Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 12 o'clock and 52 minutes a.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Monday, April 11, 2011, at 11 p.m.

I thank the gentleman from the Rules Committee for his good work on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of issues I would like to address as chairman of the Communications and Technology Subcommittee.

First of all, when it comes to the notion that the FCC--or let me back up--these carriers that give us the Internet might somehow regulate religious speech, it's interesting to note that the FCC, in its own order, threatens and pulls out specifically a threat to religious content. Paragraph 47, footnote 148, which I'm sure the gentleman from Colorado must know about, says that a religious organization would be prohibited from creating a specialized Internet- accessed service.

Now, there is an Internet provider out there called Koshernet that wanted

to have a special service for those religious subscribers who happen to agree, if they don't want to be exposed to things on the Internet that they are bound to regarding their religion. So the issue that the FCC points out is that, oh, we're not going to allow that to happen under these rules. So you can't have a separate Internet provider that is just set up for its own subscribers that just wants to have a filter on the Internet, if you will, for those who want to subscribe to that because of their religious beliefs. So already you see a government getting involved at the head end.

Now, we've seen in Egypt where the government is involved and had a kill switch and just turned it off when opponents of the government got engaged. We've heard a lot about China, and we all know the various back doors to the Internet there that they tried to put in to regulate speech, to control access to content and all of that.

That's the government doing that.

We know this country for many years operated under the Fairness Doctrine. That was the government trying to regulate political speech on the broadcast airwaves. It wasn't until President Reagan's FCC after a couple of court decisions basically said that trips right up against the First Amendment that President Reagan's FCC repealed the Fairness Doctrine. Congress tried a couple of times to put it back in place. What we should be about is a free and open Internet.

And that's what we've had, and that's what allowed this incredible explosion of technology and innovation to take place. And it has not taken place because the government picked winners and losers on the Internet because the engineers and scientists and technicians and innovators and entrepreneurs did that on the existing Internet.

Now, along comes the government, the Federal Communications Commission, on a 3-to-2 partisan middle-of-the-night sort of decision, if you will, right over the holidays to say, We're going to seize control and regulate the Internet. Now, that's not been done before, although they tried in the Comcast BitTorrent case where they tried to regulate the Internet once before. But the court here in Washington, D.C. said they lacked the authority. They had not proven--they had failed to demonstrate that they had the authority.

And so the court struck them down pretty clearly in part because they relied on a statement of policy, and the court said a statement of policy does not constitute statutorily mandated responsibilities.

Previously, the FCC rule, by the way, that section 706 did not constitute an independent grant of authority and has not overruled that prior decision. Now, that's important, because section 706 is part of the foundation upon which they think they have this authority, even though in a prior case they've said that didn't grant them an independent grant of authority.

Regulating otherwise unregulated information services is not reasonably ancillary to the section 257 obligation to issue reports on barriers to the provision of information services.

There are a number of issues here that bring us to the rule that we have today on the Congressional Review Act that would repeal the rule that the FCC put in place at the end of the year and notified us on.

Now, why are we using the Congressional Review Act? It is a very specific, very narrow, very targeted bipartisan-created process.

The current leader of the Senate, Harry Reid, was an advocate and supporter of the congressional review process because it allows Congress to step in when an agency has overstepped its bounds on a major rule and say, No, you don't have the authority, or, We disagree with the rule, and so we chose this CRA process to overturn this rule that a partisan group of unelected officials chose to enact exceeding their authority.

Now Congress, whether you're for net neutrality regulation under title I or title XX or no title at all, you should not stand idly by when an agency exceeds its statutory authority.

I think, ultimately, this will be thrown out in court, once it's ripe for a court to review, as the court has slapped down the FCC in the past.

The long and the short of it, though, is that, in relying on section 706, they may have inadvertently opened the door for State regulation of the Internet, because section 706 says that the FCC and State commissions shall have certain authorities and goes on to explain that in the first title of that act.

I don't think any of us here wants that door to be opened, but the FCC, in its naked grab for power it does not have, chose to base part of their decision on section 706.

Now, I heard, as I was coming over here, a recitation of my comments last night in the Rules Committee by my friend and colleague from Colorado that all of the major companies support this, or virtually all, and, gee whiz, they did this voluntarily at the FCC. Well, come on. None of them will publicly admit to the fact that the FCC had, holding over their head, a title II proceeding that would have treated the Internet as a common carrier, as simple telephone service with a highly regulated environment.

And it's one of those Hobson's choices: either go with us with title I, which is ``light regulation'' but opens the door to government regulation for the first time of the Internet, or we may come after you on title II. Now, to back up that argument, I would point out that there's an open proceeding at the moment on title II. They have never closed their title II proceeding.

So these companies have a lot of other issues before the FCC, like mergers--has anybody ever heard of those?--and other things. They are their regulator.

I was regulated by the FCC for 22 years as a license holder in broadcast stations. The last thing you're going to do is poke your regulator. And when your regulator has you by your license or by your next merger, you're probably going to acquiesce to the lesser of two evils, which is what happened here.

So, Mr. Speaker, and to the ladies and gentlemen of the House, I would encourage you to support this rule. It's narrow. It's defined. It's closed for a reason, because the parliamentarians and others have told us basically there's no real way to amend this and carry out its lawful action. And so in a rare instance, this makes sense to have a closed rule.

Will the gentleman yield on that point? Because I don't believe that was the case.

I just want to point out that back on KosherNet, the Federal Communications basically singled that out and said, no, you can't, as an Internet service provider, have that kind of separate system. You can't filter out even if you want to. And I think that's different.

As for the court decisions the gentleman referenced, I don't necessarily know where he's going on that. But I understand the court said the time is not right yet for the appeal by Verizon and MetroPCS on the Internet rules, not right because the Federal Communications Commission has not put these rules into the Federal register because they haven't completed some of their due diligence, apparently, on the effects on business.

So that will still be ripe to litigate later on. The other point I want to make is understand that while these rules promulgated, I believe, outside the authority of the FCC apply to the Internet service provider, the pipes if you will, they do not apply to the content providers on the other end. So in other words, once you get on the freeway, as we know the Internet, you want to get out into the neighborhoods eventually. And so a lot of people go to a particular search site let's say, a search engine, and that search engine is making enormous decisions about where you end up on the Internet.

Those search engines and other providers like that, they are not under these rules at all. And I would suggest I am not eager to have them under these rules. But I find it fascinating that they can block, they can tackle, they can hide, they can change their algorithms.

So you know, by the time you search for something, you may get moved from number one in your category to No. 71 because they make some decision in their algorithm. So there is a lot going on out there.

But I would say this: Most Americans have access to broadband, most of us are on the Internet, and we are a very powerful community when somebody misbehaves. And generally, the Internet has been successful because misbehavers have been punished by the consumers in an open and free marketplace effectively and quickly and much better than through a government regulatory regime.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. Chairman, nearly a decade ago the farmers and families in the Klamath Basin suffered irreparable harm when two government agencies with conflicting demands and questionable data shut off water for irrigated agriculture, threatening a way of life and the economy of the region. Fertile farmlands turned to dust under the summer sun. A wildlife refuge nearly dried up. Some farmers whose families had tilled the soil and grown crops for generations lost everything and filed for bankruptcy. The stress was too much for some. One died of a heart attack and another took his own life.

Out of that aftermath, the House Resources Committee, then chaired by Jim Hansen of Utah and Richard Pombo of California, went to work with me trying to find short-term solutions and work on the long term. Principals in the basin, as you have heard, found common ground where they had been apart, and they reached agreement that they have brought forth to KBRA and the KHSA.

However, it's clear to me that the agreements as written do not have those in charge of the Resources Committee today. The gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) have made that clear. There is little point, then, in spending more of the taxpayers' money, especially during these dire fiscal times, on an effort that is unlikely to move forward in its present form.

Given that reality, I will support the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock). The House's decision today, however, will not lessen the threat to irrigated agriculture in the Klamath Basin. It does not add to water storage. It does not provide protection to the ratepayers. It does not resolve the water rights disputes.

It does mean, however, the burden of finding a timely and effective solution to conflicts in the Klamath Basin now resides in the Resources Committee and those who rejected these plans, because there is no escaping the fact that the problems remain, the conflicts grow and the courts call all the shots absent legislative action.

Nearly a decade ago, the farmers and families in the Klamath Basin suffered irreparable harm when two government agencies, with conflicting demands and questionable data shut off the water for irrigated agriculture, threatening a way of life and the economy of the region. Fertile farmlands turned to dust under the summer sun. A wildlife refuge nearly dried up. Some farmers whose families had tilled the soil and grown crops for generations lost everything and filed for bankruptcy. The stress was too much for some . . . one farmer died of a heart attack and another took his own life.

Meanwhile, the nation's attention turned to the plight of the Klamath Basin farm families and more than 15,000 members of the community turned out in a symbolic bucket brigade that stretched from one end of town to the other.

I was a member of the House Resources Committee then, and our chairmen, first Jim Hansen of Utah and later Richard Pombo of California, responded to my calls for help with hearings and legislation. And the Bush Administration weighed in, too. We were committed to finding lasting solutions to prevent another water cut off. We put in place historic conservation efforts to improve water management. We got funds to screen the A canal and to remove Chiloquin dam. We created water banks and added to storage--although not by enough.

And then the principals in the Basin who often were on opposing sides, spent years trying to find common ground. They worked in good faith, tirelessly in search of a long-term plan to prevent another water cutoff. They should be commended for their work. And it is

the culmination of that effort--with all of the controversy that surrounds it--that brings us here today.

It is clear to me, that the agreements as written do not have the support of those in charge at the Resources Committee. The gentleman from California Mr. McClintock and the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Hastings, have made it abundantly clear that they will not move forward on the KBRA or the KHSA.

There is little point in spending more of the taxpayers' money-- especially during these dire fiscal times--on an effort that is unlikely to move forward in its present form. Given that reality, I will join them today in voting for this limiting amendment.

The House's decision today will not lessen the threat to irrigated agriculture in the Klamath Basin. It does not add to water storage. It does not provide protection to ratepayers. It does not resolve water rights disputes.

It does mean, however, that the burden of finding a timely and effective solution to the conflicts in the Klamath Basin now resides with the Resources Committee and those who rejected this plan, because there is no escaping the fact that the problems remain. The conflicts grow. And the courts call the shots, absent legislative action.

I pray that we never have to see a repeat of the disaster of 2001. I look forward to working with the Chairman Mr. Hastings and the Subcommittee Chairman Mr. McClintock on whatever plan they have in mind to bring about a comprehensive, Basin-wide solution. And I know they must understand, especially in this water year, how critical prompt action is.

Doing nothing is not an option.

[From Klamath Falls Herald and News, May 27, 2010]

Commentary: Hukill, Switzer: Against Dam Removal, but for KBRA

(By Al Switzer and Cheryl Hukill)

There seems to be some confusion on where we, Commissioners

Al Switzer and Cheryl Hukill, stand on dam removal and the

Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement.

From the very beginning of this process we have publicly

stated that we are against dam removal and lobbied for fish

ladders or trucking of fish instead. We are for jobs, jobs,

jobs, and a strong economy. That message has never changed

and will not change.

State Rep. Bill Garrard has stated publicly that his

position is against dam removal but for the KBRA, and this is

the same position that we have taken and continue to take.

We are not willing that outside entities make the decisions

for this Basin when it comes to the water and agricultural

issues that face us.

We know that whether we signed the agreement or not, the

dams are destined to come out. That was a private company

making a private business decision. Government has no

business interfering with private industry.

But the destiny of our farmers and ranchers is our

priority, and we must be participants of the committees that

will be formed as a result of the KBRA.

The agricultural community brings in over $600 million,

using a multiplier of 2. It has also created over 4,000 jobs.

Businesses with livable wage jobs will quit looking at

Klamath County as a viable place to relocate if we do not

have a stable economy, of which agricultural is a huge part.

Status quo is no longer an option. We must never forget

what happened in 2001. Every business was affected by the

government shutting our water off. At least with the KBRA, a

committee of stakeholders will help set the course for our

water issues.

If the KBRA had been in effect in 2008, we would have had

enough carryover to have 330,000 acre-feet of water instead

of the 150,000 acre feet. Why? Because the biological opinion

would have allowed the flow of water going down the Klamath

River between October and February to be far less than it was

this year.

Again, we stand against dam removal, but stand for jobs and

a strong economy.

The authors

Al Switzer and Cheryl Hukill are Klamath County

commissioners.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment on behalf of my Energy and Commerce Committee colleague, Mr. Stearns, as well as Mr. Terry and Chairman Upton, and my appropriations colleagues, Mrs. Emerson, Mr. Diaz-Balart, and Mr. Graves of Georgia.

We all want an open and thriving Internet, and that Internet exists today. Consumers can access anything they want with the click of a mouse, thanks to our historical hands-off approach. Changing direction now will only harm innovation and the economy.

I am bringing up this funds limitation today to prevent the Federal Communications Commission from spending funds to implement its network neutrality rules regarding the Internet. It is a stopgap measure while we work toward passing a more permanent solution, a Resolution of Disapproval, H.J. Res. 37, which would nullify the rules themselves. And I would encourage everyone who cares about keeping the government out of the business of running the Internet to cosponsor that resolution.

Before we even get into the harm the network neutrality rules would cause, it is important to realize the FCC's underlying theory of authority would allow the Commission to regulate any interstate communication service on barely more than a whim and without any additional input from the Congress. In essence, the FCC argues it can regulate anything if, in its opinion, doing so would encourage broadband deployment.

I am relieved, however, that the FCC declined under its newfound authority to regulate coffee shops and bookstores, airlines, and other entities. Now, this of course means that the FCC believes that if it had not so declined, it would have subjected WiFi and coffee shops and bookstores to government management.

If left unchallenged, this claim of authority would allow the FCC to regulate any matter it discussed in the national broadband plan. Recall that the FCC concluded that consumers' concerns over privacy are deterring broadband. So does that mean the FCC can regulate Internet privacy?

The national broadband plan also addresses health IT and distance learning, smart grids, smart homes, smart transportation. Can the FCC regulate all these matters, too, in the name of promoting broadband? Under the FCC's rationale, its authority is only bounded by its imagination.

The Internet started as a Defense agency project to connect computers at research facilities. It did not become the explosive driver of communications and economic growth it is today until it was opened up to free enterprise to participate in. And the American entrepreneurs and innovators did what they did best: They grew jobs and they created new technology.

As early as the 1970s, the FCC took a hands-off approach to data services. FCC Chairman William Kennard reaffirmed this approach during the Clinton administration. In rebuffing requests to regulate cable Internet access service, Chairman Kennard explained in a 1990 speech, and I quote, ``The fertile fields of innovation across the communications sector and around the country are blooming because, from the get-go, we have taken a deregulatory competitive approach to our communications structure, especially the Internet.''

There is no crisis warranting departure from this approach. Most everything that the order discusses is either an unsubstantiated allegation or speculation of future harm. The FCC even confesses in its order that it has done no market analysis. It only selectively applied the rules to broadband providers, shielding Web companies.

If the mere threat of Internet discrimination is such a concern, and if the FCC has done no analysis to demonstrate why one company has more market power than another, why would discrimination by companies like Google or Skype be any more acceptable than discrimination by companies like AT&T or Comcast?

Instead of promoting competition, such picking of winners and losers will stifle the investment needed to perpetuate the Internet's phenomenal growth, hurting the economy.

Section 230 of the Communications Act makes it the policy of the United States to ``preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation.''

Statutory statements of policy are not grants of regulatory authority, but they can help delineate the contours of

that authority. In light of Congress' statutory pronouncement that Internet regulation is disfavored, the FCC's theory of regulation by ``bank shot'' stretches too far.

At bottom, this is little more than an end run around the D.C. circuit court's April 2010 ruling in the Comcast case that the FCC failed to show it had ancillary authority to regulate network management. Therefore, I urge your support of this amendment, as well as your support of H.J. Res. 37, our resolution of disapproval.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Walden

Amendment No. 404: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I rise today to mark the centennial of the City of Eagle Point, Oregon. Eagle Point was named for a prominent rocky cliff east of town that was a popular nesting place for eagles.

Today Eagle Point is known as ``The Gateway to the Lakes'' as it sets the scene for tourists and other visitors traveling east to view Crater Lake and the majestic natural wonders of the southern Cascade Range.

During the gold rush days of the 1850s--before it was even considered a ``town''--Eagle Point was known for its rich agricultural production and became the ``food basket'' to the Rogue Valley. That regional importance was solidified in 1872 when the Snowy Butte Mill was built along the banks of the nearby Little Butte Creek. The grist mill quickly became an economic hub for the area. It is said that wagons lined the road to the mill for miles waiting to have their grain ground into flour. In addition to local farmers, the mill was important to Native Americans, who traveled more than 90 miles over the Old Military Trail from Fort Klamath to trade leather and berries for flour.

It wasn't until the Pacific & Eastern Railroad arrived in the early 1900s that a commercial district was established in Eagle Point, and as a result, the city became incorporated in 1911. As Eagle Point blossomed it became the home to three hotels, a livery stable, blacksmith shop, a few saloons, and some dance halls known for their ``rowdy behavior and bootleggers.'' Three of the original brick buildings which housed the bank, confectionary store and general store still stand and are now home to modern businesses.

Eagle Point residents have gone to great lengths to preserve their history. In 1987, the citizens of Eagle Point relocated a queenpost truss covered bridge built in 1922 from Antelope Creek and placed it across Little Butte Creek for children to cross as they make their way to and from school. In addition to the covered bridge, the Butte Creek Mill also serves

as a link to the past, and is still in operation today. This historic, water-powered grist mill with its original, 130 year-old, French- quarried buhr stones is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and is a popular tourist attraction.

Despite nearly doubling in size over the last decade, modern day Eagle Point continues to be a great place to live and raise children because of its small town rural charm, excellent schools and beautiful surroundings. Along with its rich history and rural setting, Eagle Point boasts a world-class Robert Trent Jones II-designed 18-hole golf course, which has attracted golfers and new residents alike.

Many notable celebrities have called Eagle Point home including Ginger Rogers, Patrick Duffy, and Kim Novak.

Mr. Speaker, on February 12, 2011, Eagle Point kicks off its Centennial Celebration. I invite my colleagues to join with me in wishing ``Happy Birthday'' to a growing, thriving city which serves as the ``Gateway to the Lakes'' and a window into southern Oregon's rich history.

I thank my colleague from Texas.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this bill and the examination of the rules and the regulations that create uncertainty and increased costs and disadvantage our businesses, farmers, and ranchers. My wife and I were small business owners for nearly 22 years. I know what it's like to sign the front of a payroll check and to deal with government rules and regulations.

Here is a perfect example of what my farmers and ranchers face in Oregon. These are new rules that are coming out from the Environmental Protection Agency that are relying on what they even termed as a National Marine Fisheries Service document that was less than transparent. This affects new set-asides if you use modern chemicals at all to grow America's food and the world's food. These are new setback provisions that are being required in buffer zones that could, in some cases, be from 100 to 1,000 feet along any body of water, including intermittent streams. Now, if you are from sort of the dry side of Oregon, you have a lot of intermittent streams that only kind of flow with runoff, and they dry up. The practical effect, though, is that you could lose most of your farmland.

This is an example, run through their models, of what this could mean if this rule goes into effect. And you would take from 108 acres, which is the whole area here, and you would begin to reduce down the buffers to where you would be able to farm less than 10 acres. That means that for this farm, you could lose upwards of--this crop yield now would produce $21,000 in income. When the Federal Government's rules are fully implemented as described here, you would be down to $1,500. You can't farm if you lose much of your farm ground and you go from 108 acres down to 10.

This will occur all over the country, all over eastern and western Oregon, and it is an enormous Federal Government land grab that could affect between 40 and 67 percent of farmlands in Oregon. And in this case, it's an 83 percent reduction if taken all the way to the 1,000- foot buffer along these intermittent streams.

Ladies and gentlemen, we need to examine this and many other rules and regulations and look at their practical effect on the ground throughout the countryside, on the men and women who raise our food and produce the jobs in America.

Mr. Speaker, 42.7 percent of Oregon's seniors--that's about 200,000 in Oregon, nearly 41,000 in my district--were enrolled, at the time this law was established, in Medicare Advantage programs.

You know, under this bill, under this new law, Medicare gets whacked by $500 billion, and the reports indicate one out of two seniors might lose their Medicare Advantage across the country.

Look, I want a patient-centered health care system. It's your life. It's your health. You should have the right to choose your doctor and your hospital and make those decisions. We will address, with our replacement bill, preexisting conditions, making sure kids who are in college or up to 26 or whatever the age is decided by the committee are going to be able to be covered by your insurance.

But I'll tell you what. In the law that is on the books today, it drives up the cost of health care, it drives up premiums, and it adds to the Nation's debt when you look at it in the long term, according to

And I think that's one of the big arguments here that I get from the people out in my district is: Why did the government take over this, put all of these other provisions in, ram a bill through the House that creates this new trillion dollar entitlement that costs jobs and doesn't drive down the cost of health care?

We can do better than this, given the chance. And under the Republicans, the committees will actually have a chance to work on a bill for replacement and everybody can participate from both sides of the aisle. And we will get it right and get to a patient-centered health care system in America that does reform the current system and drives down costs.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Oregon's Second District to offer my deepest sympathies to the families of the victims of Saturday's senseless shooting in Tucson. Americans see each of us taking this personally, because Congresswoman Giffords and her staff were doing what each of us does in our own way: We go home; we reach out to listen to people who agree and disagree, and we practice the art of democracy. It is a practice so fundamental to our Nation that families bring their young children who are interested in public service; senior judges attend to discuss Federal policy, and citizens come to get help with their Medicare or Veterans Affairs benefits. No one comes thinking such a despicable act of violence will occur.

Despite deep philosophical differences, sometimes argued vigorously and vociferously in our meetings, Americans share a common belief that violence has no place in democratic discourse.

In Romans 12:1, Paul writes, ``Don't be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.'' We stand together across America committed to this calling and in the belief that the great good in America will always overcome the isolated evil.

May God's healing hand be on our colleague and those affected and bring comfort to all.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the House Administration Committee for his help and assistance as we worked through the transition. I also want to thank the ranking member the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brady) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) as well who were designated by then-Speaker Pelosi to be a formal conduit for us on the transition. They were most helpful and gave us good insights. And I want to thank all the Members who participated and the staff whom we reached out to in a survey across this campus to say, How can we do this better? How can we be more efficient with our time and the taxpayers' money? Where can we cut costs?

Today is that first installment. There is an old saying that the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a single step forward, but it is a $35 million first step. We think we can at least save that in this effort today, and leadership really starts at the top.

The American people have spoken loudly and clearly. They are very concerned about the economy and their jobs and their communities and they are equally and deeply concerned about the deficits that have been racked up by both parties over time. We have to turn that around, or we end up looking like some of these countries elsewhere around the globe that are facing financial ruin if they don't change. We have to change, too, and we are asking ourselves to take the first step here and save at least $35 million.

As the gentleman from Pennsylvania has pointed out and the gentleman from California has pointed out, this is the first installment. Our management team in this organization is looking at each department on how they can achieve additional savings. As you know, we have an Inspector General that looks at everything on Capitol Hill and identifies ways we can improve safety and security and cut costs and be more efficient, so we are letting them do their management piece.

Now, I was a small business owner for 22 years with my wife out in Oregon. I understand that if you don't watch the pennies and the nickels, you will never get to the dollars. You have to look at

everything you do in real time to try and squeeze out efficiency, and I think we have done that.

As Republicans, our pledge to America was to do exactly that across the government, and you will see oversight hearings about policy, oversight hearings about job-killing regulations because we want to get America working again. And I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle share that view, that it is the private sector jobs that we have to get restored in this country. We have to grow the economy and create jobs and put Washington's fiscal house back in order, and we will take the first steps today with this legislation and this resolution.

So, specifically, we cut we believe $35 million out of our own budgets. It is a 5-percent reduction, except, I should point out, the Appropriations Committee will actually suffer a 9-percent reduction, and they came forward with that level. I applaud them for that.

This is firm, but flexible. Members will still determine within their budgets how they are spent. We don't micromanage here. We treat you as adults, and we are going to treat government agencies as adults. But we will expect results because the American people spoke clearly in November and said, we want transparency, we want openness, we want accountability, we want you to cut deficit spending, and we want you to create private sector jobs.

So, Mr. Chairman, I think we have begun that process today. I thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for supporting this bipartisan effort.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the Rules Committee.

I wanted to talk just briefly about the transition itself, and I want to thank members of both parties who participated in very meaningful ways in our transition. I think it was an unprecedented effort in terms of its size and inclusiveness. Four members of our team were incoming freshmen. We offered Democrats the opportunity to participate both formally and informally, an act of bipartisanship that has been missing, frankly, from prior organizations going back over both parties' tenure in leadership.

I asked Speaker Pelosi to designate two Democratic participants. We distributed surveys to every Member, chief of staff, and scheduler on both sides of the aisle to get as many ideas as possible to reform the people's House. Let us always remember that this is the people's House. It is their business. It is the taxpayers' money, and the public has the right to observe and participate in this process. The outcome is the rules package before us today. The transition team received more than 2,000 suggestions from the general public submitted through our Web site.

And what did we accomplish? Bills will now be posted online in a searchable format at least 3 days before receiving a vote on the House floor. No longer will bills be dropped in the middle of the night and voted on the next day. We require that all bills include a citation of constitutional authority so Congress respects the limits imposed on it by the founding document.

To begin to control the explosion in spending, we are clamping down on budgetary sleights of hand that hide spending beyond the first 10- year window of a bill; any legislation projected to increase the deficit by more than $5 billion in any single 10-year window out to 50 years will be subject to a point of order; a new CutGo rule requiring any suspension bill that increases authorizations or creates new programs to make equal or greater cuts elsewhere; a legislative calendar to ensure Members will be back home listening to the people who sent us here at least a week every month; ending the practice of passing comprehensive or omnibus bills that package unrelated legislation together in an effort to avoid public scrutiny; and will require every committee to Webcast

their hearings and markups and make them available online.

Transparent, open, accountable. This is the rules package to change the House.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Physician Payment and Therapy Relief Act.

On Wednesday, doctors who participate in Medicare will face a 21 percent cut in their reimbursement rates. It is unfortunate that we are again debating only a short-term solution to this problem. Thirty-day patches and 60-day fixes do not provide the certainty necessary for physicians to properly run their practices. Yet, inaction today would disrupt the Medicare system and jeopardize seniors' access to care just as the holidays are approaching.

We should pass H.R. 5712, but we must begin working on a long-term, financially viable solution to fix the manner in which physicians are reimbursed under Medicare. The first step must be to repeal the new health care law. The health law cut over $500 billion from Medicare to expand Medicaid and create a new entitlement program, while completely ignoring the looming payment crisis that we must act on with this legislation today. Unfortunately, I think for the last 4 years there has not been a single hearing held on this particular issue. That is long overdue to be done.

So while the majority scrambles today to find money to fix the Medicare reimbursement system, we should remember that they deliberately chose not to do this with their disastrous health care law. They needed the law to appear less expensive, and the Medicare doc fix was simply ignored.

I support H.R. 5712 to provide a temporary reprieve from the reimbursement cut scheduled to take effect Wednesday; however, we must find a solution to the pending 26 percent cut scheduled to take effect now in January. And we have to work together to develop a longer term solution that does bring stability to the Medicare program.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to share with you and my colleagues my pride in an incredible woman who has the distinction of being the oldest active paramedic in Oregon. Jane McLaughlin is 74 years of age and is completing service as the Emergency Medical Services Chief for the Chiloquin Volunteer Ambulance Service, capping off a long and distinguished career.

Jane began her EMS career almost three decades ago when her youngest son suffered an accidental wound and was treated and transported by Chiloquin Volunteer Ambulance Service. From that day on, she knew that her calling was to meaningfully serve and comfort those in need of emergency medical assistance.

Since accepting this calling, Jane has served her community for over 28 years in a variety of emergency response functions. She has held every level of EMS certification the State of Oregon authorizes and has volunteered thousands of hours of service. Jane has never stopped learning and she has never stopped growing. At 61, she completed her fire fighting academy training.

The many awards and accolades presented to Jane are a strong testimony to how much her community and others value her service to her fellow man. The Klamath County United Way has recognized Jane both with their Accommodation for Excellence and Volunteer of the Year Award. The State of Oregon Department of EMS and Trauma Systems awarded her the Meritorious Service award as paramedic of the year. Jane was chosen by the mayor of Chiloquin to be the grand marshal in the 2009 Fourth of July Parade for her outstanding service.

Madam Speaker, however noteworthy Jane's age, years of service, and many awards are, the real story is the good that she has done for almost three decades of service. Jane's neighbors and local citizens are familiar with her accomplishments, but they know her best for her kindness, her compassion, her dedication, and her unselfishness. In the community, when people think about the Chiloquin Volunteer Ambulance Service, Jane McLaughlin comes immediately to mind.

Jane has demonstrated heroism when she has on many occasions risked her own life to save the lives of others. Jane's comforting ways as a first responder have helped the injured and sick cope with their emergency situation with reduced fear and confidence that their condition will improve. Jane has an incredible gift of healing that goes far beyond the administering of basic medical attention. She not only relieves pain, she delivers comfort and peace to people in distressed situations. The service that Jane has given to others comes from an acute sense of duty and the sincere goodwill of an unselfish, engaged, and compassionate person.

As my esteemed colleagues well know, an impact player like Jane McLaughlin sets the tone of a successful operation, provides a shining example for others to follow in a relentless path to excellence, and engages others to join her in serving their fellow man. Jane will be missed, but her good work will continue in the hands and hearts of those she has inspired and trained to deliver the best in emergency medical service.

Madam Speaker and colleagues, I invite you to join me in honoring Jane McLaughlin, the kind of person who improves our world and restores our faith in our fellow man. Her goodness is contagious, and she sets an example for all of us to follow.

Madam Speaker, I rise on the occasion of Honor Flight of Eastern Oregon's inaugural journey of 10 of Oregon's World War II veterans to visit their memorial here in Washington, DC. On behalf of a grateful delegation, state, and country, we welcome these heroes.

The veterans on this initial flight from Eastern Oregon are World War II veterans: Bob L. Hemstreet, U.S. Army; Raymond ``Ray'' J. Kuhn, U.S. Navy; Lavonne ``Vonnie'' I. Kuhn, U.S. Navy; Arthur ``Art'' C. Krantz, U.S. Army; Walter ``Walt'' D. Goodman, U.S. Navy; Gifford S. Hulse, U.S. Army; Leonard ``Lenny'' V. Morse, U.S. Army Air Force; Minnie ``Marie'' M. Colombari, U.S. Navy; David A. House, U.S. Army Air Force; and Henry ``Milt'' M. Prowell, U.S. Army.

Madam Speaker, these 10 veterans from Oregon are joining over 35,000 veterans from across the country who, since 2005, have been transported from their home states to our Nation's capital at absolutely no cost to them or their families, to visit and reflect at memorials built here in their honor.

The fact that these soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen would uproot themselves from their homes and families and put themselves in harm's way for our country is very humbling. The sacrifices they--and the families they left behind--made are truly incredible. The debt of gratitude we owe them can never be repaid, for without their honor, courage, commitment, and above all--sacrifice we would not be able to enjoy the freedoms we have today.

Please join me in thanking these Oregon veterans and the volunteers of Honor Flight of Eastern Oregon for their dedication, commitment, and service to this great Nation.