Floor Statements

I thank the gentlelady from Alabama for her chairmanship of this historic debate, and I thank the gentleman from Virginia for his leadership and his willingness to yield me time.

Madam Speaker, in January 1985, I held up my right hand, and I held my 2-year-old daughter in my left hand as I stood right out here in front of the podium and took the oath to be the Congressman of the Sixth Congressional District of Texas. As soon as I was sworn in, I signed my first bill and put it right over there in the hopper--the Tax Limitation/Balanced Budget Amendment.

The total public debt that year was less than $5 trillion. In January of 1995, I took the oath of office and then led the debate on the Contract with America balanced budget amendment. We actually had two votes that day--one on the Tax Limitation/Balanced Budget Amendment, which got about 260-something votes, and then we came back and voted on a balanced budget amendment without the tax limitation provision, and it passed and went to the Senate.

The public debt that day was a little under $8 trillion. Today, the public debt is $15 trillion--$10 trillion more than in January of 1985 and $7 trillion more than in January of 1995.

How many years do we have to stand here and bemoan the fact that we need more courage or more this or more that and then pile up more public debt?

The annual deficit this year, the deficit in 1 year, is more than the total Federal budget was in 1985--the total budget.

I want to thank Mr. Goodlatte for bringing this bill forward. I want to thank the Republican leadership for putting it on the floor.

We owe $15 trillion, Madam Speaker, and we're going to borrow another $1.5 trillion. Let's stop the madness. Let's vote for this amendment and send it to the Senate.

Will the gentleman yield?

I just want to thank you for taking this time to speak on this subject. I think it's commendable that you would do that, and I think you're exactly right. I would encourage you to keep telling the truth as you know it.

And how proud we are of you in the Texas delegation and certainly in east Texas, where you represent that part of the State so well. So keep up the good work.

I want to thank the most valuable player for the Republican baseball team this year for the time.

I want to commend Mr. Doyle, the manager of the Democratic congressional team, for his victory, and commend Mr. Clay, Congressman Clay, whose St. Louis Cardinals are playing my Texas Rangers in the World Series, who proudly wears the St. Louis Cardinals uniform in the congressional game; that in the next two, Wednesday and Thursday nights, at least one of those games the Rangers win so that they can get their first World Series championship in history. And once that happens, between them, the Rangers and the Cardinals will have 11 World Series championships.

I want to thank Congressman Hanna for his excellent work on this bill. I am a proud cosponsor of it. I have the Cooperstown Hall of Fame baseball cap on my head, which I am violating the rules of the House so I have to take it off immediately.

But it is a great institution. Fourteen million Americans have visited it in person since it was established in 1939. I hope to take my son or sons--I have two sons and two grandsons--to that Hall of Fame in person in the very near future. It truly is a history of America, from Babe Ruth of yesteryear to my childhood heroes, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, people like that, Nolan Ryan, the current general manager of the Texas Rangers, to last night's heroes, Mike Napoli, who hit the home run in the bottom of the eighth inning, or hit the double, and hit a home run earlier, or Albert Pujols, who had three home runs Saturday night, I think 14 total bases, an amazing player who will certainly be in the Hall of Fame.

This is truly a win-win for everyone. There is no cost to the taxpayer. The coin self-generates its funding. We can all celebrate the 75th anniversary of the Baseball Hall of Fame by supporting this legislation. And at the appropriate time I would encourage all the Members of the House of Representatives to do so.

And again, go Rangers. Let's win the first World Series in Texas Rangers history this week.

I thank the distinguished subcommittee chairman.

I listened with interest to Mr. Waxman's remarks. Sometimes, when there's not a lot you can say substantively against an issue, you just put a lot of stuff out there and hope something sticks; and I would have to characterize most of his remarks as hoping that some of what he said sticks.

The bill that he just spoke against is only 8 pages long. It's just 8 pages. And here's the gist of the bill. It asks the EPA, or directs the EPA, to go back and spend 12 to 15 months to take a look at the rule that it was about to propose, in other words, to go back and reanalyze it. I don't think that's gutting the Clean Air Act.

Then it extends the compliance deadline for an additional 3 to 5 years. Now, that's substantive. That could result in some additional time, which I think is a good thing. But that, in and of itself, shouldn't be a showstopper.

And then it asks that the EPA, when they adopt these new rules, to make sure that it's still allowable for cement manufacturing to use alternative fuels. Well, last time I looked, the Democratic Party was big on alternative fuels and supporting loan guarantees to develop those fuels, so that shouldn't be a showstopper.

Then, finally, it says, whatever rule that you eventually adopt, you have to be able to implement it in the real world. Now, that is an amazing thing, that we want a regulation to be promulgated that you can actually achieve with real-world technology. In Texas, that's called common sense. I'm not sure what it's called up here.

That's the bill. That's the bill. It's an 8-page bill.

Now, Mr. Waxman also said that we've had 100 votes trying to do terrible things to the environment in this Congress. We've not had one vote, ladies and gentlemen, that changed an existing statute that's already in place, an existing standard. All these votes that my good friend from California talks about are a time-out and saying, wait a minute, before we make them even tighter, let's make sure they make sense.

We've got an economy that's reeling. We've got unemployment at 10 percent. The compliance cost of this plethora of EPA regulations is in the billions of dollars annually. Billions. Billions. This particular Cement MACT rule, if implemented, would shutter somewhere between 15 to 20 percent of cement production in the United States. That's not trivial, folks. That's real.

So what those of us that support the bill are saying is: Let's take a second look at it. Let's make sure that the rules have time to be implemented. Let's let alternative fuels be used, and let's let whatever regulation is ultimately implemented actually be achievable in the real world.

I think that's worthy of support, and I would ask my friends on both sides of the aisle to support this when it comes up for a vote, I would assume sometime tomorrow probably. We've got 20-something amendments, so we're going to be here debating it.

But this is a good piece of legislation. It's common sense. It would help our economy, and we would still get additional regulation that makes sense for cement kilns.

I thank the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky.

I would like to start off, Mr. Chairman, by making the point that the TRAIN Act doesn't change any existing environmental law or existing environmental rule. It simply delays proposed regulations that the EPA has promulgated and requires a study of some of those regulations before moving forward with them.

My friends on the Democratic side would have you believe that we're going in and gutting the Clean Air Act. Nothing is further from the truth. I'm

a cosponsor of the Clean Air Act amendments of 1991, and believe it or not I'm a strong supporter of an active EPA enforcing existing rules. I have a sister whose an enforcement attorney at the EPA in Dallas, Texas, and has about a 99 percent conviction rate. So Republicans want a strong EPA. We want strong air and water quality rules, but we also want, in this struggling economy, some common sense to be used before proposing new additional rules.

There is no criteria pollutant under the Clean Air Act that is currently becoming worse. In fact, the air is becoming cleaner, and that can be proven factually by monitoring. Every power plant in the country is monitored 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, as are our chemical plants and all major source emitters. The data is there, Mr. Chairman.

The question that I asked the EPA Administrator today, Lisa Jackson, is: Is it better, Madam Administrator, to keep an existing plant that is in compliance with existing air quality regulations in production, or is it better to close that plant because it can't comply with new, more stringent regulations that are being proposed? That's the question. And that's the reason that Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Whitfield and myself and others have either sponsored or cosponsored this legislation. We want strong air quality regulations. We want those rules enforced, but we don't want an EPA that continues to go stronger and stronger and stronger, regardless of the economic consequences.

Now, Mr. Whitfield, tomorrow, is going to offer an amendment that replaces the proposed Cross-State Air Transport Rule with the CAIR regulation that the Bush administration promulgated back in the early 2000s, that he wants a delay of the proposed boiler MACT while we have a little more time to implement that. And he also has, at my suggestion, put into that amendment that we should use real monitored data as opposed to EPA-modeled data. How unique. Let's actually use what's happening in the real world.

This monitoring versus modeling does not mean the EPA can't use models. We understand that you would have to be able to model the environment and the effects, but you can use real data to put in your model, not projected or hypothetical data. Real data.

The Whitfield amendment is an important addition to the TRAIN Act, and I hope that we will support it.

With regards to mercury, mercury has been reduced since the mid-1990s by 90 to 95 percent in the United States.

The gentleman who spoke about mercury just now correctly stated the amount of mercury that's emitted, 96,000 pounds, 48 tons, 96,000 pounds. What he did not say is that that is less than 1 percent of the total mercury emitted in the country. Most mercury that's emitted is emitted by natural causes; and if you enforce the new proposed mercury regulation, you're going to get an improvement of .0004 percent, four- thousandths of 1 percent.

For an average 500-megawatt coal-fired power plant, they emit about 70 pounds per year of mercury.

We've already reduced mercury emissions by 90 to 95 percent. To get another 90 to 95 percent is so cost prohibitive that you would probably just shut down some of those plants. In my opinion, that's not necessary.

So what the TRAIN Act, in conclusion, is doing, Mr. Chairman, is just saying let's do a time-out. Before we go forward with any new regulations, let's make sure that there really is a true benefit that outweighs the cost.

In my district alone last week, a closure was announced of one plant and one coal mine that are going to cost directly at least 500 jobs. That's not hypothetical. That's not modeled. That's real. And if all these plethora of EPA regulations go forward, you're going to see thousands of jobs eliminated, billions of dollars in cost, and very problematic improvements in health.

Please vote for the TRAIN Act when it comes up for final passage.

Mr. Speaker, on October 10, 2011 we celebrate the 100th anniversary of the emergence of the Chinese people from the dynastic rule that has permeated their history.

Rising against the Qing rulers, Chinese Doctor Sun Yat-sen rose to free his people from totalitarian rule which in turn provided them the opportunity to produce the model Democracy that is Taiwan.

Taiwan today is one of the leading democracies of the world, an economic power and a leading force for peace in the Pacific.

Taiwan's present leader, Ma Ying-jeou is to be congratulated for his efforts and success in providing a climate for Peace and continuing the best traditions of the Chinese people.

Congratuations to the people of Taiwan on the occasion of their 100th anniversary.

I thank my friend from Florida for the time.

Mr. Speaker, I am puzzled by Congressman Hastings' remarks in opposition to the rule. This is a very fair rule. The Rules Committee received 13 amendments from the minority. They made in order 11 of those. One amendment was not germane and the other amendment by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) would have restricted the oil to the United States and not allowed any of the product to be refined and sent overseas possibly, and that's a function that the Rules Committee felt should be a market function and not prohibited.

So 11 amendments by the minority were made in order. This is a bill that came out of my committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee, on a bipartisan vote. All the Republicans supported it and between a fourth and a third of the Democrats supported it.

The underlying thesis of the bill is pretty straightforward. Under current law, you're supposed to make a decision on pipeline permits between 180 and 90 days. The Obama administration EPA has had 2 years on their watch and 1 year under the Bush administration. EPA has had over 3 years if you count towards this September, next month, or right after August, and has not made a decision. The bill says make a decision. Make a decision.

There is an existing pipeline. The Keystone pipeline would connect an existing pipeline that ends in the Midwest to the gulf coast. It would go to Congressman Poe's district in Port Arthur and go over into Louisiana. It would create tens of thousands of jobs in construction; it would bring approximately a million barrels of oil per day into the United States to provide competition for existing oil supplies; it would be refined in U.S. refineries; and most of the product, if not all, would probably be consumed by U.S. consumers.

This is a good bill. This is a good rule. I would ask that we support the rule and then listen to the debate and hopefully decide to support the underlying bill.

Will the gentleman yield?

In my judgment, providing more fuel supply for our refineries would liken the possibility that prices would go down.

No, that's a ``yes.'' Take it as a ``yes.'' Competition drives prices down.

Mr. Speaker, I am one of the original sponsors of the tax limitation/balanced budget amendment under the Contract with America back in 1995. I have got one of the most conservative voting records in the House over the last 25 years. Common sense tells you that our budget problem today is a spending problem. It is not a revenue problem. And as the first law of ditch-digging says, When you are digging a hole, in order to fill it, you've got to stop digging it deeper.

President Obama's budget that he submitted to the Congress earlier this year does not have a budget deficit of less than $500 billion over a 10-year period. Cut, Cap, and Balance may have some technical issues with it, but the basic premise is sound: We need to spend less money short term, this year; we need to spend less money in the next 5 years; and we need a constitutional amendment that locks into place that we, over time, have to balance our budget every year unless there is some act of war or national emergency going on that takes a two-thirds vote to override. Vote for this bill later this evening.

Madam Chair, it is my sad duty to report to the House that last night in the 50th Annual Congressional Baseball Game, our friends on the minority side eked out an 8-2 victory. We gained 87 seats in the last election. They gained three, but one of theirs is a pitcher from New Orleans, Cedric Richmond. I do want to point out to Mr. Richmond that the congressional salary is $175,000, the major league minimum salary is $350,000; and I know the owner of the Astros and the Texas Rangers. We want to congratulate our friends.

I want to tell you how proud I am of the Republican team. We have a lot of new Members. They played really hard. They practiced very hard, but sometimes it just isn't to be. And I want to congratulate Mr. Doyle and his entire team on a victory well earned.

I yield to my friend from Pennsylvania.

Reclaiming my time, I do want to recognize the Republican MVP, who did get a legitimate hit, Steve Pearce of New Mexico.

And I will point out to my friends on the minority side that this victory last night, while it is the third in the row in the modern era, makes it 36 Republican, 19 Democrat, and one tie.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2417) to repeal certain amendments to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act with respect to lighting energy efficiency, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation, and to insert extraneous material on the bill.

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

I want to start off by introducing to the body my special assistant this week, Mr. Speaker, young Jack Kevin Barton, my 5-year-old son. He is with me to help with the congressional baseball game that we are going to play on Thursday evening. And he loves coming to the floor, and he loves voting. So we

are glad to have Jack Kevin on the floor with us.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today because of something that happened back in 2007, when this body passed a bill that later became a law that effectively, beginning next year, if not changed, would ban the traditional incandescent light bulb, the 100-watt bulbs, the 60-watt bulbs that we have all grown up with. The bill doesn't truly ban them. It just sets an efficiency standard that the current light bulbs cannot meet.

The problem with the de facto ban, Madam Speaker, is that it has the effect of taking off the market one of the least expensive options for lighting in our constituents' homes. I went to a local grocery store last week and purchased one CFL 60-watt bulb for $5.99. I purchased four 60-watt incandescent light bulbs in a four-pack for $1.50, or 37.5 cents a piece. Now, obviously, a $6 light bulb is a much bigger expense to a moderate- or low-income family than a 37.5-cent light bulb.

The 60-watt CFL does claim it will last 10,000 hours, and it does claim over its life it will save money. That's probably a true statement, Madam Speaker. But what is not so apparent is that that $6 cost up front is real, and the savings may or may not occur, depending upon how long that bulb lasts, how often it's used, and under what conditions it's used.

If you assume that the average bulb is used 4 hours a day, which is what the American Lighting Association assumes, then it is quite possible, Madam Speaker, that that $6 CFL bulb won't last 10,000 hours if it's turned on and off 2,500 times. It might last half that long. So I am not opposed to the squiggly tailed CFLs. I think they have their place in the market. But to take off the market something that's cheap, effective, and in average use costs maybe two or three cents a week to use seems to me to be overkill by the Federal Government.

When I have talked about the light bulb bill in my town hall meetings and in my meetings in my district, I have had very few people, Madam Speaker, say that they think that's a good piece of legislation, that they think the Federal Government should be telling us what kind of light bulbs we should and should not use. They think we should let the marketplace operate. We should repeal this de facto ban, then let people decide whether they want to pay $6 per light bulb or 37.5 cents. Some people may decide that the life expectancy cost savings are worth it. But I bet the majority, the overwhelming majority, would choose the less expensive up-front costs of the traditional incandescent light bulbs.

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

Before I yield to the gentlewoman from Tennessee, I would point out that the light bulbs that my good friend, Mr. Doyle, just alluded to, are five times to six times as expensive as the traditional incandescent light bulb, and they are not manufactured--I think there is one facility in the United States, a Sylvania facility, that still makes light bulbs. The rest have moved overseas.

I yield 3 minutes to a cosponsor of the legislation, a member of the committee, Mrs. Blackburn of Tennessee.

Briefly, to reply to my good friend from Massachusetts, the light bulbs that he just showed, the least expensive one of those I think he said was about $1.60, $1.70. Your traditional incandescent light bulb you can buy, if you can find them, for anywhere from 25 cents to 40 cents apiece. So that light bulb is still five to six times more expensive than the classic incandescent bulb.

With that I yield 3 minutes to another original sponsor of the legislation, a member of the committee of jurisdiction, the good doctor from Denton County, Texas, Dr. Michael Burgess.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Houston, Texas, Judge Ted Poe.

I yield 1 minute to one of our vigorous new Members from the great State of Illinois, Congressman Hultgren.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

I have listened, Mr. Speaker, with interest to what my friends on the Democrat side have said about this bill. And I think in the interest of fairness, we ought to call a spade a spade. It is true that the law that they are defending does not automatically ban incandescent light bulbs. That is a true statement. What it does is set efficiency standards that the existing 100-watt and 60-watt and 75-watt bulbs can't meet. So they are effectively banned

because they cannot meet the standard.

As has been pointed out by Mr. Doyle and several of the other speakers, it is also true that industry has developed new incandescent light bulbs that do meet the standard. What they haven't done is develop a new incandescent light bulb that meets the standard at existing cost. What gets left out of the equation by my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle is the cost to purchase these new bulbs, whether they are the squiggly tailed CFLs or the new, more energy- efficient incandescents.

We're not opposed, I'm not opposed to CFL lighting. I'm not opposed to the new incandescents. But I am opposed to telling my constituents that they have no choice at all, that they have to go and fork over $1.50 or $2.50 or $6. Or in the case of the LEDs that Mr. Waxman just referred to, a minimum of $12, and the average price of the new LED lighting at Home Depot or Lowe's is $40 a bulb.

Now, I'm young enough to remember when I was a renter and I would move into an apartment, and when I went into the apartment, there were no light bulbs. The people who left took the light bulbs with them. So I would have to go out and buy 20 or 30 or 40 light bulbs. Well, if light bulbs are 20 cents apiece, or 25 or 30 or even 40 cents apiece, that is an expense but it's not exorbitant. You go out and replace 40 light bulbs at $6 a pop, you're spending some money that, to our constituency, to our voters, Mr. Speaker, that's real money.

Again, we're not opposed to new technology. We're not opposed to more energy-efficient incandescents. But why take the low end of the market off the market? Why not give our constituents, i.e., our consumers, our voters, the choice? If you're Al Gore and you want to spend $10 a light bulb, more power to you. More power to you. But if you're a young family that's just getting started, give us the option to go out and spend for a package of four or a package of six the equivalent of 25 cents apiece, or 30 cents apiece, or as I purchased last week at a food store here in Virginia, 37.5 cents apiece for four 60-watt light bulbs.

We're saying let the market work. We're saying let people make their own choices. Why in the world does the Federal Government have to tell people what kind of lights to use in their home? That's not anywhere in the constitutional requirement of the Federal Government.

And this bill that was passed in 2007 had a lot of preemptions of State and local. It preempted State and local building codes. It required historical buildings to meet certain standards by the year 2050. It had so many bad things in it that this one, while offensive, was kind of the least of the evils.

But it is also, Mr. Speaker, what the average voter, the average consumer understands. When I go to the grocery store or to Wal-Mart or to Home Depot, let me decide what kind of lighting, let me decide what kind of energy efficiency I want.

Now, it is a true statement that these new bulbs are more energy efficient; but if it takes you 10 years to realize the efficiency and the only way you do it is by leaving it on all of the time, it is spending money to save money that some people don't have. Again, purchase a classic 100-watt or 60-watt incandescent light bulb for less than 50 cents, you might use it, you might not. But if you use it all week, it is going to cost you less than a nickel. And if you use it like the average consumer, it is going to cost you a penny to 2 cents a week to use.

So do you save money? The CFL that I bought last week for $6 or $5.99 is guaranteed for 10 years and says it will save over $40, but you've got to use it for 10 years. You know, I don't think that's a very good deal, with all due respect to my friends on the other side.

What we're saying is let's get the Federal Government out of something that they shouldn't have gotten into in the first place. Let's go back and let the market operate. If these new CFLs and these new incandescents are as good as they claim to be, people are going to want to buy them. But if they are not or if they can't afford the up- front cost, don't force them to. Don't take off the market the very thing that provides price competition in the market. Even the new incandescents cost on average $1.50 to $2 a pop. And I haven't seen a CFL--I've seen them for $10 or $12, the average price is around $6 or $7--I haven't seen them even in the most energy-efficient package for less than about $2.50 or $3 apiece. And, again, if you're buying a lot of light bulbs at one time, that's real money, Mr. Speaker.

What we say is let's repeal this part of the bill. Let's also say with regards to mercury that you cannot mandate mercury. That's the section that Mr. Waxman was apparently referring to. We're not banning fluorescents. We are simply saying you cannot require mercury to be used in the CFLs.

So I would urge an ``aye'' vote on the pending legislation, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Congressman Hoyer.

It has been my pleasure to serve for 26 years on the Energy and Commerce Committee with the distinguished gentleman who is having his 85th birthday.

What some of our newer Members may not know is what a gentleman Chairman Dingell is. And the uniqueness of his character is he will impart his wisdom to those of us in the opposition party and encourage us to then go out and use it against him, knowing that he is smart enough, tough enough, and effective enough to beat us at our own game. He is truly a paragon of this Congress, and will go down, in my estimation, in history as one of the top 10 Congressmen or -women of all time.

I want to extend him my warmest 85th birthday wishes and get him to guarantee that as long as he is able he will serve in this body, because he is truly a treasure for both sides of the aisle.

Madam Chairwoman, Shell Oil Company has spent 5 years of time and $3 billion trying to drill one well in the Arctic Ocean--5 years and $3 billion. In that time period, worldwide and in other areas of the Outer Continental Shelf of the world, they have drilled and received permits for over 200 wells--200 and the rest of the world ``zero''--in the Arctic Ocean.

All this bill does is set up a fair procedure so that any company that wishes to drill a well--and the Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA, should probably be renamed under the Obama administration the ``energy prohibition administration''--can go through the permitting process and get a decision within an adequate time period.

Our friends in Russia are drilling wells in the territorial waters in the Arctic Ocean up there. Our friends in Norway are drilling wells in the Arctic Ocean in their territorial waters. We in the United States, because of bureaucratic foot-dragging at the EPA, are refusing to even let one well be drilled.

This bill changes that. It sets timetables. It sets standards. It determines where you measure the emissions. There will be some emissions when you drill a few wells in the Arctic Ocean, but they're not going to be extensive. This bill says that you determine the emissions at the shoreline, which in the case of this particular well is about 80 miles away, and you measure it there. Madam Chairwoman, there will be more emissions created from the EPA agency heads and staff assistants in their driving up to Capitol Hill to testify than there probably will be from the service supply ships that go out to service the handful of wells that will be drilled.

This is a commonsense bill. It doesn't change the underlying statutory language at all in terms of standards. It does set timetables. It does define where you measure the pollution, and it does require that you actually make a decision. It is a good bill, H.R. 2021. In blackjack, if you get a 20, that's almost a sure winner. If you get a 21, it's a sure winner. This bill is a sure winner, H.R. 2021. Please vote for it.

Thank you, Congressman Burgess, and it's good to see you in the Chair there, Mr. Chairman. I feel empowered and confident that you're going to make the right rulings as the day goes on.

We're going to have more amendments offered on this small part of the repeal effort of the new health care law than the Democratic majority allowed in the last Congress on all the health care legislation they brought to the floor. After general debate, we're going to have at least five amendments that were made in order under the rule. That's five more than Speaker Pelosi and then-Rules Committee Chairwoman Slaughter made in order in the last Congress when we were debating these issues.

Republicans are not necessarily opposed to the concept of these exchanges, Mr. Speaker. What we are opposed to is the process in the last Congress where the actual bill that became law was dumped in the dead of night, with no amendments made in order, little debate, in an up-or-down vote as soon the Speaker twisted enough arms on the then- majority side of the Democratic party to move the bill.

So we're trying to repeal it piece by piece; once that's done, then to replace it. This particular bill that's before us is pretty straightforward. It repeals the authority of the Secretary of Health and Human Services to obligate such sums as necessary to fund these exchanges. This ``such sums as necessary'' could be $50 million, could be $100 million, could be $200 million, could be a half a billion dollars. We just don't know. Those of us on the now-majority side, the Republican side, think that's bad management: such sums as necessary.

So we're not really having a debate on whether exchanges are good or bad. I can agree with my friend from New Jersey that, in concept, exchanges are good. Now, I could have a debate that if you are going to have exchanges you ought to let the market operate and determine what's offered in the exchanges and not mandate what has to be qualified in order to be a part of the exchange. And we could have a debate on what the premiums are and what the coverage is and whether you allow flexibility or whether you put these Federal mandates on what has to be in the health care plan to be part of the exchange, but that's a different debate.

The debate today, Mr. Chairman, is should the Secretary of Health and Human Services have the ability to obligate, without any constraints by the Congress, such sums as necessary to empower and fund these health exchanges. We say ``no.'' So we're going to urge a ``yes'' vote at the appropriate time so that we can take away that authority, send this bill to the other body, and hopefully have that pass, and then at some point in the future bring back a reform bill where we have the policy debate which, again, I think you can say that there will be some agreement between the majority and the minority side on the underlying policy. But on the fact that the Secretary of Health and Human Services shouldn't be able to just obligate with no oversight by the Congress how much money goes into the creation and maintenance of these exchanges, we think the answer to that is, the current Secretary or any future Secretary should not have that authority, and that is why we have put forward the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I want to read the section of the law that we're trying to repeal today. It says, subparagraph 5: Appropriations. Out of any funds in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, there is to be appropriated for each fiscal year 2010 through 2013, $50 million for the purpose of carrying out this subsection. Funds appropriated under this paragraph shall remain available until expended.

And then in this subsection: Definitions. ``School-based health center'' and ``sponsoring facility'' have the meanings given those terms under such and such and such and such.

We're trying to repeal $50 million a year for 4 fiscal years, 2010, '11, '12 and '13, for these school-based health clinics. I support school-based health clinics. Dr. Burgess supports school-based health clinics. We both represent parts of Tarrant County. The public hospital in Tarrant County, Texas, is John Peter Smith. There are a number--I don't know the exact number, but I believe in the neighborhood of a dozen school-based health clinics in his district, in my district, Congresswoman Granger's district, Congressman Marchant's district. We support those health clinics. But we believe that the State and county should provide the facility, and the Federal Government should provide the funds to staff it. We don't believe, when we have a $1.5 trillion budget deficit each year, that we need to be spending another $50 million or $200 million over 4 years to actually provide the facility, to provide construction. So it's not an opposition to the health clinic itself, school-based. I've gone to openings; I support them. I think they do excellent work.

But until we get our budget balanced, Mr. Chairman, I think it's prudent to not require the Federal Government to not only fund the operation and the staffing, but also fund the construction and the facility itself. So this is a case where we're specifically repealing a specific appropriation, in this case $50 million a year for the years 2010 through 2013, the fiscal years. And I think that is something that, with a $1.5 trillion budget deficit, is a prudent thing to do.

So I rise in strong support of the bill and, at the appropriate time, would urge a ``yes'' vote.

I thank the distinguished subcommittee chairman.

Madam Speaker, when I came to Congress in 1985, there was no such thing as a cell phone. I remember my first mobile phone was a box phone. It cost about two bucks a minute to use, as I recall. We did have personal computers, but they were big and bulky and very slow. I still had a typewriter in my office, and I had constituents who still used telephones that actually had the dial, you know, the mechanical dial. That was in 1985. Today, we have over 2 billion users of the Internet. I have two BlackBerries. I have a laptop. I have a personal computer in my home. In fact, in my home in Arlington, Texas, we have two. The Internet has revolutionized telecommunications.

Yet, in December of 2010, the FCC adopted a rule giving themselves the right to regulate the Internet. It gave them the right to regulate how fixed and mobile broadband providers disclose their network management practices and performance characteristics; to regulate how fixed and mobile broadband carriers provide access to content, applications, services, and devices; to determine whether the way fixed broadband providers are carrying network traffic is unreasonably discriminatory; to regulate how fixed and mobile broadband carriers charge for the carriage of traffic; and to determine whether fixed and mobile broadband providers' network management techniques are reasonable.

This is the regulation of the Internet.

Mr. Walden's bill is pretty straightforward. It's one paragraph. You can read it. It doesn't take much time. It just simply says that the Federal Communications Commission cannot regulate the Internet.

We have had the most successful business practice in the last 100 years, and we are trying to give the FCC the ability to regulate it? Give me a break. This isn't Republican DNA. This is plain common sense. Vote for the Walden bill, to not give the FCC the authority to regulate the Internet.