National Manufacturing Strategy Act of 2011

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for giving me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

It's my understanding this is his first rule that he is managing in his name on the floor of the House, and I congratulate him in that regard. In the 111th Congress, I had the opportunity to manage a number of rules, and I had a perfect record--I never lost a rule. This Congress as well, I too have a perfect record--I have never won a rule. I wish the gentleman from New York success in his efforts and congratulate him on his appointment to the Rules Committee and look forward to working with him throughout the 112th Congress.

Today, while millions of Americans remain unemployed and millions more await the chance to receive affordable health care, the Republicans are spending another week rehashing old debates instead of talking about creating jobs and, in fact, in this case, undermining Americans' access to quality health care.

This rule brings forth two bills. First, the majority brings forth, under this bill, legislation that will prevent Americans from accessing the exchanges which are competitive marketplaces in which to buy private insurance.

Now, there's a lot of subterfuge and misinformation in this debate. For instance, there is no ObamaCare option. There is no public insurance option that we are even discussing here. What is being discussed is a marketplace in which individuals, primarily those who work in small businesses or are self-employed, will have access to choose from the private policy of their choice.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, under this Republican proposal, 2 million fewer Americans will be enrolled in exchanges in 2015. The Congressional Budget Office also says that H.R. 1213 will result in higher premiums in the exchange. Again, a bill that is delivering higher premiums for American citizens--hardly, hardly the outcry that I have heard on the stump.

I had a chance to have public meetings in the last 2 weeks back in our district, as many Members of Congress have. My constituents, Mr. Speaker, did not request that we deliver higher health insurance premiums. They wanted us to deal with the deficit. They wanted us to deal with jobs and the economy. Not a single constituent of mine asked for higher health insurance premiums, which seems to be a priority of this Congress.

Now, there may be a talking point involved, and certainly both of these bills today were also included in H.R. 2, which was a repeal of health care reform, largely. Now we are looking at individual pieces. But this new marketplace has historically been an idea that has had strong bipartisan support: to have competitive health care exchanges; to keep in tact America's employment-based system while expanding access to tens of millions of people, including small businesses and people who are self-employed. Truly, the exchanges represent an opportunity for a more competitive and a more transparent marketplace that empowers consumers to make the choice between private insurers.

The other bill that is brought forth under this particular rule, after we have dispensed with denying health care to an estimated 2 million more Americans through the exchanges, we are also, in this next bill, eliminating funding for school-based health clinic construction, renovation, and equipment. That would particularly harm our Nation's health care services, especially for children, youth, and families and those with low incomes.

School-based health care clinics serve students whose access to health care is limited; and frequently, the scope of services is determined by school officials in partnership with parents and community-based health care initiatives. Services are designed to identify problems early, provide continuity of care, and improve academic participation. These programs save money by providing access to preventive care that frequently alludes many of the families affected.

And yet also, while we are denying basic preventive care to our Nation's youth, the passage of this bill will also deny job opportunities to Americans all across the country who are ready with shovel-ready projects to begin improving and building school-based health care clinics. So here we are with a bill: less jobs, less health care, less education--hardly the priorities that I think the voters wanted for the 112th Congress.

Democrats believe strongly that we need to make tough choices to end the deficit and end the climbing spiral of debt. But what we are left with with these two bills, as separate from H.R. 2, is actually the worst of both worlds. The Republicans leave in place the taxes that were used to pay for health care reform--they leave in place in these two bills the medical device tax; they leave in place the tax on unearned income--and yet they remove the benefits to the American people from these taxes.

Whenever the American people agree to any degree of taxes, they want to see a tangible result. But what is being done with these bills is leaving in place the taxes of health care reform and removing the benefits to the American people of health care reform. That's hardly a balanced and fair approach, and it's one that the House should reject.

I would remind my colleagues of House Resolution 9, which I supported on the floor of the House of Representatives. It dealt with 13 items out of the original jurisdiction of our Rules Committee before the gentleman from New York joined our Rules Committee. We instructed the House on replacing health care reform and what some areas for working on it would be.

I would like to submit to the Record in the context of this debate, Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 9, which was adopted by the House and, indeed, discusses changing existing health care law within the various committees of jurisdiction to foster economic growth and private sector job creation; to lower health care premiums, preserve a patient's ability to keep their health care plan, provide people with preexisting conditions affordable access to health care; and many, many other good ideas.

But rather than discussing any of these 13 points that were contained in House Resolution 9, the business of the committees of jurisdiction has apparently been not only to repeal health care reform generally but now to repeal each of the individual components while leaving the taxes in place. We would encourage these committees to comply with House Resolution 9. And I think by rejecting this bill before us today, we are sending a powerful message to the committees of jurisdiction that rather than talking about repeal, repeal, repeal, they need to also discuss replace.

What are we going to do if the exchanges don't exist or are handicapped to provide people with preexisting conditions access to affordable health care? Again, if we repeal the support for the exchanges, how are we fostering economic growth and private sector growth? How are we encouraging small businesses and self-employed people to have access to the same health care services at a similar cost that large employers already have?

I call upon my colleagues to reject this rule and both underlying bills and begin the discussions of how to improve and build upon health care reform, finding a common ground between Members of both parties and saving taxpayers money to help reduce the deficit.

H. Res. 9

In the House of Representatives, U.S., January 20, 2011.

Resolved, That the Committee on Education and the

Workforce, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the

Committee on the Judiciary, and the Committee on Ways and

Means, shall each report to the House legislation proposing

changes to existing law within each committee's jurisdiction

with provisions that--

(1) foster economic growth and private sector job creation

by eliminating job-killing policies and regulations;

(2) lower health care premiums through increased

competition and choice;

(3) preserve a patient's ability to keep his or her health

plan if he or she likes it;

(4) provide people with pre-existing conditions access to

affordable health coverage;

(5) reform the medical liability system to reduce

unnecessary and wasteful health care spending;

(6) increase the number of insured Americans;

(7) protect the doctor-patient relationship;

(8) provide the States greater flexibility to administer

Medicaid programs;

(9) expand incentives to encourage personal responsibility

for health care coverage and costs;

(10) prohibit taxpayer funding of abortions and provide

conscience protections for health care providers;

(11) eliminate duplicative government programs and wasteful

spending;

(12) do not accelerate the insolvency of entitlement

programs or increase the tax burden on Americans; or

(13) enact a permanent fix to the flawed Medicare

sustainable growth rate formula used to determine physician

payments under title XVIII of the Social Security Act to

preserve health care for the nation's seniors and to provide

a stable environment for physicians.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond before further yielding.

The gentleman from California again identified several areas where there are opportunities for both parties to work together: allowing the sale of insurance across State lines, something I certainly support; pooling for high-risk individuals; reforming the medical liability system.

Again, it really goes to a question of if we are, in fact, repealing in part or all various parts of the health care reform, what is replacing it. When we talk about pooling of high-risk individuals, if we can put together a way of doing that, that can effectively serve as a marketplace or as an exchange.

What this bill simply does is repeal the support for the exchanges, leaving many of these with preexisting conditions, particularly those who work for small businesses or are self-employed, entirely in the lurch. As we discuss how to improve health care for the American people, it's critical to actually have the solution to the policy problem that's been identified.

The gentleman talked about an inadequate selection process with regard to the use of funds, inadequate congressional oversight. Again, why not bring a bill forward that talks about setting the right process in place to allow for the correct oversight of the use of these funds? It's a question of making it work for the American people rather than throwing the baby out with the bath water.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond really briefly.

In the minority report from the committee, it discusses the oversight of the exchanges. Specifically, the Government Accountability Office is required to review the operations and the administration of the exchanges. In addition, not one, not two, but three congressional committees--Energy and Commerce, Oversight and Government Reform, and other congressional committees--can provide the oversight of the implementation of the Affordable Health Care Act according to section 1311.

Again, if there is additional oversight, as the gentleman from California seeks, why are we not discussing a bill that provides additional oversight? We all want this money to be spent correctly and well.

With that, I am proud to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

I yield an additional 30 seconds.

I yield myself 15 seconds just to restate what my colleague, the gentlewoman from Maryland, stated: If the Republicans are against the public option, if they are against the private option in the form of the exchanges, the only option left is pay more insurance premium. That simply is not acceptable to the American people.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

I will be happy to yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from California.

I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to further discuss the benefits of school-based health centers. A wide range of research and evaluations have demonstrated that school-based health centers are cost-effective investments in our Nation's health care safety net for children and adolescents and also help improve academic performance.

Now, each school-based health program is different, as they should be. Some of the services often include things like well-child and well- adolescent exams, immunizations, treatment for illness or injury, including management of chronic conditions, like obesity, diabetes and asthma; and they also frequently include services like mental health assessment and treatment, prevention programs to help reduce smoking, to help reduce teenage pregnancy rates, to help reduce violence. They frequently include substance abuse counseling and nutrition counseling, as well as dental cleaning.

These are services that prevent costly emergency services and hospitalizations later and help keep kids in school where they should be learning. Most importantly, stronger school-based health centers lead to stronger, more successful children and adolescents across the country. By bringing health care services to the children where they spend most of their day, at school, school-based health centers are a sensible and inexpensive way to deliver basic health care services to children all over the country.

This unwise legislation undermines our fiscal condition by wasting an opportunity to leverage local funding. Providing capital support to school-based health centers is a Federal investment that is a good deal for taxpayers. That is because when we provide modest Federal support to school capital projects, local and State funding, in partnership with nonprofits and community health clinics, is spent on operating activities, staffing and other equipment. What a great value for our Federal dollar.

Likewise, the value of this Federal investment is immense to local districts, many of whom are at their bonding capacity, who can't build school-based health centers on their own. However, many of these districts will benefit tremendously, and the students and families, from school-based health care clinics.

The research is clear, Mr. Speaker. Over a decade of studies consistently find positive benefits of school-based health centers. These benefits include better student academic achievement, increased school attendance and reduced tardiness among inner-city children who receive counseling in the school-based health center, fewer school discipline referrals for students who receive mental health services, and increased learning readiness and parental involvement.

As we discuss in this Congress reducing the learning gap, helping all students achieve, and ensuring that every American, regardless of where they live, has access to hope and opportunity through a quality education, school-based health care clinics are an important part of the solution.

In Colorado alone, there are 46 school-based health care clinics in 18 school districts, including one in the Summit County School District, which I represent, which is applying for funding under this program, and another applicant from Eagle County, Colorado. Eight other Colorado applications are going forward under this opportunity, as they are throughout the Nation.

This is the initiative, Mr. Speaker, that Republicans are seeking to eliminate. They say they want a fiscally responsible budget and more jobs, but what we see instead is their priority to stop programs that save money and create jobs and increase student achievement and learning, like school-based health care centers.

There can be no doubt about how the new majority is going about its business. There are no attempts to find common ground, like we have in House Resolution 9, and to work on ways to improve health care or to implement pooling mechanisms or to allow purchasing across State lines of insurance policies. Rather, we are dealing with press releases disguised as legislation that will neither pass the other body nor be signed into law.

That's not governance. That's immaturity. And the only Americans being

asked to sacrifice in the name of deficit reduction are those who have very little, if not nothing, left to lose and no real way to fight back. That's not leadership.

Mr. Speaker, we can and must do better. I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide that immediately after the House adopts this rule, it will bring up H.R. 1366, the National Manufacturing Strategy Act of 2011. This bill, introduced by Mr. Lipinski of Illinois, will require the President to develop a national manufacturing strategy in order to boost traditional and high-tech manufacturing, spur American job growth, and strengthen the middle class.

This bill passed the House on a bipartisan vote of 379-38 in the 111th Congress. Manufacturing is a cornerstone of our Nation's economy. The U.S. Government, through its policies and programs, has major influence on our manufacturing base, and our national security, energy, and transportation systems rely on that base. We must unify government programs, leading to increased efficiency, and promote policies to promote our domestic manufacturing base to help our competitiveness in the global market.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so we can debate and pass jobs legislation today, rather than legislation to increase the health care premiums that Americans pay.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 2401. I do thank my colleague, Mr. Bishop, for granting the time for the opposition.

This bill is really another attempt by the Republican leadership to demonize the Environmental Protection Agency and dismantle any government regulation intended to protect our Nation's public health and the environment.

H.R. 2401 is a waste of time and an absolute insult to the millions of Americans without jobs. Instead of crafting legislation to increase consumer confidence, instead of helping Americans hold on to their homes, instead of creating jobs for the millions of people who are unemployed, instead of relieving the burden of the middle class by making the Tax Code more fair, my friends on the other side are asking us to vote on a bill that effectively bars the EPA from finalizing and implementing two of the most significant air quality regulations in decades.

Coal plants--and let me lay my bona fides out here: I do believe in clean coal--the biggest source of unregulated mercury emissions in the United States, pump out 48 tons of emissions every year. Mercury contaminates more than 6 million acres of freshwater lakes, and I want to just take the prerogative of talking about one.

I was born in Altamonte Springs, Florida, and the nearest lake to where I was born is called Mobile. At one point, my grandfather could pass by and say to my grandmother, I'm going down to the lake and catch some fish--and be guaranteed that that was going to be the case--and bring it back home in short time.

Now that lake is dead, and it's because of mercury contamination that that lake is dead; 46,000 miles of streams, and the stream that led into Lake Mobile is dead. And 225,000 acres of wetlands across the United States in all 50 States have some type of fish consumption advisory. Let me repeat that: all 50 States have some type of fish consumption advisory.

What's more, there are substantial economic benefits to these clean air rules that my friends are trying to block. The EPA estimates that the Mercury and Air Toxic Standards alone could generate more than 30,000 construction jobs and 9,000 long-term utility jobs, benefiting steelmakers, pipefitters, boilermakers, and others.

The economic value of air quality improvements totals $59 billion to $140 billion annually. That's 25,300 lives lost to toxic air pollution; over 11,000 heart attacks; more than 12,000 asthma attacks, and a significant portion of them being children; over 12,200 additional visits to the emergency rooms of our country; and hundreds of thousands of missed work days.

Overall, the EPA predicts that the monetary value of protecting Americans' health through implementing the Clean Air Act is projected to reach $2 trillion in 2020 alone. Yet this bill ignores those benefits.

Madam Speaker, all of us know that times are tough, but this great Nation has been through tough economic times before. Environmental regulations are not the problem. The economy was really tough--and we are reminded of it often by my colleagues--under President Carter; yet the EPA at the time managed to set new national air pollution standards for airborne lead and began the phaseout of ozone-layer-destroying gases from aerosol spray products.

Nor has protecting the environment always been a partisan issue. The EPA has also had great successes under Republican Presidents. Upon founding the EPA in 1970, President Richard Nixon said the following: ``We can no longer afford to consider air and water common property, free to be abused by anyone without regard to the consequences. Instead, we should begin now to treat them as scarce resources which we are no more free to contaminate than we are free to throw garbage into our neighbor's yard.'' That was in 1970.

One of the first tasks assigned to the EPA was to enforce the Clean Air Act, also signed by President Nixon. Since its adoption, these regulations have prevented an estimated 200,000 premature deaths.

During President Reagan's administration, the EPA tested elementary and secondary schools for asbestos for the first time and named protecting endangered wetlands a top priority, while

subsequently opening the new Office of Wetlands Protection.

And contrary to what many of my friends across the aisle believe, history did not end with President Reagan. President George H.W. Bush implemented the new cap-and-trade policies that successfully addressed the growing problem of acid rain.

President Bush's EPA also started the wildly successful Energy Star program, helping Americans save money through adopting energy-efficient products and practices. Since then, Energy Star has saved Americans $17 billion on utility bills.

And on a more personal level, I grew up at times with asthma, as did a cousin of mine who still suffers the effects of it. Several of the employees that work with me now and some before have had asthma, and I genuinely believe that if we did not have the clean air standards that we have today, some of us may not be here.

In light of all these accomplishments, it's clear that H.R. 2041 is nothing more than an effort, at the behest of a big, big set of businesses, to delay and block necessary and important regulations that will keep our country safe and clean.

Republicans claim that this bill assists agencies with their economic analyses of EPA regulations. This is nothing more than a convenient, ad hoc justification.

Firstly, all major regulations already receive years of extensive cost-benefit analysis before implementation. At the same time, this bill fails to take into account any of the health and environmental benefits of the regulations in question, rendering the one-sided ``cost-only'' analysis set forth by this bill unnecessary.

Second, the version of the Energy and Commerce bill that was reported out suspends two major regulations that have been the subject of analysis, litigation, re-examination and rewriting for over two decades. Both the National Environmental Policy Act and Executive order 12866 signed by President Clinton require Federal agencies to perform the type of analysis required in the bill, including a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis.

By requiring unnecessary and duplicative studies, my friends on the other side could not make their desire to indefinitely block these regulations any more clear.

I've introduced an amendment that carves out an exception for rules and regulations drafted in adherence to the rules already on the books, freeing these important regulations to proceed along as scheduled.

Madam Speaker, based on what I've seen by this Republican-led Congress, it's clear to me that they obviously have no intention of using their real power to create jobs. Instead, they prefer to waste time on measures such as this bill that are designed to do one simple thing, and that is to further delay both past and future regulations.

Now, let me make it clear. I've quarreled, as have some of my colleagues, with the Environmental Protection Agency, as rightly we should when the circumstances permit, and that is, in my case, with the numeric nutrient standards that are proposed in Florida. A court has made a decision regarding the enforcement of those nutrient standards, and I believe that the communities involved are prepared to undertake to do what's necessary. And I do not believe that EPA has to involve itself at this point in time.

But when I quarrel with EPA, as I do, I don't do it in a way that demonizes the agency. I do it in a way that's looking for a solution.

One thing that I've learned in the years that I've been in this institution is that whether you have a right or left or center ideological perspective, to begin demonizing certain people suggests to me that those people probably have been successful. I don't know Lisa Jackson, the Environmental Protection Agency Cabinet official, but I do know that the way people are screaming about the work that she has done suggests that she must be having some success.

It's time to call my friends out on the other side for their shenanigans, and show the American people that they are more interested in helping big business and the wealthy than the middle class and working poor Americans who continue to struggle all across this Nation every single day.

If we start cutting the regulations that protect the environment when we are down, where will we be when we recover?

I've seen firsthand what happens in places that disregard environmental protections for the sake of business. I remember being in Seong, China with a departed colleague, Gerald Sullivan, who was chair of the Rules Committee, and holding my hand in front of my face and not being able to see it. I also had that same experience in Los Angeles, California, in the late 1950s.

This certainly is not the kind of home that we want to leave for our grandchildren. The air that we breathe, the water that we drink, the soil on which we produce our crops is the earth that we call home. And, in my view, we must keep it clean.

Let me tell you what Ronald Reagan said. If we've learned any lessons during the past few decades, perhaps the most important is that preservation of our environment is not a partisan challenge. It's common sense. Our physical health, our social happiness, and our economic well-being will be sustained only by all of us working in partnership as thoughtful, effective stewards of our natural resources. President Reagan made those remarks on signing an annual report of the Council on Environmental Quality.

Additionally, he said, in a radio address, that I'm proud of having been one of the first to recognize that States and the Federal Government have a duty to protect our natural resources from the damaging effects of pollution that can accompany industrial development.

And more importantly, what he said is, what is conservative after all, but one who conserves, one who is committed to protecting and holding close the things by which we live? And we want to protect and conserve the land on which we live, our countrysides, our rivers and mountains, our plains and meadows and forests. This is our patrimony. This is what we leave to our children, and our great moral responsibility is to leave it to them either as we found it or better than we found it. He made those remarks at the dedication of the National Geographic Society's new headquarters building in 1984.

President George W. Bush said, our country, the United States, is the world's largest emitter of manmade greenhouse gases. We account for almost 20 percent of the world's manmade greenhouse gas emissions.

In addition, in a joint address to Congress he said, I also call on Congress to work with my administration to achieve the significant emission reductions made possible by implementing the clean energy technologies proposed in our energy plan. Our working group study has made it clear that we need to do a lot more.

Those words from two Presidents that are revered, rightly, by many of us in this institution, and certainly by my colleagues that are Republican that share the same ideological perspectives, should be sufficient to put to rest this polluting bill that we could rename the Toxic Polluting America measure.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I'll try to do better about that as we progress.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, a former member of the Rules Committee, a distinguished Member of this body from Maine (Ms. Pingree).

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide that immediately after the House adopts this rule, it will bring up H.R. 1366, the National Manufacturing Strategy Act of 2011.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), whose father I had the privilege of serving with as well.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My colleague from California spoke about what our committee would do. I would urge him to understand that Congress is doing it for them with this measure.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, the day before yesterday, Frances Beinecke, the president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the following:

``GOP lawmakers would have us believe that the public health and environmental safeguards stemming from the Clean Air Act--a 40-year-old law signed by President Nixon--are thwarting economic growth. It's not the unregulated market in mortgage debt, the U.S. trade deficit with China, or the shaky state of European banks that is freezing growth. It's the EPA's effort to reduce toxins from old power plants.''

Madam Speaker, millions of Americans are hurting and are in desperate need of our help. Instead of working to create jobs, my colleagues on the other side would rather consider ``do nothing'' bills. We've been doing nothing around here for a very long time now and have been considering ``do nothing'' to get our economy back on track. This ``do nothing'' bill does not create jobs, and it does nothing to help the struggle of middle class and working poor Americans. Let me just give some examples of the time line on the Environmental Protection Agency's laws and list them, in part, by administration.

I spoke earlier about the Clean Air Act of 1970 and the Clean Water Act that President Nixon vetoed. His veto was overridden, and then he signed it on October 18, 1972.

Under President Ford, we got the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the cancer-causing pesticides were banned. There was the Toxic Substances Control Act in 1976 under President Ford.

Under Jimmy Carter, we got the Clean Water Act of 1977. Then the EPA set a new national air pollution standard for lead, and I'm sure families with children understand that dynamic. The phaseout of chlorofluorocarbons took place in 1978.

Under President Reagan, in 1982, we got the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and the asbestos testing in schools, which was critically important throughout this Nation. We got the Chesapeake Bay pollution cleanup and a 90 percent reduction of lead in gasoline. During that same period of time, although it was not his discovery, the ozone layer problem was discovered. Then in 1986, President Reagan signed the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments, the wetlands protection measure, and the Right- to-Know Laws for chemical safety. The Montreal Protocol was signed by the President in 1987 and standards for underground storage tanks in 1988. The sewage Ocean Dumping Ban also came about in 1988.

The Alar pesticide ban for use on foods came under President Bush. Toxic waste control came under President Bush as well as the Pollution Prevention Act. Acid rain controls were enacted as well as the Energy Star program.

Those are just a few, and I won't go into the many under President Clinton and the few that have taken place under President Obama.

With that said, there seems to be this act against the Environmental Protection Agency that suggests that they have been harmful in some way--that's another word for ``demonize''--that they've been harmful, the EPA, in all of these things that have been done throughout all of this time that have helped our environment.

I just, for the life of me, don't understand why it is now we want to slow down this process and allow for an analysis, that is already being done, to be delayed. We want to protect and conserve the land on which we live--our countryside, our rivers, our mountains, our plains, and meadows and forests. That's what Ronald Reagan said. This is our patrimony. This is what we leave to our children, and our great moral responsibility is to leave it to them either as we found it or better than we found it.

Does the bill that we're considering today leave the land better than we found it? I think you know the answer.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' on this rule and the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 406 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to 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 purpose of debate only.

General Leave

I also ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days during which they may revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, this resolution provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 2401, the Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation. Fortunately, the anagram comes to TRAIN, so it's the TRAIN Act of 2011.

It makes in order 12 specific amendments out of the 14 that were received by the Rules Committee. Of the two not made in order, one was withdrawn by the sponsor and the other was not germane to the rules of the House. So what the Rules Committee has presented here is a rule that is, quite frankly, not bad. It is going to provide for an open discussion for those who are interested in this particular issue on the floor. It's a very fair rule, and it continues the record of the Rules Committee in this Congress of making as many amendments in order as possible which simply conform to the rules of the House. That's been the goal of our chairman, Mr. Dreier, and say what you will, he has produced a standard of fairness in the floor discussions that we will be having here on the floor in the past as well as in the future.

There are a lot of people that say Congress is simply dysfunctional. I admit, the system was designed to be complex, but there are a lot of people, especially those that have very little contact with this system, who simply stand up and say, why can't you just

reach across the aisle, find some compromise, and work in a bipartisan manner? To those people who are continually asking for that, you got it. It's here today in this particular bill.

The discussion draft of this bill was a bipartisan bill with a Republican and Democrat sponsor. First hearings on this bill were done back in April, so they have done their due diligence in studying the issue and working the bill to the point that they actually scrapped the first bill and reintroduced another, and once again, with bipartisan sponsorship of the bill.

If you look at the cosponsors on this bill, you will find Republicans and Democrats. Even in the final vote in committee, one Republican voted against it, and 29 percent of the Democrats actually voted for it. This is a process to be envied. If you want a good system, a bill that comes through in a bipartisan manner, this is it.

We all know that business is impacted by both legislation and regulation, and sometimes the blatant disregard for the cumulative negative impacts of onerous and sometimes overlapping new rules and regulations have had a disastrous effect on industry and on jobs. The current EPA appears to be driven to regulatory excess by asserting powers or controls in an area where that power and control have never been expressly delegated to the agency by Congress.

So, Madam Speaker, while I'm sure that every Member wants to have clean air and clean water and all Americans want clean air and clean water--they are vital objectives and laudable goals--however, I also think that many would agree that some of the current issues in some areas have gone beyond what Congress ever intended or ever approved, and also far beyond common sense. It has not helped the economic health of this particular country, which is why I commend the sponsors, both sides of the aisle, who recognize this problem and have come up with this legislation to fix the problem.

The underlying bill, H.R. 2401, simply says to the EPA--and potentially other agencies--stop, slow down. Take a more careful look at what you're doing or proposing to do. Take a serious and methodical look at whether or not what you're doing is duplicative of rules and regulations already on the books, whether or not they are overlapping, confusing, or contradictory rules and regulations to those already on the books. It tells them to do an analysis of alternative strategies that may be used to avoid damage to our fragile environment as well as our fragile economy.

This bill tells EPA--and others--that before certain draft regulations go into effect, it actually needs to study and consider the cumulative impacts of these new rules and regulations on energy production, on costs, on jobs, and on our Nation's global competitiveness. Imagine that. Imagine a Federal agency seeking to institute rules and regulations which actually took the time to study the impacts of those plans and rules and regulations first. Who could oppose such a concept? It is just common sense.

There will be some that will complain, when the bill is discussed on the floor--maybe even here on the rule itself--that this goal is to dismantle the EPA and dismantle other organizations. No programs are cut by this process. Nothing is changed by this process. Some will stand up and say it's going to be a biased study. There are no limits to what the agencies can study. What this bill simply does is it makes sure that what has been ignored in the past is no longer ignored.

Are there some specific things that have to be considered? Yes, that's right, because we specifically identify what has been ignored. There is nothing in this bill that forbids any rules or regulations. It just says to the agencies, for heaven sakes, get the facts first.

This bill holds the executive branch agencies accountable and forces them to be reasonable and actually study what they're doing before they implement it.

This is a good bill, it is a very good rule, and I would urge adoption of both.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for not demonizing me or my colleagues and our motives on this bill.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I am pleased to yield as much time as he may consume to the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I have to admit that in a prior existence, when I was a debate teacher in high school, one of the things we taught our kids--because every team did it--was, regardless of what the bill was that the affirmative presented, to come up with a series of problems. In every instance, the negative team would always end with this plan, whatever the plan was, resulting in a melting of the polar icecap, which would trigger a thermonuclear war. It didn't matter what the affirmative plan had. One of the negative arguments was it will melt the polar icecap and trigger a thermonuclear war.

Sometimes when we're here on the floor, I feel that we're doing those same kinds of debate cases, because it doesn't matter what the bill is; it's going to do all sorts of things. This bill simply says that, before you implement a rule or regulation, you're going to study everything, including its impact.

One of the speakers who came to the floor said there are two rules that are going to be prohibited in this bill. Now, there are two rules specified in this bill that say, before you implement them, see what they will do to the jobs and the economic cost. I mean, these rules could increase the electricity costs for everyone, rich or poor, by 3, 4, 5 percent or more. We don't know. Study it first before you do it.

There was a rule that was passed in my State dealing with particulate matter. In my area, in one of the very remote rural areas, we do testing on solid rocket motors.

That testing could violate this rule. No one knows for sure because the EPA didn't do that kind of analysis.

One of the private sector groups said the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency disturbingly admitted that the impact on American jobs is not a consideration in rulemaking, even while the United States continues to struggle through the recession and unacceptably high unemployment.

I'm sorry, that's one of the things that should be considered in rulemaking. Is there an executive order

that mandates it? Yeah, but it's not being done.

So what we want to do is to have a law passed that says, yeah, what is not being considered should be considered. It doesn't stop the rulemaking, it doesn't stop the rule, it doesn't roll back anything, it doesn't kill anybody, it doesn't melt the polarized cap, and it doesn't start thermonuclear war. It simply says we will have a commission, interagency, together to look at specific things; and we will consider it.

So before you come up with another rule or regulation, you know the total impact, what it does to the environment, what it does to the economy, what it does to human beings.

Studying is something we should all recognize and we should all want. This is what the bill does. It doesn't destroy anything, it doesn't cut anything, it doesn't stop anything. It just says before you proceed, you know what you're doing, and that should be common sense.

That should be what we were doing in the first place. And if it takes a piece of legislation to make sure we do what we should have been doing in the first place, let's pass this legislation, this bipartisan legislation with Republican and Democrat sponsors that was passed with Republican and Democrat votes--and actually one Republican voted against it as well.

This is a bipartisan process, this is a bipartisan bill, this is a good piece of underlying legislation, and it is an incredibly fair rule because, remember, 12 of the 14 amendments, every one that could be made in order, was made in order to be discussed and debated on this floor, which is the way we should be doing things at all times. It's a great process, and I look forward to listening to the debate on all 12 amendments as well as the base bill when we finally get to the position of debating this bill on the floor.

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and of the underlying bills. I would like to draw particular attention to H.R. 1213, which would repeal a provision in the health care law that gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services unlimited spending authority with regard to State-based exchanges.

Let me start by saying that two years ago, when I came to Congress, I looked at the American health care system, and I asked: What's the problem with it?

The problem with the American health care system is that it costs too much money. It's too expensive to go to the doctor or to go to the hospital to receive medical care. If it were affordable, we could all have it. Number two, we have a segment of our population that doesn't have access to affordable health care coverage. Let's say it's a drywall or a sheetrock worker or a carpenter who may be out, working. Maybe his spouse works in a diner, let's say, and they get along just fine, but they can't afford the high premiums. Number three, we have a liability crisis in this country that is forcing the cost of health care through the roof.

Well, what did the Affordable Health Care Act do? It did do number two. It

expanded coverage for some people in this 2,500-page bill--remember, it's this thick--but it did nothing to help curb the costs, and it did nothing for liability, which is forcing the costs of health insurance coverage higher for all of us. I've seen it in my own State of Tennessee. The enactment of this legislation we are talking about today will take $14 billion that we don't have.

Let me just say this: What worries me about Washington, D.C., is that we didn't get the memo. We're broke here. Number two, what is that $14 billion going to do? It's not going to put one more patient in my office who I can see and treat. It's going to the bureaucracy. I see it in education. I see it in commerce. I see the beast, the Federal Government beast, just getting larger and larger and larger. The money doesn't actually get down to a patient for whom I can write a prescription so he can then go to a pharmacy, get the prescription filled, and then get his health care.

So we talk about several simple things that the chairman spoke about just a moment ago very eloquently, and let me show you an example.

I have a Health Savings Account. This little card right here is a debit card. I don't have to fool with the insurance company. I don't have to fool with the Federal Government. I don't have to fool with anybody. I fool with me and my doctor; and who should be making health care decisions are patients and their physicians, not an exchange and not all of this. That's just going to complicate it. I go in with this, and I pay for it, and I usually get a significant discount when I do that.

There are a couple of other things that you can do. Just remember, as to this 2,500-page bill, Mr. Speaker, you could have done two-thirds of it with two paragraphs. One which I agree with, which is in the bill-- and it's one of the few things I do agree with--is to simply let children stay on their parents' plans. Pick your age--25, 26, 27. Number two, simply sign up people who are already eligible for government programs. That's SCHIP and Medicaid. If you do those two things, you can cover nearly 20 million people without this complex, almost incomprehensible bill. We have a Secretary who really has a fungible account from which she can spend billions of dollars that are really unaccounted for. Also, we are knee-deep in red ink. That's the major problem with granting the Secretary access to the Federal Treasury.

The exchanges mandated by this affordable health care law are the first step for Washington bureaucrats in really getting more control of our health care system. Don't get me wrong. I am absolutely for consumer choice because I believe consumer-driven health care is the only way to keep costs down. I think, if we don't do that, you will never get the costs going in the right direction. Instead, this creates a top-down mandate for the type of insurance that will be made available in these exchanges. Remember, when you're looking at this Affordable Health Care Act, the government--not you, the patient, as an individual, as a person, and not the doctor--decides what is an adequate health care plan. So these exchanges are basically just an excuse for unelected Washington bureaucrats to really make our health care decisions for us.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a free market system. It's basically central planning. Patients should be allowed to choose which benefits they want when buying their insurance plans. By passing H.R. 1213, Congress would send a message that we want health care reform that puts the patients first.

There are another couple of things that are very simple in lowering the costs of health care.

It is difficult to cover people in small businesses. There is no question about that. Association health plans allow you to do that, to group and become large groups. There is a second thing you can do that really is so simple I don't know why we haven't done it. I spent a year, when I was running for Congress and after I left my medical practice, and I had to buy an individual insurance policy. It was very expensive. Many people out there in small businesses or individuals who work on farms or in other places do the same thing. To make that insurance more affordable, not only could you have an association health plan, but number two, as an individual, you could have allowed me to deduct my health premiums just like a big business does, just like a huge corporation does, and you would have automatically lowered my cost by 35 percent and would have made insurance more affordable.

So there are many things we could do. This is not what we should be doing. I would urge a vote for the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I have read the bill, all pages of it. I won't say that says a whole lot about my intelligence, but I did read the entire health care bill. When you speak of HSAs only being for wealthy people, that is absolutely not correct.

In my own practice, we have offered the 300 people or so who get insurance through our practice, we allow them to get a traditional health insurance policy or an HSA, and over 3 out of 4 people choose an HSA. And why is that? Because they make the health care decisions, not an insurance company and not a bureaucrat.

I yield to the gentlelady from Texas.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Absolutely. What our goal is is to provide affordable health insurance coverage for all Americans. There is no question that I would like to see that in my tenure here in this House, in this body. The problem we have is, how do you get there?

I think the Democratic side is to expand the bureaucracy, more government control. IPAB is a perfect example, and the President spoke of that, and our Medicare patients. I think that is a terrible idea. As a matter of fact, it is a terrible idea. We want to do that. I know there is a way to do it. And, again, to hold the costs down. Remember, that is the problem.

The gentlelady from Texas made a point that insurance premiums would go up. Insurance premiums are going up in anticipation of this particular health plan because, why? The government decides what you must have. You don't get to make that decision yourself. That is done by a bureaucrat, it is done by Congress or whoever decides what is in the plan.

I will give you an example, Mr. Speaker. I don't need in my family fertility coverage at my age. I have three grown children that are raised, educated, have health insurance, good jobs. But I probably will have to have that, because that is a plan that someone else will decide I need--to have fertility coverage. There are things in those bills that I don't need to have personally that I should be able to pick out. And I am just one example. People across this country ought to be making those decisions, not the Federal Government and not a bureaucrat.

Ultimately, what is going to happen in our health care system is, because resources are finite, is that care is going to be rationed. Is the government going to ration it, or are a patient and a doctor going to make those health care decisions? I trust the patient and the doctor to make those health care decisions.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, in Tennessee, 17, 18 years ago now, we tried TennCare with sort of an exchange. We have had seven or eight different plans competing for your business, and in 10 years the costs tripled in our State because of the intervention of the government.

Medicare, I want to speak to that very quickly. If you're 65 years of age and you have Medicare, you keep it. If you're 55, if the Ryan plan goes through, you keep it. If you're younger and you're a more affluent senior, like I am, you're going to pay for your health insurance. Yes, you are. If you're someone like me with a higher income, you are. If you're lower income and you're sick, you're not. The Federal Government will act like your employer does if you have the employer-based insurance. That part of the premium is paid by them. You pay your part of the premium. Again, it will be means-tested for a higher-income senior.

Why do we think that will work? Because the only plan that I have seen this government ever pass that has come in under budget is Medicare part D. So I think there is a real chance for this to help hold costs down.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 236 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes 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 236 provides one rule for consideration of H.R. 1213 under a structured process, making all five Democratic amendments in order that comply with the rules of the House; and H.R. 1214 under a modified open process that gives all Members an opportunity to preprint their amendments in the Congressional Record and have them considered on the floor.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to offer a rule to allow us to debate H.R. 1213 and H.R. 1214. H.R. 1213 would repeal mandatory funding provided to States in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to establish American health benefit exchanges. H.R. 1214 would repeal mandatory spending for school-based health center construction.

Quite simply, our country is broke, and we cannot continue to spend money like we have in the past. Our spending crisis is clear. Slush funds and unlimited tabs on the Treasury must be the first to go, particularly when they are being used to fund government-centered takeover of our Nation's health care system that does not improve care, does not lower costs and, simply, we cannot afford.

The American people sent a clear message last November: ObamaCare is not the answer; stop spending money that our country doesn't have, money we are borrowing and spending on the backs of our children and grandchildren who will be left footing the bill.

H.R. 1213, introduced by the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee who has been a leader in this fight, repeals the provision that gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services a blank check to determine how much to facilitate enrollment in the State health care exchanges set up by the underlying bill. The law includes no definition of what that means. For example, a 100 percent premium subsidy for individuals to enroll in the exchange would not be prohibited under the statute.

In the year since ObamaCare was enacted, it has already become clear the law set up an unworkable and an unaffordable system. There have been countless numbers of waivers given out and slush funds such as this to allow the Federal Government to continue to push more money onto the States,

force them to accept provisions that simply don't make sense and don't work. Just because the authors of ObamaCare could not determine the amount necessary to fund these programs does not mean American taxpayers should allow the Secretary to cash this blank check.

Secretary Sebelius, in a March 3 hearing, testified that there are no monetary limitations on the size of the appropriation and the law requires no further congressional action for the Secretary to spend these funds. CBO estimates a reduction in direct spending by an estimated $14.6 billion over the next 10 years would be achieved by successful passage of this bill. And that is just an estimate. With a blank check, the spending could be much higher.

Mr. Speaker, I submit that giving any executive branch official a blank check is a bad idea, particularly when we already have a $1.6 trillion deficit this year alone and a $14 trillion national debt. We must vote to repeal this provision.

In regards to H.R. 1214, introduced by Representative Burgess of Texas, who is one of the physician members of our Republican Conference, it repeals the school-based health center construction fund. ObamaCare provides $200 million in direct appropriations through fiscal year 2013, which this legislation would rescind. This money is only for facilities with an express prohibition on using the funds for personnel or to provide health services at these newly constructed facilities. The facilities could be built with no guarantee, therefore, that the center would ever see or care for one single patient.

This fund is yet another example of the wasteful, duplicative spending that caused ObamaCare to have such a huge price tag and another example of spending we simply cannot afford. ObamaCare and the stimulus bill have already made $3 billion available to the Department of Health and Human Services for facility improvements at community health centers. Providing an additional $50 million a year is duplicative. We do not need to build for building's sake. Therefore, we must vote to repeal this provision.

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

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield as much time as he may consume 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, I am pleased to yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from Tennessee (Mr. Roe).

I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

In closing on these two important bills that are now before this House, I say that H.R. 1213 and H.R. 1214 are dealing with an issue that the former Speaker of the House envisioned when she said during the debate on the underlying health care bill, ObamaCare, that Congress needed to pass the bill so the American public could find out what is in it. Well, we're finding out what's in it.

These two bills will address provisions that dictate and mandate billions of dollars of spending without any additional congressional oversight. To me, that is the critical piece. That is the critical piece and why I urge my colleagues to support this rule and pass this legislation, because this body must stand up and adhere to its institutional responsibilities of controlling the spending of our country because we are broke. That's what an army was sent here to do in November, and I'm proud to be part of that freshman class of 87 Republican Members of the House that are coming here and looking at every dime, every dollar that is being spent here in our Nation's capital, because our Nation cannot afford it anymore, and no longer will we pass the buck on to our children and our grandchildren so that they have to pay this bill that we are no longer taking care of here in Washington, D.C.

I would say that what we're trying to do with this health care debate is put back into the debate in front of the American public the focus of this new Republican majority, and that is we are going to deal with this problem by getting to the root of the problem. The root of this problem is increasing health care costs that are going through the roof. What we're dealing with here when we look at the underlying ObamaCare package is we're trying to minimize and mitigate health insurance costs. That's a piece of the puzzle. But the crux of the issue and the fundamental issue that we face is the increasing costs of health care, and that is what we are doing on this side of the aisle. And we are focusing day and night to make sure that we engage in responsible oversight, we strip the mandatory language of spending that is being created out of these bills, and we go forward so our children and grandchildren will have a greater future than we envisioned and enjoyed in our lifetimes.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this rule.

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