[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 124 (Tuesday, July 31, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H9253-H9268]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page H9253]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

                        House of Representatives

                              {time}  1630
   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
          RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008--Continued

  That is certainly going to be true for the children's health 
insurance bill, which really is a huge step in the direction of 
Washington-controlled bureaucratic health care.
  So it is appropriate that we appreciate the nexus between this bill, 
the Agriculture appropriations bill, and that. One is the process was 
so flawed on the health care bill that we like to commend our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle for bringing an appropriate 
process for appropriations bills. The other is that this is an attempt 
at fiscal responsibility, or at least a small step.
  I think it is important to appreciate what the original intent of the 
health insurance bill that was passed 10 years ago was, because we will 
not likely get that opportunity when that time arises later this week.
  The original attempt was to cover children who do not have health 
insurance between the level of income in their family from Medicaid to 
a low-income state, considered to be, in 1997, 200 percent of the 
poverty level. That is a noble purpose. It is a noble purpose to 
provide assistance for families who are unable to provide health 
insurance for their children.
  That legislation expires at the end of September. So we have a lot of 
time in order to be able to have an appropriate discussion and talk 
about what the changes ought to be as we move towards reauthorization. 
All of us believe that those children at the lower end of the economic 
scale ought to be able to have access to the finest health insurance.
  But the process, as my good friend from Tennessee mentioned, has been 
so remarkably flawed that that likely isn't going to be the case. In 
fact, we were given a bill late last week that was almost a ream of 
paper, 450-odd pages, that frankly doesn't include all that the 
majority plans to put into it because they haven't figured out how they 
are going to pay for it.
  But what they do know, they are going to cut Medicare to over $100 
billion. Over $100 billion they are going to cut Medicare, which is why 
this bill is so important, because we have to figure out how we are 
going to pay for that. I know on this side of the aisle we are 
interested in being responsible in our spending and making certain we 
are able to cover programs.
  On the other side of the aisle, Mr. Chairman, it appears their desire 
is to raise taxes in order to pay for programs. In this instance, 
though, they are going to do what they alleged 10 years ago they ought 
not do, and that is to cut Medicare, cut Medicare to a huge degree so 
that literally millions of seniors across this Nation will see their 
Medicare program cut.
  In addition to that, there is a reported proposal on the other side 
that will increase taxes on every single American who has a health 
insurance policy. There will be a fee. They won't call it a tax; they 
will call it a fee to increase revenue to the Federal Government on 
every single American that has a health insurance policy.
  Mr. Chairman, I don't know about you, but in my district, that is 
what we call a tax. In my district we don't believe that new programs 
ought to be put in place and charged with new taxes. We believe that 
the Federal Government ought to spend wisely.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


             Motion to Rise Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
rise.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion to rise.
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and 
pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the Chair will reduce to a 
minimum of 5 minutes the time within which a vote by electronic device, 
if ordered, will be taken on the pending question following the quorum 
call.
  Members will record their presence by electronic device.
  The call was taken by electronic device.

                             [Roll No. 775]

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Carter
     Castle
     Castor
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel

[[Page H9254]]


     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Faleomavaega
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jindal
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Norton
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1658

  The CHAIRMAN. Three hundred eighty-nine Members recording their 
presence by electronic device, a quorum is present, and the Committee 
will resume its business.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  July 31, 2007 On Page H9254 the following appeared: The 
CHAIRMAN. Three hundred eighty-nine Members recording their 
presence by electronic device, a quorum is present, and the 
Committee will resume its business. The question is on the motion 
to rise. The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that 
the noes appeared to have it. RECORDED VOTE Mr. PRICE of Georgia. 
Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. A recorded vote was 
ordered.
  
  The online version should be corrected to read: The CHAIRMAN. 
Three hundred eighty-nine Members recording their presence by 
electronic device, a quorum is present, and the Committee will 
resume its business. RECORDED VOTE Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. 
Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. A recorded vote was ordered.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 



                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 172, 
noes 231, not voting 34, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 776]

                               AYES--172

     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     LaTourette
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pickering
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--231

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gallegly
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jindal
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kingston
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Towns
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--34

     Aderholt
     Baird
     Bono
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Cannon
     Carson
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Delahunt
     English (PA)
     Fortuno
     Fossella
     Gohmert
     Inslee
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, Sam
     Mack
     McHugh
     Murphy, Patrick
     Paul
     Peterson (PA)
     Pitts
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Royce
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Tancredo
     Tierney
     Udall (CO)
     Whitfield
     Wicker


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. LINDER (during the vote). Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. LINDER. Is this a 5-minute vote that occurred because of a 
unanimous consent request?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will restate his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. LINDER. First of all, is this a 5-minute vote?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. LINDER. Is it the result of a unanimous consent request?
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, this is a 5-minute 
vote.

[[Page H9255]]

  Mr. LINDER. It is my understanding that any intervening business 
requires a 15-minute vote on the following vote under the rules of the 
House, and there was intervening business.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will repeat that pursuant to clause 6(b)(3) 
of rule XVIII, this is a 5-minute vote.
  Voting will proceed.

                              {time}  1708

  So the motion to rise was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. 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. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Isn't it true that the gentleman in the well 
should be addressing the underlying bill, and it's a violation of the 
rules if the remarks in the well do not address the underlying bill?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct. The gentleman speaking who 
has the time must confine his remarks to the pending question.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. If there are cuts in one bill based upon increased 
spending in another, is that financial connection enough to continue to 
proceed?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman must maintain an ongoing nexus between 
the pending question and any broader policy issues.
  The gentleman may proceed.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. 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.

[[Page H9256]]

  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.

                              {time}  1715


                             Point of Order

  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to renew the point of order of the 
previous point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman stating a point of order that the 
gentleman is not confining his remarks to the pending question?
  Mr. WEINER. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct. The gentleman controlling the 
time must confine his remarks to the pending question. There must be an 
ongoing nexus between the pending question and any broader policy 
issues addressed by the gentleman controlling the time.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, a point of parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Does the gentleman yield?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend. The gentleman from Illinois 
controls the time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. If the gentleman from Illinois controls the time, I 
yield to my colleague from Georgia.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate my friend yielding.
  Isn't it true that the reason you are concerned about this bill is 
because of the amount of spending in this bill puts in jeopardy health 
care for our seniors?
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Especially in this debate, the end stage renal disease 
aspect; and that is the nexus.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, point of parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Does the gentleman seek to make a parliamentary inquiry?
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, just for future reference. Under the rules, 
Members who fail to oblige and follow rulings of the order of the 
Chair, what is the sanction against them if they fail to do so?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman who controlled the time did properly 
confine his remarks.
  Mr. WEINER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, the underlying amendment of the Agriculture 
appropriations bill, the amendment that is on the floor, strikes 
$50,050 from the Office of the Secretary of Agriculture, $50,050. We 
have now on this side accepted the amendment. The other side has used 
over 1 hour of procedural delay, which essentially has spent that 
$50,000 on the operation of the Capitol with no savings to the 
taxpayer; and I think that these people who get up and talk about 
fiscal responsibility ought to learn a little bit of oratorical 
responsibility.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HINCHEY. I yield my time to Mr. Obey.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from California pointed out, 
we have now probably expended in terms of salaries for the clerks, the 
cost of air conditioning for the Chamber, the cost of lights for the 
Chamber, we have probably now expended more money than would be saved 
by this $50,000 amendment; and so what I think this amendment is about 
is something very different than in fact we are hearing from our 
friends.
  What I think this is about is that, last year, if you take a look at 
the appropriation bills that have been considered so far this year, 
last year, approximately 86 hours were spent debating those bills. This 
year, we have had about 152 hours expended debating the same bills. Why 
is that?
  Last year, there were 144 amendments offered by those on this side of 
the aisle then in the minority. This year, the now minority has offered 
339 amendments. So it is obvious to me what is going on.
  I don't think this debate is at all about either fiscal 
responsibility or the fact that the amendment purports to save $50,000. 
This is simply a device which allows the sponsors and the supporters to 
tie up the time of the House and eventually deny this House the ability 
to get its work done before it leaves for the August recess. That is 
what this is about. And all of the rhetoric to the contrary 
notwithstanding, I think every Member of the House knows that is what 
it is about.
  From the beginning, it has been apparent that there are a small 
number of Members on the other side of the aisle who would prefer to 
engage in filibuster by amendment, no matter what that means in terms 
of the quality of the debate, no matter what that means in terms of the 
inconvenience to Members, and no matter what that means in terms of the 
ability of this House to finish its business in a timely fashion.
  So let me simply say we will hear a lot of rhetoric tonight about 
fiscal responsibility. Keep in mind what the real debate is, and we 
will give all of that rhetoric the attention that it deserves, which is 
very little.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


   amendment offered by mr. mc henry to the amendment offered by mr. 
                                gingrey

  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I offer a second-degree amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. McHenry to the amendment offered 
     by Mr. Gingrey:
       Strike ``$50,500'' and insert ``$100,100''.

  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is pretty simple. As the 
previous speaker said, the debate that we have had ongoing here on the 
House

[[Page H9257]]

floor may cost taxpayer dollars. If we are going to have a debate about 
cutting spending, I am going to offer a second-degree to make sure the 
spending is a greater number to save the taxpayers more money so we can 
continue to have this debate.
  I appreciate the applause from one Member on the other side of the 
aisle. Two Members. So we have two members of the Democrat Caucus who 
wish to cut spending. Thank you both. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank 
them both.
  At this point, I yield to my colleague, the ranking member of the 
Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan from Wisconsin.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I appreciate the applause.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that we do everything we can to 
save money in light of the fact that we are creating a massive new 
entitlement program later this week with this bill that is coming to 
the floor. I think it is important that we show leadership at every 
facet of the Federal government. That is why this amendment, which now 
I believe saves $100,000 from the USDA Administrative Account Budget, 
is worth supporting, simply because of the fact that the new SCHIP bill 
opens a whole new open-ended entitlement.
  In the past, SCHIP has always been a program that was capped, that 
had an authorization. Now we have a program that has no income limits, 
that requires people to actually self-certify. If they say they are 
eligible, they are eligible. Anybody can get it. Warren Buffett's child 
could get SCHIP.
  More important to the fact is this, Mr. Chairman. The reason that it 
is important to save $100,000 from the USDA budget is it is going to 
cost a lot of money when this SCHIP bill passes and it pushes people 
out of private health insurance onto government health insurance. That 
is precisely what this will do.
  Eighty-nine percent of the children in families with incomes between 
300 percent and 400 percent of poverty and 95 percent of families above 
400 percent of poverty have private health insurance. What this bill 
will do is push those children out of the private health insurance that 
their parents and their employers are paying for and make taxpayers pay 
for that health insurance. This is an enormous, enormous expansion of 
our government program, which takes choice away from patients on health 
insurance and makes them take this government one-size-fits-all, 
bureaucratic-driven health care. And that is why we need to support 
removing $100,000 from the administrative budget from the USDA, because 
we have a long ways to go to save the money to pay for this bill.
  This bill, as it left the Ways and Means Committee, was $76 billion 
over the budget in that it violated the majority's PAYGO by $76 
billion. The bill that was brought to the Energy and Commerce Committee 
that wasn't reported out was $91 billion PAYGO noncompliant.
  Why is this, Mr. Chairman? Well, another reason why I think we need 
to save money by cutting $100,000 from the USDA's administrative budget 
is that they cut Medicare. Not just a little bit, but deeply. They raid 
the Medicare trust fund, and they cut and eviscerate the Medicare 
Advantage program.
  Mr. Chairman, I bet every one of us has done a town hall meeting 
whereby we have heard constituents when we are talking about Medicare 
say: You know what? You people in Congress ought to give us the same 
health insurance that you have.
  Mr. Chairman, that is exactly what Medicare Advantage is. Just like 
we as Members of Congress have, just like we in the Federal employment 
health benefit, we have the ability to choose among providers who are 
competing against each other for our benefit. We get to choose among 
providers. We have choice. That is exactly what we are giving to 
Medicare beneficiaries with the Medicare Advantage program.
  These plans compete against each other for the beneficiary's 
business, and each Medicare beneficiary gets to choose traditional 
Medicare or Medicare Advantage plan, and that active choice has driven 
down prices and has driven up quality and customer satisfaction.
  The bill coming to the floor this week will cut 3 million people off 
the Medicare Advantage program. It will say to all those people who 
chose to have this plan that gives them comprehensive Medicare 
coverage: No, you have to have the one-size-fits-all government 
monopoly plan. You can't have this choice that looks like what Members 
of Congress have.
  That is why we need to cut $100,000 from the USDA budget, because all 
these deep Medicare cuts to pay for a massive expansion of a new 
entitlement program at a time when all these other programs are going 
bankrupt is a step in the wrong direction. That is why I urge adoption 
the gentleman's second-degree amendment, and I thank him for yielding 
me time.
  Mr. McHENRY. Reclaiming my time. I think it is also important to note 
that the SCHIP bill the gentleman speaks of raises taxes on tobacco, 
raises taxes on all health care plans in American, and I think 
important for us to talk about that later on this week.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I would just like to say what I stated earlier: That in 
fact what we did in the subcommittee is to cut the central office at 
the Agriculture Department by 16 percent. If that is not good enough 
for you, I accept this amendment. You have an opportunity to withdraw 
it, if you would like, but I am happy to accept it. Or you can sit and 
you can stand and you can continue just running your mouth here on the 
issue of the amendment. I have accepted it the second time around.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, a little while earlier when my amendment 
was introduced to cut the Office of the Secretary of Agriculture by 1 
percent, $50,000, the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee stood up and said, well, that is nothing. That is just pocket 
change, and it is a dilatory motion. It is meaningless. It is so 
insignificant in the big scope of things when we are talking about an 
$18 billion discretionary spending bill on the Agriculture 
appropriations bill that we are dealing with.
  Well, I thank now my colleague from North Carolina for doubling that 
1 percent cut to a 2 percent cut. So now I say to my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle, we are not talking about $50,000, we are 
talking about $100,000. And the chairman of the overall committee, Mr. 
Obey, is absolutely right. It is a small amount. But he is also right. 
I have several other amendments. He might call those pocket change as 
well and dilatory amendments. But the first thing you know when you add 
those up, Mr. Chairman, you are going to get to over $1 million.
  Now, on the floor of the House in this body inside the Beltway that 
may not be much money, but to the folks back in the 11th District of 
Georgia that I represent it becomes some significant money.
  But, again, the chairman is right. We are trying to make a point 
here. And I hope not just our colleagues in the Chamber are listening, 
and I know they are, but I hope the American people are listening as 
well. Because we do want to make a point, and that is what we are doing 
with Mr. McHenry's amendment to double the cut to 2 percent on this 
small section, that is what we are doing in my base amendment with the 
1 percent cut. We are saying, look, if you want to bring forth a bill, 
as you intend to do later this week, the so-called CHAMP Act, to 
massively increase spending that violates your own new PAYGO rules by 
$70 billion, as the ranking member of the Budget Committee just pointed 
out; then if you want to find the money to have these massive 
expansions, then you need to look at every other spending bill and set 
your priorities straight.

                              {time}  1730

  And let's say we're going to cut the money instead of doing it on the 
backs of our seniors. And that's why I say, you need a new acronym for 
this bill. It's not the CHAMP Act, Children's Health and Medicare 
Protection Act. No, it's the CHUMP Act, Children's Health Unfunds 
Medicare Protection,

[[Page H9258]]

and for our neediest seniors. And that's why we're here; absolutely, 
that's why we're here. We don't want you to do that. We don't want you 
to hurt the seniors, the 3.5 million, a part of the 8 million that get 
their Medicare through that Advantage option, because most of those 
seniors, Mr. Chairman, most of those seniors are our poorest seniors. 
They're in that category of income from $10,000 to $20,000. And those 
are the people who you are pushing off the Medicare program of choice, 
their program of choice.
  So anywhere we can find cuts, this amendment, the second-degree 
amendment, further amendments that we're going to offer, that's what we 
ought to do if we're going to have this massive increase in spending, 
which our side of the aisle feels like we should not do.
  Now, we could go home in August, Mr. Chairman, and say, on Thursday 
or Friday of this last week that we were in session, before the long 
break, the Democrats have destroyed Medicare for 3.5 million low-income 
seniors, and they've said they've done it in the interest of providing 
health care for children. But which children are we talking about?
  In their bill that's coming to the floor, with a closed rule, that we 
won't have an opportunity to amend, they want to cover children up to 
400, maybe even more, the sky is the limit, 400 percent of the Federal 
poverty level, $82,000 a year for a family of four or maybe it's 500 
percent or 600 percent. So what happens? Ninety percent of these 
children already have private health insurance. And so that's why we're 
here, and I support the second-degree amendment of the gentleman from 
North Carolina.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I too join in supporting 
this amendment, and the gentleman from North Carolina for doing it, for 
saving so much money for the American taxpayer.
  Just prior to this we heard the chairman from the other side of the 
aisle, in essence, asking us in some ways to trample on our free speech 
rights in this House. And you know, when you do that, when you ask that 
we not speak on important issues here in this House for hours, for a 
period of time, and the other side of the aisle always points out that 
we're spending more time this year than we did in the past years trying 
to debate these issues. And I think the American public, quite honestly 
appreciates that, whether it's 86 hours or 186 hours. I think the 
American public looks to Congress to make sure that we spend their 
money appropriately, and looks for us to debate those issues 
appropriately as well.
  We, each Member of Congress, as we stand here, represents a little 
over 600,000 individuals, men, women and children, across this country 
in our respective districts. When we come to this floor and speak on 
this floor, we are representing their voices. We bring their voices 
from New Jersey to this floor.
  And so when the other side of the aisle says, oh, you go on too long 
over there in the minority, well they're saying that really to my 
constituents. They are complaining that my constituents' voice should 
be silenced. And I come to the floor right now and say, no, sir, my 
constituents voices will not be silenced. I will speak out when I can, 
where I can on behalf of the constituents of the Fifth District and the 
State of New Jersey as well.
  Now, I know that we're looking at a bill here with $18.6 billion. 
Right now we're looking at an amendment for $100,000. To us, and my 
constituents, that's a lot of money. And if it takes us an hour or two 
hours to debate this one amendment, to get consensus to save $100,000, 
well, that's a lot of money to my constituents, and they would say that 
hour or two hours of debate is well worth it.
  Now, maybe the other side of the aisle will disagree with me. Maybe 
the other side of the aisle doesn't care whether we spend 50,000, 
100,000 of our hard-earned tax dollars. And maybe they will accept the 
amendment as they did in the past, and if they do so, the $100,000 
amendment, we appreciate that.
  But you know, in that regard, this really is a bipartisan effort 
then. It is really two parties coming together to solve a problem. The 
one party, the majority party, comes to this floor, raises our taxes, 
increases our spending.
  The minority party, the Republicans, equally come to the floor, and 
we reach out our hand and work together. While the Democrats raise our 
taxes and raise the spending, we reach out a hand and say how about 
trying to bring that spending down just a little bit by $100,000, and 
by bipartisan effort we're able to get that down. So this is a 
bipartisan day, and I hope that we will see other amendments to 
increase that bipartisanship as well, as we try to rein in the spending 
that the other side has brought us.
  And when we talk about what the other side has brought us, and one of 
the reasons why we need to save this $100,000, just think of what we've 
gone through in the last few months already and just recently in the 
last couple weeks. We have seen taxpayers on the American taxpayers go 
up by over $400 billion in one of the first bills that House passed 
under the majority party of their budget.
  We have seen just recently them raising taxes again through the farm 
bill. And now with this underlying bill that we'll be looking at in a 
little bit on the SCHIP bill, another $60 billion in taxes.
  And let me add just one more tax increase that maybe Members of both 
sides of the aisle may be forgetting about. Just a few hours ago, as I 
look at the clock, I came out of Financial Services Committee, where 
we, or the majority party, added the last piece to the puzzle with 
regard to another tax increase on the American public, and that's the 
MTI. That's the mortgage tax increase. That's a tax increase on every 
family in America who needs to go out and get a mortgage to buy their 
first home or their second or an additional home as they move into it.
  Every family in America who will want to get out a mortgage in the 
future will now have to pay an MTI, a mortgage tax increase, thanks to 
the majority party in the legislation that is just finally put in 
place. So whether it is an increase in the budget taxes or the farm 
bill or the SCHIP or now an MTI as far as a tax increase as well, we're 
working with the other side of the aisle. As they raise taxes on the 
American family, we work with them here and there, to bring down the 
spending to a level that our taxpayers in our districts are able to 
abide by.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words in support of the McHenry amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in support of the 
McHenry amendment. And I want to compliment the subcommittee 
chairwoman, Ms. DeLauro, for her openness and bipartisanship in 
preparing the ag appropriation bill and working with Ranking Member 
Kingston.
  I asked Mr. Kingston, I said, have y'all held hearings on the bill? 
He said, yes, we held lots of hearings. I said, did you prepare a draft 
that was circulated in a timely fashion? He said, yes, we prepared a 
draft, circulated in a timely fashion. I said, was there an open markup 
where Members could offer amendments on both sides of the aisle? And he 
said, yes, there was an open markup. So I want to compliment you.
  Now, I want to contrast that to the SCHIP bill. We've had one hearing 
in the Energy and Commerce Committee in which SCHIP was the focus of 
Mr. Pallone's subcommittee. The bill came over the transom last Tuesday 
night at 11:36 p.m. The markup was scheduled, I believe, at 10 a.m. the 
next morning. Chairman Dingell did delay that until 4 o'clock the next 
afternoon, and then again delayed the actual markup after opening 
statements a little bit further.
  We didn't have any witnesses testify. We didn't have any open 
process. We didn't have a circulation of a draft. We got a 465-page 
bill at 11:36 last Tuesday evening. So that's, I mean, I'm in awe of 
Ms. DeLauro and the way she's operated her subcommittee, and Mr. Obey 
and the way he's operating the full appropriations committee, actually 
using the process. We're not doing that in the Energy and Commerce 
Committee or the Ways and Means Committee on the SCHIP bill.

[[Page H9259]]

  Now, I'm told, I don't know this for a fact.
  Mr. OBEY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Sure, I'll yield.
  Mr. OBEY. The gentleman has complimented me for the way we have 
handled appropriations bills.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. And that's a sincere compliment.
  Mr. OBEY. I appreciate the compliment. But let me suggest that I 
would appreciate it, if we have conducted ourselves the way the 
gentleman thinks we should, then I would appreciate that he would not 
visit his frustrations on other legislation on the appropriations 
process when we have produced bills in what you readily admit is the 
correct fashion. If you have an argument in your own bailiwick, it 
would be nice if you kept it there so that the House might get its work 
done.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I appreciate that gentleman's comment. But my 
response to the distinguished chairman of the full Appropriations 
Committee is, you've got to pick up your buckets where you stand. And 
this is our only forum.
  I'm told that the Rules Committee is going to meet at midnight or 1 
a.m. this morning to consider a same-day rule for SCHIP. Now, keep in 
mind, last Tuesday night at 11:36 p.m., after the House is through with 
its last vote of the day, we get a 465-page SCHIP bill that hasn't had 
any hearings on it, that hasn't had any witnesses on, that hasn't had a 
draft circulated. And now the Rules Committee is going to meet at 
midnight allegedly, or 1 o'clock this morning, to consider a same-day 
rule to consider that bill tomorrow.
  So I respect Mr. Obey and I respect Subcommittee Chairman DeLauro for 
doing the process the right way. But our only recourse, unfortunately, 
under the rules is to come out on this floor under the open rule to 
strike the requisite number of words to speak on the ag appropriation 
bill and then talk about the travesty that may be hoisted on the 
American public tomorrow in which a $227 billion cut in Medicare over 
the next 10 years is going to be voted on, with not one witness 
testifying in favor or opposition, not one draft that's been 
circulated, not any process at all.
  So I support the McHenry amendment, and I also support an open 
process on the largest health care issue that's going to be before this 
Congress this year.
  We should not have the Rules Committee vote tonight at midnight to 
bring a same-day rule. We ought to send the SCHIP bills back to the 
committee, have a normal process, and then bring them to the floor 
later this fall where we could have an open debate in the full House.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
  Mr. CULBERSON. I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I also rise in support of Mr. McHenry's 
amendment, but I also want to thank my ranking member, the subcommittee 
chairman here. I serve on the Appropriations Committee, and Chairman 
Obey is correct: the committee has done a good job of making sure we 
had bills in front of us and opportunity for debate.
  But I also want to reiterate Mr. Barton's point. He is absolutely 
right. The reason we're out here today and having this discussion is 
because we, each one of us, as Members of Congress have really a 
fiduciary, very deep and profound fiduciary responsibility to be good 
stewards of the taxpayers' dollars. And we're here debating an 
appropriations bill on how to spend those tax dollars. And the 
Agriculture Department has, an important part of its role is the 
taking, they have a role directly, for example, in the Texas Medical 
Center. And the nexus to this debate, Mr. Chairman, that I would 
certainly point out is, under this bill, the Department of Agriculture, 
for example, helps maintain the children's nutrition program at the 
Baylor College of Medicine, which I'm proud to represent.
  The Agriculture Department, a key part of their responsibility is 
children's health. And it is highly relevant to talk about this 
Children's Health Insurance Program that the Democrat majority is 
attempting to shove through this Congress with very little debate, very 
little sunlight, which is always a dangerous sign. If they won't let 
you read the bill and they won't let you talk about it, it is sure 
going to contain serious problems. And I for one am deeply concerned 
about the tremendous expansion this bill proposes. The bill will, it is 
clear from what we have seen, take seniors off of Medicare and allow 
States to put illegal aliens on Medicare. The bill has no reasonable 
limits. The bill has no enforceable limits on age. The bill has no 
enforceable limits on income requirements. And the bill is also silent 
as to whether or not States can include illegal aliens in coverage. The 
bill will allow States to provide Medicare coverage at Federal 
taxpayers' expense to anyone the State chooses to cover.
  Now, imagine what that means in the State of California where the 
Governor has already advocated and the legislature has advocated 
providing health care coverage to illegal aliens. And I say that in the 
context, ladies and gentlemen, of the fact that all of us need to 
remember, every bill, every dollar we spend, that the Government 
Accountability Office has already calculated that in order to pay for 
the obligations of the Federal Government today, my overriding concern 
is that, in order to pay for the existing obligations of the Federal 
Government, the GAO has calculated, Mr. Farr, that each American would 
have to buy $155,000 worth of Treasury bills. That's how massive the 
existing obligations of the Federal Government are.

                              {time}  1745

  The existing obligations of the Federal Government are so massive 
that every living American would have to purchase $155,000 worth of 
Treasury bills, and that wouldn't even touch the national debt. That 
wouldn't even touch the interest on the national debt. And yet the 
Democrat majority has attempted to jam through a bill here that we 
don't even really know the ultimate cost.
  Mr. Barton estimates that if the States expand coverage as far as 
they could to pick up illegal aliens and people of any age group or 
income group, but if Mr. Barton is correct, and I think it is 
reasonable that there is no real way to calculate how much this bill 
costs, we are adding a monstrous and inexcusable financial debt on the 
back backs of our children.
  You are taking away Medicare coverage from seniors and allowing 
States to give it to illegal aliens. This is outrageous, it is 
unacceptable, it is unaffordable, and you are going to break the back 
of the taxpayers of this country.
  And I, for one, will stand at this microphone and all of us have an 
obligation to stand up here like Horatio at the gates of Rome. If this 
is the only place that I can stand and fight, I will stand and fight 
here as long as it takes to protect the Treasury and the taxpayers of 
this country from irresponsible, irresolute spendthrift practices of 
the majority of this House, and I won't stand for it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise with considerable regret, and I 
want to speak with affection and respect for my good friend and 
colleague from Texas (Mr. Barton), the senior member of the Republicans 
on the Committee on Energy and Commerce. He complained about the 
process in the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  I would like the House and this committee to know that he was 
afforded, first of all, every bit of notice that is required by the 
rules of the House, that the proceedings which were conducted in that 
committee were conducted in an eminently fair and proper way in full 
accord with the rules and the proprieties of the House.
  I would also like him to know that I am sure he can recall that we 
sought his counsel as to how it was we could put something together 
which, in fact, would give him a process which would enable us to 
address the problem of SCHIP.
  I would like to remind him and this committee that SCHIP is going to 
expire on the 30th of September. That is an important date because at 
which time we are going to find that all of

[[Page H9260]]

the kids, 6 million of them, who have coverage under SCHIP will lose 
that coverage if something is not done by the Congress of the United 
States. It is our purpose, given the fact that there will be a recess 
in this body during the month of August, to see to it that we have this 
measure ready for the floor in time that the business can be dealt with 
and that we can handle the matter in a way which will take care of 
these kids.
  The legislation was made available to my good friend and to my 
Republican colleagues on the committee as soon as it could be done 
after the necessary discussions were held to try to frame a proper 
piece of legislation and to address something that responsibility of a 
fiscal and financial character requires, and that is to deal with the 
pay-fors and how we will pay for the cost of this program. We have done 
so, and we have arranged that the payments will be a little different 
than the Senate bill, but they will be sensible.
  First of all, we will require that the Medicare Advantage plans pay 
their fair share but that they are not overpaid for the services which 
they are providing. Some of the less fortunate are getting 11 percent 
more than they are entitled to, some of the more fortunate are getting 
19 percent more than they are entitled to, and some of the most 
fortunate are getting 30 percent more than they are entitled to. It 
seemed like good sense to put them in a position where they could 
compete honestly with the other Medicare providers, and that is what we 
have done. We also have a modest increase in the tobacco tax.
  These are all issues which will be considered; and we offered my good 
friend and my Republican colleagues a chance to amend, debate, and to 
discuss this legislation.
  I would note for the benefit of my good friend from Texas that the 
rules do not require hearings and that on a number of occasions on 
important legislation in prior Congresses during his chairmanship and 
that of others of my very dear friends on the Republican side, the 
situation was conducted in a way in which there were no hearings and 
which legislation was brought directly to the committee and shot to the 
House floor in considerable haste. We protested this, but I have to say 
that, given the exigencies of the situation, the needs and the 
circumstances and the fact that the kids are very liable to lose their 
health care benefits and their insurance under SCHIP, we saw fit to 
bring the matter up.
  The House will, I hope and I think and I am informed, have this 
measure before us in the next little bit. We will do so with a full 
opportunity of everybody to debate it, to discuss where the money is 
coming from, what the benefits will be, and whether or not the 
legislation should be passed.
  It is my personal feeling that we have a chance here to not only save 
some 6 million kids who would lose all benefits, but under the 
legislation which has come out of the Ways and Means Committee and 
which was considered in the Committee on Energy and Commerce to cover 
not 6 million but 11 million kids that desperately need this, which 
will be important.
  I conclude with an expression of affection for my friend and 
colleague from Texas.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I spoke earlier on the second 
degree amendment of Mr. McHenry. Am I allowed at this time to seek 
recognition to speak on the original amendment of Mr. Gingrey?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is permitted to seek recognition to speak 
on the original amendment.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Then, Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words on the Gingrey amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage my 
distinguished chairman, the Honorable John Dingell of Michigan, in a 
colloquy, with his permission.
  Mr. DINGELL. I certainly am happy to do that with my dear friend, and 
I express again my respect and affection for the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. We have the utmost respect for each other, and 
that is sincere, and there is nothing artificial about that.
  Mr. Chairman, is it not true that the bill that was marked up or 
attempted to be marked up in your committee last week was given to the 
minority at 11:36 p.m. last Tuesday evening?


                             Point of Order

  Mr. OBEY. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin will state his point of 
order.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thought that Members were required to be 
addressing the matter at hand.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct. The Members who are 
recognized should confine their remarks to the issue that is being 
debated.
  The gentleman from Texas may proceed.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I understand the rules, Mr. Chairman. I am going 
to try to comply with the rules.
  I support the Gingrey amendment just like I supported the McHenry 
amendment. I also believe that we should use as close an approximation 
of an open and fair process on the SCHIP reauthorization as we are 
using on the pending appropriations process; and I am informed by my 
staff that the SCHIP bill, which was 465 pages in length, was presented 
to minority staff at 11:36 p.m. last Tuesday evening; and I would like 
the distinguished chairman of the full Energy and Commerce Committee to 
indicate to me if that is a true statement.
  Mr. OBEY. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I am perfectly willing to hear the gentlemen 
debate this matter when their bill is on the floor. But the last time I 
looked, I thought an appropriations bill was on the floor; and, just 
for the heck of it, I would like us to stick to the rules and consider 
the matter before us. We have spent 2 hours on a nonsensical, symbolic 
amendment that has very little relationship to the bill; and it seems 
to me this House is getting considerably far afield.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is correct. The gentleman 
who sought the time must confine his remarks to the pending question.
  The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I understand the rules that we are 
operating under, and I am totally supportive of Mr. Gingrey's amendment 
on the Ag appropriations bill.
  I listened with interest to my committee chairman, Mr. Dingell, 
earlier when he rose to speak about the process in the Energy and 
Commerce Committee. He didn't talk about the Gingrey amendment. He 
didn't talk about anything dealing with the Ag appropriations. So I am 
simply trying to get some information from him about what he spoke of, 
and I think the rules of the Energy and Commerce Committee require a 
36-hour advance notice, and we weren't given that 36-hour notice on 
that bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas will suspend.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. And I think the chairman knows it.
  Mr. OBEY. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I am not under the impression 
that the rules of the Energy and Commerce Committee are now before the 
House. I am under the impression that the Agriculture appropriations 
bill is before the House, and it would be nice if we could focus our 
discussion on that.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin stated a point of order, 
and he is correct. The gentleman from Texas, who has been recognized, 
must confine his remarks to the pending question.
  The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I appreciate the chairman's courtesy.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the majority is embarrassed to have the 
question answered. I think the majority knows that we were not given 
the bill within the 36-hour window. We weren't even given it within a 
12-hour window.
  Mr. OBEY. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

[[Page H9261]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin will state his point of 
order.
  Mr. OBEY. The gentleman is not discussing the matter at hand.
  The CHAIRMAN. Once again, the gentleman from Wisconsin is correct. 
The gentleman from Texas must confine his remarks to the pending 
question.
  The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Well, I need an answer to this question, and I 
am at a loss about how to get that answer.
  I listened to my chairman explain his position. I would hope that we 
could give him a chance to respond to a few simple questions about what 
he just told the body.
  So my question is, did we get the bill within 36 hours?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, point of order. The gentleman can raise any 
question he wants with the gentleman from Michigan but not on an 
appropriation bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is correct. The gentleman 
from Texas must confine his remarks to the pending question.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Is it within the rules of the bill that is under 
consideration now to go back and ask that previous comments be read to 
the body to see if they were germane to the pending question? Is that 
within the rules?
  The CHAIRMAN. That is not in order.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. That is not in order or it is in order?
  The CHAIRMAN. A Member wishing to address the propriety of those 
remarks must have been timely. The gentleman's present request would 
not be timely.
  The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. How much time do I have left, Mr. Chairman?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would ask my distinguished 
chairman, who is the dean of the House, who has served in this body 
over 50 years, who will go down in its history as one of the most 
effective Members of the entire 200-plus years of the Congress, if the 
current process that we are apparently going to use on the SCHIP bill 
once we get through the Agriculture appropriation bill----


                             Point of Order

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, point of order. This is not a matter 
pertaining to the subject at hand.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. With all due respect, I think that does pertain 
to the subject at hand.

                              {time}  1800

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin have a point of 
order?
  Mr. OBEY. Yes, I do. The gentleman is not addressing the matter at 
hand. This is not the United States Senate where anything is possible.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct. The gentleman from Texas must 
confine his remarks to the pending question.
  The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I would like to yield to my distinguished 
chairman for any remarks he cares to make. How are the Tigers doing in 
the American League? What are his plans for the August break? If we 
can't talk about substantive issues because the majority is embarrassed 
to hear the answer, maybe we can discuss something else.
  Mr. OBEY. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. OBEY. Perhaps the gentleman can tell us what the name of the 
Secretary of Agriculture is. That would at least get us close at hand 
to the subject we are supposed to be debating.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Well, it's not David Obey.
  I am going to yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman, out of 
respect for the chairman's courtesies.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I do want to speak in favor of the 
McHenry amendment. I think it is a vitally important amendment that we 
debate on this House floor today. Maybe the dollar amount is modest; 
the principle is huge. This is a body that spends too much of the 
people's money, and it has repercussions. And no matter how intensely 
our friends from the other side of the aisle want to prevent us from 
painting a picture for the American people on where their spending is 
leading, we feel compelled to speak out.
  Mr. Chairman, already this body is spending over $23,000 per American 
household. In real terms, it's one of the greatest amounts since World 
War II. Every appropriations bill that has come to the floor, 
practically every single one is spending more money than last year, way 
beyond the rate of inflation and beyond the ability of the family 
budget to pay for the excess in the Federal budget.
  So, now we have an Agriculture appropriations bill which is almost 6 
percent above last year. I assure you, the American people didn't get a 
6 percent raise, those who are expected to pay for it. And beyond the 6 
percent increase, the bill expands mandatory spending. Now, supposedly 
PAYGO is supposed to apply to this, but it doesn't because we have a 
PAYGO loophole. And this is a big, big loophole, Mr. Chairman. And we 
need to pay attention to more mandatory spending. Because already, 
simply with the government that we have today, before our friends on 
the other side of the aisle add on a massive increase in an SCHIP 
program that's going to be funded with tax increases and Medicare cuts, 
before they do that, we're already on automatic pilot to double taxes 
on the next generation. We're either going to double taxes on the next 
generation or there is not going to be any Federal Government to speak 
of, except Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. There will barely be 
any funds for anything else.
  And don't take my word for it, Madam Chair, take the word of the 
Office of Management and Budget, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, 
the conservative Heritage Foundation, the liberal Brookings Institute. 
So there is this train wreck coming on entitlement spending.
  We have a modest amendment that would reduce a little bit of spending 
in the Agriculture bill to take off that pressure, and instead the 
amendment is simply mocked. Well, we can't do that because we know if 
we don't pass this amendment, this modest amendment, to save money on 
the Agriculture appropriations bill, we know what it's leading to on 
SCHIP, a new permanent entitlement of almost $160 billion over 10 
years. I mean, Madam Chair, this is unconscionable, unconscionable on 
top of the burden that is already going to be placed upon future 
taxpayers.
  Now, we have so many Members who come to the floor and talk about, 
well, we have to be here for the least of these. Well, Madam Chair, I 
would posit that maybe the least of these are those who do not vote and 
those who have yet to be born. And so that is why we need the amendment 
passed by the gentleman from North Carolina to save this money, to take 
pressure off of creating this new huge permanent entitlement in SCHIP.
  We also need this amendment in this Ag bill to take the pressure off 
this huge cut in Medicare that the Democrat majority is now planning, 
as they seek to pit grandparents against their grandchildren in this 
massive SCHIP tax-spend-debt spiral. I mean, they're going to increase 
taxes, the tobacco taxes. I'm not a smoker. I used to be a volunteer in 
the American Cancer Society, but last I looked, it's still a legal 
activity. So taxes are going to fall on low- and moderate-income 
Americans as they seek to take away private insurance from others and 
put them onto a public insurance plan.
  We're looking again at cutting Medicare Advantage plans, almost 20 
percent of the people. We're going to have pressure to cut Medicare.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield for 
a question?
  Is the gentleman aware that we've accepted the amendment?
  Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Chair, do I control the time? If so, I have not 
yielded to the gentleman from Illinois.

[[Page H9262]]

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mrs. Tauscher). The gentleman from Texas 
controls the time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I would urge the adoption of this amendment so that 
we can save some money here and prevent this massive raid on the 
Medicare trust fund that is coming in in this SCHIP bill.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Madam Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Madam Chairman, is there a particular 
parliamentary vehicle that, once an amendment has been accepted by the 
majority, that the amendment can then be disposed of?
  I don't know what the point is here. We've accepted the amendment. 
It's been asked. It's been answered. We accept it. We want to add it to 
the bill. We're prepared to move forward. We've accepted the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair will put the question on the amendment 
after 5-minute debate has been exhausted.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Madam Chairman, I also rise in support of the McHenry 
amendment. Clearly, we have to get some control over spending, and this 
Agriculture bill is no exception to this.
  As we look at this spending bill, as we've looked at the rest of 
them, we're continuing to spend more money, and it's a recipe for 
further tax increases. Furthermore, it's going to be at the expense of 
seniors. Here we are, we're looking at an SCHIP bill which, in my 
opinion, after looking at this to the extent I've been able to look at 
it, appears to be very irresponsibly crafted. In fact, I believe it to 
be a cruel hoax.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Point of order, Madam Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Madam Chair, as I understand previous 
rulings from the Chair, that the gentleman must confine his remarks to 
the matter at hand, the Agriculture appropriations bill, and not the 
SCHIP bill, which will come before the Congress later this week.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana must confine his 
remarks to the pending question.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank the Chair.
  As I was saying, this bill continues to spend far too much money, as 
did all the previous appropriations bills we've voted upon, and it is 
going to put further pressure on the work that we desperately need to 
do.
  Looking at what we're going to go forward with as we look at health 
care, how are we going to pay for health care if we're putting all this 
money into overspending in these other bills? We have to get our 
priorities straight.
  If we're going to raise cigarette taxes, a diminishing source of 
revenue, to pay for a program that's expanding, and then we're also 
going to take one-time money from Medicare Advantage to pay for an 
expanded program, how is it that we're going to deal with our entire 
Federal budget? Again, this bill before us today is a big part of the 
problem.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Point of order.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Madam Chair, I have sat here and have counted 
15 straight times that we have ruled on the central question of 
germaneness. We are here to talk about the Agriculture appropriations.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman have a point of order?
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. My point of order is, where is it in the rules 
to which this total disrespect for the Chair and the rulings of the 
Chair continues to be allowed? What is the point of having a rule?
  Mr. GINGREY. Madam Chair, point of order.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. May I have my point of order responded to?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. As the Chair has already ruled, the gentleman 
from Louisiana must confine his remarks to the pending question.
  Mr. GINGREY. Madam Chairman, point of order.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia may state his point 
of order.
  Mr. GINGREY. Madam Chairman, is it not true that we are talking about 
a spending bill----
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman stating a point of order or 
parliamentary inquiry?
  Mr. GINGREY. The point of order, Madam Chairman, is, if there is 
spending and language in this bill that pertains to drugs, that 
pertains to health care, that pertains to the FDA and drug 
reimportation, then that makes this discussion of spending germane to 
the overall bill.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair has already ruled.
  The gentleman from Louisiana must maintain an ongoing nexus between 
the pending question and any broader policy issues.
  The gentleman from Louisiana may proceed.
  Mr. FARR. Madam Chair, parliamentary inquiry.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Louisiana yield for a 
parliamentary inquiry?
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Madam Chair, reclaiming my time, I just want to say 
that we're talking about an Agriculture bill, a spending bill, and 
we're talking about money that is going to be spent. We're talking 
about money that is going to be spent in this that will not be 
available to spend on health care issues, particularly on a number of 
issues affecting rural seniors.
  Now, I have a rural district, it depends on agriculture, and as we go 
forward, we're going to hurt these seniors in these rural communities. 
If we cut over $200 billion in Medicare spending, I have 3,246 seniors 
in the Seventh Congressional District who are currently enrolled in the 
Medicare Advantage who are going to suffer. So I think we have to get 
our priorities straight as we go forward.
  Furthermore, as we look at payments for hospitals are being cut $2.7 
billion; in-patient rehabilitative services, $6.6 billion in cuts; 
payments for skilled nursing facilities, $6.5 billion in cuts; payments 
for certain drugs, $1.9 billion; in-State renal disease, $3.6 billion. 
These are seniors who are poor in my Seventh Congressional District, 
and because of the spending in this Agriculture bill, they can't take 
care of these problems.


                             Point of Order

  Ms. DeLAURO. Point of order.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Connecticut will state her 
point of order.
  Ms. DeLAURO. It has been ruled over and over again on this floor that 
the gentleman has to keep his remarks in the context of the bill, the 
Agriculture appropriations bill that is being discussed.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana must confine his 
remarks to the pending question.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank the Chairwoman.
  Again, I state that I am supporting the McHenry amendment because I 
think it's an important step forward as we get some control over 
spending so we can set our priorities straight so we don't hurt rural 
seniors.
  I pointed out the numerous cuts that are going to be made to the 
3,246 seniors in the Seventh Congressional District alone.
  Madam Chair, when is the spending spree going to stop? When are we 
going to get control over this spending so that we can set our 
priorities straight?


                             Point of Order

  Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Chair, point of order.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Chair, we have been debating this amendment for 1 
hour. We accepted this amendment within that 1 hour.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman have a point of order?
  Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Chairman, how many times can our friends on the 
other side of the aisle raise nongermane issues after the Chair has 
ruled that they must confine their remarks to the underlying bill?

[[Page H9263]]

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair will respond to points of order as 
they are made.
  The gentleman from Louisiana will continue.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank the Chair.
  Again, Agriculture spending is what we're talking about. But if we're 
spending excessive money in this Ag appropriations bill, it's going to 
hurt what we can do to take care of our seniors.
  Again, 3,246 seniors in the Louisiana Seventh Congressional District 
are going to be hurt by this situation. If we look at the SCHIP 
situation that we're faced with, we're going to have problems with cuts 
because we don't have money available because of the Agriculture bill.


                             Point of Order

  Ms. DeLAURO. Point of order.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend.
  The gentlewoman from Connecticut.
  Ms. DeLAURO. My colleague is supposed to keep his comments to the 
business at hand before the Committee, not what business the House will 
consider in the coming days; is that not true, Madam Chair?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman is correct. The Chair has ruled 
that the gentleman from Louisiana must confine his remarks to the 
pending question.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank the Chair.
  Furthermore, as we go forward with a bill that is increasing spending 
in Agriculture, I have seniors in my district who need motorized 
wheelchairs, and they may be forced to wait a month or more.

                              {time}  1815

  Again, because of the spending in this bill----
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Parliamentary inquiry, Madam Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman yield for a parliamentary 
inquiry?
  Mr. BOUSTANY. No.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana may continue.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Furthermore, with the spending in this bill, it is 
going to reduce the amount of time that the government will rent oxygen 
equipment for seniors to up to 36 months. This is going to be a problem 
for my seniors. We have got to get control over this spending. The 
first step here is with the McHenry amendment.
  Furthermore, I think if we look at what has happened with agriculture 
spending, typically, much of the money that has been spent on 
agriculture doesn't even go to agriculture. It has gone to all kinds of 
other pet programs.
  Madam Chairman, we have to set our priorities straight here.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Chairman, I appreciate very much the recognition.
  Madam Chairman, I think that the American people are probably getting 
a pretty good lesson on the effectiveness, or lack of effectiveness, of 
this Congress right now. Unfortunately for the institution, the lesson 
is driving home the poll numbers that show how little regard the 
American people have for the majority party right now. It is important 
that we have the opportunity to debate every one of these bills and 
that we have the opportunity to debate the amendments that are here.
  I rise in support of the amendment that my colleague from North 
Carolina has offered. I think, again, that it is important that we do 
that. It is also important that we have the ability to tie the 
amendments that are being offered to this agriculture bill to other 
issues. The majority party may not want to do that. However, it is very 
important that we do that, because these appropriations bills are all 
tied together.
  Last year, there was a great hue and cry from the majority party 
about how much money was being spent by the Republicans, what 
profligate spenders we were. Now that the Democrats are proposing 
spending all this money, it is negligible. $10 million is negligible. 
$5 million is negligible. It is insignificant. All kinds of words like 
that are being used.
  When we try to point out the connection between what is happening in 
this bill and with the amendments that we are offering to things like 
the SCHIP bill, then the majority party doesn't want us to do that.


                             Point of Order

  Ms. DeLAURO. Point of order.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Connecticut will state her 
point of order.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chairman, the gentlewoman's remarks need to be 
confined to the Agriculture appropriations bill. The amendment has been 
accepted, in case the gentlewoman did not know that.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is correct. The 
gentlewoman from North Carolina must confine her remarks to the pending 
question.
  The gentlewoman will proceed.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Parliamentary inquiry, Madam Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlewoman yield for a parliamentary 
inquiry?
  Ms. FOXX. Yes, I do.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Chairman, isn't it within the rules of the 
House while debating a pending question to include references to 
extraneous material?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from North Carolina must 
maintain an ongoing nexus between the pending question and any broader 
policy issues.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. But broader policy issues can be addressed.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. As long as the nexus is maintained.
  The gentlewoman from North Carolina may continue.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Chairman, I thank my colleague for seeking the 
clarification of this. I have been very confused about the majority 
party not wanting us to talk about the entire budget. This is one piece 
of an entire budget that this House is going to pass. I don't see how 
you can possibly say there is no nexus.
  Every spending bill in this Chamber is connected to every other 
spending bill, so how can you possibly say that they are not the same? 
You passed this huge budget with the largest tax increase in the 
history of this country. The budget sets the spending. I cannot 
understand why we can't talk about the budget and every other spending 
bill that we are going to deal with in conjunction with this spending 
bill, because they are all tied together.
  I would also like to point out to you that I guess while you are 
trying to speed us along you are raising all these points of order, 
which is simply slowing down the process. I find that somewhat amusing, 
too, as we are trying to move the process along.
  But it is important that we talk about our rural districts and what 
the SCHIP program would do to seniors. I have seniors who are going be 
hurt by this.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Point of order. Madam Chairman, the 
gentlelady is engaged in irrelevant debate.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman will suspend.
  The gentleman from Illinois will state his point of order.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Madam Chairman, the gentlewoman is engaged 
in irrelevant debate.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Chairman, I just stated----
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Madam Chairman, I would like a ruling on my 
point of order.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman will suspend.
  The gentlewoman from North Carolina must confine her remarks to the 
pending question.
  The gentlewoman may proceed.
  Ms. FOXX. Well, I will say again that we passed one budget in this 
House that includes the money for all the spending bills. If there is 
one budget, then it would seem to me that all of the spending bills are 
tied to each other. Therefore, any spending bill has a connection to 
every other spending bill. So there is a nexus there, and talking about 
what is going to happen or what is being proposed in one spending bill 
is relevant to every other spending bill. I simply don't see how you 
can separate them.

[[Page H9264]]

  It is going to be especially clear to the American people that that 
is the case when an omnibus spending bill is brought here this fall and 
we are asked to vote for, again, the largest tax increase in the 
history of this country within the confines of a very, very large 
spending bill.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Madam Chairman, I ask to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Madam Chairman, I rise today on the McHenry 
amendment, which would cut $100,000 from the USDA, the Department of 
Agriculture. $100,000, that is the equivalent to what the out-of-pocket 
costs will be if you have a 10 percent cut in Medicare Advantage for 
poor health seniors in my State.


                             Point of Order

  Ms. DeLAURO. Point of order.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Connecticut.
  Ms. DeLAURO. The gentleman is engaged in irrelevant debate and is not 
speaking about the issue at hand, the Agriculture appropriations bill.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. No, I actually was.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend.
  The gentleman from Oregon must confine his remarks to the pending 
question.
  The gentleman may proceed.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. I am trying to put what $100,000 means in 
perspective for people who may actually get hit with higher costs 
because of other policy changes coming down the road as part of this 
overall budget.
  I would also point out to my friends on the Democratic side of the 
aisle that the Agriculture appropriations bill also contains in it 
language related to drug reimportation; and, indeed, that is an issue 
in this bill before this House at this time.
  Certainly, if the Medicare Advantage plans are whacked in a rural 
district, then perhaps seniors may want to take advantage of that 
provision. I don't know. Because drug reimportation poses a whole set 
of different issues that can be problematic, if you have seen some of 
the polluted drugs coming in from China right now.
  So that is an issue that concerns me. Because if they lose their 
Medicare Advantage coverage that may help them in that area, who knows 
what is left in terms of cuts in Medicare.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, point of order.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. OBEY. The House is not debating the issue of Medicare Advantage. 
The House is debating an Agriculture appropriations bill, and the 
gentleman has an obligation to stay on the subject.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will direct his remarks to the 
pending question.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Parliamentary inquiry, Madam Chairman. Is there 
not in the underlying bill language dealing with drug importation?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oregon must maintain an 
ongoing nexus between the pending question and any broad policy issues.
  The gentleman from Oregon may continue.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. So the policy here in this context would be 
related to drugs, because in the underlying bill is drug reimportation 
language.
  There is not? Okay. So you are telling me in the Agriculture 
appropriations bill there is no language in there that deals with drug 
importation. That is news, if you read the bill.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend.
  Currently pending the House has before it the amendment of the 
gentleman from North Carolina to the amendment of the gentleman from 
Georgia. That is the business that is pending. That is the question 
that the gentleman's remarks should be directed to.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. So you can't talk about anything else in the 
agriculture bill, just the $100,000 cut.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair has ruled that the gentleman should 
confine his remarks to the pending question, which is the McHenry 
amendment to the Gingrey amendment.


                             point of order

  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Point of order.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia has a point of order. 
Please state it.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Chairman, do the rules of this House apply 
the same to every Member of the House?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman stating a parliamentary inquiry 
or a point of order?
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. A parliamentary inquiry.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Oregon yield for that 
purpose?
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. I would be happy to yield.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Parliamentary inquiry, Madam Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. State your parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Do the rules of this House apply to every Member 
equally?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Chairman, further parliamentary inquiry. Is 
it not true that the chairman of Energy and Commerce came to the floor 
and never mentioned the amendment that was being discussed?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is not stating a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Further parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. I continue to yield.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. The same parliamentary inquiry. Is it not true that 
when the gentleman that is chair of Energy and Commerce----
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair does not exercise initiative in this 
area but only rules on points of order as they are made.
  The gentleman from Oregon is recognized.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I will try and 
confine my remarks more to the McHenry amendment, which, as we know, 
would cut $100,000 out of the Department of Agriculture.
  Now, that $100,000 may not seem like a lot to many on this floor, but 
it may seem like a lot to a senior if they are going to lose their 
Medicare Advantage plan. But I know that is not the issue before us at 
this moment. The issue really is, how do you control spending in the 
Federal government?
  I think one of the ways you control spending in the Federal 
government is through the McHenry amendment. Because the McHenry 
amendment reduces Federal spending by $100,000, which may not seem like 
a lot to some and they may not want us to talk about how it could be 
used in other programs that may come before this House at a different 
time in a different way. But certainly, if you were going to lose your 
Medicare, you would be concerned about you might save $100,000 here 
that could be used somewhere else so you did not have to raise taxes 
on, say, health insurance.
  Saving $100,000 here is a good thing. It may not seem like a lot, but 
it is still a good thing. It reduces spending, and this government has 
had trouble reducing spending. We have spent a lot of time on this 
floor debating amounts that are even less than $100,000. I would like 
to see us go farther than that, because I also know in other committees 
there is debate going on about having to raise revenues to fund other 
programs.


                             point of order

  Ms. DeLAURO. Point of order.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman will state her point of order.
  Ms. DeLAURO. The gentleman's remarks need to be confined to the issue 
at hand, the matter at hand. The amendment has to do with the Office of 
the Secretary of Agriculture.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. That is what I am speaking to, Madam Chairman. 
I am speaking to the $100,000 cut in the Office of the Secretary of 
Agriculture.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend.

[[Page H9265]]

  The gentleman will confine his remarks to the pending matter, which 
is the McHenry amendment.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. How am I not, Madam Chairman? How am I not 
confining my remarks? Could you delineate? Can you not talk about 
anything else, other than simply the words in the amendment?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman must confine his remarks to the 
pending question.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. So I am. This amendment, if approved, would 
save $100,000. This amendment, if approved, would save $100,000. I 
would like to be able to put that in a broader context for my 
colleagues in terms of what that might mean to other spending and other 
situations around here where the Democrats have decided to raise----


                             point of order

  Ms. DeLAURO. Point of order.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Connecticut.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Is it not true that the issue is whether or not there is 
$50,000 or $100,000 that is to be cut, and that is the issue at hand, 
and that is the issue that ought to be addressed?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman is correct.
  Ms. DeLAURO. And it has been accepted.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The McHenry amendment to the Gingrey amendment 
is the pending question.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Madam Chairman, I am speaking to the importance 
of cutting $100,000 rather than $50,000.
  Mr. GINGREY. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. GINGREY. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  Is it not true that these points of orders and parliamentary 
inquiries that keep coming from the other side are just dilatory 
tactics on their part to take away our ability to talk to the American 
people and to this body on a very important issue?
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Well, it would seem to me that they have 
narrowed what we can say, trying to silence the minority, trying to 
silence Republicans from bringing to light certain issues we care 
about. We have been restricted now to simply talking about a dollar 
amount on one amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Connecticut has already 
spoken on the pending propositions.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ISRAEL. I yield to the distinguished chairwoman of the 
subcommittee.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  I want to make the point that it is really laughable to talk about 
dilatory. It really is. It is now not an hour and a half, it is almost 
2\1/2\ hours on an amendment that has been accepted and a secondary 
amendment that has been accepted by the Committee for the Department of 
Agriculture. The cuts have been made.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Chairman, point of order.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman will suspend. The gentleman may 
state his point of order.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. As I understand the Chair's ruling before, 
individual Members must confine their comments to the amendment at 
hand.
  Ms. DeLAURO. That is exactly what I'm doing. The amendment at hand, 
the McHenry amendment, to increase the Gingrey amendment from $50,000 
to $100,000. We have debated it. It has been accepted.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Is there a ruling from the Chair?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman has confined her remarks to the 
pending question.
  Mr. ISRAEL. I yield back the balance of my time.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state it.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I have noticed that the Chair has qualitatively 
ruled on the nature of Members' comments on the floor as it relates to 
confining their comments to the amendment. I would suggest that is not 
an appropriate compliance with the rules of the House.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair will respond to points of order as 
they are made.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the Chair.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey may state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. When the Chair rules to a point of order 
with respect to limiting one's comments or debate to the underlying 
amendment that is before us at the time, is that time allowed to be 
discussed on something with respect to the amount of time in essence 
that we are discussing that bill or does the language only go to the 
underlying amendment?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey, or any Member 
addressing the House on a particular pending question, must maintain an 
ongoing nexus between the pending question and any broader policy 
issues.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Further parliamentary inquiry.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Is it a sufficient nexus to discuss the 
amount of time that an individual is taking to discuss the underlying 
amendment?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Broader issues could include the time being 
consumed by the Member.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Thank you.
  Mr. SHADEGG. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SHADEGG. I rise in strong support of the McHenry amendment to 
reduce the budget of the Office of the Secretary by $101,000.
  The reason I support that amendment is because I do not support 
cutting the Medicare Advantage program by billions of dollars and 
hurting seniors.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Point of order.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois will state his point 
of order.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Madam Chairman, the majority has accepted 
the McHenry amendment and the minority continues to engage in 
irrelevant debate.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona has confined his 
remarks to the pending amendment. The gentleman may proceed.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Thank you. I would rather cut the Secretary's budget by 
$101 billion as a way to save money than to cut the Medicare Advantage 
program because the Medicare Advantage program helps millions of 
Americans and thousands in my own congressional district. So as the 
Democrats propose to cut that program in their SCHIP bill, I believe it 
would be better to cut this program.
  I rise in support of the McHenry amendment to cut $101,000 from the 
Secretary's budget because the Medicare Advantage bill will cut 3 
million seniors' ability to collect their benefits through Medicare 
Advantage. That 3 million includes some of the poorest of seniors who 
are on Medicare Advantage, and I would rather cut $101,000 from the 
Secretary's budget than cut that money going to Medicare seniors who 
need it desperately.
  I support the amendment by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
McHenry) to cut $101,000 from the budget of the Secretary of 
Agriculture because the other cut we are faced with is a $15 billion 
cut in part A, including a cut in benefits to skilled nursing 
facilities, as the Democrats propose to do in their SCHIP bill.
  I would rather cut the Department of Agriculture's budget than----


                             Point of Order

  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Point of order.

[[Page H9266]]

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend.
  The gentleman from Illinois will state his point of order.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. The majority has accepted the McHenry 
amendment and the minority continues to engage in irrelevant debate 
about the SCHIP program in another bill for another day.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona must confine his 
remarks to the pending question.
  The gentleman may proceed.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SHADEGG. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. SHADEGG. I presume I can state my reason for supporting the 
amendment; is that correct?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman must keep his remarks to the 
pending question, and there must be a nexus between the pending 
question and broader policy issues.
  The gentleman may proceed.
  Mr. SHADEGG. And I will continue to say that a $15 billion cut in 
skilled nursing facilities is, from my perspective, a bad idea, much 
worse than a $101,000 cut from the Secretary's budget. And, therefore, 
I rise in strong support of the McHenry amendment because I don't want 
to see skilled nursing cut as the Democrats propose to do in their 
SCHIP bill.
  I support the McHenry amendment which would cut $101,000 from the 
Secretary's budget because I don't support cutting rehabilitation 
facilities as the Democrats would do in their SCHIP bill.
  Indeed, I would much prefer to cut $100,000 from the Secretary's 
budget than to cut, as the Democrats do in their SCHIP bill, 
rehabilitation facilities.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Point of order.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend.
  The gentleman from Illinois will state his point of order.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Madam Chairman, the majority has accepted 
the McHenry amendment and the minority continues to engage in 
irrelevant debate about a piece of legislation that will come up in a 
few days. We are discussing the Agriculture appropriations bill.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman must confine his remarks to the 
pending question.
  The gentleman may proceed.
  Mr. SHADEGG. As I believe I have, quite skillfully.
  I do rise in very strong support of the McHenry amendment because I 
believe that cutting the Secretary's budget is a much better idea than 
cutting skilled nursing facilities.
  I believe it is a much better idea than cutting long-term hospital 
facilities, as the Democrats do in their SCHIP bill. And I think it 
would be much better to cut $100,000 from the Secretary of 
Agriculture's administrative budget than to cut, as the Democrats do, 
funding for long-term care by hospitals.
  It seems to me this is a simple debate: Where do we cut? I would much 
rather cut $100,000 from the budget of the Office of the Secretary than 
to cut $9 billion from Medicare plan B, including payments for oxygen, 
as the Democrats do in their SCHIP bill. It seems to me that kind of 
cut in their SCHIP bill is a bad idea. I would rather support the 
gentleman's amendment.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Point of order.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois will state his point 
of order.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Madam Chairman, the gentleman sounds like a 
broken record. The majority has accepted the McHenry amendment and the 
minority continues to engage in irrelevant debate.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois will state his point 
of order.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. The majority has accepted the McHenry 
amendment, and the minority continues to engage in irrelevant debate.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman making a point of order that 
the debate is irrelevant?
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I am making the point of order that the 
debate is absolutely irrelevant.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct. The gentleman from 
Arizona must confine his remarks to the pending question.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Madam Chairman, I seek a clarification. What was the 
ruling of the Chair?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The point of order is correct. The gentleman 
from Arizona must confine his remarks to the pending question.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Precisely how did my remarks not----
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending question is the amendment by Mr. 
McHenry of North Carolina to the amendment by the gentleman from 
Georgia. That is the pending question.
  Mr. SHADEGG. And I thank the Chairman for her ruling, and I am 
pleased to say that each of my points have tried to explain that I 
support, adamantly support the amendment by the gentleman to cut 
$100,000 from the Secretary's budget because I don't favor these other 
cuts. I don't favor cutting the funding for end-stage renal disease 
programs. I would much rather cut the Department of Agriculture 
administrative budget than do as the Democrats would in their SCHIP 
bill, cut $3.6 billion from the end-stage renal disease program.
  It seems to me that the amendment of the gentleman from North 
Carolina to cut $100,000 from the administrative budget of the 
Secretary is a much-preferable method to achieve the savings that we 
need. In each of these instances, I believe that cutting the 
Secretary's budget would make much more sense than cutting the Medicare 
program.
  I have constituents in my district who would much rather see us cut 
the Ag budget than see us cut Medicare or see us cut end-stage renal 
disease or than see us cut oxygen therapy as is all done in the 
Democrats' SCHIP bill. For all of those reasons, I believe it is very 
important that we support the gentleman's amendment.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Point of order.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois may state his point 
of order.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. The minority continues to engage in 
irrelevant debate.
  Mr. SHADEGG. There is nothing irrelevant about it.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona will suspend.
  Does the gentleman make a point of order that the debate is 
irrelevant?
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I make the point of order that the debate is 
irrelevant.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct. The gentleman from 
Arizona must confine his remarks to the pending question.
  Mr. SHADEGG. I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is: Shall the decision of the Chair 
stand as the judgment of the Committee?
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SHADEGG. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 220, 
noes 178, not voting 39, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 777]

                               AYES--220

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins

[[Page H9267]]


     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--178

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--39

     Allen
     Bishop (UT)
     Boucher
     Braley (IA)
     Buyer
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Cardoza
     Clarke
     Cohen
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Dicks
     Doyle
     Feeney
     Forbes
     Fortuno
     Fossella
     Hayes
     Hunter
     Johnson, Sam
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCrery
     Miller, George
     Nunes
     Pickering
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Smith (TX)
     Tancredo
     Udall (CO)
     Waters
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (OH)
     Wynn

                              {time}  1906

  Mr. PETRI changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. KILPATRICK changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the decision of the Chair stands as the judgment of the Committee.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SHADEGG. Madam Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. SHADEGG. As I understand the ruling of the Chair, it is 
appropriate for me to say I support the gentleman's amendment because I 
do not support cuts in skilled nursing facilities or cuts in 
rehabilitation facilities or cuts in long-term care hospitals or cuts 
in oxygen, or cuts in brachytherapy, or cuts in end-stage renal disease 
or cuts in Medicare Advantage; but that I cannot say which appear in 
their SCHIP bill. Is that correct?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is permissible to identify as preferable an 
alternative object for funding. It is not permissible to dwell on the 
merits of that alternative object.
  The gentleman may proceed.
  Mr. SHADEGG. I thank you very much for your ruling.
  Madam Chairman, I do rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. I 
believe that we have to find the funding necessary for essential 
government programs and that cutting the Secretary of Agriculture is 
much better than cutting such programs as skilled nursing facilities, 
rehabilitation facilities, long-term care hospitals, oxygen under 
Medicare, brachytherapy under Medicare, end-stage renal disease funding 
under Medicare or Medicare Advantage.
  For those reasons, I rise in strong support of the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                  Motion to Rise Offered by Mr. Hoyer

  Mr. HOYER. Madam Chairman, I intend to ask for unanimous consent 
after the motion that I make and we rise, and then I will make a 
statement on the schedule that I perceive to be in front of us for such 
time as it may take to complete the business of the people of our 
country.
  I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion to rise.
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. GINGREY. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 235, 
noes 153, not voting 49, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 778]

                               AYES--235

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonner
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak

[[Page H9268]]


     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--153

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Capito
     Carter
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Kuhl (NY)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)

                             NOT VOTING--49

     Allen
     Bishop (UT)
     Boucher
     Braley (IA)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Cardoza
     Clarke
     Cummings
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Dicks
     Doyle
     Ferguson
     Forbes
     Fortuno
     Gingrey
     Harman
     Hayes
     Hinchey
     Hunter
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCrery
     Miller, George
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pickering
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Ryan (WI)
     Smith (TX)
     Tancredo
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1928

  Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina and Mr. PEARCE changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the motion to rise was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. INSLEE. Madam Speaker, I was absent from the House floor during 
today's vote on H.R. 2831, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007, 
which will protect women against pay discrimination and restore all 
employee's rights regarding nondiscriminatory pay. The legislation will 
reverse the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Ledbetter v. Goodyear by 
putting into statute widely accepted rules in employment discrimination 
law. I strongly support federal protections against pay discrimination; 
therefore, had I been present, I would have voted for H.R. 2831.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Tierney) having assumed the chair, Mrs. Tauscher, Acting Chairman of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
3161) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food 
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________