Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it is 4:10 and we have finished the work of today. Should I be surprised? I wish I wouldn't be surprised. I was going to give the new majority a chance to get their sea legs in about 6 months to manage the floor so that we would work throughout the day, but I continue to get disappointed at our early departure hours from the floor.

I have got numerous dates from throughout the year where we have stopped work: January 11 at 3:26 p.m.; 17 January, 5:52 p.m.; 23 January, 2:40 p.m.; 4:23 p.m., 2:44 p.m., 2:28 p.m., 4:58 p.m., 3:01 p.m., 2:51 p.m., 3:21, 3:46. Yesterday I think we left work at 3:30. Today we leave work at 4.

The problem, Mr. Speaker, is that just because we are here more days a week doesn't mean we are doing any more work. Many of us who would like to be home to visit with our constituents or be home to visit with our families would say let's work in the evening, let's work at 6 p.m., let's work at 7 p.m., let's go to 10 p.m. By golly, let's go to 11 o'clock at night. Let's be brave. Let's be courageous.

We know there are many issues that the American public want us to address. We heard the concern from my colleague just before. But where are we? We're done for the day. No more business. Now it is just Members coming to the floor and speaking what is on their mind. What is on my mind is we ought to be about the business that we are sent here to do.

I understand the new majority, and I wanted to cut them some slack on the first 6 months. Five days a week. Let's work. That's fine. But now we're past that time. Now we should be able to say: The days we are here in Washington, let's work. Let's start at 10, let's go to 6, let's go to 8, let's go to 10. Let's get our work done and then allow 435 Members to go back to their districts to do their town hall meetings, to visit with their constituents, to take care of the business.

Not only that, but most of us live at home. Most of our families live in the

districts we represent. We can't be good fathers, good mothers, good parents when we are stuck here at 4 p.m., 4:10, nothing else to do, just wait for the next workday to begin.

So, Mr. Speaker, my simple point is, if we are going to work here in Washington, can't we please go back to working in the evening? I don't think that is too much to ask for.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Zion Evangelical and Reformed United Church of Christ in Addieville, IL. One hundred years ago this past Saturday, the congregation of Zion Church of Christ set the cornerstone of their present church building. Contents of the cornerstone included, among other things, the church constitution, membership list, a catechism, songbook, and church calendar.

On May 31, 1908, the new church was finally completed. Over 3000 parishioners and spectators attended the dedication services, The magnificent edifice was erected at a cost of $23,000 dollars and was hailed in the Nashville Journal as the finest church in Washington County, IL.

But while a sturdy and beautiful building is a testament to the handiwork of the church's carpenters and craftsman--the success of the Zion Church over the course of a century is a living testament to the souls who fill the church pews. May God continue to bless the Zion Church for another hundred years.

Mr. Speaker, this rule is a joke. It does nothing for supply. No renewable fuel standard, no alternative fuel standard, 7 minutes for debate by the minority side on energy policy in this country. Are you crazy?

Coal. Take it down then, take it down, if you want. This is coal, our largest resource in this country, to help decrease our reliance on imported crude oil. What will it do for the economy? Coal-to-liquid, 1,000 jobs, 2,500 construction jobs, 15 million tons of coal, up to 500 coal-mining jobs. You all say no.

What's it do for our national security, coal, to coal-to-liquid refinery, to pipelines to fuel our Air Force? Our Air Force is demanding liquified gasoline moved into jet fuel to decrease our reliance on important crude oil, and you guys won't bring up an energy bill? Shame on you.

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to count to 10 and make sure I'm calm and deliberative. I do appreciate my friends on the other side.

Throughout the process in our committee, numerous times I've heard the promise that we will have coal provisions in the Greenhouse Gas Bill this fall, and I think we kind of heard it again today. I am skeptical. I am a doubter. I don't believe it will happen. That's why I'm upset about the bill today.

We just heard Education and Workforce people talk about jobs. I'll talk about jobs; coal-to-liquid jobs. One coal-to-liquid refinery that produces 80,000 barrels of coal-to-liquid, a thousand jobs, 2,500 to 5,000 construction jobs, 15 million tons of coal per year, and up to 500 coal mining jobs. Those are real jobs with great benefits and great wages.

Energy security. We have our soldiers deployed in the Middle East, and they've been there for a lot of reasons for many, many years. I think it was Carter who said the Persian Gulf region was an important national security interest. Why? We know why. Crude oil. How do we decrease that importance of the Persian Gulf region? We move to coal- to-liquid technologies, our coal fields to a coal-to-liquid refinery, through a pipeline to fuel our aviation assets that the Department of Defense really wants.

What is wrong with this bill? Everything. No soy diesel. No renewable fuel standard. No ethanol. No renewable fuel standard. No coal. No alternative fuel standard. Nothing on nuclear energy. No expansion. There is no supply in this bill. Defeat this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about natural gas for a few minutes. Natural gas is a major commodity product in a lot of what we do in our country. I think this chart basically shows that as the price of natural gas goes up jobs go down. We are not competitive with countries around the world on natural gas.

Look what we have done and what we continue to do in this bill. It is amazing how our major coastal States want to drive us to energy efficiency, they want to use electricity, but they don't want us to use the natural resources off their coast.

This is a map of our country. It shows all the areas in red that are off limits for natural gas exploration. So we have the States of Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont; we have the great State of California, Oregon, Washington State. Guess what? It is okay if we use natural gas, but don't get it from our Outer Continental Shelf.

What do they do in this bill? They put a big ``don't get it from'' the mountain States any more. So we continue to want to use electricity, we continue to want to use natural gas, but you know what, we don't want to explore for it. That is why I am concerned about this bill.

I have great friends, and I appreciate the efficiency debate. Light cars, light bulbs, it could be a little bit of help.

But if we don't move with a renewable fuel standard, if we don't use coal in an alternative fuel standard, if we don't continue to move on ethanol, if we don't expand nuclear options and hopefully move to a hydrogen economy, we're kidding ourselves. We have to do both. To come to this floor and say that this is going to decrease our reliance on imported crude oil and this is going to make us safer is not correct.

Vote against this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member and my good friend, Congresswoman Tauscher.

This is a tough bill, and I appreciate it being brought to the floor. People know I come here heartfelt because of my 25 years connected with the United States Army. I don't like to throw that out. You know that. An Army Ranger and Army paratrooper, still an active reservist, but I have become frustrated that we are losing sight of why we have a military.

The mission of the United States military is to fight and win our Nation's wars. Now, many people don't want us to have a military, I understand that, but I think the best hope for democracy and freedom in the world today, even in our work with NATO, is a strong, powerful, committed, professional United States military, and we work on that with our NATO allies.

The mission of the infantry is to get close with and destroy our enemies. Destroy our enemies, to go after them and fight them and send down the message that we're going to fight you until you leave us alone.

Now, there are folks on the other side who don't want us to have that. I am one that thinks it's necessary to have in this country. So I don't think we're in conflict. I do think that we have lost some faith in our leadership in the military. I still have it. I still think our career military officers will make the tough call to deploy and use their troops.

I'm going a little bit slower than I hoped because I'm talking from the heart, but more than just the officer rank, it's the career enlisted leaders. In the Army, it's the command sergeant majors all the way up, from the commanding down to the first sergeant in the company. You have to believe that they will raise the issue about whether their troops cannot perform the mission. That is part of who they are. And when you fight in the trenches and you develop that bond that makes you an effective fighting force, how dare they not think about their soldiers first. I think they do.

I believe in the military. I think their heart's right, and our volunteer military is the best on the face of the earth today. I know we want to keep it that way.

I'm not sure this is the right way to go, but I just wanted to come down and talk from the military's perspective.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, upon conclusion of this debate, I will be offering the motion to recommit.

The motion to recommit will require the House conferees to adopt the House position, which was supported in a motion to instruct conferees on this floor only 2 days ago by a vote of 258-167, 69 of them being Democrats, including nine Science Committee Democrats.

For fiscal conservatives, this would require the conferees to insist on the overall House authorization level, which is $20 billion less. For the second part of this motion, it would require the House conferees to again support the previously adopted House position with regard to giving priority grants to expand domestic energy production through the use of coal-to-liquid technology and advanced nuclear reprocessing.

Again, this was the exact motion to recommit of 2 days ago.

I have heard the debate of my friends: if we want to have a blueprint to where we want to go, we want to go for energy security. We are going to take up a bill on the House floor in a day or two that has no energy production. So how are we going to go advance science research, the next generation, if we don't have priority grants in nuclear reprocessing and coal-to-liquid technology?

We heard the debate. We know that people want to go to coal-to-liquid technologies, but we don't know if it's going to work. We don't know if we can sequester. We don't know if we can refine it less than the barrel of crude oil. That's what this energy is for. Energy security.

Let's get our best minds on this, but the conference report pulled it out. That's why I will offer the motion to recommit.

Two things on coal-to-liquid, I could talk about nuclear reprocessing all day. It should be in this bill. But I want to focus on coal-to- liquid technology, economic security, national security.

Look what coal-to-liquid does, are 80,000 barrels, 1,000 new jobs, 2,500 to 5,000 construction jobs, 15 million tons of coal per year, up to 500 coal mining jobs in one coal-to-liquid refinery.

Talk about national security? Here's national security for you. Are you tired of our reliance on imported crude oil from the Middle East? If you are tired of it, then you go to coal-to-liquid technologies. You take our coal that's under our ground. You move it up to a refinery that's not on the gulf coast, that's in the Midwest, or wherever there are coal fields in this country, you refine it, you put it in our pipelines, and as this shows, you know where it goes? To our jet fighter planes, to our jet cargo planes.

The Department of Defense is crying for us to provide jet fuel for them through this technology. But, no, we can't do it.

Here you got a science bill, you want to give grants to help us move in the next generation, you pull out nuclear reprocessing, and you pull out coal-to-liquid technology. You are going to bring to the bill an energy bill with no energy. That's why I am moving this motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.

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

Mr. Speaker, under the current Illinois SCHIP program, it covers up to 200 percent of poverty, $41,300 in annual income for a family of four; 26,830, or 31 percent of all families with children under the age of 18, in my district are already eligible for either Medicaid or SCHIP.

In this bill, Democrats have opposed cutting at least $194 billion in Medicare spending. Specifically, the Democrats have proposed cutting Medicare spending for 6,070 seniors in my district who

are currently enrolled in Medicare Advantage. Payments for hospital inpatient care will be cut $2.7 billion; inpatient rehabilitation services, $6.6 billion; skilled nursing facilities, a $6.5 billion cut; certain drugs, $1.9 billion in cuts; home health care, $7.2 billion; end-stage renal disease cut by $3.6 billion; motorized wheelchair and oxygen cuts.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the patriotism of Mr. Jim Wham of Centralia, Illinois. Mr. Wham delivered a passionate speech this past May 5th expressing the importance of winning the War on Terror.

In his brief message, Mr. Wham, an attorney at law in my district, remarked on the immense debt we owe our fighting men and

women for this sacrifices they have have made in this war and rebuked the defeatists who would set an arbitrary date for surrender.

Therefore, I respectfully submit the text of Mr. Wham's speech for the Record in the hopes that others will stand with him in support of our troops and the mission for which they fight.

[From the Sentinel, May 8, 2007]

2007 Tribute to the Troops

(By Jim Wham)

I want to commend the 15th Street Church of God for this

event at the Bandshell. This evening of prayer and song forms

the perfect occasion to recognize the men and women serving

this country in the Armed Forces of the United States. Each

one of them and their families are making a sacrifice unlike

any other.

Every American when called to serve in the Armed Forces of

the United States performs the duty assigned to him or her by

the Commander-in-Chief and not by Congressmen and Senators.

I thought of each life of these men and women and all

others who served their country. The course and destiny of

their lives are set by chance assignment of that duty. Some

come back unscathed, others marked by grievous wounds and

others never come back.

The month of May is the month we pay honor to the men and

women on Armed Services Day a couple of weeks from now, and

then a week later, Memorial Day--a day when everyone in this

land of liberty must stop, look to the story of the soldiers,

sailors and marines who fell on battlefields--went down in

sinking ships--in crashing planes--in the deserts--in the

jungles--in the towns--all over this world during the entire

lifetime of this nation.

The unknown soldiers and the unsung heroes--there are

thousands and thousands of them. These gallant men and women

most likely will never be known by the people for what they

did. They served and they did not ask for glory. Their deeds

of valor on battlefields and oceans and in the air never had

a chance to be forgotten because they remained unspoken and

unknown.

The American people never forget these known and unknown

living and dead Americans--this ever expanding LEGION OF

HONOR has never let their country down and no one in this

country should ever let them down.

Jesus tells us ``Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall

be called the children of God.'' The peacemakers--they are

the men and women in the American Armed Forces--the

peacemakers who in defending freedom do so to bring peace to

the world--God's world and to the children of God.

The tyrants foment conflict and war. The armed forces of

the U.S. are always against the tyrant--never in support of

the tyrant, and these American men and women we honor today--

honor them for opposing a tyranny of a new dark age, a

tyranny of worldwide terrorism--a dark age spawned from the

dens of terrorists throughout the world even in this country

and in our allies Britain and Israel as well as in countless

other nations.

These insane religious fanatics misuse their religion to

cultivate and persuade thousands of suicide bombers to

destroy multi-thousands of innocent people who are unlucky

enough to be at the wrong place at the wrong time when the

suicide bomber explodes himself in their midst.

This war in Iraq is no civil war--it is a war against gangs

of vicious mad dog criminals who want to kill off any

democratic government that can be formed--a government that

people yearn for and deserve. These criminals know that they

cannot succeed as long as American troops are in Iraq helping

good people form a democracy.

These criminals hide in the casbahs and mountains while

promoting their lackeys to kill themselves and others, hoping

that such killings will aid the second-guessers in America to

oppose the Commander-in-Chief by insisting on a day of

surrender--a day to leave the Middle East--a day to quit any

resistance against the terrorists.

These second-guessers proclaim to the world that the war is

lost; their words bring smiles to the evil faces of those

marauders. These quitters are like a quarterback shouting to

the other team. ``We're not going to pass, we're runnin'

around the left end.''

We are running away from you--the terrorists--is the

message of the quitter.

If they want to win a war they say is lost, they, the

second guessers not the President, must change their tune

because quitters never win.

The Scripture proclaims ``If the trumpet gives an uncertain

sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle.'' There are

far too many uncertain trumpets being sounded in Washington

today and in the national news media. These uncertain

trumpets inspire nothing but joy in the haunts of the

terrorists who love to hear those mournful tunes in the USA.

When these friends from Hell see the leader of the Senate

on television proclaim the war is lost, the terrorists around

the world applaud and promote more suicide bombers to hasten

the day of American surrender.

And when they see and hear the Senate leader condemn the

Vice President, they applaud again and try to kill him in

Pakistan.

Don't these second guessing quitters know that the United

States has a vital interest to contest the terrorist in the

Middle East--in that caldron of hatred and insanity which is

the launching pad for terrorists against this country and its

allies?

Don't be second-guessers give any thought at all to the

downside of an American surrender by pulling out of that part

of the world?

Every concerned American who stops, looks, and listens to

the present day happenings knows the disastrous downside of

an American pull-out from Iraq.

It would proclaim to the world an American confession that

terrorism has won a victory over the United States.

World power of the United States would evaporate.

No longer would the United States lead in the battle for

peace and freedom which is so necessary to the salvation of

our own way of life.

Do the quitters ever envision their day at the Baghdad

airport--when a thousand transport planes land and take off

with the American army to the dismay of every decent person

who knows that there goes the last best chance for peace and

freedom?

Why can't these quitters envision that into the vacuum left

behind, the criminal gangs of the Taliban, al Qaeda, the

death squads of both Sunnis and Shiites will seize the

opportunity in a common cause against their own people and

against America and her allies by joining together these

legions of evil against the decent people of the Middle East.

Doesn't it occur to the quitter that a coalition of Iran,

Iraq and Syria under despotic leaders will bring pressure and

threat of conquest against Saudi Arabia and Kuwait as Saddam

Hussein attempted to do in the 1990's Desert Storm?

Can't the quitters envision the utter chaos that will come

when the nuclear bomb is developed in Iran or acquired from

North Korea and those reckless fanatics threaten their

surrounding countries to joint the crowd?

If America is gone from Iraq, will that insane fanatic from

Iran, Ahmadinejad press the button that will lead to a

premature Armageddon in Israel?

A hundred years ago, when Teddy Roosevelt was President, he

spoke these words about this nation's destiny: ``We have no

choice as to whether or not we shall play a great part in the

world. That is already the case. ``All that we can decide is

whether we shall play it well or play it ill.''

Thus far, we have played it well but we are now at the

crossroads of the decision that will affect all mankind. The

question is, will we stay and fight for freedom and for peace

or will we forfeit the field to those vicious criminals who

in no way respect the God-given miracle of life.

Rudyard Kipling--the great British patriot and poet of the

19th and 20th Centuries put to verse the lesson of

perseverance in long lasting battles. Here's the way he wrote

it:

``How do we know, when the long fight rages,

On the old, stale front that we cannot shake,

And it looks as though we were locked for ages.

How do we know they are going to break?

There is no lull in the level firing,

Nothing has shifted except the sun.

Yet we can feel they are tiring, tiring--

Yet we can tell they are ripe to run.

Something wavers, and, while we wonder,

Their centre-trenches are emptying out,

And, before their useless flanks go under,

Our guns have pounded retreat to rout.''

In other words, we win by hanging on.

My friends, American forces are going to win this war

against terrorism. The war is not lost and no one should

listen to the quitters because they are the losers of the

present and the future.

If we but stand fast with the troops and our Commander-in-

Chief, the fiends of Hell will lose. And the sacrifice of

these gallant men and women we honor today will not have been

in vain. They must not be let down by quitting and surrender.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I start a period of time in which we're going to take opportunity to talk about SCHIP.

I strike the last word to speak about the expansion legislation that was pulled from the Energy and Commerce Committee. Reportedly, it will be on the floor later this week, and I would like to highlight the damage it will do, if enacted. Specifically, I'd like to take this opportunity to speak about the very popular Medicare Advantage program.

In Illinois, there are 1,715,548 Medicare beneficiaries. Of these, 145,600, or 8 percent, have selected to receive their health care coverage through a Medicare Advantage plan. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, there are over 6,000 Medicare beneficiaries in my district that are currently enrolled in a Medicare Advantage program.

One of the most troubling things I have heard about the Democrats' bill is actually from Peter Orzag, who is the Director of the Congressional Budget Office. The Director said that under the Democrats' bill, Medicare Advantage enrollment would fall by approximately 8.2 million currently to 5.5 million in 2012, a reduction of 33 percent from current enrollment levels.

Medicare beneficiaries are among this Nation's most vulnerable citizens, and access to comprehensive high-quality affordable health care is imperative to their well-being. As we well know, the population of the United States over age 65 is growing rapidly. The average Medicare beneficiary is likely to have two or more chronic illnesses. Medicare beneficiaries should have choices for their health care coverage similar to those available to individuals under age 65. We should allow them to choose plans that best meet their unique health care needs and to help them coordinate their care, manage their illnesses, and reduce their out-of-pocket costs.

On average, beneficiaries that choose a Medicare Advantage plan in Illinois are receiving over $60 in extra value each month from their plans. This extra value comes in the form of savings on cost sharing and out-of-pocket protections and on lower part D premiums, or additional benefits like coverage for vision and hearing. Beneficiaries in Medicare Advantage plans report better access to care, more usual sources of care, and more likelihood of seeking care when needed than beneficiaries in traditional fee-for-service operations.

CMS has recently reported that beneficiaries in fee-for-service with no additional sources of coverage have more difficulty getting care and are less likely to have usual source of care than Medicare Advantage enrollees.

All Medicare beneficiaries have access to a Medicare Advantage plan that does not require cost sharing for screenings for breast cancer, cervical cancer and prostate cancer. Recently, CMS has reported that Medicare Advantage enrollees are more likely to receive preventative services, such as immunizations, mammography, and screenings for colorectal and prostate cancers.

Critics have implied that the Medicare Advantage program is contributing to the solvency problems facing the Medicare trust fund. However, these critics fail to recognize the extra value that Medicare Advantage plans provide that address the real drivers in increasing program costs. Medicare Advantage plans help control the volume and intensity of services used by beneficiaries in Medicare part A and part D by coordinating care, improving health outcomes, and monitoring enrollee usage.

Medicare Advantage generates savings in the part D program by helping to drive down the average premium paid by the government and beneficiaries, and by reducing Federal expenditures for beneficiaries eligible for low-income subsidies.

Critics have further distorted the facts by offering information that claims to suggest a ``fairness gap'' between Medicare Advantage payments and the other providers. In fact, Medicare Advantage payment rates increase in direct proportion to the Federal Government's estimates of increases in per capita costs in the fee-for-service program.

Some critics suggest that legislators must choose between providing comprehensive health coverage options to Illinois seniors through the Medicare Advantage program or providing coverage to Illinois uninsured children through SCHIP. Both programs play a crucial role in serving vulnerable populations. We should focus on devoting adequate resources to both SCHIP and Medicare Advantage, while working to maintain and strengthen all components of our Nation's health care safety net.

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

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Gingrey

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, in 1997, a Republican-led Congress passed the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, a program that combines the best of public and private approaches to delivering vital health care coverage to low-income children across the country.

Today this program provides coverage to 6.6 million children and has lowered the insurance rate by nearly 25 percent. Unfortunately, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle decided not to include us in crafting the reauthorization of SCHIP. In addition, it included many other provisions affecting Medicare, without any input from the minority.

The legislation put forth by the Democrats has many problems, and I have serious reservations on how they propose to fund this legislation. Specifically, there are proposed funding streams in the bill passed out of the Ways and Means Committee that seek to take money out of end- stage renal disease programs by establishing policies that are shortsighted and ill-advised.

As currently structured, this proposal takes funding from among the sickest patients in the Medicare program, those who have end-stage renal disease, and reallocates it to a massive SCHIP expansion. As a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I was pleased to learn that Chairman Dingell was prepared to offer an amended version of the CHAMP Act that did not include any end-stage renal disease cuts, and, as indicated by CBO score sheets of Chairman Dingell's amendment, that do not include entries for any end-stage renal disease provisions.

It was unfortunate that the bill was discharged from the Energy and Commerce before amendments could be offered to strike these cuts, but I wholeheartedly agree that we should not be making cuts to end-stage renal disease, which treats some of the sickest patients in Medicare, to fund SCHIP expansion.

As the CHAMP Act currently stands, my concerns with end-stage renal disease are twofold. First, the bill proposes to disrupt the market- based average sales price reimbursement system that Congress worked hard to pass in the Medicare Modernization Act. This average sales price payment system was first implemented in the physician setting in 2005 and the end-stage renal disease setting for all drugs in 2006.

This system has been a great success across the board, and moving to reimbursement rates of ASP plus 6 percent has demonstrated significant savings. In fact, the Office of Inspector General estimated annual savings of $1 billion because of the shift from the old average wholesale price system to the ASP system in 2005.

Starting in 2006, the average sales price system includes drugs used to treat anemia in end-stage renal disease patients, as well as all other end-stage renal disease drugs. MedPACs have noted a decline in end-stage renal disease drug spending since the implementation of the average sales price, and when looking at erythropoietin stimulant agents, which are biologics used to treat anemia in end-stage renal disease, specifically it is clear that the ASP has resulted in a reduction in the price of Medicare, which had previously paid for these biologics going from $10 under a statutory rate in 1994 to 2004.

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

If there are cuts in one bill based upon increased spending in another, is that financial connection enough to continue to proceed?

Starting in 2006, the average sales price system included drugs used to treat anemia and end-stage renal disease patients as well as other end-stage renal disease drugs.

Additionally, there are provisions in the bill that propose to institute a statutory price control rate. It would be a mistake to change a system that has reduced prices for this medicine by 6.8 percent since the average sales price-based reimbursement system was implemented in January of 2006; 9 percent compared to what Medicare paid for the drug back in 1994 under a statutory price control rate.

This market-based system is working to drive down prices for Medicare in Congress, and Congress shouldn't try to fix something that's not broken. Most importantly, I also question how a cut in payment would affect patient care. A payment cut may create financial incentives to reduce or ration clinically beneficial drugs.

Dialysis providers may reduce their costs by providing fewer services and drugs, transferring patients to another setting of care, or discharging patients more quickly.

Mr. Chairman, in 1997 a Republican-led Congress passed the State Children's Heath Insurance Program (SCHIP)--a progam that combines the best of public and private approaches to delivering vital health coverage to low-income children across this country.

Today this program provides coverage to 6.6 million children and has lowered the uninsured rate by nearly 25 percent.

Unfortunately, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle decided not to include us in crafting the reauthorization of SCHIP and in addition, included many other provisions affecting Medicare without any input from the minority.

The legislation put forth by the Democrats has many problems, and I have serious reservations on how they propose to fund this legislation.

Specifically, there are proposed funding streams in the bill passed out of the Ways and Means Committee that seeks to take money out of the End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) program by establishing policies that are shortsighted and ill-advised.

As currently structured, this proposal takes funding from among the sickest patients in the Medicare program, those that have ESRD, and reallocates it to a massive SCHIP expansion.

As a member of the Energy & Commerce Committee, I was pleased to learn that Chairman Dingell was prepared to offer an amended version of the CHAMP Act that did not include any ESRD cuts as indicated by CBO score sheets of Chairman Dingell's amendment that do not include entries for any ESRD provisions.

It was unfortunate that the bill was discharged from Energy and Commerce before amendments could be offered to strike these ESRD cuts, but I wholeheartedly agree that we should not be making cuts to the ESRD, which treats some of the sickest patients in Medicare, to fund SCHIP expansion.

As the CHAMP Act currently stands, my concerns with the ESRD provisions are two-fold.

First, the bill proposes to disrupt the market based Average Sales Price (ASP) reimbursement system that Congress worked hard to pass in the Medicare Modernization Act (MMA).

This ASP payment system was first implemented in the physician setting in 2005, and the ESRD setting for all drugs in 2006.

This system has been a great success across the board and moving to reimbursement rates at ASP+6 percent has demonstrated significant savings.

In fact, the Office of the Inspector General estimated annual savings of $1 billion because of the shift from the old Average Wholesale Price (AWP) system to the ASP system in 2005.

Starting in 2006, the ASP system included drugs used to treat anemia in ESRD patients, as well as all other ESRD drugs.

MedPAC has noted a decline in ESRD drug spending since the implementation of ASP and when looking at Erythropoeitin Stimulating Agents (ESAs), which are biologics used to treat anemia, in ESRD specifically, it is clear that ASP has resulted in a reduction in the price Medicare had previously paid for these biologics--going from $10 under a statutory rate from 1994-2004 to $9.10 today for one of these ESAs--EPOGEN. This is a 9 percent drop which represents real savings.

Additionally, there are provisions in the bill that propose to institute a statutory price controlled rate that would distort the market and ASP system by establishing a cap which restricts Medicare payment at a statutory rate of $8.75 or ASP+2 percent, whichever is less.

It would be a mistake to change a system that has reduced prices for this medicine by 6.8 percent since the ASP-based reimbursement system was implemented in January 2006 and by 9 percent compared to what Medicare paid for the drug back in 1994 under a statutory price controlled rate.

This market-based system is working now to drive down prices for Medicare and Congress shouldn't try to fix something if it's not broken.

Most importantly, I also question how a cut in payment would affect I patient care. A payment cut may create financial incentives to reduce or ration clinically beneficial drugs.

Dialysis providers may reduce their costs by providing fewer services and drugs, transferring patients to another setting of care, or discharging patients more quickly.

So when we are looking for ways to save money, a reduction in reimbursement levels could actually result in unintended consequences, such as increasing the number of ESRD patients who are hospitalized.

Published studies show that patients who are under dialyzed or who are suffering from anemia are more likely to be hospitalized.

Increases in hospitalization due to dialysis payment changes could end up being very costly to Medicare and taxpayers.

This is just bad policy rationale.

I am also concerned with a provision that would move to a fully bundled dialysis composite rate--that is bundling drugs and other separately billable services into a composite rate--for large dialysis providers beginning in 2010, and for all other dialysis providers by 2013.

Since passage of the MMA in 2003, CMS has tried to design and test a fully bundled payment system and has been unsuccessful.

I believe that CMS must be given more time to study this issue and complete the bundling demonstration authorized in the MMA that it has been working to implement to ensure that all of the complex factors that go into a bundled payment are accounted for and that patient care and access are not harmed under a bundled payment system.

Again, bundling may create financial incentives to reduce or ration care resulting in worse health outcomes.

An insufficient Medicare payment could cause facilities to close their doors or result in poor patient outcomes.

This underscores the need to test a bundled payment through a demonstration first before implementing.

Congress and CMS should be fully informed on how to protect patient access and quality before implementing bundling system-wide.

Although I am committed to the reauthorization of SCHIP I cannot support these types of cuts to Medicare.

I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the Democrats' SCHIP expansion in its current form.

Point of Order

If the gentleman from Illinois controls the time, I yield to my colleague from Georgia.

Especially in this debate, the end stage renal disease aspect; and that is the nexus.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Foster Township in Madison County, IL, upon her sesquicentennial. Foster Township includes all of town 6 range 9 west. A celebration will be held in Fosterburg, IL, on August 18 and 19, 2007 to celebrate this special occasion.

Though impossible to know for certain who the first settlers of the township were, legend is that Granny McAfee and her family settled in section 28 in 1816. On October 11, 1820 the first known land purchases were recorded and the land was purchased directly from the United States Government by five individuals. Early settlers included the Beemans, Decks, Edwards, Reynolds, Waggoners, Hamiltons, Gallops, Kyles, Rhodes, Fosters, Woods, Shorts, Doolings, Sherfys, Dillons, Crowders, Eatons, Bevills, Wilsons, Chandlers, Jinkinsons, Browns, Thompsons, Warners, Lobbings, and Titchenals.

As the township was located along the road between Alton and Springfield, it often served as a stage relay station for travelers. President Abraham Lincoln was one such traveler who

visited Foster Township staying at both the Clayton House and the Foster Inn.

I am pleased to congratulate the citizens of Foster Township on this special occasion. I thank them for their contributions to this great nation. May God bless Foster Township!

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I come down to offer this amendment with respect to myself and my colleague, Anna Eshoo. She is tied up in an Intel briefing, or she would be down in support of this amendment.

We both cochair the E9-1-1 Caucus in which, in 2004, we passed on this floor an authorization of $1.2 billion over 5 years to help our first line responders roll out ENHANCE 9/11 in a 50 percent grant program with our public safety officials. Under Republican control over the past 2 years, and now under a Democrat-controlled appropriation budget, we have yet to see our first dollar from the appropriation process committed to ENHANCE 9/11.

So the basic premise of this amendment is just to get started. There is $1.2 billion authorized. This is the third year with no dollars appropriated. We are asking for a shifting of funds of $5 million to make this happen. Again, this amendment is supported by the National Emergency Numbering Association, which is commonly referred to as NENA; and APCO, which is the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials.

We all know the stories about people who expect that when they dial 9/11 on a cellular phone that not only will someone answer that, but people will know where they are. I represent rural southern Illinois, parts of 30 counties. It is one of the largest congressional districts east of the Mississippi. You can go off in some area and folks may not find you until it is too late.

So the whole emphasis behind ENHANCE 9/11 is to use technology, work with the land line companies, work with the cell companies, work with the public service answering points of PSAPs, or we call them the E9-1- 1 call centers, and in so doing, make sure that we move our country forward to be able to identify folks when they call 9/11 on their cellular phone. Again, I would venture to guess that almost everyone voted for ENHANCE 9/11, cellular identification authorization amount $1.2 billion over 5 years.

So it is time, my colleagues. Congresswoman Eshoo and I just want us to start. I think the public service, the first line responders and the public safety communities really want us to at least show some good- faith effort by finally releasing some dollars. That is the intent of this amendment.

I see there is some activity on the other side. I was hoping that the chairman would pay attention, because I am going to call, obviously, for the voice vote, but because of the way that it is worded, I will not call for a recorded vote, but I would like for him to be receptive to moving this provision, especially when it is brought in a bipartisan manner with a major member of the Commerce Subcommittee and the Telecommunications Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the late Dr. Wilson West. Dr. West is a native of Belleville, IL, and was a well-known doctor and professor.

Dr. West was born near Centralia on September 13, 1913 and graduated from Salem High School. He went on to earn a bachelor's degree from Southern Illinois University Carbondale. In 1937 he graduated from St. Louis University Medical School. Dr. West was a member of the St. Clair County Medical Society and served as its president in 1971. He

also served on the Board of Directors of the Union Bank of St. Clair County for 25 years.

Dr. West was an active member and leader in the Republican Party and was viewed by many as the foremost authority on the Republican Party in southwestern Illinois. He served as chairman of the St. Clair County Republican Century Club for more than 25 years, elected as a delegate at seven Republican National Conventions, and was an Elector in the Electoral College for three presidential elections. He was very active in local, State, and national politics and hosted prominent politicians at St. Clair County events. He was proud to have attended the inaugurations of many presidents and governors and was a frequent guest at the Governor's Mansion and the White House.

Dr. West wrote for medical research journals and was a professor at Southern Illinois University School of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, and Barnes Hospital. Dr. West is the namesake and past recipient of the St. Clair County Medical Society's Wilson H. West Award for service in the health care profession. He was honored as an ``outstanding alumnus'' by the St. Louis University School of Medicine. In 1966, he received the Everett Dirksen Award and subsequently established a Nursing Scholarship with the same organization. In 2002, Dr. West was awarded the prestigious Eisenhower Commission. He was awarded lifetime membership on the Republican National Committee, the honorary organizations, Republican Speaker's Circle, and the Presidents Club.

Dr. West leaves a legacy to his patients of 60 years of service with dedicated professionalism and compassionate care. He touched many lives with his understanding, care, and concern. He provided outstanding treatment and service to three generations of southwestern Illinoisans.

My thoughts and prayers will be with the family and friends of Dr. Wilson West.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor my alma mater Southern Illinois University of Edwardsville, where I graduated with my MBA in 1997, on winning its first national NCAA Division II softball championship.

The fifth ranked Cougars (49-8) closed out the season with a 16-game winning streak. The 3-hour and 15 minute game was the longest in Division II championship history.

Ashley Price hit an RBI single in the 12th inning to give SlUE a 3-2 championship victory over defending national champion Lock Haven at Firestone Stadium in Akron, OH. The national championship is the 17th in the school's history and first in softball.

Members of the team include Ashley Price, Chaleen Rumpf, Carly Wildenradt, Emily Lenart, Courtney Mall, Lindsey Laas, Haylee Eubanks, Abbie Bates, Katy Biggs, Nicole Beecher, Lauren Zembruski, Sabra McCune, Amanda Puce, Jodie Ohlau, Kaeleigh Rousey, Libby Lenart, Mallory Ruggles and Kaitlin Colosimo. The Head Coach is Sandy Montgomery; Valerie McCoy is the Assistant Coach, and the Student Assistant is Shannon Evans.

I am very pleased to congratulate the softball team of Southern Illinois University of Edwardsville on their national championship and wish them the best of luck for next season.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I ask Chairman Visclosky to enter into a colloquy with myself and Congressman Costello.

As Chairman Visclosky is aware, our home State of Illinois has two sites

currently being reviewed by the Department of Energy and the FutureGen Alliance as potential locations for the final selection of the FutureGen project.

FutureGen is President Bush's initiative to design, build and operate the first near-zero emissions coal-fueled power plant. It is recognized worldwide as one of the most significant projects in the world to address climate change concerns.

We appreciate Chairman Visclosky's support of the FutureGen project by fully funding it in this year's Energy and Water appropriations bill. However, Congressman Costello and I have two points of clarification with the report language as currently written, and we appreciate your willingness to address these two points.

I yield to my colleague and friend, Congressman Costello.

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend. We look forward to working with Chairman Visclosky as the appropriations process moves forward to ensure we continue to use coal, which provides half of our Nation's electricity, in an efficient and environmentally friendly way.

I thank the chairman. He's been very gracious in walking us through this process.