mr. chairman , i claim the time in opposition . 
the acting chairman ( mr. simpson ) xz4003760 . 
the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas ( mr. barton ) xz4000180 for 15 minutes . 
mr. chairman , i yield myself such time as i may consume . 
on the johnson amendment immediately prior , i was in mild opposition . 
on this amendment , i want to be recorded in strong opposition . 
here is the amendment . 
it is 124 pages . 
it may be great . 
i do not believe it is , but i have to stipulate it is possible . 
there has been no hearing on this , no markup on this . 
most of the amendments before the body today , there may be a paragraph , a page , most of them are amendments that were at least debated in one of the committees of jurisdiction . 
this is a 124-page amendment which , i guess , members could say is a substitute for the entire bill . 
there are 50 pages of efficient standards in this amendment . 
then there is the dingell electricity substitute , which we have already had a debate on earlier today , and then at the end there are another 30 pages of tax credits . 
to top it off , we have some sort of a scheme to fix the price of oil . 
what is not in this amendment is anything that would increase production , anything that addresses clean coal technology , i believe , or hydrogen research or any of those things . 
again , i will stipulate this is probably a well-intentioned amendment . 
it is certainly lengthily drafted , but i can not conceive at this stage of the game after all of the hearings and the markup and the amendments we have already had in this congress and the debate that went on in the prior congress , in the conference report that this house voted on two times , that the house would accept this amendment . 
with all due respect to the authors , i would urge a strong `` no '' vote on this on a bipartisan basis because i do not think this amendment is right for inclusion or substitution for the underlying bill . 
mr. chairman , i reserve the balance of my time . 
