[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 135 (Friday, December 8, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H8989-H8995]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1030
RELATING TO CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6111, TAX RELIEF AND HEALTH CARE ACT 
                                OF 2006

  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1099 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows

                              H. Res. 1099

       Resolved,  That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill 
     (H.R. 6111) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
     provide that the Tax Court may review claims for equitable 
     innocent spouse relief and to suspend the running on the 
     period of limitations while such claims are pending, with the 
     Senate amendment thereto, and to consider in the House, 
     without intervention of any point of order, a motion offered 
     by the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means or his 
     designee that the House concur in the Senate amendment with 
     the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. The Senate amendment and the 
     motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be 
     debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways 
     and Means. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the motion to its adoption without intervening 
     motion except one motion to amend, which shall be separately 
     debatable for five minutes by the proponent and five minutes 
     by an opponent.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1099 provides for the disposition of 
the Senate amendment to H.R. 6111. It makes in order a motion by the 
chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means to concur in the Senate 
amendment with the amendment printed in the Rules Committee report 
accompanying this resolution. This resolution waives all points of 
order against the motion and it provides 1 hour of debate on the 
motion, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Finally, it 
provides one motion to amend which shall be separately debatable for 5 
minutes by the proponent and 5 minutes by an opponent.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 1099 and 
the underlying bill, H.R. 6111, which is entitled the Tax Relief and 
Health Care Act of 2006. Madam Speaker, I also rise today for what will 
likely be my last time managing a rule, at least perhaps until the 
111th Congress. I would like to briefly take this opportunity to thank 
Speaker Hastert for allowing me to serve on this prestigious Rules 
Committee and also I would like to thank Chairman Dreier for his 
stewardship of the committee in addition to the committee staff who 
have been there each and every step of the way to assist me and my 
staff. It has truly been an honor to serve with my colleagues on the 
Rules Committee and I feel blessed for having had this opportunity to 
work with all the members, Republicans and Democrats, of this great 
committee.
  Madam Speaker, from the extension of expiring tax credits and the 
strengthening of health savings accounts, to the exploration of the 
Outer Continental Shelf and an increase in payments for physician 
services, this bill provides the Congress with an opportunity to debate 
and pass a vast array of good policy initiatives. I know there are some 
who do not agree with the legislative agenda in the closing days of the 
109th Congress. Indeed, most on the other side of the aisle have 
opposed the majority agenda every step of the way, perhaps so they 
could use the soundbite that this is a do-nothing Congress. However, 
the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 is a crucial piece of 
legislation that must be passed for the sake of taxpayers and their 
families
  This bill demonstrates our commitment to returning more money to the 
taxpayers on top of creating more incentives for economic growth, 
innovation and entrepreneurship. Madam Speaker, at the end of last year 
and at the close of this current year, many important tax provisions 
and incentives will expire, thereby forcing hardworking Americans and 
their families to shell out more of their hard-earned money to the 
Federal Government. This bill will extend these expiring provisions 
through 2007, and it demonstrates our commitment to the American 
taxpayer and our commitment to fostering entrepreneurship and economic 
growth.
  Specifically, this bill provides teachers with an important and a 
well-deserved deduction for higher education expenses as well as a 
deduction for their out-of-pocket classroom expenditures on behalf of 
their pupils. Our teachers should not be punished by the Tax Code for 
investing in their students and improving the quality of education in 
the classroom.
  Also, this bill strengthens our rural communities by extending a new 
markets tax credit to help foster new industries and diversify our 
local economies.
  Additionally, the bill extends the State and local sales tax 
deduction. This is most important in those States which have no income 
tax to deduct, but they are burdened with very substantial sales tax 
levies.
  Madam Speaker, this legislation also extends the research and 
development tax credit. Technological innovation is absolutely vital to 
America's continued economic growth and prosperity. Without investment 
in research and development, all innovation and growth would come to a 
screeching halt, with catastrophic effects on our economy as we 
continue the fight to try and compete globally. We must do everything 
that we can to help incentivize research and development so that we 
keep the United States a leader in business and technological 
innovation.
  Additionally, this bill also extends the welfare-to-work tax credit 
and the work opportunity tax credit, creating more chances to put 
people to work and further reduce the Federal welfare rolls. 
Recognizing our need to reduce energy costs and maximize energy 
efficiency, this bill also extends various energy tax credits for 
energy efficient homes and businesses, for methanol and ethanol fuel, 
and for businesses that produce electricity from solar energy, fuel 
cells or microturbines.
  Also, the underlying legislation provides for the exploration, the 
development and production activities for mineral resources in the OCS, 
Outer Continental Shelf. In February of 2006, the Department of 
Interior released a comprehensive inventory of OCS resources, 
estimating approximately 8.5 billion barrels of oil and 29.3 trillion 
cubic feet of natural gas.
  Madam Speaker, the combination of energy-efficient tax incentives and 
increased domestic energy production are integral to reducing our 
dependence on foreign energy as well as finding new and cleaner ways to 
produce and use energy. I don't know whether the Iraqi Study Group 
included this as part of their 79 recommendations, but if they didn't, 
make this No. 80.
  This bill also contains many important bipartisan health care 
provisions which represent the culmination of many hardworking hours 
spent by our committee chairs and our leadership on both sides of the 
aisle, in both chambers. The final product is one that communicates to 
the American people that Congress is dedicated to addressing the

[[Page H8990]]

problems in our health care delivery system.
  First and foremost, this legislation reverses the scheduled 5.1 
percent cut to physician's reimbursements for services rendered to 
Medicare beneficiaries. In 1997, Congress established this sustainable 
growth rate formula in an attempt to control part B utilization in the 
Medicare program by reducing physician fees. Unfortunately, the formula 
is so inherently flawed and it is estimated that physician 
reimbursement in the Medicare program will continue to decrease into 
the foreseeable future. In fact, MedPAC, the Medicare Payment Advisory 
Committee, has reported that physician payments are expected to be cut 
by a total of 37 percent over the next 9 years under this SGR formula. 
With the reality of the impending retirement of the baby boomer 
generation, the already strained Medicare program will reach a crisis 
state. By reversing this scheduled cut for one year, 2007, this 
legislation takes a step in the right direction to protect access to 
quality health care for our seniors. To state it simply, as a result of 
these changes, primary care and other physician specialists will be 
there when our seniors need them.
  Madam Speaker, this legislation also includes very important and 
helpful revisions to current law in regards to health savings accounts. 
These changes are just another example of the forward-thinking ideas 
that are needed to reform our health care system. This bill provides 
more flexibility to individuals by allowing them to roll over assets 
from flexible health spending accounts and health reimbursement 
arrangements into health savings accounts.
  Health savings accounts are growing in popularity among employers and 
employees, and when these accounts are coupled with a high deductible 
catastrophic health plan, they serve as an all-encompassing insurance 
solution for individuals of all ages and at all stages of life.
  America's Health Insurance Plans conducted a study earlier this year 
that showed that over 30 percent of individuals enrolled in HSAs were 
previously uninsured. It also showed that one-third of purchasers had 
incomes of $50,000 or less. This really debunks the naysayers' claim 
that this choice, this health savings account option, benefits only the 
wealthy. Nothing could be further from the truth, Madam Speaker.
  By tearing through the red tape and allowing people to consolidate 
and transfer their accounts into the increasingly popular HSAs, more 
consumers will have access to these insurance plans, putting themselves 
in the driver's seat of their health care decisions. And when they have 
skin in the game, both figuratively and literally, they will choose the 
best and most effective choice from the health care menu.
  Madam Speaker, the list goes on as to what this legislation does for 
health care in America. From ensuring doctors are reimbursed for using 
the latest treatment therapy for prostate cancer, to extending the 
therapy caps exception process for an additional year, the Tax Relief 
and Health Care Act of 2006 continues the much-needed reform of our 
health care system, and this Republican-led Congress spearheaded this 
over the last years
  With that, Madam Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes and I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I am disappointed but not surprised that 
this is how we are ending the 109th Congress. Like I said yesterday, 
old habits die hard. Once again, we are here on the floor debating an 
omnibus bill, a smorgasbord, if you will, a bill which cobbles together 
several bills and other provisions that have absolutely nothing to do 
with each other.
  This process is unfortunate. The Republican leadership is forcing a 
bill through this body today that includes tax extenders, Medicare 
payments, offshore drilling and an expansion of the D.C. school voucher 
program. It is a 279-page bill that is date-stamped yesterday at 1:39 
p.m. I wonder how many people in this House, Madam Speaker, have 
actually had the time to read and research what is in this bill and how 
it will impact current policy.

                              {time}  1045

  I would say to my colleagues, don't be surprised if in a week or two 
you pick up your local newspaper and that there is a story about other 
goodies that are hidden in this bill that we are about to consider 
today. Sadly, that is what we have come to expect from this Republican 
leadership.
  There are at least four separate bills included in these 279 pages, 
each of which does a variety of things. First, the tax extenders bill. 
The tax extenders provisions include things like the R&D tax credit and 
Work Opportunity Act, just to name a couple. These tax extensions 
happen every year, are generally bipartisan and noncontroversial, and 
could and should be passed on their own and considered in the Senate 
under regular order.
  Second, this bill includes Medicare payments to ensure our seniors 
are able to receive the health care that they have come to expect. The 
Republican leadership and the Republicans on the Ways and Means 
committee have known for an entire year about the need to address these 
Medicare payment issues. They just didn't care enough to act. They 
should have written a bill and brought it through the committee through 
regular order, but they just didn't seem to care enough to get it done.
  Third, and most problematic, is the offshore drilling bill that has 
been inserted in this tax bill. This bill passed the House earlier this 
year but failed to get out of conference, so instead of the Republican 
House and the Republican Senate doing their job and sending us a 
conference report, we get instead a bill stuck in with tax extensions 
and Medicare payments that allows for offshore drilling in the Gulf of 
Mexico. This bill is as far from a solid, comprehensive energy strategy 
as we can get, Madam Speaker, and yet another bow to the interests of 
Big Oil. And that comes as no surprise. That is what the majority has 
been doing for the past 6 years.
  So let's be clear. Opening up these areas of the Gulf of Mexico will 
have no significant impact on oil and gas prices but it will benefit 
the oil and gas industry. This is the same industry that used a royalty 
relief loophole to swindle the American taxpayers out of at least $7 
billion in royalties. And it is the same industry that received $7.5 
billion in tax breaks in the so-called energy bill, all courtesy of the 
Republican leadership in this Congress.
  Fourth and finally, Madam Speaker, we know there is an expansion of 
the school voucher program for Washington, D.C. Rather than advocate 
for more money to improve public schools, the Republican leadership has 
decided to divert funds to unaccountable religious and private schools. 
This is a highly controversial program that should not be stuffed in a 
catch-all bill as the Congress is trying to adjourn.
  Madam Speaker, I support extending the noncontroversial tax credits 
and at long last fixing these Medicare reimbursement problems, but I 
cannot support efforts to open up offshore drilling in the Gulf of 
Mexico or expand the D.C. school voucher program. And I certainly 
cannot support the way the Republican leadership is forcing the House 
to consider this omnibus bill, under a closed rule, with no time for 
adequate review or amendment.
  Madam Speaker, this is not the way the House of Representatives 
should be run. This is not the way we should legislate.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and vote ``no'' on 
the bill.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time
  Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. I would just say to my friend from Massachusetts as he bemoans 
the provision in the bill regarding the provisions that allow for 
expansion of offshore exploration of natural gas off of the gulf coast 
States, he is right.
  In this body, we have tried to be more comprehensive. That is no 
reason to oppose what little bit of agreement that we could get from 
the Senate in regard to an attempt at a comprehensive energy provision. 
Because of parochial opposition, we were not able to do the same thing 
off the coast of Florida and California. I indeed and many on

[[Page H8991]]

my side of the aisle were in favor of that and a more comprehensive, 
expanded opportunity for domestic production.
  And another example I want to point out particularly for the 
gentleman from Massachusetts, there was a very interesting project off 
the coast of his State called Cape Wind that would have produced a 
tremendous amount of energy in the cleanest of clean ways, renewable 
energy, in that Cape Wind project, but it was parochial opposition from 
the Members of Congress and possibly the State legislature in the State 
of Massachusetts that did not permit that project to go forward.
  So we have to deal with those. It is understandable, we can 
understand the opposition even though passage would be for the greater 
good of the entire country, but we do what we can do. There are very, 
very many energy provisions in this bill, a lot of tax credits to try 
to incentivize the use of cellulosity of products and biofuel to 
produce methanol and ethanol. And so I think we have a very good, 
comprehensive project here.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, just so I can correct the record, I should 
tell the gentleman from Georgia that the Cape Wind project has not been 
blocked. And, in fact, those of us in Massachusetts, in New England, 
understand the need for increased energy and right now are working with 
our Governor to try to find an adequate location for a new LNG 
facility.
  So it is incorrect to say that that Cape Wind project has been 
blocked.
  Our problem here is that the energy policy of this Republican 
leadership is like going to the dentist. It's drill, drill, drill, 
drill. Those of us who believe that we should be pursuing alternative, 
renewable, safe and clean sources of energy are frustrated that those 
on the other side are all talk and no action. We have an opportunity to 
end our dependence on foreign oil. We have an opportunity to create a 
whole new energy economy based on renewable energy sources, and we have 
not been given the help or the support from this Congress or from this 
President. So that is what we are frustrated about. And also the 
constant giveaways to the oil companies who have gourged and who have 
ripped off the American taxpayer. It is obscene that in the energy bill 
over $7 billion in tax subsidies and tax breaks have been given to the 
oil industry. We need to change our direction
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts and also join in the remarks that he made.
  I rise to express my strong opposition to the rule and my serious 
concerns about the substance of the bill we are about to consider. 
First off, we are considering complex pieces of legislation that affect 
a wide variety of U.S. policies and we are doing so after getting only 
a few short hours to read the actual bill text. I suppose we shouldn't 
have expected more from this Congress, but it is still reprehensible 
that the Republican leadership has chosen to throw so many bills 
together at the very end of the session without giving Members the 
opportunity for amendments.
  I will say that on behalf of the doctors and patients in my district, 
I am glad to see that Congress is taking action to avert a drastic 5.1 
percent cut in Medicare payments to physicians. It is a shame, however, 
that we have to wait until the end of the last week of this Congress in 
order to address a problem we saw coming from far away. What really 
needs to be done is a permanent fix that will avoid Congress from 
having to correct the Medicare reimbursement rate on an annual basis. 
If doctors face annual cuts, seniors may lose access to physician 
services, and that is why it is important to permanently fix the 
formula by which we pay physicians under Medicare.
  On the other hand, I strongly oppose the offshore drilling language 
in this bill. It is inconceivable given what we know about our current 
energy problems and the looming threat of global warming that we are 
considering another proposal to do nothing more than drill, drill, and 
drill as the gentleman from Massachusetts said. I have said many times 
before, the United States consumes a quarter of the world's oil but 
contains only 3 percent of the world's known reserves. There is simply 
no way we can drill our way out of our dependence on foreign oil. What 
we need instead is a more comprehensive solution that focuses on 
increasing the efficiency of our cars, our homes and businesses and 
promotes the use of clean, renewable technology. We see more and more 
evidence every day that our dangerous addiction to fossil fuels is 
threatening our national security, causing volatile prices at the pump 
and exacerbating global warming. Instead, we are given the choice of 
more oil rigs in offshore waters which is little more than a sop to the 
oil and gas industries that have gotten so many favors already from 
this Congress. Apparently, the Republican leadership can't help giving 
them one more favor as they go out the door.
  It is my sincere hope, Mr. Speaker, that next year we can start this 
process over and work in a bipartisan fashion on legislation to address 
all these issues. I hope Members realize that next year the new 
Democratic Congress will not resort to such tactics as the rule we are 
dealing with today and will choose to deal with important matters such 
as energy legislation and physician payment schedules in a timely and 
rational manner.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this ill-conceived 
rule.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to myself 30 seconds before 
yielding to the gentlewoman from North Carolina just in response to my 
good friend from New Jersey. What a welcome relief to hear him say that 
as they ascend to the majority in the 110th Congress that he is going 
to fix permanently this physician shortfall.
  As I said in my opening remarks, we are estimated by MedPAC that over 
the next several years we are going to have a 37 percent decrease in 
physician payments to permanently fix, CBO and OMB estimates, a $150 to 
$200 billion cost over 10 years. So it will be interesting to see how 
our friends on the other side of the aisle pay for that, but I am glad 
that they are going to step forward to the challenge.
  At this point I want to yield to my good friend from North Carolina 
(Ms. Foxx) for 2 minutes.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Georgia for yielding 
me this time.
  As I was reading through the 279 pages of this bill last night, on 
page 148 I stumbled across division B, title I, section 111. It was 
here I found a provision that seemed rather obscure but turns out to be 
a part of the bill that is required to be there by the Senate minority 
leader for the bill to pass. This section contains a redesignation for 
a hospice satellite program, specifically Medicare provider number 29-
1511. Apparently, this redesignation would allow the facility to exceed 
its reimbursement cap, which sounds an awful lot like an earmark to me. 
I understand this program is located in Nevada and the provision was 
advocated by the Senate minority leader, a constant and vocal critic of 
hiding earmarks. The public often wonders how these unusual things get 
funded by the government. The reason is because the language is written 
like this:
  ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for purposes of 
calculating the hospice aggregate payment cap for 2004, 2005, and 2006 
and for a hospice program under section 1814(i)(2)(A) of the Social 
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395f(i)(2)(A)) for hospice care provided on or 
after November 1, 2003, and before December 27, 2005, Medicare provider 
number 29-1511 is deemed to be a multiple location of Medicare provider 
number 29-1500.''
  It is clear this agency has violated the rules for at least 3 years 
and the minority leader is bailing it out with an earmark, those 
horrible things that the minority party has taken such objection to in 
the past few months. However, now that they have used the subject to 
win a majority, they continue to use the practice. We are castigated 
for not passing budgets and other bills, but one reason has been the 
minority leaders often demand earmarks. Furthermore, they demand that 
their fingerprints not be on those earmarks.
  I think it is important that we point out the double standard 
practiced by the minority leadership.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from North Carolina has

[[Page H8992]]

made the case more eloquently than I could possibly make the case about 
the need to have a more open process and the need to follow regular 
order. If she objects to earmarks and certain provisions in the bill, 
she should have the opportunity to be able to introduce amendments to 
strike some of these provisions. If we followed a regular process that 
had some integrity in this Congress, then I think all of us here could 
be confident that the final product on some of these pieces of 
legislation are things that we can be proud of.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Jackson-Lee)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would say that there is a 
kinship with many of my colleagues about the necessity of regular 
order. In the best of all worlds, we would have had a number of days to 
debate many of the very pithy and challenging issues that are in this 
particular rule that now will, ultimately, if this rule pass, will 
bring up any number of issues that require our thoughtful deliberation.
  But I would say that we are in the waning hours of the 109th 
Congress, and we look forward to a new day when the light of day will 
shine on issues dealing with conservation, dealing with the right 
relationship between patient and physician and the payment of their 
services and, yes, when we address the question of tax relief for 
people who really, really need it.
  I want to rebut Lou Dobbs' attack on the middle class and say that we 
stand for working Americans. And so I believe that there is a great 
need for some of the aspects of this legislation. We need the college 
tuition deduction extension. We need the State sales tax exemption for 
States who do not have State income tax, but the burden of taxation 
falls unfairly on those who are least able to pay it because they pay a 
high sales tax. We need the welfare-to-work tax credit, and we 
certainly need the tax that relieves teachers who pay their own money 
for books and supplies for children in inner-city and rural schools. I 
know it firsthand because my daughter, as a teacher, had to go in, 
because she desired to do it, and take her resources so her class could 
have an enthusiastic and challenging way of learning. These are vital 
aspects of what needs to be done.
  And then, who has not heard from their doctor who wants to do what is 
right in rural and urban areas who cannot get the complete respect, if 
you will, of CMS by the cuts in their Medicare payments every single 
year. We need this stability, this fund, that will help bring about 
stability in the payments to physicians.
  My friends, not only are we losing medical students in medical 
schools, meaning that the numbers are declining, doctors are giving up 
the ship, and they are doing it because we have not been fair to them.
  And now, of course, I am from Texas, and I believe in conservation. I 
had hoped that when we were talking about energy legislation, the 
President would open the door on conservation here in the United 
States. But let me tell you what this sharing of revenue is all about. 
It is not a giveaway. It is not a throwaway. I recognize that when we 
talk about the energy industry, we are certainly talking about those 
that cannot win a popularity contest. But we have got to address the 
question of coastal restoration. This is a key element to protecting 
the coastal line, not for the coastal States but for America.
  Do you want to see the ticking clock on what we have now expended for 
those folk in Louisiana who are still in need? My visit to Louisiana 
tells me that they are still in troubling times. People can't go home. 
Homes are not restored. But we are spending billions and billions of 
dollars for the most catastrophic evacuation and tragedy that we have 
seen most in the history of the United States.
  The coastal lines have deteriorated. The wetlands have deteriorated. 
And what this revenue sharing will do, in the exploration of the Outer 
Continental Shelf, it will provide it revenue to protect the coastal 
line.
  My understanding is that our friends from Florida, at least those who 
have engaged in this discussion, believe that there is sufficient 
protection for them as well. We did not ignore the concerns of coastal 
States. But it is imperative that, one, we engage in conservation, but 
we also engage in safe, environmentally safe exploration of natural 
gas.
  We are going to dispute this. We are going to disagree. We are going 
to castigate. We are going to suggest that we are falling victim to 
those who want to explore. We are going to be called the, if you will, 
explorer and giveaway on this particular bill.
  I would have preferred a more thorough, ongoing debate on this 
question. But I believe this is the right way to go right now. We have 
got to provide the resources for the restoration of those coastal 
areas. We have got to provide an environmentally safe way of 
exploration. We have got to have some domestic production. And LNG, or 
the natural gas production that is going on and has the ability of 
being done in the Outer Continental Shelf is vital for the aspect of 
conservation and energy independence of the United States of America. I 
ask my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill
  Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I think it is imperative that we all 
agree on the vital importance of America achieving energy independence 
in the 21st century. We must end our addiction to foreign sources of 
oil, most of which are found in regions of the world which are unstable 
and in some cases, opposed to our interests. Accordingly, there is no 
issue more integral to our economic and national security than energy 
independence.
  Although I must admit that I do have reservations about certain 
aspects of this bill and the process with which this bill has arrived 
on the House floor, I nevertheless support it as a step in the right 
direction of America achieving energy independence. I think many of us 
in the House would agree that the issues central to this bill, the 
future of energy exploration off of our gulf coastlines, deserves more 
time for deliberation, debate, and a process for amendment. Some of 
these amendments which were incorporated into H.R. 4671 include my 
amendments which supported minority-serving universities and minority-
owned businesses. These very important provisions were designed to 
ensure that sectors of our Nation and economy which are often 
overlooked, namely, minority-serving institutions and minority-owned 
business, were given an opportunity to benefit from and compete for the 
opportunities afforded in this bill.
  Nevertheless, I still support H.R. 6111 because it is a step in the 
right direction, a step towards energy independence, and a step away 
from being eternally beholden to foreign sources of oil. Moreover, this 
step includes an integral revenue sharing formula which ensures that 
37.5 percent of the revenue from new areas of production and new leases 
go towards gulf producing States. Furthermore, 20 percent of the 
revenue allocated to gulf producing States must be allocated to the 
State's coastal subdivisions to be used for the purposes of: coastal 
protection, conservation, coastal restoration, hurricane protection, 
protecting coastal wetlands, and mitigating damage to fish and 
wildlife. In addition, 12.5 percent of the revenue will be allocated to 
the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which ensures that the 
environmental impact of offshore drilling will be monitored, managed, 
and regulated to ensure that our coasts are protected.
  Energy is the lifeblood of every economy, especially ours. Producing 
more of it leads to more good jobs, cheaper goods, lower fuel prices, 
and greater economic and national security. However, the U.S. is more 
than 60 percent dependent on foreign sources of energy, twice as 
dependent today as we were just 30 years ago. Although energy is the 
lifeblood of America's economic security, this growing and dangerous 
dependence has resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands of good 
American jobs, skyrocketing consumer prices, and vulnerabilities in our 
national security.
  Energy imports now make up one-third of America's trade deficit. 
Through this bill, America could improve the supply-demand imbalance, 
lower consumer prices, and increase jobs by producing more of its own 
energy resources. With my district of Houston being the energy capital 
of the world, I support the efforts that this bill makes to recognize 
State stakeholders and incorporate their interests in revenue sharing.
  According to the U.S. Minerals Management Service, MMS, America's 
deep

[[Page H8993]]

seas on the Outer Continental Shelf, OCS, contain 420 trillion cubic 
feet of natural gas--the U.S. consumes 23 TCF per year--and 86 billion 
barrels of oil--the U.S. imports 4.5 billion per year. Even with all 
these energy resources, the U.S. sends more than $300 billion--and 
countless American jobs--overseas every year for energy we can create 
at home.
  In some cases, the U.S. is facing much-higher energy prices than 
other countries. Natural gas, for example, is as much as ten times more 
expensive in the United States than it is in foreign nations. This fact 
alone has led to the loss of hundreds of thousands of high-paying 
American jobs, as natural gas-dependent factories are forced to close 
their doors and move overseas in search of more affordable energy. The 
outsourcing of American jobs is an issue of central importance to me 
and my constituents, and I believe this bill is a step in the right 
direction of bringing jobs back to hard-working Americans.
  Regarding the physician payment adjustment portion of this bill, 
beginning January 1, 2007, payments to physicians who treat Medicare 
patients will be cut 5.0 percent. Over the next 9 years, Medicare's 
trustees are projecting a total of 40 percent in Medicare payment cuts 
to physicians. If the January 1 cut is imposed, the average physician 
payment rate, accounting for increases in the cost of running a 
practice, will be less in 2007 than it was in 2001. This bill will 
eliminate that cut for at least 1 year. We certainly need to do more.
  The Medicare sustainable growth rate, SGR, formula, used in 
establishing payment rates under the physician fee schedule under the 
Medicare program, resulted in significant payment cuts to physicians 
and health care professionals in 2002. These cuts were for doctors 
only, not for hospitals or other medical facilities.
  The Medicare SGR formula would have resulted in payment cuts to 
physicians and health care professionals in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 
had Congress not intervened.
  According to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, MedPAC, and 
the board of trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund and 
the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund, the Medicare 
SGR formula will result in substantial payment cuts to physicians and 
health care professionals through at least 2015.
  MedPAC is very well respected and a recognized authority on Medicare 
and healthcare issues. It does not support the impending payment cuts 
and is concerned that such consecutive annual payment cuts would 
threaten access to physician services over time, particularly primary 
care services.
  MedPAC has raised concerns over current payment policies that may 
discourage medical students and residents from becoming primary care 
physicians because many Medicare beneficiaries rely on primary care 
providers for important health care management.
  According to a 2006 American Medical Association survey, if payment 
cuts to physicians under the Medicare program go into effect: Half of 
physicians plan to decrease the number of new Medicare patients they 
accept; half of physicians plan to defer the purchase of information 
technology; 1 in 3 physicians who treat patients living in rural 
communities will discontinue rural outreach services; and almost half--
43 percent--of physicians will decrease the number of new TRICARE 
patients they accept.
  The annual actions by Congress that have overridden the Medicare SGR 
formula have only resulted in instability and unpredictability for 
physicians, health care professionals, seniors, and individuals with 
disabilities. It does not solve the long-term systemic problem of 
rising costs.
  Stable, positive updates under the Medicare physician fee schedule 
that accurately reflect medical practice cost increases are vital for 
encouraging and economically supporting physicians' ability to make the 
significant financial investment required for health information 
technology and participation in quality improvement programs.
  A stable payment system for physicians is critical to preserve 
Medicare beneficiaries' access to high-quality health care.
  We cannot in good conscience establish barriers for doctors and 
health care professionals to surmount in order to continue to provide 
access to high-quality Medicare services for all Medicare 
beneficiaries. Congress must halt the impending January 1 cuts and 
develop an alternative payment system that accurately reflects the 
costs of providing care to Medicare beneficiaries.
  The biggest single flaw is that this payment schedule rubric recently 
announced by CMS has no connection to the actual cost of providing 
patient care. Starving doctor's practices will not decrease healthcare 
prices, or change unethical behavior. It will drive doctors out of 
business who are desperately needed to provide care to our elderly.
  In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6111 as a step in 
the right direction towards securing energy independence and ensuring 
that Gulf Coast States share in the revenue from new areas of 
production while protecting our environment.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  I thank the gentlewoman from Texas. She started her discussion by 
saying that this bill has kind of been rushed through in the dark of 
night and there hasn't been an opportunity to study the details of the 
bill. But as a hardworking Member of this body, the gentlewoman from 
Texas clearly has had sufficient time to look at all those provisions, 
that litany of provisions, those line items that she went through and 
endorsed wholeheartedly because of the compassion that she has got in 
regard to the education of our children and public schools, the 
provisions in there that help to continue to rebuild the Gulf Coast 
States, one of which of course is her great State of Texas, and what 
that expanded ability to obtain natural gas in the Gulf of Mexico, what 
that means to the State of Texas and Louisiana, Alabama and 
Mississippi. So, while she was decrying that the bill was rushed 
through and she doesn't understand it, I am glad to know that she fully 
understands it and endorses it. And I guess if she had more time she 
would have gone on and listed some other provisions that she is in 
favor of, and I thank her for that.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is outrageous what this 
Congress is about to do. This Congress is voting on a sorely needed 
adjustment to reimbursement rates for physicians that is very important 
to my home State, Florida, and the entire country.
  But as part of that, the Congress is also being forced to vote on 
opening up 8 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico to drilling, which 
threatens the environment and the economy in the State of Florida. 
There has not been a single hearing in the U.S. House of 
Representatives, in the State of Florida, anywhere in the country, on 
the implications to the environment, the economy, the Florida beaches, 
not just a State treasure, a national treasure, opening this area up 
for drilling.
  And what's at stake? What's at stake is this drilling is going to 
occur in a part of the Gulf of Mexico where the currents, the tides, 
the wind and the slew of hurricanes that we know all plague this part 
of the country could bring disaster to Florida in the event of a spill.
  Now, reasonable people will disagree on the probability of a spill. 
But we should at least have an open and honest debate as to those facts 
and the serious implications to the State of Florida if there is a 
spill, because there has been evidence I have put in this Record from 
public hearings in Florida, from experts, that if there is a spill out 
in the Gulf of Mexico, this current could easily bring this oil spill 
into the west coast of Florida, my home, the Florida Keys, a national 
treasure, even to the east coast of Florida.
  And why are we doing this? For 60 days of oil for the country and 97 
days of natural gas one State, the State of Florida, is being put at 
risk, also, at a time where there are over 4,000 leases currently in 
effect for the oil and gas industry that are not being tapped.
  As a matter of fact, 80 percent of the known oil and gas reserves on 
the

[[Page H8994]]

Outer Continental Shelf are already available for lease exploration and 
drilling. And yet, on the last day of this Congress, this Congress 
forces the American people, the United States Congress, who want relief 
for physicians and their patients, to be forced to open the Gulf of 
Mexico up to 8 million acres of drilling.
  Now, what should happen instead? This rule should be defeated. This 
Congress should come back next year and have a comprehensive energy 
bill.
  Should Florida support drilling in the Gulf of Mexico? Of course we 
should. We should be part of the national solution, but only after an 
open and honest debate to make sure that Florida's environment and our 
economy is protected, to make sure that drilling is part of a 
comprehensive bill that includes stronger, smarter fuel efficiency 
standards for cars and trucks, emphasis on renewables and alternative 
fuel. That is the responsible approach, not just for the State of 
Florida, but for the country.
  So I would urge defeat of this rule, and let's go back and take up 
this issue in a fair way, not just for the State of Florida, but for 
the entire country.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute in response to the 
gentleman from Florida.
  I'm sure the gentleman from Florida had a number of occasions over 
the last year to give that speech throughout the State of Florida, and 
I appreciate his position on this issue.
  But I want to point out to him that of the Gulf Coast States, those 
four States of Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, Louisiana, we have seven 
Republican Senators, and that we have three Republican Governors, three 
out of four. Seven out of eight.
  But when this bill was debated in the Senate, the vote was 71-25, and 
I remind the gentleman from Florida that there are only 55 Republican 
Senators in the other body. I can only say that Governor Blanco and 
Senator Landrieu must be awfully persuasive. This was a strong 
bipartisan support in the Senate, and I would guess it will have strong 
bipartisan support, including these provisions in regard to gas 
exploration in the Gulf of Mexico. It doesn't involve Florida or 
California
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 5 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts has already 
pointed out to the gentleman from Georgia that we in Massachusetts and 
all the rest of the States that aren't involved in this raid on the 
Federal treasury, are interested in putting together a real 
comprehensive energy policy for our country. But we have been excluded 
from this debate, over the 6 years of the Bush/Cheney secret energy 
task force, of any considerations for environmental consumer 
conservation-related issues. And this final bill, which comes out here 
on the floor, is the exclamation point on the Bush Republican energy 
policy.
  In this bill, believe it or not, and it is staggering, we are going 
to allow, as the gentleman from Florida just pointed out, massive new 
drilling for oil and gas on Federal lands. Now, the States of Texas, 
Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi will derive $170 billion. That is 
right; $170 billion worth of revenues from this drilling.
  Now, the risk runs to Florida. We have a huge Federal deficit, which 
we are constantly lectured about from the White House and from the 
Republican side. But this will drain another $170 billion. The other 46 
States in the Union, if they vote for this bill, they deserve to be 
lectured to on deficit reduction. But if you come from one of these 
four States, this is the proudest moment you will ever have in your 
tenure here in the House of Representatives. If you can convince 46 
States to give you $170 billion as part of this Outer Continental Shelf 
drilling, you will never have an achievement bigger than this. If you 
are one of the other 46 States, you should hang your head in shame.
  And, by the way, this Congress has already appropriated $80 billion 
to help the States which have been affected by Hurricane Katrina.

                              {time}  1115

  We will vote for more, if necessary, to help the States affected by 
Hurricane Katrina, $80 billion already. But don't come to us and tell 
us that we should shift the whole formula for who receives benefits 
from drilling on Federal lands and give it over to four States.
  Now, to the credit of the Rules Committee, and I thank the gentleman 
from Massachusetts and the other Democratic Members of the Rules 
Committee, and I also thank the leadership from the Republican side, 
they have actually put in order, as part of this bill, an amendment 
which will be voted upon here out on the House floor.
  That amendment is one that has already passed the House back in May. 
It passed overwhelmingly: 252 of us voted for it. That amendment calls 
for the renegotiation of the leases that were let back in the 1990s 
that actually, believe it or not, do not require royalties to be paid 
for by ExxonMobil or other oil and gas companies. When the price of a 
barrel of oil goes to $50, $60, $70 a barrel, they don't even have to 
pay royalties to the American people for drilling on public lands. It 
is all windfall profits.
  The amendment which we will have out here to vote upon later today 
will require a renegotiation of all of those contracts so that the 
Federal taxpayer gets the benefit of the royalties and drilling on 
public lands when they go above $30 and $40 and $50 and $60 and $70 a 
barrel, and they at least will reclaim $10 or $20 billion worth of 
revenues that are strictly going into the pockets of the oil and gas 
companies right now.
  Right now, those oil and gas companies are tipping the American 
taxpayer upside down, shaking money out of their pockets, and putting 
it into the pockets of their own shareholders. That money should be 
used to reduce the Federal deficit, to pay for Medicare, for Medicaid, 
for educational programs.
  I thank the Rules Committee for putting that amendment in order. I 
urge the Members of Congress to support that amendment.
  By the way, one other bonus benefit to the Members out here, that 
amendment also gives a 1-year extension on relief from the alternate 
minimum tax. It is a good amendment. I thank the gentleman for making 
that possible.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  My able staff has just presented me with some fairly interesting 
statistics. I just said in my previous remarks that the vote on the 
Senate side was 71-25. Included in the 71 ``yea'' vote for this 
exploration off the gulf coast were 17 Democrats. The interesting thing 
about this is one of those is the incoming majority leader of the 
Senate, Harry Reid of Nevada, and Senator Clinton from New York, a 
Senator of some prominence in a neighboring State to Massachusetts, and 
last, but not least, Senator Nelson from the great State of Florida.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me close for our side here, once again 
reiterating that this is a lousy process, and that it is really 
unfortunate that the Republican leadership has decided to meld together 
provisions, some of which have broad bipartisan support, with a 
provision on this offshore drilling that is extremely controversial, 
that some of us believe will do great damage to the environment, and as 
my colleague from Florida has pointed out, poses potential risks for 
the State of Florida. This is not the way this should be done.
  We should have a more open process. We should have regular order. We 
should have hearings. We should have committee markups. We should do 
this the right way. Unfortunately, a pattern has developed under this 
Republican leadership where process and rules haven't mattered, and 
that is, indeed, unfortunate. We need to do better, not just for the 
sake of this institution, but we need to do better for the American 
people.
  I hope that in the next Congress that we will set a new standard, one 
that we can all be proud of, Democrats and Republicans together.
  Having said that, Mr. Speaker, let me also take this opportunity to 
say that notwithstanding the fact that I think this is a lousy process, 
I have great respect for the gentleman from Georgia, who is departing 
from the Rules Committee. It has been a privilege to serve

[[Page H8995]]

with him. I have enjoyed debating with him and listening to his 
perspective. There is not very much we agree on, but having said that, 
we have, I think, had a good relationship, a collegial relationship, 
and a respectful relationship. The committee will not be the same 
without his voice and without his insight, so I want to thank him.
  Mr. Speaker, I again urge people to vote ``no'' on the rule and on 
the final bill because of the way it has been messed up.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend Jim McGovern 
for those kind remarks. The feeling is indeed mutual. I certainly have 
enjoyed serving with him and all the members of the Rules Committee on 
both sides of the aisle, and I thank him for his kind remarks.


                             General Leave

  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on H. Res. 1099.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I rise again in support of this 
rule and in recognition of the importance of the underlying bill. I do 
want to take this opportunity in closing to recognize the hard work and 
efforts of Chairman Thomas and Chairman Barton, as well as their 
respective committees, for the final product that we have before us 
today.
  Also, Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize and thank Chairman Thomas for 
his decades of service to this House and the people of his district, as 
well as Americans all across this Nation.
  Bill Thomas, a brilliant professor from Bakersfield, has truly been a 
leader across the board, and his expertise and devotion of 28 years of 
service across this country will truly be missed.
  Mr. Speaker, the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 is a very 
important piece of legislation that positively impacts each and every 
American by fostering economic growth, driving innovation, increasing 
our energy supply, and improving the quality of health care in this 
country. As the 109th Congress draws to a close, and the minority 
prepares to become the majority, I believe that we must work together 
to produce legislation like this that recognizes the fact that when the 
government gets out of the way, Americans can do what they do best, and 
that is what is best for America.
  I want to encourage all of my colleagues to support this rule and 
support the underlying legislation
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________