Andy Harris

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. So let's walk through some of this. Why do we need to repeal this bill? The bottom line is there is so much wrong with this bill, a bill that not only will cut $500 billion from current Medicare recipients, because you'll hear a lot of talk about, oh, that Ryan bill, it destroyed Medicare as we know it. Well, they forget to tell you that it doesn't touch Medicare for people over the age of 55. In fact, we restore that $500 billion for people who are currently covered or for people who are 55 and older who will be entering Medicare in the next 10 years. The little secret of ObamaCare is it takes current Medicare and cuts it by $500 billion. Now, my mother's 88 years old. I don't want a board of bureaucrats in Washington making a life-or-death decision on whether she gets Medicare treatment paid for--by 15 bureaucrats sitting in Washington who never met her. I think that decision ought to be made by my mother and her health care providers. No government bureaucrat in the room, no appointed bureaucrat with no appeals process who can say no, we don't really know your specific situation, but you know what? This is what it sounds like to us, and we think that shouldn't be covered, so you're not getting that care covered. And ladies and gentleman, you know, with the cost of medical care, if the government says it's not covering it, it's not getting done. Is that the way we want health care delivered in the United States? Is that what we want? Do we want a bill that says what kind of care you're going to receive, even if you're not on Medicare, that you have to go into specific health care plans, your employer is shoehorned into them? That promise--don't worry, if you like your plan, you'll keep it--had to have 1,700 waivers in the first year alone, 1,700 waivers. That's not the kind of health care we need. That's not the kind of health care plan we need. Do we want a plan that can be taken to the extreme by the Secretary of Health to say that we're going to violate closely, deeply held religious principles in certain religions in the United States, and we're going to force those people to do things against their religion? Is that what we've come down to? So, ladies and gentlemen, the cure is simple. We need to simply repeal ObamaCare. There is too much wrong with it. We tried to fix it piece by piece. We tried to pull out the things that hurt small business. We tried to deal with why you need 1,700 waivers. We tried to deal with that long-term care coverage. I'm convinced that bill will go to the Senate and it will die. We'll have instituted yet another Ponzi scheme in the United States. And those are not words from this side of the aisle. Those are the words of a Democrat Senator describing that long-term care plan that was part of ObamaCare, the one that takes your dollars, your dollars that you will put in it now, spends it now, with a promise, don't worry, when you get old and need it, there will be some money there. Ladies and gentlemen, we've heard that before. That dog don't hunt anymore. We've heard it with Medicare. We've heard it with Social Security. Americans have realized this Congress has spent us into bankruptcy with promises like that in the past. If we have made those promises in the past, we have to keep the promises we've made. But ladies and gentlemen, we have not implemented ObamaCare in its fullest, and now is the time to repeal it before we begin that. So, ladies and gentlemen, that's why over the next few weeks you'll hear, and Mr. Speaker, we'll see things come to the floor that deal with it, like we did last week and repealed that long-term care act that a Democrat Senator called a Ponzi scheme that Bernie Madoff would be proud of. A Ponzi scheme that Bernie Madoff would be proud of. That's why congressional approval rating is at 9 percent, because America watches as we come down to Washington and create Ponzi schemes. It's just time to stop. It's time for common sense to prevail. Common sense is we have to stop spending more money than we have. We have to stop burdening the hardworking taxpayers of America. We have to balance our budget. We have to pass a balanced budget amendment so that future Congresses can't create more Ponzi schemes. We have to deal with the debt and the deficit. Are they hard decisions? They certainly are. Are they decisions the American public expects us to come together and make? They certainly do. Let's rise to the occasion. I join with the President, who, a week ago, says let's work together to solve these problems. Mr. President, you don't solve these problems by impeding people's First Amendment rights to freedom of religion. You don't solve these problems by proposing $300 billion new stimulus spending in your State of the Union speech. You don't solve these problems by going out and doubling down on Solyndra. You don't solve these problems by denying the Keystone XL pipeline. Mr. President, we're ready. Let's come together and solve America's problems. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. And when you talk about the conscience protection that has been infringed in the last week, is it correct that that is directly a result of the ObamaCare legislation?

Mr. HARRIS. You know, the gentleman's been talking about the President's health care bill. I assume you don't mean President Reagan's health care bill, you don't mean President Bush's health care bill. You're talking about--because a lot of people at home might be a little confused, you're talking about ObamaCare, I take it?

Mr. HARRIS. Will the gentleman yield for just a question?

Mr. HARRIS. And in fact, as you well know, you're a surgeon, I'm an anesthesiologist, as physicians, when we were trained, the whole idea behind that part of the law would treat pregnancy as a disease. Because in my understanding, isn't that correct, that part of the law dealt with preventing disease? And in some strange way, shape, or form, what a lot of Americans think about as a thing of wonder, pregnancy--you know, the ability to bring a new life into the world--for the first time is treated as a disease to be prevented using taxpayer dollars to the point where, and correct me if I'm wrong, the Secretary of Health-- because that's her title, the Secretary of Health and Human Services-- is treating pregnancy as a disease. And not only saying that, but that it's so important to prevent this disease that every American employer should be forced to pay every penny of the prevention. Is that what I understand the Secretary's decision to mean?

Mr. HARRIS. Well, Mr. Speaker, as the doctor has said, this is a very strange path to go down, from a bill that was brought to the American public as a bill that will help the uninsured get insurance has now gone to the point of not dealing about whether someone has insurance, but whether every employee should pay what we call first dollar coverage--that is, no copay, no deductible--free treatment to treat what the Secretary of Health now I guess considers a disease, pregnancy. Now, if that's true, you know, I've got five children, I guess my wife was struck with that disease five times. But I will tell you, as a physician who's treated patients, Mr. Speaker, as the other gentleman from Michigan has, with diseases, to put pregnancy in the same category as breast cancer, as colon cancer, as prostate cancer, as leukemia, as other diseases that have screens that can be done, where, yes, maybe to prevent those life-threatening diseases--because, doctor, if you can correct me, I don't think it says that this is only for life-threatening pregnancies. I think this dictate from the Secretary of Health and Human Services of the United States is to prevent and treat, in whatever fashion someone decides to treat this disease--it doesn't have to be life-threatening; it's not a cancer, it's a pregnancy. To place that in the same category and to use our precious health care resources to treat disease and a pregnancy is a very different objective than to pass a bill to provide basic important health insurance. And I think the gentleman, as I say, you're being very generous and perhaps confusing to the American public, because I think they've come to understand this bill. It's ObamaCare. I'll tell you what's interesting. Most of the time, when someone here has a piece of legislation, signature legislation that passes, they're thrilled if the legislation is referred to by their name, and there are plenty of examples. But interestingly enough, as the doctor may know, when we write a letter to our constituents and refer to the Affordable Care Act, we've actually been told we can't use the name that all Americans know this bill by. They call it ObamaCare. For some reason, someone's sensitive. I guess the President's too sensitive. Why wouldn't he want--if he is so proud of this bill, why, every time we refer to it by the name all America knows it by and, I might add, dislikes it by, is ObamaCare. We know what the public polling says. A majority of Americans know it was a mistake. Interestingly enough, a third of Americans don't realize it's still the law of the land. But they did get a rude awakening last week when, if you happened to be a member of a religion that doesn't believe that pregnancy ought to be treated as a disease, that doesn't believe that you ought to be forced to fund sterilizations with no copay or deductible as part of your insurance policy you provide to your employees, that that comes under the ObamaCare legislation that is still in effect. Mr. Speaker, you know that if you travel through your district and you talk to the small business men and women in your district, you know how afraid they are of this bill being fully implemented. They understand that it will break the bank in their business, it'll break the bank in their State, and it'll break our bank here in Washington. We have a $15 trillion debt, and everyone knows, when you add 14 million new people to a government entitlement, as this bill did, all that you're going to do is make that situation worse. And our small business men and women realize this. They know that cost is going to be born to them. We know what the unemployment rate is. It's not under 8 percent like the President had promised when that stimulus bill was passed in this very Chamber 2 years ago, I will say, when the other side was in charge. The unemployment rate's over 8 percent. The Congressional Budget Office, just this week, projected it will be 9 percent by the end of the year. Times are tough. Gasoline is $3.60 a gallon. And what is the President's administration doing? Going full steam ahead on implementing a bill, ObamaCare, that Americans don't want and can't afford. So I'm going to thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding the time to me and thank the gentleman for bringing this up to the American people once again, to remind them ObamaCare is with us. It may not be after the next election. We don't know. But we know that America agrees, this was a bad idea at a bad time, and due to what happened last week with the conscience protection that's always been present in Federal law being abridged by our Secretary of Health.

Mr. HARRIS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HARRIS. Gentlemen, I appreciate the very passionate discussion that you had about the way physicians interact with patients, and patients kind of expect that their care is going to be a personal decision between their health care provider and themselves and their family. My understanding, and the gentleman from Louisiana mentioned this, Independent Payment Advisory Board, are 15 bureaucrats appointed by the President. Do either of the gentlemen know, correct me if I'm wrong, they are by law--cannot be a practicing physician. You might want to check one of those 2,700 pages because I believe that the act by law says they cannot be a practicing physician. Now, the gentleman from Michigan pointed out something that every senior in America ought to really care about, or those who take care of seniors or whose parent or grandparents are seniors. When your loved one is ill, do you really want the decision about whether they can receive care being made in an office in Washington by somebody who's got to find a way to pay for that ObamaCare bill? Because, Mr. Speaker, that's the whole purpose of that Independent Payment Advisory Board. They've got to find $500 billion to take out of that Medicare program. Who among us doesn't believe that when that bureaucrat sits down, they're not going to be thinking about what's best for your loved one? They're not going to be thinking about what that physician or that health care provider's decision is about what the best care is. They're going to be thinking how they're going to make that budget work. To the gentleman from Michigan, I will tell you, I think that's the way America thinks that decision is going to be made. They're going to believe that when government runs health care, it's going to be run just like government runs a whole lot of other things it runs. Ask a senior in your district, doctor from Louisiana, the doctor from Michigan, the doctor from Arizona, the doctor from Georgia, ask the next Medicare patient you take care of how long they have to wait on the phone when they call Medicare. To the gentlelady from New York, my mother is 88, God bless her. And I have to tell you, she has made the mistake a couple of times of calling Medicare on the phone. My poor 88-year-old mother spent 90 minutes one time on the phone to get an answer. That's the kind of care we're going to get from the Affordable Care Act. It's not affordable care. It's not accessible care. It's not good care. I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding and giving us the opportunity to remind the American public, we repealed ObamaCare in this Chamber. That repeal bill is sitting over in the Senate.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Floor Leader, for yielding the time. The last time the Senators passed a major bill over just before Christmas, it was 2009. It was the ObamaCare bill. That last Congress, the 111th Congress, decided not to go to conference and accept what the Senate sent over. Mr. Speaker, I ask those Americans watching to ask themselves: How did that work for you? That's what they want us to do with this piece of legislation, just accept what the Senate says. They want to go home for Christmas, and we'll just see how it all works out. Didn't work out so good that time; won't work out so good this time. The gentleman from California said you almost need a playbook to figure out what's going on. Mr. Speaker, thank goodness we have one. It's called House.gov. You can go and you can see exactly how your Representative voted on a 1-year tax cut extension. We took a vote last week. You can go see that one. We're going to take three today, whether you want a 1-year or a 2-month. Go to House.gov. You don't have to believe what anyone says on the floor. Go to House.gov. Now, Mr. Speaker, let's talk about the other part of the bill, which is a 2-year Medicare fixed SGR. I ask those seniors who are watching, pick up the phone once this debate is over and call your doctor's office. Ask him one question: Do you want a 2-month fix or do you want a 2-year fix? That's all. Simple question. Let's see what the doctors want. I know we in Washington like to think we know best for everything that goes on, including what our Medicare seniors want and their doctors want. I ask our seniors to do that.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. I would ask that America go to House.gov and look at the vote last week. Which party rejected a 1-year-long middle class tax cut and which party was in the majority to move that tax cut? The minority doesn't want a 1-year tax cut. They made it clear in last year's vote. The Senate made it clear in this action they took last week. Yes, we're going to drag them kicking and screaming to a conference. It's too bad that's what the legislative process has come to. We need to support going to conference and compromise.

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, Americans who are watching are probably going to have a deja vu. Last time they watched Congress in action on a contentious bill near the Christmas holiday was in 2009 when the Senate had plenty of time to come into town and pass the ObamaCare bill. And the House, under the leadership of what is now the minority party, thought it was just fine to do whatever the Senate wanted. How'd that work out for you, America? Today, we're actually going to do what we should be doing, which is going to conference and compromising with the Senate. Now, the motion is to concur with the Senate amendments. The Senate amendments say 60 days. Mr. Speaker, that's not kicking the can down the road; that's barely nudging the can down the road. And why doesn't that work? Because as a physician, I'll tell you, the real danger to our seniors is passing something that's short term time and time again, which the 111th Congress did. And I work with these docs. What they tell you, especially in rural areas where physicians are in shortage, they say: You know what? If you're only going to give me a 1-month or 2-week extension, as has been done, I'm going to have to stop seeing Medicare patients. I want to take care of Medicare patients, but that uncertainty that those short-term extensions create, I can't deal with in my practice. Under this, if a senior wants to see a specialist, especially a good specialist, they might have to wait 2 or 3 months. They're going to have to wait until after this extension. That specialist is going to say: I don't know what's happening in March. I'm not going to see those patients. The minority whip says the Republicans pretended to support a tax cut. I ask America, let's look at the record. We had a vote last week on the tax cut. Go look and see which party rejected the tax cut for middle class Americans. The gentleman from New York says we pretend to be for the working class.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 was not only a culmination of Hungary's struggle for freedom, democracy and independence, but also presaged the collapse of the Soviet Empire. Indeed, the 1956 Hungarian Revolution and Fight for Freedom was the first tear in the Iron Curtain. Hungarians from all walks of life rose up against insurmountable odds to fight the brutal Soviet-installed Hungarian communist government. Many died fighting, others were tortured and executed, while 200,000 were forced to flee. 2011 marks the 55th anniversary of that historical chain of events. The American Hungarian Federation, founded over 100 years ago and the oldest and largest umbrella Hungarian American organization in the United States, honors those whose enormous sacrifice seemed futile 55 years ago but that today is universally recognized as having contributed to the ultimate demise of Soviet domination of central and eastern Europe and the restoration of freedom and independence in Hungary and the region. We must never forget the heroes of 1956--the students, the intellectuals, the workers, the farmers and the cross-section of the entire Hungarian nation--who knew exactly what they wanted 55 years ago and were prepared to realize their dreams at great personal sacrifice. They fought and died for freedom, a multi-party democracy and independence from the Soviet Union. Two of our great presidents, among many others who cherish freedom and the courage to struggle for it, remembered the Hungarian Revolution as follows: ``October 23, 1956, is a day that will live forever in the annals of free men and nations. It was a day of courage, conscience and triumph. No other day since history began has shown more clearly the eternal unquenchability of man's desire to be free, whatever the odds against success, whatever the sacrifice required.''--John F. Kennedy, on the first anniversary of the Hungarian Revolution. ``The Hungarian Revolution of 1956 was a true revolution of, by and for the people. Its motivations were humanity's universal longings to live, worship, and work in peace and to determine one's own destiny. The Hungarian Revolution forever gave the lie to communism's claim to represent the people, and told the world that brave hearts still exist to challenge injustice.''--Excerpt from Ronald Reagan's Presidential Proclamation issued on October 20, 1986. We also recall the impact the massive Soviet invasion had on the Hungarian communities in states neighboring Hungary. One consequence was the solidly Stalinist Romanian government's virtual liquidation of the Hungarian-language Bolyai University in Romania, which was implemented by the secretary of the Central Committee, Nicolae Ceausescu. Five years ago Nobel Laureates and Wolf Prize Laureates, including Elie Wiesel and George Olah, and 69 other internationally acclaimed scholars called upon Romania to take ``immediate steps'' to ``re-establish the public Bolyai University in Cluj-Napoca/Kolozsvar.'' The university has yet to be restored. Another victim of communism was Janos Esterhazy, who despite being the only member of Slovakia's parliament to vote against the deportation of Jews in 1942, nevertheless died in a Czechoslovak prison in 1957. While Russia has done so, Slovakia has yet to exonerate him. Righting wrongs against Hungarian minorities (e.g., the Esterhazy case and the Bolyai University matter) that extend back to the Cold War period and respecting the rights of such minorities would be a fitting commemoration of 1956 and a tribute to the memory of thousands of unsung heroes who did not compromise but sacrificed their lives for the cause of liberty fifty-five years ago. Moreover, in order to strengthen democracy and safeguard freedoms throughout the region, today's generation--the beneficiary of the restored freedoms following the demise of communism--must be vigilant and guard against the curtailment of democracy and infringement of fundamental human rights and Western standards relating to minority rights. Consistent with its practice of fifty-five years, the American Hungarian Federation is committed to keep the memory of the heroes of 1956 alive. As we contemplate the promise of Hungary 1956, we are reminded that that promise must never be forgotten or abandoned, as the heroes of 1956 deserve nothing less.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Much has been said on the floor about perhaps taking time out from a jobs agenda to pass the bill. The fact of the matter is this bill corrects a problem with the bill that shouldn't have been discussed by the last Congress; they should have spent time dealing with the jobs issue instead of leaving it to this Congress. So we do need to make a correction. Madam Speaker, this one very important correction is the conscience protection in this bill. And I know as someone who's worked in a hospital where abortions are done--but they never forced me to do it because we have conscience protections in the State of Maryland. We need those conscience protections for everyone in the country, so that if you don't believe in abortion, you don't have to participate in it. That's a basic freedom, a basic religious freedom, we should protect for every single American health care provider. Madam Speaker, I would like to introduce into the Record four letters from obstetricians who work in facilities who point out that the conscience clause is not going to harm anyone's health in this bill. There's no evidence that it will. Madam Speaker, in conclusion, the conscience protection clause is needed. It's a correction for the work of the last Congress. We should pass this bill. Virginia Commonwealth University Health System, Richmond, VA, October 12, 2011. Hon. Joe Pitts, Hon. Dan Lipinski, Hon. Eric Cantor. Dear Representatives Pitts, Lipinski, and Cantor: I understand that the House of Representatives may soon consider H.R. 358, the Protect Life Act. As a physician I am especially interested in this bill's section reaffirming federal protection for health care providers' conscience rights on abortion. I have heard there may be an effort in the House to insert an exception into this law, so governmental bodies can discriminate against providers who decline to provide abortions in ``emergency'' cases. As a physician who has worked in emergency rooms for over 30 years, I am well versed in the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) and similar policies. I continue to practice emergency medicine, and to teach it at Virginia Commonwealth University. Based on then decades of experience, I see absolutely no merit in the claim that conscience laws on abortion pose any risk of allowing pregnant women to die in emergency rooms. Current federal laws as well a Virginia state law respect conscientious objection to abortion in all circumstances and I have never seen or heard of a case in which these laws created any conflict with women's safety or with legal obligations to stabilize patients' conditions in emergencies. Your provision on conscience protection is warranted and I do not think it should be weakened in any way. Sincerely, Edward J. Read Jr., MD, FACEP.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, when it comes to job creation, the American people are not waiting for the right speech but, rather, the right leadership. While the Obama administration claims to seek common ground on which to help employers hire workers, House Republicans have already produced and passed more than a dozen job-creating bills through the House this year. We're going to do that here later today with the three trade bills that will create 250,000 jobs. Unfortunately, these measures have long been ignored by the Senate and the White House. Where was the leadership? If President Obama is serious about helping create jobs, then he must listen to what job creators are actually saying. More than anything else, they need long- term confidence that Washington will stop punishing them with reckless red tape and threatening them with new taxes. House Republicans are ready to work with the President, but not if it means supporting policies that only work against job creators and job- seekers.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, it is proper and fitting that the United States offer our sincere congratulations to The Republic of China (Taiwan) on the 100th anniversary of the origins of their Democracy on October 10, 2011. Taiwan is a true democracy and a beacon of freedom in a part of the world where it is notably needed. A true strategic ally of the U.S., Taiwan has led the fight for freedom, equal education and advancement of human rights in many areas across the globe. Taiwan is also a willing partner in helping to respond to the economic melt-down which has so adversely affected the world economy. President Ma Ying-jeou has made stabilizing the world economy a priority, for which he should be congratulated.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. President, where are the jobs? You spent nearly $1 trillion on a stimulus bill that failed. Now you want to spend another $450 billion on another stimulus bill. This is simply repeating the same action and expecting a different outcome. Solyndra is an example of the waste and failure of your stimulus bill. This company in the solar industry is a crony of your administration. Solyndra's backers were friends of your Presidential campaign, and the company received friendly treatment from your administration. Solyndra was supposed to create green jobs, but now more than a thousand are laid off. They got a $535 million taxpayer- subsidized loan, but they are now bankrupt and their officers are taking the Fifth Amendment. We must help the American economy create jobs by freeing job creators from regulations that stifle growth, expand production of competitive and affordable energy, stop threatening job creators with higher taxes, and stop wasting taxpayers' money. Mr. Speaker, no more Solyndras. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, this evening is a moment in history. Very few times does this House vote to advance an amendment to the United States Constitution, but we did it today. And the gentlelady from Ohio, she just talked about what Americans talk about at home. It's about balancing your checkbook. It's about not spending more than you take in. We don't have a problem with too few taxes here in Washington. We have a problem with too much spending. Mr. Speaker, we still borrow 41 cents out of every $1, and we're borrowing a lot of that money from the Chinese. What this bill we passed tonight will do is put us on a track to pass a balanced budget amendment--what Americans are calling for: permanent accountability from Washington. No more spending tricks, no more budget gimmicks. Just do what every American family and business has to do. Just balance our budget.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 658 I was unavoidably detained, and could not be present for the rollcall. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' Amendment Offered by Mr. Dicks

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 601, I was unavoidably detained from arriving before the close of the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, I will try to be brief because this amendment follows up on an amendment that was adopted by a voice vote by the Committee of the Whole just 2 days ago. This amendment is the second part of the amendment I offered on Monday of this week. That amendment reduced funding by $6 million from the EERE, and that would be enough to cut the funding that this amendment limits that would reduce funding for the international programs of EERE. It was an amendment endorsed by Citizens Against Government Waste. The international programs are a subset of the EERE budget and do not have their own line item in an appropriations bill, so because of that, this limitation amendment would be required to properly implement the spending reduction amendment, again, passed by the committee on Monday. This amendment clearly states that no funds may be spent on the international program activities of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, with the exception of the activities authorized in section 917 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. So we removed $6 million in funding on Monday, $8 million was recommended by the committee, therefore leaving $2 million in the program. The United States Government has $1.5 trillion in debt, borrowing 40 cents out of every dollar, and now is not the time to take our hard-borrowed dollars and spend them overseas. This program literally--and I will read the programs funded under the international program--assists manufacturing facilities in China and India to reduce their energy use. Mr. Chairman, we should be keeping that money to help our factories reduce their energy use, not our international competitors. Improving energy efficiency in the Chinese building sector. Mr. Chairman, we should be improving our energy efficiency, not the Chinese building sector. Partnering with the Kazakhstan Government to provide training on industrial efficiency. Mr. Chairman, when we're borrowing this amount of money, we should be using it to promote our industrial efficiency, not the Kazakhstan Government. Furthermore, it does things like help build windmills in Mexico. Now Mr. Chairman, we don't have the money to build windmills here, we have to borrow the money to do that. We shouldn't be borrowing money to build windmills in Mexico. Again, this amendment implements the spending reduction already adopted on Monday. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, just so we dispel any misconceptions that the committee might hold about what these programs are, let me read from the EERE Web site, because we were saying these are developing countries. Well, China is not a developing country, Mr. Chairman. This is what it says: ``The U.S. Department of Energy today announced $1 million in available funding to train energy assessors who will assist manufacturing facilities in China and India to reduce their energy use.'' Mr. Chairman, those aren't my words; they're the words of the Department that is asking for funding, for us to borrow money from China so that we can go to China to ``reduce their energy use.'' It goes on to say, ``The EERE engages in multiple technology and policy efforts to improve energy efficiency in the Chinese building sector.'' These aren't my words, Mr. Chairman; these are the words of the DOE that wants us to borrow money from China to spend money in China to improve energy efficiency in the Chinese building sector. Let's go further on. It says, ``EERE partnered with the Kazakh Government to provide training on Save Energy Now industrial efficiency.'' In Kazakhstan. I would offer that if we want to do foreign aid, that we do it in the Department of State budget. With regards to these cooperative programs, they're not zeroed out. The chairman should know that these programs are partially funded through the Department of State, and we don't affect the Department of State budget in this appropriation. What we do say is the Department has egregiously spent American taxpayer dollars. They are wasting taxpayer dollars. And with regards to wind power and windmills, I don't know what they're building in Mexico, but let me read from their Web site--not my words, their Web site: ``EERE is involved in several projects currently underway, including wind energy in Mexico.'' Now Mr. Chairman, unless there is something else beside windmills that uses wind energy, the Department says they are involved in projects involving windmills in Mexico. This country can't afford to make Chinese factories energy efficient and to build windmills in Mexico when we are borrowing 40 cents out of every dollar. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. The doctor from Georgia is absolutely right. We held a hearing in my subcommittee on this very topic, and it was very instructive because for the last several weeks we have heard a lot about, oh, my gosh, these giveaways to corporations and how we have to look at them critically. Well, here is a program where we can put $25.5 million back into our deficit reduction by reducing corporate subsidies. The doctor is right, GE doesn't need a subsidy, but they get it through this program. UPS doesn't need a subsidy; they get it through this program. They all make money, millions and billions of dollars, but this program gives them another subsidy. Verizon doesn't need a subsidy, but they get it through this program. They make a lot of money. They make a lot of money. This program subsidizes it. And the gentleman is right, E85 is probably a bad choice. Why are we spending money--money that we have to borrow from the Chinese every day--in order to put E85 pumps around or to convert vehicles to E85 as part of this program? Mr. Chairman, it makes no sense. This is another little contribution we can make. Our constituents have sent us here to deal with the Federal deficit. The doctor makes a contribution, $25.5 million. We held a hearing on this. You know, their press release on one of these was ``green beer for St. Patrick's Day'' because they actually spent money for a beer distributing company to upgrade their trucks. Last I looked, that business made money. We shouldn't be subsidizing it. This is a good amendment. The body should adopt the amendment, help cut our deficit, and stop sending money to corporations that simply don't need our help. I yield back the balance of my time.