Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013

Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Rochester, New York (Ms. Slaughter).

Pending that, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader.

Madam Speaker, congratulations. It's very nice to see you in the chair.

I would like to insert a section-by-section analysis of the resolution to appear at this point in the Record.

section 1. resolved clause.

This section provides that the Rules of the l12th Congress

are the Rules of the 112th Congress, except with the

amendments contained in section 2 of the resolution, and

orders contained in sections 3, 4, and 5.

section 2. changes to the standing rules.

Citing Authority under the Constitution. Paragraph (a)

creates a new clause 7 in rule XII providing that a Member

may not introduce a bill or joint resolution unless the

sponsor also submits a statement citing as specifically as

practicable the power or powers under the Constitution

authorizing the enactment of that bill or joint resolution.

The statement will appear in a separate section in the

Congressional Record and be made available to the public in

electronic form.

While the rule requires that a Member submit the statement

at the same time as the bill is introduced, there is nothing

in the rule to prevent the sponsor of the bill from

submitting an additional statement later in the process if he

or she wants to revise the initial statement. With regard to

electronic availability, appearance in the electronic version

of the Congressional Record will initially satisfy the

electronic availability requirement of this paragraph.

However, ultimate the intention is that the Clerk will make

the statements available in a searchable, sortable, and

downloadable database as soon as practicable.

With respect to Senate bills, the provision authorizes the

chair of a committee of jurisdiction, prior to consideration

of the Senate bill, to submit a statement as if the chair

were the sponsor. Finally, the provision also repeals the

current requirement for a similar statement in committee

reports.

When a Member introduces a bill or joint resolution, the

Clerk must ensure that a statement required under this

paragraph accompanies the measure. However, the Clerk is not

required to evaluate the content of the statement or its

adequacy; those are matters to be considered by Members

during consideration of the legislation.

Three-Day Availability for Unreported Bills. This provision

adds a new clause to rule XXIX establishing a point of order

against consideration of a bill or joint resolution that has

not been available for three calendar days. This provision

mirrors existing layover rules prohibiting consideration of

bills reported by a committee or conference reports.

Transparency for House and Committee Operations.

Subparagraph (i) directs the Committee on House

Administration to establish and maintain standards for

documents made available in electronic form by the House and

its committees. Subparagraph (2) provides that a measure or

matter will have been considered as having been ``available''

within the meaning of the rules if it was publicly available

in electronic form at a location designated by the Committee

on House Administration.

The intention of these provisions is to ensure that Members

and the public have easy access to bills, resolutions, and

amendments considered in committee and by the House. The

standard for electronic documents is intended to evolve over

time. While the standard may initially include more static

formats such as a searchable PDF, the intention is to

eventually transition to more flexible structured data

formats, such as XML, as the tools become available to ease

the creation and ensure the integrity of House documents.

With respect to availability, the provision is intended to

place electronic distribution on par with traditional

printing; rather than entirely replace it. Finally, the rule

contemplates a singular location that will direct Members and

the public to the text of measures to be considered by the

House and its committees.

Subparagraph (3) amends clause 2(g)(3) of rule XI to

provide for a minimum notice period of 3 days for a committee

meeting. This joins the current requirement for 7 days notice

for a committee hearing. The provision maintains the current

ability of the Chair, with the concurrence of the ranking

minority member, to waive both notice periods if they find

good cause to start the hearing or meeting sooner. The

provision can also be waived by a majority vote of the

committee.

Subparagraph (4) requires that the chair of the committee

make the text of the measure or matter being marked up

publicly available in electronic form at least 24 hours prior

to commencement of the meeting. This provision is intended to

ensure that members have the text of the measure or matter in

sufficient time to review the measure and draft any

amendments. Accordingly, if the committee is considering a

committee print, or the Chair of a committee intends to use

an amendment in the nature of a substitute as the base text

for purposes of further amendment, circulation of that text

will satisfy this requirement. While the rule requires that

the text be circulated at least 24 hours in advance of the

meeting, that text should be circulated as early as possible

to provide members the maximum amount of time to review the

measure or matter and draft any desired amendments.

Subparagraph (5) requires that the chair of a committee

make the results of any record vote publicly available in

electronic form within 48 hours of the vote, while

subparagraph (6) requires that the text of any adopted

amendment be made similarly available, along with the text of

the measure being marked up, within 24 hours of commencement

of the markup or adoption of the amendment.

Subparagraph (7) requires the posting of non-governmental

witness ``truth-in-testimony'' information (with appropriate

redactions, such as a home address or phone number, to

protect the privacy of the witness). Subparagraph (8)

requires public availability in electronic form of the

committee rules.

Subparagraph (9) requires each Committee, to the maximum

extent practicable, to provide audio and video coverage of

each committee hearing or meeting and maintain recordings

that are easily accessible to the public. This subparagraph

is not intended to require audio and video coverage in

situations where it would be technically impracticable, such

as where a hearing or meeting is held in a room without audio

and video broadcast equipment, or create a defect with a

hearing or meeting if a webcast or recording is not available

due to technical issues.

Subparagraph (10) strikes an exception, adopted in the

110th Congress, for the Committee on Rules to accurately

report its votes in committee reports to accompany a rule,

joint rule, or a special order of business.

Subparagraph (11) amends clause 2(d)(1) of rule X to

require committees, during development of their oversight

plan, to include proposals to cut or eliminate mandatory and

discretionary programs that are inefficient, duplicative,

outdated, or more appropriately administered by State or

local governments.

Initiatives to Reduce Spending and Improve Accountability.

Subparagraph (d)(i) replaces the current ``pay-as-you-go''

requirements with a ``cut-as-you-go'' requirement. The

provision prohibits consideration of a bill, joint

resolution, conference report, or amendment that has the net

effect of increasing mandatory spending within a five-year or

ten-year budget window. This provision continues the current

practice of counting multiple measures considered pursuant to

a special order of business which directs the Clerk to

engross the measures together after passage for purposes of

compliance with the rule and provides a mechanism for

addressing ``emergency'' designations.

Subparagraph (2) strikes the ``Gephardt rule'' that

provides for the automatic engrossment and transmittal to the

Senate of a joint resolution changing the public debt limit,

upon the adoption by Congress of the budget resolution,

thereby avoiding a separate vote in the House on the public

debt-limit legislation. Subparagraph (3) adds a new clause to

rule XXIX that clarifies that the chair of the Committee on

the Budget, rather than the entire committee, is authorized

to provide guidance to the presiding officer on the budgetary

impact of legislative proposals. This change reflects the

current practice under majorities of both parties.

Subparagraph (4) modifies clause 3 of rule XXI, pertaining

to transportation obligation limitations, to protect the

balances of the Highway Trust Fund by establishing a point of

order against consideration of any general appropriation bill

or joint resolution, or accompanying conference report, that

provides spending authority from balances in the trust fund

(other than those from transfers from the General Fund of the

Treasury) or reduces or limits the accruing balances of that

trust fund for anything other than activities authorized for

the highway or mass transit programs.

Subparagraph (5) modifies clause 7 of rule XXI, which

places restrictions on reconciliation directives contained in

a budget resolution. The new modification would specify

that it would not be in order to consider a budget resolution

or amendments thereto, or a conference thereon which would

have the effect of increasing net direct spending.

Other Changes to House Operations. Paragraph (e)(1)

provides the Chair of the Committee of the Whole with

authority to employ two minute voting during a series of

votes.

Subparagraph (2) changes the current rule regarding

electronic devices, which prohibits the use of mobile phones

and personal computers on the floor, to prohibit the use of

any mobile electronic device that is disruptive of the

decorum. This change will give the Speaker greater latitude

in deciding which mobile electronic devices may or may not be

used by Members on the floor.

For historical purposes, it is important to note that the

use of electronic devices in the chamber of the U.S. House of

Representatives is governed by the rules of the House. In the

111th Congress, the fourth sentence of clause 5 of rule XVII

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

As we've seen here today, Madam Speaker, we are marking an important turning point in the history of the United States House of Representatives. We have before us a package of reforms that will bring greater transparency and accountability to this House, and it will once again give the American people the opportunity to participate in the legislative process. They've made clear to us that what their priorities are--job creation, economic growth, and a smaller, more accountable Federal Government--must be done. The reforms included in the rules package are designed to ensure that those priorities are met and that we are held responsible for our actions to do the people's work.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank each and every one of my colleagues who have worked tirelessly on this rules package. Never before in history has there been the kind of Member involvement--bipartisan Member involvement--in an opening day rules package. I particularly want to thank my good friends Greg Walden, who led our transition team, and Rob Bishop, who led the rules reform effort, as well as the other members of our transition working group. We had four new Members of Congress who right after the election got involved in working on this very, very important transition, and I want to express my appreciation.

As I said, Madam Speaker, this has, for the first time, ever been bipartisan. I don't want to claim that my Democratic colleagues are supportive of this rules package, but I will say that when we began the process, I'm happy that former Speaker Pelosi designated as liaisons to work with us through the transition process the distinguished former chair of the Administration Committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brady), and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), and I want to express my appreciation to them again for their hard work.

As we looked for ways to chart a new course and reduce congressional waste, we knew that we had to consider good ideas from both political parties, and that's why I'm happy to say we had input from both Democrats and Republicans in fashioning this opening day rules package. Our Democratic liaisons were tremendous partners, and again, I express my appreciation to my Democratic colleagues for joining with us in this effort.

Now, having completed our transition work, we are now beginning a new Congress. Each of us faces the new beginning with the knowledge that congressional approval ratings are abysmally low. It's rare that the Congress is held in high esteem by the American people--we all know that--but it is even rarer to have an approval rating that is as low as it is right now.

Now, why is it that this body has become so unpopular? The reason is that the American people felt that they were not being listened to. They have sent us here to conduct the 112th Congress differently than any Congress of the past. I'm not going to just talk about the last two Congresses, Madam Speaker; I'm going to say that they sent us here this year to perform differently than any Congress of the past. What's more, they have given us, as Speaker Boehner likes to say, some pretty simple and clear and direct marching orders when it comes to our work: fulfill our constitutional duties in an open and transparent way.

Now, Madam Speaker, this rules package that we have before us provides us the tools to do just what the American people have asked: to perform our constitutional duties in a transparent and open way. Because our highest priorities are job creation and economic growth, we must rein in the government spending that has spiraled out of control over the past several years. We're taking several steps to meet that goal.

For starters, we're requiring that any new spending be offset for five 10-year budget windows. If a bill increases the deficit by more than $5 billion in any of these 10-year windows, it will be subjected to a point of order. In other words, we're changing the rules of the House to ensure that we look at short, medium, as well as long-term consequences to Federal spending. We should not, and cannot, consider legislation that pushes the Federal budget deficit and the problems down the road.

We will also be reforming the spending process by replacing PAYGO with CutGo. Rather than pairing spending with tax increases, job- killing tax increases, we will pair it with spending cuts. It's often been said that we don't have a revenue problem; we have a spending problem. These new rules will make it easier to reduce spending rather than increase it. In fact, the idea behind this package is to focus on ways in which we can increase the opportunity to reduce spending rather than increase it.

Now, Madam Speaker, we're also taking important steps to make us more accountable to the American people, the people whom we're so honored to represent. We won't be voting on bills unless they've been available for at least 3 calendar days. We will be returning much of the legislative work back to the committees where greater transparency will be required. The work product, the recorded votes, and the video archives of all committees are required by these rules to be posted online. No longer will massive legislation be written behind closed doors, regardless of political party, and rammed through the House before anyone has the chance to review or amend the text. Our work will be done in an open way that affords all Members the opportunity to participate and scrutinize.

Another key reform by this rules package is the creation of an electronic format for legislation. This represents a dramatic change in how legislation is made available, not just to Members but to the public and the press as well. Now, Madam Speaker, for the last two centuries, legislation was considered available when a paper copy was dropped off in the document room across the street. Now it will be considered available when anyone with access to the Internet can look it up.

This new format will evolve over time, and there's work ahead that still has to be done as we implement these rules changes, but no Member should consider this vote as the end of the reform efforts of this Congress. Again, what we're doing here today is simply the first step in what is going to be a one-year, 2-year process of reform.

We will not be wed to the way we used to do things. Rather, we will be looking for new and different ways to do our jobs and to do them in the most transparent and accountable way. And let me say again, Madam Speaker, it is very important for us to ensure that we have the input of my friend from Rochester (Ms. Slaughter) and other Democrats, as well as Republicans, in this process.

Madam Speaker, this rules package is a very significant first step. We have learned the hard way that bad process inevitably results in bad outcomes. We need look no further than our ailing economy and spiraling deficit, not to

mention Congress' abysmal approval rating, to see that that is true.

By reforming the rules of the House, we set the stage for reforming the entire Federal Government. Ultimately, we ensure fidelity to the original rules document, that being the Constitution. And I am so pleased that tomorrow on the House floor, led by our friend from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), we will be having a bipartisan reading of the Constitution.

Madam Speaker, our Founders understood better than anyone the importance of restraining Federal power. I think that Thomas Jefferson put it best when he said, ``In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.''

Now, Madam Speaker, in this Congress, we will refocus our efforts on fulfilling our constitutional duties in a transparent and responsible way. We will be reform-minded and accountability-oriented, and we will be driven by the number one concern of the American people--getting our economy back on track. Madam Speaker, form dictates function, and these new rules will set us on the path toward greater economic growth and confidence for the American people.

With that, I urge support of this very important resolution and reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Auburn, Washington, Sheriff Reichert, our distinguished colleague and a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume, and I would like to respond to some of the comments made by my very good friend, the minority whip.

On the issue of CutGo versus PAYGO, I think it's important to note that in the bipartisan agreement that was put together just last month, supported by President Obama, there was an actual embrace of the John F. Kennedy vision of recognizing that economic growth and an enhanced level of revenues to the Federal Treasury come about by keeping marginal rates low.

Now I will say, Mr. Speaker, that was a bipartisan agreement; and so what we've said is that as we look at growing the economy, we are very enthused at the fact that job creators are going to be able to have revenues focused on job creating, therefore enhancing the opportunity for more revenues coming to the Federal Treasury.

Second, I think it's also very important for us to realize that the focus does need to be on spending; and we believe very passionately that, in the last 4 years since we've seen a 92 percent increase, a 92 percent increase, Mr. Speaker, in nondefense discretionary spending, that we need to have a laser-like focus on that.

Now, Democrats and Republicans, Mr. Speaker, have come together to decry both the lack of jobs that exist in our economy, as well as deficit spending. There's clear bipartisan agreement on that. We all want to create more private sector jobs, and we all want to see the deficit reduced.

Now, how is it, Mr. Speaker, that we deal with those two issues?

The single most important thing that we can do to ensure that we address that is to ensure economic growth. And so the notion behind PAYGO, which would, in fact, bring about, unfortunately, an increase in taxes that dramatically would stall this recovery--and even Keynesian economists, those through the 1930s, 1940s--John Maynard Keynes died in 1950--there are many people who have followed his economic model, that being stimulating through greater Federal spending.

Keynesian economists, Mr. Speaker, acknowledge that increasing taxes, when you're dealing with a difficult economy, in fact, undermines the potential for economic growth.

Now, let me take the second issue that my friend mentioned, Mr. Speaker, and that issue has to do with the question of our delegates. They're all friends of mine and I respect--I've visited most of the territories, if not all, and I will say that these are very diligent, hardworking Members.

But we all know what the bottom line comes to here. The bottom line comes down to that the vote here in the Committee of the Whole counts until it doesn't count, and it doesn't count if it counts. And that's why I understand. And my friend, Mr. Faleomavaega, said correctly, this is a symbol. It is a symbol. And I think that their membership and participation on committees is important, and there is a great deal of camaraderie that does go on with our friends.

But the fact is, when you have a structure where the vote counts until it doesn't count and doesn't count if it counts, it seems to me that that is not the proper route for us to take; and so that's the reason that this action has been taken.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to my very good friend, the distinguished minority whip.

I've actually been here a few months longer than my friend has.

Mr. Speaker, if I could reclaim my time, I would say that I began by talking about a great Democratic President, John F. Kennedy, who used this model. And the notion of simply looking at 1981, 1989, and 2001 is not the simple basis for the argument that I'm propounding. I'm beginning, if you look at modern history, with John F. Kennedy as President of the United States.

And I will also say that, in looking at the 1993 bill, I am convinced, as I stand here today, that if we had had simply that tax increase and not put into place the measures that we did in 1994, 1995, 1996 that focused on job creation and economic growth, reducing the top rate on capital gains and, in fact, bringing about marginal rate reduction, we would not have enjoyed that tremendous period of growth that we experienced through the decade of the 1990s which, as we all know, was the time that the Republicans were, in fact, in control here.

We've had a nice exchange. If I could reserve the balance of my time. I would love to hear further from my friend if Ms. Slaughter would yield to him.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to our very distinguished new Republican whip, my good friend and fellow Californian, the gentleman from Bakersfield, Mr. McCarthy.

Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman who led our effort to bring about reform of the rules and help put this package together, my very good friend, Mr. Bishop, the gentleman from Utah.

I am happy to give my friend an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 45 seconds to the distinguished new chair of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

If the gentleman would yield, I would say, Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Florida is absolutely correct. Clause 3 of rule XXI, as amended, does not change the way in which the underlying programs are funded, which is through contract authority provided by authorization acts.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished chairman of our transition committee, my friend from Hood River, Oregon (Mr. Walden).

May I inquire of the Chair how much time remains on each side?

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chair of the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from Janesville, Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Will the gentleman yield?

I will simply say I was quoting Mr. Faleomavaega and Mr. Hoyer when they used that term.

I thank my friend for yielding.

I reserve the balance of my time, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield on that point?

I thank my friend for yielding.

Let me just say to the commission that I think it is very important to note that they argued that there should be a reduction to 26 percent as the top corporate rate and 23 percent as the top tax rate.

I thank my friend for yielding.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, everyone is very enthused about today. It is a great day. We have 96 new Members of this institution--87 Republicans and nine Democrats--nearly 100 new Members. They are here having carried a very strong and powerful message from the American people, which is we have got to create jobs, get our economy growing, reduce the size and scope and reach of government, and do it in a more transparent, open and accountable way.

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we are doing. That is exactly what we are doing with this rules package.

Now, there seems to be a little disagreement on the notion of dealing with spending and taxes. The fact of the matter is we all know--several of us have said it through the debate--that we don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem. What we need to do is to focus on reducing spending, and we are absolutely committed with a laser-like approach to doing that. It is going to be tough. It is going to be painful. I hope that, as we reached out and had bipartisan input on this rules package for the first time ever, that we will be able to do the exact same thing, Mr. Speaker, when we deal with the question of getting our economy growing and the other challenges that lie ahead of us.

We never before have had the opportunity that we are going to have in just a few minutes. The Rules Committee is going to meet after we are seated, and when I came to the Rules Committee two decades ago, I was told by the dean of the Washington press core, David Broder, that the Rules Committee hearing room was small by design. Why? To keep us out, Mr. Broder said to me.

Well, Mr. Speaker, for the first time in this quest for transparency, we are going to have online streaming of our Rules Committee meeting that will take place after we are seated here.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all of our Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on this measure.

It is with a great deal of zeal, enthusiasm, and gratitude that I move the previous question and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the privilege of being recognized to address you here on the floor of the House. And there's been some dramatic changes that have taken place in this country and dramatic changes that have taken place in this Congress.

I believe that as we move forward we're going to have some significant debates here on the floor. I look forward to the regular order component of this that's being initiated by Speaker Boehner, the process of using the committee process, the hearing process before committees, the markup before subcommittees, the markup before full committees, and bills going up to the Rules Committee after they've been approved by the actual standing committees, and that be the same bills that are passed by the committees that arrive at the Rules Committee where the Rules Committee can work their will and, wherever possible, provide for an open rule so that we can have the maximum amount of debate on the floor, so that Members can have their will debated and require an up-or-down vote, recorded vote on their issues.

That's not something that has been going on in this Congress. It's diminished each of the last 4 years. And the more than two centuries old, not necessarily a rule, not necessarily something written into the rules, but the practice and the tradition of open rules on appropriations has been essential to allow Members to have their voice. And I am thankful that that's the new tone of this Congress. It's been a great frustration to me and many other Members, Democrats and Republicans alike.

So we're here today, Mr. Speaker, on the cusp of a great big decision for this Congress; and as we make this transition from the era of Speaker Pelosi to the era of Speaker Boehner, and as he lays out the parameters of let the House work its will and let's go back to a regular order as it was devised and

approved in the constitutional structure by our Founding Fathers, with all of those parameters in mind, we have coming up before us a continuing resolution. And the pressure points that we have, the opportunity to bring leverage has been envisioned as the Constitution sets up article I, II, and III of the Constitution. And here we are. Taxes and appropriations need to start here in the House of Representatives.

And, Mr. Speaker, I'd just make this point, and it's an unequivocating point, and that is that unless the House approves of Federal appropriations, there shall be not a dime spent by the Federal Government otherwise. So whatever we do here, and we will bring a budget through and it will be a far more fiscally responsible budget than the nonbudgets that have been processed in previous Congresses and the extension by CR, not by the legitimate appropriations process, but there will be a budget and that budget will cut current spending significantly. And it probably won't be enough to satisfy me, but the budget process is another essential component of what we're doing here.

And another component of it is to be able to legitimately fund the balance of this fiscal year. If we do nothing, if this Congress doesn't act, if the House of Representatives doesn't act, Mr. Speaker, then the Federal Government will go into an immediate and automatic shutdown at midnight on the night of March 4 of this year. That was the provision that was written into the continuing resolution last December, when Democrats and Republicans got together and compromised.

If you remember, the Senate was going to pass that huge omnibus bill, all of the wish lists of the departing Senators and those that hadn't been up for election, the big spending bill that was just grotesque in its vision when you look through all the dollars they were going to spend in the Senate and send it over here.

Thankfully, the American people rose up, jammed the switchboards in the Senate, and even those hanging on the fence decided that they would get a hold of their better responsible nature and they decided to pull down that huge omnibus spending bill. And so we ended up with a small continuing resolution, a continuing resolution that funded the government from, I don't remember the exact date of the expiration of the last one, but in December, whenever we passed this, through January and February and into the 4th of March.

Now, some of us anticipated they would try to pass a CR for the end of the fiscal year, and that didn't happen. And a lot of us would have liked to have spent less money up to this point. But in that CR there isn't any funding that funds ObamaCare. Even though ObamaCare has passed and it's been signed into law and it's the law of the land, there's not funding going forward in the CR that we're operating the government on today. If that had been, the funding that was called for had been in the CR, there would have been about a billion dollars appropriated in the continuing resolution that passed last December and expires this March 4.

That money was not put into the bill because they needed the votes of then the seated Republicans and some Democrats to vote for the continuing resolution. So the old Congress, the 111th Congress, didn't vote to willfully fund the implementation of ObamaCare.

Now we're faced with the prospect of a continuing resolution coming before this Congress that's been announced to be five times greater than any appropriations bill ever voted on by this Congress before, and perhaps four times greater than any cuts that have been offered before. Well, that's because the whole string of 13-or-so appropriations bills gets packed up into one, and all that spending that's normally spread out over about 13, and perhaps a supplemental or two, packaged up into one bill with all that money in it. That's why it's that big.

Now in it, well, I think it's unlikely that there will be a line item anywhere in it that will fund ObamaCare. But I don't see resistance either from someone bringing an amendment that would declare that none of the funds in this CR shall be used to implement or enforce ObamaCare. That's pretty close to the language that I have advocated for, oh, ever since last March when I first introduced the repeal legislation to ObamaCare.

And by the way, Michele Bachmann and I were within 3 minutes of each other in exactly the same language to initiate the repeal of ObamaCare. We've worked together on this, with others, Connie Mack and others. Jerry Moran of the United States Senate today has been one of the leaders on repealing ObamaCare without hesitation and actively and aggressively. There are a lot of supporters across the board.

But, Mr. Speaker, I want to lay out the strategy that I have planned here on the repeal of ObamaCare in sequence so that people that think chronologically like myself can put this into the right context, and that is this:

I spent about a half a year of my life fighting the passage of ObamaCare. When it finally passed and was signed by the President, the night it passed here, I went out off the balcony and down into the lawn on the south lawn where there were thousands of people yet there pleading, keep your hands off my health care. And I said to them that night that we would start the repeal process the next day.

Now, I went home exhausted, thinking I would sleep until I was rested up. That didn't last very long. I got up and wrote the request for the repeal, as did the Congresswoman from Minnesota, Mrs. Bachmann; and we submitted those repeal requests at the opening of business that same day because it was after midnight when ObamaCare passed.

It was on that time, the strategy that I put together then was that we would file a repeal bill, seek the maximum number of cosponsors to repeal ObamaCare and then, Mr. Speaker, move forward with the discharge petition to seek to get 218 signatures on that so that then-Speaker Pelosi couldn't block the repeal from coming to the floor. We followed through on all of that to the point where we peaked out at 178 signatures on the discharge petition that could have circumvented the Speaker seeking to block the repeal of ObamaCare.

That discharge petition was one of the tools that was useful in winning the majority on November 2 of this past year. And there are Members here that openly say they wouldn't be here if they didn't have the discharge petition to point to their opponent and say, sign the discharge petition if you're serious. If you're against ObamaCare, here's the vehicle to repeal it. Sign it.

A number of those who did not and would not were voted out of office, and we have a new freshman class here that is 96 strong, 87 of them are Republicans, and I know of none of the 87 that did not run on the repeal of Obamacare. I don't have confirmation, Mr. Speaker, but I believe that every one of the freshmen Republicans, the 87, ran at least in part, if not centrally, on working to repeal Obamacare.

After winning the majority, so we could actually bring legislation to repeal Obamacare, the next phase was to bring a repeal bill here to the floor of the House. I wanted it to be H.R. 1. It turned out to be H.R. 2. I don't know what H.R. 1 is yet, Mr. Speaker, but I'm very, very happy that the leadership took that high a priority to hold a vote here in the House to repeal Obamacare so early in the first session of the 112th Congress. We saw a vote here that was bipartisan and it was unanimous among Republicans to repeal Obamacare.

That is a very sound, a ringing, sound rejection of Obamacare by the American people as a result of the election of November 2, by the people they sent here, 87 new freshmen Republican, many of them very, very solid.

Then, after H.R. 2 passed the House with unanimous Republican support and bipartisan support, Mr. Speaker, it went over to the Senate, where they said, ``It could never pass over here, and it's a symbolic vote.'' Well, the Republican leader Mitch McConnell did force a vote on the repeal of Obamacare. It would have taken 60 votes to break the filibuster under those rules. Well, every Republican in the United States Senate voted to repeal Obamacare.

So we are in this situation today, Mr. Speaker, where, if you look in the House and in the Senate, with far larger Republican numbers than we have

had in past years, every Republican in the House and the Senate has voted to repeal Obamacare. Every single one. They are serious, and they want to get the job done, and their constituents insist that we get the job done as well.

So now that we have taken this position that we are, all of us, for repealing Obamacare, and consistent with two thirds of the American people, if we voted to repeal it, it would be completely inconsistent for us to vote then to turn around and fund Obamacare.

Well, if the CR has language in it that allows for funding of Obamacare, then a vote in support of the continuing resolution is a vote that funds the very thing that we voted to repeal, which would be inconsistent. And I do not believe that we will have inconsistent members here in the House of Representatives.

I think they voted to repeal Obamacare, I think they are happy to vote to cut off the funding to Obamacare, and I believe that we will have universal support for that among our conference. And I believe the Senate, if they have an opportunity for the vote, would do the same thing. Down party lines, perhaps, but they would do the same thing.

But herein is the difficulty, Mr. Speaker, and it's this: That the funding that might otherwise be in this continuing resolution or may perhaps actually come out tomorrow in it is not very large in comparison to the overall cost.

The chairman of the Budget Committee has said that the spending under Obamacare is $2.6 trillion--$2.6 trillion. Now, there are taxes enacted by it, and we know how the CBO scored the information that they were given. But $2.6 trillion in spending would be shut off if we repealed Obamacare today. We have voted to do so in the House. The Senate wasn't successful. The President likely would veto. It is his signature bill; it is his identity. He is the one that called it ``Obamacare'' at the Blair House February 25, and now it's in our dictionary. My spell check spells it out for me: Obamacare.

But in any case, the $1 billion or so that might be cut out of Obamacare in the CR, if we say none of the funds that are written into this bill can be used to implement or enforce Obamacare, that $1 billion pales by comparison to the funds that are automatically appropriated that are written into the Obamacare bill itself, and it is an unusual practice to have that happen.

When you have a large authorization bill like Obamacare come through, generally it authorizes the appropriations. They are authorized to be appropriated under this section, X many dollars, to go to implement or enforce the various provisions of Obamacare. That's where the money is. And the real money that's up in that, that's automatically appropriated, Obamacare anticipates and authorizes trillions of dollars to be appropriated to fund it, and it authorizes the collection of, I believe, trillions of dollars in fees and taxes to fund it over time. But the automatic appropriations that are unusual but written into Obamacare that a lot of people didn't know was in there when it was voted on, they will automatically appropriate a number that approaches or exceeds $100 billion in automatic appropriations.

We are crunching these numbers now, and I have to qualify these numbers, Mr. Speaker. Our low number is down around $65.3 billion; our upper number is up around $107 billion. CRS doesn't have a number, CBO doesn't have a number. Apparently, nobody has pressed them to produce the numbers of the automatic appropriations in Obamacare in all this time. So we are taking this apart and putting it back together, and that's why the range is, it's my shop doing the math on this range, $65.3 billion on the low side, $107 billion on the high side. Let's just call it around $100 billion for round figures, Mr. Speaker.

We could come here on the floor next week and debate a CR, and we could see an amendment come that's in order that would cut off all funding in the CR that would be used to fund Obamacare. If we do that, we are cutting off about $1.2 billion in spending.

If we bring an amendment that shuts off all the funding that's automatically appropriated in Obamacare, and if we are successful, we shut off maybe $100 billion that would be used to implement and enforce Obamacare.

One billion versus $100 billion. A 1 percent solution versus a 100 percent solution. And if we don't use the 100 percent solution, then $100 billion, as much as or perhaps more, will be aggressively used by the Obama administration to implement and enforce Obamacare. And if they do that, the cancerous tumor that's growing because of what it does to our liberty and our freedom sends its roots down deeper, and it gets bigger and stronger and harder to eradicate. That is part of the strategy.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that leadership and the chairman of the Appropriations Committee will get together, and sometime tonight, as they put the finishing touches on the CR legislation that they say will come out tomorrow, that they will write into the bill the language that I have proposed. And since we deal with 2,500 page bills here in the House, and we are chastised if we don't read and understand every word of them, I have an amendment here that I can read every word of, and perhaps it could be understood by everyone in America. This is the amendment that shuts off the automatic appropriations to Obamacare. It is this, and I quote:

``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the funds made available in this act or any previous or subsequent act may be used to carry out the provisions of Public Law 111-148, Public Law 111-152, or any amendment made by either such public law.''

That's the amendment, Mr. Speaker, that shuts off not just the funding in the CR to Obamacare, but it shuts off the self-enacting automatic appropriations that were, I believe, inappropriately written into the Obamacare bill and the reconciliation package that came over from the Senate as part of their deal. That is why I gave you two bill numbers instead of one, but they encompass what we commonly refer to as Obamacare.

That is the amendment that needs to be made in order here on the floor that allows the House to work its will, that allows the House to work within order under the rules. And, by the way, regular order is holding committee meetings, holding hearings, holding subcommittee markups and subcommittee appropriations. Chairman Rehberg would be seated at one of those markups, I would think, and that would be useful, a full Appropriations Committee markup at all of those stops. There would be an opportunity to introduce this language in committee, and then succeed, I believe, in dealing with a parliamentary challenge. Or, if it's written into the base bill, certainly there would be no parliamentary challenge. And if this goes out of the Appropriations Committee up to the Rules Committee and doesn't have my language in it, at that point the Rules Committee can protect this language, Mr. Speaker, from a point of order.

But if I bring this language to the floor under an appropriations bill, I know that I am facing a parliamentary challenge to this language. And it will be hard for the House to work its will if we get to the point where we have a parliamentary challenge on a piece of language that mirrors the will of the American people, mirrors the wishes of the American people, and mirrors the will and wishes of the Members of Congress, the majority of the Members of Congress, and mirrors the will and the wishes and the votes of 100 percent of the Republicans in the United States House and the United States Senate, and is bipartisan, at least in the House.

That is the endeavor that we need to be successful with, Mr. Speaker, and I am very determined to have this kind of debate and find a way to have this vote. If we are blocked from a vote that is essential to work the will of the House, how then can we say, how then can we say that the House has worked its will, if the House has been denied an opportunity to work its will?

I know there are arguments on both sides, Mr. Speaker, but I would point out that the language that I have read into the Record is not a precedent. It doesn't stretch the rules or the history or the traditions of this House. It doesn't stretch any written rule that I know of, and it is this. There is ample precedent, ample precedent in the form of the appropriations bills that were used to shut off the funding for the Vietnam War.

Now, I disagreed with the decision back then. I remember reading about it in the news in 1973 and 1974. In fact, my recollection says also 1975, but I don't happen to have those notes, Mr. Speaker, but I do have the notes to draw from a report by CRS out of the Congressional Record.

I am saying that we can bring an amendment that shuts off all funding, notwithstanding any other section. All of the automatic funding that was enacted by ObamaCare can be shut off in an appropriations bill in a continuing resolution. It can happen next week in the United States Congress, and we can put an end to ObamaCare then until such time as we elect a President who will sign the repeal as, hopefully, the first act of office in January of 2013. That is my hope and my wish and my work.

But for those who might wonder that this is language that stretches the parameters of tradition, it completely does not; and here are two examples of the House of Representatives and the Senate concurring.

Here is one, a supplemental appropriations bill, not a CR, but a supplemental appropriations bill that is in 1973, and actually the date on it is August 15, 1973. It says this: ``None of the funds herein appropriated under this act may be expended to support directly or indirectly combat activities in or over Cambodia, Laos, North Vietnam and South Vietnam by United States forces, and after August 15, 1973, no other funds heretofore appropriated under any other act may be expended for such purpose.''

So, Mr. Speaker, this supplemental appropriations bill that is dated enactment of August 15, 1973, and signed by the President July 1, 1973, says that none of these funds and no funds in the pipeline can be used to support directly or indirectly combat activities in Vietnam. If there were bullets that were on the way to be unloaded on the dock at Da Nang, they put the brakes on them and they went back. Those funds were on the way. They shut them down.

That doesn't mean they stopped everything, but none of those funds that were unobligated, would be a better way to put that, were allowed to be used by this act of Congress in a supplemental appropriations bill. Yes, the precedent exists. Yes, we can do this. Yes, it is a common practice, Mr. Speaker.

Those who might think this is a rare exception, I would go on down the line to another piece of legislation which actually was a CR, a continuing resolution. This is dated 1974, July 1, 1974; and this language in the continuing resolution then says this: ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, on or after August 15, 1973, no funds herein or heretofore appropriated may be obligated or expended to finance directly or indirectly combat activities by United States military forces in or over or from off the shores of North Vietnam, South Vietnam, Laos, or Cambodia.''

There is the language again: ``No funds herein and no funds heretofore appropriated may be obligated or expended directly or indirectly.'' That is an all-encompassing example of language that we have used as a template to shut off the funding that is automatically appropriated within ObamaCare and, I think, inappropriately automatically appropriated within ObamaCare.

That is where I stand on this, Mr. Speaker. And for those who think that is an ancient piece of legislative history and something that hasn't been used in the modern era and so therefore isn't a model or precedent, we go back 200-plus years for those things. I don't have trepidation about the Constitution that was ratified in 1789.

But just in the 110th Congress, the first 2 years of Nancy Pelosi's Congress, Mr. Speaker, she forced 44 votes. They might have been some in the Rules Committee, most of them came to the floor; 44 votes by this United States Congress that were designed to unfund, underfund or undermine our troops. I have those all on record and spreadsheet with hyperlinks to the language and the vote results.

We stood here and fought this off through the 110th Congress because the effort by the then-Speaker was to end the war in Iraq by shutting off all the funding and forcing us to bring our troops back home again. I am very thankful that George Bush prevailed in the surge and we have the optimistic situation in Iraq that we have today because of that decision that was made by George Bush. But it wasn't with any help from Speaker Pelosi, who forced 44 votes. Many of them, and I have not scored it in this fashion, but probably most of them follow down the same lines as the legislative procedure that I am advocating here.

So, Mr. Speaker, this is a very sound practice. It is a very constitutional practice. It is tried and it is true and it has been effective. It put the end to the Vietnam War, and we can put an end to ObamaCare if we bring language either as written into the bill or if we go back and have an Appropriations Committee, which I don't expect will happen, or if the Rules Committee protects my language so that the amendment can be legitimately debated here on the floor of the House and we can have a recorded vote. We can shut off 100 percent of the implementation and enforcement of ObamaCare.

If we don't take those steps, this Congress will not be allowed then, will not have been allowed at that point to work its will; and we have at best the chance to shut off $1 billion, which amounts to 1 percent of the overall appropriations that are automatically enacted by ObamaCare. So we can come with a 1 percent solution and posture ourselves as we provided a solution, or we can come with a 100 percent solution with the best tools that the House has now to do the best job, to write the toughest bill that we can, send it over to the Senate, because we know this: it is going to get worse in the Senate, and they are going to leverage back on us.

If it were just me, we could hold our ground. But; it isn't just me. So, Mr. Speaker, my advice to my colleagues whom I adore the privilege of serving with and whose judgment and statesmanship I greatly respect is this: We can't have people blink in this Congress, not when the destiny of America is at stake. And if you are wondering about blinking, just sign up with me, wait until I blink, and when I do, I guarantee my eyeballs will be dry and so will yours. But we must hold our ground. We must not blink.

We must send the language over to the Senate that cuts off all of the funding of that up to and perhaps exceeding $100 billion that would be used to implement and enforce ObamaCare, that will be used aggressively by the Obama administration to send the roots down and grow this malignant tumor and metastasize this malignant tumor. We can pull it all out by the roots. We can do so if we move my amendment and make it in order under the rule or write it into the bill. If not, the America people will look back on this time and say, Where were you when it was time to stand up for the will of the American people?

Mr. Speaker, I have had my say. I appreciate the privilege of addressing you here this afternoon, to be on the floor of the House of Representatives. I entreat my colleagues to join with me, and let's get this job done. Let's repeal ObamaCare; let's pull it out by the roots, lock, stock and barrel, a 100 percent repeal, not a 1 percent repeal.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 73 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

House Resolution 73 provides for a closed rule for consideration of H. Res. 72. It provides 9\1/2\ hours of debate, divided by the committees outlined in H. Res. 72, and provides the minority a motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill. This legislation is simple, direct, and easy to understand. The text of the three-page bill was posted last week on the Rules Committee Web site. This legislation is an attempt and an effort to provide more transparency and accountability in the government regulatory process, something that my colleagues and I have called for numerous times over the last two Congresses.

The legislation before us today calls for 10 House committees to review existing, pending, and proposed regulations and orders from agencies of the Federal Government, particularly with respect to their effects on destroying jobs and economic growth.

With the current high unemployment rate, it is essential we do everything reasonably possible that we can to look at and to reduce government rules and regulations that impede job creation and economic growth, that discourage innovation, hurt or harm global competitiveness, limit credit, create economic uncertainty, impose unnecessary paperwork and cost on small businesses, and that result in large-scale and often unnecessary unfunded mandates on employers.

That is exactly what this legislation would do, and we are on the floor today to talk about this as an important component of allowing America to get back to work and to highlight these rules and regulations that stifle not only investment but also job creation.

Every single Member of Congress understands and believes that regulations are needed to provide the rules, safety, and structures for this society to function properly. While regulations are important, they can also cross that fine line and can become too burdensome. It is essential to strike a balance to ensure that the imposed rules and regulations do not lead to higher costs and less productive societies.

The Federal Government creates an average of 4,000 final regulations each year with about 500 to 700 that are reviewed by the White House.

According to a recent report from the Small Business Administration, the total cost of Federal regulations has increased to $1.75 trillion a year from the U.S. economy; $1.75 trillion is what this burden is on the free enterprise system. Additionally, the study shows that regulatory and paperwork costs were found to be more onerous for smaller firms than their larger counterparts. More specifically, the costs of regulations per employee for firms with fewer than 20 employees is now $10,585, a 36 percent difference between the costs incurred per employee by a larger firm.

This is absolutely outrageous. This is outrageous because small business is the backbone and the engine of our economy. It represents 99.7 percent of all employers. Small businesses, according to the Small Business Administration, have generated 64 percent of net new jobs over the past 15 years while employing over half of all private sector employees. One of the fastest ways to put Americans back to work, Republicans believe, is to limit the regulatory expenses that these small firms have to comply with simply to satisfy Federal Government regulations.

Regulatory burdens are hindering job growth. Regulatory burdens are hindering investment and innovation while eroding some of the most basic and fundamental freedoms in America. Congress and this administration must work together to do more than prevent harmful new regulations. They must also review, study, and eliminate unnecessary rules that are already on the books.

On January 18 of last month, President Obama signed an Executive order to provide a government-wide review of the rules already on the books to remove outdated regulations. In an op-ed placed in the Wall Street Journal last month by the President, he clearly states that ``sometimes, those rules have gotten out of balance, placing unreasonable burdens on business, burdens that have stifled innovation and have had a chilling effect upon growth and jobs.'' Mr. Speaker, I applaud and I appreciate the President for recognizing this, and I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to understand what we are attempting to do today, and that is to support as best as we can not only the ideals that the President talked about but also a focus on these rules and regulations that stifle innovativeness, create costs, and ruin jobs in America.

Mr. Speaker, while the President is now taking a step in the right direction when it comes to regulation, in the last fiscal year alone the Obama administration unleashed 43 major new regulations that will cost America more than, new, $28 billion annually. These costs will affect Americans in many ways, from raising the price of cars, where we buy food, where we eat, and every single one of these stands in the way of making the free enterprise more efficient and somehow does not help in creation of jobs.

The President will have to take a step back from some of the major bills that he signed last year, and I believe he can do that by employing the ideas that he had in this op-ed. He can do something about it, and that is join Republicans who today are attempting to work with the President. If the President is serious about reducing regulatory burdens impacting every American, we can do this job together. Fifteen of the 42 regulations proposed last year were from the Frank-Dodd financial regulatory bill. Another five stemmed from the ObamaCare bill, and 10 others come from the Environmental Protection Agency, or what is known as the EPA, including the first mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions.

The annual compliance costs constitute only a part of the economic burden of regulations on business. Many of these new rules curtail the purchase of new equipment, conversions of industrial practices, and are about revising data collection and reporting procedures. One example is the new restriction on short sales from the Frank-Dodd bill that requires the Securities and Exchange Commission to make modifications to computer systems and surveillance mechanisms for gathering and managing this information that will cost over $1 billion. Mr. Speaker, that defies balance and I think ultimate accountability of what the regulations should be about.

Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity today to direct our committees to take the first step in reining in Big Government, reducing our deficit, and encouraging job growth and economic prosperity. This simple bill is three pages long, and it shines the light on the regulatory process and provides the necessary transparency and accountability on Federal agencies that has been lacking for years.

My Republican colleagues and I remain committed to putting America back to work through creation of new jobs. This legislation is a way to be a part of that good start. I encourage all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words of my friend the gentleman from Florida. I would like to state that the bills we have done in the Rules Committee during these 12 bills have been about original jurisdiction by the Rules Committee, which is what this bill is. This bill is a jurisdictional issue where the Rules Committee, through the legislation that my name sits on as the chief sponsor, is directing other committees to have hearings, to be part of an open process, to do the things that will be necessary not only for minority participation but any Member who chooses in these committees to come and have their voices heard, for hearings to be held, for thoughtful people across this country to come and provide us information about the way they see the regulatory burdens that are being placed upon them. If someone thinks that what we are doing today is all about trying to stifle regular order, it's completely the opposite. Nine-and-a-half hours of debate, which is unheard of for a three-page bill, is all about regular order and is exactly what I've been arguing for for years. That's what the Republicans are delivering today on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Notwithstanding that the gentleman brought up some good ideas about job creation, I would like to just put it into some bit of context. Today what we are trying to do is to gather steam behind rules and regulations that stifle the ability for the free enterprise system to employ people. But in the larger scheme of things, our friends on the other side are upset because what we as Republicans are going to do is to find a way to live up to our campaign promises to cut spending during the year by $100 billion.

Now some people say, oh, that's not enough amount, or it's too big of an amount because it will mean all these draconian cuts across the government. Well, I would remind this House that $100 billion is a small part of the $3,000 billion spending plan that the Congress has already given to government--$3,000 billion--and what we are talking about not just today and not just over the past few weeks but taking $100 billion and trying to take that as a burden off the American people. The reason why is because 30 percent of all government spending today or more ends up as debt, meaning that we have to borrow it from somebody else.

``But this is so important, we've got to make sure we do it.'' Well, Republicans disagree. We think not only a review of regulatory process but a review of spending is important in Washington. Mr. Speaker, I refer to what might be a sheet of paper that was in print described as Obama Announces Review of Government Regulations. Within this paper, there is a paragraph, a short paragraph that I would like to read which perhaps embodies exactly why we are here today:

``Business leaders say government regulations, including those being written for health care overall and financial reform, have hurt job creation at a time of high unemployment.''

In fact, the Department of Treasury describes where we are as chronic unemployment for today and our immediate past for as far as the eye can see. Last year at some point even the longest projection by this government showed no net new job creation. That is what Republicans have inherited. We intend to be serious about what we're doing, and we intend to make sure that the American people see this for what it is, and that is an opportunity by Congress to work on the issues that they're demanding.

[From FoxBusiness.com, Jan. 18, 2011]

Obama Announces Review of Government Regulations

President Barack Obama said on Tuesday he would order a

government-wide review of regulations with the goal of

eliminating those that hurt job creation and make the U.S.

economy less competitive.

In an op-ed piece in The Wall Street Journal, Obama said

some government regulations have placed ``unreasonable

burdens on business--burdens that have stifled innovation and

have had a chilling effect on growth and jobs.''

He said he would require that in the future government

agencies ``ensure that regulations protect our safety, health

and environment while promoting economic growth.''

The president has recently ratcheted up efforts to soothe

relations with the business community, after alienating

corporate America through rhetorical attacks against Wall

Street and an agenda heavy on regulation.

Business leaders say government regulations, including

those being written for the healthcare overall and financial

reform, have hurt job creation at a time of high

unemployment.

``It's a review that will help bring order to regulations

that have become a patchwork of overlapping rules, the result

of tinkering by administrations and legislators of both

parties and the influence of special interests in Washington

over decades,'' Obama wrote.

Noting that small businesses create most new jobs in the

economy, he said he would direct the government to make a

greater effort to reduce the burden regulations place on

them.

While vowing to eliminate rules that are ``not worth the

cost, or that are just plain dumb,'' the president said his

administration wouldn't shy away from writing new rules to

address obvious gaps in government oversight.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am joined by the chairman of the Rules Committee, and I will tell you that he is so pleased that we have not only this bill that has been brought to the floor, but he is so pleased that we are taking the time to speak about the facts of the case. And one fact is that the first bill that we took up was the bill to repeal ObamaCare. It had nothing to do with the Clean Air Act. It had everything to do with a bill which has caused an amazing number of regulations.

And I would like to quote, if I can, a fact that, since the passage in March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which is known as ObamaCare, has added 6,123 pages of regulations, and the Federal Register has printed those just over the last 9 months. Secondly, according to a September 2010 report from the Small Business Administration, total regulatory costs amount to $1.75 trillion annually, which is nearly twice as much as all individual income taxes collected last year. That means that the ability for a person to have to fill out all of their paperwork, the cost of that is twice what we even collected in taxes. There is a balance here that's been overrun.

House Republicans: Identifying and Removing Onerous Job-Destroying

Regulations

This week, House Republicans are bringing a resolution to

the floor directing the committees to inventory and review

federal agency rules and regulations that may unfairly harm

the ability to create jobs and grow the economy.

While the nation suffers from 21 straight months of

unemployment at 9 percent or higher, President Obama and

congressional Democrats have doubled down on their strategy

to burden job creators with more government red tape.

With the U.S. economy struggling and American families hard

pressed to pay their bills and put food on the table, the

costs of federal regulations have never been more

significant. The fact is that federal regulations increase

the cost of doing business and destroy jobs.

Undue and archaic government red tape takes money out of

the hands of families and businesses. Agencies should not be

authorized to heap billions in new added costs on the economy

without reducing another burden elsewhere.

Job-Crushing Regulations--By the Numbers

During the Democrats' leadership of Congress, unemployment

skyrocketed from 4.6 percent to 9 percent as the economy has

lost more than 6.8 million jobs.

With 243 expected rulemakings from the Democrats' permanent

bailout of Wall Street law, and the inestimable number of

regulations to come from ObamaCare's government takeover of

healthcare, the President's newfound concern for the

regulatory burdens facing employers does not match his

actions over the past two years.

The Obama administration has not shied away from flexing

its regulatory muscle since taking office. A recent study by

the Heritage Foundation found that an unprecedented 43 major

regulations were imposed in fiscal year 2010 with a total

economic cost of $26.5 billion, the highest total since at

least 1981.

Since passage in March 2010, the Patient Protection and

Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) has added 6.123 pages of

regulations and Federal Register notices in just its first

nine months.

According to a September 2010 report from the Small

Business Administration, total regulatory costs amount to

$1.75 trillion annually, nearly twice as much as all

individual income taxes collected last year.

Who Is Paying for this Reeulatory Burden? America's Small Businesses

and American Workers

The cost of regulations is felt even harder by America's

small business owners, the engine of our nation's economy.

According to the Small Business Administration, the average

small business with less than 20 employees faces a cost of

$10,585 in federal regulations each year per worker they

employ.

Businesses with fewer than 20 employees spend on average 36

percent more per employee than larger firms to comply with

federal regulations. These small employers represent 99.7

percent of all businesses and have created 64 percent of all

new jobs over the past 15 years.

The cost of federal regulations to small businesses must

either be passed on to the consumer or workers, either in the

form of lower wages or a shortage of jobs that would have

been otherwise paid for with money spent complying with

federal regulations. Imagine if small businesses could put

the $10,000 they spend on federal regulations directly back

into new jobs.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) coming down to the floor. I would like to let him know that we are doing 9\1/2\ hours of debate, and at the end there will be an opportunity for a motion to recommit with or without instructions that has been lacking for the previous 4 years by my colleagues on the other side, that they extended to us. So you will have every single opportunity, if you want, just to use your brainpower and put together that great jobs bill that you want to talk about.

But I would say to the gentleman, we have chosen to talk about the things which stifle jobs, and we believe that as we talk about these that a lot of the American people will get it. For instance, if you lived out in the country--I will just bring up one example.

The EPA has issued a draft policy doubling the stringency of the standard by which dust is regulated--dust. Now, the Speaker would understand dust because he is from a rural State. I understand dust from some perspective, being from Texas. But the EPA regulates dust, and they are going to issue a draft policy--or already did--that doubles the stringency of the standard. Many farming activities kick up dust: tilling the field, operating a feed lot, driving farm vehicles, even dusty roads.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Well, that's a good point. I don't think the gentleman was up in the Rules Committee yesterday to hear this, but the Rules Committee has original jurisdiction on this bill. We are sending this bill, when passed on the floor, to 10 committees, asking them to look at specifics, and dust will be one of those issues. It will be in front of a committee, probably the Agriculture Committee. Perhaps it could be in front of the Resources Committee, where they will look at what this proposed ruling is.

I continue to yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, the answer is because this floor is the wrong place to do it, and we need to do it in reverse order. We need to go--and I know this is a new concept to a lot of people on your side. We are going to send it to the committees. We are going to let there be hearings about it. We are going to let the Democrats and the Republicans have an opportunity--for instance, the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Collin Peterson, as the former chairman of the Ag Committee, will have an opportunity in working with Mr. Lucas, the chairman of the Ag Committee now, on who those witnesses will be who are experts.

I don't think we have enough intellectual content because we don't spend time on farms, I don't, to where I can make an accurate decision. But if I review the transcript and listen to what happens in the committee of jurisdiction, regular order, like the 10 other committees, then it gives us a chance to realistically understand, study, talk about, and receive feedback.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, and I do appreciate the gentleman. This House of Representatives, after 9/11, debated to the fullest extent not only the issues of the Patriot Act, but we have had continuing hearings and dialogue on that. There's a requirement that these be looked at, and we intend to make sure that there's a full debate on this.

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the gentleman engaging me. I would also make my point that the economic impact of the regulation of dust that it will have on farmers, that it will have on people who live in rural areas, is enormous. And this is part of that overall cost. It's not a hidden cost; it's a real cost that makes us unproductive and costs consumers a lot of money. And this is the kind of discussion we're going to have.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, thanks for the opportunity to be here today on this important bill. What I want to say to you is continually we need to make the point that this bill is all about referring to committees the opportunity for them to look at onerous rules and regulations.

I would like to bring up just one more burdensome regulation. Milk contains animal fat, and the EPA has suggested that milk storage could be regulated under the Clean Water Act as large oil tanks. It is estimated that it would cost U.S. dairy farmers thousands of dollars to come into compliance with such a regulation that would be exactly the same as large oil tanks. The EPA, only after congressional pressure, has signaled that it would finalize an exemption for milk. However, it has yet to do so and continues to drag its feet. Meanwhile, farmers are having to face what is a burdensome regulation.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Rules Committee.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, Big Government is still alive and well on the floor today. Big Government is going to spend people's money from back home. Spending, spending, spending--all about the government.

Well, that's why the Republican Party is the majority party on the floor of the House of Representatives now, because the American people saw the effects of huge government, bigger government, and rules and regulations.

Mr. Speaker, you heard me earlier say that my Republican colleagues and I are committed to putting Americans back to work. We believe that what happens in Washington can aid and help the free enterprise system by telling the story, putting the spotlight, showing the light of day on the rules and regulations that are costing business $1.7 trillion a year, which takes resources away from the activities that they would have of job creation and keeping our job growth, innovation, and our economy stable.

While small businesses are getting hit harder than any other firms in the United States, now is the time to provide that relief to these businesses so that they can reinvest in themselves, create jobs, and level out the economy. This Republican Congress remains committed to scaling back some of the 43 major regulations imposed in the last year by the Obama administration that would add $28 billion annually.

Mr. Speaker, it's obvious to me that we must do better.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 73 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

sections:

Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the

Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare

the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on

the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.

11) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the

Build America Bonds program. The first reading of the bill

shall be dispensed with. All points of order against

consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be

confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally

divided and controlled by the Majority Leader and Minority

Leader or their respective designees. After general debate

the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-

minute rule. All points of order against

provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion of

consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall

rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as

may have been adopted. The previous question shall be

considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to

final passage without intervening motion except one motion to

recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of

the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution

on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House

shall, immediately after the third daily order of business

under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the

Whole for further consideration of the bill.

Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of the bill specified in section 2--of this

resolution.

(The information contained herein was provided by the

Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the

110th and 111th Congresses.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding and thank her for leading. As I see my colleagues on the floor, let me just try to focus on one or two points. And maybe on this Valentine's evening--I think a lot of our colleagues who were fortunate enough to have their spouses here rushed off, and we're delighted. Let me wish everyone a happy Valentine's Day. And let me wish my husband in Texas, far away, a happy Valentine's Day. But he might not be having such a good Valentine's Day because he is in higher education. And, frankly, this CR is going to put more than a dent. It is going to put a real bite.

This is an effort to show you what progress we've made. Private sector employment has increased for 12 straight months. Private employers added more than 1.3 million jobs in 2010. But they have to have an educated

workforce. And, as you can see, we're going up. The cup is half full and not half empty. But when you have the numbers that I'm about to relate to you, where you're seeing Pell Grants cut 15 percent--Mr. Speaker, I met with my universities--the University of Houston, Houston Community College, Lone Star, Texas Southern University; and if there was one thing that they emphasized it is the equal opportunity that is provided to all students through a Pell Grant.

If we are to go with the CR as it is, we're talking about a reduction in the middle of the school year of $5,550 to $4,705. Do you know what that does to a student? It doesn't tell them, Let me try to ramp up my extra job. It says, I am dropping out. You know what happens to the workforce? It disappears. And so I am concerned that we are in this predicament.

So let me tell you something else. I have been a strong champion of the COPS On the Beat program. And we have seen evidence of the fact that we have gained in the downsizing, or the decreasing, of crime. The proposed CR will cut $600 million in funding to community-oriented policing. And, of course, what will happen is 3,000 fewer officers. You can be assured Houston, Texas, which got their first COPS grants just a few months ago, that I worked very hard on, will be one of the victims of that.

Let me just conclude by suggesting that one of the points my good friend the assistant leader made, community health clinics is not a partisan issue. It is to give access to all communities, and particularly rural communities. I'm from Texas. One of the reasons I fought so hard for community health clinics, particularly under the Bush administration, I actually talked to former President Bush and one of our encounters was to challenge and to encourage how we could in fact secure, if you will, more funding for Texas for community health centers in the rural areas. I'm glad we worked together, and actually we've seen a ramp-up. And we've seen a ramp-up with the Affordable Care Act, which helps to provide the kind of, if you will, health care for those in faraway communities where there are not enough doctors.

Finally, may I say to you that to cut the National Science Foundation is terrible. It doesn't make any sense. And I would offer to say that this is about work. Health care; cops to make it safe; Pell Grants to train the 21st-century workforce. I know there are colleagues on the other side of the aisle that will work with us to get this CR where it needs to be. I, too, am for a reasoned budget-cutting that we need to do. I did it in years past. We balanced the budget in 1997. We can do it again. I, frankly, believe we should not cut into the very quality of life that is so needed.

Let me thank my good friend and the Congressional Black Caucus, working with my other colleagues to ensure that we stand for job creation, investing in job creation. Unfortunately, the CR, as it stands today--the continuing resolution, for those who are not sure of what that is--is not going to work. Let's invest in America.

H.R. 1, the Continuing Resolution making appropriations to fund the federal government through September 20, 2011 contains some very deep cuts that will be very hurtful to many Americans, especially those who are the most vulnerable--disadvantaged women and families, children, minorities, and the elderly. The proposed cuts in the CR will have a disproportionate affect the low-income and minority portions of our population.

As we face a large deficit and growing debt, we know that cuts will have to be made. And yes, some of those cuts will be painful. However, we must be careful not to place added burdens and cause greater harm to those Americans who are the most vulnerable in need of our support the most.

The proposed CR calls for a 15% reduction in funding for Pell grants. Such a cut will reduce the maximum Pell grant award from its current level of $5,550 to $4,705. This would present a serious problem for institutions of higher learning, but more importantly, it creates a major hardship on students. Current students who receive Pell grants would have to figure out a way to come up with nearly an additional $1,000 in order to continue their education. Students who have been accepted to school and have received their financial aid packages are also put in a position that would force them to find and secure additional funds for their schooling. Pell Grants provide the basic foundation of federal student aid and help more than 8 million students afford to attend college.

To some of us, $800-$1,000 may not seem significant. However, to a student who qualifies for Pell grant assistance, and who relies on those funds, this would be a great hardship, potentially forcing students to take time off from their schooling.

The proposed CR will cut $1.3 billion of funding previously allocated to support Community Health Centers. These types of facilities are widely utilized in low income areas and oftentimes, are the backbone of health care services in the areas in which they are located. Without them, quality health care for many poor and disadvantaged Americans will be out of reach.

Although my Republican colleagues claim that the proposed CR will not cut precious education funding, there are, in fact, significant cuts that will have a detrimental impact on education--especially higher education. Many fellowships offered at institutions of higher education are funded by competitive and non-competitive grants issued by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Cutting funding to these organizations will impose a great hardship on students striving to educate themselves in order that they can be competitive in a global economy.

Under the proposed CR, NSF funding would be cut by $139 million.

Under the proposed CR, NIH funding would be cut by $1 billion.

The proposed CR will cut nearly $2 million dollars from the Minority Business Development Agency.

The proposed CR would cut $600 million dollars from the Community Oriented Policing Services programs (COPS). Such a cut would require a complete elimination of the hiring programs. Over the years, COPS has funded the hiring of more than 122,000 state and local police officers and sheriff's deputies in communities across America. This proposed cut will prevent the hiring and rehiring of over 3,000 fewer law enforcement officers.

The public safety of our communities is important, and during these tough economic times as we recover from one of our country's worse recessions, every job counts. We can not afford cuts that will cost jobs for hardworking American people.

Another instance where the CR disproportionately affects our low- income, minority population is the cut to WIC funding. The current CR calls for a huge cut, $758 million, to funding for the WIC program, which supplements nutrition for low-income and disadvantaged women and children.

Under the proposed CR, the entire Title X provision, which funds family planning resources such as Planned Parenthood, would be eliminated, a cut of $327 million. Family planning funding has been an essential tool for many communities, especially in low income areas.

Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), we set aside funds to help invigorate the economy across various areas. These funds were intended to be used over a number to encourage the continued growth of the economy. However, under the proposed CR, any unobligated or uncommitted stimulus funding would be eliminated.

The cut of $1.1 billion, or 14% below the FY2010 appropriation ($7.2 billion in FY2010) and more than $500 million below FY2008, would translate to a massive loss of comprehensive early childhood services, causing more than 200,000 children across the country to be kicked out of the Head Start program. This further reduction is catastrophic and will also put thousands of Head Start teachers out of work and into the unemployment lines. Additionally, this funding level would mean cuts to research grants, training and technical assistance grants and monitoring activities.

Congresswoman Christensen, you don't know now how difficult it is for many of us to accept the assignment or the lack of assignment that this present majority leadership gave to the territories, and I want to thank you for placing this squarely on the record, frankly.

We worked harmoniously with the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands and Samoa and Guam and other places, Puerto Rico. We worked because it was important to have the insight and constructive input on these legislative initiatives but, more importantly, on the floor of the House. So let me just reemphasize in joining you to say that the territories should not suffer. In the CR, they do.

I just want to hold up, this was a letter to my colleagues, a letter to America, a letter to Houstonians. This is the long list of cuts, and let me just cite for you very quickly so that you understand what we're talking about. We have to cut, but can we do it in a manner that is constructive?

Everybody is running from Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and we frankly understand that, and so they put the pressure on 16 percent, but you're cutting in the middle of the year, when people are dependent on this funding.

Juvenile justice, $2.3 million. The COPS program, I already mentioned, many cops will be laid off.

NASA, $379 million, literally stopping NASA, the National Aeronautics Space Administration, in its tracks, forgetting about human exploration, forgetting about science.

The Legal Services Corporation. No one without counsel can speak for a person who is desperate and cannot access counsel. So, if you have counsel, which really was what I was saying, you cannot speak for someone who does not. Legal Services Corporation is the wedge between justice and being thrown out.

EPA, $1.6 billion; women and infant children, $758 million; job training--I just mentioned you have to invest in job training--$2 billion; and community health centers, $1.3 billion; high-speed rail, $1 billion. And of course, all of that is about jobs.

As so, as a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, as a Member of the larger body of Members, Republicans and Democrats, this CR is going to be a bite that is so stiff and so tough, I am hoping that some will view it not as a political prize, not as ``I did it. They told me to go here and do it.'' When you come inside this august body, you drop your partisan politics and you ask the question: What is good for America? You're not a partisan Democrat, a partisan Republican, or a partisan tea party. What you are is ``Can we come together?''

Now, I know I am not going to agree with all these cuts, but I didn't mention all these cuts. I know some of these things have to be. I didn't mention GSA. I think we're cutting them too much, but I believe we have some common ground, but how can you cut Pell grants? Students are in, if you will, they're actually in school and you are cutting them.

Let me just say to the gentlelady as I yield back, thank you. Let's come together as Americans. And I thank you for leading this hour on behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus.

President Clinton left President Bush with a ten year projected surplus of $5.6 trillion in 2001. Whereas, President Bush on January 20, 2009 left President Obama with a $1.2 trillion deficit. Keep in mind that this was the deficit on day one of the Obama Administration, weeks before the President enacted a single piece of legislation and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

The failed economic policies of the Bush Administration led to this enormous deficit--the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts totaled $1.3 trillion over ten years, in which most of the tax relief went to the top 1% of income earners; a Medicare Prescription Drug benefit with a ten year cost of nearly $1 trillion that was not offset; two overseas wars that are nearing a cost of $1 trillion; a $700 billion bailout of Wall Street banks; and all these unpaid for policies were compounded by the worst economic recession in 70 years that began in 2007 which led to huge shortfalls in federal tax revenue and increased reliance on unemployment insurance and other federal social safety net programs.

In order to get these large deficits under control, we have some tough choices to make.

How much longer can we afford to extend the Bush-era tax cuts?

The President and Congress extended all of them through 2012 at a two year cost of $800 billion.

A ten year extension of all these tax cuts will cost $3.8 trillion-- $3 trillion of which are the popular middle-class tax cuts.

Earlier this week, the Congressional Budget Office released its latest projections of the Social Security Trust Fund. It was previously projected to go into a cash deficit in 2017, but now CBO has projected that the trust fund is now running a deficit. The trust is expected to be exhausted in 2037.

We can no longer operate under the assumption of the last decade, that we can increase spending and reduce taxes without having to pay for it.

The last Congress took important steps to restore some important tools that were used to produce the first budget surplus in more than a generation in the late 1990s, such as Statutory Pay-As-You-Go--meaning if Congress wants to increase mandatory spending, we have to offset it by reducing spending elsewhere in the budget or increase taxes to cover the increase.

Unfortunately, the new Republican majority has changed House rules gutting PAY-GO's effectiveness in the congressional budget process. The so-called CUT-GO rule prohibits offsetting any new mandatory spending with a revenue increase. This makes it nearly impossible to offset any new spending or tax cuts with revenue increases and will require only spending cuts.

In another unprecedented change, the House voted to give the House Budget Committee Chairman the sole responsibility for setting discretionary spending levels for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2011. The House of Representatives as a whole will be deprived of the right to vote up or down the Budget Chairman's levels.

We have to remember that what we do with the Federal budget touches everyone. Our fiscal problems are very complex and they need to be addressed, but there is no simple, one-size-fits-all solution.

H.R. 1, the Continuing Resolution making appropriations to fund the federal government through September 20, 2011 contains some very deep cuts that will be very hurtful to many Americans, especially those who are the most vulnerable--disadvantaged women and families, children, minorities, and the elderly.

As we face a large deficit and growing debt, we know that cuts will have to be made. And yes, some of those cuts will be painful. However, we must be careful not to place added burdens and cause greater harms to those Americans who are the most vulnerable in need of our support the most.

The proposed CR will cut funding allocated to support Community Health Centers. These types of facilities are widely utilized in low income areas and oftentimes, are the backbone of healthcare services in the areas in which they are located. Without them, quality health care for many poor and disadvantaged Americans will be out of reach.

Although my Republican colleagues claim that the proposed CR will not cut precious education funding, there are, in fact, significant cuts that will have a detrimental impact on education--especially higher education. Many fellowships offered at institutions of higher education are funded by competitive and non-competitive grants issued by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Cutting funding to these organizations will impose a great hardship on students striving to educate themselves in order that they can be competitive in a global economy.

Under the proposed CR, NSF funding would be cut by $139 million.

Under the proposed CR, NIH funding would be cut by $1 billion.

The proposed CR will cut nearly $2 million dollars from the Minority Business Development Agency.

The proposed CR would cut $600 million dollars from the Community Oriented Policing Services programs (COPS). Such a cut would require a complete elimination of the hiring programs. Over the years, COPS has funded the hiring of more than 122,000 state and local police officers and sheriffs deputies in communities across America. This proposed cut will prevent the hiring and rehiring of over 3,000 fewer law enforcement officers.

The public safety of our communities is important, and during these tough economic times as we recover from one of our country's worse recessions, every job counts. We can not afford cuts that will cost jobs for hardworking American people.

Another instance where the CR disproportionately effects our low- income, minority population is the cut to WIC funding. The current CR calls for a huge cut, $758 million, to funding for the WIC program, which supplements nutrition for low-income and disadvantaged women and children.

Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), we set aside funds to help invigorate the economy across various areas. These funds were intended to be used over a number to encourage the continued growth of the economy. However, under the proposed CR, any unobligated or uncommitted stimulus funding would be eliminated.

I am pleased to say this morning that I am delighted to be here.

I want to give my congratulations to Mr. Dreier on reclaiming the Rules seat, and we are very keen on our side to make our case before you today.

Madam Speaker, actually, my head is somewhat spinning because, not 20 minutes ago, the new Speaker of the House of Representatives stood where you are and said he was going to be listening to people, but the first order of business before the House came from the delegates whom this rule disenfranchises--not only the delegate of the District of Columbia but all of the Territories. They didn't get to say a word. So my head is somewhat spinning at this point, and we hope to try to at least give them unanimous consent so that they can try to get some message into the Record.

It is again part of the rhetoric from the last campaign that keeps spinning in our heads: All we want to do, they said, is to bring down the deficit. We're going over a cliff, and we've got to bring down the deficit.

As we stand here today, on the brink of a new session of Congress, the concern about deficits has disappeared from everything but the press releases. Under the new majority rules, the other side will essentially gut PAYGO--the pay-as-you-go rules adopted by Democrat majorities in the House and Senate in 2007 under which tax cuts or increases in entitlement spending must be offset by tax increases or entitlement cuts. Under President Clinton, it gave us the biggest surplus we have ever had. It was a hallmark of Democrat leadership, and we are proud of it. We adhered to responsible spending levels and affordable tax cuts, and we took sensible steps towards controlling the deficit.

But not today.

Their talk about belt-tightening and deficit reduction is going to be thrown out the window so that they can free themselves to hand out even more tax credits to their friends, the corporations. Under these proposed rules, notes The Washington Post, tax cuts for the wealthiest are fully protected, but tax help for those at the other end of the income spectrum? Forget about it.

Obviously, The New York Times, The Washington Post and other respected news organizations have cried foul at this sleight of hand. In recent days, editorials have appeared slamming this hypocrisy and phony attempt at fiscal austerity.

What seems crystal clear to me is that the other side has doubled down and adopted the mentality of former Vice President Dick Cheney, who responded to the 2002 midterm elections by advocating in favor of more than $1 trillion in tax cuts. ``Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the midterm elections. This is our due,'' said the Vice President. The other side now wants to adopt the posture of budget cutters, but when it gets right down to it, they want to be able to make sweetheart deals without having to pay for them.

Nor is their sleight of hand or hypocritical actions an isolated event. It was less than a month ago that Republicans successfully held unemployment benefits for Americans hostage until they got their wish-- more Bush-era tax cuts for the people making more than $1 million a year. That package added another $140 billion to the deficit, but that didn't seem to bother them either, obviously, as they have told the world it is their number one priority.

Just this week, Republican new Members ushered in the new Congress with a $2,500 a plate fundraiser at the W Hotel in downtown Washington. Lobbyists, political action committee members, and other exclusive guests were treated to a night of drinks and entertainment by country singer LeAnn Rimes. Those who donated $50,000 were treated to a VIP suite at the W, along with the rest of the night's entertainment.

Last month, the incoming chairman of the House Financial Services Committee offered his own assessment of Republican oversight. He told the Birmingham News in Alabama, ``In Washington, the view is that the banks are to be regulated, and my view is that Washington and the regulators are there to serve the banks.''

And according to Politico, the incoming chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is looking for ways to make government more responsive to Wall Street and their corporate allies like Big Oil, Big Pharma, and Big Health.

Instead of all this business as usual--and we are headed right back into where we were before 2006--what I'd like to see is an honest attempt to create a set of rules that provide for openness, transparency, and good government. This set of rules is not that document. And I hope that the other side--and I believe they have good intentions--will join us in supporting this effort.

Deficit Hypocrisy

[From the New York Times, Dec. 29, 2010]

It was not long ago that Republicans succeeded in holding

unemployment benefits hostage to a renewal of the high-end

Bush-era income tax cuts and--as a little bonus--won deep

estate tax cuts for America's wealthiest heirs. Those cuts

will add nearly $140 billion to the deficit in the near term,

while doing far less to prod the economy than if the money

had been spent more wisely.

That should have been evidence enough that the Republican

Party's one real priority is tax cuts--despite all the talk

about deficit reduction and economic growth. But here's some

more:

On Dec. 22, just before they left town for the holidays,

House Republican leaders released new budget rules that they

intend to adopt when they assume the majority in January and

will set the stage for even more budget-busting tax cuts.

First, some background: Under pay-as-you-go rules adopted

by Democratic majorities in the House and Senate in 2007, tax

cuts or increases in entitlement spending must be offset by

tax increases or entitlement cuts. Entitlements include big

health programs like Medicare and Medicaid, for which

spending is on autopilot, as well as some other programs for

veterans and low-income Americans. (Discretionary spending,

which includes defense, is approved separately by Congress

annually.)

The new Republican rules will gut pay-as-you-go because

they require offsets only for entitlement increases, not for

tax cuts. In effect, the new rules will codify the Republican

fantasy that tax cuts do not deepen the deficit.

It gets worse. The new rules mandate that entitlement-

spending increases be offset by spending cuts only--and

actually bar the House from raising taxes to pay for such

spending.

Say, for example, that lawmakers want to bolster child

credits for families at or near the minimum wage. One way to

help pay for the aid would be to close the tax loophole that

lets the nation's wealthiest private equity partners pay tax

at close to the lowest rate in the code. That long overdue

reform would raise an estimated $25 billion over 10 years,

but the new rules will forbid being sensible like that.

Even worse, they direct the leader of the House Budget

Committee to ignore several costs when computing the budget

impact of future actions, as if the costs are the natural

course of politics for which no payment is required.

For example, the cost to make the Bush-era tax cuts

permanent would be ignored, as would the fiscal effects of

repealing the health reform law. At the same time, the new

rules bar the renewal of aid for low-income working

families--extended temporarily in the recent tax-cut deal--

unless it is fully paid for.

House Republicans obviously believe they have a good thing

going with voters by sanctifying tax cuts and demonizing

spending. That's been their approach for 30 years after all,

and it unfailingly rallies their base.

The challenge for President Obama and Democratic lawmakers

is not to get drawn into that warped mind-set. They need to

present an alternative, including investments--in energy,

technology, infrastructure and education. They also need a

plan for long-term deficit reduction that recognizes what the

Republicans ignore: Never-ending tax cuts make the deficit

worse. Prudent tax increases need to be part of the solution.

New Pay-Go Rules Reveal GOP's Misplaced Priorities

[From the Washington Post, Jan. 3, 2011]

Are House Republicans serious about dealing with the

deficit? You could listen to their rhetoric--or you could

read the rules they are poised to adopt at the start of the

new Congress. The former promises a new fiscal sobriety. The

latter suggests that the new GOP majority is determined to

continue the spree of unaffordable tax-cutting.

The ominous signs come in the wording of the new majority's

version of its pay-as-you-go rules, which normally require

that new programs or tax initiatives be covered with cuts to

other programs or new revenue. In

the GOP concept, pay-as-you-go applies only to spending

programs. When it comes to tax cuts, it's all go, no pay.

Taxes can be cut, and the national debt increased, without

any offsetting savings.

If you thought the sticker shock of the latest tax deal

served as a useful reminder that tax cuts cost the Treasury

money, think again. Deficit financing is fine, it seems, when

it comes to tax cuts. But that's not all. Under the new

rules, not only are tax cuts exempted from the pay-go

concept, but the only way to pay for spending increases is

with spending cuts elsewhere. No tax increases allowed--not

even in the form of eliminating loopholes or cutting back on

tax breaks. Of course, if you wanted to expand the loopholes,

no problem. No need to pay for that.

Having made clear that no tax cuts need be paid for, the

rules then take the extra step of specifying which deficit-

busting tax cuts the new majority has in mind. They assume

the continuation of all the Bush tax cuts; extension of the

new version of the estate tax; and the creation of a big tax

break to let ``small businesses,'' which can be expansively

defined, take a deduction equal to 20 percent of their gross

income.

Tax cuts for the wealthiest are fully protected. But tax

help for those at the other end of the income spectrum?

Forget it. The expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit and

the Child Tax Credit, programs that help keep low-income

working parents and children out of poverty, are not assumed

to continue and would have to be paid for--with, of course,

spending cuts. This is about as upside-down a set of

priorities as can be imagined.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) who, as I said, is disenfranchised by this rule. Millions of Americans will be underrepresented.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Pierluisi).

(Mr. PIERLUISI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield to the Delegate from Guam, Delegate Bordallo.

(Ms. BORDALLO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I yield to the Delegate from the Virgin Islands, Dr. Christensen.

(Mrs. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Rules Package which once again removes the opportunity for Delegates to Congress and the Resident Commissioner to vote on amendments in the Committee of the Whole. It was our privilege in the past two Congresses to vote along with our colleagues on issues of importance to all Americans, especially the over 4 million of us who live and work in the U.S. territories.

The people of the U.S. territories are a diverse group, much like their fellow citizens on the mainland. Some are born in the territories under the American flag, some have migrated there and embraced our culture and our values before naturalization, others were born in the states and have chosen by virtue of their chosen occupation or by love of our islands to make the territories their home. All are Americans in every sense of the word, except for full representation in the House of Representatives and the ability to vote for the President of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, the people of the U.S. territories have served their country in all of its

conflicts from the American Revolution to the recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have given their youth, their time and even their lives for our country. We had hoped through our participation to obtain the good will of all of our colleagues to ensure full participation in the democratic process for all citizens of our country. The events of this week have proved to us once more that we still have a long way to go to ensure equality and justice for all.

I yield to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).

(Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from the Northern Mariana Islands (Mr. Sablan).

(Mr. SABLAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, the people of the Northern Mariana Islands are citizens of the United States. And the Constitution declares we are ``subject to the jurisdiction thereof.''

But today the majority's Rules exclude us from even symbolic representation in our government.

The Pledge to America declared the majority would fight those who whisper America's standing as the world leader of democracy is ending.

But today the majority breaks its own Pledge with Rules that take away the vote from 5 million Americans.

What a sad way to begin this new Congress.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of this debate, if we defeat the previous question, Mr. Van Hollen of Maryland will offer an amendment to restore fiscal discipline in the House.

I yield 4 minutes to the ranking member of the Budget Committee now, so that he may explain his amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida, a former member and missed member of the Rules Committee, Ms. Castor.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the ranking member of the Committee on Transportation.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to another gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask Members on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can take serious action described by Mr. Van Hollen to decrease the deficit rather than to simply make it easier to give tax breaks to billionaires.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question and on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.