been scheduled and canceled in committee.

So we have a piece of legislation. There's been no debate on it in the Senate, it's been hotlined, we had a suspension vote on it last week--which I think we had 20 minutes on each side before we had to vote. And so now we're under a closed rule. So no Republican amendments or Democrat amendments were made in order.

I don't know if Democrats offered amendments, but there were six Republican amendments made in order, one of which was by myself and Mr. Stearns who said quite simply, ``You don't need to delay it. Just authorize an additional sum of money.''

One of the things that the proponents of the delay are saying is we need to delay this because there is not enough money. Well, actually, there is enough money. But under an accounting rule by the Office of Management and Budget, when you send a coupon, you have to assume that that coupon is going to be redeemed 100 percent of the time. So of the $1.3 billion that has been appropriated and is in an account, about half that money is still in the account, but because there are coupons that are outstanding, they can't issue new coupons.

The amendment that was not made in order simply said authorize another $250 million of coupons to be sent out because that money is already there and only about 52 percent of the coupons are being redeemed. So at the end of the game, you're going to have plenty of money.

Interestingly enough, this bill doesn't approve any money. The money for this bill is in the stimulus package--which probably won't clear the Senate for another couple of weeks, probably will be a conference committee or maybe another closed system where there is not a real conference--but in any event, I doubt that stimulus package is going to be on the President's desk within the next month.

So we're delaying a hard day transition today with no additional money nor any way to send out any additional coupons. How silly is that? And no amendments made in order to correct the bill.

We had other amendments that would have exempted broadcasters from the delay if the cost caused by the delay was more than $100,000. That one was not ruled in order. We had an amendment that said the broadcasters in rural areas would have to go ahead with the hard day if they were sitting on spectrums that were allocated to provide broadband to rural areas. That wasn't made in order. Not one amendment was made in order.

And to top it off, myself and Mr. Stearns sent a letter to the new or the acting chairman of the Federal Communications Committee saying, ``How many TV stations do you think are going to go ahead and go forward even though it's not mandated?'' You know what the answer is? Sixty-one percent of the 1,000 television stations in America are probably going to go forward. And believe it or not, 143 already have. They've already gone digital.

So, Madam Speaker, with all due respect, when you have a closed rule, no amendments made in order, no legislative hearing, no markup, no debate in the other body, I think we could defeat this rule; I think we could bring an open rule to the floor, let some amendments be made in order, let the body work its will; and if that passes, send that to the other body and try to work it out.

We on the Republican side want digital television transmission to go forward. We want the spectrum to be released for the first responders. We want the television stations to see the benefit of savings, but we do not need this delay, and we do not need a closed rule.

Please vote ``no'' on the closed rule.

Mr. Speaker, before I speak, I want to ask a parliamentary inquiry.

In the previous voice vote, the Speaker said the ``ayes'' have it. From visual inspection, it appeared that there were more ``no'' Congressmen on the floor than ``aye'' Congressmen. My parliamentary inquiry is:

Under the rules of the House, is it possible to ask for a show of hands without violating House rules or without asking for unanimous consent?

Further parliamentary inquiry.

If a Member on the floor at the time the Chair calls the question feels the Chair called the question erroneously, then that Member would be required to ask for a rollcall vote. Is that your remedy?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Let me start out by stating that the majority is trying to fix a problem that I do not think really exists. We have sent out 33 million coupons: 22 million of those coupons have been redeemed, and 11 million coupons are outstanding. The outstanding coupons are being redeemed, I think, by about 500,000 a week, something like that. In my opinion, you could keep the hard date and not have a problem, but if you think there is a problem, it is not from lack of money.

We have appropriated $1.3 billion. About half of that is still in the Treasury, but as I pointed out before, it cannot be released for additional coupons because they assume that 100 percent of the coupons are going to be redeemed. So what this means is the redemption rate is only about 52 percent. Once you send out a coupon, you have to wait for 90 days until it is either redeemed or until it expires before you can release an additional coupon.

If we really, really think that we need to do something, the simple thing to do is not appropriate but to authorize $250 million at $40 a coupon box. That is $240 million. You have authorized enough money to send out coupons, however many you can send, to these 6.5 million Nielsen household families that my good friend from Virginia talks about. Yet the majority has chosen not to do that. They have insisted that we have to delay the program.

So point one is: We have 33 million coupons that have been sent out. Twenty-two million have been redeemed. Eleven million are outstanding. If you want to eliminate the line, you authorize another $250 million so you can send out the other coupons. You could also just say you do not need a coupon. As my good friend from Nebraska has pointed out, it is not the lack of converter boxes. You can go to any electronic store in America and find the converter box. We could just say, ``If you have not gotten a converter box, go get one.'' There is no means test. Under the law, every household in America is entitled to two converter boxes. Go get them. Pay for them. Send us the receipt. The Treasury will pay you your money. You could do that.

My good friend talks about the technical problems. Well, I am going to educate the country right now on the technical problems. Here is how to do it: First, get the converter box. Second, take it out of the box. Third, plug it in. Fourth, hook it up by cable to your TV set or to your antenna. Fifth, turn it on. Sixth, if you have a remote control, hit the scan button. Seventh, make sure that you tune your TV to channel 3.

What is technical about that? It works.

Eighth, if you do all of that and it does not work, call whomever you bought the converter box from. They will tell you, and they will walk you through it. If you are a senior citizen, in most States, you can dial 211, and they will even send somebody out to your house to make sure that it is plugged in, that it is hooked up, that it is turned on, that it is on channel 3, and that you hit the scan button. Now, that is not all that high-tech. If a Texas Aggie like me can understand it, I think the country can understand it.

Next, I want to point out, even though we are delaying this until June 12 if this bill becomes law, according to the acting chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, 61 percent of the television stations in America are going to go ahead and convert to digital. One hundred forty-three television stations already have converted, and in those areas where they have converted, I am not aware that there has been a huge problem.

As Cliff Stearns pointed out earlier in the rules debate, they did a pilot program down in North Carolina, and it was 99 percent effective. Regarding the time that they converted over, they had a handful of concerns down there to see if it would work.

So we have a situation here where we have had a hard date on the books since September of 2005. That hard date is February 17. Every broadcaster in America is ready to go; 143 three stations have already converted. Up to 61 percent of the remaining 1,000-some-odd stations say they are probably going to convert. The acting chairman says that, before June 12, probably 90 percent will. Now, to be fair, Acting Chairman Cox does say he supports the legislation that Mr. Boucher is bringing to the floor. He does support the delay.

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

I would like to yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the Telecommunications Subcommittee, Mr. Stearns of Florida.

I'd like to give 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

I give the gentleman 1 additional minute.

I'd like to yield 3 minutes to a member of the committee, Mr. Terry of Nebraska.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Can I inquire as to the time remaining on each side, please, Mr. Speaker?

I would like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished former ranking member of the Ag Committee and the former chairman of that committee, Mr. Goodlatte of Virginia.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a parliamentary inquiry.

I have just been informed that my friends on the majority side want to go to the White House for the SCHIP signing ceremony and we have to finish the debate in the next 10 minutes. What does ``finish the debate'' mean? Actually call for a rollcall vote in the next 10 minutes, or actually have the vote finished in the next 10 minutes?

I've got a parliamentary inquiry. I don't know how to address this.

If the Chair would advise, then I will address it in the appropriate way.

That's your answer?

Then I would ask unanimous consent for an additional 3 minutes, equally divided, to engage in a dialogue with the distinguished Member from Virginia who's controlling the time on the majority side.

If we accept unanimous consent that we have 3 minutes equally divided.

Further parliamentary inquiry.

Since when has it been the rules of the House that the minority cannot ask a unanimous consent request? When did that rule get changed? We're fixing to have a real problem here.

Now the majority can object to unanimous consent, but I at least have the right to offer a unanimous consent request.

Parliamentary inquiry.

What are the limits of a unanimous consent request? Unanimous consent means it requires unanimous consent of the House.

I asked for a unanimous consent request for 3 additional minutes. What rule did I violate of the House in asking for a unanimous consent request as a member of the minority?

So the minority has to be recognized to make the unanimous consent request?

I reserve my time.

If the gentleman will yield.

I have two additional speakers plus myself to close, and that would probably take 8 minutes, but I could do it in less.

I am just trying to facilitate the majority's request to go to the White House. Trying to be a good guy. I have now been muzzled on the House floor. We may decide to stay here all night.

We will expedite things on this side. We won't use all of our time.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to commit at the desk.

I am in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, I will try to make this as succinct as possible. The motion to commit before us says that notwithstanding any other provision in the bill that is before us, those stations that have spectrum that is going to be used by public safety officials and first responders have to relinquish that spectrum on February 17. If there's any station whose spectrum is adjacent to the public safety spectrum that would interfere with the public safety spectrum, those stations also have to relinquish their spectrum on February 17.

So what this motion to commit does is simply say that for first responders and public safety officials who have been waiting patiently for almost 7 years, they will get their spectrum on February 18. That is all it does.

I would point out that it's been brought to my attention that the entire State of Hawaii has been digital now for an entire month. They went digital to protect migrating birds who would be interfered with if they waited until February 17 to move one or two particular transmitters.

So, in the State of Hawaii, they have been all digital for a month, and there's been no problem; 143 stations on the mainland have already gone digital. There has been no problem.

The Acting FCC Chairman says that about 60 percent, and maybe as many as 90 percent of the TV stations, are going to go digital between February 17 and June 12. So I don't think there's a reason for the delay. But the motion to commit simply says that if we are going to pass the underlying bill, let's at least put the first responders at the front of the line to go ahead and get their spectrum on February 18.

With that, I would yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) in support of the motion to commit.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the so- called stimulus bill for a number of reasons, both process and procedural. On the process, we had 1 day to consider 270 pages of text in the Energy and Commerce Committee. Five Republican amendments were accepted during the markup; three of those five were stricken from the bill before it came to the floor, and the fourth one, which is in the bill, is in the bill in a different form than which it was agreed upon during the negotiations during the markup. I don't think that is really good form.

On the substance of the bill, most of the Energy and Commerce title is really social program policy and spending. It may be good, but it is not stimulative in and of itself in terms of what we are here to do.

There is one title in the energy section which I think my friends on the majority side need to know about; it is something called decoupling. It gives a utility the right to petition a State that if the consumers in that State do all these energy efficient measures and they decrease their use of electricity, by decoupling what the consumers pay for it the utility has a revenue guarantee: Use less, pay more. I mean, as insane as that sounds, it is in this bill. I offered an amendment to strike that from the bill in the committee and it was on a party line vote rejected. Every Democrat voted to keep that in the bill; every Republican voted to remove it.

So if this actually becomes law, if a governor of a State acts positively on a petition from a utility in that State, the utility can decouple what it charges your voters for what you pay for electricity regardless of how much you use. If somebody cuts their electricity use 20 percent, they pay the same. Now, I don't know about most voters, but I know my voters, if they

conserve and consume less electricity, they want to pay less; but under this bill, they are going to pay more. How is that stimulative to the economy? I think that is actually destructive of the economy.

So, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, while there is some good in this bill, there is so much that is really not stimulative, and there is some stuff that is just really harmful that we should vote ``no.''

There is one other thing. Under this bill, they struck the amendment by Mr. Stearns that says if a millionaire wants to get on COBRA and get his health care paid for two-thirds of the premium, he has got to prove that he is not a millionaire, that he doesn't have income and he doesn't have assets. They accepted that on a voice vote in the committee, but they struck it out. So there is no income test, there is no means test. Basically, Mr. Madoff, who just defrauded billions and billions of dollars, is going to be eligible for COBRA assistance under this bill. Vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks on the issue, I want to extend my personal heartfelt condolences to my good friend Mr. Boucher, the passing of his mother.

We feel strongly for you in your loss, and our prayers are with you as you undergo that transition.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to Senate 328. It's a solution looking for a problem.

We have had on the books since 1996 a requirement that at some point in time, the United States telecommunication network in terms of television broadcast transits from analog to digital. Under the old law, that transition was supposed to occur when 85 percent of the households in America had the ability to receive a digital signal.

Three years ago in the Budget Reconciliation Act, we changed that to give a hard date of February 17, 2009. If we had not had changed the law, we would have already undergone the transition because 95 percent of America's households now can receive a digital television signal. But the legislation that we passed three years ago put a hard date to create certainty of February 17, 2009.

Now, we know that there are some problems in the transition. Until several weeks ago, we were working collectively, collaboratively with our friends in the majority to move a bill that would tweak the accounting or provide an additional $250 million not in appropriations but in authorization for the coupon program that Mr. Boucher has spoken about. Then the Obama transition team, in their infinite wisdom, decided that they wanted a delay, and as far as I can tell, and I could be corrected on this, they didn't consult with any of our legislative experts on either side of the aisle in either body, the House or the Senate. They just sent up a letter or a message to the majority side that they wanted this delay, and those discussions that we had on a bipartisan basis broke down.

We could do nothing worse than to delay this date. Now, I will admit that I am pleased to note that we now know that the perfect date is June 12. I wish I had known that 3 years ago when I was chairman of the committee working on this. If I had known that June 12 was the perfect date, we might have agreed with it. But we didn't know that. So we chose February 17, which was after the Super Bowl but before the Masters and before March Madness in NCAA. That's kind of where we picked this February 17 date.

I respect totally my friend from Virginia and his facts and figures. He's one of the most well-informed Members of this body. But on the number of households that are not yet ready, the number of over-the-air households who don't have satellite and don't have

cable is less than 1 million. We think it's about 800,000. And all the other households are ready to go.

And if you're a true conservative, you could argue that there shouldn't be any coupon redemption program, that people should pay out of their pockets.

Now, I have a confession to make, Mr. Speaker. I'm one of those consumers who's not yet ready. It's not because I don't know the transition's not upon us. It's not because I don't want to be ready. It's because I just haven't got around to it. And I, quite frankly, have the means that if I need to, I can pay $40 out of my own pocket to buy a converter box.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 additional minute.

But when we were negotiating this with our friends that were then in the minority, now in the majority 3 years ago, they felt like we should defray the cost of these converter boxes. They also felt like we shouldn't means test it so that a billionaire, if they wanted to, could get a coupon. So we've actually sent out 13\1/2\ million coupons for 14 million over-the-air households that don't have satellite or cable. My guess is that most of the households that don't have these coupons are households like me, that for whatever reason they have chosen, they don't want to burden the government, they just don't feel like they want the hassle of asking for the coupon, whatever. I guarantee you no matter when you set the date, February 17, June 12, July the 4th, Valentine's Day, there are going to be some people that aren't ready.

We need to keep this hard date. We need to defeat this bill under suspension. We need to let the February 17 date go forward, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the Telecommunications Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the full committee and the subcommittee, 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 include for the Record a letter from the Fraternal Order of Police opposing this legislation.

National

Fraternal Order of Police,

Washington, DC, January 23, 2009

Hon. Nancy P. Pelosi,

Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman continue to reserve his time?

I yield 2 minutes to one of our new members of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

I yield 1 minute to our very newest member of the Energy and Commerce Committee on the Republican side, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want the American people to know that the Republicans want to solve this problem. If we defeat this bill tomorrow under suspension, then hopefully we can reach across the aisle and work with our friends in the new Democrat majority to do things that actually solve the problem.

We can actually say that money that is in the Treasury that hasn't been spent on redemptions of coupons can be used to issue new coupons. We could even eliminate the coupon requirement. We could provide a small amount of additional funding.

I have a bill that I introduced this week that does most of those things. But if we need to do something differently, I pledge to the American people and my friends on the majority side that once we defeat this delay bill tomorrow, we still have time to work together on a bipartisan basis to put together a bill that does solve the problem, without delaying the hard date of February 17.

So, with all due respect, I would ask that we defeat S. 328, vote tomorrow not to suspend the rules, and then let's work together the rest of this week and next week to solve the problem. Vote ``no'' on S. 328.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, as we debate this new SCHIP bill, I think it is important to figure out what we know about the bill and the undemocratic methods that produced it.

First, we know that few, if any, Members of Congress actually have read the bill. Despite the promises made by Majority Leader Hoyer on Friday that we would get at least 48 hours to review the bill, the new, 285 page SCHIP bill only turned up yesterday at 11:20. The 48 hours that Majority Leader Hoyer promised somehow shrank to less than 24 hours. The Rules Committee met without an official score from the Congressional Budget Office. I will stipulate that Members may not always read the legislation they vote on, but most of us at least read the summaries and analyses that our staff members prepare. And every one of us has a right to the time required to know what these bills contain.

That's what the regular legislative process is all about--listening, thinking, proposing, thinking some more, amending and debating. Implicit in normal process is the notion that all useful ideas may not reside exclusively in the minds of the Speaker's assistants.

And all this careful listening and critical thinking by House Members is supposed to happen before we vote. Democrats seem to think that's got it backwards. They want to vote first and think later. It's all about bills written in private, delivered at night, and ramrodded through here with the blink of an eye. Now, I recognize that a strong majority can do things that way, and Republicans aren't without sin. But when secrecy and arrogance are combined with perfect efficiency, the country always seems to pay a heavy price.

On this bill especially, I've been treated better by used car salesmen. They didn't want me looking too closely at their products, but they didn't dump a wreck on my front lawn after sundown and tell me I had to buy it or else. The Democrats don't want anyone to inspect their product, either, and maybe that's because it has the qualities of a used Edsel.

There has been no process, much less any fair process. Evidently changes have been made to the bill from 2 years ago, but what are they? There have still been no committee markups on any SCHIP legislation and no legislative hearings. And I can't find evidence that a single one of the numerous suggested improvements to past SCHIP bills has been incorporated into this one. The majority is interested in what it wants and nothing else.

We also know, Madam Speaker, that today is largely a political exercise. The Senate is actually going to have a real markup in the Senate Finance Committee. I'll say that again to make sure my friends on the other side of the aisle heard what I said: The Senate is actually going to put their SCHIP bill through the full committee process, including considering ideas from people not on the Democrat leadership staff.

It's possible to legislate the right way, and it's pitiful that the people's House is reduced to taking lessons in democracy from our friends in the Senate.

Over here, the tricks don't stop with tactics. Every Member of this body understands that they will be vilified if they don't fall in line and support this bill. If you don't vote for the Democrats' SCHIP bill, your constituents will be told that you hate kids. Your people will be told that the only way to ensure that kids get health care is by supporting the bill produced by the Democrat leadership without a whisper of a complaint. They want the people to believe that there are no other ideas and no other options.

Well, Madam Speaker, I want to make clear to the American people that my Republican colleagues and I do want to reauthorize the SCHIP program. We have repeatedly reached out to the Democrats and have asked for a chance to sit down with them and work on a compromise that can become law. Last year, we heard many impassioned speeches about how important it was to override the President's veto of the Democrats' bills, but after these votes those same people were literally applauding when the veto was not overridden. That's right, Madam Speaker, there were Democrats applauding on the floor of the House when the bill they supported was rejected. That's more than partisan politics, that is cynicism and deception at their ugliest.

Madam Speaker, when the Democrats stop making this about political advantage at the expense of low-income children, and decide to actually produce a serious, passable SCHIP program, I am still ready to work with them.

As it stands now, I urge all Members to reject this cynical ploy and vote ``no'' on this deeply flawed and highly partisan bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to discuss an unrelated issue that has been neatly tucked into this bill. The issue is timely access to quality hospital care in our Nation's communities.

The Majority says we don't need any regular legislative process with this bill because everyone knows what's in it. Well, my staff received this 285-page bill at 11:20 a.m. yesterday. Even with full knowledge of what went into previous versions of this legislation, it isn't reasonable to expect that people will be able to gain a good understanding of the new bill with that sort of time constraint. I would also note that since the last time the House voted on an SCHIP bill, we've added more than 60 new Members.

This is politics as usual, and it should give every new Member great pause before voting for this bill, or any bill. I don't believe that any of our new Members comes from a background where they were expected to approve a major policy on the basis of the idea that, well, it's been here before, so we don't need to read it or understand it. In fact, didn't most of us run against that sort of deceptive politics in Washington?

I want to point out to the new Members that your vote today could also cause hospitals in your district to close. Hospitals that are under construction now and intended to serve your constituents soon may never see a patient. And why will that happen? Because a few Members of your conference with clout believe physicians in your communities shouldn't own hospitals. They say that the people who care for and about their communities, who have a personal stake in the care that is delivered, those people should not be trusted.

We have had no hearings on the issue of physician ownership of hospitals in the last two Congresses. The Health Subcommittee did have one hearing last year to discuss health disparities and we heard from a physician from Louisiana. His story illustrates what can happen when physicians are able to help their communities. After Katrina, hospitals were closing and residents couldn't get care. The doctors in these communities made a difference by coming together to make sure people could continue to receive health care. Why on earth would we want to eliminate people's ability to serve their community?

Why are the opponents of physician-owned hospitals so antagonistic? I'm not sure, because these hospitals provide higher quality care at lower costs than other hospitals. They have higher patient satisfaction rates and don't experience workforce shortages like other hospitals do.

I offered an amendment along with Congressman Johnson and Dr. Burgess to strike the section that was written to eliminate physician-owned hospitals. Unfortunately, the Rules Committee rejected that idea. Congressman Boren and Congresswoman Jackson-Lee proposed a very fair amendment that would have delayed the implementation of Section 623 to July 1, 2010, so hospitals that are currently under construction could finish being completed and serve patients. That amendment also was rejected.

Last week, the House changed the rules on motions to recommit stating we could continue to have the committee and amendment process to voice our concerns. Madam Speaker, this has had neither, and it is a shame because the provision of quality hospital care is too important to be eliminated due to some philosophical bent of a couple of your senior Members.

New Members, this is an early to important test: do you vote your district or do you vote your leadership? Do you vote your hospitals or do you vote for a policy that was concocted in private in Washington.

Madam Speaker, in 1997, the Republican Congress enacted the State Children's Health Insurance Program to help children's families near poverty. But now, true to their big government agenda, the Democrat Congress wants to send the President-elect a massive increase in the SCHIP Program that will usher in a new era of socialized medicine in America.

This bill will take a program designed to help children near the poverty level and expand it to include families with incomes of up to $84,000 a year.

And Democrats will pay for this middle class entitlement with a 61 cent--$1 per pack tax increase on cigarettes.

Let's provide health insurance for children of the poor, but let's reject a liberal Democratic Congress attempt to create middle class entitlements on the backs of American smokers.

Since Congress has already reauthorized and fully funded SCHIP through March 31, 2009, we should work in a bipartisan manner to thoughtfully develop a longer-term reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

While I have been pleased to support SCHIP in the past, and continue to support its original intention to cover needy children who do not qualify for Medicaid, the bill being considered today hardly resembles the bipartisan compromise reached in 1997.

My Republican colleagues and I are eager to work with Democrats--as we did more than 10 years ago--to ensure that needy children receive health care coverage. As the program expands, health care for needy children is jeopardized. Republicans will work tirelessly to see that every currently eligible child is covered first and that taxes are not raised on the poorest among us.

The Democrats' SCHIP bill spends billions of dollars to substitute private health insurance coverage with government-run healthcare coverage. The Democrats' SCHIP bill taxes the poor to benefit the middle class. The bill uses the funding gained from taxing the poor to pay for expanding SCHIP eligibility to higher-income families. The Democrats' SCHIP bill focuses on enrolling higher-income kids instead of low-income, uninsured kids. The Democrats' SCHIP bill enables illegal aliens to fraudulently enroll in Medicaid and SCHIP.

Short of finding at least 22.4 million new smokers (the number required to adequately fund SCHIP) Democrats will be forced to either kick millions of children off of health insurance or raise taxes on all of us by tens of billions of dollars.

It is irresponsible to fund a children's health program, particularly one targeted at vulnerable children, with a declining revenue stream.

The revenue to fund this expansion will soon disappear, causing all of us to pay more in taxes.

The percentage of Americans who smoke has been dropping for decades. And research and logic both show that raising the prices of cigarettes will lead to less smoking, and therefore less revenue.

The Democrat expansion of SCHIP takes money from taxpayers in States like Indiana to pay for middle class children in wealthier States.

I oppose this legislation and urge my colleagues to do the same.