Patrick McHenry

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. I thank my colleague from Washington State for yielding. The question today is about the rule dealing with the Chesapeake Bay. Well, this is a piece of legislation that is not controversial. The House can deal with this measure very quickly and move on. Instead, the Democrat leadership has chosen a very cumbersome process that locks out amendments, that locks out new ideas dealing with the Chesapeake Bay, and takes up a significant amount of time in the people's House. What we should be spending our time on, however, in this House of Representatives is not a piece of noncontroversial legislation which will take up over 2 hours of our day. Instead, we should devote this time to bringing down the cost and the price of gasoline at the pumps. That is what the American people want. That is what my constituents in Western North Carolina are demanding, that we take action on high gas prices. We have a need and necessity for oil in this country. It is not something that I sought, but this is a life I was born into. We have had our economy powered by oil for about the last 100 years. It is just a fact. I think there will be a day when we can move to some other type of power to move our automobiles and trucks and planes. I am hopeful for that day. That day will happen and I will be fighting for policies to bring it about. But until that time comes, we must have sources of American energy, and we must be energy independent in America. We can't be beholden to the Saudi royal family for our price at the pumps; but, unfortunately, we are. And why is that? Well, it is because of a significant number of policies that this Congress has put in place, very cumbersome regulations that we need to streamline when we come to the issue of building new refineries. And let's face it, we need new refineries to get diesel and unleaded fuel to the pumps. That also equals jobs. Unfortunately, in this country we have to import refined products. That means we have outsourced jobs. That means we have also sent our wealth overseas to these Nations that are refining product. But beyond refineries which we must build, we also have to increase domestic production, American energy sources. And we have got significant American energy resources. The known reserves that we have in this country of oil will power 60 million automobiles for 60 years. Now, that is not a long-term solution, but it is certainly good for the next 60 years while we are building alternatives and different types of power sources. So we also need that American energy production, whether it is oil, natural gas, coal. We have more coal in this United States, enough power source out of that coal than Saudi Arabia has. Actually, we have three times the amount of coal in this country as Saudi Arabia has oil. So these are not perfect solutions, but they will work in the short term. But why are we at this state? Why are we at this place where we are paying almost $4 at the pump?

Mr. McHENRY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McHENRY. What pieces of legislation have been brought up this Congress to increase American energy production? Name one.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I appreciate the opportunity to respond to my colleague and his utter fabrication about the history. Now, talk about rewriting history here; instead of complaining about the problem, we're offering solutions. And I'm proud that I'm part of the solution. And that solution is to hold the oil companies accountable. That's right, the gentleman is right about that. But I think we have to go a step further. We have to make sure that refineries can get online. The reason why they won't build new refineries is that regulation that this Congress supports, the trial lawyers as well, and the extreme environmental community that fund the left, and my colleagues on the left, they're all about shutting down new refinery capacity. Beyond that, my colleague that just spoke is not for any exploration in this country whatsoever. And the American people know this, Mr. Speaker. The American people know that we need more supply of energy, and that will bring prices lower, not this rewriting of history that my colleague just issued.

Mr. McHENRY. I rise today to agree with the resolution, but the real substance of the debate on the House floor today should be about gas prices. That is the substance of what we should be talking about as a people because I know my constituents are talking about it. They commute to work each day and pay and pay and pay high gas prices every day. And it is because this Congress hasn't acted. Now, certainly the resolution calling for more math and science students, that's well and good, but what we should be talking about right now is how we're going to become energy independent as Americans, how we use American resources, whether it's natural gas, petroleum products, energy research, how are we going to invest in those things now. This Congress, this Democrat leadership has failed to act, and I think that's irresponsible. You know, one answer that they say is conservation. That's what some on the other side of the aisle say is the answer. And, you know, conservation is a sign of personal virtue, but we cannot conserve our way to energy independence, American energy independence. So what do we do? Well, I believe we have to use our technology and our innovation here in the United States to become energy independent. We have vast resources, whether it's oil shale in the Rocky Mountain west, whether it's tar sands in our neighboring Canada, in order to harvest oil out of those areas. We must do it, though. The American people are paying close to $4 at the pumps, and that's unacceptable. And I think, beyond that, when it comes to energy, we need an American solution, an America that relies on its own ingenuity and innovation, not beholden to the Saudi royal family. I call on this Congress to act, to streamline the regulation process so we can get new refineries online, to open up new areas of exploration. That's what we should be doing, not simply debating this resolution, but working on real, substantive issues the American people need and desire. My constituents in western North Carolina demand action when it comes to lowering gas prices. And this Congress can do something about it, but we have to open up new areas of exploration, we have to increase refining capacity, and we have to invest in renewable energy sources that are clean, efficient, and American solutions that make us self- reliant.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, it's high time Congress acts on high gas prices. The American people are crying out for help and assistance; yet this Democrat Congress is doing nothing when it comes to energy independence for Americans. Finding a comprehensive long-term solution is what the American people want so that we can be energy independent, or at least more energy independent than we are today. Conserving is a sign of personal virtue, but we cannot conserve our way to American energy independence. The Democrat plan is only conservation and it's only tax increases. On our side of the aisle, we are trying to reach out to the Democrats and say that we must have energy exploration here domestically. When it comes to energy, America needs to rely on its own ingenuity and innovation, not the Saudi royal family.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor NASCAR legend Dale Jarrett. This weekend marks the last race of NASCAR legend Dale Jarrett's long career. May 17 at the All-Star race at Lowe's Motor Speedway will be his last time driving the UPS car. Dale was born in Newton, North Carolina, my district, and got his start at the Hickory Motor Speedway, a track owned and operated by his father, another NASCAR legend, Ned Jarrett. Dale went on to compete in 668 races, winning 32 times with 260 top-tens and 16 poles. What a career. And in 1999, he was a Winston Cup champ. One of NASCAR's greatest drivers is Dale Jarrett, and I'm proud to call him a constituent. My community is grateful for his service, honored by his presence, and again, grateful for his contribution in the charitable sector as well. NASCAR will miss him, but we're still grateful to have him on TV. Here's to Dale Jarrett.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, this evening I'm here to address the House and take a moment to talk about something that's on my constituents' minds and my mind and that's energy policy. We have a real need for a strong energy policy in America. Actually, to go further, we have a need for an energy policy in America, and we've not seen leadership out of Washington on this issue. Period. In 2005, we had an energy act that was passed out of this Chamber, enacted into law that helped get the refining process working. Actually, more pointedly, it helped move forward nuclear power and new plants with nuclear power production, and there were other small changes for the refining process and the licensing and things of that sort, but that wasn't enough. We've not done enough. Earlier this week, this House passed by a wide margin thankfully, a bipartisan majority that I was happy to vote in favor of, that would suspend the addition of more oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Now this, according to most economists and folks that look at oil and energy production, according to them, it would reduce gas prices just a little bit. Well, the reason why it would reduce it just a little bit is because it would take less demand off the marketplace, thereby keeping the same supply that we have but reducing demand, and as such, as most people know with economics, when that happens prices fall. I think we have to go one step further, and that one step further is increasing capacity. That means we have to have American energy production. That means off the deep waters of our coasts we need to find oil and natural gas. In remote areas of Alaska, we need to harness the oil that is there. Whether it's oil shale in the Rocky Mountain West or energy production and drilling in the Dakotas, I think these are the things that we have to be about, and Congress must put forward a bold initiative to do that. And that's the legislation that I have cosponsored here in this Chamber, to increase capacity and production. But beyond that, I think most Americans know that simply getting more American oil is not enough. Getting more American natural gas is not enough. Increasing refineries here in the United States is not enough. It's a start, but long term we have to have a massive investment, a 21st century Manhattan Project that harnesses our power and ingenuity here in the United States to end our reliance on foreign oil, and go one step further than that, end our reliance on oil. That should be a national priority. Kennedy demanded that we put a man on the Moon before the end of the 1960s, and we did it. In a dire time, with the greatest war the world has ever known, we developed the Manhattan Project to produce a devastating weapon that would hopefully end all wars. That didn't happen in terms of ending the war, but we did produce nuclear power and a nuclear weapon in a few short years. We must have that same priority here in the United States and demand energy independence from the rest of the world by embracing our alternatives that we have here domestically, embracing our ingenuity, and going that final step to true energy independence. That's what we should be about. This should not be a partisan issue. We should have a bipartisan majority that says, yes, we will do these things, and we will do these things in a short period of time because that's what the American people deserve. My constituents are hurting. They have to drive automobiles. We don't have mass transit in my district of any substantive form, really. So my constituents are hurting. And it's a question about being able to take your kids to the beach this summer. But beyond that, many families are struggling just to buy food, keep shelter. I think we have to be very sensitive to the demands of our constituents and realize that they're hurting. And energy and gas prices are the central reason why they're hurting. We have to get serious about this, put politics aside, and do what's right for our American people. It's the right thing for our American people. It's the right thing for our economy. It's the right thing for our future in the United States. I look forward to us working together in a bipartisan way for true energy independence.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, tonight we had a bipartisan vote to suspend deposits in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It's a great bipartisan vote. I join with my Democrat colleagues in supporting this legislation. The reason why it works is because it decreases the amount of consumption of oil here in the United States, thereby bringing prices down because it's the control of supply and demand. Well, likewise, I would ask my Democrat colleagues to join with me in increasing domestic production and refining capacity here in the United States, which is another way to bring prices down for our consumers. We can do this in a bipartisan way. Madam Speaker, I ask that we join together in a bipartisan vote so we can lower gas prices for the short term and for the long term.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, there are many good and decent people who are in financial distress right now across this country. Some with mortgages they can't afford. Some made poor financial decisions. Some were victims of fraud. Some were simply speculators acting on their instincts. But the reality is that most borrowers are paying on time. They are making their mortgages; 92 percent of borrowers are paying on time across this country; 6 percent are late but not yet in foreclosure, and 2 percent are actually in foreclosure. This bill is directed to the 2 percent on the backs of the 98 percent. That means that 110 million households are meeting their obligations. This legislation under consideration today would require that those 110 million families bail out the lenders on Wall Street. And I will tell you it's simply a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. We are sending the message to financial institutions and Wall Street investors that when those investors make poor choices and take ill- advised risks that the Federal Government will step in and bail them out. That's a bad decision. In fact, this is a $300 billion taxpayer bailout that will cost the American taxpayer $5,000 for every foreclosed loan that is dumped into the program. And make no mistake about it. They will be dumped into the program. And it's not the homeowners who will control this. It will be the lenders and servicers who will decide to take advantage of this for their own personal advantage, the servicers and the lenders. The one thing that we know for sure is that those lenders and servicers are only going to submit those loans that they don't believe will pay. The American taxpayer will instead be punished. Ultimately, the real losers are the American taxpayers who are left to guarantee the loans that nobody else wants. Mr. Speaker, in the past couple of months, I received several calls, letters, conversations I have had with my constituents, talking about the struggles that they are making in order to pay their mortgage. They don't want to have to pay somebody else's mortgage. They are struggling enough to make their ends meet with high gas prices, the rising cost of health care. And I'm not advocating that we do nothing. In fact, I have been working very hard in my district with foreclosure prevention seminars, working with the Hope Now alliance, which has helped 1.4 million homeowners stay out of foreclosure, keep their homes. These are the things that Congress should be doing, is helping individuals get through this crisis. We shouldn't have a massive bailout of lenders on Wall Street. We shouldn't bail out the servicers. They took ill-advised risks, and as such, the losses should be carried by them, not by my constituents who are paying on time. Let's oppose this legislation and do what's reasonable and right for the taxpayer.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, my constituents are concerned about high gas prices. We are a commuter district in western North Carolina, and so when we move to go to the marketplace, if we go to take our kids to school, we have to get an automobile and pay for gasoline. My constituents are struggling under these high gas prices. It's about time that this Congress acted so we have more refineries, that we have new exploration here at home so we don't have to be dependent on foreign oil. And we must invest in alternatives long term so we don't have to rely on foreign oil at all. Mr. Speaker, it's about time this Congress acted, and tax increases are not the way to do it. It is to increase production. That will help get down these high gas prices.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, today I pay tribute to Terry Wicks, CRNA, MHS, of Rutherford College, North Carolina, in my congressional district. Mr. Wicks, my constituent, recently completed his 2006-2007 term as the national president of the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists (AANA). Having celebrated its 76th Anniversary, the AANA is a professional organization that represents more than 36,000 practicing Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNAs) nationwide. Originally from the state of Iowa, Mr. Wicks received his education in the art and science of Nurse Anesthesia while serving as an officer in the United States Army. His anesthesia training took him to Fort Sam Houston, Texas, for the first phase of his education, and then to Fitzsimmons Army Medical Center in Aurora, Colorado. He earned his Bachelor of Science in Nursing (BSN) from the University of Iowa in Iowa City, Iowa. In addition, Mr. Wicks also holds a Master of Health Sciences (MHS) degree from Texas Wesleyan University in Fort Worth, Texas. Previously serving as Director of the Anesthesia Department at Catawba Valley Medical Center in Hickory, NC, before taking over as National President of the AANA, Mr. Wicks continues his work as a Staff Anesthetist helping provide anesthesia services to residents of the Unifour, a geographic area encompassing Burke, Catawba, Alexander, and Caldwell counties in the western foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains, whose population has grown to over 350,000 people. Mr. Wicks has held numerous leadership positions in the AANA as Regional Director, Vice-President, and President-elect before becoming the National President of the AANA in 2006. In addition, he has served terms as President, President-Elect, and Vice-President, for the North Carolina Association of Nurse Anesthetists (NCANA). Adding to his professional accomplishments, Mr. Wicks has been recognized for speaking on anesthesia-related topics over the years. He has taken his experience and knowledge from the workplace and AANA leadership roles to lecture on political and academic anesthesia- related topics before different professional groups. Madam Speaker, I rise to ask my colleagues to join me today in recognizing my constituent, the outgoing President of the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists, Mr. Terry Wicks, CRNA, MHS, for his notable career and outstanding achievements.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, when a dam breaks, the first action you must take is to stop the flow, to plug the hole. And the same rule applies to illegal immigration. There are as many as 15 to 20 million illegal aliens in this country today, and we realize the dam is broken. To fix it, we have got to start with border security and enforcement first. The SAVE Act, which helps fix the dam by hiring 8,000 more border guards and using military equipment for border security, is a good bill. By strengthening workplace enforcement, it dries up easy access to American jobs and stems the tide of illegal immigration. Despite broad bipartisan support, and even a Democrat sponsor of this bill, the liberal leadership of this House won't bring this up for a vote because they prefer amnesty and government tax dollar giveaways, not real border security. I ask them to stop playing political games with our immigration policy and with our national security and bring this bill up for a vote.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. I thank my colleague for yielding. Last year our friends on the other side of the aisle declared that they were going to ``clean up the swamp'' and get rid of the budget and its rampant waste, fraud, and abuse. In December of 2005, Speaker Pelosi proudly said, ``The budget is a statement of national priorities and our values as a Nation.'' Well, sadly, the Democrat values represented in this budget are waste, fraud, and abuse. It is very sad. But for my district, Mr. Chairman, this budget represents an average tax increase per taxpayer of $2,631 per year. Additional loss of income in a number of studies, because rising taxes will curb economic growth, an additional loss of $1,600. This budget is harmful to American values and American families. I asked my Democrat colleagues to justify this for me. Why must we raise taxes by this rate? And yet nothing. I would be happy to yield to my colleagues to answer that question, why rising taxes are good for the American people. I hear nothing. I am willing to yield, but they have nothing. And what for? Waste, fraud, and abuse. Rising taxes. A government that is so large, and yet nothing is done to reform. There are thousands of ways that we can eliminate this rampant growth of government. There are 91 programs that the administration targeted for elimination; 85 of them continue to be funded. In fact, half of them had increased funding last year under this Democratic Congress. But what else is egregious, if you look at a Treasury Department report, you will find a section called ``Unreconciled Transactions.'' Well, they account for $25 billion worth of taxpayer funding that they know it was spent, but they don't know who, what, when, where, how, or why it was spent. This is rather disturbing. We have the opportunity to right-size government, to reform government. When the U.S. Department of Education bureaucrats in these beautiful buildings down the street here, when they have an average wage of $93,000 a year, yet our average teacher in America only makes $47,000 a year, we know these values are wrong in this Democrat budget. I asked my Democrat colleagues to justify this. Yet nothing. I hear nothing.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. McHENRY. Instead of making the government bigger, we need to right-size government and reform government. Rather, this Democrat budget represents the efficiency and effectiveness of FEMA, the customer service of the IRS, and the real thoughtful approach of our immigration policy. And they want to expand these things. We need immigration reform. We need to reform government. We need to make sure we right-size government rather than expand this and grow it, which is what this Democrat budget does.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Thank you. I appreciate your kind words, Congressman Barrett, and I really appreciate your leadership. I know the people of South Carolina do as well. As deputy ranking Republican on the Budget Committee, he has his work cut out for him leading us on the Budget Committee. I want to bring out just a few facts for the American people tonight, Madam Speaker. Congressman Jordan pointed out very aptly the size of the Federal Government, just so the American people can understand what a $3 trillion government costs, what that actually means though. You say $3 trillion. What does $1 billion look like? Well, sure, Bill Gates could tell you what $1 billion looks like. He's got that in his checkbook. But for the average American, what does that mean? And to point out the fact that it's larger than most countries are. We have the third largest economy in the world held just in our Federal budget; greater than the whole economy of China. It's absolutely amazing. But when we talk about boondoggles in government, folks in North Carolina know about that. Look, in western North Carolina, where I represent, in Hickory, where I'm from, Cherryville, I've got to tell you, the American people know the government's wasteful. If you're out in the eastern part of the State like in New Bern, for instance, if you're out there, you recognize this stuff, but let's talk about a great, enormous in size and scope boondoggle that we have here in Washington, DC. There are 111,000 bureaucrats here in Washington, DC. Some don't do much. Others are very active. But 111,000 bureaucrats. The average wage for those bureaucrats here in Washington, DC is $89,561 a year. That's amazing to me that the sheer size of that, the average wage is so high. It's enormous. But in the Department of Education, we know that education is critical. It's especially critical in western North Carolina. We have 3,224 bureaucrats here in Washington, DC in the U.S. Department of Education. The average wage is $93,773. Now imagine that. The average teacher in America makes $47,000 a year. I would much rather take that money from the bureaucrats and put it in the hands of teachers who are actually educating children. Madam Speaker, we have a crisis on our hands with the size and scope of government. We have to limit the size and scope of government. We have to bring the budget to balance and do it without raising taxes. I appreciate and applaud my colleague from South Carolina for hosting this special order so we can bring out these facts to the American people, because as their family budgets tighten, so should the Federal Government's budget.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, the basic principle of this economic stimulus package I agree with, and that is allowing taxpayers to keep more of what they contribute to the government in order to keep more of what they earn so they can spend it for their families and the communities. Yesterday, the Speaker said that she estimates that each dollar of broad tax cuts leads to $1.26 in economic growth. Now, that's a wonderful thing, 26 percent return on your investment for allowing people to keep what they earn. That's wonderful and that's a very good thing. Tax relief spurs economic growth. That is true. But we have to also go a step further in this economic stimulus package. At a time when people are concerned about high gas prices, rising costs of health care, as well as keeping their homes, we have to be acutely aware of helping them. And I think what we can do as a Congress is go a step further in this stimulus package, one step further, and that is to take the rising taxes, the tax increases that are on the table and take them off the table. Look, we need to do a whole lot more to keep this economy strong, to keep it consistently strong. We need to make permanent the tax relief from 2001 and 2003. I think it would be immoral for Washington politicians to take more out of people's hard-earned incomes for wasteful spending programs. And I think we have to go further. By taking that tax increase off the table, we will help every kitchen table in America, for every middle-class family in America.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague and appreciate her leadership. Leave it to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to make an inefficient program even more inefficient. By imposing these arbitrary and uncredited green standards, it will drive up construction costs. And in the end, that means we will have fewer units put out in this housing program. And it also delays the spending of the $1.3 billion HOPE VI surplus that we currently have. I think it is a better use of the money to allow the Secretary to establish standards that are appropriate for the region, appropriate for the product being put out, and this gives the flexibility to do that. What I would say is that the Capito amendment still allows for green standards, high, strong, green standards, but it does not impose arbitrary standards. It allows for a collaborative effort for this to go forward, and it strikes the right balance, not a one-size-fits-all approach. I urge adoption of her amendment.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, at $2.9 trillion, the Federal budget is bigger than the entire economy of every single country on Earth, except Japan. Bigger than the economies of China, bigger than the economy of Britain, bigger than the economy of Germany. Just the Federal budget is larger than all of those economies. So, Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle, I want to ask them this question: Out of $2.9 trillion, can't you trim enough money to stop impending tax increases on the middle class and every American in this country, rather than proposing new tax increases? Unfortunately, the actions of this Congress say no, that the Democrat majority is intent on raising taxes in order to grow and expand this rather large and bloated Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, I think it's important the American people know what the Democrats in Congress are intending to do, and that is to raise taxes and grow government.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, let me quote Congressman Miller from our recent subprime markup in Financial Services. ``Yes, there are fewer loans being made in North Carolina,'' is the reference. ``That is also an intended consequence of reform. This is the heart of the bill.'' The statistics for North Carolina, amongst subprime lenders there is a decline of 8.1 percent in the last 5 years. In comparison States, there was a growth of 1 percent of prime lending. In comparison States, loans by subprime lenders increased by 4.6 percent, and loans made in North Carolina decreased, subprime loans, by 8.1 percent. There is a significant disparity there. Furthermore, in refinancing in subprime loans in North Carolina, there was a decline of 11.4 percent. In comparable States, there was an increase of 4 percent. It shows that there are fewer loans being made and less availability of credit in North Carolina because of the so-called North Carolina standard. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. McHENRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me tell you one story in North Carolina. Ben Ingle is a mortgage broker at NBI Mortgage in Shelby, North Carolina. Ben was able to secure a loan for a woman who was a victim of domestic violence and a victim of her ex-husband's bad credit. Her ex-husband ruined her credit. In this process, she got out of an abusive relationship and wanted to have a home for her son and herself, but she had a tough time because of her credit situation. Well, Ben was able to work with her over an extended period of time. In fact, when it was all said and done, under this legislation before us today, Ben would have been only able to make $4.16 an hour for the work that he did for this lady to qualify her for a loan. Now, she is very happy to be in a loan today and have a mortgage today and have a home for her son. But what this bill does is harm our communities and I think our mortgage brokers that are doing the right thing. At the end of the day, mortgage originators are a part of our community. They are community leaders oftentimes, and what we are trying to do is battle unscrupulous actors and have good protections for homeownership in America. Title III of this bill would prevent this young lady from having the option to get the lending she needed for a home. This is about homeownership. I urge Members to vote for my amendment and vote against the bill.

Mr. McHENRY. I thank the ranking member. In brief, my colleagues must understand the simplicity of this amendment. What it would say is the secondary market has to give a road map for those who are facing foreclosure for them to get out of their mortgage. In essence, what it says is, if you want out of your mortgage, here's the road map to do it. I think this would be a destructive influence on the market. It would further undermine the secondary market and the liquidity in the marketplace and would further harm home ownership. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. McHENRY. Who has the right to close on an amendment? Is it those opposed to it or those who are offering the amendment?