Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 436) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the excise tax on medical devices, and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5882) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule for the underlying bills H.R. 436, the Protect Medical Innovation Act, and H.R. 5882, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2013. Frankly, I'm disappointed that the House Republicans continue to bring bills to the House under a closed process that restricts debate and discussion and doesn't allow amendments that could improve the underlying legislation and help forge a strong bipartisan majority.

Mr. Speaker, the Republicans started this Congress with cries to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, and yet here we are a year and a half later, this body has voted several times to repeal the bill, but we've yet to see any plans to replace it. And here we are again with another bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act. As far as I can tell, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have not presented a plan to reduce rising health care costs, to provide health care insurance to 30 million uninsured Americans.

This body, and those who advocate repeal of the Affordable Care Act, it should be incumbent upon them to talk about what we should replace it with to prevent the rising cost of health care from being an increasing burden on American businesses and American families. The motivations for repealing the Affordable Care Act are weaker and more blatantly political than ever, especially after several votes of this body to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

There are many provisions of the Affordable Care Act that the American people broadly support, including young adults staying on their parents' health insurance until they're 26, including creation of exchanges. Seniors throughout the United States are already benefiting from the Affordable Care Act's elimination of the Medicare prescription drug doughnut hole. In fact, in 2011, over 5.1 million Medicare beneficiaries saved over $3.2 billion on prescription drugs thanks to the Affordable Care Act.

States across the country, including my home State of Colorado, are enthusiastically implementing health insurance exchanges in a bipartisan way that will help us reduce health care costs and expand access to high quality, affordable health care. So why are we still here talking about repealing the Affordable Care Act instead of focusing on areas where we share common ground?

Unfortunately, the Protect Medical Innovation Act has been brought under a closed process which prohibits Members from being able to offer any amendments to this collection of four different bills. If my colleagues made an effort to compromise on health care proposals, there might actually be a chance to see legislation pass both Chambers with broad bipartisan support and signed by the President. This specific bill already has a veto threat from the President, and none of my colleagues on my side of the aisle were consulted with regard to a method of paying for this particular set of changes.

Instead, the Republicans have chosen to cobble together three unrelated bills that do three totally different things, along with a very partisan offset with no opportunity to revise these bills; no opportunity for us to do our job as legislators, to amend these bills; no opportunity for us to work to forge a majority around commonsense proposals that can improve health care and create jobs.

Let's take a look at what's in this diverse package of bills.

Now, the original Protect Medical Innovation Act, that was the original bill before these three other bills were added and before this payment mechanism was added, would've repealed the excise tax on the manufacture or import of certain medical devices, one of the methods of funding the Affordable Care Act.

Now a solid group of Members support repealing the tax. In fact, this tax impacts companies in my district like ZOLL Data Systems. And I hope we can have a straight up-or-down vote on this particular provision of this bill. But instead, it has been cobbled together with two unrelated bills and an unrelated method of paying for it.

Similarly, there's solid support for two other pieces of legislation that are contained in this bill. One bill would have repealed the Affordable Care Act's prohibition on using HSAs and FSAs to purchase over-the-counter drugs, and another would have allowed individuals with FSAs to redeem money left in their accounts at the end of the year.

Now, we all have our different opinions about these bills. I personally support allowing HSAs and FSAs to purchase over-the-counter drugs, and I personally oppose the FSA measure because I think that people should be able to spend the money that's left in their FSAs by the end of year; otherwise, what's the purpose of an FSA? It kind of ceases to exist and simply becomes a tax shelter if it's not dedicated to health.

But the fact of the matter is, under this rule, no Members of this body will be able to express their support or opposition to any of these bills in particular because they've all been cobbled together into an incoherent mess of a bill which this rule is trying to jam down the throat of this body. We should have brought up these bills one at a time and found a reasonable offset. Instead, the Republicans have chosen to place the burden of paying for this cluster of bills on the backs of middle class American families.

Now, there's a number of alternative ways that we could have paid for these bills. The most obvious one would have been repealing oil and gas subsidies. This was an offset that was included in the Democratic substitute which the majority failed to even allow to come up for a vote by this body. That offset would have provided $32 billion in reductions of oil and gas subsidies over 10 years, making sure that the government doesn't pick winners and losers in the energy space, allowing oil and gas to compete on a level playing field with all other energy resources instead of being designated as a recipient of taxpayer money and government subsidies. Now, that particular offset would have not only paid for eliminating the medical device tax, but also reduced our deficit by $3 billion.

Today I introduced a bill, H.R. 5906, which would repeal the medical device tax and replace those lost revenues by eliminating tax loopholes and subsidies for oil and gas companies. Personally, I'm supportive of other ways of paying for the medical device tax as well. Let us work together to find a way to pay for any changes in the Affordable Care Act that don't fall squarely on the back of middle class American families.

However, Mr. Speaker, instead of a thoughtful offset, the Republicans have chosen to dig into the pockets of low- and middle-income Americans to pay for this bill. So let's look at how this bill would affect American families.

According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, this proposal would force 350,000 people to lose their health care insurance. Yes, that's 350,000 people less that would have health care insurance.

Now, how devastating and misguided is this? Let's take an example. Let's take a hypothetical family of four in Colorado, in Ohio, in Florida, in Pennsylvania. Let's say their household income is $36,000 a year. They're working hard to stay in that middle class. It's getting harder and harder. The family income, $36,000 a year; father and a mother. The mother has been out of work for 3 years. The total family cost of health care insurance is $12,000. Now, let's say the mother finds a job midway through the year. She's able to go back to work and she earns an additional $36,000 for her family, bringing that family of four's earnings to $72,000. They're fighting hard to stay in that middle class to afford their kids' college education. Now, under this bill, at the end of the year, that family is sent an additional health care bill for $5,160, a tax increase of over $5,000 for that middle class American family. Now, that's more likely to make it less of an incentive for that woman to get the extra job. What's the extra incentive to work if the government is going to stick you with a huge tax bill just for trying to support your family?

Let's take another example. A family of four in Michigan, in Nevada, a father and mother with two young children. Let's say that the mother doesn't work outside the home. They're earning $36,000 a year and the family is struck with tragedy. The mother passes on early in the year leaving the father to support the kids. He takes a second job, as any good father would do, and is able to earn an additional $18,000 during the year working a 40-hour-a-week job and working a 20-hour-a-week job to put food on the table. Now, that increases that family's income to $54,000 from $36,000. And what does this Republican tax increase do? Well, it presents them at the end of the year with an additional $3,330 tax increase, a $3,330 tax increase for a father who's just trying to put food on the table for his kids.

We can do better. The bill we are considering today would actually increase the tax hike on families by removing the restriction on the amount that families are required to pay. This has the perverse incentive of discouraging families from working and taking on additional jobs and working hard to get promoted. It takes away the incentive to perform well at your job and get a promotion or raise. Frankly, this payment mechanism encourages people to remain in poverty and on government assistance rather than striving to do better and earn more. This Republican bill punishes work, plain and simple, and is a huge tax increase on the middle class.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if we want to repeal the medical device tax, let's discuss how to pay for it. If some people in this body think protecting subsidies for oil and gas companies is more important than getting rid of the medical device tax, well, fine, let's find another way to do it. But, unfortunately, this approach before us today isn't a serious approach to reducing the deficit. It's an approach that the President would veto, it's an approach that puts a huge tax burden squarely on the shoulders of working families in this country, and it doesn't help get Americans back to work.

This proposal is based on politics, plain and simple, not on sound economic policies that are good for the middle class, good for the medical device industry, and good for America.

This underlying rule also makes in order the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for 2013. Now, that's an act that funds Congress itself and its supporting agencies. In these times of fiscal austerity, everyone--especially Members of Congress--should be tightening their belts.

This bill provides a 1 percent reduction from last year's spending bill. Now, I am also heartened that it still ensures congressional support agencies have the sufficient funding they need to function so that we in this body can do our job.

But even while the House's budget has been cut over 10 percent over the last 2 years, the House majority has chosen to spend scarce resources that the taxpayers have appropriated to us to defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars gay and lesbian servicemembers, veterans and their spouses from securing the same benefits offered to straight military couples.

As President Obama has determined, the law is simply indefensible constitutionally. And yet to date, this body, out of this bill, this Legislative appropriations bill, has spent three-quarters

of a million dollars of taxpayer money on fancy lawyers defending this discriminatory and offensive law. This waste of tax dollars is especially troubling given the recent First Circuit decision which found that DOMA is unconstitutional.

Mr. Speaker, I can't support these underlying rules. It's beyond troubling to have a closed rule, not allowing amendments and thoughtful input from Members of both parties on four separate pieces of health care legislation that completely shuts out Republican ideas and Democratic ideas to improve the Affordable Care Act, improve job growth in this country, and help get our economy back on track.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I'll offer an amendment to the rule to make in order the Connolly amendment, which proposes that Members who repeal Federal benefits for their constituents must forfeit such benefits themselves. Why should Members of Congress get special benefits that we deny to our own constituents?

To discuss our proposal, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In response to my colleague, Mr. Roe's discussion of very expensive medical devices and equipment, part of the justification for looking at revenues for medical devices is, through making sure that more Americans have access to insurance, we're able to increase demand and compensation for procedures that involve costly medical devices. This is a way that can actually drive business and job growth for the medical device industry by having more people covered by insurance. The Affordable Care Act will cover millions and millions of more Americans to ensure that they have access to medical devices, driving consumption and purchase of medical devices as well.

Look, there's plenty of ways that we can talk about to pay for this bill. Unfortunately, this closed rule allows for no discussion, other than the extremely partisan, middle class tax increase, which the Republicans have proposed to pay for this bill.

Personally, I've also supported and continue to support looking at a soda tax. Rather than tax something that makes people healthier and improves public health, like medical devices, why not tax something that makes people less healthy, like corn syrup with food coloring and water, a little bit of caffeine added, no nutritional content, increases diabetes, increases obesity, tooth decay, even been shown to hurt kids' performance in schools. And a study by Health Affairs, a nationwide tax of 1 percent on sugary drinks would actually go a long way towards being able to pay for repealing the medical device tax.

So look, these are decisions that our constituents send us here to make. How do we want to pay for things? If we don't want to tax medical devices, are we going to tax the middle class instead, as this proposal will do?

We talked about a family of four in Ohio, family of four in New York, that would pay over $5,000 a year in extra tax just because the mother went back to work, just because one member of the family might have passed away in a year, sticking them with an enormous tax bill? This tax-and-spend Republican majority continues to advocate tax after tax after tax increase directly targeted to middle class and working American families.

Look, let's evaluate how we want to pay for health care in this country. Health care is important. Health care is expensive. If you have better ideas than the Affordable Care Act--better ways to reduce health care costs for businesses, help families access health care-- let's get them on the table in an open process and talk about what we want to do to help drive down costs.

But this cobbled-together set of bills will only decrease access to health care in this country. It will undermine the very demand for the medical devices that are so important to job growth and creation in this country. It will undermine the incentive of middle class families to try to improve their stations in life--to take on a second part-time job, to seek a promotion at work. It's very contrary to our American values that hard work gets you ahead in this country. If you work hard and if you play by the rules, you have a shot in this country, and this cobbled-together set of bills is an affront to that very concept that makes me so proud to be an American.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

An executive summary of a report by the Bloomberg Government is entitled ``Medical Device Industry Overstates Tax Impact,'' which was put together by health care policy analysts.

This study calls into question the assumption that several of my colleagues on the other side have indicated that the medical device tax results in the loss of 43,000 jobs. After investigating, the Bloomberg Government officials found that this figure was based on the hypothetical assumptions of a 10 percent reduction in domestic employment resulting from manufacturing moving their operations offshore. So it was just based on guesswork. It was said, Well, how many jobs do we want to say this would cost? Let's just say 10 percent.

Then they just put it down. There was no analysis. It was simply based on a guess, which I can just say with the same amount of backing that it will create 10,000 jobs or that it will eliminate 5,000 jobs or that it will create 20,000 jobs. You can say whatever you want, but there is no scientific analysis that leads to that conclusion.

In fact, throwing 350,000 Americans into the ranks of the uninsured as this cobbled-together set of bills would do and reducing the number of insured Americans by 350,000 is certain to reduce the demand for medical devices. It is certain to reduce job growth and to hurt many of the companies that are complaining about the medical device tax.

Again, if we can find a way to pay for it that doesn't throw over a quarter million Americans out of health care

insurance and that doesn't increase taxes for a family making $72,000 a year by over $5,000, let's do it. We can. We can look at taxing things that make people less healthy rather than taxing things that make people more healthy. We can eliminate tax loopholes and subsidies for the oil and gas industry. We can discuss eliminating agriculture subsidies.

There are a lot of great ideas that Republicans and Democrats have to help replace the revenue that might be lost under this proposal; but under this closed rule, both Republicans and Democrats are prohibited from bringing any ideas forward about how to pay for this bill other than with an enormous tax increase on the middle class, throwing Americans off the insurance rolls, which actually reduces the demand for medical devices and will cost jobs in this country under this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

My colleague from Oklahoma said, if you tax something, you get less of it. Under this bill, we tax work, and we tax middle class families taking a second job or getting a promotion at work. This bill will force families to stay on the government payroll. It will force people to continue to get their benefits because, if they try to work harder, you're increasing their taxes.

Yes, if you tax something, you get less of it. This bill will result in people working less, having less of an incentive to work, less of an incentive to lift yourself up and to get off the government subsidies, less of an incentive to take a second job, less of an incentive to get a promotion. Why would we put squarely the burden of paying for this on people who just want to work harder to get ahead?

If you tax something, you get less of it. This bill in its current form results in less work, fewer jobs, fewer chances for middle class families to stay in the middle class, fewer chances for aspiring middle class families to reach the middle class.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague ended his remarks by saying don't raise taxes on people making under $250,000. This bill increases taxes on people making $40,000, $70,000, even as much as $90,000. That's what it is--it's a huge middle class tax increase.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Why should Members of Congress get special benefits because they're Members of Congress that they vote to deny to their constituents? Thankfully, if we defeat the previous question, Mr. Connolly will bring forward an amendment that will address this issue.

With that, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

I have no additional speakers on this huge Republican middle class tax increase. I would like to ask my colleague if he has any remaining speakers. I am prepared to close.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I would like to inquire if my colleague has any remaining speakers, and I would like to inquire of the Speaker how much time remains on both sides.

I yield myself the remainder of the time.

Mr. Speaker, at a time when millions of Americans are still out of work, here's yet another bill on the House floor that does nothing to create jobs or get our economy back on track.

This House has already passed repeals of the Affordable Care Act several times, and here we have another bill that takes three bills and lumps them together with a controversial payment mechanism that's a huge tax increase on the middle class, and it drives Congress further from consensus and sound governance.

Again, we're spending another legislative day repealing parts of the Affordable Care Act that the President has said he would veto with no opportunity for Members of either party to offer amendments or substitutes.

Instead of seeking a bipartisan agreement on reducing health care costs or even doing anything to further the repeal of the medical device tax, the Republicans have made it impossible for many to support this bill by combining a number of unrelated bills with a huge middle class tax increase. This is not the transparent one-bill-at-a-time House that the American people deserve.

My colleagues are once again passing on an opportunity for bipartisan reform in favor of simply scoring political points.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment into 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 make sure that Members of Congress don't receive special benefits that we would deny to our constituents.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, so we can avoid this enormous Republican middle class tax increase, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am pleased we are considering the fiscal year 2013 Legislative Branch appropriations bill. Chairman Crenshaw has been collegial in the development of this bill, and I appreciate his willingness to accept our input throughout the process.

The chairman's mark before us funds the legislative branch at $3.3 billion, a cut of 1 percent from fiscal year 2012, and this does not include Senate items. Even with a lower allocation, Chairman Crenshaw was able to level-fund and even increase several areas important to the operation of the legislative branch. The House, overall, is held flat at $1.225 billion. The Capitol Police will receive $360 million, a nearly 6 percent increase. The Congressional Budget Office is funded at $44.3 million, at $493,000 above the fiscal year 2012 level. And the Government Accountability Office is funded at $519.8 million--$8.5 million, or nearly 2 percent, above fiscal year 2012.

While the levels are adequate for some agencies, the allocation required the subcommittee to propose no funding to continue the rehabilitation of the Capitol dome, this Nation's great symbol of democracy. This bill's lack of funding for this critical project is a direct result of the House Republicans' unilateral decision to cast aside the funding levels agreed to under the Budget Control Act. The majority's decision required the Appropriations Committee to absorb $19 billion in reductions across all of the bills.

One issue that I continue to be concerned about is the House General Counsel's defense of the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA. With the limited funding available for the House of Representatives, I think there are far more worthy uses of the precious taxpayers' resources than funding contracts for outside counsel to defend the highly controversial--and two U.S. district courts and a Federal appellate court have ruled unconstitutional--DOMA. I am concerned that the scarce resources available to the House will continue to be siphoned off in order to defend a law that continues to be found unconstitutional in the courts.

I am privileged to represent Silicon Valley, the center of technological innovation in this country. Since I joined the subcommittee, I have tried to push the House and other agencies to explore technological solutions to issues such as transparency, evacuation management, and data storage.

As you probably know, Federal agencies, including our own in the leg branch, can be slow to change and develop new technologies. This is mentioned in the report, which includes language on the issue of bulk- data downloads of legislative information, something I requested and secured language about in this bill in fiscal year 2009.

This effort is now being championed by leadership on both sides of the aisle, as it is a way to increase transparency by allowing the public to easily download and analyze government data. There are some concerns about cost and the ability to authenticate the data that the language in the report tries to address. I think, however, that these are relatively simple matters to overcome, as data is already being compiled in a format that can be easily distributed, and technology support staff has indicated that only a simple procedure is needed to make the bulk data available.

Furthermore, the GPO already employs an authentication standard for its own accessible bulk data through its FDSys, or the Federal Digital System, Web site that we could also utilize.

The House majority recently announced that it will immediately create a task force, as described in this bill, to expedite a report and implementation of public access to bulk legislative data. While I believe the time to implement this is now, I expect to be included in these efforts as ranking member of the subcommittee and a longtime advocate since before 2009.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate my appreciation for the chairman's effort to work with my side of the aisle on issues where there was agreement. I am glad to see the congressional support Agencies, including the Congressional Budget Office, the Government Accountability Office, and the Congressional Research Service, are adequately funded.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hardworking professional staff that has helped to craft this bill and assisted the subcommittee in a bipartisan manner over the course of the year: Liz Dawson, Chuck Turner and Jenny Kesiah on the majority side, along with Michael Kirlin with Chairman Crenshaw's personal office, and Shalanda Young and Danny Cromer on our side of the aisle, along with Ken Takeda and Mark Nakamoto from my office.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington, the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, Mr. Dicks.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I also rise in opposition to the amendment which seeks to cut $1.2 million from the Architect of the Capitol's Botanic Garden.

The hardest hit agency in this building is the Architect of the Capitol, which was cut by $52.5 million, or 11 percent, making it impossible to fund the Capitol dome restoration in this bill. However, the chairman found a small amount of funding to try to keep up with the maintenance of the Botanic Garden. Nevertheless, Members attack because they can get a good headline in the papers for cutting a garden.

To that effect, the author of this amendment put out a press release after offering this same amendment last year. In that press release, Representative Gosar stated:

The Botanic Garden has proven its ability to use tax

dollars in a cost-effective and efficient way.

If the Botanic Garden has indeed proven it's ability to use its tax dollars in a cost-effective manner, why is the gentleman targeting this agency?

The public should know that after this amendment, we still won't finish the dome restoration. We still have to rehabilitate the Cannon House Office Building. The gentleman from Arizona wants to make sure the Botanic Garden is added to the scrap heap of buildings that we are unable to keep in working condition.

Our constituents sent us here to do real work and look for real solutions to the deficit, not to make political points by attacking institutions like the Botanic Garden, which was established back in 1820. As a Member of Congress, we have a responsibility to ensure that our Nation's heritage is kept intact for future generations by both tackling unnecessary spending, but also by making investments in our future.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I urge defeat of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I yield to my colleague, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would cut the funding level of the Congressional Research Service by $878,000, returning it to the 2012 level.

He said that he's not doing anything to harm it because it's the same level as last year, but everybody knows that every year the cost of living, the cost of doing services, increases. So a flat, across-the- board push ahead kind of a budget is really a decrease. It's subtle, but it's still a decrease. I just want to let the gentleman know that that's the fact.

The other fact is the CRS is a research arm of the congressional Members. It's a research arm that we're able to use to do the kind of research that our folks really depend upon and is nonpartisan, is not biased in one way or another, and they are very professional in doing so. If we're expected to do the right kind of work for our constituency and then also for our country on issues, then we should be able to expect good work from our CRS.

In fact, Chairman Crenshaw and his staff should be commended for recognizing the funding shortfall that CRS has incurred in recent years.

As other congressional staff can attest, CRS is really essential to help Members to be able to perform the duties by this kind of a nonpartisan research and policy analysis. I believe this divided Congress should take more advantage of this unbiased resource and not reduce its capacity. Therefore, I oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues do so also.

I yield back the balance of my time.

[From the Washington Times, June 6, 2012]

Congressional Staffers, Public Shortchanged by High Turnover, Low Pay

(By Luke Rosiak)

The most powerful nation on Earth is run largely by 24-

year-olds.

High turnover and lack of experience in congressional

offices are leaving staffs increasingly without policy and

institutional knowledge, a Washington Times analysis of a

decade of House and Senate personnel records shows--leaving a

vacuum that usually is filled by lobbyists.

Most Senate staffers have worked in the Capitol for less

than three years. For most, it is their first job ever. In

House offices, one-third of staffers are in their first year,

while only 1 in 3 has worked there for five years or more.

Among the aides who work on powerful committees where the

nation's legislation takes shape, resumes are a little

longer: Half have four years of experience.

When Americans wonder why Congress can't seem to get

anything done, this could be a clue. It's also a sharp

difference from the average government employee: Unlike many

state and federal workers with comfortable salaries, pensions

and seemingly endless tenures, those in the halls of power

are more likely to be inexperienced and overworked.

Low pay for high-stress jobs with less-than-stellar

prospects for advancement takes a toll on institutional

memory and expertise.

While senators make $174,000, staff assistants and

legislative correspondents--by far the most common positions

in the Senate--have median pay of $30,000 and $35,000,

respectively, significantly less than Senate janitors and a

fairly low salary for college graduates in a city as

expensive as Washington.

Historical pay records were transcribed from book form by

the website Legistorm.

The size of committee and members' staffs have remained the

same over the past decade, and salaries have often not risen

with inflation--or at all.

The average legislative counsel in the House made $56,000

last year, less than in 2007. While pay for parking-lot

attendants in the House increased from $26,000 to $49,000 in

the past decade, pay for staff assistants, who make up the

bulk of the House's workforce, rose from $26,000 to $30,000.

That puts them in the bottom fifth of the region's college-

educated workforce.

It means that young workers have proximity to enormous

power while surviving on a meager budget--dual forces that

come together to push congressional staffers through the

``revolving door'' to highly paid K Street lobbyists. In the

revolving door, former congressional staff and members use

their personal connections and insider knowledge to attempt

to pull the levers of power on behalf of a paying client. A

former congressional staffer is among the most valuable

assets a company desiring legislative change can buy.

But it also means that staffers are often forced to rely on

lobbyists while they still work for Congress, sometimes for

the purest of reasons: While lobbyists with decades of

experience in energy policy or other arcane areas are common,

such depth of experience is nearly nonexistent on Capitol

Hill. Though 10 years of experience in a home-state office,

which handles constituent services and other less stressful

concerns, is not rare, a person with a decade of experience

is few and far between in Washington.

Without a foundation

``Who are congressional staff going to turn to?'' asked

Daniel Schuman, a former Congressional Research Service (CRS)

lawyer who now studies policy at the nonpartisan Sunlight

Foundation. ``The experienced staff aren't there. But

lobbyists and think tanks are beating down the door: `Here's

the legislation, here are the research materials and I've got

the co-sponsors lined up.' ''

As policy questions more frequently hinge on the nuances of

technical matters, members of Congress are operating without

the researchers and topical experts on which they have relied

to cast informed votes.

With the shuttering of the Office of Technology Assessment,

a 200-member congressional support agency that closed in 1995

under House Speaker Newt Gingrich, members who are largely

lawyers and rhetorical masters are asked to differentiate

between competing proposals that only scientists might be

able to evaluate effectively.

The technology office researched and summarized scientific

and technological matters, ranging from acid rain to wireless

phones, for members who, with an average age of 64 in the

Senate and 58 in the House, are legislating on matters such

as the Internet, which most spent much of their lives

without. Typical of its work products was a decades-ago

warning on the effect of technology on copyright law, a

question lawmakers contentiously grappled with this year.

``It helped us to . . . better oversee the science and

technology programs within the federal establishment,'' said

then-Rep. Amo Houghton, New York Republican, who served nine

terms before retiring in 2005. The role of CRS, which

provides research on topics beyond science and technology,

has also been rolled back.

Brian Darling, a former Senate staffer who is now senior

fellow for government studies at the conservative Heritage

Foundation, said he strongly supports smaller government, but

sometimes symbolic cuts can backfire.

``Cutbacks at CRS to me don't make a lot of sense, with

their institutional knowledge. They put out a great

nonpartisan work product. When crafting the legislative

branch appropriation bill, members of Congress are trying to

show they want to cut spending, but there can be

repercussions,'' he said.

Though it seems paradoxical, a lack of knowledge and

resources by congressional staffers can make for waste, Mr.

Schuman said, citing an inability to conduct oversight,

agency regulations that are left unchallenged, loopholes

slipped into laws that are giveaways for special interests

and poorly implemented programs.

He pointed to the creation of the Department of Homeland

Security.

``The department is a mess because people didn't understand

what would happen when you merge so many different agencies

with different cultures,'' he said. ``It is bloated,

inefficient and maladroit.''

A failure by Congress to ``understand the laws it passed''

and ``innovations in the private sector'' also led ultimately

to a huge crunch and the massive bailouts with taxpayer

money, he said.

Up and out

Consider the class of 2005. Of 186 Senate staff assistants

who started that year, 82 percent had left by last year, 13

percent were still in the same position and the remaining 5

percent have moved up a notch. Of Senate legislative

correspondents starting the same year, 83 percent have

departed and the rest moved up.

In the House, of 105 people who started as legislative

assistants, four made chief of staff in six years. Seven out

of 10 left, and almost all the rest got other promotions.

As that group has come or gone, multiple other layers of

congressional staff have been churned through. Among staffers

who moved on from Congress in early 2010, three-quarters of

departing staff assistants and legislative correspondents had

two years or less under their belts.

Even policy wonks in the most nonpolitical of positions,

``professional staff'' in the Senate committees where most

legislative work gets done, last only five years on average,

from the time they got their first job in Congress to the

time they found a new employer.

``When people get married or have kids, around 35, you

either jump up in pay by $50,000 or you get out of there

because you can't make it anymore. Making that money for 10

years puts people behind for the rest of their lives in terms

of retirement,'' Mr. Schuman said.

Most college-educated workers in the D.C. area earn $81,000

or more, with an average salary of $93,850, according to the

U.S. Census Bureau. For college grads under 30, the median

salary is $42,000.

Some 300 staffers who started in 2005 or 2006 are already

registered federal lobbyists, a Times review of records

indicated. They are preparing detailed policy papers, and in

some cases drafting proposed legislation, for their former

colleagues, and they have the time and resources to do a more

thorough job than those still there--though one that has a

slant in favor of their new, more generous employer.

``Staff are incredibly vulnerable to this. They're trying

to do a very complicated job with limited resources,'' Mr.

Schuman said.

As the federal government has grown dramatically over the

decades, the Congress in charge of overseeing it has stayed

the same or shrunk. A recent 10 percent reduction to

congressional offices' budgets is the latest major reduction.

``When times are going bad, lawmakers say we have to cut

Congress. But when things are going great, no one says it's

time to hire more staff. You get the Congress you pay for,''

Mr. Schuman said.

Mr. Darling acknowledged that salaries made it nearly

impossible for Congress to have many workers with significant

experience. But he likened the limitation to ``term limits''

for staff. He decried the deferred compensation system that

inspires some Hill staffers to make next to nothing for a few

years so they can cash in big as a lobbyist afterward, but

praised the idealists who toiled there.

``There's a perception that government workers are

underworked, and that's far from the case in Congress. In

fact, they tend to burn out and leave for higher-paid

positions,'' said Mr. Darling. Executive-branch bureaucrats

could take a lesson from their grueling workload, he added.

``The way Congress runs is the way the federal government

should run.''

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This bill is mainly a smoke screen. It is an effort to cover up the failure, indeed the refusal, of Republicans to act on the key issue facing our Nation: jobs and economic growth.

As ranking member, I sent a letter last Friday to Dave Camp, who chairs the committee with the jurisdiction over the bill before us today, urging action on six major jobs bills within the committee's jurisdiction: extension of the section 48(c) advanced energy manufacturing credit; extension of the production tax credit for wind power and other vital advanced-energy incentives; extension of the highly successful build America bonds program, which financed more than $180 billion in infrastructure investment; extension of the 100 percent bonus depreciation; creation of a 10 percent income tax credit for small businesses that do create new jobs or increase their payroll; an extension of a jobs-related expired provision, such as the R&D tax credit.

The answer: silence and continued inaction by Republicans in this House.

Another bill over which the committee has jurisdiction, the highway bill, remains unacted upon. That bill would mean millions of jobs. No action. The Republican House message on the highway bill is: our way or the highway. And that means no highways.

It is June. There is now the likelihood of no action or none before the construction season is over in numerous States. That inaction is not an accident. It is deliberate. It is implementing the goal stated 20 months ago by the Senate Republican leader:

``The single most important thing we want to achieve is for

President Obama to be a one-term President.''

It is reflected in the recent interview by the House Republican leader. Mr. Cantor said the rest of the year will likely be about ``sending signals, we have huge problems to deal with.''

Sending signals? The American people don't need and want signals. They need for us to take action to strengthen the economic recovery.

We will hear today Republican efforts to describe the bill before us to repeal the tax on medical devices as a jobs bill. What it really is is another Republican effort to repeal health care reform, step by step, costing, in this case, $29 billion.

We Democrats want more Americans to have access to medical devices. Health care reform helps do this by expanding insurance coverage to over 30 million individuals, which indeed will help the growth of and the innovation in the medical device industry. And as was true for other health groups benefiting from increases in health coverage, the medical device industry was asked to help to pay for health care reform so it would be fully paid for, not add to the deficit, as so many Republican measures, but it would be fully paid for.

They signed a letter with others pledging:

``We, as stakeholder representatives, are committed to

doing our part to make reform a reality in order to make the

system more affordable and effective for patients and

purchasers. We stand ready to work with you to accomplish

this goal.''

The first signature on that letter is from and by the President and CEO of the Advanced Medical Technology Association.

Now the Republicans are attempting to give that industry a free pass--a free pass--contrary to their stated commitment. The industry has not proposed any alternative whatsoever to meet that obligation reflected in the letter they signed. There is an effort here to cast repeal of the tax as a small business bill.

The 10 largest companies in this submarket would pay 86 percent of the taxes relating to nondiagnostic devices. According to CRS, the 10 largest companies that manufacture medical devices had total companywide profits on all their lines of businesses, both devices and other products, of $42 billion in 2010, including companies mentioned here, and $48 billion in 2011, and these companies had gross revenues from the sale of medical devices in 2010 of $133 billion.

There was an effort here also to cast the bill as an effort to stop offshoring, but this point needs to be made. It's a fact: The tax applies to all covered devices, including those that are imported. So if anybody thinks they can just move overseas and bring it back here and not pay a tax, they're simply incorrect.

The effort to cast this as a jobs bill involved allegations repeated here during the debate on the rule, which were analyzed by a neutral source and found to be simply erroneous. A Bloomberg group analysis made that clear: ``The study used by Republicans cites no evidence for the job loss claim.''

Further, the study's assumptions, ``conflict with economic research, overstate companies' incentives to move jobs offshore, and ignore the positive effect of new demand'' created by the health care reform law.

Before Rules yesterday, I asked that my substitute be placed in order to allow debate on two real jobs initiatives mentioned in my letter to you, Chairman Camp: a tax credit for employers that expand their payrolls, and an extension of bonus depreciation. Those two provisions would help create hundreds of thousands of jobs, not speculation, but real, including in small businesses. This has not been allowed.

So we have open rules, as we have seen the last few days on some bills, that often mainly result in numerous amendments, shifting some monies from one place to another in an agency, not often helping to create a single job, but a closed rule when it comes to

bringing up provisions helping to create American jobs and economic growth.

This is further evidence of what is really going on here in this Congress, a deliberate effort now increasingly undisguised to close the door on action to engender job creation and economic growth before the election.

November 6 is what is driving the Republican Congress. Politics, not people. That is only not cynical, it is, indeed, pernicious. We owe it to the American people to blow the whistle on this. Too much, indeed, is at stake.

National Women's Law Center,

Washington, DC, June 6, 2012.

Re Vote No on Protect Medical Innovation Act of 2011, H.R.

436.

Dear Representative: The National Women's Law Center writes

in strong opposition to H.R. 436, the Protect Medical

Innovation Act of 2011, because it would undermine a critical

protection in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and reduce

financial security for women and families. The bill would pay

for the elimination of the modest excise tax on medical

devices and other revenue provisions of the ACA by increasing

the tax liability of individuals and families receiving

premium tax credits through the new insurance exchanges.

The modest excise tax on medical devices is a fair way to

raise revenue to help finance affordable health care coverage

for millions of Americans. The expansion of health care

coverage will benefit a wide range of health-related

industries, including the medical device industry, by

increasing demand for their products. Other industries in the

health sector are contributing to financing an expansion from

which they will profit; it is entirely appropriate to require

the medical device industry to make a contribution as well.

The tax will have minimal impact on consumers, because it

does not apply to medical devices that consumers buy at

retail, such as eyeglasses or hearing aids, and spending on

taxable medical devices represents less than one percent of

total personal health expenditures. And the tax will not

encourage manufacturers to shift production overseas: it

applies equally to imported and domestically produced

devices, and devices produced in the United States for export

are not subject to the tax. Repealing this tax and forgoing

$29 billion in needed revenues would be irresponsible--even

without the outrageous step of imposing this cost directly on

Americans without access to affordable health care coverage.

Increasing the tax liability of individuals and families

receiving premium tax credits for health insurance coverage

is unfair and would reduce coverage for hundreds of thousands

of Americans. The ACA provides premium tax credits to

families with household income at or below 400 percent of

poverty who enroll in coverage through an exchange. An

advance payment of the premium tax credit will go directly to

insurance companies so that the monthly insurance premium

paid by families is reduced, thereby making health coverage

more affordable for millions of families. However, there is a

``reconciliation'' at the end of the year when a family files

taxes to ensure that the right amount of credit was paid to

the insurer on the family's behalf. The ``reconciliation'' is

based on actual household income for the year, while the

advance payment is based on a projection that could be based

on current income or past tax returns. The ACA included an

important protection by including a cap on the amount of

repayment penalty a family would have to pay based on

``reconciliation.''

The proposal expected this week would entirely eliminate

this protection, leaving families vulnerable to an

unaffordable tax bill. Many families will be discouraged from

enrolling in coverage because of the potential tax liability

at the end of the year. Much of the savings from the proposal

are achieved because hundreds of thousands of people are

expected to refuse coverage if the cap is eliminated. Women

will be particularly affected by the elimination of the cap.

Women have lower incomes than men and experience larger

income variability from one year to another. This suggests

women will be more at risk for repayment penalties. Women

also often make the health care decisions for the family and

will be faced with the difficult decision of enrolling in

affordable coverage or forgoing that coverage because of a

potential tax penalty.

The cap on the repayment penalty has already been

increased. Eliminating the cap would eliminate all

protections for families that are doing their best to provide

the right information to the exchange but face mid-year

changes in income or family size. A server in a restaurant

could gain new shifts or be promoted to manager. An employer

may give unexpected bonuses in December. A couple could get

married mid-year without fully understanding the impact on

household income and poverty level. The cap on the repayment

penalty needs to remain in place in order to protect families

and provide the stability promised in the ACA.

We urge you to protect the security of families and the

revenue provisions of the Affordable Care Act so millions of

Americans can receive affordable health care by voting no on

H.R. 436 and any proposal to eliminate the cap on the

repayment penalty.

Very truly yours,

Judy Waxman,

Vice President, Health and Reproductive Rights.

Joan Entmacher,

Vice President, Family Economic Security.

I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California, a senior member of our committee, Mr. Stark.

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

It is now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to another important member of our committee, the gentleman from Seattle, Washington (Mr. McDermott).

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to another very distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

It's now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished Member from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Mr. Speaker, I now have the privilege of yielding 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Critz).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Could you please indicate how much time there is on each side?

I yield myself 30 seconds.

It's the Republicans who've combined these three bills. The Republicans.

And the leader talks about jobs. I wish he would give instructions to the Ways and Means Committee to consider and bring up jobs bills that are just languishing from inaction. We need more than signals. We need action.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), a distinguished member of our committee.

It is now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

I yield myself 30 seconds.

We very much favor the medical device industry. They agreed to pay for health insurance coverage. In 2011, Stryker had revenue of $8.37 billion on these products with a net income of $1.3 billion. Everybody is going to have to participate, as they promised, to make health care work. If everybody ducks out, people will go uninsured.

It is now my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

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

I yield myself the balance of my time.

In a sense, there is much at stake in this debate. If this bill were to become law, it would unravel health care reform. What this industry seems to be asking is a reversal of their commitment to make health care reform work. If this Congress and the President were to say okay, every other industry that participated in saying they pay their share to make it viable, they'd come in line, and there would be no answer to them. In that sense, this debate, this issue is significant.

But in another sense it really isn't. This bill isn't going anywhere. The Senate leadership has already said it's not taking it up. There's been issued a Statement of Administration policy. The recommendation is the President would veto it. There's a certain emptiness to this debate because the bill isn't going anywhere.

The real significance is that it's being brought up despite that, raising the question, Does the majority in this House want a bill that goes somewhere relating to jobs?

The word ``jobs'' has been mentioned here more than any other word. As mentioned earlier, there is no evidence that jobs would be lost, as indicated by the majority.

The only study says that the 43,000 claim is wrong. So what's really at stake here, the significance of this debate is this: Will the majority do more than signal in this session, in its remaining months, or will it take up jobs legislation? I think there's an increasing indication that they, the majority, do not want a jobs bill that will go anywhere.

I mentioned earlier the letter I wrote to the chairman of our committee. I mentioned in there six provisions clearly relating to jobs in America, the 48C Advanced Energy Manufacturing Credit that once had bipartisan support.

The production tax credit for wind power, the Republicans came before the Ways and Means Committee and said, Extend it. But, silence. The Build America Bonds program. It helped to create hundreds and thousands of jobs--$180 billion in infrastructure investment. The 100 percent bonus depreciation that both sides say they support. But nothing but inaction. The proposal by the President for a 10 percent income tax credit for small businesses that could create jobs, not the illusory statements mentioned here. And then the R&D tax credit that the chairman of this committee and I have championed for years--and all we do is have a hearing.

And so this bill raises starkly this issue: Does this majority want bills going nowhere, or will they do more than signal and act to help create jobs that the people of this country badly need. That's the real issue before us today.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill on the merits. I urge the majority to start saying ``yes'' to jobs bills for the people of the United States of America.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include tabular and extraneous material on H.R. 5882.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Ladies and gentlemen of the House, we bring before the House today the 2013 appropriations bill for the Legislative Subcommittee. This is a bill that spends $3.3 billion, which is approximately 1 percent less than last year. That's a $33.4 million reduction from last year.

I think all of us know that we are living in difficult economic times in this country. Taxpayers want to know that when they send their money to Washington it's being spent wisely. We also know that government needs money to provide services, but right now government needs something more. The government needs a sense of discipline to rein in spending. The government needs a commitment to make sure that every task of government is accomplished and completed in a most efficient and most effective manner, more so than ever before.

Our subcommittee took this philosophy to heart, and we had a series of hearings. We listened to the Agency heads as they came before us and talked about their needs, their wants, their priorities. We considered all of that and made some very difficult, some tough, but I think workable, decisions that allow us to move forward.

I would remind the Members that over the last two cycles we have reduced spending on the Legislative Branch Subcommittee funding bill by almost 8 percent, and after we finish this bill, we will have decreased spending by nearly 9 percent.

So let me just give you all a summary of the highlights of this bill.

First and foremost, we fund the House of Representatives at $1.2 billion. That's the same level as last year. It's the same level that was requested by the House of Representatives. When people say, ``Well, why didn't you reduce the House any further?'' I would remind Members that over the last two cycles we have reduced funding for our own House by 10.5 percent. The Members' office accounts--the so-called Members' Representational Accounts--are funded at last year's level. Once again, when people say, ``Why didn't you cut those again?'' I would remind Members that we have cut those. The appropriations have been reduced by 13.5 percent for the office accounts. That takes us back to 2008 levels, which is a substantial cut.

We have certainly led by example. We have tightened our belts. We have reined in spending, and I think we can be proud of that. We also have language that allows Members, if they don't spend all of their office account, they can reduce the national debt with their leftover funds.

The Capitol Police receive about a $20 million increase. That will allow them to reduce the backlog in training that they have. It will also alleviate some of the salary shortfalls, because this is a year where we have the two national conventions and we also have the inauguration.

The Congressional Budget Office receives a very slight increase to acquire some much-needed equipment.

The Architect of the Capitol, which we fund, actually receives the largest reduction, about a 10 percent reduction. The Architect brings to us a series of projects that he would like to see funded. We can't fund them all, but we give priority to those that deal with health and safety issues because so many people work in the Capitol complex, so many visitors come here every year.

This subcommittee was concerned about the fact that we don't have the money right now to continue the rehabilitation of the Capitol dome, that great symbol of freedom that we see every day. We have spent $19 million to begin that rehabilitation project, and it's about $100 million to finish that. I'm confident we'll find the money very shortly and complete that project.

If you look at the Library of Congress, they receive a very modest increase.

The Government Accountability Office, the so-called watchdog of this Congress, they receive a slight increase to allow them to add 21 new full-time equivalent personnel. That will allow them to continue to write the reports that they write that tell us whether we're spending the money wisely or not.

And I think it will allow them to continue to meet the ever- increasing demands that we, as Members, place on them.

The Government Printing Office receives a cut, again, for the third straight year. They're doing a much better job of dealing with binding and printing of the information that they provide for us.

So, in a nutshell, Mr. Chairman, that summarizes the bill. I want to be sure and say thank you to all the members of the subcommittee, both the Democrats and Republicans, for the work

that they put in to bring this bill before us today.

I want to say a special word of thanks to my colleague, Mr. Honda, the ranking member. I thank him for his bipartisan spirit as we work together to fund these agencies that we depend on every day.

And, finally, I certainly want to express the gratitude of all the members of the committee to our staff, both the Democratic side and the Republican side, for the tireless effort they put in to bring this bill before us.

So with that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JN12.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JN12.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JN12.003

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren), the chairman of the House Administration Committee.

I think this is a good bill. I think it has been adequately explained.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I know there is an amendment that is going to be offered by Mr. Gosar from Arizona, and I understand that he is just outside the Chamber at this very moment.

So I thought I would take a minute, while he comes to the floor, to just remind everyone of the great job that this subcommittee has done in working through all of the issues in order to bring them before the House. There are several amendments that are going to be offered here today, and we will certainly take those into consideration. From my standpoint, some of those amendments are good amendments, and there are some that I will oppose.

As we begin that process, I just want to, once again, thank everyone who has spent so much time and energy in bringing this to the House floor. In recognizing that this is the branch that funds the House of Representatives, which encompass all of the agencies that we look to to give us support, we wanted to make sure that they have adequate funds, because when they do a good job, it helps us to do a good job.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

In response to your question, I think it is in order, Mr. Dicks. I know that I, Mr. Honda, and you as well, Mr. Dicks, could strike the last word and make a comment or two if you'd like. Mr. Honda might want to say a word.

That's an excellent question. We ought to take a little time.

As you know, phase one is in process, and that's the skirt of the dome. You can see some of the work that's being done there. The next phase is much more expensive. I think it's a little over $100 million. As you know, we have an inauguration that's coming. So, during the inauguration, I would hope that we wouldn't have a lot of construction going on to impair the view of that beautiful dome. It is my desire that, as soon as the inauguration is over, we can find the funds, which is a priority of this subcommittee. We might even break that up into two or three phases, but certainly that work needs to be done.

As you have often pointed out, when you look up and see that magnificent structure, it looks wonderful. But when you get up close, there are some problems that we need to deal with. We want to deal with those as soon as we can, so I think it's just a matter of priority.

No, I don't think there is anything that makes it an emergency.

I think, clearly, like a lot of these projects that ought to be funded, the Architect has a long list of projects, and this is certainly one of those, so we want to be able to deal with that. It is a priority of this subcommittee, and we've talked about that. We want to make sure, as soon as we can, that we'll have the money to do that.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

One of the reasons we have committee structure is so that the members of the subcommittee that I chair--and Mr. Honda is the ranking member. As I said earlier, we sit down. We listen to the AGG heads and the Architect of the Capitol, which is in charge of the budget for the Botanic Garden. They make difficult choices. They come to us, and we make difficult choices.

As I've said, we have reduced spending in the Legislative Branch Subcommittee for 3 years in a row. We are now at a point where it is almost 9 percent less than it was 3 years ago. So if you just decide you want to stand up and cut another 10 percent of this budget and then say you really like the Botanic Garden, it seems to me that this is a function of the Architect of the Capitol.

It costs $12 million a year to have the Botanic Garden. A million people a year come to visit it and enjoy the beauty. If you're just going to stand up and say, Let's just cut 10 percent across the board, let's just start with the Botanic Garden, I don't know why you don't just cut 10 percent from the Capitol Police and 10 percent from some other areas. It just seems to be shortsighted.

We've gone through this process already. The Architect of the Capitol has said, I'm not going to ask for additional money to do some of the repairs I need to do. There's a need for a new roof and there's a need for some other things. They said, We're not going to ask for that because we're operating under the philosophy that we all believe here, that we ought to do more with less; we ought to try to do the best we can. So here we are.

I would just say that they're doing a good job. They're trying to control their costs. If we cut them any further, you really cripple them. You'll say to them that they can't have as many staff members, they'll have to close the Botanic Garden certain parts of the year. I think they've done a good job of managing their money. They have not asked for more dollars.

With that, I would urge Members to defeat this amendment, and I yield 2 minutes of my time in opposition to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I seek time in opposition, although I'm not necessarily opposed.

I want to say thank you to the gentleman for bringing this to the attention of the House and just from an informational standpoint make Members aware that in February this House passed what we call the Printing Resolution, which calls for the printing of the pocket Constitutions that he's talking about. The other body now has that piece of legislation. Like a lot of other pieces of legislation that that body finds itself in possession of, nothing has happened.

So I think it's appropriate for some of us to encourage the other body to take up the Printing Resolution, solve the problem. And, actually, I was told just this morning that I think the point of your amendment has actually had an impact because the other body, I am told, has indicated that they plan to move ahead with the Printing Resolution that we sent them earlier this year. So I think all in all, that's been positive.

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, I yield 2 minutes to Mr. Lungren, the chairman of the House Administration Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member, Mr. Honda.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 679, I call up the bill (H.R. 436) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the excise tax on medical devices, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 436.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I come to the floor today in support of H.R. 436, the Health Care Cost Reduction Act of 2012.

This bill would repeal two of the harmful tax hikes contained in the Democrats' health care law: the medical device tax and restrictions on using health-related savings accounts for over-the-counter medication.

The legislation also includes a provision that will increase flexibility for health care consumers who use flexible spending arrangements. All are fully paid for by recouping overpayments of taxpayer-funded subsidies used to purchase health care in the government-run exchanges. Notably, every one of these provisions has bipartisan support.

As a result of ObamaCare, beginning in 2013, a 2.3 percent tax will be imposed on the sale of medical devices by manufacturers or importers. This tax will increase the effective tax rate for many medical technology companies, threatening higher costs, job loss, and reduced investment here at home. One study predicts that as many as 43,000 American jobs are at risk if this goes into place.

A recent Washington Post piece by George Will reinforced the threat to job creation and investment, noting that Zimmer--based in Indiana-- is laying off 450 workers and taking a $50 million charge against earnings; Medtronic expects an annual charge against earnings of $175 million; and ZOLL Medical Corporation's CEO, Rich Packer, says the tax will impact the company's investment in research and development, stating that means fewer jobs for engineers. Plain and simple, this tax hike is a job killer, and it must be repealed. I commend committee member Erik Paulsen for introducing this legislation.

Another ObamaCare tax increase, the medicine-cabinet tax, imposes new restrictions on the purchase of over-the-counter medications through tax-advantaged accounts used to pay for health care-related needs. Because of the Democrats' health care law, patients must now get a prescription from a physician if they want to use these accounts to pay for over-the-counter medications. The ban affects everyday lives. It prevents a mom from using her FSA in the middle of the night to buy cough medicine for her sick child without a prescription. It also leaves doctors saddled with unnecessary appointments to get a prescription so that a parent can use their FSA to buy Claritin for their son's allergies.

One study estimates that even eliminating half of these unnecessary appointments could save patients time and the health care system more than 20 million visits each year, reaping a savings of more than $5 billion. These new restrictions must be repealed, and I'm happy that the provision introduced by committee member Lynn Jenkins is being considered today.

The last provision is a new approach that allows consumers the freedom and flexibility to keep more of their money. Under current law, employees' FSA balances must be spent by the end of the year or they will forfeit any unused balance back to their employers under the use- it-or-lose-it rule. Such a rule encourages wasteful and needless spending at the end of the year. This legislation would allow participants to cash out up to $500 in FSA balances, and those funds would be treated as regular taxable wages.

Allowing Americans to keep more of their hard-earned dollars in these difficult times is a commonsense goal that should be widely supported. This provision, championed by Dr. Boustany, is a commonsense one; and I urge its passage.

Finally, I would like to take just a moment to talk about the offset for this legislation, asking those who receive higher tax payer-funded premium subsidies than they are eligible to receive to repay all of the overpayment. Let me be clear: this is a bipartisan offset. Increasing the amount of overpayments to be repaid was a proposal first put forward by congressional Democrats in the 2010 Medicare doc-fix legislation which passed the Democrat-controlled House 409 2. Such an offset was used again when the House passed and the President signed the 1099 repeal last year and more than 70 Democrats supported that bill. In fact, Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius said:

Paying back subsidy overpayments makes it fairer for all

taxpayers.

This legislation, and the provisions included here, are supported by job creators big and small, patient advocates, senior organizations, and physician groups. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting these groups by voting for the Health Care Cost Reduction Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Paulsen of Minnesota.

I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins).

I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Boustany.

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Health Subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

At this time I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Reichert).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gerlach), a distinguished member of Ways and Means Committee.

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schock).

I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black).

At this time, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dold).

At this time, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Hurt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schilling).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers).

At this time we have no further speakers and are prepared to close, if the gentleman is prepared to close.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would just say to my friend from Michigan that we in the committee are in the process of reviewing all of the tax extenders. There's going to be about a hundred of them that expire at the end of the year, research and development being one of them--one I, obviously, have supported over the past.

Given our budget situation and given the record deficits run up by this administration, we're taking a close look at all of these provisions to make sure that they're justified, to make sure that they really bring economic benefits and jobs to this country, not just pass them along because that's what's been done in the past, but to really take our oversight responsibilities, review responsibilities seriously to make sure the things that we're doing are efficient, are effective, and really get to the core of how do we get this economy moving again.

We had the jobs numbers last Friday. They were abysmal. Clearly, the economic policies of this administration have been a failure. We're, obviously, trying to address some of the other policies of this administration that aren't going to work. And clearly, there are flaws in the health care bill. We've had bipartisan support to fix some of them, like repealing that onerous 1099 provision that would have put a wet blanket over all small businesses as they try to file paperwork on every expenditure over $600. It was a ridiculous provision. We had strong bipartisan support to repeal it. The President signed it. That is law.

We're now looking at today what we can do to improve other problems in this health care bill. One of them, clearly, is we need to help people save and allow them to afford the kinds of medications they need. For example, they tax over-the-counter medications by saying you can't use your tax-free savings account to buy cough syrup for your sick child.

So what's happening is many people are going to doctors. They're actually having to get a prescription so they can use their flexible spending account, the account that they have set aside to save for their medical needs. And don't we want parents to be able to try to find a least-cost alternative? If cough syrup will fix the problem that their child is having and meet their medical need, shouldn't we do that first, before going to the ER or before going to get a prescription? Again, what we want to do is keep parents in the driver's seat. Let them make the medical decisions that effect them and their children.

So we believe that it's so important that we allow over-the-counter medicines to be purchased out of an FSA. That is just a critical thing. And that has had strong bipartisan support.

The other issue is regarding medical devices. Clearly, taxing the medical devices is going to do one of two things. It's going to cost jobs. As Stryker Corporation in my home State of Michigan says, it's responsible for about a thousand layoffs as they try to plan for the future. Or, it's going to raise costs. Either one is a bad choice for those people who have medical needs that they need to meet.

And the last provision in this is, can people keep some of the money in their health care or flexible spending account if they don't have all their medical needs requiring the use of money out of that account? Can they save

some of it, or do they have to use it or lose it and buy extraneous things or things they don't really need. What this bill would do is say you can keep some of those dollars--up to $500. You would pay tax on it. And that means that if you've overestimated what your medical needs are, you can get some of those dollars back and use those. Again, it's your wages. You've put it in there. It's yours. You should be able to get it back.

I think these are all strong provisions. They've all had good bipartisan support, both for the substance of them as well as for the pay-for in the bill. That has had strong bipartisan support as well.

So I would urge support for this legislation. I do think it has a lot of support in the Senate as well, and I think we're going to see this legislation move forward. So I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.