Floor Statements

Well, the former chairman, the ranking member now.

When I think of Paul Gillmor, I think of two words, ``team player.'' Earlier this year, when the Republicans lost the majority, we had to downsize the number of Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee, and I made a decision, as the ranking member, to try not to have to kick anybody off the committee and not bump off our junior members. So I went to the senior members of the committee and asked if there were any volunteers who might want to take a leave of absence to allow the junior members not to have to be bumped off, and of course Paul Gillmor was one of the ones who volunteered to take a leave of absence so he could serve on the Financial Services Committee and keep his seniority on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Because of that, several of our junior members were able to stay on the committee.

Well, about a month ago, we had a contentious mark-up coming up. Sure enough, one of the junior members had a personal family situation that they couldn't get out of. They were going to have to take a leave of absence. We needed every vote. So I went to Paul, and I said, ``Would you be willing to come back on the committee for 1 or 2 days?'' He kind of grumped a little bit about it, but he said, ``If you need me, I'll be there.'' Not only did he come back on the committee, but he offered amendments and was there all of the time and didn't complain, whine, moan or groan about how tough it was. He was a team player. He did a good job.

When we were in the majority, Paul was the chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials, which is not one of the more glamorous subcommittees of this Congress. It deals with such things as the Superfund and the Clean Water Act and all these international treaties. It's a tough job. Paul did it not only with good grace, but he did it in an excellent fashion.

Paul Gillmor is going to be missed as a friend. He is going to be missed as a Congressman. He is going to be missed as a statesman for this country. My sympathy goes out to his wife, Karen, and his family. We will definitely miss the services of the Honorable Paul Gillmor in the House of Representatives.

God bless him, and God bless his family.

Mr. Speaker, before I get into my comments on the substance of the rule, I want to put to rest a rumor. My good friend Mr. Markey is hobbling around on crutches. My good friend Chairman Dingell is also hobbling around on crutches. It is not because of anything the Republicans have done on the Energy and Commerce Committee. We actually like each other. It is just one of those years I guess for being in the majority and the burdens of leadership, is all I can say.

We have a rule before us today on an energy bill. There is not a lot you can say positive about it except that it is a rule. It is a modified closed rule. There are some amendments made in order. There is not a substitute made in order.

Now, somewhere I have a press release from the chairwoman of the Rules Committee, the distinguished Congresswoman Slaughter of New York, and I also have a press release from the distinguished Speaker, Speaker Pelosi of California, and they were talking about an open process, and when we had major bills on the floor, that it would be normal procedure for the minority to have a substitute.

So we took them at their word. Denny Hastert, the former Speaker, and myself and Ralph Hall, the ranking member of the Science Committee, and Don Young, the ranking member of the Resources Committee, and Mr. Mica, the ranking member of the Transportation Committee, we prepared a comprehensive alternative substitute. We took it to the Rules Committee. We asked that it be made in order.

Chairman Dingell of the Energy and Commerce Committee supported that it be made in order. The subcommittee chairman, Rick Boucher of the Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee, to their credit, said that it should be in order. It is not in order.

So you have an energy bill before you that doesn't have any energy. Nothing on coal to liquids, nothing on alternative fuels, nothing on oil and gas. There is a little bit of a cleanup section on loan guarantees for nuclear power plants, but that is kind of offset because you have to use Davis-Bacon to build them now.

So, all in all, what we have got is a big bill. Congresswoman Blackburn pointed it out and held it up. But it is kind of a where-is- the-energy energy bill. If they had just made our substitute in order, you would have had a chance to actually have a bipartisan coalition come together on energy.

There is a majority on the House floor on both sides of the aisle for a comprehensive energy package. We put it together in the last Congress, ``we'' being John Dingell and Joe Barton and others. We had an energy conference report that is now law that almost all of the Republicans voted for and almost half of the Democrats. Chairman Dingell signed the conference report, as did several other Democrats who are now chairmen and subcommittee chairmen in this Congress.

So if you want lower gasoline prices, if you want more refineries built, if you want LNG facilities sited, if you really want to see alternative fuels jump-started in this country, don't look in that bill that we are going to vote on because of this rule. We will send you a copy of the Republican substitute which isn't going to be considered, and you will find all of those things in our substitute.

I would hope that we could vote ``no'' on the rule, send it back to the Rules Committee, make in order the substitute, come out on a bipartisan fashion and actually vote on a comprehensive energy package.

What is in the bill is mandatory building codes preempting the States, something called green energy which is good in concept but which would require every building in this country by 2050 be a consumer on a net basis of zero energy, regardless of the cost; a preemption of building codes for manufactured housing which will probably put the manufactured housing business out of business in this country. And, oh, yes, if you are a small mom-and-pop air conditioner repairman, you are probably going to be put out of business, too, because there is a standards section on appliance standards which requires more efficient, which is not a bad idea in concept of air conditioning, which is probably going to be very difficult to implement and put at risk many, many of our small mom-and-pop air conditioning repair businesses in this country.

So what you have is no comprehensive energy package. Instead, you get a Federal Government, big brother, preempt the States, preempt the local governments on building codes and telling people what kind of light bulbs to use and what kind of air conditioners to use.

This is not my grandfather's energy package. Please vote ``no'' on the rule.

Mr. Chairman, I am not a member of the Education and Workforce Committee, so I have a parliamentary inquiry. Are we on the Education and Workforce time at this time?

My understanding on the rule was that we would go by committee, and the first committee would be Energy and Commerce, but Mr. Miller is the chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee

So, could the Chair indicate what the order is?

Well, Mr. Chairman, I would claim the time for the Education and Workforce Committee since the Education and Workforce Committee is not here.

Mr. Chairman, when Mr. Dingell uses Energy and Commerce time, then I will use Energy and Commerce time, but at this point in time I will reserve the time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), a distinguished member of the committee.

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

What is the intention of the controller of the time for the Energy and Commerce Committee on the majority? Are you about to yield back? Are you going to reserve?

Then, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of the Energy and Commerce time on the minority side until the end of the general debate.

All right. Then I would yield myself 5\1/2\ minutes, with the understanding, I want to make sure before I do this Mr. Boucher or Mr. Dingell or some member of the Energy and Commerce Committee is going to speak after I speak. Is that correct?

Then I will yield myself, I believe I have 5\1/ 2\ minutes, is that correct?

Mr. Chairman, first let me say some positive things. I want to commend Chairman Dingell and Subcommittee Chairman Boucher for the number of hearings that they have held on this issue in this Congress and this committee. I want to commend them for the draft that they circulated earlier this year in which they attempted to put forward a bipartisan energy bill that actually had real energy in it. Unfortunately, the draft that Subcommittee

Chairman Boucher circulated was hijacked. I am not sure what happened to it, but it just kind of disappeared.

We had six committee prints that were marked up at subcommittee and full committee. They were artfully crafted in such a way that no amendment that dealt with energy was germane to the committee prints. As I said at the full committee markup, I am in awe of the parliamentary expertise, but I was not in awe of the substance of the actual amendments or the actual committee prints.

This is the first Congress that I have served in in which there has not been a bipartisan approach to energy policy. In all the previous Congresses that I have served in, whether you had a Democrat majority or a Republican majority, when it came to energy policy, we tried to be bipartisan. For some reason, so far in this Congress that has not been the case.

If you look at the complete text of the bill that is before us, you see things in it that have never been seen before in an energy bill.

There is some sort of a Clean Energy Foundation that is appropriated $100 million that apparently has the authority to enter into contracts, perhaps even binding contracts, with foreign governments. That is not from the Energy and Commerce part of the bill, but it is in one of the titles in the bill.

We don't have anything on clean coal technology. We don't have anything on oil and gas. There is in the Energy and Commerce section of the bill, there is something to try to clarify the loan guarantees with regard to new construction of nuclear power plants which was considered in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

There are some sections of the bill that deal with building codes, and one could argue that section of the bill preempts State and local building codes. I'm not sure that is the kind of energy policy that we really want to implement, where Washington knows better than your local government what the building codes should be.

There is a provision that says ``by date certain''. I think the date certain is 2050, that every building in America has to, on a net basis, consume no energy. There are some exclusions based on reasonableness, but there is no exclusion based on cost, including the building that we are currently in, the Capitol of the United States of America.

Can you imagine what it is going to cost if this bill becomes law to make the U.S. Capitol on a net basis use no energy? I am not sure it could even be done, but if it can be done, it is going to be enormously expensive.

For some of the reasons I have already outlined, the administration has said they are going to veto the bill. So this is really an exercise in sterile futility because this bill isn't going anywhere. I am not even sure it will be attempted to be conferenced with the other body.

This is not the way I conducted energy policy when I was chairman of the Energy Committee. I believe it is probably not the way that the current chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee really wants to conduct energy policy. This is really a political exercise to give some Members of the majority party a forum to put forward their pet ideas and pet projects. But it is not good for the country, and it is not good energy policy, and it should be defeated in the strongest possible terms.

Mr. Chairman, U.S. reliance on unstable foreign sources of oil is at an all-time high. The world price of oil set a record just this week. Refinery capacity is shaky and shrinking fast, and I remind everyone here for the umpteenth time that no new refinery has been built in America in more than 30 years.

Americans want to know when we will start producing more of our own energy at prices that real people can afford to pay. I want to know how much ordinary Americans have to endure before the Democratic majority takes any action that actually matters on cutting fuel costs to working people?

Take natural gas. It used to be cheap, but now it's expensive and we burn too much of it for the purpose of generating electricity. That's a big part of the reason that it costs so much to heat and cool a home, but people also pay extra in the products and services they buy because pricy electricity drives up manufacturing cost. Sometimes it even drives industry and jobs out of the country.

Coal is our Nation's most abundant energy source, but the Democratic leadership doesn't see it that way. They are mostly interested in astonishingly costly and barely viable energy sources rather than the cheapest and most abundant, and it will be ordinary working Americans who will pay the cost of their policies. Don't get me wrong. Windmills and solar arrays are worthy of our support, but so is the cheapest and most abundant fuel we have. Yet coal, whether it's clean or liquefied or both, is just not on the Democratic majority's political agenda at any cost.

Even the energy efficiency parts of the Democratic bill are more sticks than carrots. For example, nearly everybody thought it would best if air conditioners and furnaces were built to match specific regions' particular energy needs. Who hasn't noticed that the summers in Texas are a little different than the summers in Maine? I'm here to tell you that the winters are different, too.

Most of us thought that buyers should get to decide on the heating and cooling equipment that works best for them. But instead of giving consumers information and choices, we're going to punish retailers who have the gall to let their customers decide what they need and want. In the view of the Democratic majority, Washington knows what's best.

In 2007, our America faces energy challenges on every front, but on this sorry day, we're not going to do anything about them. We are engaged here today in what is laughingly called a debate about an energy bill. This is hardly a debate, and this is certainly not an energy bill.

I hope we can stop this nonsense and start over and get it right. I urge my colleagues to take every opportunity today to achieve that noble goal.

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

Mr. Chairman, as the committee of jurisdiction on the minority side, we do not oppose the amendment, we support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that we have an additional 10 minutes on this amendment equally divided by the minority and the majority because we have lots of speakers on both sides.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and I yield myself 2 minutes.

First let me say that we're not opposed to all renewable portfolio standards, but we are opposed to this one for a number of reasons. First of all, it only applies to investor-owned electric utilities. It doesn't apply to electric co-ops. It doesn't apply to municipal utilities. It just applies to investor-owned electric utilities. That's one of the reasons that the Edison Electric Institute is opposed to this amendment.

It doesn't meet the standards that have been put out for renewable portfolio standards. It should apply to all utilities. This one doesn't. It should complement and not preempt State programs. This one doesn't. It should be technology neutral. This one is not technology neutral. It should provide credit for early action. This doesn't do that. It should allow for a national trading mechanism, including standardized monitoring, verification and distribution of credits. It doesn't do that. And it should include specific provisions assuring cost recovery for retail electric providers. It doesn't do that. It doesn't include nuclear as a renewable energy, and we think that it should. We think all hydros should be included. This one doesn't.

So, it is certainly worthy of debate, and I support it being made in order to be debated on the floor, but I would hope that we would oppose it when it comes time for the vote.

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

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from the great State of Oklahoma (Mr. Boren).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the great State of Florida (Mr. Stearns), a distinguished member of the committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, could I inquire as to the time remaining on each side on this amendment?

Eleven? I started out with 5. Now I have 11. This is good.

I like that ruling, Mr. Chairman.

We have some renewable minutes here, it looks like.

Really? Praise the Lord.

Mr. Chairman, since I have got a bonus of time here, I am going to yield myself 1 minute to comment on my good friend, Hopalong Markey's, comments.

If this is the energy amendment of the decade, what happened to the Markey-Boehlert amendment on CAFE in the last Congress, or the pending Markey amendment on CAFE in this Congress, or the amendment on ANWR in the last Congress, or the pending amendments we are going to have on the climate change bill that is going to come out later this fall, or the vote on the Energy Policy Act conference report, which is the most comprehensive energy bill in the last 40 years that has been adopted?

If this is now the energy amendment of the decade, my friends on the majority are not planning on doing much on energy in the next decade. It is a worthy amendment. It is good to have a bipartisan debate. Renewable Portfolio Standards are obviously something that need to be debated and discussed and continually developed. But I do not believe this is the energy amendment vote of the decade.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Oregon (Mr. Walden), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the great State of Arkansas (Mr. Ross), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 1 minute to a former Member of the committee from the great State of California (Mr. Bilbray).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the Keystone State of Pennsylvania, Mr. Clean Energy, Mr. Peterson.

Mr. Chairman, I am the remaining speaker. I know Mr. Udall has the right to close, so I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire if the sponsor has any other speakers?

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

Mr. Chairman, I have been informed as a member of the committee I have the right to close. I would ask the sponsor to close, and then I will close.

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

We have had a good debate, Mr. Chairman. It is an issue that needs to be debated. But the amendment reminds me of a Hollywood starlet, and the authors remind me of a Hollywood cosmetic surgeon. This amendment has been nipped and tucked so much that it is hard to recognize the original amendment. It is still not ready for its screen test.

I would hope that we defeat the amendment so we can then work together on a bipartisan basis on a renewable portfolio standard that could be supported. If you included nuclear power, if you included all sources of biomass, if you included the entire United States of America, and you didn't exempt one from the other, if you included municipal utilities like the Los Angeles Power and Light Utility that Mr. Waxman spoke about, you might have a basis on coming to an agreement that could be agreed upon by both sides of the aisle and some of the people that are now opposed to it.

But this particular amendment needs to be opposed for all of the reasons that people like Mr. Boucher has said and Mr. Stearns has said and Mr. Ross and Mr. Boren and others have said. So I do hope when it comes time for the vote that the House rejects this amendment so we can work in the future on something that might be supported. I ask for a ``no'' vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I can't say we really support it, but we don't oppose it. So we don't seek any time on it.

I yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, we're neutral on the amendment and seek no time in opposition.

I yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I think that those of us who are Members of the House who have watched this debate have seen that, as we have actually debated various amendments, I've gone out of my way to be as supportive of as many of the amendments as possible. We have accepted a number of them with no debate at all. So it's not in any spirit of partisanship or anything like that that I rise in opposition to this.

In the Energy Policy Act 2 years ago, at the request and after extensive consultation with stakeholders, we put in a provision that in certain cases gives the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the authority to go in and arbitrate in some of these interstate transmission, grid transmission lines where the States have not been able to reach agreements among themselves. It's a very limited authority, but part of that does give eminent domain authority that is the intent of this amendment to strike.

We don't have enough transmission grid capacity in this country right now. We need to be building more power plants. We also need to be building more transmission lines to get that power to the market. This amendment, if successfully passed, would gut what we just did 2 years ago.

There have been a number of other attempts to change this part of the Energy Policy Act. The latest attempt was in June when Congressman Hinchey tried to strip out or gut section 216. It lost on the House floor 174-257. I hope that this amendment has a similar fate if it comes to a rollcall vote.

We simply have to have the ability in this country to move electricity from where we generate it to where we consume it, and in some States like Texas, Alaska, some of the large Western States, you can actually generate it in one State and use it in the same

States, which means you are transmitting it in intrastate commerce, but in most of our States, you're going to have transmission lines across State lines. So we have to have some Federal agency to serve as an arbitrator when the States can't agree amongst themselves.

And in the Energy Policy Act 2 years ago, we gave that authority, under limited circumstances, to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. I think it was the appropriate thing to do, and I hope that we keep that authority, and I hope we would, thus, oppose this particular amendment.

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

May I ask how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to a member of the committee, Mr. Green of Texas.

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

Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me simply say that the Energy Policy Act requires that you go through the State siting process first, including going through the State court system first. If you have a problem there, you then have to get the Department of Energy to designate the particular corridor as an electric transmission corridor that's in the national interest. Then you go to the FERC, and then they go through a hearing process that then can be subject to the Federal court system.

What's in current law is carefully crafted to protect States' rights, to protect the local community but also give the ability on rare occasions to get a transmission line built that needs to be built.

I urge the defeat of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I am only in mild opposition to this, but I am in opposition. I don't really think we need this particular study. It seems to be duplicative. It wouldn't be the worst amendment ever adopted on the House floor, if it were to be adopted, but I don't really think that it's necessary.

What I really want to talk about is the current Republican chief of staff to the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Bud Albright, who is in the Chamber behind me.

Last evening, the other body confirmed him to be the Under Secretary of Energy, and so he will be leaving in the very near future to try to use some of the great things he has learned from myself and Mr. Dingell and Mr. Boucher and others for the benefit of the Department of Energy and the people of the United States of America as the number three person at the Department.

He began his public service career with the Department of Justice, where he was a prosecutor. I got to know him when he came to the Energy and Commerce Committee as my general counsel on the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee back in 1995. He went into private practice for a time. Then, when I became the chairman of the committee 3\1/2\ years ago, I asked him to be the majority chief of staff; and he has performed those duties in outstanding fashion. He has performed the duties of the minority chief of staff in an outstanding fashion. He will be leaving us to go to the Department of Energy.

I simply wanted to wish him the very best and tell him that he has many, many friends on both sides of the aisle in the House of Representatives. We fully expect him to comply with every Dingellgram and every letter of request for information and witness appearance list for the Department of Energy, which he will shortly be receiving in his new duties as Under Secretary.

I yield to the distinguished chairman of the full committee, Mr. Dingell.

I yield to my friend from Virginia (Mr. Boucher).

I ask for a ``no'' vote on the amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, as the designee of Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would modify section 9502(a) of H.R. 3221 to ensure that the Energy Information Administration restores its previously terminated collection of data on solid byproducts from coal-based energy producing facilities and makes improvements on these data.

I don't think it's controversial, and I would ask its adoption.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in doubt about the amendment. I would like to engage the author in a colloquy.

I guess for the time being I am in mild opposition.

And I may not be in opposition. I want to ask the distinguished author: these grants that would be established if the program were to be established, would they be granted on a competitive basis?

So this is not specified certain institutions?

It would be an open process with criteria, and all comers would get to submit an application and then a merit-based review of those applications?

With that understanding, I would support the amendment.

I yield 2 minutes to my good friend from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment simply to ask some questions, though I will not be in opposition at the end.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

I just want to ask the two authors a few questions.

Is there anything in this amendment that might have the unintended effect of slowing the process down even further of getting these regulations in place?

Is there anything in the amendment that could be construed to be a roadblock for any specific existing project that has not yet been permitted?

Mr. Chairman, with that understanding, I support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition only to claim time.

And I do not oppose it. I think it's one of the best amendments that's been offered. Anything we can do to help. This is obviously something that needs to be done. Not only van pooling but car pooling, also. And the more emphasis we can put on this, this is one of the most cost-efficient ways to save transportation fuels out there.

All you have to do is go to any freeway in any urban area in America and see all the cars and trucks that have only one person in them to understand how important this particular amendment is. I'm in very strong support of it and would urge its adoption.

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

We support the amendment and seek no time.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to rise in confused opposition.

We have been trying to figure out what this amendment actually does. Would the author try to explain, in terms a Texan could understand, what you're attempting here with this amendment?

Sure. I would be happy to yield.

Reclaiming my time, is the gentleman attempting to create a system where we encourage democratic government in these developing countries? Are you trying to get the countries to adopt specific extractive practices? What is the underlying intent?

This is not an Energy and Commerce issue. The Government Reform Committee is not here. So I would say we will withdraw our opposition and just be neutral based on what the gentleman has said.

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

Reserving the right to object, and I may not object, I just want to ask of the gentlewoman from California, has this unanimous consent request been cleared with the minority leadership?

And they have accepted it?

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in serious opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for my good friend from Missouri, who I believe was born in Texas. In fact, I think the gentleman was born in Waxahachie, Texas, so I have utmost respect.

Mr. Chairman, I have a GM assembly plant in my district in Arlington, Texas. The lease car that I use in my district is produced there. It is a GM Tahoe. It is a very good vehicle. It is made with union labor, which would make all my friends on the Democratic side happy. I am very happy with it. It has the engine in it that at a certain speed and under certain conditions, four of the eight cylinders stop working so you get increased fuel efficiency.

But I don't believe it would be certified as a low-greenhouse-gas- emitting vehicle. In fact, I am not sure that we have a definition right now in current law of what a low-greenhouse-gas-emitting vehicle is.

I certainly respect the gentleman from Missouri's intent on this. But I think it is premature. I think we need to wait a number of years. Let's see exactly how some of these new vehicles that are currently in the research phase turn out.

I drove another GM product around the Capitol not too many weeks ago that runs on hydrogen. That particular vehicle is not available for lease or sale right now. When it is, it probably will be a low- greenhouse-gas-emitting vehicle. But it is probably 5 or 6 years away from being able to be purchased or leased.

Mr. Chairman, again, we understand the intent of the amendment. The intent is noble. But the application and practice, I think, would be impractical at this point in time. So I strongly oppose the amendment and hope that we defeat it.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, as our distinguished majority leader and the Speaker leave the floor, I would point out that the vehicles that they drive with their security detail wouldn't qualify for low-greenhouse-gas- emitting vehicles. I am not sure that we would want to put them in a low-greenhouse-gas-emitting vehicle at this point in time given the security needs and the needs for rapid acceleration in case there were some sort of an emergency.

Again, there is nothing wrong with the intent. But in application, all you have to do is go out outside this Chamber right now and look at some of the vehicles that are strategically placed and look at the security personnel that are inside those vehicles.

We need to be practical as we pass some of these legislative items that are under consideration today. This particular amendment, given the current technology and the state of the market, is not practical to be broadly applied.

If there are low-greenhouse-gas-emitting vehicles, and again, I point out we don't have a current definition, but if there are, and a Member of Congress wants to lease them or purchase them for personal use or lease them for government use, there is no prohibition against that. But we certainly don't need to mandate it.

Mr. Chairman, again, I would strongly oppose the adoption of this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, we don't oppose the amendment and seek no time.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

In its current form, definitely so.

Mr. Speaker, if I wanted to be cute, I would ask that the motion to recommit be read, which I did a couple of weeks ago on the SCHIP bill, because it's 340 pages long, but due to time constraints, I appreciate the unanimous consent request that we consider it as read.

Okay. Hey, if you've got the time, I've got the bill.

I appreciate the gentleman from Michigan.

This is a real energy bill. There's no gimmicks in it. I'm going to try to explain as quickly as I can what's in it so that everybody knows what you're voting on. But it does have ANWR in it, and I know that's controversial. It has OCS drilling for natural gas outside of 100 miles. It has a coal-to-liquids title in it. It has an alternative fuel section in it. It has an L&G terminal siting provision in it. It has a hydrogen research provision in it. It has a hydrogen prize in it. It would have been the substitute had a substitute been made in order, but obviously, as we know now, a substitute was not made in order.

So, for Members on both sides of the aisle that want to vote for an energy bill that actually has energy in it, this is your chance on the motion to recommit.

It is forthwith. So it would immediately be in play and in this body and could be voted on for final passage.

So I strongly urge the passage of the motion to recommit.

I yield to Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

That is correct.

In the brief time I have, I want to make one correction. I said the OCS provision was for natural gas drilling outside of 100 miles. I have been informed it would also include oil. Again, in the interest of informed consent, it would allow drilling for both natural gas and oil outside the 100-mile limit.

This is the real energy security bill. It's the energy bill that actually has a supply package in it. We're consuming more energy. I know we need to conserve. The current bill before us does have some conservation measures that are worthy of support. This also has a supply package that's worthy of support.

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

Would the majority leader yield?

We presented this to the Rules Committee as a substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I have only been in the House for 23 years, so I guess I am still in some ways still a novice, but I have never seen anything like last night. When you look up on that board over there and over there, it says ``215-213 final,'' that's it. In the 23 years I have been in the House, I have never seen a vote that said ``final'' and been gaveled reopened until last night.

I mean, how important is it that you win a motion to recommit? My gosh, all you do is take it back to committee, report it back out, muscle your troops in line, and pass the bill as you want it.

Now I know there are men and women of integrity on the Democratic side of the aisle, because last week the dean of the House, John Dingell of Michigan, in the Energy and Commerce Committee, when I as a ranking member used a procedural rule to force the reading of bill, he read the bill. It is not what he wanted to do, but it is what the rules allowed and required.

The strength of a democracy is how you treat the minority, and the minority's strength is in using the rules. When we are smart enough to use the rules and win, we ought to let it count.

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I just want to offer a suggestion. There is a number on the computer on the minority side, and there is a number on the computer on the majority side. Why don't we compare numbers? If they are the same, accept the vote. We know that we are going to get beat. Let's accept this vote.

I would recommend that our distinguished minority leader show our number to the majority leader's number, and if they are the same, accept it as this vote. That's my suggestion. I think we could at least expedite this one vote.

I yield to my distinguished minority leader (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about the emergency communications provisions in the H.R. 1 Conference Report.

September 11th and Hurricane Katrina were high-profile reminders that our first responders across the Nation cannot communicate with each other during an emergency.

Ensuring interoperable communications among 50,000 different public safety systems is no easy task. While the Department of Homeland Security has attempted to address this problem over the years, the agency spent $3 billion without achieving any measurable improvements. Meanwhile, the Energy and Commerce Committee, recognizing that this issue requires strong federal leadership, ushered through the passage of the Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005 last Congress. That legislation not only cleared 24 MHz of spectrum for nationwide, interoperable public safety communications, it also provided $1 billion in grants for interoperable solutions, $156 million for a national alert and tsunami warning system, and $43.5 million for advanced 911 services.

The Energy and Commerce Committee also secured last Congress the creation of the Office of Emergency Communications so that there would be an entity of expertise within the Department of Homeland Security whose sole

focus and responsibility is solving the interoperability problem.

The legislation before us now has many shortcomings, including in the interoperability provisions, as I indicated in my conference statement. It is not a complete failure; however, as Title III at least establishes a targeted grant program specifically designed to achieve interoperability. It also places the experts in the Office of Emergency Communications in charge to try to ensure that the money will be spent wisely.

However, it is not surprising that this legislation is lacking. H.R. 1 was written behind closed doors. It skipped Committee and went straight to the Floor, where no amendments were allowed. I am deeply disappointed by this process, and the legislation itself.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Is the vote that is about to occur a 15-minute vote or a 5-minute vote?

Further parliamentary inquiry. Would it be in order to ask a unanimous consent request to make it a 5-minute vote?

Further parliamentary inquiry. What would constitute proper notice?

I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, I couldn't hear the answer. I am not being dilatory.

Well, progress is being made. Last night, if you mentioned the word ``SCHIP'' on the House floor, a point of order was made that you couldn't talk about it. At least today we can talk about it.

I rise in the strongest possible opposition to this self-executing, closed rule. I want to just recapitulate the history of the SCHIP bill as it's come through the House and the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Last Tuesday night at 11:36 p.m., after the House had had its last vote, the minority on the Energy and Commerce Committee staff got the 465 SCHIP bill that was scheduled to be marked up the next morning, the following Wednesday, at 10 a.m. So that happened at 11:36 p.m. last Tuesday.

As we all know, last night the Rules Committee got the Ways and Means version of the SCHIP bill, I'm told, at 12:30 a.m. this morning, met at 1 a.m. this morning, reported out a closed, self-executing rule, with no amendments. What does that mean? A self-executing rule means if you pass the rule, everything that's in it automatically happens. There's no debate; there's no policy argument or anything. It just happens.

Now, this is from my friends on the majority side that when they became the majority said there was going to be openness; there was going to be transparency; Rules Committee wasn't going to meet at midnight; we were going to include the minority in discussions. Such hypocrisy.

11:36 p.m. last Tuesday night we get a bill from over the transom that's 465 pages. Midnight last night, or this morning, Rules Committee meets at 1 o'clock, reports out a self-executing closed rule. That is a joke.

Vote ``no'' on this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that there be one 1 hour of additional debate, equally divided between the majority and the minority, and within each of those subsegments, equally divided between the Ways and Means Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would repeat that unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, does that mean we discuss the reservation now?

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, we have, just from the Energy and Commerce Committee on the minority side, a request for 25 speakers, plus several of our leadership. So if this unanimous consent request were to be agreed to, it would give each committee on both sides of the aisle an additional 15 minutes. I am sure there are many Members on the majority side, as on the minority, that wish to speak. I will offer it later on if you want to check on it.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, the gentleman has every right to be suspicious of the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. I am a devious fellow and I reserve all my options. But on this one, we were shooting straight and dealing off the top of the deck.

Mr. Speaker, I proudly stand for the First Amendment rights of even the Members of the minority, and I also stand for honoring the rules and the procedures developed over 200 years in the most Democratic body the free world has ever known, the House of Representatives.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

To follow up on our distinguished minority leader, I want to say what the Republicans are for in this debate before we talk about some of the flaws in the pending bill.

We are for authorization of the SCHIP legislation. We are for covering low-income and near-low-income children so they have health care benefits.

We are for making sure that the States that are out of funding receive additional funds beginning October, 2007.

So we want to reauthorize the SCHIP program. We do believe that it should be maintained as a block grant program and not become an entitlement program. We believe it should be reauthorized for a specific period of time, not become an open-ended entitlement.

We believe that SCHIP payments should be restricted to citizens of the United States and legal residents who have been here at least 5 years. We do not believe SCHIP payments should be allowed for illegal aliens who have come into this country without the proper documentation. So we are for reauthorization of SCHIP. We are for covering our low-income and near-low-income children.

We disagree with our friends on the majority side on the number of individuals that we are talking about. We believe that children below 200 percent of poverty that do not have health insurance or health coverage today are in the neighborhood of 700,000, not 7 million.

But we do understand that if you raise the level to 400 percent, if you allow States to self-certify above that level so there really is no income test, we do understand if you do that, almost every child in America, 78 million children, could be eligible for some sort of SCHIP assistance under the majority Democratic plan. But if you restrict it to low-income and near-low-income children below 200 percent of poverty, we believe that the Republican substitute, which was not made in order by the Rules Committee at 2 a.m. this morning, solves that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the Health Subcommittee on the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished former Speaker of the House and currently the ranking member of the Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from the great State of Illinois (Mr. Hastert).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Nashville, Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, page 76 and 77, section 143 of the original committee print repeals the requirement for documentation presentation for children covered under SCHIP.

With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan, a member of the committee, Mr. Rogers.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to point out CBO scores this as $1.9 billion. So somebody is not telling the truth on the floor.

I yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of the committee, Mr. Burgess of Texas.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry, where are we?

So Mr. Dingell controls the time?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman of the committee from the great State of Florida (Mr. Stearns).

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

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire of the time remaining on each side on this part of the bill?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of the committee from the great State of Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), the winning pitcher on the congressional baseball team.

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

Mr. Speaker, the CBO baseline score shows that Medicare cuts total $157 billion over the 10-year period.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Staten Island, a member of the committee, Mr. Fossella.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to another member of the committee, Mr. Sullivan of Oklahoma.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to another distinguished member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich).

Mr. Speaker, might I inquire as to the time?

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas is in a quandary. I am not aware we were able to determine anything for the other side. I don't know why they are allocating their time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished leader of the Republican Study Committee, Mr. Hensarling of Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I renew my unanimous consent for 1 additional hour of time equally divided between the majority and the minority.

Who objected, Mr. Speaker?

The gentleman has to be on his feet to object.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Parliamentary inquiry. I thought a motion to adjourn was in order at any time.

Parliamentary inquiry. What is House Resolution 594? Is that the closed rule?

Then I suggest the absence of a quorum, Mr. Speaker.

Then I yield 1 minute to a member of the committee, Mr. Terry of Nebraska.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to another distinguished member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Pitts of Pennsylvania.

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

I object to that.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to proceed out of order and engage in a colloquy with Mr. Stark and Mr. Dingell for purposes of trying to understand what is going on.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I will not object if the gentleman from California will explain to me why we are fighting over what was in a pre-agreed-upon time arrangement. We have got six or seven speakers from the Energy and Commerce Committee. We are simply trying to do it in a balanced way. The gentleman from California has 17 minutes; the gentleman from Michigan has, I believe, 21 minutes. We just wish that the time go down in a balanced way. I don't understand why that should be a problem.

I yield to my friend from California to explain to me why they don't want to use some of their time right now.

Reclaiming my reservation, my understanding was that the Energy and Commerce Committee was going to go first, and then the Ways and Means Committee was going to go in the second hour. That is why Mr. McCrery is reserving his 30 minutes.

I would be happy to yield.

I withdraw my reservation on the gentleman's unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona, a distinguished member of the committee, Mr. Shadegg.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to another distinguished member of the committee, the ranking member of the Veterans Affairs Committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).

Mr. Speaker, in addition to myself, I only have one additional speaker that's currently on the floor. I would encourage my friend from Michigan, if he has any speakers, to use some of his time at this point in time.

I reserve.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of the committee, Mr. Walden of the great State of Oregon.

I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Republican whip and a member of the committee who is on leave, Mr. Blunt of Missouri.

I'm going to try one more time here.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that there be 1 hour of additional time allotted on the pending legislation, equally divided between the majority and the minority, and, within that, equally divided between the Ways and Means Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee.

We share the same understanding.

We have the same understanding.

Hallelujah.

Mr. Speaker, at this point in time, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to how much time there is remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished member from the great State of Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Price.

(Mr. PRICE of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from the great State of Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).

Mr. Speaker, I want to yield 1 minute to the Member of Congress with the largest number of Social Security recipients, the gentlewoman from the great State of Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully reserve the balance of my time at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I just wish to make an observation that the tradition of normal procedure is to alternate between majority and minority. We just had a minority speaker. It should be the opportunity of the majority to tell their side of the story.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal), ranking member of the Health Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Member from New Jersey, Congressman Garrett.

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

Mr. Speaker, 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. Speaker, I want to recapitulate the debate as I see it today and start off, as I've already said, with what the Republicans are for.

We are for reauthorization of the SCHIP program. This program has been in existence for 10 years. It is a block grant program between the Federal Government and the States where we spend approximately $5 billion each year to help States provide health care and health insurance for low-income and near-low-income children in their States. Some States have received waivers to provide health insurance for adults and for children that are not really in the low income.

We, on the Republican side, support reauthorization of the straightforward SCHIP program.

We believe that SCHIP should be for children. A Republican substitute, which was not made in order at the Rules Committee last evening, would limit SCHIP to children; that is, individuals in this country that are under 19 years of age or under.

We believe that SCHIP should be for low-income and near low-income children. The Republican substitute, again, allowed SCHIP eligibility for up to 200 percent of poverty. We believe that SCHIP should be for citizens of the United States and legal residents of the United States who have been here at least 5 years.

We believe that SCHIP should be funded without cutting senior citizens' health care, so the Republican substitute had no cuts in Medicare for our senior citizens. We also believe that we should fund SCHIP without tax increases. The Republican substitute had no tax increases to fund our SCHIP reauthorization.

The problems with the pending bill before us have become almost too numerous to mention. But just to go through some of them, first of all, the pending bill changes SCHIP from a block grant program for a limited duration of time to an open-ended entitlement. It has authorized such sums, and there is no time limit on the bill before us.

It removes the limitation on income at the Federal level. If a State chose to certify that millionaires were eligible for SCHIP, as far as we can tell, there is no restriction on covering millionaires, if a State chooses to make that certification.

There are tax increases in the Democratic-sponsored bill. There is a tobacco tax increase that CBO scores at least $52 billion. And there is a cut in Medicare that CBO scores over a 10-year period at $157 billion.

While there is disagreement among my friends on the majority side about this requirement, there are sections of the pending bill that removes the requirement that was put in place several years ago that States have to certify the citizenship of eligible citizens for SCHIP.

Of the 465-page bill that was produced in the Energy and Commerce Committee last week, three-fourths of that bill does not deal with children. The Democratic bill is not just about the children. According to the CBO score that we just received today, the pending bill before us in the SCHIP program, by expanding eligibility requirements, would add an additional 1.1 million children, and by adding enrollment within existing eligibility, another 1 million.

The SCHIP bill that the Democrats are putting before us, according to the CBO, adds 2.1 million children in the SCHIP categories, so that all the other money and all the other things that they are doing, it is not about the children. It is about a lot of other things.

So, I have great respect for the people that are trying to reauthorize SCHIP. I know that at some time this fall, some time in September or maybe in October, we will have a bipartisan effort to reauthorize and send to the President an SCHIP bill that he will sign. But this is not that bill. This bill won't come up in the Senate. This bill won't come up in conference between the House and the Senate in all probability. This bill will be voted on one time, and that is sometime this evening. And then it will just sit there.

So I would rather, as Chairman Dingell and I talked about back in November, the day after the election when I called to congratulate him on becoming the new chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I would have rather we spent this spring working on a bipartisan basis to come to an agreement on what we could agree on and bring before this body a bipartisan bill on SCHIP. That has not happened.

This bill was presented to the Energy and Commerce Committee at 11:36 last Tuesday evening and the markup was scheduled the next day at 10 a.m. It was presented to the Rules Committee this morning at 12:30 a.m. It was reported out of the Rules Committee at approximately 2:30 a.m. this morning with no amendments and with self-executing changes that nobody had seen, until we had time to look at it this morning.

There have been no amendments on either side; not just on our side, but on their side. So the only people that really know what is in the bill, and the only people that really have input into the bill, are those people on the majority side that are working behind the scenes in the dark of night to craft this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I hope we vote ``no'' on the bill. I hope we vote ``yes'' on the motion to recommit. I hope eventually we will get in a bipartisan mode, work with our friends on the other side of the body, work with the President of the United States, and send to the President some time this fall a bipartisan SCHIP reauthorization bill that is just about the children.

Mr. Speaker, today the Democratic majority will make claims that they support reauthorizing the SCHIP program and, by implication, that Republicans do not. I, for one, fully support reauthorizing the State Children's Health Insurance Program. I also believe we should ensure that the program is covering the population it was intended to serve, and that's low-income children who don't have health insurance. It isn't for adults or for bureaucrats who think adults should pretend to be children. It isn't for men and women making $100,000 salaries. And it shouldn't be an incentive to pull families out of private health insurance coverage and into a public welfare program.

States have used the gaping loopholes in the current SCHIP program to expand coverage to include adults and people with the kinds of salaries that are still a dream to most working people. Our friends on the majority think those are blessings, not problems, and that explains why they've written legislation that makes the list of blessings longer instead of shorter. Their bill is the first giant leap towards government-run, universal health care since Hillarycare collapsed under the weight of its own bureaucracy and deception. More bureaucracy? They're for it. More welfare? They're for it. Rationing health care? They're for it. A blank check? They're for it. In reality, the check isn't exactly blank. The CBO indicates that the cost of this Democratic welfare bill will top $200 billion, and that's only for Federal taxpayers. The States' share of SCHIP will cost the state taxpayers another $300 billion.

The majority would spend hundreds of billions of dollars saying that they are trying to cover low-income children who don't have insurance. That's not what CBO says. According to the Congressional Budget Office, of the newly eligible individuals, 60 percent already had private health insurance coverage.

Democrats say they are not raising the eligibility levels for SCHIP in this bill. They fail to mention that they allow states to determine income and they also do away with the block-

grant nature of the program by providing states swollen Federal matching funds, even for families making above $200,000 a year. Now, some will say I've got it all wrong, but if I'm wrong and they're right, show me. I challenge my friends on the majority to point to the place in the bill where that would be prohibited. Further evidence that this bill is not about low-income children is that their bill actually allows for bonus payments to states if they eliminate asset tests. It looks like they do want welfare for the rich, and the richer, the better. I ask, should a millionaire's child be on SCHIP or Medicaid? I don't think the American people believe so, but the majority's bill encourages it.

Yesterday, on the floor some members spoke about how this bill would pay for services for illegal immigrants. With no true way to refute that assertion the majority, in the managers' amendment that was released after midnight this morning, added a new section that states that no Federal funding can go towards paying for care for illegal immigrants. That was a nice restatement of current law, but it does not change the fact that this bill eliminates the requirement that States verify a person's citizenship before they are enrolled. If we don't verify citizenship, this new section is meaningless. The bill even eliminates the 5-year waiting period that legal immigrants must wait before being enrolled in Medicaid, effectively inviting more illegal immigration.

During the morning session, member after member of the majority rose to say that this bill is about children. I ask my colleagues to show me where in this bill limits this Children's Health Program to children. They can't, because the bill will continue the discredited practice of siphoning off money from children's health care to buy health care for adults. We had amendments filed at the Rules Committee to ensure that SCHIP dollars go toward children, not adults, but these amendments were banned.

The majority also says this isn't kids versus senior citizens, but Democrats pay for their enormous expansion by cutting $200 billion from Medicare. The Democratic bill makes a particular target of the senior citizens who picked Medicare Advantage, and takes over $150 billion away from them. That means more than 8 million of our seniors will have their choice in health care coverage sharply restricted. This bill disproportionately harms rural and low-income Medicare beneficiaries in particular since it cuts payments in these areas so drastically that plans will be driven out of these markets.

The draconian cuts that the Democrats expect the Medicare Advantage program to take will obliterate the benefit. Again, no wonder the Democrats kept this bill away from the public eye. It is hard to explain to seniors why you are cutting their benefits.

These plans are an important option for low-income and minority beneficiaries--57 percent of enrolled beneficiaries have incomes less than $30,000. These plans can reduce cost-sharing relative to traditional Medicare. These plans also offer better access to care-- more than 80 percent of plans provide coverage for hospital stays beyond the traditional Medicare benefit, and more than 75 percent cover routine eye and hearing tests. Over 98 percent of beneficiaries can enroll in a plan offering preventive dental benefits.

These are our most vulnerable seniors. Yes, the Democrats would cut their benefits to pay for the higher income children and adults. They made this decision with no legislative hearings and developing the bill behind closed doors. My friends on the majority claim that they have had seven hearings on this. I would like to set the record straight that the Energy and Commerce Committee held one hearing on SCHIP back in February to discuss the general program, and did not discuss anything that is incorporated in this bill. They did not even invite the people who administer SCHIP at the Department of Health and Human Services to testify.

This bill was written in secret, delivered at midnight, and then rewritten from 1 to 3 a.m. this morning.

We have had little time to examine this bill, and we have found glaring weaknesses, I urge all members to be very cautious about what you are voting for because the rhetoric of the authors of the bill doesn't match the substance. The majority adjourned the Full Committee markup without disposing of a single amendment or reporting the bill. The rules Committee allowed no amendments in order. We have had more Committee process in this Congress on bills naming post offices.

It should come as no surprise that the majority wants to ram this through with no public process provided and no changes allowed. They don't want people to know what's in it, and they certainly don't want people to change it. They claim that they have to do this because the program will expire. They have had 8 months to reauthorize the program since the day that Chairman Dingell and I agreed that SCHIP was to be a high priority in the Energy and Commerce Committee. Where have the Democrats been? They claim that this is of the highest priority, but yet they sat on it until they could create an artificial crisis and then blame Republicans for daring to read their bill. I question why they would treat the reauthorization of SCHIP as a last-minute concern.

I feel it's important to note that SCHIP is only part of the Democrats' bill, which also is laden with attacks on Medicare and Medicaid. The legislation pits children against the elderly. It was brought here today out of the night, when no one was looking.

I urge Members to vote against this bad bill so we can reauthorize this program in a responsible, transparent, and open way that the powerful Democrat leadership promised to conduct the business of the Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask unanimous consent that my 4 minutes be controlled by Mr. McCrery of Louisiana.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words in support of the McHenry amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in support of the McHenry amendment. And I want to compliment the subcommittee chairwoman, Ms. DeLauro, for her openness and bipartisanship in preparing the ag appropriation bill and working with Ranking Member Kingston.

I asked Mr. Kingston, I said, have y'all held hearings on the bill? He said, yes, we held lots of hearings. I said, did you prepare a draft that was circulated in a timely fashion? He said, yes, we prepared a draft, circulated in a timely fashion. I said, was there an open markup where Members could offer amendments on both sides of the aisle? And he said, yes, there was an open markup. So I want to compliment you.

Now, I want to contrast that to the SCHIP bill. We've had one hearing in the Energy and Commerce Committee in which SCHIP was the focus of Mr. Pallone's subcommittee. The bill came over the transom last Tuesday night at 11:36 p.m. The markup was scheduled, I believe, at 10 a.m. the next morning. Chairman Dingell did delay that until 4 o'clock the next afternoon, and then again delayed the actual markup after opening statements a little bit further.

We didn't have any witnesses testify. We didn't have any open process. We didn't have a circulation of a draft. We got a 465-page bill at 11:36 last Tuesday evening. So that's, I mean, I'm in awe of Ms. DeLauro and the way she's operated her subcommittee, and Mr. Obey and the way he's operating the full appropriations committee, actually using the process. We're not doing that in the Energy and Commerce Committee or the Ways and Means Committee on the SCHIP bill.

Now, I'm told, I don't know this for a fact.

Sure, I'll yield.

And that's a sincere compliment.

I appreciate that gentleman's comment. But my response to the distinguished chairman of the full Appropriations Committee is, you've got to pick up your buckets where you stand. And this is our only forum.

I'm told that the Rules Committee is going to meet at midnight or 1 a.m. this morning to consider a same-day rule for SCHIP. Now, keep in mind, last Tuesday night at 11:36 p.m., after the House is through with its last vote of the day, we get a 465-page SCHIP bill that hasn't had any hearings on it, that hasn't had any witnesses on, that hasn't had a draft circulated. And now the Rules Committee is going to meet at midnight allegedly, or 1 o'clock this morning, to consider a same-day rule to consider that bill tomorrow.

So I respect Mr. Obey and I respect Subcommittee Chairman DeLauro for doing the process the right way. But our only recourse, unfortunately, under the rules is to come out on this floor under the open rule to strike the requisite number of words to speak on the ag appropriation bill and then talk about the travesty that may be hoisted on the American public tomorrow in which a $227 billion cut in Medicare over the next 10 years is going to be voted on, with not one witness testifying in favor or opposition, not one draft that's been circulated, not any process at all.

So I support the McHenry amendment, and I also support an open process on the largest health care issue that's going to be before this Congress this year.

We should not have the Rules Committee vote tonight at midnight to bring a same-day rule. We ought to send the SCHIP bills back to the committee, have a normal process, and then bring them to the floor later this fall where we could have an open debate in the full House.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Chairman, I spoke earlier on the second degree amendment of Mr. McHenry. Am I allowed at this time to seek recognition to speak on the original amendment of Mr. Gingrey?

Then, Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words on the Gingrey amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage my distinguished chairman, the Honorable John Dingell of Michigan, in a colloquy, with his permission.

We have the utmost respect for each other, and that is sincere, and there is nothing artificial about that.

Mr. Chairman, is it not true that the bill that was marked up or attempted to be marked up in your committee last week was given to the minority at 11:36 p.m. last Tuesday evening?

Point of Order

I understand the rules, Mr. Chairman. I am going to try to comply with the rules.

I support the Gingrey amendment just like I supported the McHenry amendment. I also believe that we should use as close an approximation of an open and fair process on the SCHIP reauthorization as we are using on the pending appropriations process; and I am informed by my staff that the SCHIP bill, which was 465 pages in length, was presented to minority staff at 11:36 p.m. last Tuesday evening; and I would like the distinguished chairman of the full Energy and Commerce Committee to indicate to me if that is a true statement.

Mr. Chairman, I understand the rules that we are operating under, and I am totally supportive of Mr. Gingrey's amendment on the Ag appropriations bill.

I listened with interest to my committee chairman, Mr. Dingell, earlier when he rose to speak about the process in the Energy and Commerce Committee. He didn't talk about the Gingrey amendment. He didn't talk about anything dealing with the Ag appropriations. So I am simply trying to get some information from him about what he spoke of, and I think the rules of the Energy and Commerce Committee require a 36-hour advance notice, and we weren't given that 36-hour notice on that bill.

And I think the chairman knows it.

I appreciate the chairman's courtesy.

Mr. Chairman, I think the majority is embarrassed to have the question answered. I think the majority knows that we were not given the bill within the 36-hour window. We weren't even given it within a 12-hour window.

Well, I need an answer to this question, and I am at a loss about how to get that answer.

I listened to my chairman explain his position. I would hope that we could give him a chance to respond to a few simple questions about what he just told the body.

So my question is, did we get the bill within 36 hours?

I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Is it within the rules of the bill that is under consideration now to go back and ask that previous comments be read to the body to see if they were germane to the pending question? Is that within the rules?

That is not in order or it is in order?

How much time do I have left, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman, I would ask my distinguished chairman, who is the dean of the House, who has served in this body over 50 years, who will go down in its history as one of the most effective Members of the entire 200-plus years of the Congress, if the current process that we are apparently going to use on the SCHIP bill once we get through the Agriculture appropriation bill----

Point of Order

With all due respect, I think that does pertain to the subject at hand.

I would like to yield to my distinguished chairman for any remarks he cares to make. How are the Tigers doing in the American League? What are his plans for the August break? If we can't talk about substantive issues because the majority is embarrassed to hear the answer, maybe we can discuss something else.

Well, it's not David Obey.

I am going to yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman, out of respect for the chairman's courtesies.

Parliamentary inquiry, Madam Chairman.

Madam Chairman, isn't it within the rules of the House while debating a pending question to include references to extraneous material?

But broader policy issues can be addressed.