Providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 6) adopting the Rules of the House of Representatives for the One Hundred Sixteenth Congress; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 21) making appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2019, and for other purposes; and providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 1) making further continuing appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for fiscal year 2019, and for other purposes.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by welcoming my good friend from Florida, first, to the Rules Committee, congratulate her on her first rule on the floor, and, finally, thank her quite sincerely for the distinguished service she rendered to our country when she was a member of the Cabinet for former President Clinton. It is wonderful to have the gentlewoman in the people's House.

Madam Speaker, we are here again, this time on the third and final title of the rules package for the 116th Congress. Title III authorizes the House to intervene, otherwise appear, or take any other steps in the case Texas v. United States, the lawsuit currently pending over the legality of the Affordable Care Act. In essence, if this passes, the House will be giving Speaker Pelosi the authority to intervene in this lawsuit on behalf of the entire House of Representatives.

I spoke briefly about this matter during the debate of the overall rules package last week, and I am sure my opposition to title III comes as no surprise to my friends on the other side of the aisle. Today, we have several speakers on our side from the Ways and Means Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee, all of whom are deeply familiar with these issues and who will be able to tackle this in more detail. But for now, I will make a few key points.

First and foremost, it really isn't a surprise that the Democrats' poorly written healthcare law finds itself, once again, in legal trouble. The lawsuit this time arises from Texas where 20 States have filed suits on the grounds that, because there is no longer a tax penalty in place for failing to purchase health insurance under the individual mandate, and because there is no severability clause, the law itself is unconstitutional.

Last month, a district court judge in Texas agreed with the States and struck down the Affordable Care Act. That ruling has been stayed pending appeal.

This really should not have come as a surprise to the majority. At the time the Affordable Care Act was passed, many of us on the Republican side raised similar concerns. The act, as drafted, was too poorly written and too precariously balanced to stand up under its own weight.

The succeeding 9 years have caused those predictions to come to pass. Premiums have skyrocketed; insurers have fled the market; and for many Americans, the care they thought they were accessing under the Affordable Care Act has become anything but affordable.

Before Republicans acted last Congress to repeal the tax penalty for the individual mandate, literally millions of taxpayers made the decision to pay that penalty instead of buying health insurance they could not afford.

No matter what the outcome of this lawsuit will be, House Republicans have over and over again expressed their support for protections for those with preexisting conditions. Should the Texas decision be upheld, Republicans stand ready to work with Democrats to build an insurance system that protects people with preexisting conditions, increases transparency and choice, and lowers costs across the country.

That is exactly what we tried to do in the last Congress with the American Health Care Act, which we in the House proposed and passed as a solution to the broken law that is the Affordable Care Act. While it fell short in the Senate, its passage in the House clearly shows Republicans were ready to take steps to fix this broken system.

Rather than taking those steps today, Democrats are asking us to grant Speaker Pelosi a blank check to intervene in this lawsuit. Rather than allowing the States to continue to pursue this litigation, as is their right under the Constitution, Democrats want this House to intervene. But the majority has not said why intervention is necessary and why the House of Representatives must jump into this litigation against some of the States. Other States have already made the decision to intervene in support of the Affordable Care Act, rendering intervention by this House unnecessary.

At best, this proposal is a political exercise intended to allow the majority to reiterate their position on the Affordable Care Act. At worst, it is an attempt to pressure the courts. Either way, there is no real justification for doing what the majority wishes to do today.

Madam Speaker, the best way for the majority to protect Americans and to protect access to healthcare is to pass a constitutionally sound law that is well considered, well structured, and that will result in lower premiums and better access to health insurance. It is not what they have proposed here, which is a wasteful expenditure of taxpayer dollars to defend the indefensible.

Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), a member of both the Rules Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee, who also happens to be perhaps the foremost expert on the ACA in the House of Representatives.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), my good friend, who is also the former chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and current ranking member.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe), my good friend, the former chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and now its current ranking member.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup), my good friend, who not only provided lifesaving care to men and women in uniform in another career, but has actually done that in this body as well.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington), my good friend.

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Texas an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes), my very good friend and former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and current ranking member of that committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume simply to make a quick point.

Actually, a vote against this provision is not a vote against preexisting conditions. It is a vote to limit the power of the Speaker--not to allow the Speaker to, on her own, decide whether she is going to intervene in law cases where, frankly, the intervention of this House isn't necessary. There are States litigating against the ACA. There are States litigating for the ACA. The idea that either side is unrepresented, I think, just doesn't bear serious scrutiny.

So, you know, not only is it an exercise in futility, in my opinion, it is an exercise that is totally unnecessary because we have already given the Speaker that power. The majority has already seen fit to do that. So why we are wasting time, money, and effort in this particular exercise eludes me.

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

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

Madam Speaker, to my good friend, the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means, I think that offer is made quite sincerely, and I think it will be taken up by our side. We can work together in a bipartisan way to do exactly what the gentleman suggests.

In my opinion, this particular measure doesn't do that. It doesn't get us anywhere. It involves us in litigation unnecessarily, and it doesn't--by the way, for the second time, since we gave the Speaker this authority--I didn't vote for it, my friends did, that is their right, she has it, so why we are here on the floor today arguing about it mystifies me.

But, again, I know my friend's offer is made in good faith. I think it will be taken up in good faith. We should work together to do exactly what my friend suggests, that is, guarantee that every American is protected from preexisting conditions and able to go into the marketplace and buy insurance at a practical and reasonable rate that they can afford.

So, with that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I am always delighted when my friends on the other side believe in judicial restraint, so it is nice to see we have some new converts in that.

I just make my basic point again, Madam Speaker. We are here for no particular reason debating something that we did last week, giving that power to the Speaker. I didn't agree with that vote. We had an opportunity last week, actually, to take up a Republican measure that would have legislatively guaranteed protections for preexisting. The majority chose not to do that. So I have just forced back on the conclusion that this is much more about political theater than it is about genuine substance.

I will say, though, in disagreeing with my good friend from New Jersey, I am not a lawyer. I don't pretend to be able to be an expert judge of the legal merits, but I do think I would not so blithely dismiss 20 State attorneys general and a court that ruled in their favor. It tells me that there are significant legal issues here and that those legal issues are going to be litigated in due course.

What mystifies me is why we need to be involved in it since there is high-powered law from different States with different points of view that are in this right now.

So, again, I see no particular reason to do this, although, with all due respect, my friends have already given the Speaker the power to do it, so I don't know why we need to do it a second time. But, again, I am here to represent my colleagues on my side of the aisle, and we will continue to do that.

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

Madam Speaker, let me advise my friend, I am prepared to close. I see she has additional speakers, so, for the moment, I will simply reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, actually, I know I informed the gentlewoman differently, but my good friend, Mr. Burgess, got so excited by the debate he came back and asked for an additional minute. So if I may, Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

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

Madam Speaker, in closing, I urge opposition to this measure. The majority is asking the House of Representatives to authorize the Speaker to intervene in a lawsuit over the legality of the Affordable Care Act. Such an act is unnecessary and wasteful.

It should have been obvious to the majority that the Affordable Care Act was and is poorly written and precariously unbalanced as Republicans warned them at the time it was passed, and the intervening years have brought those predictions to come about. Premiums have skyrocketed. Insurers have fled the market. The American consumers have suffered as a result.

The appropriate solution is not to intervene in a lawsuit but, instead, to spend time working with Republicans to craft a replacement fix to this broken system. And moreover, it is certainly not to do today, in a rule, what we have already done in the same rule last week.

Madam Speaker, I have enjoyed the debate, but I am not exactly sure why we had it. Again, it is always worthwhile to spend time on the floor with my friends.

So, Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' on the underlying measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise as the designee of the Republican leader, and I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), my good friend, for yielding me 30 minutes.

For the third time in 2 days, Madam Speaker, my good friends from the Democratic side of the aisle and I are here to debate part of the Democratic rules package for the House of Representatives. Unlike the first two times, I find myself in agreement with what the Democrats are proposing today.

We are here today on title II of the rules package, which establishes a Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress. While I think improvements can be made to what my friends are proposing, I am pleased to say I think that this proposal is an excellent idea.

I know my good friend also mentioned the last Congress, and I want to take just a second to defend that Congress. Frankly, it was the last Congress that gave us the first tax modernization overhaul and tax reduction in 31 years. It was the last Congress that began the opioid initiative that we worked on in a very bipartisan way. It was the last Congress that did more deregulation than any Congress in American history. It was the last Congress, working with my friends on the other side, that did historic work in human trafficking. It was the last Congress that also did historic work, again, in a very bipartisan way, with my friends on the veterans' issues. Finally, it was the last Congress that began rebuilding the American military after 8 years of neglect. We will see if this Congress has a record that matches that in the next 2 years.

Having said that, as my friend laid out, the proposed select committee would be charged with investigating, studying, and making recommendations for modernizing Congress, including improvements to rules; to procedures, including the schedule and the calendar; to staff recruitment, diversity, and retention; and to technology.

I am especially pleased that this select committee will be equally divided between Democrats and Republicans and that the makeup of the committee will include two members of each part from the Rules Committee, the House Administration Committee, and two freshmen.

Most importantly, the select committee is required to produce a report with their recommendations by a two-thirds supermajority by the end of Congress. Those are all excellent proposals by my friends, and I wholeheartedly endorse them.

Madam Speaker, there is a lot to like in this proposal. I think we can all agree, no matter which party you belong to, that Congress needs to be modernized and its processes improved. I am especially happy that my friends have done so in a way that is bipartisan and, hopefully, will be above politics.

The proposal isn't quite perfect, of course. Personally, I would have preferred to have seen the House take up this responsibility in coordination with our colleagues in the Senate. I am sure the bulk of my conference and probably the bulk of my friend's conference would probably tell you that, if any body in Congress needs improvement, it is undoubtedly the one on the other side of the Capitol rotunda. On that, we can have a bipartisan agreement within this Chamber.

Of course, Congress works best when the House and the Senate work together, and that includes the need to improve processes and modernize Congress as an institution, as a whole. The majority would have done better to have found a way to work with the Senate on developing a joint committee made up of Members from both houses of Congress that would be charged with making improvements to the House, the Senate, and to Congress, as a whole.

That aside, this is certainly a very good and serious proposal, and I look forward, with a great deal of optimism, as the select committee does its work this Congress.

Madam Speaker, I urge support of the measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I echo my friend's comments, to some degree.

First, I thank him personally, and I thank his fellow members on the Democratic Rules Committee, for presenting this proposal. It is a genuinely excellent and bipartisan effort, and it suggests that the language we heard about trying to change the way in which we operate was very sincere and well motivated. It is much appreciated on our side of the aisle.

While we certainly had our differences yesterday, I appreciate the way, frankly, that was handled by both sides. I am pleased that we are ending this on a point of agreement and a bipartisan commitment to actually improve the nature of our institution.

Again, I expect this committee to actually produce really substantive proposals. I don't know yet, obviously, who the members on either side will be, but I know the leadership on both sides takes this very seriously. I think there is a genuine commitment to try to open up the process a little bit to make it, if you will, more Member-friendly, whether you are Members in the majority or the minority, and that is to be commended on the part of my friend.

Again, this is a good start, as my friend Mr. McGovern said, and I look forward to playing my part in participating as we make progress in this direction.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have an additional speaker on the way, I hope, but, right now, I don't have anything additional to add personally.

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

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

Madam Speaker, my additional speaker has not yet arrived, so I am prepared to close whenever my good friend is.

Madam Speaker, I again want to advise my friend I am prepared to close whenever she is.

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

In closing, while I normally would stand here and be in opposition to what my good friends, Mr. Hastings, Mr. McGovern and Ms. Lofgren would be proposing, in this case I fully support the measure that they are bringing before us.

The proposed Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress is a serious, well-intentioned proposal to create a bipartisan committee to produce a bipartisan product aimed at improving the way Congress functions now and into the future. And while this idea could have been improved if it incorporated the Senate and insured that both houses were working together on improving the overall institution, it is still, nonetheless, a very worthy endeavor.

I, for one, thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and I think that this is an issue that they could and should support in a bipartisan fashion. Frankly, I want to thank my friends; having been on the losing side of every vote yesterday, it will be nice to be on the winning side today.

So, Madam Speaker, I want to urge a ``yes'' vote on the underlying measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the creation of the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress, and I encourage all of the House to do the same.

There is precedent for Select Committees like this one. During 1973, in the 93rd Congress, the House created the Select Committee on Committees. And although the Select Committee's mission was to study the structure and operation of House committees, it ultimately made several recommendations

to improve House-wide administrative and technology functions.

Among the improvements and modernization steps, the Select Committee suggested that the House form a Commission on Information and Facilities, tasked with responding to the growing number of issues Congress faced, but with limited access to information and analysis.

The Commission also tackled the problem of growing staff needed to support an increased workload, but with limited physical space to accommodate them. The result was an installation of a system of 30 computer terminals for Members of Congress and committees of legislative research.

Now, this seems trivial now, especially when information is in our pockets, in our iPhones, but at the time it was revolutionary for the Congress to be able to get this information on its computers. This is just one example of how a Select Committee made Congress work better.

Following the Select Committee came the election of the Class of 1974. Fueled by the Watergate scandal, the new Members did much to change the Congress. They decentralized power. They invigorated our oversight responsibilities. They began a conversation that would change how we do business forever.

For example, televising the floor proceedings; the 1976 Government in the Sunshine Act. The process they started opened up our democracy to the American people and created a lasting record for history.

This Select Committee has a broad mandate to study how our Congress has changed and is changing. That begins with our changing workforce. We need to invest in our workforce, and that is why the proposal we passed in the rules package yesterday to create the Office of Diversity and Inclusion was so important. This Select Committee will be tasked with studying how we can better recruit, retain, and compensate our staff.

We also must be responsible stewards of public money, and this Select Committee will help us minimize waste and maximize value in how we operate the House.

Now, as has been mentioned, one of the virtues of the Select Committee is its composition. It will be composed of members of the House Administration Committee who have firsthand experience with the details of House administration. There will be members of the Rules Committee, experts in process and procedures who know what works and what doesn't when it comes to an efficient legislative process, and the Select Committee will feature Members in their first term who bring a new perspective and great energy to the House.

Shortly after her election, my home State colleague from California, Representative Katie Porter said: ``Congress wasn't built for Members like me.'' And unfortunately, I think Katie is right. But we can change that, and we will change that. We can give the people's House back to the people.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Well, I do have an additional speaker. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).

Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close.

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

Congress is a creature of precedent, but we must never be captive to the old ways. The House, the people's body, must continually update and renew itself to meet the challenges facing the Nation and to respond to the needs of a new generation of representatives. This Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress is a way this Congress can identify and address the challenges of tomorrow, and will assist us in boldly meeting these challenges.

The Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress is a way to deal with problems facing this body right now, today. The Select Committee is a way to make sure that my colleague, Katie Porter, works in a Congress built for her and all our new Members.

It is long past time to chart a path forward and to address the problems we must face. I look forward to working with all the members of the Select Committee and congressional stakeholders in transforming the House for the better on a bipartisan basis.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to support the ability of the Speaker, on behalf of the House of Representatives, to intervene and defend the Affordable Care Act in the case of Texas v. United States.

This case is a backhanded way to do what Republicans could not do legislatively: repeal the ACA and take away comprehensive health insurance from millions of Americans.

Madam Speaker, I represent a district that has the highest number of people--more than 100,000--enrolled in the ACA. Whether you get your health insurance from your employer, from Medicare, from Medicaid, or from the marketplace, you have something to lose if this disastrous court case is upheld.

Not only will insurance companies again be able to deny coverage to people with preexisting conditions, young people will no longer be able to stay on their parents' insurance until they are 26. Preventive services like flu shots and annual checkups will not necessarily be covered without cost. Women may, once again, face buying insurance that doesn't cover maternity care.

Our bipartisan efforts to phase out the Medicare doughnut hole could

come to an end. Our seniors should not have to choose between paying exorbitant costs for prescription drugs and buying food or paying rent.

An overwhelming majority of Americans support all of these provisions.

Madam Speaker, with this rule, we simply want to stand in court and defend the valuable protections in the Affordable Care Act that this case threatens to take away.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for his kind words at the beginning of his comments.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), who is the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Allred).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bera).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the majority whip.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy).

Madam Speaker, I inquire whether the gentleman from Oklahoma is prepared to close. I am prepared to close on my side.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I thank my distinguished colleague.

It has been more than 9 years since Congress passed the Affordable Care Act. It has withstood dozens of repeal attempts, and the Supreme Court already has held it constitutional. Now a district court in Texas has determined that the whole law should be null and void.

But the ACA is now so enmeshed in our society that we sometimes forget the numerous benefits that are now threatened by this case. It is not simply protections for preexisting conditions. It is subsidies to help the middle-class families and small businesses to buy health insurance. It is caps on out-of-pocket health insurance costs. It is an end to annual and lifetime limits.

No matter where someone gets their healthcare, they have something to lose if this case is upheld. Madam Speaker, that is why the House of Representatives must intervene in this case. We need to stand with the American people, the overwhelming majority of whom support the crucial benefits of the Affordable Care Act.

The administration is unwilling to intervene in this case and protect the rights of Americans; thus, it is up to Congress to defend and uphold this law and all of the crucial protections it provides for our citizens.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of title II of H. Res. 6, which creates a Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress.

Before I was elected to Congress, I was a political science professor. I studied and taught American Government, and my specialty was Congress. Whenever I was teaching a class on Congress, I would start by showing the old Schoolhouse Rock video ``I'm Just a Bill.'' In this video, Bill taught how a bill becomes a law. It was a great way of introducing, not just kids watching Saturday morning cartoons, but also teaching college students how a bill goes through the process in Congress to become a law. This was a 3-minute video from 40 years ago.

Unfortunately, if the song was updated today, it would need to be much longer than 3 minutes, with the addition of many more verses that explained how difficult it is for a bill to become a law.

Over the years, Congress has become increasingly dysfunctional. When I taught American Government, I would always point out that the Constitution established Congress in Article I, before the executive and judicial branches, because the drafters understood the critical importance of Congress leading in our representative democracy.

Congressional dysfunction increasingly turns more power, however, over to the President and to the courts, which takes power away from the American people. So Congress needs reform so it can function as it was intended and return this power to the American people.

Since 2016, I have introduced legislation with my friend and colleague, Mr. LaHood, to establish a Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress so we could have a mechanism to study and enact reform proposals to improve the operations of the House and Senate. I advocated for this committee because we need a forum for the holistic examination of the rules and procedures essential to effective legislating.

We need to hold up a magnifying glass to Congress and to push for comprehensive reforms to make the institution more efficient, effective, and accountable to all Americans. We need to find new ways to empower all Members to participate in the legislative process, debate ideas, advance their ideas, and get laws enacted.

As Ms. Lofgren talked about, through the history of Congress, we have had these committees that have brought important changes to the way that this body operates. With the start of this new 116th Congress, I am happy to see that this call for reform has been heeded with the inclusion in the resolution creating a Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress.

While the Select Committee does not contain all the elements of the legislation we had introduced, notably, it doesn't include Senate reform; this is an important step forward that we can achieve today, immediately, through House rules. The Select Committee will be able to make recommendations on a wide range of issues affecting work in Congress, including procedural reform, leadership development, staff recruitment and retention, technology, innovation, and administration. And the committee gives both parties an equal say in the process of developing the package of reforms.

I am grateful to my party's leadership, especially Speaker Pelosi and incoming Rules Committee Chairman McGovern, for making this a part of the House rules package for the 116th Congress.

Madam Speaker, I look forward to continuing to work to restore public trust in this institution by making Congress more transparent and effective. And by doing this, we will return power to the American people, and we can have lawmaking just as explained by Bill in his Schoolhouse Rock video, with power going to the people through their representatives in the House.

I ask my colleagues to support this resolution.