Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank the chairman for his work. I would also like to highlight a few Members whose work is inside this bill. First, Congressman Marino, Congressman Ratcliffe, Chairman Chabot, and Congressman Luetkemeyer have all done a tremendous amount of work to make this bill here today, and I appreciate that.

Mr. Chairman, we have a grave problem in our Federal Government. It undermines our Constitution, it contradicts the will of the people, and it is a deadweight on our economy destroying American jobs and costing billions of dollars per year in paperwork and lost opportunities. I am talking about the duplicative and unforgiving Federal bureaucratic state.

But before I discuss the dangers that an overzealous bureaucracy poses to our country, I want to be clear that the House has already made great progress. We are engaged in a two-step approach: first, to change the structure of Washington that deprives the people of their power; and second, to repeal specific harmful regulations. We will get started on the second part early next month.

We have already passed two bills last week to change Washington's structure, the Midnight Rules Relief Act and the REINS Act. Today, we will pass the third, the Regulatory Accountability Act. This requires agencies to choose the least costly option available to do what they are charged to do and prohibits large rules from going into effect while they are still being challenged in court. It also ends something called Chevron deference where courts automatically bend to the agency's interpretation of the rules. Under the current standard, that means the agency will win almost every single time in the courtroom and the people lose.

These three bills are about more than stopping bad regulations from being made. They are about changing the process in Washington that systemically prioritizes government over the

common good instead of making government serve the common good.

Mr. Chairman, our Nation is based on a principle that power ultimately comes from the people. Elections are the great foundation of our Republic, and, as we saw so clearly this last November, through them, the people can make their voices heard. But something has changed. Some of the most significant decisions in Washington, those that most affect the lives of the public, are made by those who don't stand for election.

What happens when the EPA imposes rules that deprive people of their property rights, when the Department of Health and Human Services tries to force nuns to violate their religion, or when the VA perpetuates a system that lets veterans die while they wait for their care? The people can't vote out bureaucrats who write rules at the EPA or the Department of Health and Human Services. They can't vote out bad leaders of the VA.

These bureaucrats know it. They know they aren't accountable to the people even as they exercise great power. Without elections, the people lose. Washington is brimming with executive employees devoted to preserving the status quo.

Then there is a revolving door of high-level Federal employees who head to major consulting firms and lobbying arms to influence the very agencies they came from. This breeds thousands of regulations that further enrich the connected and powerful--sometimes at the great expense of the average American.

It is our economy and the American workers who suffer the most. Federal regulations written and enacted by these bureaucracies impose a burden of about $1.89 trillion every year. That number is hard to make sense of or to even imagine. It comes to, roughly, $15,000 per U.S. household, or 10 percent of the American GDP.

The Obama administration alone has written regulations that require over 583 million hours to comply with. That is an average of nearly 5 hours of paperwork for every single full-time employee in America. The Federal Register is now the length of 80 King James Bibles.

When bureaucrats and agency heads cannot be held accountable and when they keep their jobs regardless of corruption, incompetence, waste, fraud, abuse, or the backroom deals they make with special interests, that is the problem. That is the swamp, and we need to drain it.

There is a reason the House is restructuring Washington first. It is that we made a commitment to the American people that we would drain the swamp. Now we are today.

Mr. Speaker, the government is many things. It is large, it is complicated, and it is ineffective. I don't think anyone would call it modern. While the world is rushing forward with things like voice-based interfaces, autonomous vehicles, online retail, and data analytics, government is stubbornly years, or even decades, behind.

We do not have to accept it. One of the purposes of the Innovation Initiative, our effort here in the House, is to bring government into the modern age.

Right now, it can still take hours for citizens to get the IRS on the phone to ask the most basic questions. Parents and students still deal with the clunky user interfaces when applying for tuition assistance. And the VA still uses a scheduling system that is a quarter century old. It doesn't have to be this way.

We have a program right now, the Presidential Innovation Fellows program, that brings in highly talented professionals from across the country to help upgrade our government's use of technology. Now, these are engineers, designers, innovators, and thinkers. They challenge the old ways of thinking and introduce new approaches to make our government work the way the American people deserve it to work.

I sponsored the TALENT Act to make sure this innovation program continues into the future. By drawing on the great talent of the American people, we can make government effective, efficient, and accountable.

Mr. Speaker, when we as Members of Congress are first elected, before we are sworn in, before we introduce our first bit of legislation, the first thing we do is begin to hire, to form a team, and much of the success that happens on this floor is a lot of work that is done behind the scenes by our staff. They do a tremendous job for this country in the public service they provide.

I personally count myself blessed to have had Tim Berry as my chief of staff for the whole time I have been in leadership. Today is his last day on our floor. Tim has had 18 years of service in this institution. He has been in other leadership offices. He went into the private sector, but when I got elected majority whip, I asked him if he was willing to come back.

Tim has always demonstrated political wisdom, personal resolve, dedication, but, most importantly, distinct moral clarity.

He has been here in some of the most difficult times in this institution. He was in the office when people were actually shot when an intruder came and took lives in this institution. He has worked on legislation, he has worked on friendships, and he has worked across the aisle. But if there were one thing I would define this man as, it is a family man.

Today, we are lucky to have his wife, Lisa, and daughter, Maeve, in the gallery with us. And to his other children, Ella and Chris, I want to thank you for your sacrifice on loaning your father. For every dinner he has missed, or every phone call he had to take, or maybe that one or two lacrosse games he couldn't coach, I want to thank you.

But to Tim, I want to thank you for your dedication, I want to thank you for your friendship, and I want to wish you the very best on behalf of a very grateful nation and institution. Thank you.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, my colleague, the minority whip.

Mr. Speaker, our Constitution lists few, if specific, qualifications for the office we now hold. Article I, section 2 states that we must be at least 25 years old, we must have been a citizen for the past 7 years, and we must live in the State we represent.

In ``The Federalist Papers,'' Alexander Hamilton and James Madison wrote that ``Under these reasonable limitations, the door of this part of the federal government is open to merit of every description, whether native or adoptive, whether young or old, and without regard to poverty or wealth, or to any particular profession of religious faith.''

In a phrase, our body is to represent the American people in all of its opinions, complexities, and riches; and I believe we do. For in a free nation such as ours, no single person can represent the people as a whole. In this body, I proudly work with colleagues on the left and the right, from every region and State, people who profess different faiths, have had different careers, and embody the experiences of the American people. No gathering in this Nation is more like its people than in this House. We are joined together in representing not only our constituents but our country.

Mr. Speaker, we now have a high and honorable task set before us. First, we must take our practical principles that we have built up by the hard experience of generations who have come before us, and we must apply them to a changing future. Our mission is not to return to the past, nor to destroy it, but rather to build upon it.

And then we must direct the desires of the people into action. Millions of Americans long ignored have rejected a future of limits and slow decline. We have heard their voices. But history will not judge us by how well we hear but how well we act.

The unemployment rate has steadily declined and ticked down to 4.9 percent, but what is more important is that our labor participation rate is only 62.7 percent. Outside of the Obama years, that is the lowest labor force participation rate since 1978.

The reason our unemployment rate is dropping isn't because people are finding jobs. They have no prospects for stable and meaningful work. The American people have unrivaled talent and ability, but it is not being used. If we are looking for a reason behind the message that the American people sent us in November, this is a good place to start.

And for so many who have work, things aren't much better. Millions of Americans, especially those in the heartland and struggling neighborhoods in our big cities, aren't sharing in America's prosperity. In fact, the bottom half of the economic distribution in America hasn't felt any of the economic growth from the 1970s on. These people spend their whole lives working and never have the chance to move up.

We have had the wisdom to listen to all of the American people, especially those being left behind. Now let us have the courage to lead. Let us have the courage to define the people's desires in law. And as we go about our daily business, Mr. Speaker, we should remember not only that we have great purpose, but we also have great power loaned to us directly from the American people.

Our Republic, and the liberties we hold dear at this time, are threatened by bureaucracies, subject to no authority but their own will. They cannot be controlled by the people and are increasingly unrestrained by the people's representatives. This is not a partisan concern. Congress has a duty to act as a unified body in defense of our Article I powers because, unlike the bureaucracy, we are accountable to the people.

That is why I have scheduled this House to tackle this problem starting today through a two-step approach. First, as I have long said, structure dictates behavior. We need to fix the structure in Washington that deprives the people of their power.

Second, we will repeal specific regulations that are harmful to the American people, costing us time, money, and, most importantly, jobs. To begin to get to the root of this problem, we will pass the REINS Act that will require Congress to approve every major regulation produced by the administrative state. And unlike the bureaucracy, if the people don't like what they see, they can vote us out of office.

Then next week, we will take a look at the Regulatory Accountability Act, which will require agencies to choose the least costly option available and will end judicial deference to agencies, which puts the American people at a disadvantage in the courtroom.

But it is not just how rules are made. It is what rules are made too. The President continues to unilaterally impose regulations on his way out the door. So while we haven't yet determined what needs to be repealed first, I expect to start with swift action on at least the stream protection rule and methane emissions standards, both of which limit our energy production.

This process won't be completed quickly, but as we remove harmful regulations and change the structure of Washington, draining the bureaucratic swamp that undermines the will of the people, we can rebuild trust between the people and their government again. And not only that, within the renewed and responsive structure of a truly representative government, we can restore that hope held by so many generations before, that hope that has defined America's character since before our Nation was founded. It is the American Dream so that we and our children can find more meaning, security, purpose, and success than those who have come before us.

Restoring that dream is the purpose of this body in the 115th Congress. The American people expect this country to be great again. Here and now, we will move us toward that greatness.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to thank more than just the gentleman for yielding. I want to thank him for his work as chairman on the Committee on Ways and Means, knowing where they are going.

We have to reform the Tax Code if we are going to grow this economy, and our chairman we have today, that has been his life's work. There is no one better poised and in a better position of understanding to finally get this done, and I am excited about what the future brings.

Today, we are talking about something much different. Today, we are talking about something that is already in the Code, something that helps bring job growth because it is about small business, and the worst thing about small business is to ever have uncertainty.

So this Congress wants to be a new American Congress. They don't want to have uncertainty for small businesses. They are taking up an issue much earlier so you can plan for the future, so you can make that hire and grow.

Now, why do I care so much about this? Many of you don't know, but I started my first business when I was 19. I got a little luck of winning a lottery. I was saving my money in summer. I took my money out of the stock market, and I took a big risk and took my time out of college.

It is not easy opening a small business. I even built the counter of my business in my dad's garage, trying to save money, but the values I learned in that small business are the same values that every small business owner in America learns: you are the first one to work, you are the last one to leave, and you are the last one to be paid.

The last thing a small business needs is more uncertainty from their government of changing the Tax Code or even whether it is going to go forward.

Today is a day not to debate. Today is a day to invest in America's small businesses. As I have said a few times on this floor, these are things that should unite us, not divide us; but in this new American Congress, I think we have something different, Mr. Speaker, in the idea of putting veto threats from this administration.

Just moments after we passed another bipartisan bill on the floor to help the food banks, the charitable giving, for those are the most vulnerable across our Nation, this administration offered a veto threat on helping small businesses. I take those seriously.

As the majority leader, I want to understand. I want to work with anyone that wants to work with us, so I read the veto threat to understand where could we make something better, where had something gone wrong, because this was already in law.

Mr. Speaker, the administration's veto threat, on the President's reasons why: first, he says that the House didn't pass a bill last Congress that he wanted; and, second, he said Congress might pass bills in the future that he doesn't like. How does that create any jobs in America?

Mr. Speaker, that sounds more like a schoolyard argument than a debate on the floor of the House. I think it is time the people grow up, understand where jobs are created, understand what uncertainty does across America,

not in my district, but in every district that is represented here today.

As someone who is a former small business owner, knows the challenges, knows what he has to do to hire someone, I ask that we look in a new American Congress to put people before politics and pass this bill, so we can grow America's economy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the 50th anniversary of the Junior League of Bakersfield. This milestone provides us the opportunity to reflect on the importance of civic responsibility and volunteerism, demonstrated so admirably by the Junior League of Bakersfield's five decades of outstanding service to the community.

In 1952, a few women formed one of the first exclusively service- oriented societies in Bakersfield: the Community League of Kern County. This organization of mothers and daughters from around our community sought to organize for the good of their city as an all-volunteer association. And there was plenty of work to do. 1952 was also the year of the White Wolf Fault Earthquake, a 7.2 magnitude disaster which demolished downtown Bakersfield. In the aftermath, the League began immediately helping our neighbors.

From its first days, the League concerned itself with the vulnerable in Bakersfield. Incorporating as a chapter of the Association of Junior Leagues of America in 1965, the Junior League focused its energies on assisting children and the elderly. While singlehandedly executing long-term projects, such as the construction of the 1966 Bakersfield Community House for Seniors, the Junior League prefers to partner with local institutions for joint projects. In the past fifty years, it has raised more than a million dollars and volunteered hundreds of thousands of hours to help those in need, including hospitalized children, teen mothers, the mentally and physically disabled, the addicted, the homeless, and the abused. Generous in its charity, judicious in its management, our Junior League has long been noted for the efficacy with which it directs resources to those whom would benefit most.

In the years ahead, the League will concentrate on sustaining the Girls Achievement Program, an initiative aimed at protecting emancipated youth, for which they have already granted tens of thousands of dollars to local organizations. The Junior League represents the best part of Bakersfield's social conscience. On behalf of the Bakersfield community, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Junior League of Bakersfield on 50 years of accomplishments as we look forward to many more.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of a great American, a self-made man, a son of immigrants and founder of an agricultural colossus--Martin J. Zaninovich, who passed away on December 9, 2014 in Santa Barbara at the age of 91.

Martin's father John left Croatia on the eve of the First World War as the Austro-Hungarian Empire teetered toward dissolution. In California, John married Mary, another Yugoslavian emigre, and found in the San Joaquin Valley the familiar arid climate and rich soils of his Dalmatian homeland. On a small farm outside Porterville the Zaninovichs raised grapes

and children too, two sons and three daughters by 1940. Martin came first in 1923, and after attending high school in Porterville, he left the valley for the University of Southern California.

The Second World War swept Martin into the United States Army and across the Pacific to the small island of Okinawa. Returning in 1947 to Delano, California, Martin married Margaret Surjak and co-founded Jasmine Vineyards with his cousin Vincent. The farm marked the beginning of Martin's rise in the table grape industry just as it began to take off. In 1961, production stood at 450 thousand tons. By 2003, output had swollen to 730 thousand tons as aggressive marketing more than doubled domestic per capita consumption.

It was not an easy accomplishment. Facing weak demand in the late 1960s, Martin convinced his fellow growers to pool their resources and press the California legislature to pass the Ketchum Act, which elevated the table grape industry to parity with California's other agricultural commodities. Martin--who at various times chaired the South Central Farmers Committee, the California Fresh Fruit Association, and the Delano Grape Growers Products to promote and expand the market--accompanied the California Table Grape Commission he helped found on its first international trade mission to Japan in 1973.

As a staunch conservative with a firm belief in individual enterprise and market economics, Martin constantly pursued policies and goals on behalf of valley growers. His work ethic went hand in hand with his philanthropy; Martin was one of the original founders of the California State University Bakersfield and a board member of Mercy Hospital.

Martin is survived by his wife, Margaret, and their three children: Katina, Sonya and Jon. Today, Martin's family operates his vineyards with the same hard work and discipline he personified so well. The San Joaquin Valley has lost one of its champions, formidable and tireless, another of those citizens for whom the greatest generation was named. On behalf of our community, I ask my colleagues to join me in remembering the life and legacy of Martin Zaninovich, and offering our condolences to his family.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and the chairman for yielding.

I have to pause for a moment. We debate a lot of things on this floor, and they are worthy debates, and they are interesting debates, but let's first, Mr. Speaker, tell the American people what we are debating today. Fighting Hunger Incentive Act, that is what we are debating.

Lots of times, I question why we have debates on the floor certain times. Right now is one of them. I really wonder if the American people tuned in today and said: You were really having an argument against Fighting Hunger Incentive Act?

Let me walk through what we are debating because, just a couple of days ago, I just went down the road here to the D.C. Central Kitchen. It is a nonprofit, feeds a lot of homeless, also helps people build jobs.

You know how it was created? Because a small businessman saw people who were hungry, then he saw an inaugural for the 41st President of the United States and said: Should that food all be wasted?

He took the leftovers and found someone who needed it. Then he went further and he goes: You know what, these people coming to eat, what they really need is they need a job, so why don't I create a culinary school?

Ninety-nine classes have gone through this culinary school. And you know what? I met this young man who went through class number two. Early in his life, he did some things wrong, and he was incarcerated for more than 20 years.

But you know what his life is today? He is the supervisor for 8 years. He has a 5-year-old daughter, and he has a college fund for that daughter. That is because the current Tax Code allows it to happen.

Mr. Speaker, when I listen to the other side, you would think we are creating a whole new bill. We are taking a Tax Code and extending it, instead of having a problem when someone wonders: Will I still get that donation?

So I asked them, I see how many people you feed here and the number of volunteers--if you want to volunteer at the D.C. Central Kitchen, you have to sign up, and the opening is in May because people want to give back.

They say 60 percent of all the food they get is donated. They get fish that would actually go into a dump beforehand. But you know what? It is not easy, if you are a small farm somewhere else, to donate it.

This incentive allows it happen. Why? Because one person saw a need-- he didn't go to government to do it, but he used the system to actually enhance and build it up.

I don't have to just go to D.C. to see this. I see this in my own community. My wife and I go down to the mission in Kern County. I see lives changed. I see people fed.

But you know what? I see all walks of life. I was down to feed the mission one day, and a person that was just a couple of lines behind it in there to get food went to the same elementary school as me and the same junior high and the same high school. That is the greatness of this country, that we are willing to help one another.

Mr. Speaker, I just don't understand. If we are willing to help each other, why do we have to fight to make it allowed to do that?

There are worthy fights on this floor, but this is not one. We are better than this, Mr. Speaker. I will tell you this: What I am most amazed and dumbfounded by, this bill has a veto threat.

This bill to help hunger, to help the next Dawain, to help the next individual be fed, has a veto threat.

You know what? I read the veto threat. The administration doesn't oppose the provision because it is already in law.

So many times, people say: Why do you wait till the last minute in this House? Well, we are not now. We are taking it up early, so nobody has a problem.

But you know what the administration, Mr. Speaker, the President said? He is threatening to veto this bill because Congress didn't pass other bills the President wanted and because the President might oppose future bills that the House could pass.

Seriously? That is just wrong. Mr. Speaker, I believe in this country. I believe in mankind. I believe in the goodness of all of us. It is not about party. It is about helping one another.

We are fighting for the incentive to end hunger and encouraging others to do it. We shouldn't have to debate about it. We should celebrate it.

I look forward to this bill passing with a large majority and the President signing it and all of us, as Americans, coming together to help the most precious because it is in every single one of our communities, hunger.

Let's put our political games aside, Mr. Speaker, and let's rise to what people expect of this House, to help the common good.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I do want to thank the authors of this bill, Congresswoman Roby and Congresswoman Sewell, for their work on this. I appreciate it.

We are blessed in this Nation to enjoy the privileges of democracy and to exercise our freedoms without fear, but sadly, for millions of African Americans in our history, that has not been the case.

James Cooper, author of American works like ``The Last of the Mohicans'' and ``The American Democrat,'' once said: ``The man who can right himself by a vote will seldom resort to a musket.''

The opposite is also true. People denied their rights might well resort to violence. It is not difficult to see why. With no established form of recourse, what choice do those denied their freedoms have?

But the people we honor today chose a different path. These nonviolent civil rights activists did not take the road of hate. In their generation's quest for freedom, they didn't corrupt themselves with the sins of those who worked against them. They fought for the rights due to every person--not with weapons, but with the force of rhetoric and virtue of peace.

I remember just a few years ago, I was walking with my friend Congressman John Lewis through Selma, Alabama. We walked on the same path of

the Selma to Montgomery march that John led 50 years ago. We crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge in peace that day, but when John led the march across the same bridge in 1965, he was beaten by a mob of State troopers and deputized citizens.

John cannot remember who carried him, but wounded and bloodied, as John told it to me, he was taken away to a church with a head injury. He did not know if he would even live.

Those marchers at Selma demonstrated physical courage, but they also demonstrated the highest moral courage. Under the onslaught of brutality and uncertainty, they did not match violence with violence. No. They demanded peace in the face of war, solidarity in the face of division, and love in the face of hate.

For all of America's shortcomings, these brave men and women demanded that the promise of America not be discarded but, instead, realized by being purified in practice. They held America to its promise. By doing so, they put their lives at risk, suffered ridicule and bodily harm, and yet in history they were vindicated.

We are gathered today in honor of those civil rights activists who suffered violence while standing in peace. We honor them for holding our Nation to the highest ideals, ensuring the true existence of liberty and justice for all and making this country keep to its promise that all men and women are created equal.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I recently read a headline about the President's budget. Do you know what it said? ``Budget proposal is Obama's map back to Big Government.'' Think about that for a moment. There used to be a time, Mr. Chairman, in the White House where they said, ``The era of Big Government is over.'' Now, it is as if we are heading back in time.

Everyone knows why the era of Big Government should be over. It is because Big Government has big costs. Mr. Chairman, large, inefficient programs cost a lot of money which mean higher taxes and more debt, but there are other costs to Big Government, too. As government grows, so does bureaucracy; and more bureaucracy means more regulations.

These regulations--tens of thousands of pages--get put on the backs of every single individual in business that works hard and tries to get by. In fact, for small businesses, regulations add almost $1,000 per employee per month--think of that, $1,000 per employee per month. That makes it much harder for our economy to grow and for small businesses to create jobs.

America needs a full-scale regulatory reform, so that bureaucracy is held accountable for all these costs. I know that is a big goal, but Representative Chabot's bill is a step realizing that goal.

This bill forces agencies to consider the least costly options for getting something done, just like every American has to do in a tough economy, and it makes agencies actually have to think about the impact the regulations have on small businesses.

Mr. Chairman, President Clinton said, ``The era of Big Government is over.'' It should be over. America simply cannot afford to tie down small businesses and hardworking people with more red tape, so let's take a step forward.

Let's move forward, ending the era of Big Government, and vote ``yes'' on the bill.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, no votes are expected in the House.

On Tuesday, the House will meet at noon for morning-hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m.

On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour and noon for legislative business.

On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes of the week are expected around noon.

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

In addition, the House will consider S. 1, the Senate Keystone bill. After 6 years of waiting, this bipartisan bill, which will create more than 40,000 jobs, will finally be placed on the President's desk. I do sincerely hope he considers his longstanding veto threat and sides with the American people by signing this important jobs bill.

Mr. Speaker, the House will also consider two critical tax packages next week that will provide much-needed certainty for Americans and small businesses.

H.R. 644, the Fighting Hunger Incentive Act, sponsored by Representative Tom Reed, will make charitable giving tax provisions permanent. This will also include provisions authored by Representatives Erik Paulsen, Aaron Schock, and Mike Kelly.

Together, this package will make a real difference in the lives of Americans by encouraging donations of property for conservation and enhancing deductions for food contributions for those in need.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the House will consider H.R. 636, America's Small Business Tax Relief Act, sponsored by Representative Pat Tiberi, with additional provisions authored by Representative Dave Reichert.

This bill is essential to creating stability for our Nation's best job creators, small businesses, by making increased expensing permanent.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I share the gentleman's frustration. Knowing the timeline of dealing with funding of Homeland Security, Republicans want to make sure it is funded. That is why we took up legislation. I agree with the gentleman. Why is it being held hostage by the Democrats in the Senate?

As my good friend knows, the Senate has changed hands. In watching what has happened on Keystone, you get open debate. I know you didn't have amendments for the last number of years, but now, you have the opportunity.

If people disagree with the House bill, all they have to do is take the bill up. As my good friend knows, what is happening in the Senate day after day is the Senate Democrats are voting now to allow the bill to come up. If you disagree with the bill, you can't offer amendments, you can't change the bill.

I would say to my friend: I share your frustration. I think our direction should be at the Senate Democrats and getting them to allow the bill to come up because nobody wants Homeland Security not to be funded. That is why we took the bill up very early, so the Senate could have time.

It is unfortunate that they play these actions in a time and place-- as you said, the American people want to see this done, and we want to see it done in a bipartisan manner as well.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding because I listened a long time.

But you also very well know, the votes in the Senate that just took place for the last 2 days were to bring the bill up. And that quote you gave from John McCain? He is frustrated because he would like to get on to the bill.

There are two different Chambers. If it is, as you say, a strong bipartisan vote over there, the only people holding up bringing this bill to the floor are the Senate Democrats. It is unfair to claim anything other.

They have denied for 2 days straight. If they want to make an amendment, if they want to change the bill--but they deny the American people the chance to even bring the bill up.

So let's be honest with the American people on where we are because nobody on this side of the aisle wants Homeland Security in any trouble.

We passed the bill early. We sent it to the Senate early. For 2 days in a row, the majority has asked to allow the bill to come to the floor, and for 2 days straight, the Democrats have said ``no,'' not even to debate it. That, to me, is unacceptable.

If you have a difference of opinion, you debate the opinion. But to deny the American public the chance to have that debate, that is unacceptable, and I will not stand for it.

I would ask that you yield

I thank the gentleman.

We were talking about looking into the mirror. Twenty-two times the President said he did not have the power to take the action that he did. From the time he said that to the time he took that action, what changed? The Constitution did not.

I will remind the gentleman, because he was at the lunch that I was at with the President. I reminded the President, after the election but prior to being sworn in, we had this discussion with him, with Senate and House leaders.

The President had the opportunity, when you were majority leader, he was President, and the Democrats controlled the Senate, to deal with immigration. They did not.

We asked the President: Would you even give us 1 day in the majority to deal with it? He did not.

So when we look into the mirror, I will gladly look into the mirror because I think the idea should win at the end of the day.

But if the Senate Democrats will not even allow you to bring the bill up to debate, I think it is very hard for your argument to stand ground.

This is a time that we want to make sure Homeland Security is funded. We took the bill up early. Just as the Constitution says, the House has their position, the Senate can have theirs. It doesn't say whatever the Senate says they can and cannot do we should just follow. No, we should lead, and we have. And I look forward to solving this problem before the 27th.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. And if you looked at our committees, we are working on it, just as we say this body should. It should go through committee, have debate on both sides, and be open.

I believe this immigration system is broken, and I think that is the process we should take, not the action that the President took.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

As the gentleman brought up about how we bring the bills to the floor, the gentleman remembers that there was a bipartisan agreement toward the end of last year with the Senate and with the House. It gave greater certainty, and it was going to be into one package.

Unfortunately, the White House disagreed, so we did not get that work done. In essence, it got stopped, saying it was too big.

Our intention next week is to bring them up individually, have the opportunity for the debate, listening to the White House. Whether they want a bill too big, too small, I am just trying to get the American public moving forward, so I took that advice and did it individually.

No, they will be in the two packages.

I thank the gentleman for asking. You asked a question similar to this last week.

It is always my intention to yield to the Rules Committee their jurisdiction to decide on the format of the bill coming to the floor and the number of amendments, whether it has a structured rule or an open rule. That is their job, and as soon as they make that decision, I will notify all.

Consistency.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I know you are concerned with the deficit. I am very concerned, especially with this administration adding more debt than all the other Presidents combined. That is why we are trying to spur the economy.

I firmly believe that if government takes less, that is more in the hands of

the public, and they are able to spend, and more revenue will come in, and history has shown that.

So I firmly believe that our actions taking place will actually bring greater revenue, greater job creation, and help lower the deficit.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

This has been the slowest recovery. If you compare the recession during Ronald Reagan's time and how fast we came out of it, there is no comparison.

The participation rate in America today is 62.7 percent, the lowest it has been since 1978. When you give up on participating, you give up on your future; you give up on your dreams. That is not an economy that we want.

When you look at the tax package that we are bringing forward, charitable contributions, maybe people on your side of the aisle think government should solve that problem. I see charitable contributions back home in my own community solving a lot of problems locally very fast and very direct. And I think these are things that could be bipartisan, so I look forward to it.

As you talk about the deficit, yes, I want to work on it. I looked at the President's budget. I do not believe government needs an 11 percent increase. That is how much new in taxes that he would give to the Federal Government. I think people keeping that would be better. And I think that lowering how we spend our money here in Washington would go a long way, and I welcome the opportunity to work with you on that.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 1 p.m. on Monday next.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, there are many parts of government that like to act in secrecy. In particular, many agencies like to hide the true costs of their regulations from the American people. After all, it is easier to add more pages to the Federal Register if nobody is sure exactly what the pricetag is, but that is not the way our democracy should work. For government to work, it needs to be accountable to the people. To be accountable to the people, government needs to be honest and open with what it is doing.

Washington needs reform, and a good place to start is to make sure that people know the true cost of what Washington is doing--no gimmicks, no hidden fees. That is why I support Representative Foxx's bill, which demands transparency on unfunded mandates.

Mr. Chairman, this bill says a simple thing. It says we trust the people. It says if the bureaucracy is afraid of telling the people how much a regulation costs, then it shouldn't impose the regulation. If bureaucracy isn't following the rules and giving the people the information they need, this bill allows the courts to review the agency--no more hiding. The people have the right to know as much as possible, and Washington has an obligation to tell them.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, today the House will vote on a bill that we have voted on many times in this Chamber.

Mr. Speaker, you want to know why?

The answer is very simple. The law is a disaster. We still can't afford its costs, and the American people still don't want it.

The House, on both sides, is intimately tied to the will of the people. We talk to, we listen to our constituents every day. In our districts, we listen to them at meetings, in the grocery store, at the gas station, and in our houses of worship. And every 2 years our neighbors either send us back to Washington to fight for them or send someone else.

In the most fundamental way, their priorities are our priorities because we directly represent them. When it comes to ObamaCare, the people could not be clearer.

Mr. Speaker, you know what they have said?

They said, We don't want it. We don't want higher premiums. We don't want to be forced to buy all sorts of coverage that we don't need and can't afford.

Mr. Speaker, they have also said, We don't want to lose our doctors, as millions have. We don't want to give control over our health care decisions to Washington bureaucrats. They have simply said, We don't want it.

But for years, the President hasn't listened.

Now, House Republicans have three priorities. We want to increase freedom, promote opportunity, and hold government accountable.

ObamaCare is against all those goals with its outdated, top-down approach. It limits opportunities by destroying the 40-hour workweek and saddling Americans with more costs. It empowers a government that mismanaged the VA and gives them even more control over American health care systems.

We need a new system. We need a system that puts the patients first, one that controls costs through competition and expands coverage by choice, not coercion. That is the system the House is developing right now.

So if you ask why we are voting to repeal this law again, we are doing it for the people.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that every Member of this House who has a direct relationship with their district to listen. But, at the end, have the wisdom to listen but the courage to lead and vote ``yes.''

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the President likes to talk about infrastructure. In his State of the Union Address, he said that there is bipartisan support for infrastructure legislation and that Republicans and Democrats need to ``set our sights higher than a single oil pipeline.''

We have listened, and we have done that.

After passing a bill to approve Keystone, this House passed another bill last week to reform the natural gas permitting process. Now the House is on its third energy infrastructure bill with Representative Bill Johnson's LNG Permitting Certainty and Transparency Act. I know the President doesn't pay much attention to what goes on here on Capitol Hill, but three infrastructure bills in 3 weeks is hard to miss.

Here are some other numbers, Mr. Speaker, that I think the President really should remember: though the Department of Energy has received 37 permits in the past 5 years, it has only approved five permits in that time. That is one a year. If the President cared about infrastructure as much as he says, I think he would get his administration to process the rest of them now.

Passing this bill would also lead to the creation of an estimated 45,000 jobs. More permit approvals mean more opportunity. More opportunity requires more infrastructure. More infrastructure means more jobs. Delay has become a hallmark of this Presidency, but Americans are done delaying job creation by ignoring America's energy abundance.

American energy supports American jobs. It supports a strong economy. It also gives our friends--like Ukraine, our allies--an alternative source of energy, diluting the power countries like Russia and Iran who use their oil to coerce and even oppress.

Mr. Speaker, the President should know that here in the House we have set our sights very high; but, Mr. Speaker, the question is: Will the President set his sights higher than his veto pen?