Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 228 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation.

This rule is a fair rule that adequately provides both sides of the aisle with ample time to debate the merits of the underlying legislation. In fact, the Rules Committee thought it was so important that ample time be provided to this debate, that we are provided 4 hours of general debate on the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, in honor of our former President, Ronald Reagan, I wear brown today. The former President, when he was President, believed that wearing brown was good luck to him and good luck for the things which he was undertaking. So, in honor of Ronald Reagan, I, too, wear my brown jacket today.

Mr. Speaker, it has become abundantly clear that ObamaCare has failed the American people. Our Nation's healthcare system today is broken and only getting worse under the current law, known as the Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare.

Simply put, ObamaCare is collapsing, and it is collapsing fast. Options and choices are disappearing for consumers, and an anticompetitive marketplace has been created that firmly harms patients.

How bad is it? Nearly one-third of all U.S. counties currently have only one insurer offering plans on their State's exchanges. That is a government-created monopoly, Mr. Speaker, and that kills the free market, meaning no choices for the American people and higher costs are what the American consumer and the healthcare market are finding.

And it is only continuing to get worse. As more and more insurers leave the marketplace, prices will continue to rise, forcing healthy individuals to make economic decisions not to purchase health care, creating a self-defeating spiral of rising costs and less options. That is why we must act, and act today, which is what we are doing.

It is no wonder that in such a government-controlled system that premiums have increased by an average of 25 percent on the ObamaCare exchanges this year alone. And it is no wonder that some 19.2 million taxpayers chose to outright pay the individual mandate penalty or claimed an exemption. What this means is that ObamaCare is not a good option to these 19.2 million people.

Mr. Speaker, the American people, I believe, sent us to Washington, D.C., to fix this issue. They are telling us directly: this must be fixed now. And people certainly outside of Washington resent the Federal Government telling them how to purchase health care and what that healthcare marketplace would look like. But we really do not have to tolerate this. We do not have to agree that we will accept the status quo.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the American people are smart. I believe the American people want independence, they love freedom, and they want to know that they can make their own choices, because they believe they make better choices than a one-size-fits-all plan out of Washington,

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Lewisville, Texas (Mr. Burgess), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee, a gentleman who sits on both the Energy and Commerce and the Rules Committee. He is quite literally the most knowledgeable person on health care in the United States Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman from Florida very much. In fact, the gentleman is correct. We had an opportunity to quote the Bible, Janis Joplin, and ZZ Top when we were doing our hearings. We had so much time with each other, and I enjoyed the hours and hours that we had to debate these essential items.

But the other side of the story is essential health benefits are not being done away with. They are being transferred entirely to States. States have asked for the ability to manage their own money, and manage their own people's benefits of what would be required in the States. So in no way should a person take away, well, we just did away with it. In fact, we transferred the authority and the responsibility of essential health benefits to the States because Governors have been asking for this.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take just a moment to explain what I believe is at the heart of the legislation and really, in reality, the key to fixing health care. It is the second part of this.

We heard the gentleman from Lewisville, Texas, Dr. Burgess, speak about the Energy and Commerce portions. I now would like to take a minute to talk about the portions that come directly out of the Ways and Means Committee.

The gentleman, Mr. Brady, from The Woodlands, Texas, today, spoke about many of these; but at the heart of it, 170 million Americans currently receive their health care through an employee-employer tax advantage or tax benefits, an untaxed benefit whereby people who have an employer who can provide their health care, it is not taxed-- pretaxed to the employee, allowing them to have a good healthcare system. Well, all the while, millions of Americans pay higher premiums out of their pockets in the individual market. Those are people that do not have an employer who is able to help them. So that is not fair. That does not help these people.

What we are doing here is putting together an addition of, really, a great Republican idea; and it takes the important step to provide the same tax-free benefits for those employer-sponsored plans that we will give to regular employees, and it is called a tax credit. This tax credit is going to work because it allows every single American that does not receive the tax benefit at work to get it for themselves.

Who is this? Well, quite honestly, it is small-business owners; it is low-income workers; it is entrepreneurs. It includes, really, a lot of real estate agents and people that work for a small business, maybe heating and air-conditioning systems like we have all across this country. It will give their families an opportunity.

How much money? Well, we will provide them between $2,000 and $14,000 a year for their families to be able to have these opportunities to purchase a nongovernment healthcare plan, meaning that, as they would go to the marketplace, we are going to help these people through a tax credit available January 1, providing them with an opportunity to purchase health care on a benefit basis.

Why is this important? It saves money because what it does, it creates two things: a family then has an insurance plan, including a healthcare component that goes to the hospitalization; and secondly, it gives them an opportunity to have their own doctor or healthcare plan that they choose. This is important because many of these people end up in the hospital in the most expensive kind of way we can provide health care: at the emergency room.

So this gives these families parity in the marketplace. We believe that that is important and is another part of this Republican healthcare plan.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), who will be describing the third piece of this, and that is the putting together of the piece from the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), the vice chairman of the Rules Committee.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we are going to keep moving on. We were allocated the same amount of time. I guess the answer would be no.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney), who is the favorite daughter of Wyoming and serves on the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Pasco, Washington (Mr. Newhouse), who is a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I am prepared to close.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking our colleagues, the gentleman from Massachusetts leading the Rules Committee, and his ranking members as they came from each of the committees, some 50 hours' worth of hearings and markups, including some 16 hours in the Rules Committee to not only talk about and vet, but to understand more clearly what we would be voting on.

Mr. Speaker, today is a bill that is a compromise bill, no doubt about it. I had my own plan and I had my own ideas. I took 2 years to get involved in this process. It is difficult to write a healthcare bill. But it didn't have to be my bill; it had to be a bill that we could all work together on.

President Trump has been a part of that. President Trump took time out of his schedule to do this. It is important to the American people. President Trump, more than any single Member of Congress, gave the message to the American people about what was necessary and what he would do. He is going to live up to that, and we should, too.

Mr. Speaker, the bottom line to this whole thing is we are going to present a Republican plan, and we are going to stand behind what we sell. It is better for the American people. But make no mistake about it: we are transferring power, authority, and responsibility not just to States, but also to the American people. It will be up to them to make determinations about their own health care because, for the first time, we will allow some 50 million Americans to have a tax equity, an opportunity to use tax credits that will be available to families anywhere from $2,000 for an individual to $14,000 for a family.

This will empower people who have not found a fair shot at the tax advantages it will give them: small-business owners; the American people; the average worker in this country, including those who work two or three different jobs; as well as those who are uninsured. We believe it is a better shot, an opportunity. We are willing to put our name on it and behind it.

For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge us to move forward. There will be 4 hours of debate that remain in this opportunity. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 221 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met for some 13 hours, maybe a little bit more, where we were tasked with the opportunity to bring forth from the Republican Conference the new bill that is to replace the Affordable Care Act. That discussion involved us taking testimony from the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Kevin Brady; the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Greg Walden; and the chairman of the Budget Committee, Mrs. Black. It also involved three other ranking members for those committees. They assembled up in the Rules Committee.

We had a very vigorous and open debate about the bill, about the effects of the bill, about the things which were occurring within the Republican majority dealing with the United States Senate and dealing with the President of the United States. All three are necessary to agree upon a bill if we are to sign it into law.

There was a vigorous demand from Democrats to know more information, and I believe I forthrightly attempted to answer those questions. We did not have all the pieces of the puzzle together. We recognized that by the evening hour. So by 11 p.m. last night, upon my consultation with Ranking Member McGovern, I made a decision that we would not stay up during the evening, we would ask that we would come back today. So we did not actually complete our work last night.

I am here today because last night the Rules Committee issued a rule that would be a same-day rule. The issues really don't change. The facts of the case really don't change. Information is necessary for us to make an informed decision. That is a change.

I have told the gentleman, Mr. McGovern. I have told the gentlewoman, the former Speaker, the leader of the Democrat Party, Ms. Pelosi. I have told Mr. Hoyer in a direct dialogue that we had that I would do my best to make sure that we answer the questions that would be necessary. The gentleman, Mr. McGovern, who very ably represents his party, understood that I did not have all the answers that I needed.

So we are here today with the opportunity to say we are going to do a same-day rule. We are going to try to pass this rule. We are going to try to explain what we are doing. We are going to allow my team, our Republican Conference, to get back together today because they, too, want to know what is the final deal.

That is what my conference is doing right now. They are in this building, several hundred Members of Congress, talking, debating, understanding, listening, compromising, yes, on a way that we can approach a chance to change what we see as one of the most devastating pieces of legislation to the economy, to the healthcare system, and, quite honestly, to the standing of America as the greatest country in the world. We think we have to make changes.

But today we are here right now to say that we don't have all those answers. A complete agreement was not available by the time I chose to end the matter last night in the Rules Committee. So rather than staying up all night, we are here today. We will be back here today. This is not the debate about the bill. More information is needed. An agreement is needed from my party. And when we reach that agreement, I will then come back.

But make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker, my party intends to bring forth an agreed-to bill that we will be able to show to the American people, and we will own it. We are very capable of saying that we believe that market forces, we believe that free right of individuals, we believe that free physicians and opportunities exist and abound, and we will bring that to the floor, and we will openly debate it.

Much is being said about a Congressional Budget Office report that has caused much fear. Unrightly? No, I can't say that. But it is certainly explainable.

Mr. Speaker, I will start right now. The bottom line is that there are some 30 million people who are uninsured in the United States of America, 30 million people who did not find a home or chose not to take a government-provided available system that is called the Affordable Care Act. Even more people included within that are paying a penalty of several thousand dollars rather than taking that healthcare system, that availability. So we believe the right thing to do is not to force anybody, not to have mandates, not to penalize people, but, rather, to make available to them opportunities where it is their decision about what they would do.

The corresponding facts of the case are real simple. The Congressional Budget Office said: Fine, if you don't force people to do it, then some 24 million people won't do it within the next 7 years.

Well, there are 30 million people today that do not have it and not taking it. So to go from 30 million to 24 million will be a very interesting task for us to understand.

Mr. Speaker, no freedom is free. But if we engage in telling the American people that Washington, D.C., knows better than they do, then that is a false promise--is a false promise that our friends, the Democrats, tried and actually failed at.

So Republicans, in order to put together their plan--yes, even with the consequences of a ``CBO report that say there will be 24 million people who are uninsured,'' that is probably right, because they chose not to accept what would be an equal opportunity for them to take what might be called a tax credit that equals some $8,000 for a family of four, allowing them straight up to purchase their own health care for their family. But if they choose not to do it, that is their business.

Mr. Speaker, one of my attributes is I come from Dallas, Texas. And Dallas, Texas, for all the great things that we have about us, we think that some of the great things come from the way we believe. We deeply believe we are in some ways a very open city. We have many different thought processes, many people, but we respect each other and don't try to tell each other what to do. It creates a flourishing environment about ourselves where, when we get in trouble, we stick together; when we see trouble, we ban together. But we tend not to tell each other what to do in our own lives. That is one thing that I think makes us a little bit different. We do not count on government to do the things that we should do for ourselves.

That is part of the freedom model that I buy off on and part of what we are offering--the Republican Party--today for the American people rather than mandates, dictates, fines, the IRS and all sorts of other government organizations that we could throw in a person's way simply to tell them what to do. We reject that notion. We will, as quickly as possible, bring about a bill that we can explain, that we will own, and that we will pass.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the chance for us to be here today means that a lot of people are going to have a lot of opinions, and I appreciate the gentleman having an opinion. He knows what we are doing. So do the American people.

The American people are watching TV, and they are seeing where Republicans are huddling together and pushing this activity of health care, debating ideas right, really, before the American people, really, hundreds of TV shows.

I have been on 15 or 20 myself where I am saying that the Republican replacement or repeal of ObamaCare is something we are taking our time to discuss. We are taking our time to make sure our colleagues understand it. We are taking time to be thoughtful. Otherwise, we would have just rushed it through.

In fact, we took some 13 hours last night, yesterday, at the Rules Committee to do exactly that. Ms. Pelosi spent 3 hours before the Rules Committee, essentially talking about things that--we see things differently. She thinks she sees things differently than we do, and that is okay. It gave her a chance to have a debate opportunity. This is what this is all about. It does not bother me at all.

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, we want Members to have a chance to have their thoughts and ideas on the record, to take their time to be thoughtful about what we are doing. And it does matter.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Collinsville, Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), a gentleman whom I came to Congress with in the 105th Congress. The gentleman is from the 15th District of Illinois and served our country as a veteran. He was a West Point graduate, and he is a really good guy.

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

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

I am delighted that the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) came down. She, not unlike many of those in her party, are intensely interested in making sure that the American people are going to get the opportunity to have something that I have always said is equal to or better than.

The bottom line is that families on ObamaCare, or the Affordable Care Act, today--and that includes almost every single Member of Congress, including myself and my family--did not get what we were told would happen. Much of the Affordable Care Act was not even decided and developed until after the bill was put together, and we knew that ahead of time. They told us it is going to take a couple of years for us to put this together. Right now, here, today, only about 24 out of 100 physicians across this country even accept ObamaCare.

The Republican plan is not simple, but it is easy to understand, and that is this: We allow every single person to stay on ObamaCare 2017, 2018, and 2019. That is undeniably in the bill, and they know that.

We are allowing every single American that does not, today, receive the tax benefit, the benefit that goes back to World War II, an untaxed benefit by employers--we are allowing every single American family to be able to receive a tax credit. You cannot use both. You cannot double-dip into another system. But we are allowing every single one of those families that, today, was completely excluded or chose not to take ObamaCare to receive a tax credit.

That tax credit for families is important because, today, they are paying after-tax dollars if they choose to get health care. And tomorrow what we will do is allow up to $8,000 for a family of four-- that is $8,000 for a tax credit for a family--effective in November of a year to be able to, before they purchase their health care in January, to designate the first $8,000 to the healthcare plan of their choice. Well, that obviously doesn't fly well either because the Democrats want to tell people what they have to have.

Most families don't need many things that are covered. Why should they pay for that? Oh, because the Democratic Party, Washington, D.C., says you have to. These are essential items.

No, no, no. A family will be able to make their own decisions and not pay for what they don't need.

So, Mr. Speaker, there always are at least two sides of the story. And it is true that what the Republican Party is going to do is allow people to make their own choice, but to give them the tools necessary. And if a family decides to do that, then they can; if they decide not to, they don't have to. Just like what is happening today where people are required to get health care but 30 million people are uninsured, figure that one out, Mr. Speaker.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

We have at least two different sides up here, and people are entitled to believe whatever they want to believe. I am entitled to the same opinion of myself, also.

There are also a set of answers and facts that need to be given, evidently, and that is, in fact, we do make changes in the bill to ObamaCare. We do.

Mr. Speaker, the law, the way it was written, we have virtually few 30-year-olds to 45-year-olds that actually pay for ObamaCare, the people we were told who needed it the most. The reason why is because it was dictated from Washington how to rate the coverage. In rating that coverage, it became so illogically expensive for a young person to pay an astronomical amount for their insurance, and even many times a higher value for their deductible, to where 30-year-olds, 35-year-olds, 36-year-olds, 37-year-olds chose simply not to take the policy offered.

So what do Republicans do? It is real simple. Here is what Republicans do: They allow the States the flexibility to determine what might be called a rating.

And it is true that, now, people will be rated based upon their own actuarial experience of where they are in life, their age. Mr. Speaker, it is true that a 25-year-old, 30-year-old, 35-year-old needs less necessary intricate and expensive health care. And it is actuarially true that the older that we get--I celebrated my birthday yesterday. I get it. I am getting older, and I probably am a little more expensive at the doctor in things that I need, especially into my future.

So what we did is we said where you have that rating system, we will allow more money through the tax credit system to adjust that so that a 50- to 64-year-old will not be at a disadvantage because those, too, are the people we want in the healthcare plan.

So we are actually going to add, by making it actuarially sound and attractive, a whole bunch of younger people; and we are going to recognize this balance, and we are going to provide more of an incentive to balance out for those who are older. That makes sense.

It is also reality based, Mr. Speaker. But to say that someone is going to be paying more without us recognizing that and doing something about it would not be a fair argument.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

What a shame the gentleman was not here to vote for the Affordable Care Act when it took hold several years ago, and he would have known this is a bad deal.

Mr. Speaker, even the American people cannot be fooled. The American people saw ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act, waste billions of dollars simply to try and put together a computer system.

Mr. Speaker, the American people understand it was a tax bill. It is about using the IRS, and they were going to add 17,000 employees, literally, to beat the brains out of the American people to force them into having health care from Washington.

Mr. Speaker, no wonder Republicans won the majority several years ago. No wonder Republicans have saved the American people not only from the IRS, but from the massive taxes that were embedded within this huge government takeover of our healthcare system.

The bottom line is that my colleagues have not yet met a tax they wouldn't be for. They have not yet built and grown these massive government organizations to the tune that they want to force the American people to do things. And they are having a difficult time understanding today why the American people--if given a choice and an opportunity and an advantage that would be fair for all Americans to have a tax credit, why that is something that people really want to see.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Trump may or may not have contemplated every single part of the healthcare issue, but I will tell you what he did understand. And that is, draining the swamp from a system that takes away your freedom, that saps the economic growth and vitality of this country, and that empowers the Internal Revenue Service is a bad idea.

Mr. Speaker, having to qualify by going through the IRS to look at your records first to determine whether you qualify for a subsidy should be an embarrassment, and it was seen that way by the American people. Mr. Speaker, to guess at how much money and work you would have during the year, and then if you are wrong, pay up, was a system that did not work because many physicians across this country and many hospitals simply do not take ObamaCare. They are acting like it was a gift from God.

Mr. Speaker, it did not work, and it does not work. The Republican Party is going to find a way, and we are going to get our act together, and we are

going to gleefully go and do the right thing. It is a process, Mr. Speaker. It is a long process. It actually does take the House, the Senate, and the President, and we are going to get our job done.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seven years ago, Mr. Speaker, this town was abuzz with this new healthcare plan, the Affordable Care Act, that was signed by the President of the United States. We were promised an enormous opportunity to make health care better.

Mr. Speaker, fortunately, the American people had a chance to make a decision, and the American people--after watching and seeing not only people incapable of putting databases together, incapable of understanding marketplaces, and incapable of understanding the limits of the American people's real need to understand and to have a better healthcare system--gave up on ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act. They gave up on it because, after 7 long years, they understood it simply didn't equal what they were sold.

The Republican Party is selling what we believe in, and this is the beginning of that sell. It is a beginning of an understanding for most Members of this body and the American people to understand you can keep your own doctor and you can keep your own healthcare plan, but you, too, can make your own decisions. You can become a consumer.

Oh, my gosh, somebody from Washington isn't going to tell us exactly what to do? Let's scare everybody; let's make them think that the American people can't make their own decisions without the IRS or Washington telling them what to do.

I understand there are some frustrations. I get that. I can be frustrated; I am not. It is true last week I held a townhall meeting in Dallas, Texas. It is true a bunch of people yelled and screamed at me. They simply wanted to know: Yes or no, yes or no.

Mr. Speaker, policy is not like that in our country. The Republican Party does owe people thoughts, ideas, and plans. We will have the bill, and when we do it, we will own it, and we will be proud of it.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule.

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

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 53 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, March 23, 2017, at 9 a.m.

Madam Speaker, the Rules Committee will be issuing announcements outlining the amendment processes for two measures that will likely be before the Rules Committee next week.

An amendment deadline has been set for Monday, March 27, at 10 a.m., for H.R. 1215, the Protecting Access to Care Act of 2017; and H.R. 1304, the Self-Insurance Protection Act.

The text of these measures will be available on the Rules Committee website upon this announcement.

Please feel free to contact me or my staff if you have any questions.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

I appreciate the gentleman asking this question.

As the gentleman has previously asked at the Rules Committee, I advised the gentleman that tomorrow, at 10 a.m., the Rules Committee will be convening for the purpose of amendment and discussion of the text that will come, and it would be my belief that that would be available in the evening hour, as I assume we will still be in.

It is my belief that I will have one.

The gentleman does understand that the CBO, in order to get it correctly processed, we have not pushed them. They have advised us they would anticipate having a score, they believe, tomorrow evening.

Mr. Speaker, this morning, the Rules Committee issued announcements outlining the amendment processes for two measures likely to be on the floor next week.

An amendment deadline has been set for Monday, March 13 at 3 p.m. for H.R. 1259, the VA Accountability First Act of 2007; and H.R. 1367, to improve the authority of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to hire and retain physicians and other employees.

The text of these measures is available on the Rules Committee website.

Feel free to contact me or my staff.

Mr. Speaker, it is a delight for me to join the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck) on a piece of legislation that actually has his name on it, he is responsible for, understands, and is prepared today to fully debate.

I would also like to thank the gentleman from Florida, a member of the Rules Committee, for not only coming down to offer his argument against the facts of the case as they reside today on this important piece of legislation, but I also want to acknowledge that I know the frustration.

I know there is a lot of frustration. There is a lot of frustration from our colleagues who have lost the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. They are in the middle of what might be called wandering, as they have called it, in the darkness or in the doldrums of being deep in the minority.

With that said, there is an agenda that is being laid out before the American people. It happened, Mr. Speaker, directly as a result of what we call an election--an election where all these issues, or most of them that have been discussed by the gentleman, were fully debated not only in a theater near you, but directly in congressional contests, in senatorial contests and the debates for the President of the United States.

The facts of the case are really pretty simple. The Republican Party will be talking about all the issues that the gentleman brought up today right before our eyes. Probably on C-SPAN, trying to compete against us, is a hearing in the Energy and Commerce Committee.

The gentleman, Greg Walden, the chairman of the committee, over the weekend released the text of the chairman's mark, the ``bill'' of the Republican Party of how we are going to look at health care.

It is true that we have Chairman Devin Nunes of the Intelligence Committee looking at the issue that was

brought up of Russia. We have forthrightly, over the weekend, said: All right. We are being asked to look at this. Just so you know, media, American people, we are going to do that. We are going to do what you have asked because we believe it is the right thing to do: open hearings, open debate, acknowledgement of the issues, and a certainty that we will go look into it, and we are going to let you know what we find. That is really where we are.

This morning, at 8 a.m. in my office, I cohosted with the gentleman from Florida an opportunity for the American Bar Association. We brought in, from across this country--I didn't bring them in; they came into my office from across the country--a number of well-established, thoughtful, and articulate people. We didn't ask: Are you Republican? We didn't ask: Are you Democrat? We said: You represent your organization, and we want to hear from you.

This is the kind of leadership that I believe not only myself but also the gentleman, Mr. Hastings, wants to be associated with. We want to be associated with listening to the American people, trying to be thoughtful about what we do and have equal participation.

The gentleman knows that at the Rules Committee yesterday we had a very thoughtful person representing the Republican Party. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) came up. We had Mr. Buck, who was able to come and talk about this issue today.

In fact, it might be an arcane issue to the American people, but it consumes a lot of time, and it has a deliberative effect on the outcome of important cases in Federal courts and State courts across the country. We feel like it is worthy of an afternoon, an afternoon at the Rules Committee, to fully vet the legislation and an afternoon here on the floor of the House of Representatives.

But like any other good majority, we have a lot of other things going on, and we are looking at the Affordable Care Act, how it worked and how we might thoughtfully replace it. We are looking at the issues related to Russia. We are looking at the American Bar Association.

Members of Congress are extremely busy, but, Mr. Speaker, I think, with great respect, we should give the author of the bill, Mr. Buck, his time to come and thoughtfully explain why we are doing what we are doing.

I am just a dadgum chairman of the committee. I just do the things that I hope are necessary to look at every single item and being fair-- being fair in the ability that people have to come and bring their ideas and trying to be fair in trying to bring them down here.

So I want to thank the gentleman for acknowledging this body is busy. This body is engaged in, as we speak, a public, open debate about what direction health care should go.

What I would like to offer is my evaluation of where we are going to be. We are going to be at a point where we do not have to scare people about where we have been or why we are going to a place.

I am on what is known as ObamaCare. As a Member of Congress, I am legally required to be on ObamaCare for health care. But, Mr. Speaker, it is twice as expensive as what I had before; and it is not working for me, it is not working for my family, and it is not working for a lot of people.

So we are trying to look at how we might carefully, thoughtfully, artfully work with the American people, so we put the bill up and let you see it. We don't have to pass it to find out what is in it. We are trying to read the bill and understand it first.

Mr. Speaker, it is not a pledge. It is a hope that every single Member of this body will understand what is in the bill before they can respectfully, whether somebody disagrees or agrees with it, explain the bill for what is correct.

What is correct about the bill is this: if you like your own doctor, you can keep your own doctor. If you like your own healthcare plan, even if it is ObamaCare, you can do that, too.

The Republican Party is open about what we believe. We are trying to be thoughtful with the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I believe, with the leadership that we have of Paul Ryan who has attempted to work through a difficult issue, the American people will understand why Republicans not only won the election, but why Republicans have better ideas in health care, too.

Mr. Speaker, without continuing the dialogue, I would like to at least respond to the gentleman and look right at you, Mr. Speaker, and tell you, in fact, we are going to have a CBO score. We are going to have a CBO score when we have an agreed-upon bill. This is a process that is open. The bill is being proposed. The bill is going to be debated. Then there are going to be votes.

For them to presume that they know the score before they know the outcome is not the way the chairman of the committee looks at it. Mr. Walden looks at it that he is going to let the committee vote and come up with a bill, and there are significant changes that could happen one way or another. I think it would be a presumptuous viewpoint to say here is the bill and here is the score, take it or leave it. I know Chairman Walden very well, and Greg Walden is trying to operate off openness and the agreement to look at the bill. When it is finalized, a score will become available. I appreciate the gentleman bringing this issue up.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 156 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule. It is a fair rule that enables thoughts and ideas from both sides of the aisle to be considered on the House floor today. It enables us to proceed with the work that the American people have sent us here to accomplish. It is of great measure of the work that we are doing today. We had an extensive and long committee hearing at the Committee on Rules yesterday with witnesses from both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats, who felt strongly about the issues and ideas that were before them and the ideas which will be presented on the floor of the House of Representatives today, the underpinning of which are entitled to give the American people a better shot at a better life not only from a business perspective, economic development, but also the creation of jobs in the United States of America.

Madam Speaker, I also rise in support of the underlying legislation contained in this rule. These bipartisan initiatives will enhance transparency, provide for a check on Federal agencies, and I believe help create a better process in the Federal Government for the people we serve, which are the people of this great Nation.

Congress enacted the Administrative Procedure Act in 1946 to ensure that the public had an opportunity to provide expertise, opinions, and other comments during the rulemaking process that takes place in the administration. It was designed to provide guarantees of due process in administrative procedures for self-governing American citizens who have to live under these rules that are promulgated by those unelected and not necessarily known by the American people.

The Administrative Procedure Act, known as the APA, as it is commonly referred to, was designed to require agencies to keep the public informed of the information and ideas, procedures, and rules, and to provide a means for public participation in the rulemaking process that would take place here in Washington, D.C.

Unfortunately, as is too often the case, Federal bureaucrats over years and previous administrations have exploited the broad language of the Administrative Procedure Act to focus the rulemaking process solely for special interest reasons. Sometimes it is groups, sometimes it is ideas, and sometimes it is against the voices of the average American who wishes to participate in this process. This clearly was not the APA's legislative intent and reflects yet another encroachment on Congress' Article I powers which are enshrined in the United States Constitution.

This shift away from the intent of the Administrative Procedure Act, known as the APA, has meant that most agency deliberations are carried out without a record or even a public review of those decisions that are made. Additionally, and possibly more troubling, agencies have undermined the purpose and the spirit of the notice-and-comment process by actively campaigning in support of their ideas using government resources and processes to that advantage.

The clearest example of this abuse can be found recently and numerously at the Environmental Protection Agency, known as the EPA. After issuing the waters of the United States notice of proposed rulemaking, the EPA undertook a public campaign utilizing social media platforms to solicit support for what was, at the time, a promulgated rule. Following this abuse, the GAO issued a report finding that the EPA violated propaganda and anti-lobbying provisions concerning the use of their fiscal year 2014 and 2015 appropriations.

The Regulatory Integrity Act of 2017 helps ensure transparency in the rulemaking process by prohibiting Federal agencies from anonymously issuing statements for propaganda purposes, in other words, an agency lobbying for itself, its ideas, as opposed to the public comment period, final rulemaking, and then issues and ideas being discussed with and by the people of the country. Specifically, H.R. 1004 requires agencies to make available online information about public communications on pending regulatory actions.

Further, H.R. 1004 requires that agencies ``expressly disclose that the Executive agency is the source of the information to the intended recipients.''

Why is this important?

This is important because too many times information is provided without the basis of the facts behind it. It is opinion, Mr. Speaker. When members of the public see information that is provided, a source should be behind that information.

Further, H.R. 1004 prohibits agencies from ``soliciting support for or promoting . . . pending agency regulatory action.'' A simple concept of transparency and, I believe, professionalism that both sides of the aisle should not only demand, but also welcome from any executive agency, regardless of who is in the White House. It is in the best interest of the American public, and transparency and honesty related to that should be above reproach. Unfortunately, this has also not been the instance, as there are abuses and overreach by Federal agencies and unelected bureaucrats.

Presidents of both parties have required a centralized review of regulations since the 1970s. This has largely been handled by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, or OIRA, as it is commonly referred to. Every President since President Ronald Reagan has required a centralized review of regulations at OIRA so that an agency can do cost-benefit analysis of regulatory actions, which means there is a centralized process for the administration to look at what they do.

In 1993, President Bill Clinton put into place Executive Order 12866 to designate OIRA as the repository of expertise concerning regulatory issues. The executive order limited OIRA's review of regulations to only significant rules changes, those that have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. This office is responsible for reviewing the regulatory actions at both the proposed and final rulemaking stages. Unfortunately, lately, agencies have blatantly ignored the principles of the executive order from President Clinton, Executive Order 12866, and other governing authorities, including those requiring State, local, and tribal consultation in the rulemaking process have been ignored.

According to a policy center at George Mason University, agencies usually satisfy 60 percent or less of the requirements called for in the regulatory analysis, meaning that certain times we have found the executive branch did not even follow the well-known processes that are there to protect the people who they are trying to

provide services to. Mr. Speaker, we believe that is partially why we are here today, to clarify and correct these problems.

For example, between 2000 and 2013, 98 percent of the Environmental Protection Agency's final rules contained no estimated compliance costs. That means that the agency chose not to follow the process that is prescribed by the executive order. Additionally, the EPA routinely justifies its regulatory activities by claiming benefits from matters unrelated to the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, you can well see why there is consternation not only among people in the United States, but uncertainty with business that is attempting to follow the well- understood rules and regulations and the processes that go therein only to find out that our government chooses not to follow the rules and regulations that they should be following.

H.R. 1009 codifies the requirement for OIRA to conduct a review of significant regulations to ensure the regulations are consistent with applicable law and the principles set forth in the executive order. It also establishes new transparency measures such as requiring increased disclosure when extending review time, explanations about regulations that are dropped from the unified agenda, and a redline of changes that agencies make to regulations while it is under review by OIRA.

OIRA review is important to provide a double check on agencies to ensure not only compliance with the law, but the well-understood proposals that are made by agencies and the processes that they expect to understand in that process. That is why the main tenets of the underlying legislation have been supported by Presidents in the past, Members of Congress in the past, and even the judiciary that should expect that processes and procedures are followed properly.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a note, if I can, and add into the Record a Statement of Administration Policy that came from one of our former colleagues, now the Director of the OMB, the Honorable Mick Mulvaney. Mr. Mulvaney, in his new duties as the Director of the OMB, provided his first Statement of Administration Policy. It is concerning exactly the act that we are speaking about. I would like to congratulate the young Director of the OMB for his ascension to not only an important role, but helping the United States Congress to clarify for the American people that which is in their best interest.

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

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 998--Searching for and Cutting Regulations that are Unnecessarily

Burdensome (SCRUB) Act

(Rep. Smith, R-MO, and three cosponsors)

H.R. 1004--Regulatory Integrity Act of 2017

(Rep. Walberg, R-MI, and eight cosponsors)

H.R. 1009--OIRA Insight, Reform, and Accountability Act

(Rep. Mitchell, R-MI, and four cosponsors)

The Administration is committed to reducing regulatory

burden on all Americans. On January 30, 2017, President Trump

signed Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and

Controlling Regulatory Costs, which provides for repeal of

two regulations for every new one issued. This historic step

accelerates the retrospective review process to make common-

sense reforms to regulations across the Federal Government.

Legislation is helpful where it amends agencies' regulatory

processes to ensure they are transparent, and appropriately

balance costs and benefits.

Each of these bills would address different aspects of the

regulatory process. The SCRUB Act, H.R. 998, addresses the

numerous outdated, duplicative, and otherwise unnecessary

regulations that have accumulated throughout government. The

Regulatory Integrity Act of 2017, H.R. 1004, would restrict

the use of agency funds to advocate on behalf of regulations,

and the OIRA Insight, Reform, and Accountability Act, H.R.

1009, would codify specific executive branch regulatory

review procedures.

The Administration supports the SCRUB Act, the Regulatory

Integrity Act, and the OIRA Insight, Reform, and

Accountability Act. The Administration looks forward to

working with the Congress on technical and other amendments

to these bills.

The Administration appreciates the efforts of the Congress

to rationalize the regulatory system and looks forward to

continuing to work together to reform the regulatory process.

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

I appreciate the gentleman's thoughtful observations on this rule and on the bills. I will acknowledge that yesterday at the Rules Committee there was a vigorous discussion--I thought, professional on both sides--where there was an idea about the intent of this bill and what it would, in essence, lay off on the administration, or any administration, in trying to make sure that they complied with the law.

I will tell you that our Appropriations chairman, as well as the Appropriations Committee, would be able to deal effectively with this if they believed they needed more money in order to accomplish these efforts. But I think that transparency is an important issue, and I think that our authorizing and appropriating committees will understand that, as they deal with agencies, a better dialogue, whether it be Republican or Democrat in office, needs to be able to deal with Congress, provide us information, provide the American people with information, and be forthright about the decisions that they are going to make.

I think that the new Director of the OMB, the Honorable Mick Mulvaney, responded in his advice back--meaning the statement of administrative policy that directly took on this issue--that he looked forward to not only working with Congress on their needs, but also complying with the spirit of the law. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that what we are doing today is providing information to a brand-new administration and saying to a brand-new administration that it is okay if you have your ideas about those issues that you would wish to take up, but you have to be forthright about what you are doing. You have to provide information not only to Congress, but the American people; and when you propose changes or rules, you have to be honest and forthright in doing that.

It may be a little bit more money, but this Congress will stand behind this. And I believe that the new Trump administration, at least through my conversations with our new President and the head of OMB, they intend for across the government, across a new administration to attempt to be forthright and direct about what they are doing and why we are doing it. Now, more than ever, whether you are a Republican or Democrat or not--you could be a person back home--you are entitled to try and clarify and ask information. That is what we are doing.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse), a member of the Rules Committee, who served his State honorably as their agriculture commissioner.

Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, I do not have additional speakers. I would wish to not only close myself, but to present a little bit more information. I would allow the gentleman, if he were prepared to offer his close, I would do the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, the debate today has been fair and above board. I want to congratulate and thank the gentleman from Colorado not only for his service on the Rules Committee, but his service today in annunciating not just his party's policies and ideas on this, but also his own, as he brings a vast business experience not only to Congress and to the Rules Committee, but to serve the people of his congressional district.

However, with that said, Mr. Speaker, I think that this will be overwhelming success on a bipartisan basis today, and the reason why is, because what we are doing is in the best interest of the American people.

We are doing this because the American people want and need an opportunity, as they petition their government, to know that they were heard, for their issues and ideas to be seen. And I would think now more than ever, especially if it were a prior administration, we would be accused of trying to jam down their throats something that we saw that was trying to put an undue burden on another administration. But, in fact, we are not.

And so the thoughts and ideas today should be--regardless of the administration, regardless whether you completely agree, or somewhat disagree,

we would want that government, that agency to be able to operate with the confidence of the American people. And that means that they are not there for their own purposes, or special interests, or for them to skew facts or information that might be provided to the American people, but, in fact, were opinions as opposed to something that was reasonably gained as a result of a scientific fact or information that was based on facts of the case.

Mr. Speaker, the regulatory state in this country has grown exponentially and, really, to unprecedented levels. Unelected bureaucrats have exceeded their authority, they are creating regulations, they are negatively impacting the marketplace, which causes a problem for me back home, and Members of Congress back home, as businesses talk about following rules and regulations rather than the marketplace, and trying to add employees and to turn the cash register.

Accordingly, the American Action Forum, when totaling all available regulatory costs reported by executive agencies, the Obama administration imposed more than $600 billion in regulatory costs from 2009 to 2014. That is $600 billion worth of regulatory costs imposed on the American people by unelected bureaucrats that have increasingly become unaccountable, not only to economic growth, but also to the American people, and I believe to Congress.

Other studies have produced the same conclusion and it is this: that runaway regulations have a disastrous effect on the United States economy, impacting not only job creation, but also the effective opportunity for the free enterprise system to exist.

Federal agencies should exist to serve the American people. And as such, they should heed and respect their views and comments, while staying within the parameters of laws passed by lawmakers or ensuring the rulemaking process is transparent and free of propaganda.

Mr. Speaker, we appreciate you allowing us time to debate this on behalf of the American people today. This rule and the underlying legislation will provide an important check on the regulatory state that we find exists today in the United States, and to return transparency, responsiveness, and, I believe, honest dignity to the American people that we serve, for this overreaching process. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, this morning the Rules Committee issued announcements outlining the process for amendments for three measures likely to be on the floor next week.

An amendment deadline has been set for Monday, March 6, at 3 p.m. for H.R. 725, the Innocent Party Protection Act. And a deadline has been set for Tuesday, March 7, at 10 a.m. for H.R. 720, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act; and H.R. 985, the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act.

The text of these measures is available at the Rules Committee website, and feel free to contact me or my staff with any questions.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, the Rules Committee issued an announcement outlining the amendment process for H.R. 428, the Red River Gradient Boundary Survey Act.

The amendment deadline has been set for Monday, February 6, at 3 p.m. Amendments should be drafted to the bill as introduced and which can be found on the Rules Committee website.

Mr. Speaker, please be advised, if there are any questions, Members may contact me or any member of the Rules Committee staff.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), who sits on the Rules Committee, and Mr. Buck, who is handling, I think, his first rule as a member of the Rules Committee today. Mr. Buck is from Windsor, Colorado. He is a second-term Member and is doing an awesome job not only on his homework duties of recognizing how important it is for Members to understand what we are talking about and why we are doing things, but also enunciation of rules that we are talking about that were promulgated by an administration.

Mr. Speaker, what we are really here today to talk about is there are some of those rules and regulations where perhaps you didn't go through the process that you should have or where there was really a determination made by the American people that rulemaking goes too far. That is why we are here today.

We are here today because there is a group of rules that were promulgated that don't work and that did not really see, in our opinion, the balance of what was going to be in it for the American people. So, in particular, we are here to talk about a Social Security rule that discriminates against individuals with disabilities by denying them their constitutional rights.

The gentleman, Mr. McGovern, spoke very clearly about a meeting that we had at the Rules Committee. I think that the witnesses that we had were very specific and that they questioned--including Mr. Buck, who was most active in his participation in the hearing--to work through the rule that is promulgated but doesn't make sense when you evaluate it. The administration chose to, I think, without due process, take away from a person based upon a disability that had nothing to do with their ability to effectively control a weapon, but based upon other criteria and to take away a person's Second Amendment rights.

We oppose that. That is one of the reasons why we are here today. This rule that we are going to take away wrongly discriminates against those receiving disability benefits and, I believe, falsely promulgates a stereotype against individuals with mental illness, calling them dangerous. There are people who do have mental illnesses, there are people who are struggling in life, and there are people who need help and seek help; but that is not a criteria for taking away a person's constitutional right.

We are joined in what we believe by the National Council on Disability. This is what they said in a letter that they sent that was dated January 24 of this year: ``There is, simply put, no nexus between the inability to manage money and the ability to safely and responsibly own, possess, or use a firearm. This arbitrary linkage not only unnecessarily and unreasonably deprives individuals with disabilities of a constitutional right, it increases the stigma for those who, due to their disabilities, may need a representative payee. . . . `'

So what happened is the rule by the administration linked together these characteristics that they think identify a person as being a risk so they take away their constitutional right. We couldn't really relate to anybody that had done this, but it simply sounded like a good idea, I am sure, to people, and so they did this.

Mr. Speaker, we are not trying to right all wrongs at the Rules Committee, but when you take away somebody's constitutional rights and take advantage of a person because of their disability, I don't think that is fair.

I am proud of what Mr. Buck is doing here. I am proud that we stood up on this issue, and I am pleased to be on the floor not only to support Mr. Buck,

but people who also live in the congressional district that I represent in Dallas, Texas. I have received several calls from people. While I will not say their names, they live in Dallas, Texas; Garland, Texas; Wylie, Texas; and Rowlett, Texas; and they are worried about their ability to lose their constitutional rights simply because they have some help in managing their affairs but not related to a constitutional right of owning a weapon.

So I am pleased to do this. There is no grandstanding necessary. There is an understanding of some things that can be written properly and some things that can't, and I simply think they got it wrong, and that is what we are going to do here today. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Buck, for allowing me the chance to speak on this important issue.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts not only, once again, for being here, but for responsibly standing up for his party and the things which they not only have a right to bring to the floor, but an opportunity for him to discuss those things as he chooses to justify the rules that we are going to not only discuss their merits, but to really ensure that the American people understand why we believe that these rules that were promulgated need to be overturned.

Mr. Speaker, the second joint resolution that was included in Mr. Buck's rule is a resolution that discusses the Securities and Exchange Commission related to what is called disclosure of payments by resource extraction issuers.

My gosh, what does that mean? Well, we understood the previous administration is anti what they call Big Oil. They are after anybody that is in the oil business. You and I both understand that our country and the world is stronger because we don't freeze to death in the winter and we don't get too hot in the summer because we have available energy at a great price.

But it means that companies in the United States also go around the world to find other places where they may extract oil or resources related to energy, and the Securities and Exchange Commission published in the Federal Register, on July 27, 2016, a rule that would place American companies--and only American companies--that extract valuable resources--meaning energy--from other places in the world and that they would have to publicly disclose arrangements and deals that they make related to them buying these resources.

The Securities and Exchange Commission understands already the rules that are on American companies, including a rule that we know as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which means that an American company cannot go overseas and induce through bribing someone to do something. But now, in order to stop these companies--many of them large companies, many of them medium-sized companies, but their nexus is that they are energy companies--they are going to require in this rule that that company tell everybody, including competitors, what the deal might be that they got. So a private contract that might be between a country, a company, and an American company is now going to see the light of day.

Mr. Speaker, I think that is wrong. Fortunately, so does my party. We think that is wrong, because it unnecessarily puts U.S. companies at a competitive disadvantage to many state-owned competitors around the world who are competing, many times, for the same resources.

In other words, we just told them what the deal is--how much money, what the arrangement is, how it might be concluded--and that is a violation, in my opinion, of not only the power that the SEC has, but I think it is unwise. I think it is blatantly unwise that we would unearth contracts from the free enterprise system while, at the same time, knowing they have to follow the rules of engagement, meaning the rules under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, at the same time.

So, Mr. Speaker, what we are here to say is that we believe that these agencies are trying to harm America's opportunity to go and seek out good deals, better deals, and to find long-term contracts around the globe, wherever they might be, and that they have singled out energy companies, that they have gone out of their way in what was known as the Obama administration to single out energy companies because they don't like energy deals.

Mr. Speaker, what has happened as a result of not only this, but legislation that the Congress has done on December 18, 2015, is we changed the Federal law related to the export of U.S. energy. Before, there was a provision, some 40-year-old provision, that did not allow energy from the United States to be sold overseas. Once we did that, it completely turned the market upside down. So what might be deals then and deals now are in the best interest of consumers instead of what might be OPEC or a few other energy-rich countries.

We think that what this was done for was to punish those companies that can go find better deals by telling everybody what happened--but it was mostly done to punish--and it put us at a disadvantage.

We are here on the second part of this joint resolution to say that the rule that was promulgated on July 27, 2016, is bad for America, is bad for consumers, and most of all, it is bad for America to have rules and regulations that take away the power of a private contract.

We stand up and say: What are we going to do about it? We are going to go through the deliberate action that was taken not only at the White House, but was taken on the floor of the House of Representatives so that we have our say in the matter on rules and regulations.

Mr. Speaker, I would advise my colleague, Mr. Buck, that there is a person who heard this debate going on and has come to the floor. I don't know if he would choose to yield time to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie), but I have been told that Mr. Massie would like to help me along on some of my comments because of his excitement about what this rule does.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming not only for being on the Committee on Rules, but also today for handling her first rule. Welcome to Congress and welcome to the Committee on Rules.

Madam Speaker, the bill that we have before us today is an extension of, really, a bipartisan agreement that we have had for 30-plus years: that we should not have abortions that are paid for by the taxpayer. The bottom line is

that this is a very difficult issue, no matter which side you might be on; but I believe that the right thing to do is to say that, based upon the morality and, really, the right thing, that the Federal Government, the taxpayers, should not be engaged in paying for abortions, killing of babies in this country.

We believe it is morally wrong, and all we are simply doing today is standing up and saying we are going to extend the same privileges that we have had on a bipartisan basis for 30-plus years not only with the Hyde amendment, but placing that across all pieces, parts of appropriations and bills and things that we do here in Congress. This has absolutely nothing to do with taking away a woman's right to choose. It has nothing to do with dealing with the Supreme Court. It has everything to do with using taxpayer dollars.

Yesterday we had a very appropriate and a very timely conversation at the Committee on Rules, and I think both sides handled their arguments and their agreements and disagreements well. It is my hope that we do this here today.

But let me say this, that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) came up as an advocate for women, as an advocate for women who are engaged in the scurrilous trading of women and misconduct with women. I think he was seen for what he is. He is a strong advocate for life and for women who need to feel safe in this country. He stood up yesterday as an advocate for saying we should not use taxpayer money to pay for abortions, and that is really what this bill is.

I thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming for allowing me to be here.

Mr. Speaker, tonight I rise in support of describing to each of my colleagues some important attributes of a big issue that we are all working on, and that is about health care. I rise today to talk about not just the current state of health care, but also a direction about where this body has an opportunity and a chance to go to make America's healthcare system even better so that it is the greatest healthcare system in the world.

President Obama signed what is known as ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act, into law on March 23, 2010. This was an attempt then by the President and his party, receiving no votes from the Republicans in the House or the Senate, to offer a brand-new vision to the American people of their idea of health care.

It took several years for the American people really to comprehend and understand this undertaking, but we are now in the sixth year of ObamaCare, and it has turned out that it not only is not sustainable, but it has provided millions of people who have lost coverage, higher premiums. It is not uncommon to see where some healthcare providers are raising their rates by 60 percent, and in 2013 alone, 4.7 million Americans had their preferred healthcare system canceled.

So the plan began with the high accolades of President Obama and Democrats, only to see, in its sixth year, it has become a concrete life preserver to many who are not only on the plan, but those who would wish to have their own healthcare coverage and cannot because of this law.

Tonight what I would like to describe to my colleagues is a chance for them to begin understanding that the American people have elected Donald J. Trump, Republicans, back into the majority, and Republicans back again into the majority in the United States Senate. This was done because there were a number of ideas that were made well aware to the voting public that Republicans would have an answer not only to repeal, but to replace the Affordable Care Act.

Republicans, in fact, now that we are in our second or third week of being in the majority, with President Trump taking office last Friday, Republicans have begun working not only with themselves, but with this administration on ideas that will make the replacement of ObamaCare even better for each and every person in this country.

The ability to make this transition, I believe, will require a deliberate and disciplined approach by Members of Congress and the American people for us to listen to each other, for, you see, Republicans do have better ideas to fix health care for all Americans. The basis of the understanding about where Republicans will come from, I believe, is embodied in the law as it exists today.

In 1943, employer-sponsored insurance exemption was given. It was during World War II. It was at a time when there were wages that were frozen but opportunities for benefits to be given to employees that would not be taxed. And so back in 1942, this benefits system arose. Sure, it became an opportunity as a result of being employed. It became an employer benefit. And that is what has taken place today with about 150 million Americans who receive the benefits of pretax contributions not only by their employer, but also by the employee to their healthcare system.

Well, just last December, under the 21st Century Cures Act, Congress made a new change, updating, allowing more

people in the system, this time small business, allowing small business the opportunity to deduct up to $4,500 per employee, a chance for them to receive their health care on a pretax basis.

What this has established now is a different, unfair system that Mr. Trump was speaking about when he was on the campaign trail. He referred to it as a rigged system. Now, he was not just speaking about the healthcare system. He actually was speaking about much of the way America operates, systems that are not fair for the average American not only to have a shot at making their life better, but in this case, a healthcare system where about 150 million Americans get their health care on a pretax basis and others do not. This is the basis of where I believe Republicans have an opportunity to help make the tax advantage for all Americans available.

So the question is: Who is insured and who is uninsured? Well, we can go to the chart that we see here. About 49 percent of all the people in this country who are insured, health care would be provided by an employer, meaning that an employer most likely is able to offer, as a benefit, a healthcare package on a pretax basis, and the employee is able to receive that, allowing them to make their own contributions on a pretax basis.

As an example, as a Member of Congress, I have this opportunity. My employer, being in the House of Representatives, provides about 70 percent, which is standard for the operations of almost any business in this country, 70 percent, and the employee would provide 30 percent. In this case, I provide the premiums of about $13,000 for my health care.

Then I have a $3,600 deduction under my ObamaCare health insurance that I receive. I am required by law, as a result of being a Member of Congress, to receive, to buy into health care that would be ObamaCare, and then I have a $3,600 deductible that is a pretax contribution. So I make about a $17,000 contribution to my health care every year. Not unusual for employer-provided contributions on a pretax basis.

Medicaid is about 20 percent of all the people who are insured, and then, as you see here, Medicare is about 14 percent.

As you look at Medicaid, Medicaid is what is commonly known as insurance for those people who are at or below the poverty level to gain coverage. But it comes with strict requirements. Many of those requirements work against the opportunity to go and get a job for fear that they will lose their contribution that comes from the government because they might not have an opportunity to receive other help.

Then, as you see, we have got exchanges, and those that just buy their own insurance. And then about 9 percent, or about 30 million Americans, are uninsured.

This is the current status of where we are in America today.

When I say these things to people back in Dallas, Texas, I receive a lot of feedback, and one of them that I have selected comes from a man who is self-employed. He falls under the what might be off exchange, meaning he pays for his own health care without it being on a pretax basis. He said: I am being penalized for being an entrepreneur-- penalized.

This is true of the 20 percent who are on Medicaid. They are in a system that essentially keeps them there and keeps them from going to gain the opportunity to receive full-time employment because it might not be an employment that provides health care.

So Republicans have a daunting challenge. We have a challenge to understand that there are about 12 to 20 million people who presently are on ObamaCare, including Members of Congress, and it is a very expensive--not only to the country, but also to individuals--insurance plan.

The biggest problem with ObamaCare is not its expense. The problem is that people are not on the system, as we were told would happen. We were told there would be upwards of 40 million people, providing an opportunity for more people to pay into the system, to sustain the system, and for it to be, what I would say, structured in such a way to where it had young people, middle-aged people, and perhaps older people up to Medicare age who would be paying in or be a part of a system--and it didn't work that way.

Younger people are not in ObamaCare because it is tremendously expensive, and they have found that to meet their deductible, it takes thousands and thousands of dollars. It does not meet their needs. It does not meet my needs with my family. It would not be a preferred healthcare choice that I or my family would make.

So we now have a choice, a chance as a result of the American people saying: Okay, Republicans, let's see what you can do. Bring us your ideas to make health care better.

Here is one of the facts that we know. We know that of the family working status of uninsured, 74 percent of people who are uninsured go to work. Now, this is a staggering fact because we were told by President Obama and Democrats that they were going to make sure that people got health care, the working poor, as we were told, people who needed coverage. But, in fact, 74 percent of 30 million people get up and go to work.

What we find is that they have lost, many times, their full-time status because of ObamaCare rules and regulations, mandates on employers to where employers cut their full-time status to part-time workers. Because we have so many part-time workers, they cannot afford to get the payments that are necessary, even though they were above the Medicaid line.

So Republicans now have a choice to be able to say, if we are going to outthink ObamaCare, if we are going to make sure that we believe--as President Trump has said just in the last few weeks and on the trail as he was running, he believes we should have a system that is not rigged. We should have a system that helps cover every single American and creates an opportunity that is sustainable and does not mean that we have 60 percent or even double-digit increases every year in health care because of the inequities that exist in the system.

This is the system that exists today.

So what might be one of those options or alternatives?

One of those options or alternatives might be a bill that I have worked on for 2 years, with over 500 physicians from across this country, known as the National Physicians' Council for Healthcare Policy. The National Physicians' Council for Healthcare Policy has formally met with hundreds of doctors nine times. They are co-chaired by Dr. Marcy S. Zwelling from Los Angeles, California, and Dr. John T. Gill from Dallas, Texas.

We have worked diligently with economists also to put together a plan that matches what President Trump is speaking about, but probably has not had time to fill in all of the rest of the activities.

This is what I would like to tell you. We believe that we should first allow every single American to be a part of a pre-tax credit, an advanceable credit that can be given to every single American to allow them to buy into a nongovernment healthcare system. That means, yes, people who are on Medicaid today can receive their health care and go out and get a job without fear of losing their healthcare coverage. It means that you no longer would have to go to the Federal Government and the IRS and to tell them how much work or how much money you think you will do this next year, and if you guess wrong, to pay differently. It creates a well-understood system, and can be done for the same amount of money that is presently in the system today.

It means that a person, a family, would be able to, effective this next November, go online and go to a database and fill it in. I am from Dallas, Texas. I would put my name in, I would put my wife's name, our social security numbers, and our children, and it would allow this pre- tax credit that is advanceable, assignable, and refundable, not coming to me, but going to a healthcare plan that I could then purchase. I could co-purchase, I could put my own money in on a pre-tax basis.

But what it would mean to me, Pete Sessions, is that I would be out of ObamaCare. I would choose to be in what is called a health savings account, an HSA. A health savings account requires that you have a major medical component with any coverage that you get.

What is major medical?

Major medical is hospitalization, the chance, the risk that you would have of

needing hospitalization. It could be a car wreck, it could be cancer, it could be something really unexpected. But I would then purchase this major medical policy that is well known in the marketplace today, and then have a choice of deciding the type of coverage where I would pay the first $5,000 that is required. And then after that, based upon the risk that I would choose.

If I were younger, I would choose probably a plan that would be 90/ 10. That means that I would pay 10 percent beyond what happened after I paid my $5,000. Perhaps I couldn't afford that and would want to move to a 70/30 where I accept more of the risk.

The other component that I would then choose is a health savings account. That is I would take the $17,000 that I contribute to my health care every year, cash, and I would take that to a pre-tax cash account that would be available for me to go to the doctor. Instead of showing up with a card, I would shop the doctor that I choose, only buying the things that I and my family needed, choosing my doctor, and asking my doctor and the marketplace what services would be available for a cash price.

Generally speaking, cash prices are about 18 percent less. Because a doctor would receive that money directly in, rather than having to file a claim, or wait time to get back their money. It would allow my family a chance to receive virtually an 18 percent opportunity upfront savings. It would allow me to manage the things which I needed to and not worry about paying for the things I didn't use. It would save my local doctor, who would then look at me as a preferred customer as opposed to me shopping around, perhaps with others in the marketplace, based upon a model of ObamaCare, which today you can't always count on who your doctor would be. A far better idea. Every single American that would qualify would receive this opportunity, but not required.

Now, how do we make it better, because there is more?

We would, under every single one of these circumstances, take away the mandate on an individual and the mandate on the business. We would do away with the Cadillac tax, because I don't think health care should be taxed. I think everybody should have an opportunity, and the world's greatest healthcare plan would allow that. Every single person would have a chance to have their health care provided, just as I have mine, too.

So what I want to say to the Members today is Republicans are going to be sharing ideas. We are going to be presenting our ideas at the Energy and Commerce Committee, at the Ways and Means Committee, and we believe we have an opportunity under three scenarios to make sure that health care is available and ready for every single American.

First, we need to establish a Republican alternative that can be implemented this year. Not waiting. Our better idea is ready in a bill ready to go.

Would we do hearings? Yes.

Would we want to scrub that and maybe add some things? Yes.

We should be ready to do it and make the transition this year. We should use reconciliation to repeal the most onerous parts of mandates. Yes, we should. And I believe we are doing that.

Should we make sure that we replace before we repeal? Absolutely.

And we should allow HHS, under what is today becoming Dr. Tom Price, a proud Member of this body, a chairman of the Budget Committee, who is in hearings over in the Senate to be the secretary of Health and Human Services, he should use everything that is available in law today to manage a system and to make it better. But my bet is that he will count on real people, not government, to make these decisions. And in doing so, he will empower a better opportunity.

So what Republicans want to do is to establish a tax benefit system while allowing a continuation of an employer-sponsored system. Those people that are on a system today that is provided by your employer, that would continue. But we would do away with the mandates on the individual and the business and the Cadillac tax. And we would encourage each of these companies to continue that system and work with their employees on a benefit system to make it better.

We would make HSAs available to every single person, not just Members of Congress, to where they would have an opportunity to have a system that would help their health care and their families and not be use it or lose it. It would make no sense that I would have to spend $43,000 a year simply to start over next year when I could actually benefit from saving and being efficient with my money. Maybe I am 30 years old and want to save for the future. Maybe I am 50 and cannot save, but I would roll over the system and make it work for me.

It will allow private physicians to endure. And what this does is empowers the private physician.

But there is more. And that is we will also keep--I believe we should, and the world's greatest healthcare system would, keep what are known as consumer protections that today exist in law: dependent coverage through age 26, no lifetime or annual limits, modified guaranteed availability and renewability, prohibition on preexisting condition exclusions, prohibition on discrimination based on your health status, and nondiscrimination in healthcare coverage.

I would like to tell the Members that back in Dallas, Texas, I am proud to also represent the disability community. I believe I can look at every single person back in Dallas, Texas, in the 32nd Congressional District of Texas, and say this: If you like your health care, you can keep it. If you like your own doctor, you can keep your own doctor.

But, more importantly, I believe that we will give equal to or better than opportunities for every single American. We will end the discriminatory services that ObamaCare is today. Because virtually every single doctor and virtually every single hospital will begin taking coverage, where today only about 24 percent of doctors take ObamaCare because it does not reimburse properly. And hospitals all over Dallas that do not take ObamaCare, leading edge hospitals in Dallas, Texas, and across this country, will begin taking this new health care because it reimburses based upon actual cost and marketplace availability.

So to my colleagues who want to go back home and talk to their constituents about Republican ideas, I don't know which one we will end up with. What I do know is that Senator Bill Cassidy and I have worked with hundreds of physicians for 2 years, and we have a bill, the world's greatest healthcare plan. The world's greatest healthcare plan is a bill that you can understand that is guaranteed to provide people a better opportunity without guessing about their healthcare coverage, and it is not use it or lose it.

So it is my hope that my colleagues that saw this this evening and took part in this will understand that there is an opportunity to go back home and sell the world's greatest healthcare plan for their people back home, too.

I thank my colleagues for being here tonight.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(2) of rule XI, the Committee on Rules' rules of procedure for the 115th Congress are transmitted herewith. They were adopted on January 4, 2017 by a nonrecord vote.

RULE 1.--general provisions

(a) The Rules of the House are the rules of the Committee

and its subcommittees so far as applicable, except that a

motion to recess from day to day, and a motion to dispense

with the first reading (in full) of a bill or resolution, if

printed copies are available, are non-debatable privileged

motions in the Committee. A proposed investigative or

oversight report shall be considered as read if it has been

available to the members of the Committee for at least 24

hours (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, or legal holidays except

when the House is in session on such day).

(b) Each subcommittee is a part of the Committee, and is

subject to the authority and direction of the Committee and

to its rules so far as applicable.

(c) The provisions of clause 2 of rule XI of the Rules of

the House are incorporated by

reference as the rules of the Committee to the extent

applicable.

(d) The Committee's rules shall be published in the

Congressional Record not later than 30 days after the

Committee is elected in each odd-numbered year.

rule 2.--regular, additional, and special meetings

Regular Meetings

(a)(1) The Committee shall regularly meet at 5:00 p.m. on

the first day on which votes are scheduled of each week when

the House is in session.

(2) A regular meeting of the Committee may be dispensed

with if, in the judgment of the Chair, there is no need for

the meeting.

(3) Additional regular meetings and hearings of the

Committee may be called by the Chair.

Notice for Regular Meetings

(b) The Chair shall notify in electronic form each member

of the Committee of the agenda of each regular meeting of the

Committee at least 48 hours before the time of the meeting

and shall provide to each member of the Committee, at least

24 hours before the time of each regular meeting:

(1) for each bill or resolution scheduled on the agenda for

consideration of a rule, a copy of--

(A) the bill or resolution;

(B) any committee reports thereon; and

(C) any available letter requesting a rule for the bill or

resolution; and

(2) for each other bill, resolution, report, or other

matter on the agenda a copy of--

(A) the bill, resolution, report, or materials relating to

the other matter in question; and

(B) any report on the bill, resolution, report, or any

other matter made by any subcommittee of the Committee.

Emergency Meetings

(c)(1) The Chair may call an emergency meeting of the

Committee at any time on any measure or matter which the

Chair determines to be of an emergency nature; provided,

however, that the Chair has made an effort to consult the

ranking minority member, or, in such member's absence, the

next ranking minority party member of the Committee.

(2) As soon as possible after calling an emergency meeting

of the Committee, the Chair shall notify each member of the

Committee of the time and location of the meeting.

(3) To the extent feasible, the notice provided under

paragraph (2) shall include the agenda for the emergency

meeting and copies of available materials which would

otherwise have been provided under subsection (b) if the

emergency meeting was a regular meeting.

Special Meetings

(d) Special meetings shall be called and convened as

provided in clause 2(c)(2) of rule XI of the Rules of the

House.

rule 3.--meeting and hearing procedures in general

(a)(1) Meetings and hearings of the Committee shall be

called to order and presided over by the Chair or, in the

Chair's absence, by the member designated by the Chair as the

Vice Chair of the Committee, or by the ranking majority

member of the Committee present as Acting Chair.

(2) Meetings and hearings of the Committee shall be open to

the public unless closed in accordance with clause 2(g) of

rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives.

(3) Any meeting or hearing of the Committee that is open to

the public shall be open to coverage by television, radio,

and still photography in accordance with the provisions of

clause 4 of rule XI of the Rules of the House (which are

incorporated by reference as part of these rules).

(4) Before a motion to report a rule is offered, a copy of

the language recommended shall be furnished to each member of

the Committee.

Quorum

(b)(1) For the purpose of hearing testimony on requests for

rules, five members of the Committee shall constitute a

quorum.

(2) For the purpose of taking testimony and receiving

evidence on measures or matters of original jurisdiction

before the Committee, three members of the Committee shall

constitute a quorum.

(3) A majority of the members of the Committee shall

constitute a quorum for the purposes of: reporting any

measure or matter; authorizing a subpoena; closing a meeting

or hearing pursuant to clause 21(g) of rule XI of the Rules

of the House (except as provided in clause 2(g)(2)(A) and

(B)); or taking any other action.

Voting

(c)(1) No vote may be conducted on any measure or motion

pending before the Committee unless a majority of the members

of the Committee is actually present for such purpose.

(2) A record vote of the Committee shall be provided on any

question before the Committee upon the request of any member.

(3) No vote by any member of the Committee on any measure

or matter may be cast by proxy.

(4) A record of the vote of each member of the Committee on

each record vote on any measure or matter before the

Committee shall be made publicly available in electronic form

within 48 hours, and with respect to any record vote on any

motion to amend or report, shall be included in the report of

the Committee showing the total number of votes cast for and

against and the names of those members voting for and

against.

Hearing Procedures

(d)(1) With regard to hearings on matters of original

jurisdiction, to the greatest extent practicable:

(A) each witness who is to appear before the Committee

shall file with the Committee at least 24 hours in advance of

the appearance a statement of proposed testimony in written

and electronic form and shall limit the oral presentation to

the Committee to a brief summary thereof; and

(B) In the case of a witness appearing in a nongovernmental

capacity, a written statement of proposed testimony shall

include a curriculum vitae and a disclosure of any Federal

grants or contracts, or contracts or payments originating

with a foreign government, received during the current

calendar year or either of the two previous calendar years by

the witness or by an entity represented by the witness and

related to the subject matter of the hearing.

(C) The disclosure referred to in subdivision (B) shall

include--

(i) the amount and country of origin of any payment or

contract related to the subject matter of the hearing

originating with a foreign government.

(ii) the amount and country of origin of any payment or

contract related to the subject matter of the hearing

originating with a foreign government.

(D) Such statements, with appropriate redactions to protect

the privacy or security of the witness, shall be made

publicly available in electronic form not later than one day

after the witness appears.

(2) The five-minute rule shall be observed in the

interrogation of each witness before the Committee until each

member of the Committee has had an opportunity to question

the witness.

(3) The provisions of clause 2(k) of rule XI of the Rules

of the House shall apply to any hearing conducted by the

Committee.

Subpoenas and Oaths

(e)(1) Pursuant to clause 2(m) of rule XI of the Rules of

the House of Representatives, a subpoena may be authorized

and issued by the Committee or a subcommittee in the conduct

of any investigation or series of investigations or

activities, only when authorized by a majority of the members

voting, a majority being present.

(2) The Chair may authorize and issue subpoenas under such

clause during any period in which the House has adjourned for

a period of longer than three days.

(3) Authorized subpoenas shall be signed by the Chair or by

any member designated by the Committee, and may be served by

any person designated by the Chair or such member.

(4) The Chair, or any member of the Committee designated by

the Chair, may administer oaths to witnesses before the

Committee.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 7 o'clock and 13 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Friday, January 27, 2017, at 2 p.m.