Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2011

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the tens of thousands of our men and women in military uniform from the U.S. territories, I just ask my good friend, the Honorable Speaker, restore our symbolic vote. That's all we are asking for.

Mr. Speaker, the proposed rules by the Republicans for the 112th Congress give unfair treatment to some 5 million Americans residing in the U.S. territories. In particular, it eliminates the rule that allows the Delegates to vote when the House resolves into the Committee of the Whole, and that provides for an automatic revote in the full House when such vote is the deciding margin.

The U.S. Court of Appeals has upheld the Delegate vote on the basis that there is automatic reconsideration of votes in the House when the Delegate vote is decisive. Automatic reconsideration preserves the House proper as the sole arbiter for changes made in the legislation that the House considers.

During the three Congresses in which the rule has been in place, the record shows that the Delegate vote in the Committee of the Whole has not in any way hindered the work of the House. From 1993 to 2010, the House had a total of 132 separate votes demanded in the House on first degree amendments reported from the Committee of the Whole. In the same period, only four such amendments were reconsidered as a result of the Delegates being the deciding votes. this proves that the Delegates vote does not impede the work of the House.

While symbolic, the Delegate vote is important for transparency and political accountability. It compels us, representatives of the U.S. Territories, to make public our views and positions on issues of national interest that are important to our constituents. Hence, the constituents are able to make an informed decision to elect those that better represent their views.

Above all, the Delegate vote underscores fairness and has moral implications for the institution and this great nation. As part of the American family, a disproportionate number of our sons and daughters are fighting in the U.S. military in defense of the values and principles upon which this country was founded.

A statistical profile of Americans killed in the war in iraq shows my district, the U.S. Territory of American Samoa, has the highest rate of deaths per 1 million population in all of the United States. Just last month, I attended the funeral of another soldier from my district killed in Iraq. Staff Sergeant Loleni Gandy, originally from American Samoa, was 36 years old, and has served in the U.S. Army for 17 years. He is survived by his wife and four young sons who now have to cope with the loss of their father. Like Americans in other States, the love and loyalty my people feel for the United States remains unchanged.

It is disconcerting therefore that under the new rules proposed for the 112th Congress, the Delegates are stripped of the power to vote in the Committee of the Whole. This is an affront to the tremendous sacrifice made by Americans in the Territories and further restricted what modest representation they have in Congress.

I urge my friends on the other side to reverse course and reinstate the rule to allow the Delegates to vote in the Committee of the Whole.

Congressional Research Service,

December 29, 2010.

To: House Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and

Wildlife, Attention: Jed Bullock.

From: Christopher M. Davis, Analyst on Congress and the

Legislative Process.

Subject: Amendments Reported from the Committee of the Whole

Subject to a Demand for a Separate House Vote or

Automatic House Reconsideration: 103rd-111th Congress

This memorandum responds to your request for statistical

information about amendments adopted in the Committee of the

Whole House on the State of the Union from 1993 to the

present on which a demand for a separate vote was

subsequently made in the House of Representatives or which

were subject to automatic reconsideration in the House

because the votes of the Delegates and the Resident

Commissioner were decisive in the Committee.

Separate Votes and Automatic Re-votes in the House

Under the longstanding practice of the House of

Representatives, first degree amendments adopted in the

Committee of the Whole House of the State of the Union and

reported to the House are not considered finally adopted

until agreed to by the House. The philosophy underlying this

practice is that the Committee of the Whole is only

recommending amendments to the House; the House proper is the

sole arbiter of changes made in the legislation it considers

and, as such, must act to approve or disapprove the

recommendations made by the Committee.

For this reason, when the Committee of the Whole rises and

reports legislation to the House, the House must vote on any

first degree amendments included in measure as reported. In

the vast majority of cases, the House, by unanimous consent,

acts to approve all of the committee reported amendments en

gros by voice vote, before quickly moving to the final

parliamentary steps of considering a measure. It is the right

of any Member, however, to demand a separate vote in the

House on any first degree amendment reported from the

Committee of the Whole, and Members sometimes avail

themselves of this right. There may be various motivations

for a Member demanding what is often essentially a ``re-

vote'' in the House on an amendment which a majority of

Members voted for only a short time earlier in the Committee

of the Whole. These motivations include, but are not limited

to, hoping to defeat an amendment unexpectedly agreed to by

the Committee and to force the House to expend time in taking

recorded votes.

As you know, there also exists in House rules a separate

and unique parliamentary mechanism by which an amendment

receiving a vote in the Committee of the Whole is subject to

immediate and automatic reconsideration in the House when it

has been determined that the votes of the Delegates and the

Resident Commissioner have made the difference in the vote's

outcome. Provisions contained in clause 6 of House Rule

XVIII, as adopted in the 111th Congress (2009-2010), state

that when the House is sitting as the Committee of the Whole

House on the State of the Union, the Delegates and Resident

Commissioner have the same right to vote as Representatives,

subject to immediate and automatic reconsideration in the

House when their recorded votes ``have been decisive'' in the

committee. Rules related to the votes of the Delegates and

Resident Commissioner which were identical in effect were in

force in the 110th (2007-2008) and 103rd (1993-1994)

Congresses.

Results and Research Method

At your request, CRS conducted a search to identify first-

degree amendments reported from the Committee of the Whole

which were subject to a demand for a separate vote in the

House from the 103rd (1993-1994) through the 111th (2009-

2010) Congress. These amendments were identified by searching

the universe of House amendments in the Legislative

Information System of the U.S. Congress (LIS) using the term

``separate vote.'' These results were cross-checked with

demands for a separate vote noted in individual issues of the

Congressional Record Daily Digest.

CRS has also previously identified amendments that were

subject to automatic reconsideration in the House pursuant to

the terms of clause 6 of House Rule XVIII, described above.

Table 1 presents the number of amendments falling into these

two categories over the period examined. Material identifying

the specific amendments in question is provided under

separate cover.

I thank the distinguished gentlelady for yielding the time.

While I regret I did not hear all of the previous colloquy, I do want to express my strong reservation and opposition to these rule changes because of the effects it would have on transportation-related issues.

The Republican rules package eliminates the current rules' direct tie between revenues to the highway trust fund, paid by the users through gas taxes at the pump, and the level of investment for these programs.

Currently, House rules provide that appropriators must fund highway and transit programs at levels set forth in surface transportation authorizations. This provision was championed by a Republican, our former colleague Bud Shuster, and was put into place to prevent funds building up in the highway trust fund to be used to mask the true size of the Federal deficit. The provision was intended to stop the same old smoke-and-mirrors game of Federal spending.

As their very first act as the majority, I find it incredible that Republicans would want to pursue a job-killing proposal like this, one that not only threatens jobs, but which could lead to dramatic reductions in spending for very necessary and worthy highway projects throughout the Nation.

Americans understand and they support paying motor fuel taxes at the pump, so long as they are guaranteed that those funds will be spent on transportation. The Republican rules package smears that guarantee and will have a potentially devastating effect on the level of Federal investment in vital highway and transit programs.

After more than a decade of effort by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the House adopted the current rule in 1998. The principle was simple: Gas taxes collected to improve highway and transit systems must be used for that purpose. The previous rule restored trust to the trust fund, and it has served the House and our Nation well for the past 12 years.

Today, the House Republican majority breaks that trust. They are returning to the ways of old--no hearings, no public debates, no discussion with any Member on this side of the aisle on the effects of the proposed rule on transportation investment.

Regrettably, these issues are steeped in arcane budget rules, so, therefore, many Members, especially new Members, are not aware of what they are voting on and its consequences.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this rules change, as do so many highway contractors and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H. Res. 5, the new Republican Majority's proposed rules for the House of Representatives.

The Republican Rules package eliminates the current Rule's direct tie between revenues to the Highway Trust Fund--paid by users through gas taxes at the pump--and the level of investment for surface transportation programs. This rules change will have a devastating effect on transportation and infrastructure investment.

Currently, House Rules provide that appropriators must fund highway and transit programs at levels set forth in surface transportation authorizations. This provision was championed by a Republican, our former colleague Bud Shuster, and was put into place to prevent funds building up in the Highway Trust Fund to be used to mask the true size of the federal deficit.

As their very first act in the Majority, I find it incredible that Republicans would want to pursue a job-killing proposal like this. One that not only threatens jobs but which could lead to dramatic reductions in spending for very necessary and worthy highway projects throughout the Nation.

Americans understand, and support, paying motor fuel taxes at the pump so long as they are guaranteed that those funds will be spent on transportation. The Republican Rules package smudges that guarantee and will have a potentially devastating effect on the level of Federal investment in vital highway and transit programs.

After more than a decade of effort by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the House adopted the current rule in 1998. The principle was simple: gas taxes collected to improve highway and public transit systems must be used for that purpose. The Rule restored ``trust'' to the Trust Fund, and it has served the House well for the past 12 years.

Today, the new Republican Majority breaks that trust. We will soon return to the days where gas taxes are collected and used not to invest in infrastructure, but to hide the size of the deficit.

The new Republican Majority also institutes a new ``Cut-Go'' rule to cut spending. However, in the process, the Republicans have obliterated the basic premise of the Highway and Airport and Airway Trust Funds. Under the new Republican rule, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure cannot bring a bill to the Floor that increases highway, public transit, or airport infrastructure investment (contract authority) financed by revenues from the appropriate trust fund, unless the bill makes cuts to other mandatory programs. It does not matter if the Trust Fund has the resources to finance the investment; the Committee still has to provide offsetting cuts. The basic premise of the transportation trust funds--user fees are collected to finance infrastructure improvements--is obliterated.

Regrettably, because these issues are steeped in arcane budget rules, I fear that Members are voting on this package without understanding its consequences. I regret that the Republican Leadership, which has talked so much about transparency and openness, begins this Congress, on its first day, with the ways of old: no hearings, no public debate, and no discussion with any Member on this side of the aisle on the effects of the proposed rule on transportation investment.

You do not have to take my word for it, listen to the transportation community: State Departments of Transportation, public transit agencies, highway contractors, equipment manufacturers, the trucking industry, moving companies, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, highway users, and construction workers all vigorously oppose the rules.

And you can listen to what Wall Street thinks of the effect on Republican Rules package on highway construction companies: although the Dow Jones Industrial Average went up yesterday, highway contractors and material suppliers took a significant hit throughout the day: Martin Marrietta, down 6.5 percent; Vulcan Materials, down 5.2 percent; Granite Construction, down 4.4 percent; CRH Oldcastle, down 4.4 percent.

As one Wall Street analyst who downgraded two of these firms stated in a written investment report specifically citing the Republican's Rules package:

``. . . [T]his is not an encouraging signal from the new

[Republican] congressional leadership in terms of its

commitment to infrastructure spending. . . .''; and

``. . . a move to allow revenues previously set aside for

road spending to be spent elsewhere would not only act to

reduce total [highway] spending levels but also limit

visibility amid an already constrained outlook by the lack of

a multi-year highway bill.''

Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day for transportation. The Republican Rules package creates uncertainty in an industry that cannot afford it. The Republican Rules package will hurt highway, transit, and airport construction companies and kill jobs.

I urge my colleagues to join me and defeat H. Res. 5. Let us go back to the drawing table and work together to help the American people.

I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2, the Republican Patients' Rights Repeal Act.

The question is just simply fundamental here, whether or not people will be able to have control over their health care needs and their health insurance needs, or whether or not we will go back to the chaos of the previous system that is dictated by the insurance companies where people are thrown off of policies willy nilly, where people are not reimbursed for costs willy nilly, given excuses, paperwork back and forth, where young people are thrown off their parents' policy when they graduate from high school, and whether or not they will have insurance or not, or whether people will have the freedom to make the choices, to have insurance that will cover them, that will get rid of the preexisting conditions that eliminate their coverage, that will get rid of the lifetime caps so that those people who contract cancer

or other chronic diseases find out they have run out of insurance at the exact moment they need it. No longer will that be the case under the current law.

Now, the choice is to repeal that law and to make it more difficult for small businesses to provide insurance. Since the enactment of the tax credit under this law, we now see that hundreds of thousands of employees have been extended health insurance by small businesses employing 50 workers or less because of that tax credit, a tax credit that is scheduled to increase.

So we already see the hundreds of thousands of employees that did not have access to insurance because they worked for small businesses today have insurance. That's not the reporting of the government. That's the reporting of the health insurance companies where people and businesses are making applications for insurance.

So what we see now is young people are once again covered and can have the security that they will have health insurance while they go to school or while they start a new job that may not have health insurance with that coverage. We now see that people who may have had a bout of cancer early on know that that will not disqualify them from having insurance as they go out and continue to work to provide for their families.

We now see that after 2014 when people change their jobs or they lose their jobs, they will have insurance so they will not have to go to the poor house because of the insurance costs that they will not be able to provide for because they are unemployed. They will not be locked into a job that they don't want. They will be able to be entrepreneurial and go out and seek a new job knowing that they will have health insurance. That's the certainty of this legislation.

We can now choose the chaos of the current insurance system. We can choose the chaos of people getting a letter saying you no longer have insurance, getting a letter saying your child is no longer covered, getting a letter saying your premium is up 59 percent, as they did last year in California. We have seen health insurance premiums jump dramatically over the cost of living over the last decade and over the last decade have seen more and more businesses shed coverage for their employees.

The Republicans want to believe that there is certainty in that. The Republicans want to believe that that's a comfort to the American working family. The Republicans want to believe that that's a comfort to grandparents who see their grandchildren thrown off their parents' policies.

That's not a comfort. What is a comfort is the freedom to know that never again will you have to contest the arbitrary rulings of an insurance company about your preexisting conditions, about the coverage of your child's health care. Never again will you have to contest whether or not you will get help paying for your pharmaceuticals if you are a senior. Never again will you have to pay for preventive medical checkups to try to keep you healthy if you are a senior. That's the certainty that this legislation presents.

Last night I had a telephone town hall meeting with over a thousand seniors in my district, and all of them--almost all of them, I would say there were three or four in the call--almost all of them wanted the certainty of knowing they were going to get help with their pharmaceutical payments. They struggle with the doughnut hole.

They were appreciative of the $250 check they got last year, and they were appreciative of the help they were going to get paying for their pharmaceuticals this year. That's the certainty that we ought to reject by rejecting repeal of the health care act.

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), a member of the committee.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), a member of the committee.

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

I yield myself 30 seconds.

I would just say to the gentleman from Tennessee it is universally recognized that there was no worse-designed health care plan than TennCare; that all you did was extend the benefits and no cost containment and no pay-fors, and it damn near bankrupted the State.

It is also recognized that nowhere have health care costs gone up faster than in the private sector, much faster than Medicare because, once again, there is not much in the way of cost containment. You just reimburse people for the cost.

This legislation has cost containment, and that is why CBO says, if you repeal it, you will drive up the short-term deficit to $30 billion and long-term deficit to $1.2 trillion. That is the difference.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), a member of the committee.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono), a member of the committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Can I just say to the gentleman from Minnesota, I think I'm starting to understand the physician shortage in the country; most of them are in the Congress, apparently.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bass).

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Peters).

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the time remaining?