To provide Israel a license exception to the Export Administration Regulations currently made available to 36 other nations.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 515, I call up the bill (H.R. 4015) to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to repeal the Medicare sustainable growth rate and improve Medicare payments for physicians and other professionals, and for other purposes to amend section 530D of title 28, United States Code, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous materials on H.R. 4015.

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

Mr. Speaker, the sustainable growth rate, or SGR, is the formula through which Medicare reimburses physicians. Since 2003, Congress has voted 17 times for temporary patches, or ``doc fixes,'' to avert ever larger cuts to providers.

The uncertainty of the SGR threatens doctors' ability to continue practicing medicine and accepting Medicare patients and endangers seniors' access to care.

Absent congressional action, providers face a 24 percent cut on April 1, 2014. To stave off this cut, we can either pass another ``patch'' and kick the can down the road again, or we can repeal this flawed formula for good.

Today's bill, H.R. 4015, firmly repeals the SGR and replaces it with payment reform policy that has been agreed upon by the bipartisan leaders of the Energy and Commerce, the Ways and Means, and Senate Finance Committees.

As chairman of the Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee, I have been working for the past 3 years on legislation to permanently repeal the SGR, and I am very pleased that on February 6, 2014, we reached a bipartisan, bicameral agreement, embodied in today's legislation.

Unfortunately, since then, Senate Majority Leader Reid has refused to negotiate with us on how to pay for this package. So we have brought forward H.R. 4015, which is fully paid for by delaying implementation of the individual mandate--a policy supported by both Republicans and Democrats.

The bill enjoys more than 100 cosponsors and the support of over 700 national and State provider and stakeholder groups. So I urge all of my colleagues to vote for H.R. 4015 to ensure that our seniors have access to the doctors they know and trust.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), one of the cochairs of the Doctors Caucus, who has contributed a great deal to accomplish this bipartisan agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire about how much time remains on each side?

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), a valuable member of the Health Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heck), another member of the Doctors Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, one of the chief architects of this bill.

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a letter from the Texas Medical Association in support of this legislation.

Texas Medical Association,

Austin, TX, March 13, 2014.

Hon. Michael C. Burgess, MD,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Burgess: On behalf of the 47,000-plus

physician and medical student members of the Texas Medical

Association, I am writing to reiterate our strong support for

the work you have done to effectuate the repeal of Medicare's

Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) formula. In conjunction with

your Texas colleague, Kevin Brady, you have gotten closer to

solving this challenging issue than ever before. And you have

done so with the support of every member of the Texas

delegation, both Democratic and Republican, on the Energy &

Commerce and Ways & Means Committees.

Perhaps more than anyone in Congress, you understand the

frustration and anxiety that the ongoing SGR uncertainty

creates for practicing physicians. You have worked tirelessly

to craft a piece of legislation that not only repeals the SGR

immediately, but also guarantees positive updates for

physicians for five years, removes potential causes of

liability against physicians, and eliminates some unnecessary

bureaucratic red tape that prevents physicians from

concentrating on patient care.

We especially appreciate your ongoing consultation and

dialogue with TMA and Texas physicians throughout this

process.

As you know well, the SGR Repeal and Medicare Provider

Payment Modernization Act of 2014 has made it this far

because of a bipartisan, bicameral agreement on the need to

replace the SGR. We are committed to helping you finish the

task.

Sincerely,

Stephen L. Brotherton, MD,

President.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon), another member of the Doctors Caucus.

May I inquire of the time remaining.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe), another cochair of the Doctors Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from North Carolina (Mrs. Ellmers), who is another important member of the Health Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the minority how many speakers they have left?

We have one more speaker. I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time then, Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas, Dr. Burgess, the prime sponsor of this legislation, who has worked tirelessly to achieve this day.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order and claim the time in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, to begin with, I would just like to acknowledge all the good work on both sides of the aisle in reaching the bipartisan policy agreement in the SGR, and especially want to thank our staff, Clay Alspach and Robert Horne and Chris Pope, and everyone on both sides of the aisle and their staff, for all the good work.

Mr. Speaker, this bill before us presents each and every Member of this body a simple choice: Do we patch Medicare, or do we fix it?

Do we choose to fight for the Medicare promise that this country has made to every American, or do we vote against it?

My friends, I am voting today to keep the Medicare promise to Americans. We must not let another opportunity to save Medicare for our seniors fall by the wayside.

If Washington is broken, today is an opportunity to fix it. The bill before us is bipartisan, and the pay-for is one President Obama has used himself many times in the past.

My colleagues, did you scream hypocrisy when President Obama delayed the mandate for special interests here in D.C.? Then why would you scream hypocrisy now?

The time for political games is over. It is time for Members of this body to choose. Are you on the side of seniors in your district that depend on Medicare, or are you against them? Are you on the side of younger Americans who keep telling us they are struggling under an ObamaCare plan that forces them to choose between groceries and health care? Are you for saving Medicare, or will you vote to let it go bankrupt?

What kind of country are we living in when our own government has reduced the American Dream to a choice between health care and groceries?

This motion to recommit embraces the tired gimmicks of yesterday that the public has grown to distrust. You have a clear choice. You either vote ``no'' and stand up for what is right, to give our seniors the peace of mind they deserve, or you can vote ``yes'' on this motion to recommit and demonstrate to the American public that political games are more important to you than their health and welfare.

I, for one, will be voting with seniors this morning, and I would encourage all of my colleagues to do the same.

Vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit.

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

Mr. Speaker, first I want to commend Republicans and Democrats for getting the policy right. This is a tough nut to crack. It was 51-0 in our committee, led by Joe Pitts, Dr. Burgess, the Doc Caucus, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Dingell, and Mr. Pallone. We worked long and hard to get the policy right, and we worked with the other committees to do it as well.

The difficulty we always knew was going to be on the pay-for. I would suggest this: we want to work with the Senate; we want to get this thing done; pay-for is the toughest part, but let's go to conference. Let's work with the Senate to get a pay-for that can work.

Now, we know that there is a deadline coming up at the end of this month. As we look to try and find a pay-for, let me go through some of the other delays that this administration has already done:

Individual mandate delay, Americans with canceled coverage due to ObamaCare; delayed.

Individual mandate, deadline for purchasing coverage; delayed.

Individual mandates for non-ACA compliant plans; delayed by the administration.

Annual limit requirement; delayed.

MLR requirement; delayed.

MA cuts through demo bonus money; delayed.

Employer reporting; delayed.

Employer mandate; delayed.

Subsidies only in State-run exchanges; delayed.

High-risk pool closure; delayed.

Out-of-pocket waiver for group health plans; delayed.

Verification of eligibility for exchange subsidies; delayed.

Reinsurance fee for some unions; delayed.

Nondiscrimination requirement for employer coverage; delayed.

Subsidies only through the exchange; delayed.

Shop employee choice delay; delayed

Shop online purchasing; delayed.

Numerous HealthCare.gov technical; delayed.

This was never ready for prime time. We have said that from the start. If the administration has decided to delay all these things, almost two dozen, why not delay this, too? And why not use the savings then not only to help the physicians, we have to think about the seniors.

This isn't just to help our physicians, it is to help the most vulnerable, our seniors, because if we don't reimburse our docs, the ``closed'' sign is going to come up where they go for services. They are going to be denied the coverage that they have paid taxes for, that they expect to have, and yet another broken promise will be there.

If the administration can delay these things, why don't we delay this? Why don't we use the savings then to pay for a program that works, and I would suggest that we vote for this. Let's work with the Senate to get it done.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to vote for a bill that would provide certainty and peace of mind to our nation's seniors and fairness for all Americans under the president's health care law. Repeal of the system of physician cuts under Medicare, or SGR, has been a problem that has plagued seniors, doctors, and Congress for well over a decade. These cuts have threatened access to our seniors' health care and the Medicare promise that our country has made to every American--both those in the program today and those who count on it as part of their future retirement.

Our purpose here today is Medicare reform so that we can keep the promise made to all seniors, current and future. The Medicare program is going insolvent, and Congress will need to act if we are to prevent bankruptcy. Today is one step toward keeping the Medicare promise. Many of us did roundtables with our doctors back home, I did so in Michigan, and we visited with countless seniors. We heard their concerns loud and clear and have acted.

H.R. 4015, the SGR Repeal and Medicare Provider Payment Modernization Act, is the product of years of bipartisan efforts to remove the threat of SGR. The legislation would once and for all repeal the broken SGR and replace it with a system that promotes the highest quality of care for seniors, eases the burden on physicians who are struggling under an increasing number of government programs that take time away from patients, and promotes new forms of health care delivery and innovation with an eye on the future.

We stand here today on the House floor in no small part because of our speaker, John Boehner, who charged the Energy and Commerce Committee to find a workable solution to get rid of SGR. This has been a long journey with many important players on both sides of the aisle, and in both chambers. I do want to commend Health Subcommittee Chairman Joe Pitts for helping lead the effort and the bill's sponsor Dr. Michael Burgess, for his tireless commitment from day one. We also would not be here without the efforts and support of the GOP Doctors Caucus--a group who understands all too well the threat that SGR has posed. And of course I appreciate our partnership with my good friend Dave Camp and the Ways and Means Committee.

While this is a significant milestone, the cost of SGR repeal is not insignificant. We have strived over the past few months to find common ground with the Senate to identify a way to pay for this agreement that both chambers can support. Time is not on our side as the current patch is set to expire at the end of this month. So today the House has chosen to act rather than stand idly by and is prepared to send a bill to the Senate with a bipartisan payfor: relief for individual Americans from the mandate that they purchase government-approved insurance.

The White House has already seen fit to delay many parts of the president's health care law, including the employer mandate. And it has also quietly delayed the individual mandate for the millions of Americans whose health care plans the law cancelled. If Senate Democratic colleagues don't want to afford individuals the same rights as special interests with a direct line to the president, then I would ask them to simply pass their own fully offset SGR package and let's go to conference to iron out our differences. But make no mistake, SGR must be paid for.

We have never come this far in finding a permanent solution. But there is still much work to be done after today's vote, and I call on my Chairman Ron Wyden to pick up the torch and work with Majority Leader Harry Reid to put politics aside, stand up for our seniors and doctors, and let's solve SGR this year.

I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 4015 and the millions of seniors who are watching us here today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in strong opposition to H.R. 4015, the SGR Repeal and Medicare Provider Payment Modernization Act of 2014 because of the passage of the Rule to this bill.

I am not alone in opposing this irresponsible measure. I am joined by AARP, Alliance for Retired Americans, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Geriatrics Society, American Osteopathic Association, Center for Medicare Advocacy, Inc., Families USA, Medicare Rights Center, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, National Association of Area Agencies on Aging, and the National Council on Aging.

I strongly support providing adequate compensation to our physicians who serve Medicare patients. Medicare patients in very state make up 10 percent or more of those who have health insurance.

Medicare patients and the medical payments made to their physicians and medical service providers is critical to our nation's health care economy.

It is important for our seniors to know that Medicare will be there when they need it. But it is equally important that there are physicians who are willing to attend to them without going broke.

That is why we have a Sustainable Growth Rate or ``SGR.'' Medicare reimbursement enables rural physicians and hospitals to remain open for business.

As with any business, medical clinics and physician offices have payrolls to meet, bills to pay, and expenses to meet as they become due. If revenues are not sufficient to cover costs, the business will not long survive.

Thus, it is critical that we not disrupt timely and adequate payment to Medicare providers, but that is exactly what will happen at the end of this month if the SGR is not approved by the House and the Senate and signed into law by President Obama.

The problem with H.R. 4015 is what happened when the Rule for this bill passed the House.

The rule for H.R. 4015 added language that would delay the Affordable Care Act's implementation of the individual mandate.

I oppose the bill for two reasons:

It corrupts what was a strongly supported bipartisan bill to sustain physician reimbursement rates for medical services approved under Medicare, and

It is another attempt by the Republicans to mislead the public regarding the Affordable Care Act.

I know that many predicted that the Affordable Care Act would cause havoc on the nation's health care system. But it is not the ACA that is causing havoc--it is the 50 desperate but futile attempts by the Tea Party to scuttle a law that has been passed by Congress, signed by the President, upheld by the Supreme Court.

The most threatening actions to our nation's healthcare system by Tea Party Republicans are their attacks on Medicare.

In 2014, according to the Kaiser Foundation 16 percent of the nation's people have medical insurance under Medicare:

Texas has 12 percent of its residents insured under Medicare;

Arkansas, Florida and Vermont have 19 percent of their residents insured under Medicare;

West Virginia and Maine have 21 percent of their residents insured under Medicare; and

Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Oregon have 18 percent of their residents insured under Medicare.

Every state has more than 10 percent of their residents insured by Medicare.

The uncertainly created by the majority regarding Medicare reimbursement over the last several years has forced physicians to reevaluate continuing their medical practice and frustrated hospitals working to make budget projections over several years into the future-- this is critical to business decision making.

Because of uncertainty created by Medicare physician reimbursement-- physicians and hospitals have been forced to close their offices, reduce services, or merge.

When patients find they cannot keep their physician or that their options for health care are being affected--it is not because of the Affordable Care Act.

Our nation has taken a momentous step in creating a mindset that good health is a personal responsibility with the enactment of the Affordable Care Act. The health care law did not automatically enroll all citizens into the program; it was specifically designed to be an opt-in process.

There are tens of thousands of visitors each day to the website and despite problems with the initial rollout of the online health insurance registration process, millions have enrolled and experience the peace of mind that comes from having affordable, high quality health insurance that is there when you need it.

So it is puzzling that with less than 70 legislative days remaining in the Second Session of the 113th Congress, we are still seeing attempts to end the Affordable Care Act.

It is very troubling that a bill critical to the provision of payments to physicians that treat Medicare patients is not safe from the partisan political games of the House of Republicans.

The House should be considering legislation to address the most pressing needs of the American people. Today, we should be debating legislation to extend emergency unemployment insurance benefits. The House should be debating a jobs creation bill to put Americans who are seeking employment back to work.

We know that for every person who gets a job--three others are still searching for employment.

This is another attempt to undermine the Affordable Care Act. Instead of trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act, House Republicans are now seeking ways to impede or frustrate its implementation.

After shutting down the federal government last year in an attempt to end the Affordable Care Act, they have resorted to their latest gimmick of attaching to a critically needed piece of legislation to make sure our nation's seniors continue to have access to physicians and hospitals an attempt to harm Obamacare.

I ask my colleagues to support Medicare patients and their physicians by rejecting the bill.

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

What is going on here? The Republicans are bringing up a totally partisan bill to thwart a bipartisan bill. They are tossing aside common ground for barren ground, another Affordable Care repeal vote. They are throwing out a historic bipartisan breakthrough to permanently end and replace the broken Medicare physician payment formula, once again turning to totally partisan politics.

The breakthrough achieved by our committees would permanently replace the deeply flawed SGR formula with a system designed to build on delivery system reform, reforms that move Medicare physician payments toward a more accountable value-driven system.

The underlying policy agreement is broadly supported by both provider communities and beneficiaries; but today's exercise is opposed by groups representing seniors, doctors, health plans, and others because it guts the Affordable Care Act through a 5-year delay to the individual mandate.

What would the result be? According to CBO and the Joint Task Committee, the Republican bill would increase the number of uninsured Americans by 13 million. What is more, the bill would raise individual market health insurance premiums by 10 to 20 percent for those who remain insured.

Last week, we saw the 50th vote. This is now the 51st vote to undermine the Affordable Care Act. So much for good faith and so much for good will.

Instead of working to find common ground to finish the job on a bipartisan solution vital to fixing a problem in our health care system, House Republicans are taking once again a cynical step in a very familiar direction, concerned only about the November election.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

I say to my colleague that what you are doing, essentially, is undercutting bipartisanship with pure partisan politics. Pointing to the Senate is pure mythology.

I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), the ranking member on the Health Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

I say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania that the problem is your bill is nothing but a political bill. It is nothing except about the November election--nothing but.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), an active, distinguished member of our committee.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), a member of our committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Nolan).

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

It is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Pelosi), our very distinguished leader.

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

I will place into the Record the following letters from American Health Insurance Plans, Blue Cross Blue Shield, the California Medical Association, from AFSCME, and also from the Alliance for Retired Americans. These are just a few of the examples of letters and communications from opponents.

You know, you can just boil this down to a few words. The Republicans are so intent on manipulating everything so that they think they can strengthen themselves for November that they put a poison pill into a bipartisan product, a product that we worked months to perfect.

So there is no shame. March is irrelevant; November seems to be everything.

This bill cannot become law. This is an effort simply of a political nature.

I very much urge you, at this last minute, rethink what you are doing. It is so transparent. It is so transparent.

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

March 11, 2014.

Hon. John Boehner,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

House Democratic Leader, House of Representatives

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Boehner and Leader Pelosi: On behalf of

America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) and the Blue Cross

Blue Shield Association (BCBSA), we are writing to express

our strong opposition to repealing or delaying the Affordable

Care Act's (ACA) individual mandate as part of the Medicare

physician payment reform bill.

Our members believe it is critically important to modernize

the Medicare physician payment system to promote improvements

in quality, value, and patient outcomes. However, we have

deep concerns about packaging the Medicare physician payment

bill with legislation that would sever the link between the

ACA's individual mandate and its market reforms. The

experience of states that attempted this in the 1990s

demonstrates that removing this important linkage will result

in more uninsured Americans, higher costs, and reduced

choices for individuals and families. To avoid these

outcomes, we are asking Congress to reject efforts to repeal

or delay the individual mandate in the debate on Medicare

physician payment reform.

Thank you for considering our views on these important

issues.

Sincerely,

Karen Ignagni,

President and CEO,

America's Health Insurance Plans.

Scott P. Serota,

President and CEO,

BlueCross BlueShield Association.

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

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

Enough really is enough. The unfair way Medicare pays our local doctors to treat our seniors has gone on for far too long.

It is making it harder for seniors to see a doctor they know and who knows them. It is chasing local doctors out of Medicare and out of private practice, and it is encouraging too much waste and too many unnecessary procedures within Medicare.

As chairman of the Health Subcommittee of Ways and Means, my top priority has been to find a permanent, reliable 21st century solution that both political parties and physicians can embrace.

H.R. 4015 repeals the current flawed formula for reimbursing our doctors, and it ends the yearly threat of massive cuts.

In working with America's physicians, it establishes a more patient- centered approach that provides stability to our doctors, rewards them for high-quality care, begins to streamline the red tape our physicians face, and encourages better coordination and prevention. Over time, it transitions to a model that rewards value over volume by using the real-life approaches that doctors use, not what Washington wants.

H.R. 4015 is a solid foundation from which to build an even better Medicare system, and it has overwhelming support from physicians. This is a major step forward, but we need to finish the job. We need to work together--Republicans and Democrats, the House and the Senate--to figure out how to make this policy a reality in a way that doesn't increase the deficit.

There may be disagreements over how to pay for this reform. That is understandable as it is difficult, and today's bill is not the last word. Let's continue to advance this long overdue solution and commit to finding a bipartisan solution between the House and the Senate. The clock is ticking, so let's act together today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), a physician and a key member of the Ways and Means Committee. I cannot describe how much of an important role he has played in finding this new solution to how we reimburse doctors under Medicare.

Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), a gentleman who is one of the newest members of the Ways and Means Committee. He is a businessman, but he is a real fighter for Pennsylvania's seniors and doctors.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed), one of our key members of the Ways and Means Committee, who has brought the concerns of New York doctors to our attention.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.

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

First, I want to commend and thank our Democrat colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee and the staff for working so hard, along with Energy and Commerce and the Finance Committee in the Senate, to find a good, solid solution. I think we have made a big step forward. We have got some work to do. I know we can do it.

I went to see my doctor the other week. He is 66 years old, looks like he is 46; kind of makes me mad. But he has got a successful practice, a very good doctor.

He told me he would like to keep practicing for another 5 or 6 years, and he said: But Kevin, I am not going to. This will probably be my last year. Medicare has just made it too hard for him to stay this practice.

As I left the examining room, I looked at his assistant who has been with him 30-some years, all his professional staff, a full waiting room, and I thought, what are we doing chasing a doctor like this out of practice early? Who is going to replace him? Who is going to take care of these people?

He is not alone. In Texas, less than half of Texas family physicians take new Medicare patients. Many of them are rethinking their relationship with Medicare. Others are closing their private practices. So more and more seniors are chasing fewer and fewer doctors, and that is the dilemma we face today.

Maybe I am an optimist, but I think we are 90 percent of the way toward solving this solution. We have broad support for this policy and this bill.

We have a duty to make sure our seniors have access to their doctors, and Democrats and Republicans have been putting in a lot of work to solve this problem. Yeah, we have some work to do.

Now is the time to permanently fix the way we reimburse our doctors. As we move forward, let's work in a bipartisan way, across the Chambers, across the parties to get it done. I am absolutely confident we can do that.

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