Hydropower Policy Modernization Act of 2017

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3043, the Hydropower Policy Modernization Act of 2017.

Mr. Chairman, while Members on both sides of the aisle support hydropower, unfortunately, the bill before us today is deeply flawed and will not modernize or improve the hydropower licensing process. Instead, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3043 would place private profits above the public interest by giving priority of our public waterways to industry in order to generate power and profits over and above the rights and the interests of Native Tribes or farmers or fishermen, boaters, and other stakeholders who also rely on these public rivers and streams.

Mr. Chairman, it is very important for us to remember that hydroelectric licenses can span between 30 and 50 years, and, under existing law, a license holder can be granted automatic yearly extensions in perpetuity without even having to reapply.

Mr. Chairman, this issue is far too important for us not to get it right this time. And what does H.R. 3043 actually do?

This bill will make the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, the lead agency over the licensing process and will require Native Tribes, the States, and other Federal resource agencies to pay deference to the Commission, even in areas where FERC has absolutely no expertise or statutory authority, including on issues regarding agricultural water use, drinking water protection, fisheries management, and recreational river use. How absurd, Mr. Chairman.

Additionally, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3043 would expand and alter the trial-type hearing provisions on the Federal Power Act, essentially rigging the process in favor of industry by providing multiple new entry points to challenge conditions designed by Federal resource agencies.

Mr. Chairman, the threat of these timely and costly hearings may be used to coerce agencies to propose weaker conditions, and, at the same time, this bill also shifts the venue for these hearings to FERC, which is another very obvious handout and handover to industry.

Mr. Chairman, in testimony before the Energy and Commerce Committee, we heard, repeatedly, that a major

cause for licensing delays was due to incomplete applications that do not include all the pertinent information that is necessary to issue a decision.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3043 does nothing, absolutely nothing, to address this very, very serious issue. In fact, this bill will implement strict timelines on Federal resource agencies, States, and Tribes, but does not require applicants to submit all of their information to these agencies before the clock actually starts ticking.

Mr. Chairman, FERC, itself, the very agency that will be charged with implementing this grossly bad bill, FERC, itself, disputed claims that this bill would streamline the licensing process, noting that the legislation ``could increase the complexity and the length of the licensing process.'' These are FERC's words, FERC's words before the committee.

Mr. Chairman, we cannot allow hydropower facilities to claim a monopoly over our public waterways without mitigating the negative impacts of these facilities on others who rely on these resources and without, at the same time, without complying with modern environmental laws.

H.R. 3043, Mr. Chairman, is opposed by States, opposed by the Native Tribes, opposed by the outdoor recreation industry and by more than 150 national and local environmental organizations.

Mr. Chairman, it is for all of these reasons that I, too, stand in concert and side by side with Native Tribes, the outdoor recreation industry, and the other 150 national and local environmental organizations. It is for these reasons that I, too, must oppose this bill, and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), from the State that made such a significant and giant step last night to making our Nation a better nation, the ranking member of the full committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes), a very important member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ruiz).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining on both sides.

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

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record letters from Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, Puyallup Tribe of Indians, Snoqualmie Tribe, Skokomish Indian Tribe, and a copy of the resolution passed in October 2017 by The National Congress of American Indians opposing the proposed amendments to the Federal Power Act.

Confederated Tribes and

Bands of the Yakama Nation,

Toppenish, WA, November 7, 2017.

Re Hydro legislation still bad for Indian Tribes, States and

Users of Public Waterways.

Hon. Paul Ryan, Speaker,

Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Minority Leader,

Honorable Members of the House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Ryan, Minority Leader Pelosi and Honorable

Members of Congress: Yesterday, when the Rules Committee

discussed HR 3043, the Hydropower Policy Modernization Act of

2017, a number of members of the committee including Chairman

Sessions, Congressman Cole, Congressman Newhouse, Congressman

McGovern, Congresswoman Cheney as well as the Chairman Walden

and Ranking Subcommittee Member Rush (who were testifying),

all stressed the importance of ensuring that Indian tribes

have their treaty rights and natural resources protected by

any actions of the Congress relative to hydropower reform. We

greatly appreciate the concerns of these members and the

amount of time they spent discussing tribes and dam

relicensing. I think many of them were aware of the degree to

which the placement of dams has negatively affected a number

of reservations, flooding some and damaging salmon runs at

others. While there was universal agreement that the rights

of tribes and states must be protected, there was not

agreement on whether HR 3043 accomplishes that laudable

intent. I must tell you that the bill does not do so.

First understand what the Federal Power Act (FPA) now says.

Under provisions that have been in effect for decades,

state governments, pursuant to the Clean Water Act, are able

to set water quality standards at hydro dams. Such conditions

are mandatory. Allowing states to establish water quality

standards, a key aspect of Federalism that many in Congress

have always fought for, was a lynchpin of the grand bargain

reached when the Clean Water Act became law. While Federalism

has not really benefitted Indian tribes, we are surprised

that the Congress would weaken the ability of states to

protect the public in this fashion. We hope you will read

what many states have said in letters to the Committee, i.e.,

HR 3043 weakens their ability to ensure their standards are

met during the licensing process. Letters of this nature have

come from entities as varied as the Western Governors

Association and the Southern States Energy Board.

Also under the longstanding language of Section 4(e) of the

FPA, Cabinet Secretaries with authority over ``federal

reservations'' are directed to ensure that a proposed hydro

project doesn't negatively affect a reservation or interfere

with its congressionally designated use. These include all

lands and marine reserves in the Federal estate from Indian

reservations, to National Forests to Wildlife Refuges.

Section 18 of the FPA deals with the establishment or

modification of fishways to ensure fish can pass over these

dams. The Secretaries of Commerce (for NMFS) and Interior

(for USFWS) deal with fish passage and the Secretaries of

Interior (for BIA, BLM, USFWS and NPS) and Agriculture (for

USFS) deal with protecting federal reservations. They have

the authority to propose mandatory conditions on hydro dams

to ensure their operation protects these federal resources

that belong to all Americans.

The legislation weakens the conditioning authority for

protecting state water quality, for fishways and for federal

reservations by transferring significant decision-making

authority to FERC. Under the bill, FERC and the license

applicant can challenge the necessity of a condition and have

that challenge heard via a trial-type hearing only at FERC

before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) at that agency.

Under present law, decisions such as these are heard by ALJs

in the agency making the recommendation, where the expertise

resides. This provision in the bill is legislating forum

shopping and directing that the decision be made before an

entity whose expertise is in areas such as energy markets and

safety at power plants. FERC and its ALJs have no expertise

relative to Indian treaty rights or the Federal Land Policy

and Management Act among many bedrock laws and FERC testified

before the Committee that they do not want to be given this

newfound authority. While having trial-type hearings at FERC

and authorizing FERC to set all manner of schedules in the

permitting process will certainly create countless billable

hours for attorneys representing license applicants, it will

do nothing to protect the interest of Indian tribes or the

public at large, and as stated above, is directly contrary to

state authority under the Clean Water Act and Secretarial

authority now found in the Federal Power Act.

Yesterday we heard that this process will expedite

licensing but if that is the goal then wouldn't it make sense

to determine when an application for a license is complete?

Tribes repeatedly asked the hydropower industry to clarify

that matter in the bill but they refused. Why? Existing

hydropower dam licenses were issued decades ago before any

environmental statutes were on the books and many of those

dams are fish killers. Under the present law, when a license

expires the operator can automatically get annual extensions

allowing it to operate under 30-50 year old standards. These

extensions can go on for year after year with the operator

not having to spend any money to mitigate the damage to fish

or other resources. This is more than ironic considering that

the hydropower industry is telling Congress that they need

the legislation to ensure certainty and time frames in the

relicensing process. Additionally, the bill is drafted in

such a fashion that FERC can set schedules that are so

abbreviated that Tribes, Cabinet Secretaries or States who

wish to comment and perhaps undertake a fishery study when

necessary may not have the time to properly prepare suggested

or mandatory operating conditions. It is noteworthy that FERC

told the Committee that they don't see the legislation

actually streamlining the application process. Also, we

checked today and could find no tribes in support of this

bill.

We believe the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute

(AINS) incorporates much of what the majority proposed in HR

3043 while incorporating many changes that are reflective of

the input that the Committee received from states and tribes

who took the time to relay views and concerns to the

Committee. A key part is the requirement for a negotiated

rule-making to improve and expedite the hydro licensing

process by bringing in states, local governments,

stakeholders and tribes to FERC to develop a process that

will enable FERC to make decisions on license applications

within a maximum of three years. We urge you to vote for the

AINS. Without such changes it is highly unlikely that the

bill will make it through the Senate. Thank you for

considering our views.

Sincerely,

Jode L. Goudy,

Tribal Council Chairman.

Mr. Chair, the substitute amendment that we will consider shortly provides Indian Tribes with authority to speak for themselves with respect to the hydropower licensing process.

Currently, Mr. Chair, the agencies of the Departments of the Interior and Commerce proposed conditions to protect Tribal reservations. If the substitute is enacted, Tribes that have sufficient capacity can assume responsibility for protecting their own reservations.

The Tribal authority provision is absolutely very important and long overdue. As sovereign entities, Tribes have a status different from that of States and Federal agencies. They should be negotiating on their own behalf to protect their own interests.

Mr. Chair, hydropower projects, a number of which were designed and built over the objections of Tribes, resulted in devastating losses of Tribal lands and fisheries.

We can and must do better. Hydropower projects can be designed, upgraded, and operated in ways that lower the environmental costs and preserve other important uses of the river.

Current law and current regulations already provide for consultation with Tribes. In fact, under the integrated license process, applicants are required to consult with Tribes 5 years before the current license expires if they plan to seek a renewed license.

The integrated license process was designed specifically for the more complex, controversial hydropower projects, either new projects or relicensing of existing projects.

Mr. Chair, many applicants, however, request and are allowed to pursue their license under the traditional license process that includes less opportunity for consultation. FERC should be denying some of these requests, but each and every one of them are granted by FERC.

When this happens, controversial projects run into predictable problems that bog down the license process. This is an administrative change that FERC could make that would require no new legislation and would improve the license process.

Mr. Chair, this bill does nothing--absolutely nothing--to speed up this problem or fix the process that we have been discussing.

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

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record letters from: Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, California State Water Resources Control Board, Western Governors' Association, State of Washington Department of Ecology, Environmental Council of the States, and Association of State Wetland Managers.

State of Vermont,

Agency of Natural Resources,

Montpelier, VT, September 12, 2017.

Re Comments in Opposition to Hydropower Policy Modernization

Act of 2017, H.R. 3043.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Ryan and Minority Leader Pelosi: The Vermont

Agency of Natural Resources (VTANR) would like to express

strong concerns over the proposed Hydropower Policy

Modernization Act of 2017, H.R. 3043. While VTANR supports

efforts to improve and streamline current hydroelectric

licensing processes, the Agency strongly opposes legislative

efforts to diminish States' ability to protect water quality.

Several provisions of H.R. 3043 would essential curtail the

State authority under Section 401 of the

federal Clean Water Act, effectively constraining State

agencies' ability to use their independent authority to set

license conditions, making it more difficult to protect

natural resources.

VTANR strenuously opposes provisions of H.R. 3043 that

eliminate or reduce States' delegated authority under Section

401 of the federal Clean Water Act to develop mandatory

licensing conditions protective of natural resources. State

agencies serve an essential role in the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission (FERC) licensing process for

hydroelectric facilities. H.R. 3043 would designate FERC as

the lead agency over federal authorizations related to

applications of hydroelectric projects for a license, license

amendment, or exemptions. As the lead agency, FERC would

establish and control the timeline for licensing review and

process for hydroelectric projects. H.R. 3043 appears to give

FERC the authority to create a schedule reducing the time a

State would have to get necessary scientific studies

completed and reviewed to determine specific conditions

needed to protect water quality, as required under Section

401 of the federal Clean Water Act. This would effectively

permit FERC to license a facility before a thorough review of

the environmental impacts could be completed. Vermont uses

its Section 401 authority to issue water quality

certifications with conditions to ensure projects are built

and operated in a manner consistent with State environmental

laws and protective of the environment and public health.

In addition, a provision of H.R. 3043 provides applicants

with an opportunity to a trial-type hearing before a FERC

Administrative Law Judge whenever there is a dispute of

material fact. Under the provisions of H.R. 3043, the

decision of the FERC Administrative Law Judge would be final

and not subject to further administrative review. Currently,

conditions included in a Section 401 water quality

certification become mandatory license conditions and cannot

be altered or modified by FERC. Further matters of material

facts related to Section 401 water quality certifications for

hydroelectric facilities are heard at the State level by

courts or boards that are familiar with a State's water

quality standards and other environmental laws. The allowance

for the trial-type hearing before FERC could undermine the

States' authority granted under Section 401, making it more

challenging to protect water quality and natural resources.

Through decades of decisions, federal courts have affirmed

the authority of States to impose conditions in federal

licenses issued to hydroelectric projects under Section 401

of the Clean Water Act. These decisions recognize that States

have the primary responsibility to ensure State water quality

standards and other environmental laws are met. H.R. 3043

would undermine this authority by including a provision that

would allow FERC to seek resolution between it and States at

the federal level, elevating the dispute to the secretary

overseeing the federal statute. In the case of the federal

Clean Water Act, H.R. 3043 appears to allow FERC to negotiate

with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency

or Secretary of Army, who are responsible for Clean Water Act

on the federal level, to settle a dispute with between it and

a state, effectively cutting States out of the process.

Vermont's interest in protecting natural resources is as

important and relevant today as ever, particularly because a

large number of hydroelectric facilities in Vermont are

slated to begin the federal relicensing process over the next

five years. FERC issues licenses to hydroelectric projects

for a term of 30 to 50 years. As such, many of the projects

scheduled for relicensing will likely need significant

changes in operations to meet modern water quality standards

and to restore State water resources from impacts of project

operations. As drafted, H.R. 3043 would reduce VTANR

delegated authority under Section 401 of the federal Clean

Water Act, creating ways for project operators to circumvent

state regulations during the licensing process to allow them

to operate in a manner that would continue to degrade the

environment and resources of the State.

VTANR recognizes the importance of hydroelectric generation

in meeting renewable energy goals. We urge you to consider

how the federal process can be improved without undermining

the very checks and balances that have helped hydroelectric

generation be viewed as a sustainable and renewable energy

source.

We appreciate your consideration of these comments on H.R.

3043 and look forward to solutions that improve our energy

security and infrastructure while protecting the environment.

Sincerely,

Julia S. Moore, P.E.,

Secretary.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record letters in opposition to H.R. 3043 from environmental, recreation, fisheries, and conservation groups from across the country along with the list of groups that have signed these letters.

Environmental, Fisheries, Recreation, and Conservation Organizations in

Opposition to H.R. 3043

Alabama Rivers Alliance; Alaska Survival; All Outdoors;

Alliance for the Great Lakes; Alpine Lakes Protection

Society; Altamaha Riverkeeper; American Packrafting

Association; American Rivers; American Whitewater; Anacostia

Watershed Society; Anglers of the Au Sable; Animal Welfare

Institute; Apalachicola Riverkeeper; Appalachian Mountain

Club; Association of Northwest Steelheaders; Atlantic Salmon

Federation; Black Warrior Riverkeeper; California Hydropower

Reform Coalition; California Outdoors; California River

Watch; California Sportfishing Protection Alliance;

California Trout; Cascadia Wildlands; Catawba Riverkeeper;

Center for Biological Diversity.

Center for Environmental Law and Policy; Central Sierra

Environmental Resource Center; Clean Water Action; Coastal

Conservation League; Colorado River Water keeper Network;

Columbiana; Congaree Riverkeeper; Connecticut River

Conservancy; Conservation Law Foundation; Conservation

Northwest; Conservatives for Responsible Stewardship; Coosa

Riverkeeper; Crab Apple Whitewater Defenders of Wildlife;

Deschutes River Alliance; Downeast Salmon Federation;

Earth Design; Earthjustice; Earthworks; Endangered

Habitats League; Endangered Species Coalition;

Environmental Protection Information Center (EPIC);

Foothill Conservancy; Foothills Paddling Club; Foothills

Water Network; Friends of Butte Creek.

Friends of Cooper Landing; Friends of Grays Harbor; Friends

of Kenai National Wildlife Refuge; Friends of the Kinni;

Friends of Merrymeeting Bay; Friends of the Crooked River;

Friends of the Eel River; Friends of the River; Friends of

the White Salmon River; Golden West Women Flyfishers; Grand

Canyon Trust; Grand Riverkeeper Labrador; Great Lakes Council

Fly Fishers; Green Latinos; Hells Canyon Preservation

Council; High Country Conservation Advocates; Holy Spirit

Missionary Sisters; Huron River Watershed Council; Hydropower

Reform Coalition; Idaho Rivers United; Illinois Council of

Trout Unlimited; Institute for Fisheries Resources; James

River Association; Kalmiopsis Audubon Society; Kenai River

Watershed Foundation.

Klamath Forest Alliance; Klamath Riverkeeper; Klamath-

Siskiyou Wildlands Center; Kootenai Environmental Alliance;

League of Conservation Voters; Lower Columbia Canoe Club;

Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper Association; Maine Rivers;

Michigan Environmental Council; Michigan Hydro Relicensing

Coalition; Middle Susquehanna Riverkeeper; Milwaukee

Riverkeeper; Mono Lake Committee; Mousam and Kennebunk Rivers

Alliance; National Heritage Institute; National Park

Conservation Association; National Wildlife Federation;

Native Fish Society; Natural Heritage Institute; Natural

Resources Defense Council; Natural Resources Council of

Maine; Naturaland Trust; Nature Abounds; Naugatuck River

Revivial Group.

New England FLOW; New Hampshire Rivers Council; North

Cascades Conservation Council; Northwest Environmental

Advocates; Northwest Guides and Anglers Association;

Northwest Resources Information Center; Olympic Forest

Coalition; Oregon Kayak and Canoe Club; Outdoor Alliance;

Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations; Pacific

Rivers; Penobscot Paddle and Chowder Society; Planning and

Conservation League; Potomac Riverkeeper; Prairie Rivers

Network; Prince William Soundkeeper; Quartz Creek Homeowners'

Association; Religious Coalition for the Great Lakes; River

Alliance of Wisconsin; River Guardian Foundation; River

Network; Riverkeeper Network.

Rogue Riverkeeper; San Juan Citizens Alliance; Save Our

Saluda; Save Our Wild Salmon; Save the Colorado; Selkirk

Conservation Alliance; Smith River Alliance; Snake River

Waterkeeper; South Carolina Native Plant Society; Southern

Environmental Law Center; South Yuba River Citizens League;

Spartanburg Area Conservancy; Spearfish Canyon Society;

Spokane Riverkeeper; St. Mary's River Watershed Association;

Tennessee Clean Water Network; The Lands Council; The

Mountaineers.

The Roanoke River Basin Association; The Sierra Club;

Tributary Whitewater Tours, LLC; Trout Unlimited; Tuolumne

River Trust; Upstate Forever; Washington Environmental Law

Center (see Western Environmental Law Center); Washington

Wild; Waterkeeper Alliance; Waterkeepers Chesapeake;

WaterWatch of Oregon; WESPAC Foundation; West Michigan

Hacklers; Western Environmental Law Center; Wild Earth

Guardians; Wild Washington Rivers; Yadkin Riverkeeper; Zoar

Valley Paddling Club.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chair, the minority side is prepared to accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the minority is prepared to accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the minority is prepared to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record letters of opposition to H.R. 3043.

Kalispel Tribe of Indians,

Usk, WA, November 8, 2017.

Re Opposition to H.R. 3043, the Hydropower Policy

Modernization Acts.

Hon. Greg Walden,

Chairman, House Energy and Commerce Committee, Washington,

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Rush amendment in the nature of a substitute, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it as well.

Mr. Chairman, hydropower is backed by Members on both sides of the aisle. We all support hydropower, but the process for how we license these projects is far too important for us to get it wrong.

While many Members on the minority side have objections to the underlying bill, H.R. 3043, due to its negative impact on States' rights and States' prerogatives under the Clean Water Act, my substitute amendment addresses these issues in a more responsible way.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3043 will not modernize or improve the hydropower licensing process, but, rather, it simply places private profits for industry over the public interest.

Mr. Chairman, we certainly need a more balanced approach, such as the one provided in my substitute amendment, which contains bipartisan provisions that were included in the hydropower package that both sides agreed to in a fit of bipartisanship last December in committee.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment contains several provisions to improve the licensing process while also offering incentives to the hydropower industry.

This substitute contains a requirement to set up a new licensing process, but, unlike H.R. 3043, it protects the rights of Federal resource agencies, States, and Indian Tribes to impose conditions in accordance with modern environmental laws.

My substitute also amends the definition of renewable energy to include all hydropower, just as H.R. 3043 does; however, it expands the goals for Federal purchasing of renewable power beyond the 15 percent included in H.R. 3043 as an objective, not a mandate.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment also contains a ``reward for early action'' provision that authorizes FERC to take into account a licensee's investments made over the course of their license in order to improve the efficiency or environmental performance of their hydropower facility when setting the term of their new license.

Mr. Chairman, in testimony before the Energy and Commerce Committee, we heard, repeatedly, that a major cause for licensing delays was due to incomplete applications that do not include all the pertinent information necessary to issue a decision.

While H.R. 3043 does nothing to address this issue, my substitute does so by directing FERC and other Federal resource agencies to convene a negotiating rulemaking with all the stakeholders to develop a process in which a completed license application will be evaluated and issued or denied within a period of not more than 3 years.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment preserves States' and Tribal authorities by directing FERC and the Secretary of the Interior to issue guidance on best practices for engagement with Indian Tribes in the hydropower licensing process.

Mr. Chairman, we cannot allow industry profits to supersede the interests of Native Tribes, States, and other important stakeholders.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule, which provides for consideration of two deeply flawed pieces of legislation.

H.R. 3043, the Hydropower Policy Modernization Act of 2017, is yet another attempt by this Republican majority to prioritize corporate profits over ensuring people have access to safe and clean drinking water.

This bill would not only threaten our clean water, it would also undermine States' rights and Tribal rights by prioritizing power generation above all else when deciding whether to grant or extend a license to operate a hydropower project.

Simply put, this bill puts profits ahead of the public interest. By giving a rubber stamp commission more power than other expert agencies, the bill rigs the process in favor of power producers at the expense of States, Tribes, and our environment.

This bill prioritizes profits over clean water and healthy fisheries and should be strongly defeated. Protecting our families and our environment should always be our first priority.

In another giveaway to corporate interests, House Republicans are also bringing to the floor this week H.R. 3441, the so-called Save Local Business Act, under the false claim that it eliminates uncertainty for workers and protects small businesses.

The truth is a very different story, Mr. Speaker. Joint employment standards ensure workers can hold employers accountable for violating wage and hour laws, child labor, or refusing to collectively bargain. This bill represents a significant and dangerous break from that standard and would undermine the rights of American workers.

This legislation rewards companies that rent employees from staffing agencies instead of hiring them directly, and allows them to evade responsibility for upholding the rights of those employees, even though they profit from their work.

This bill is not about helping workers or small businesses. This is all about giving powerful companies even more power over their employees.

But, Mr. Speaker, what is just as troubling as the content of the underlying bills is the process Speaker Ryan and his Republican leadership team routinely use to call up this terrible legislation.

Today we are considering the 49th completely closed rule of the 115th Congress. That is right. Today House Republicans are breaking their own record for the most closed session of Congress in history. It is astounding. This is something you would celebrate in Putin's Russia, not here in the United States.

Since he first took the gavel in 2015, Speaker Ryan has continue to shamelessly break his promise to allow a fair and open legislative process here in this House.

In Speaker Ryan's first speech as Speaker in October of 2015, he said: ``We need to let every Member contribute. . . . Open up the process. Let people participate. A neglected minority will gum up the works. A respected minority will work in good faith. Instead of trying to stop the majority, they might try to become the majority.''

Speaker Ryan and I disagree on a great many issues, but I strongly agree with what he said in that 2015 speech. We do need to let every Member contribute and open up the process here in the House. We do need the majority party to respect the minority party so we can actually work together on bipartisan solutions.

But in the 2 years since Speaker Ryan took the gavel, he has, sadly, failed to deliver on his commitment to open up the legislative process. Things have only gotten worse. In fact, Speaker Ryan is the only Speaker who has not allowed a truly open rule to give Members the opportunity and the chance to do what their constituents sent them here to do and to offer different perspectives and ideas on how to improve legislation.

With each new closed rule they bring to the floor, shutting out amendments from both Democrats and Republicans, the cynical hypocrisy grows louder and louder. Instead of the people's House, this has, sadly, become ``only the people who agree with Paul Ryan's House.''

I guess my question for the Speaker would be: Did you mean any of what you said? Did you forget all those promises you made? Or did you have absolutely no intention of keeping those promises once you were in power?''

Every single Member of this House of Representatives was elected to represent the people of their district, but

we cannot do that if the party in the majority blatantly uses strong- arm tactics like these that prevent us from doing our jobs.

In 2015, Speaker Ryan also said: ``We need to return to regular order. We are the body closest to the people. Every 2 years, we face the voters. . . . We represent them. We are supposed to study up and do the homework that they cannot do. So when we do not follow regular order--when we rush to pass bills a lot of us do not understand--we are not doing our job. Only a fully functioning House can truly represent the people.''

Where do I begin?

Literally just a few months ago, Speaker Ryan and the Republican leaders of this House were recklessly steamrolling their healthcare bill to the House floor without holding anything close to the number of hearings that we held when the Affordable Care Act was passed.

Instead, they led a haphazard process where the bill was drafted in secret behind closed doors--locked doors--without any input from rank and file Members of Congress and the American people. Mr. Speaker, that is not regular order. That is unconscionable. That disrespects this House.

Today, when asked by a reporter about this record-breaking closed process, Speaker Ryan responded: ``Absolutely we have an open process.''

Really?

Let's review his record this Congress: Zero open rules--zero. Forty- nine completely closed rules.

Open process?

Open process my foot, Mr. Speaker.

I guess in the age of Donald Trump, words simply don't matter anymore. Black is white, up is down, open is closed, and politicians can say whatever they think sounds good and they think they can get away with it--facts be damned.

If Speaker Ryan were serious about a fair and open process, he would not turn this House into a rubber stamp for Donald Trump. He would let us be the independent voice the people of our districts elected us to be. He would not routinely shut out the voices of Democrats and Republicans. He would let this House actually debate the serious legislation and issues that come before us.

With one closed rule after another on each bill that comes to the floor, Speaker Ryan has completely shut out both Democrats and rank- and-file Republicans, routinely blocking amendments we offer.

This is not how the Congress is supposed to work. Our constituents deserve a Congress that actually debates the bills that will affect their lives. They deserve better.

I refuse to sit by while the Republican leadership makes a mockery of this House. American voices will not be silenced.

The Speaker may grant promises of openness, inclusiveness, and regular order, but we just lived through the most closed year in the history of this institution, and the year isn't even over yet, Mr. Speaker.

Republicans ought to remember that they will not always be in the majority. I don't think a Democratic majority could be this bad on basic process, even if we tried. But any Member who votes for this record-breaking closed rule today had better not have crocodile tears for regular order and openness when they find themselves in the minority some day in the future. Anyone who supports 49 closed rules and zero open rules in a single year loses all credibility on the issue of openness.

My Republican friends should be ashamed--ashamed--of diminishing this House and diminishing its Members and their thoughtful ideas. I urge Democrats and Republicans to take a stand and vote ``no'' on this closed rule.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thought I had heard everything. The gentleman from Alabama got up and said how proud he is of the Rules Committee and of the process in this House. Oh, my God. The fact that the gentleman would get up and say that with a straight face, you take my breath away. It is unbelievable.

Today, we are considering our 49th closed rule of the 115th Congress, officially making this the most closed session in Congress in history, and the gentleman is proud of that.

More than half of the rules Republicans have reported out of the Rules Committee have not allowed any amendments. That means that no Member, Democrat or Republican, can offer their ideas on the House floor.

The gentleman says: Well, we want to prevent killer amendments from being made in order. So all the Republicans that offer amendments to the Rules Committee have killer amendments? It is ridiculous to say that about the Democratic amendments.

In total, just so the gentleman understands this, in total, the Rules Committee has blocked more than 1,300 amendments this year. That is 1,300. They are all killer amendments? They are all not deserving of a debate in the people's House?

They blocked 1,300 amendments, including 955 Democratic amendments. You blocked 260 Republican amendments and 121 bipartisan amendments.

Blocking these amendments has a very real impact. A bad process produces bad policy. Shutting out input from the vast majority of Members, both Democrats and Republicans, may make it easier for you to jam your agenda through the House, but that speed comes at the expense of the policy itself.

When you block amendments, you are shutting down debate on incredibly important issues, issues that this House of Representatives should be debating and voting on.

Here are a few examples of germane amendments that the majority didn't think were worthy of a debate and an up-or-down vote in the House. These were totally in order.

There is my bipartisan amendment to require a Presidential determination and congressional action to increase troop levels in Afghanistan. With the longest war in American history, I thought maybe it was worth some debate, but the Rules Committee said no to that.

Also, a bipartisan amendment to phase out the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, they blocked that.

Also, an amendment to ensure that the U.S. doesn't withdraw from the Paris climate agreement--I know my Republican friends think climate change is a hoax. They don't believe in science. But, you know what? You ought to have the guts to debate it. But you blocked it.

You blocked an amendment for funding for troops in Syria.

You blocked an amendment to create the National Russian Threat Response Center.

The list goes on and on and on.

These aren't killer amendments. These are important issues that get blocked time and time again. These issues are at the very core of our responsibilities here in Congress, and you blocked them from even being considered by the full House.

In this Congress, the majority has blocked over 1,300 amendments from coming to the floor. You are proud of that? That is disgraceful.

I truly hope that breaking the closed rule record is a wake-up call and that some of you over there will decide to do things a little bit differently around here and a little bit better around here, starting next week with your tax bill, but I am not going to hold by breath.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Signatory Wall and Ceiling Contractors Alliance, which says that this legislation would not benefit small businesses that create good jobs. It actually would place such employers at a permanent competitive disadvantage to unscrupulous companies that seek to thrive solely at the expense of the workers and taxpayer-funded social safety net programs.

Signatory Wall and

Ceiling Contractors Alliance,

Saint Paul, MN, October 5, 2017.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to this point I have been making about how this is now officially the most closed Congress in history, and I think people need to keep that in mind before they vote for this rule.

But the gentleman from Alabama, again--I guess in this age of Trump, I mean, you can twist things all kinds of different ways, you know-- bragged about all this great bipartisanship here. In that number that he was referring to, a number of bills that were supported in a bipartisan way, a big chunk of them are things like naming post offices, suspension bills that are not controversial, Hats Off to Teachers Day, those types of bills.

But on major legislation, whether it is healthcare or whether it is this crummy tax bill that they are going to be bringing up, this place is polarized because they block out any competing ideas.

Let me again reiterate for my colleagues: the Rules Committee has blocked more than 1,300 amendments this year. That is just this year alone.

Now, I already mentioned amendments on the AUMF, climate change, Afghanistan, and more. I think those are important subjects. But the Members offering these amendments, I think, no matter what you believe about these amendments, deserve the right to be heard by the whole House and to receive an up-or-down vote.

But here are a few more examples of the germane amendments that my friends on the Republican side on the Rules Committee blocked under the closed and structured rules. They blocked an amendment to prohibit the repeal of DACA.

You know, I mean, 800,000 people's lives now are in the balance because of Donald Trump rescinding the protection for these DREAMers, and he said: Congress, you do it. You fix it.

Well, we tried to bring an amendment to the floor to have a debate and fix it, and if my Republican friends don't want to vote for it, they can vote ``no.'' But they blocked it. They blocked an amendment to bar funds from being spent on this stupid, idiotic wall that the President seems enamored with along our border. They blocked an amendment to increase funding to fight rural domestic violence and child abuse. They blocked several amendments to ensure the Trump family doesn't profit off the Presidency, and we all know that they are, but we can't even have that debate.

They blocked an amendment to protect asylum seekers and human trafficking victims, and they blocked an amendment to ensure victims of incest can have access to abortion care. I can go on and on and on. I mean, they blocked Congressman Grothman's budget amendment twice. He is a Republican. It was germane. He even testified before the Rules Committee, but you blocked it.

Last week, you blocked Representative Jimmy Duncan's amendment to allow doctors to practice medicine out of State on a volunteer basis. Germane. It may be a good idea. It deserves to be debated. You blocked it.

Is that a poison pill? Is that what the gentleman was referring to? You know, process matters, and it matters for this reason, because when you have a lousy process, you end up with a lousy product.

I know it is not sexy to talk about process, you know, but it is important. It is important that we do our jobs, we debate these issues, and that we listen to Democrats and Republicans, you know, come before us with ideas: some we may agree with, some we may not, but let's have that debate. What is wrong with that? Why is that such a radical idea in this place? To get up and say I am proud of this; I am proud that we are now the most closed Congress in the history of our country? That is something to be proud of?

I think that is something to be ashamed of. I think it diminishes this House of Representatives, and it diminishes every single member of this House, Democrats and Republicans alike.

This is supposed to be a deliberative body. Let's deliberate. Let's not negotiate things in the back room and then rush it to the floor and demand an up-or-down vote. You know, you don't have a monopoly on good ideas, and there are people in your own party who have some good ideas, too, and I think we have good ideas as well. And if you want bipartisanship, true bipartisanship, and you want to end the polarization, open the process a little bit. That would be helpful.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is right, we can work together and come together in a bipartisan way to pass a post office bill, to name a post office after somebody, but my friends didn't think it was important to come together and work with us on improving the Affordable Care Act, totally cut out of the process.

I am willing to bet that when the tax bill comes up, the tax bill that is going

to give wealthy people a big tax break and raise taxes on a lot of middle-income families, that will be a very closed process as well. So yeah, you know, Hats Off to Teachers Day, naming post offices, stuff that, I mean, Western civilization, as we know it, doesn't hinge upon, yeah, there is lot of bipartisanship here.

We had a couple of bills yesterday that passed unanimously. I mean, we had votes on them. They were noncontroversial. But when it comes to anything really meaningful, there is no bipartisanship, and there is no openness here.

Again, let me repeat, so my colleagues understand this. This is the most closed session of Congress ever in history, and the year is not even over yet. Today, we are considering the 49th closed rule of the 115th Congress, officially making it the most closed session of Congress in history. More than half of the rules the Republicans have reported out of the Rules Committee have not allowed any amendments. They have blocked over 1,300 amendments.

Speaker Ryan now is the only speaker who has not allowed an open rule. Speakers Boehner, Pelosi, Hastert, and Gingrich all allowed some open rules. This is the first time we never had one.

Mr. Speaker, again, I would say to my colleagues, process matters, and this is really a sad day for this House, for this institution, and I hope my Republican friends think about it a little bit because you are doing great damage to this institution, and that makes me very sad.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind my colleagues as well that the bill that the gentleman from Alabama is talking about, his bill, when it--in the Rules Committee last night, the Rules Committee thought it was appropriate to block three germane amendments from the ranking member of the Education and the Workforce Committee. I mean, that is the process that we are dealing with here.

The ranking member of that committee does not have the opportunity to bring his ideas to the floor and debate them and get a vote up or down on it. That is not right, and the Rules Committee, unfortunately, is becoming a place where democracy goes to die, where every good idea is routinely shot down, and it has to stop.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask my colleagues to defeat the previous question. And I want to say to my colleagues that, a month ago, I stood at this very podium, following our Nation's deadliest mass shooting in Las Vegas, asking my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that we can begin to study gun violence.

Now I stand here again, after yet another unthinkable tragedy, begging my colleagues to allow us to take this small first step following Sunday's deadly mass shooting at First Baptist Church in Texas.

Twenty-six people in that church lost their lives to gun violence, and that is from one single shooting. On an average day, 93 Americans are killed with guns.

I would like to ask my colleagues again: What will it take?

If the deaths of those children in Sandy Hook Elementary School weren't enough for Congress to take action, if the 49 lives lost in Orlando weren't enough, if the 58 lives lost in Las Vegas weren't enough, and if the 26 lives lost in Texas on Sunday aren't enough, then nothing may ever be enough for Congress to have the courage to do the right thing.

But I am hoping that is not true. Today we can decide to take the first step in fighting gun violence with one vote. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H. Res. 367, which would establish the Select Committee on Gun Violence Prevention.

It is time that we start having serious discussions about this problem. Moments of silence and calls for prayer are not enough. We have been doing that. It is time for us to get serious.

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

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

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

Mr. Speaker, we are bringing to the floor two bills today that I think are bad bills. But, nonetheless, they represent the thinking of the Republicans who are in charge of this Congress.

What is particularly distressing to me is that, on one of those measures, it is being brought to the floor under a completely closed process.

As I mentioned, last night, the ranking member of the Education and the Workforce Committee came before the Rules Committee to offer three germane amendments, and the Rules Committee said: No, you don't have the right to have a debate on your ideas, even though they are perfectly germane, on the House floor.

I think that is lousy. As a result, we come today and we make history. This is now officially the most closed Congress ever in the history of our country. My friends on the other side of the aisle are getting up and talking about how proud they are. They talk about bipartisanship. What they don't tell you is that most of the bipartisanship are on things that really don't mean a lot: naming of post offices and bills that pass by 435-0. On big things, on important issues, they block us. I mentioned some of the things they blocked.

I know a lot of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle care deeply about the DREAMers, since Donald Trump decided to throw their fates into the balance. They want to do something to help these young people, many of whom came when they were 1 year old or 2 years old and know no other country as their home but this country. We tried to fix that legislatively, as the President said he wanted us to do, and the Republican majority blocked us. They blocked us.

We tried to offer an amendment again to say let's not invest a gazillion dollars on a border wall. Let's invest in our people. Let's build up our infrastructure. Let's construct the finest railway system in the United States--in the world--over the next decade. They blocked us.

We had an amendment to increase funding to fight rural domestic violence and child abuse, and they blocked us.

We had an amendment to say we need to ensure that this culture of corruption that we see in the White House doesn't grow any bigger, that the Trump family doesn't benefit from the taxpayers, they don't benefit financially from the taxpayers, and we were blocked on that as well.

Then we have been blocked on amendments to debate these wars that have gone on for years and years. The war in Afghanistan is endless. It is the longest war in American history. We can't have a debate on the floor. We are

told that it is not appropriate and that it is not the right time.

The bottom line is, what my friends on the other side of the aisle are doing is they are running this place in a very authoritarian way, basically saying: It is our way, and that is it. It is our way or the highway, and you don't matter.

Well, we have had enough. We have had enough of being shut out, and we are not going to shut up. We are not going to sit by and allow this pattern of closed rules and closed processes to continue without a protest. This is a serious matter.

For the Speaker of the House in his press conference today to get up and say, ``Oh, we have a very open house,'' I mean, where is he living?

That does not reflect the reality. Maybe Donald Trump can say those kind of things that don't reflect reality, but the Speaker of the House ought to know that today, under his leadership, this has become the most closed House ever, and it diminishes this institution and it diminishes every single Member of this institution.

So vote ``no'' on this rule. I urge my Republican friends, who care about process, who want this place to be more deliberative, to vote ``no.'' Send a message to your leadership that you have had enough.

If you want more bipartisan legislation, if you want a less polarized Congress, then open the process up a little bit. I have news for you, if you do, maybe the popularity of Congress will go up a little bit. I think we are at, like, 12 or 13 percent now. Maybe that might get you up to 15 or 16 percent. But it is the right thing to do.

This is not the way we are supposed to run a legislative body. When you do it this way, you end up with lousy legislation. Your healthcare bill was a disaster. It reflected no input from anybody. Thank God the Senate said no to it. We see the same thing going on with the tax bill.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so maybe we can bring up a little bit of a debate on the need for a select committee to study gun violence. But, please, vote ``no'' on this. Please send a message to the Republican leadership that enough is enough and we are tired of these closed rules.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the majority leader, for the purpose of inquiring about the schedule for the week to come.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for that information.

First, I want to start by saying that the majority leader and I and four other Members of the House had an opportunity to visit both Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands last weekend since we had our last colloquy.

First, I want to thank the majority leader for organizing that trip and including me on it. It was an eye-opening trip. The majority leader and I have done an op-ed, which will be appearing sometime in the near term, on our observations.

One of the things, Mr. Speaker, that I know the majority leader and I had the opportunity to see, we were in Marathon, where you had housing that was built after Andrew and housing that was built before Andrew.

Now, the difference was, after Andrew, that extraordinary hurricane, the building code was changed. We saw the stark difference between housing that survived essentially Maria and Irma and housing that did not, and the difference was, of course, that the housing that survived was built to different standards after Andrew.

The majority leader and I discussed this matter, along with Mr. Bishop, who chairs the committee that oversees both Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, and I think all of us are convinced that it would be penny-wise and pound-foolish not to build back, as Florida did, to standards that can withstand storms of this type.

So I wanted to thank the majority leader for his leadership on this issue.

The majority leader took the extraordinary effort to climb down a river bank, go across the river--the river was very low at that point in time--and then up a very long ladder, because people were stranded on the other side. The majority leader went to see them and assure them that we would not forget them.

We were the first codel to go to the interior of Puerto Rico, as opposed to simply go to San Juan or another large city, so I thank the majority leader for his leadership on that issue.

Mr. Leader, let me ask you about tax reform. That, of course, has been the big issue for some period of time now, but now we have a bill that is not on the floor yet, but was released yesterday.

It is clear this bill will cut taxes, in our view, for the wealthy. I don't know the statistics yet, what the division is, whether it is 80/ 20, as the initial proposal was, or perhaps a little less than that that goes to those over $900,000 in income. But, in any event, it also eliminates tax preferences that the middle class families rely on, and, obviously, we think it is going to face hurdles in Congress.

What I wanted to ask was: When does the gentleman expect the bill to be marked up?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. He talks about IPAB. Of course, we add the $17.5 billion to the debt.

The gentleman did not mention the $1.5 trillion in additional debt that the passage of the tax bill will result in, but he did talk about some people who are going to be really advantaged.

So I would like to ask the majority leader: Will those people who will be advantaged or, for that matter, disadvantaged have the opportunity next week to testify in a hearing on the substance of this bill?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, he did not answer my question, however. Will people have an opportunity to testify on this bill? The answer is no. No American will have an opportunity to come to a hearing.

In 1968, the gentleman from California, the majority leader, was not here. I was here. We had hearings over months, both sides of the aisle. Over 450 witnesses testified not on tax bills that may have been offered at some time in the future, including the Camp bill.

When the Camp bill, Mr. Speaker, was reported--actually, it wasn't reported. When it was put on the table by Chairman Camp from Michigan, who is now retired, the Speaker's response was, when asked by the press, ``What are you going to do with that bill?'' he said, blah, blah, blah, blah. In other words, what he was saying was all talk. We are not going to do anything with that bill, and that bill never saw the light of day.

It was paid for, Mr. Speaker. It was tough love. I didn't agree with everything in the Camp bill, but I congratulate Congressman Camp for having the courage to put a bill on the floor that was paid for, not creating $1.5 trillion in additional debt that our children will have to pay. They are not here to testify either.

I don't want to really get into a debate on the specifics. We are going to have a lot of time to do that next week, and I intend to do it next week, but he talked about small businesses being reduced to 25 percent. They will be if they make over $500,000.

That is why the NFIB is not for this bill, Mr. Speaker, talking about small business. They are the spokespersons for small businesses, and they are not for this bill.

We will talk about the substance, but the process mirrors the process for the Affordable Care Act: no hearings, no witnesses, very, very little time for the public or the Congress to digest the substance of this bill dropped yesterday. It is going to be marked up on Monday. That is 96 hours to consider a bill well over 500 pages.

Mr. Speaker, I asked about process. The reason I asked about process and regular order is because regular order provides for input from the people we serve, the public, about whether the bill is good, bad, or indifferent and how it will impact them.

We are going to debate it here. We represent those people. But regular order is hearing from them before we act, not after we act.

Yes, we are replicating the Affordable Care Act: put on the table, quickly passed, jammed through, sent to the Senate. And it didn't work, Mr. Speaker. I don't think this will work either.

I was here in 1986, Mr. Speaker, when Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan, Bob Packwood, who was the Republican's chair of the Senate Finance Committee, and Dan Rostenkowski from Illinois, the Democratic chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, worked together with Jim Baker, the former Secretary of State but then Secretary of the Treasury, worked with us to

come up with a bill that could be passed. And it was passed, Mr. Speaker, with overwhelming votes from both sides of the aisle. It was the last time we passed tax reform. Since then, we have just passed tax cuts.

Under Ronald Reagan, we passed a tax cut in 1981. The deficit increased under Ronald Reagan 189 percent. Under George H.W. Bush, the deficit increased 55 percent in 4 years, 189 percent in 8 years. Under Bill Clinton, the debt increased 36 percent; George Bush, 87 percent after the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, and we were promised that they were going to energize the economy and dynamic scoring would come into effect and the country would be rolling in clover. Seven years later, we had the deepest recession anybody serving in this body has experienced, Mr. Speaker, and the debt exploded.

Barack Obama, just by contrast, inherited the worst economy any of us has seen--the worst economy--hemorrhaging 787,000 jobs per month in January of 2009. We had to bring the economy out of that deep recession, and we invested dollars. But even given all that necessity and the $700 billion bill that we passed, that George Bush passed, where two-thirds of Republicans were opposed and which kept us out of a depression, Barack Obama increased the debt by 1 percentage point more than George Bush.

I say to my friend, the reason for having hearings, the reason for having economic experts like Mr. Bartlett, who worked for Ronald Reagan, who said that tax cuts do not pay for themselves. They say $1.5 trillion. I guarantee you, Mr. Speaker--I may not be here when we can find this out--this is going to be far above $1.5 trillion in additional debt, and my children and my grandchildren and my great- grandchildren will be exposed to paying that bill.

It is a shame, Mr. Speaker, that we do not have extensive hearings on this bill in the House and in the Senate. My judgment is the Senate doesn't expect to have hearings on this either. They are just going to try to jam it through, Mr. Speaker, and that is not good. That is not good for this institution. Much, much more importantly, it is not good for the present generation or generations to come.

We will debate, Mr. Leader. I know you are passionate about the substance. You are very knowledgeable about the substance. We talked about it in private, and I admire the passion that you have and the information that you argue. I may differ with your information, but we will have the opportunity to debate that, I think, next week and the week after.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, we are going to debate the substance of the bill; we are going to debate it fully. We think it will not hold up well under that debate. Therefore, we will have a significant difference.

He is right. The best economy anybody in this House has experienced-- the best economy--was the last 4 years of the Clinton administration, period. Guess what we had? We had a little bit of a tax increase. We increased the gasoline tax, and we tried to pay to for infrastructure. We haven't increased it since then.

The Republicans said: You do that, oh, the economy is going to go down the drain. The best economy any Republican has experienced in their lifetime is under Bill Clinton. We balanced the budget 4 years in a row under Bill Clinton, the only President you can mention that balanced.

It never balanced under Ronald Reagan. It never balanced under George H.W. Bush. It never balanced under George Bush. As a matter of fact, as soon as they took office, they made sure we wouldn't have further balances because they cut taxes in 2001 and 2003, but they didn't cut spending.

He talks about President Obama. I know the majority leader will be interested in these statistics. I didn't count January of 2017 because, after all, that was the Obama economy. Trump had not done anything on the economy, but let's start with February 2017.

Under Donald Trump, 232,000 jobs were created. That is great. That is good. I would say that the Obama economy is still working.

Same exact month a year earlier, not 232, but 237,000 jobs were created under Barack Obama.

March 2017, 50,000 under Trump. March 2016, 225,000 jobs created under Barack Obama.

April 2017, 207,000 jobs. Barack Obama was a little down that month, 153,000 jobs.

145,000 under Trump, 43,000.

Then June of 2017, 210,000 under Donald Trump, 297,000 jobs under Barack Obama.

July of 2017, we are getting more recent. Under Trump--now he has been in

office a little longer--138,000. What was it under Barack Obama? 291,000 jobs--double.

August of this year, just a few months ago, 169,000 under Donald Trump; 176,000.

Last month we had hurricanes. I will give the majority leader that. We lost 33,000 jobs. Under Barack Obama, same month a year ago, 249,000 jobs created.

As a matter of fact, under Barack Obama, we created 11,773,000 jobs.

Under George Bush, 2 million--excuse me--lost under George Bush, private sector jobs, a loss, after the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, lost 1,159,000 jobs. The last 12 months of the George Bush administration, 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, we couldn't change economic policy. We were in charge for the last 2 years, couldn't change it, lost 4,568,000 jobs.

Now, as a matter of fact, I have done a little thing for 68 years. Over 68 years, we had 36 years of Republican Presidents and 32 years of Democratic Presidents. Under Republican Presidents, from Truman to Obama, there were 35,448,000 jobs created, Mr. Leader. Under Democrats, in 32 years, 62,669,000 jobs.

Now, I would like to go on to another subject, as we could go on debating this all day, but I will yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, you noticed that he didn't talk about any of the statistics I mentioned about job creation under Barack Obama. He didn't talk about the 62 million jobs that were created in 32 years, as opposed to the 35 million jobs, just half of what we did in less than 4 years than they had as President of the United States.

And what he didn't talk about was--he said: You know, we Republicans were in charge of the Congress the last 6 years of the Clinton administration.

That is right.

And what Bill Clinton said: Let's save Social Security first. Let's not cut out revenues that we need to invest in the education and the growth of our economy.

They weren't for that, but they couldn't do anything about it.

Then, guess what happened. They took the Presidency. They had the House and they had the Senate.

Why couldn't you do what was done under Bill Clinton then, when you controlled everything, I ask my Republican friends, Mr. Speaker? Why couldn't you, when you controlled every organ of government, do what you say was done under the Clinton administration, because you were in the minority, very frankly, or you were in the majority and controlled things? Why couldn't you do it when you controlled everything? Why did you leave us with 4.8 million hemorrhaging jobs as you came out of office, and your economic program was still in place that you put in place in 2001 and 2003, and the deepest recession you and I have experienced in our life times?

And I am older than you are. You didn't answer that. You continue to talk about what is going to happen.

I tell the story about the guy who comes in and he wants to be the left fielder for the Nats, and he says: You know, I am going to hit 350 next year.

I said: But you hit 260 last year.

He says: Well, yeah, I know, but this year I am going to hit 350.

And the other guy comes in and says: I would like the same job. I hit 325 this year and I hit 324 last year. Who do you think you hire?

The whole point is, Mr. Leader--I say to the Speaker--is that performance counts, not just talk, not just promises. Because I will tell you, Mr. Leader, I have been here a long time and I heard the same language in 1981 from David Stockman. He now says it was baloney. I heard the same talk in 2001 and 2003. It didn't work out so well.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am going to go on to another subject because we need to go to another subject, but we need to have this debate because it is critical for my children, my grandchildren, and my great- grandchildren, and for generations to come as to whether this country is, like we did it under Clinton, on a fiscally sustainable path where we are balancing budgets, or whether we are going to go back to the deep deficits.

He didn't respond, 189 percent increase in the debt under Ronald Reagan. One person in America, Mr. Speaker, can stop spending: the President. He can veto spending bills.

In my 37 years, we have never had a veto overridden of a President who vetoed a bill because we spent too much money; not once in the 37 years I have been here, Mr. Speaker.

But I want to go on to another subject that ought to be less controversial because I think the majority of Republicans and I think, unanimously, the Democrats want to see us do what the President, apparently, has asked us to do. And that is, protect the DACA students, the DACA doctors, the DACA teachers.

We have a Dream Act that has been filed. Every Democrat supports it. We want that to come to the floor in this transparent, open process, and I have talked to the majority leader about it.

The President, contrary to Speaker Ryan's advice, rescinded the protections for the childhood arrivals who arrived here through no fault of their own. He said to the Congress, it needs to be done in legislation. He didn't say it needs to be done in legislation with a lot of other things. And the Speaker has said we are going to take one issue at a time. I won't bring out that quote, but the majority leader has heard me use it before.

So I urge the majority leader because I believe he does not want to send these mostly young people who don't know any other country but America, who see themselves as Americans, who have

been educated in our schools, serving in our communities, positive participants in growing America like so many immigrants before them, a nation of immigrants. Send me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses.

We should have the DACA bill on the floor before we leave for this Thanksgiving. Mr. Leader, I said this with respect to the Export-Import Bank, that a majority of your party would vote for that if it came to the floor. We got it to the floor and, as I predicted, a majority of your Members voted for it.

I believe that very close to, if not all, a majority of your party will vote for this, and the overwhelming numbers in this House will vote for that bill.

I would urge my friend to bring it to the floor before we leave for the Thanksgiving break on the 16th of November. I would urge that because we are going to have some very messy 8 days after Thanksgiving, with great workload on our desks; not the least of which is how to deal with the sequester, how to deal with funding government for the balance of the year, what to do with flood insurance, and so many other issues; not to mention our supplemental that we need to do with respect to Houston and Florida and Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.

So I urge my friend to work with us to bring the Dream Act to the floor, or bring your alternative to the floor. But let us not leave these people, who the President says he loves, who are positive Americans in everything but paper, who have been here almost all of their lives. Some came at 2 or 3 years of age and know no other country. Let's bring a bill to the floor that we can end before we go on the Thanksgiving break, in a united way--we are going to be divided on the tax bill. We understand that--but in a united way on this, where even Rush Limbaugh says we are not going to send these kids home.

I would hope that you could do that, Mr. Leader. I believe you have it in your heart to do it, and I would hope that we could do it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, let me remind the leader that we passed the Dream Act through the House of Representatives. We brought it to the floor. We had a vote on it.

I know you and the Speaker said there was going to be a working task force on this issue, and it has been, I think, going on for nigh on to a month, but we haven't seen anything on the floor.

Mr. Leader, what I am saying is that I think we agree on this issue. Let us not confuse it with things on which we do not agree. Don't hold hostage these 800,000 young people who are positive--because if they are not positive they couldn't get into the Dream Act--I mean, they couldn't get into DACA. They had to have a sterling performance, be in school, be working, be in the Armed Forces. This is not a free pass to people.

We agree on this, I think. Maybe I am wrong on that, but it seems to me that we agree. The President seems to agree.

Wouldn't it be--as we have done in the past some bipartisan things, and we thought that was good for the institution and good for the American people to see us work in a bipartisan fashion. I think we agree on this issue.

Some of the things you want to attach to it, we are going to have disagreements on. Why don't we enact what we agree upon?

By the way, this has been pending for a long period of time, as opposed to your tax bill. I know you think we have had hearings on it, but, very frankly, that bill changed from Tuesday to Thursday of last week.

We think your bill is a pretty new bill and we would like to have hearings on it. But nevertheless, on DACA, I think we have an agreement. If you bring it to the floor, I think it will get a majority of the votes, a significant majority. I think it will get close to 300, if not over. So I would just urge my friend to see if he, as the majority leader--I was the majority leader--as the gentleman knows, I could bring a bill to the floor or I could keep it off the floor. This is a bill that ought to come to the floor. We ought to give peace of mind to these 800,000 of folks, and we ought to pass this bill and give the House an opportunity to work its will.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman does not want to say anything further, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 607 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 607 provides for consideration of H.R. 3043, the Hydropower Policy Modernization Act of 2017, and H.R. 3441, the Save Local Business Act.

H.R. 3043 would modernize Federal regulatory permitting processes for the licensing of hydropower projects. Specifically, the bill would designate the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, as the lead agency for these projects.

I am a proud supporter of an all-of-the-above energy strategy that allows for not only American energy independence, but for American energy dominance.

Hydropower should be a part of that strategy. In the Pacific Northwest especially, hydropower is a clean and reliable energy source that is particularly abundant. There is remarkable potential for the hydropower industry in this region and around the United States.

In 2015, hydropower accounted for approximately 6 percent of total U.S. electricity generation and 46 percent of electricity generation from renewable sources. However, less than 3 percent of dams in the U.S. produce electricity. That shows just how great the potential is here.

Through this legislation, we can help ease regulatory burdens and streamline the permitting process by naming FERC as the lead agency for coordinating all Federal authorizations. This will result in balanced and more timely decisionmaking and reduce the current duplicative oversight regime.

So how does this benefit the average American?

Well, having a reliable power source is essential to the world today.

Even more, this legislation also has the potential to lower energy costs and create good-paying jobs. By doing so, we can help Americans put away and keep more of their hard-earned money.

Currently, the hydropower industry employs a workforce of approximately 143,000 people, and that number would certainly rise under this legislation as we unlock our full potential.

Now, some of my colleagues have expressed concerns that this legislation could hurt the environment, so I want to address that.

First, hydropower is an entirely clean source of renewable energy. Increasing hydropower production actually helps protect the environment and promote better public health.

Second, the legislation makes clear that these permitting reforms should have no effect on this Clean Water Act, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Rivers and Harbors Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act. Those laws and their protections will remain in place.

This is simply about promoting a reliable power source, lowering energy costs, creating jobs, and unlocking the full potential of an all-of-the-above energy strategy.

Mr. Speaker, I will also note that this rule will provide for consideration of four amendments to H.R. 3043, including one minority and one bipartisan amendment.

The other bill covered by the rule is H.R. 3441, the Save Local Business Act. As the sponsor of this legislation, I am thrilled to see this body taking action to protect millions of jobs and provide clarity to America's workers.

Jesus said that no man can serve two masters, and there is real wisdom behind what He said as there is wisdom behind everything He said. His teachings are important every day, but that basic principle seems particularly important in the context of this legislation.

For decades, there was a commonsense legal test that determined when two or more separate businesses could be considered joint employers and held jointly responsible for the same group of employees. Employers had to share direct and immediate control over essential terms and conditions of employment. As a former labor and employment attorney who practiced in this area for decades, I can assure you this was the standard that everyone knew and appreciated.

Well, in 2015, the activist National Labor Relations Board issued a ruling

in Browning-Ferris Industries that upended this cornerstone of Federal labor law and created a vague and totally unworkable new joint employer policy.

Making matters even worse and more complicated, Federal agencies then incorporated the new standard in their regulatory agenda. Under this new standard, two independent businesses could be considered joint employers if they make a business agreement that ``indirectly'' or ``potentially'' impacts their employees. Under some of these standards, you can actually be reserved power.

Just think about the uncertainty and ambiguity this standard could cause. It is hard enough for people to even agree on what exactly those terms mean. Imagine how confusing it is for Main Street businesses to understand and follow that.

This is not some abstract issue. In fact, I have been hearing and talking with job creators and workers in my district about this for years. I have sat around the restaurant tables and heard real stories and concerns.

Bob Omainsky, the owner of Wintzell's Oyster House in my home district, had this to say about the confusion caused by the new joint- employer standard: ``If we hire an outside landscaping company to keep our lawns lush, I could be considered a joint employer if I show the landscapers where to mow. Or, if I contract a food supplier for certain ingredients, I could become part of a lawsuit if one of their workers complains about overtime pay. The uncertainty is nothing more than governmental overreach that is crippling eateries like Wintzell's and discouraging growth throughout the restaurant industry.''

This story and example is not unique to my district. These stories exist all over the country from Seattle, Washington, to Miami, Florida; and we heard a whole bunch of them in the hearings that we held in committee. This is why this bill has earned support from both sides of the aisle. This is not a partisan issue, but instead this is about protecting jobs and providing clarity to workers.

Workers shouldn't have to wonder who their employer is. They deserve better than a vague and confusing rule that the American Action Forum found threatens 1.7 million jobs. Even the Progressive Policy Institute issued a statement saying the expanded standard ``may do more harm than good.''

I also want to make one thing perfectly clear: this legislation does not remove a single worker protection. All worker protections provided by the National Labor Relations Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Equal Pay Act remain unchanged and are still available.

I also want to dispel the myth that this legislation is some departure from the norm. In fact, this legislation simply restores the agreed-upon legal standard that existed for decades.

The reality is that the new standard has created so much confusion and ambiguity that no one really knows what the law is. There are at least nine different legal tests nationwide to determine joint employer status under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and there are more to come.

This patchwork of standards creates regulatory uncertainty, especially for job creators doing businesses in multiple States. Ultimately, this legislation is about providing clarity to workers and job creators. It is about protecting the rights of workers and ensuring employers have clarity on their responsibilities to their employees, and it is about preserving the small businesses that are the backbone of our local communities.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 607 and the underlying bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely proud of the work that the Rules Committee has done this year and of the leadership in this Congress and how we have handled legislation.

Unlike our Democratic colleagues who would shut the doors and refuse to accept late amendments from Members, the chairman of our committee has made it a point to ensure every single Member has the opportunity to submit their amendments and come to the committee to share their thoughts and concerns.

Under this model of transparency and openness, the committee has spent countless hours listening and considering Member testimony. In fact, we have welcomed over 330 Members to testify, this Congress alone, before the Rules Committee. We have made in order 864 amendments, including 403 from Democrats, 341 from Republicans, and 120 bipartisan amendments.

Unfortunately, our friends across the aisle have become more interested in derailing legislation than actually improving legislation. For example, Democrats politicized an open appropriations process by offering poison pill amendments meant to kill legislation they had no intention of supporting, regardless of the outcome.

These tactics have fundamentally changed the way we do business. Instead of offering thoughtful ideas intended to shape a measure, their dilatory tactics are for one purpose and one purpose only: to score political points.

The Rules Committee will not let these political games get in the way of fulfilling the promises we made to the American people who elected this majority. That is why the chairman of our committee has made it a priority to listen to all Members. I would ask all of you who come to the Rules Committee to watch our committee listening to all Members.

We are also committed to moving the majority's progrowth agenda forward. As a result of our efforts, we have had a record of success in this House. To date, we have passed almost 400 bills out of the House.

This further underscores that the House is here to work, we are here to serve, and we are here to get results. But the proof is in the facts. John Adams said: ``Facts are stubborn things.''

As of November 7 of this year, in just the first session of this Congress, we have provided for the consideration of 864 amendments on the House floor. Under Speaker Pelosi, during the entirety of the 111th Congress, both sessions, she had only made in order 778. You tell me who has an open House and who had a closed House.

There is no shame on this side at all. There is great pride in the work we are doing for the American people, and we are not going to let anyone get in the way of our making sure that we fulfill the promises we made.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, when I was giving the statistics earlier, I left one very important one out. I can't believe I forgot this.

Of the almost 400 bills we passed in this House this year, 80 percent of them have been bipartisan. So this record production of bills we have had in the House this year has benefited both sides of the aisle as we have

worked together to come up with commonsense policies for the American people.

I am very proud of that work and that progress we have made in this House. The gentleman from Minnesota acted as if this bill, the Save Local Business Act, is something to benefit big companies, but let me tell you who I, and virtually all of us who are supporting this bill, have heard from: small businesses in our districts that are begging us to pass this bill.

I have had dozens of meetings in my own district. I know of hundreds of meetings that have been held across the country between Members of this House on both sides of the aisle and small businesses in their districts that say: Please pass this bill.

This isn't for the big businesses in America. This is for the small, Main Street businesses in our communities and for the people who work there.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman), one of the newest Members of the House who has already made a distinguished mark here.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased and very proud of the bipartisanship that we have had in this House this year to pass all these bills. Let me note just two very substantive bills, one last week and one today.

Last week, we passed a bill that got rid of this IPAB group that is going to take money, is proposed to take money out of Medicare. It was cosponsored by 45 Democrats, and dozens and dozens of Democrats voted for it on the floor last week. Today, this Save Local Business Act is bipartisan in its sponsorship and, I predict, on the vote of the floor today.

Now, how important is that? Let me read to you just a few of the organizations that support this bill: the American Hotel and Lodging Association, the Asian American Hotel Owners Association, Associated Builders and Contractors, Associated General Contractors, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, the Coalition to Save Local Businesses, The Latino Coalition, National Association of Home Builders, National Association of Manufacturers, National Council of Chain Restaurants, National Retail Federation, U.S. Travel Association, the Capital Research Center, Generation Opportunity, Heritage Action for America, Hispanic Leadership Fund, the Independent Women's Institute for Liberty, the James Madison Institute, the National Taxpayers Union, the Tea Party Nation, Food Marketing Institute, National Franchisee Association, National Apartment Association, Retail Industry Leaders Association, and the Workplace Fairness Institute, and I could have dozens and dozens more.

The truth of the matter is, these are very important bills that we bring before this floor, and most of them are bipartisan. The ones we have today are bipartisan bills.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to you that this House has a lot to be proud of, of the great work we have done this year, and I am most proud of the fact that, in most of those cases, we have been working together.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, when we adopt this rule later on this afternoon, when we adopt my bill, let me tell you who is going to be happy. Tens and tens of thousands of small businesses and hundreds of thousands of their employees across America, that is who is going to be happy.

And you know what, we are not here to make ourselves happy. We are here to make the people who sent us here and expect us to do their business, we are here to make them happy, and we are going to make them happy today, as we have done over and over again this year, by passing legislation that works for them, not for us.

So there may be some unhappiness in the room because we haven't made every little amendment in order for this floor, but we have made the amendments that matter to the American people, and, more importantly, we passed legislation that matters to the American people, and I am very proud of that, and the American people, indeed, are happy.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this has been a very open process. At the beginning, you recognized me for an hour and I gave, as is customary, half of my time to the other side so that they could present their side.

In our committee, the Rules Committee, we let anyone who wants to come--any Member who wants to come and basically say whatever they want to say for as long as they want to say it. We don't really have any rules in the Rules Committee because we want to have it so open, we want to give everybody such an opportunity, that we let everybody come and say whatever they want. Then we take it all into account and we make some amendments in order and some not.

Because we have done our job so well this year, we have had so many bills in the House--and the House has passed them all--that this House is just about a record-breaking House in terms of what we are passing. Yes, our friends over in the Senate haven't passed a lot of them. I don't think the American people like that. I think the American people want the Senate to get to work like the House has been at work.

This is important work, and we are here to do it and not play games. The bills that are under this rule are very important bills.

I have heard a lot about climate change. The gentleman may suggest that people on our side of the aisle don't understand science. I am not a scientist, but I do understand climate change. I do understand from the people who are worried about it, and a lot of people are legitimately worried about it. The only thing you can do about that is to have alternative sources of energy.

Hydroenergy is one of those sources. You don't release any carbon molecules in the air when you generate electricity using water. So one of the bills addresses that.

The other bill--my bill--the Save the Local Business Act, is a very important bill, a bipartisan bill. There are bipartisan sponsors on this bill. As I said earlier, there are tens of thousands of businesses around America and hundreds of thousands of employees of those businesses that are aching for us to pass this bill.

So far from being small things that don't matter--by the way, saying nice things about teachers isn't a small thing. I think it is a big thing. These are important pieces of legislation, and I am proud of the work that this House has done to make sure that we consider them and pass them.

Mr. Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 607 and the underlying bills.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at noon for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30. On Tuesday and Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. On Thursday, the House will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. On Friday, no votes are expected in the House.

Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a number of suspensions next week, a complete list of which will be announced by close of business today.

In addition, the House will consider H.R. 3043, the Hydropower Policy Modernization Act, sponsored by Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers. This bill will continue our efforts to improve America's energy infrastructure by streamlining the FERC licensing process for hydropower projects.

The House will also consider two good jobs bills: first, H.R. 3441, the Save Local Business Act, sponsored by Representative Bradley Byrne. This bipartisan legislation will ensure small businesses and franchises across America receive fair government treatment rather than confusing regulations that harm workers.

Second, the House will consider H.R. 2201, the Micro Offering Safe Harbor Act, sponsored by Representative Tom Emmer. As part of our Innovation Initiative, this bill creates a smarter way for entrepreneurs to start new ventures or grow existing businesses.

Now, lastly, Mr. Speaker, additional legislative items are possible in the House. If anything is added to our schedule, I will be sure to inform my friend and all Members.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I am excited about his question, because I am excited about this bill.

For more than three decades, we have waited for tax reform. Many people know the challenge of what they have with the government taking more than they should, and the challenge to see individuals raise their paychecks.

Ways and Means has announced that they will start markups next week. I assume that it will take them probably a week to get through the entire bill, going through regular order as we do, and then I would assume that we would bring that to the floor right after. We would like to get this to the American people as soon as possible.

I am willing to talk about the bill, I am willing to talk about the bill in any different manner, because we spent a lot of time working on this.

The very first thing that is going to happen for the American public, come January 1, they are going to get more in their paycheck, because what we do, we take the standard deduction, because in the current law today, a single individual in America, it is only the first $6,000 they have are tax free. Well, that is going to go to 12. For a couple, it is going to go to 24.

We take seven confusing rates and make it four. It is about cutting them. Every rate is lowered except the highest rate.

Then we go and look at: How can we make America competitive? I started my first business when I was 20 years old. Small business is the backbone of this country. Small businesses work harder than almost anybody else. We lower their rate to 25. That is the lowest it has been in 40 years.

Then all this money that is being pushed overseas that we tax too high so people won't bring it back--and there are trillions of dollars there--we are going to have that money come back. And what are they going to do? They are going to invest in America.

Now, the name of our bill is Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Just yesterday, I was with a company, Broadcom. We went into the Oval Office. I had worked with this company for quite some time. They started in America. Bell Labs was part of it, and others. Three companies got together. They are technology; they were building; they were growing. Then what they found was, America's Tax Code was so burdensome on them, that for them to compete around the world, they became a company that domiciled in Singapore.

Talking to them just the last month or so, laying out our tax bill, they said: You know what, we are so confident in you passing this, we are going to announce that we are moving back to America.

They have $20 billion a year in revenue. They invest $9 billion every year in R&D and manufacturing, those manufacturing jobs we care so much about.

So yesterday, we were sitting in the Oval Office, and this is exactly what the CEO said. You know what he talked about? He grew up in Singapore. He said: When I turned 18, the greatest engineering school in America gave me an opportunity, MIT, but my parents did not have wealth, but they gave me a scholarship.

He comes to America, gets his education, becomes an American, builds a company. He said it broke his heart he had to leave. He wants to give back to this country that has been so good to him, and he said this tax bill is actually doing it.

So we are creating jobs even before we pass it.

So I am very excited, but, if I may, I wanted to do a little research for you. So we have taken all the IRS tax information, and I broke it down in spreadsheets. So any district that wants to know about it, please come see me, and I will walk you through it.

So I take your district, Maryland's Fifth, currently, 47 percent of your filers in Maryland's Fifth take the standard deduction. They will be better off, because it doubles right off the bat. Another 11 percent of those who itemize their deductions won't have to do that anymore. Instead of spending weeks on their taxes, they will put it on a postcard in minutes. So they are going to get a higher deduction; they are going to get more money. That means even before lowering of the rates, 58 percent of your district is better off from day one.

Now, in addition, we repeal the alternative minimum tax, that AMT. So that costs 13,000 of your constituents in your district an average of $3,750. That is wiped away.

As we lower all the brackets, we will create a great deal of savings for everybody else. So I am excited about this.

I would love to look forward to working with you on it, because just as we just passed the CHIP bill bipartisan and the IPAB with more than 70 Democrats on that, I think this has been a very good week for America.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I think this is an excellent question.

So, first of all, you are asking about hearings. I caught you yesterday; I caught you on TV yesterday. You were pretty good. You were asked about hearings. This is what you said: A hearing is when you ask the public to come in and say: What do you think? What are your suggestions? How will this impact you?

Since taking the majority--you know what anniversary it is this week? When we rolled this bill out, it was the seventh anniversary of the Republicans winning on that election day for the majority. This is what we campaigned on.

Now, we have been working quite some time. Dave Camp has retired, but when he was with Ways and Means, he put out a Camp proposal. We have been having numerous hearings in those Congresses and this Congress. It took us to win the White House, it took us to win the Senate, but, you know what, we have kept our promise.

Let me walk you through the rest of what we have done. Since taking the majority, we have held at least 59 hearings on tax reform with witnesses from all sides on everything from simplification, to closing those loopholes that we have talked so much about together, to creating jobs, to accelerating economic growth. That is not to mention the countless town halls and the forums of Members who have held them in their districts all across.

Now, if we need further witnesses on the burden of our Tax Code, look no further than just me. As I told you, I was 20 when I started that first business. You know the three lessons I learned in my first business? I was the first one to work, I was the last one to leave, and I was the last one to be paid.

I remember investing all that I had. It was just a deli. I had six employees. It was early in the morning, the front was all glass, and here pulled up a little truck from the city, and they were knocking on the door 2 hours before I started. I thought maybe they wanted to give me a key to the city for starting a new business. He wanted to give me a ticket for my sign. I thought that was a little odd, because the sign was bringing more people in that paid more sales tax that paid their salary.

I learned the challenges of starting a small business.

What is so great about this bill is there are going to be so many more Americans who are going to take that risk, start a small business, and be successful, with so many more Americans working.

So I am excited about this, because that is what we have been hearing in our hearings--all those hearings we had, all those town halls, all those years we fought so hard to get to this point.

Mr. Speaker, I think this has been a good week.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the first lesson, if you ever take debate, if you cannot win the argument on the substance of the bill, argue about process; go to process.

But you know what? This is not the beginning of the process. This is the end of the process. For 31 years, we have been working to get here. We had hearings upon hearings. We have gone to the American people. We went to the American people 7 years ago this week, and they made a very big decision: to change the direction.

We went back in 2014, and they made another big decision, and they made one just a short time ago.

I heard you talk about a lot of Presidents, but I think you missed one. Really, this bill is about growth in this country, about job creation, about raising somebody's paycheck.

The history of America, from the beginning of time until 2006, we always averaged more than 3 percent growth. If you just take the last 8 years, if you take the very best year under Barack Obama--and I will go apples to apples. Let's take Bill Clinton. The growth year under Bill Clinton's worst year is higher than Barack Obama's best year. That is why the middle class is hurting. That is why this tax cut helps the middle class.

What is most interesting, you want to talk about debt? You talked about a lot of Presidents. You can add up all those Presidents, and you know what? Just one President, Barack Obama, added all that money and more to the debt.

What is more interesting to me, if my friend is concerned about the deficit, I want to ask you this: Why did you vote for a budget that increases the deficit by $6.8 trillion over 10 years? Why would you do that this year? Why would you, as a party, bring that forward as your plan.

Do you know what we are bringing forward? We are going right through the rules. We have gone all through the hearings. We know, even before this bill passes, just as yesterday, that the companies are coming back to America; $20 billion a year in revenue, one company has already announced. They are going to put $3 billion every year into research and development and $6 billion into manufacturing.

I think the debate on process is over. This bill is less than 500 pages.

You talk about us bringing it up? Yes, so the whole American public can see the bill and read it. It is much different than when we talk about your ACA--more than 2,000 pages, and I was here. I watched what was brought right to the floor and jammed through. And you are right; the ACA doesn't work.

We believed in doing something different. We made a promise to the American public--3 days for public viewing. It is longer than 3 days.

We made a promise to the American public that we would make sure you keep more of what you earn, we would create more jobs. You know what happened after that last election? We just went through the second quarter of 3 percent growth.

You and I just talked about the number of hurricanes we just watched, the devastation. People say it probably knocked off 1 percent of growth. You know what the Atlanta Fed just came out with? They are predicting, they think we are going to go to 4\1/2\.

Do you know what? The best days of America are in front of us because of the work we have done. Let's not argue about process, because we know we have been through this process for 31 years. We know what the American public has said. We know in the hearings what they have told us, and we have listened. Now I think is the time to have the courage to lead. Let's take what we heard in those committees and put it into a bill, exactly what we just did.

To have the returns before the bill is even passed of jobs coming back, to me, like I said earlier, this is a good week, but this is going to be a great month.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, because you did ask a question in there.

When you talked about Bill Clinton, you asked: What did he have?

Well, when he first came in, he had Democrats in the majority, but all that growth happened because he won a Republican House and a Republican Senate. That is when we turned it around with John Kasich as the budget chair. That is when we balanced the budget in those 4 years.

We had to send him welfare reform how many times?

Three times. He vetoed it all the other times and claimed some glory.

But also there is another question you asked. I love a good debate. I love to pick just facts when you don't want to look at the whole picture. The best thing to even just look at if you want to go: Did the election matter? Did the election matter to the American public?

Well, I heard a lot of pundits on the other side say: Oh my God, if President Trump got elected, the market is going to crash.

You know what? Most everyone in America that invests for retirement invests in the market, and President Donald Trump has given them all a raise because we set new records, more than 60 times; that is because of the belief of what they think he could achieve.

When you look at what he has been able to do with regulation, unbelievable.

The few headlines you didn't announce during Obama, when you were doing those jobs, you didn't say anything about Nabisco leaving the country, or Burger King went and domiciled someplace else. Why?

What was the answer that President Obama would have when companies were leaving America because the taxes were too high? We will pass a law to say they can't.

You know the difference that election has made?

We just proposed a tax bill. Companies are now coming to the Oval Office to say: We are coming back. And all that means is more jobs, more money for Americans.

I understand that we are going to probably have a philosophical difference of agreement. I believe Americans should keep more of what they earn. I know what you said a few weeks ago. My friend cast his vote in favor of a budget that calls for ``$3.9 trillion in revenue enhancements.''

You know who I think needs the revenue?

The American public. That is why we doubled the standard deduction, and that is for every American. On day 1 they will get more in their check.

Small businesses, lowest tax in 40 years. All that money that those companies were being pushed out are going to come back.

We can argue all you want about this, but for 31 years we have had this argument. I think the American public is waiting for us to lead.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I have great respect for the gentleman.

It is true, we just recently traveled to look at the hurricanes and we had a lot of discussions. We disagree philosophically at times, but I think there is a place that we can find agreement upon.

I listen to you when you speak. I did just hear you ask right before: ``Why couldn't you do it when you controlled everything?''

I kind of ask my friend the same thing. When you controlled everything, the White House, the House, and the Senate, you had a self- proclaimed master legislator as Speaker. You had an opportunity.

But I know this is the window, and I know President Trump wants to get it done. That is why he put out things that he wants to see done as well. We talked about chain migration. We talked about border security.

We have been meeting--the Speaker and I just had a meeting yesterday with a number of Members about this. We would like to solve this problem overall, and I think it is a place everybody can work together, to secure our border, work on the chain migration problem, and solve this problem for others.

Now, I know there is a 6-month time period here, and I don't want to confuse issues because I would like to focus on this issue as well, but I don't want to have the government shutting down over an issue. You and I know we both discussed things like that, and I never think that is productive with whatever we do; but I look forward to continuing working with you to solve this issue.