Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, tonight, what I would like to do is engage the American people on several subjects. I will be speaking for quite a bit of time tonight on the health care issue facing America.

Mr. Speaker, before I get there, I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry), a very dear friend of mine.

Windswept Plains of Nebraska

I thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry) not only for taking time today to discuss the important things that he has on his mind, but also for sharing with the American people his ideas about where our country is and where we are headed with the new Presidency, a new Senate, and a new House of Representatives.

Tonight, Mr. Speaker, I rise to talk about the current state of our Nation's healthcare system.

Mr. Speaker, tonight I am given this time as a result of the majority leader, Mr. McCarthy. He has given me time to talk about an important issue that faces not only our country, but also elected Members of the House of Representatives and the United States Senate and the President of the United States, our new President, President Trump.

As each of us is aware, the issue of health care is one of the most important issues that has been faced in our Nation for many years. Back in 2009, President Obama began the search that he talked about for what was called an Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act seemed to be a promise to make health care better. It seemed to be a word, in the words of the President, an Affordable Care Act that would help all Americans to receive health care on a fair basis and one that would be sustainable.

The President stood before this body several times and talked about his ideas about health care. It took about a year, maybe a little bit more, for the Democratic Congress to work through this issue. On or about March 21 or 22, 2010, a bill popped out of the United States Senate, came to the House of Representatives, and we handled the matter here up in the Rules Committee, brought it to the floor, passed it with debate, no opposition--no opposition, meaning Republicans were not allowed to present an alternative case, a bill. It was a closed rule. And the Democrats passed it and went to the White House the next day, March 23, 2010, and signed the bill.

The American people had grave reservations about that, but what happened is that it took several years in which they were working through this process. We did not know exactly what would happen; but, almost immediately, hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of spending would take place and taxes would take place. What the President did and what the Democrat Party did is they tied health care directly to employers and put mandates on top of employers and mandates on top of individuals with the belief that individuals would be forced into taking what was then ObamaCare--health care--under the Affordable Care Act.

What has happened over the years, including as we stand today, is that only some 12 to 20 million people are on ObamaCare at any one time. That is because the system that was devised and run by the Affordable Care Act is a system that does not work well. It is very expensive. It provides limited benefits. And perhaps worst of all, the promise that it would make health care available and better for poorer people never materialized as they sold it. In fact, healthcare providers are reimbursed 50 percent less than from normal insurance; meaning that, while you may have some bit of coverage, the people who would accept that health care are hard to find.

It is true that many times you could find someone who is a GP-- someone who is a family physician, someone who is an internist who might take what is known as ObamaCare--but if he found something that might be wrong or needed to refer that individual, it was very difficult to do. In my hometown of Dallas, Texas, major hospitals do not take what is known as ObamaCare under the Affordable Care Act, and it is because of this problem that it is a false promise for the people who are on it.

Members of Congress are legally required to be on ObamaCare if we accept the health care from our providers, but President Obama did not ask anyone else in government to fall under the same opportunities that we would have as Members of Congress. Over the years, it became a festering point--a sore--among not only those who were paying the costs, but also those who were on it saw it as a concrete life preserver, one that did not live up to its billing. Repeatedly, businesses would come to the House of Representatives--to Members of Congress--and say to us: This law is not only not working, it is causing us to make full-time employees become part-time employees because we cannot either pay or do not want to or do not have the ability to follow all of the requirements of the law.

We here in America saw not only dwindling opportunities for employment, but we also saw the skyrocketing cost--from taxes, from behavior that did not help health care. So Republicans, yes, and the American people began talking about some way that we could isolate health care to where we would have our friends who were Democrats want to accept one of these opportunities to fix this broken system. Over the years, Republicans offered some 60 different alternative votes-- piece parts, rifle shots--that said we want to fix ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act. We picked 60 different things about the bill that were either incomplete, that did not live up to the billing, that caused bad behavior, or that simply were tremendously anticompetitive in their nature.

It was a lonely few years.

As the chairman of the House Rules Committee, day after day, we would seek opportunities for our colleagues to come join us to present their ideas, and they not only disagreed with us, but they chastised us. We kept going. We kept offering alternatives to a healthcare system that was not working.

Mr. Speaker, what happened is the American people soon saw, as we came close to another election, that we were going to have to ask the American people to be a part of the solution. We had tried in Washington, D.C. We had over 60 votes and we had made it a regular part of our discussion. Republicans, each time, had better ideas, better alternatives--ways to take 60 different pieces and trade them out so that we could better this terrible law that was not working.

Then came the election. With the election, one of the most key and cleanest issues that was discussed was not only the repeal of ObamaCare, but the promise that Republicans would replace it also. For the past 4 or 5 years, Republicans have had a talking point that we want to repeal and to replace the healthcare system that was known as ObamaCare.

Mr. Speaker, that is why I am here tonight--to talk about Republican ideas that we think are better for health care and ideas that we think will work not only in a marketplace, but that will be able to be used by a vast number of people here in America. It will not be something that is use it or lose it, as health care many times is. It will be sustainable. Perhaps, more importantly, there will be the ability for families to get what they want and to not have to pay for what they do not need. It passed on March 21 by a vote of 219-212. No Republican supported the Affordable Care Act, but every Republican understands that health care is important to families. It is important that a family takes the responsibility and tries to cover its family.

Tonight, as I speak with you about where we are in health care, I want to include the words that come from Dallas, Texas--my home--of the families whom I have gotten to know and of the families who have communicated with me, because, as their Member of Congress, I am expected not only to listen, but to try and work for their betterment. I am probably no different than hundreds of other Members of Congress who come to Washington every week with a message.

This is from Julie Ross of Dallas, Texas, with her two beautiful children. This is a very high-level conversation in which she says:

Now that my daughter is at home and thriving--who was in

the hospital--we depend upon these protections to provide

health care for her complex healthcare needs.

ObamaCare did not meet those needs; but as a Member of Congress, if I am going to talk about repealing, I need to also, forthrightly, talk about replacing what is a bad healthcare law with a better healthcare alternative. Republicans have better ideas to fix health care, and I am going to speak about these.

The first thing I would like to speak about is the reality that about 150 million Americans have an opportunity to receive their health care on a pretax basis. That means that our employers and our employees who work for large companies have a chance to get their health care without paying for it on an after-tax basis. I pay about $13,000 myself out of pocket for my health care. My employer pays essentially what is a 70-30 split, but that entire amount is on a pretax basis. The 1943 employer- sponsored insurance exemption and the 21st Century Cures, which we just passed this last December, allow businesses an opportunity to provide their employees with pretax health insurance. Pretax health insurance means that they are able to deduct the contributions that they make for their employees, and employees are allowed to receive this as a benefit.

However, this, I believe, is part of what we have known for a long time as being an unfair, rigged system. It is a system that says, if you work for one of these larger companies, you will get that tax advantage; but if you do not--if you are self-employed, if you are an entrepreneur, if you are a 941-type employee, meaning perhaps you are a real estate agent who is self-employed or perhaps you work for a small company--then you are not offered this pretax opportunity. It is probably true that you could deduct that amount next April. As you pay your taxes, you would file if you qualified based upon the amount of money that you spent.

Mr. Speaker, this right here is the disadvantage for about 100 million Americans. They do not receive what 150 million other Americans do, and that is to get their health care on a pretax basis. I have worked now for some 2 years with some 500 physicians who are across the country. We have worked on a system that would allow every single American not only to have better health care, but to have an opportunity to participate on a fair basis.

The gentleman from Lubbock, Texas (Mr. Arrington) will participate with me tonight and will speak about how important this is for him.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington), one of our brand new freshman from Lubbock, Texas. Jodey not only comes from the high plains of Lubbock, a young man who has given great service to the State of Texas, but he also comes as our newest member from the Texas delegation who stands not only with the principles of that district, but with the principle of caring about other people. I thank the gentleman for letting his voice be heard about what will be a bill that will be before the House of Representatives tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, continuing our discussion about health care and Republican ideas. Back in 2013, some 4.7 million Americans that had their own health care were knocked off that health care because it didn't qualify in the way that President Obama and Democrats wanted to have a comprehensive healthcare plan. So it knocked off 4.7 million Americans, and what it did is it placed America into a circumstance where we began looking for options and alternatives about how we would insure the uninsured.

We were told: Just watch and wait. This Affordable Care Act is going to make sure that it takes every single American and gives them an affordable healthcare plan.

Here is what happened, Mr. Speaker. We found out that we still have some 30 million people in this country--now in the sixth year of ObamaCare--that do not have coverage. We have learned that about 49 percent of those who are insured work for employers, about 20 percent of the marketplace is Medicaid, about 14 percent is Medicare, but we still have some 9 percent who were uninsured.

We then find out that what happened is that the Federal Government decided that insurance was not working, so we had coops that were invented out of the Affordable Care Act. Seventeen out of the 23 coops have now gone into bankruptcy. They could not provide the services that the Affordable Care Act was just so sure, with government-run programs, would work; and they wiped out almost unilaterally every single insurance plan where they came in. I don't know if it was just because they undercut them, but what they did is provided a false indicator for people.

Well, the Federal Government is here. Barack Obama and Democrats now have a healthcare plan for every single American. Only a few short years later, they are gone. They are gone from the marketplace after wiping out the insurance that was there.

Perhaps worst of all, as they left, there was a requirement by the Obama administration that somebody had to come and renew insurance, even late in the year, or they would receive a $2,000 penalty because they did not have insurance at the end of the year.

Mr. Speaker, this is what the insured and the uninsured look like. A gentleman from Dallas, Texas, Kennis Ketchum told us: I am being penalized for being an entrepreneur. I am in here, and I want to be in here. I want to be able to go and to allow myself to be in insurance, but I cannot afford it because I do not have the tax advantage.

So Republicans finally have the chance for our ideas that we believe are bigger and better. We have a chance to do, I think, what we have wanted to do for a long time; and that is to repeal the Affordable Care Act, but with the promise that we need to make sure that we replace it with something better.

What does this mean?

Well, I will tell you what it means, Mr. Speaker. What it means is that Republicans are going to understand that a simple plan that can be paid for literally with the existing dollars that are in health care today and authorized by law--some $1.2 trillion that exists in law and authorized today--can be utilized for a healthcare system to take care of each and every American. I would like to describe that.

First of all, it is important for us to understand that of the uninsured in this country, 74 percent work. That means that people that are no different than me and you, Mr. Speaker, get up and go to work to the best of their ability. It might be that they don't have all the advantages of education that I have. It could be that they have something in their life that might be an impediment. It could be some sort of perhaps what might be a difference or a disability. I understand this. I have a son that has Down syndrome. Alex is not really capable of taking care of himself, so he is not necessarily one of these that would qualify for what we know as the alternative to ObamaCare.

There are millions who do need the help, who do want and need insurance and not insurance that is like the Affordable Care Act because we know

that reimburses at 50 percent less than insurance, some 25 percent less than Medicaid, a plan that limits the number of physicians and healthcare professionals that a person can see. No.

The American people need something that they can count on. They need something that is better, that provides better reimbursement to where virtually every hospital would take their plan instead of a few, where four times as many doctors would take their plan, their insurance as opposed to them being on ObamaCare. These people who want and seek health care need a plan that is worthy of the representation that would be given to them, and that is the Republican idea.

So Republicans have a chance, an opportunity. Just one of the ideas is to allow the healthcare tax benefits to be consistent with those of every American who works for a large company.

You see, there are two ways to look at this. One might be a high standard deduction that an employee or a person would be able to take and buy health insurance and, next April, be able to write that off, so to speak, as a pretax deduction. You know the problem with that and so do I. Seventy-four percent of the people who are uninsured do not have the money to buy health care. Seventy-four percent of the people who are uninsured might not have enough money to be able to go buy insurance and wait all year long to get back their money next April when they file their taxes.

So one of the ideas that I have--and I shared this plan with Senator Bill Cassidy from Louisiana--is that what we would like to do is to provide a $2,500 tax credit for adults and a $1,500 tax credit for dependent children that would be advanceable, assignable, and refundable.

What would this mean?

This would mean that this year every single American that did not receive the tax advantage--the tax advantage like I receive and some 150 million Americans receive by getting their health care on a pretax basis--would have an opportunity to go online. They would be able to go online and look at the insurance in their area, and they would be able to receive this benefit, this tax advantage. It would not ever come to them. It would go directly to their insurance program.

They would be able to take, for a family of four, some $8,000. They would be able to use this first $8,000--the exact same tax advantage that Pete Sessions and 150 million other Americans get--January 1st of next year and to assign this $8,000 to their healthcare plan.

They could decide they wanted more, and they would be able to do that on a pretax basis also up to $5,000. They could decide that they would like perhaps to get a plan that would be at their local hospital. That is fine. They could decide that they would like to have what is called a health savings account, an HSA, which, more generally, is an opportunity for them to control their costs. This is very attractive for young people and advantageous for young people because they would be able to control their costs and roll these advantages or savings over year after year after year as opposed to losing what they had saved or, at the beginning of the year, starting back over.

Republicans have an opportunity to make things fair. I think this is what President Trump talked about when he was candidate Trump. I think he talked about a rigged system. When you have a system where 150 million Americans get a tax advantage and you don't, you would describe that as a rigged system.

So Republicans, at least one of the proposals that is out there-- because it is Senator Cassidy's and mine, known as the World's Greatest Healthcare Plan--employs an opportunity where up front we allow every single American to have health care January 1 that is superior in nature to whatever they had with ObamaCare.

It allows the purchase of a nongovernment plan and it allows each individual, if they choose, to go to a health savings account.

What is a health savings account?

A health savings account is a well-known product whereby a family would be able to get what is called major medical coverage. They actually, as part of their plan, would make sure that, if they were in the hospital or a member of their family was in the hospital, they would have to cover the first $5,000, but that the insurance plan then that they could find about affording out of this $8,000 for a family of four would give them a chance then to have either a 90/10, 80/20, or 70/30 contribution. Meaning they could decide what they wanted to afford based upon their age, based upon their risk, based upon their own circumstances. But they, as a consumer, would be able to make sure that they are taken care of if they go in the hospital.

Then that contribution, to the level that they would choose--either they would pay 30 percent or 20 percent or 10 percent for expenses past $10,000--gave them the coverage that they need in the marketplace. Maybe it is a baby. Maybe it is major surgery. Maybe it is cancer. But they would receive hospital coverage.

Then with the remaining amount of money, they could then put that into a health savings account and use cash for their doctor's visits. Cash is king. Cash is also the most economical way to get your health care because you go and actually, instead of negotiating with a doctor or looking at what your insurance company negotiated, you negotiate paying that person today instead of the doctor having to file insurance and go through the necessary elements to receive their money back.

You go to the doctor you choose. You pay for what you want. You pay for those things that you have made a decision, and you pay out of your cash account. It is the most leading edge, fastest way to get health care in America, and, generally speaking, it is 18 percent cheaper.

Mr. Speaker, these are but one of the ideas that Republicans bring to the table.

And it is why I can stand up, as chairman of the Rules Committee, when my colleagues say: oh, you are going to take away something that people had with the Affordable Care Act. And I say: you know, I think we have got a better way to look at it.

Instead of only some 27 out of 100 doctors being available to you as a patient, I would like to double or quadruple that. I would like for you to be able to make your own decisions, and, in the long run, you will be better.

But there is more to the story. And the more to the story is, what this will do is allow a robust marketplace where, instead of forcing people to go into a system and then penalizing them, we encourage people to go into a system and encourage them to be not only consumers, and not only to take care of themselves, but to help everybody out because it helps the curve.

It helps people get in of all ages, of all needs, of all types back into the marketplace automatically January 1st. Didn't have to guess at how much money they were going to make; didn't have to worry about whether they got laid off; didn't have to go check with the IRS; didn't have to ask Uncle Sam.

We are automatically giving the tax advantage by virtue of them being American and us doing the right thing off the existing money that exists in ObamaCare and health care today.

Mr. Speaker, that is a better idea. That is a better opportunity for us, as Republicans, to go back home, and, no matter who we want to look at, we can say: we get it. We do get that you want and need health care, that we want and need America to have the greatest healthcare system in the world, but we need to make sure we can pay for it. And it should not restrict business. It should not come and tell a business or a group of people what they will--how they will tie themselves together with their health care and their job that makes absolutely no sense.

I know we were told that is the way it would happen, but it did not. It became a concrete life preserver for employees, employers, and for the marketplace.

So, Mr. Speaker, this health insurance tax advantage is but one of the ideas that is available to the American people and to the Republican Party as part of the world's greatest healthcare system.

I believe that we need a very disciplined approach. I believe that we need to be thoughtful. I believe that we need every single Member of Congress to understand what kind of healthcare system America deserves, not only for the physicians and the hospitals back

home but for the real live people who are called constituents. And we as Members of Congress should know, the day we pass a bill, how we intend it to work.

My colleagues, the Democrats, for 6 years have bumbled around and, even today, don't even understand, nor will they admit, what a disaster ObamaCare is. So, the American people did it for them.

The American people voted in Donald J. Trump. They voted in Republicans to the House in the majority. They voted in Republicans to the Senate. And now we are in Washington, and we are going to struggle. We are going to struggle mightily. We are going to throw ideas onto the wall. We are going to have committee hearings. We are going to have the best thought process.

We are going to be able to go back home and to sell to the American people not only some of the ideas that I have but some of the ideas that my colleagues have. And we are going to come up with a better healthcare system.

So what we are about is fix the system before we repeal it. I believe it is wise to say that Republicans owe it to the American people to say: before we go replacing something--before we repeal something, let's replace it. And more and more and more and more of my colleagues are saying this openly. It only makes sense.

We have nothing to fear with a Republican option and an alternative that will be superior for the American people, and every single person will be able to see that. We believe establishing a Republican alternative that can be implemented this year is the best answer.

Now, this is my idea. My idea is, let's go get it on. We know what we are doing. Let's go hold our hearings. Let's go to the American people. Let's sell the ideas that we have got. Let's go move forward and get this process on.

Secondly, we believe that what we have got to do is use reconciliation to repeal the most onerous mandates. What might those be? Well, the individual and the business mandate, the Cadillac tax.

We believe that we have got to go and use the processes, the leverage that we have got. And then we have got to count on what I hope will be the gentleman from Georgia, Tom Price, who is today the chairman of the Budget Committee, but tomorrow has been nominated to be the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

We will count on Dr. Tom Price actually sitting in the seat, looking at the exact same law that was overwhelmingly voted by Democrats and no Republicans, and using those levers that he has that were expressly given to the head of HHS to make wise decisions on how to implement the law as we move forward.

I will tell you, Chairman Price, as a physician with a long history of understanding health care, as a provider of health care for years, as an awesome physician, Tom Price knows the problems, and he will use those same opportunities that exist in the law today. Instead of it being something that would be more difficult for a consumer, more difficult for a person on ObamaCare, more difficult for what might be an employer, more difficult and time consuming for a consumer, more costly to the consumers of this country, but, perhaps worst of all, making it harder to provide better health care for a patient, Tom Price will have that opportunity.

So this is a three-tier process for Republicans, for us to also bring the best ideas. The American people should be checking with their Member of Congress who will be able to understand the Republican alternative. This is great for the American people to know.

We are going to use the levers of laws to change them, to repeal and take back the most onerous parts of ObamaCare, and we are going to work within the law that Mr. Price, as head of HHS, would be able to use exactly the same levers that someone sat there, if they really wanted to fix health care instead of making it harder for someone.

We know that Republicans have better ideas, and that what we want to do is to establish a tax benefit system while allowing the employer- sponsored insurance tax system to remain. That means that every single American will have parity on the opportunity to buy health care on January 1 of every year; that no longer will we find that people lag behind because they can't afford, or it is a rigged system, or they have a disadvantage.

Republicans have an opportunity to level the playing field. This is why Republicans openly in any crowd can say: we have better ideas. We don't have to force anybody. We will invite them to come be a part of what we do. And I guarantee you, more people will flock to our system than fled and ran from ObamaCare, because it has to work for everybody, not just some of us.

The healthcare system that we have today, ObamaCare, literally, young people ran from the system. They could not afford it. But worst of all, they could not pay the high deductible. And if you have such a high deductible, it means, by and large, insurance is useless to you.

So, Mr. Speaker, what Republicans are doing is going to allow a tax benefit system. Republicans are going to make HSAs available as an option, an alternative, so that people have a choice and a chance to buy what they need but not pay for what they don't want. We want an opportunity for them to become consumers. We want them to be a part of a system where it is not use it or lose it, rather, they can only, through their own means and their hard work, roll over perhaps $1,000 a year, $1,000 at 21, $1,000 at 22, $1,000 at 23, and to allow private physicians to make sure they are in the system.

Lastly, as my time is moving forward, I want to say something to each and every American because it seemingly has been a part of the lexicon in my Democrat friends' viewpoint, and it is this: The Republican plan has available to it and, I believe, will accept the rights that were known as under ObamaCare, which were very bipartisan, dependent coverage through age 26--Republican plan, you bet. No lifetime annual limits--Republican plan, absolutely. Modified guarantee availability renewability, just like what was in ObamaCare--you bet we will have that too.

Prohibition on preexisting conditions exclusions--literally, just the same. You have to buy in. And if you don't, then you have a problem. But if you buy in the first time you get a chance, it is an opportunity just like ObamaCare.

Prohibition on discrimination based on health status--absolutely. That is a Republican idea, too. It is not owned by just one party. It is a generally accepted idea and would be a part, should be a part, of a Republican plan, and nondiscrimination and healthcare coverage.

Mr. Speaker, what I have tried to do in this hour is to give the American people and my colleagues the confidence that what lies ahead will be an awesome debate, but it will be done in public. It will be done above board. It will be done where Members of Congress can go back home and explain to people not only what we want to do but be willing to take their own feedback also.

It will be a system that will fix the inequities, the things that were unfair about tax benefits. And it should be, and I hope will be, a system that will be available this next year so that, on January 1 of this next year, as we find the American people wanting eagerly to look at the health care that their families would want and need, that they will find a tax benefit that is consistent with what any other American gets.

Now, the last point I would like to say is a thank you. I would like to say a thank you to some 500 physicians of the National Physicians' Policy Council who have worked through, for 2 years, 9 very large meetings across this country, the last one, the first week of December here in Washington.

Dr. John T. Gill, national co-chairman, and Dr. Marcy Zwelling--Dr. Gill is from Dallas. Dr. Zwelling is from Los Angeles--and our 16 vice chairmen, who have devoted not only hard work but a belief that a healthcare change should be done with physicians, with the people who care about not only patients but care about the system that they would be engaged in, the system of health care in America, that is the greatest system that we know of.

They have sent me hundreds of ideas and hundreds of things which we have openly discussed where we rubbed elbows trying to decide how do we hone

this idea. It has come down to every single American should end up with a better healthcare system than one that was designed that they could not explain and still leaves some 30 million people uninsured in America, and that is called ObamaCare. We should not have a system that demands that a person be on that system or have to pay a huge fine. No. We would want a system where people gleefully came to it, liked their healthcare system, became a consumer, were proud of what they got, and perhaps more importantly, could go to the doctor of their choice instead of calling a number and being assigned or take the person that they were given.

Mr. Speaker, there are lots of ways to get things done in this country, but Republicans have, for years, had better ideas. The idea on health care is one that Republicans are eager--eager--not only to accept this challenge, but eager to say that we are going to work together. Speaker Ryan has pledged himself to our Conference. We have Members of the United States Senate, Mitch McConnell--the other body-- and there are a number of Members, including Dr. Bill Cassidy and Dr. Rand Paul who have come out with their own healthcare bills, ways to attract not just other cosponsors, but their colleagues who are Democrats also.

So I would say tonight to my colleagues: I would like for you to take just a minute to look at the world's greatest healthcare plan. I would like for you to be concerned, instead of the some 12 to 20 million people across the country--everybody has their own congressional district, and there might be a large number in some of their districts. But by and large, the vast number would not be on ObamaCare, and each of our Members owe them a better healthcare system also.

But if we all get together, every single person can have the opportunity to have a nondiscriminatory system where virtually every hospital would take your coverage instead of only a few. ObamaCare is only a few, only a few doctors. And if we work together and form larger team sizes, we can make health care even better for all Americans.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity tonight to talk about not only better ideas to fix health care, but it would be done through a deliberate, disciplined approach, one in which every single Member of this body should be able to describe what they want. If they want to be for ObamaCare and say that only 24 percent of physicians and only a few hospitals will take their plan, then let them stand on that.

But I want to be for a system where virtually every hospital and virtually every doctor would take the healthcare plan that I would like my family to be on and them, also. That is why I stand up tonight and speak favorably about the Republican advantages of where we will head, specifically about the world's greatest healthcare plan that Senator Bill Cassidy and I have cosponsored and, more specifically, that the American people can be sold by every single one of us to make health care work and be better for each and every American.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), a bright young member of the Rules Committee who today is offering the rule on two very important issues that face this great Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. I rise in support of the work that the Rules Committee did for the right reason and I will yield the right results.

The American people spoke on November 8, and they asked for change, a change from business as usual. Mr. Speaker, that does mean you can look at geopolitical facts and draw a conclusion as opposed to geopolitical facts and ignore things that happen in the world, and that is exactly what we are doing here today.

The American people no longer want unelected bureaucrats promulgating rules. They no longer want Washington to be so important in their lives. They want and need to be able to have an opportunity to make their own decisions and to work well within the law. They have spoken; and they want what I believe the Republican House, the Republican Senate, and a Republican President will bring to the country. It is called accountability.

The REINS Act, sponsored by Mr. Collins today, addresses many of the issues that I just discussed. The legislation requires that a joint resolution must be approved and must be passed by both Chambers of Congress and signed by the President before any major new rule or regulation is promulgated by the executive branch before it can take place. These are rules written by the Congress, rules then associated and determined by the executive, but with the intent of Congress to make sure that the American people are not further harmed.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have just heard an opportunity to discuss what was--this discussion that we are having about Israel and the administration. The bottom line is that the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Representative Ed Royce, came before the committee yesterday and said he really did not take issue with what they were doing. He would not support it because it did not address the problem that occurred when the Obama administration, for political purposes, hung the people of Israel and the State of Israel out for the world to condemn and take

advantage of. It bypassed years and years of American foreign policy. It stunned not only Members of Congress, but it also stunned people who recognize that Israel is in a fight for their life.

Mr. Speaker, we did not, based upon the determination of the Rules Committee, make in order the bill that they had asked for. They can bring it to the floor today, and we are not going to make it available because it does not even discuss the basic facts. That is, the President of the United States unilaterally allowed the State of Israel, who is a dear friend of the United States, to be hung out in the political and the economic world and the world of foreign affairs to be tarnished and taken advantage of.

Mr. Speaker, we are here to say that we were appalled by what our government did and we are going to stand up and call it for what it is. America should always be a trusted friend to Israel, and we are doing exactly that here today.

Mr. Speaker, I predict an overwhelming vote that will take place today to enunciate what we believe is correct and also what was wrong.

Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee issued announcements outlining the amendment processes for several measures likely on the floor next week.

An amendment deadline has been set for Monday, January 9, at 10 a.m. for H.R. 5, the Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017; H.R. 79, Helping Angels Lead Our Startups Act. And a deadline has been set for 3 p.m. on Monday for H.R. 238, the Commodity End-User Relief Act, and H.R. 78, the SEC Regulatory Accountability Act.

The text of these measures are available on the Rules Committee Web site. Please feel free to contact me or my staff with any questions you have.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate my friends, Keagan Lenihan and her husband Brian, on the birth of their twin daughters Collins Madden and Emma Rhoades Lenihan. Collins was born at 11:21 p.m. and Emma at 11:22 p.m. on Monday, January 19, 2015, in Washington, DC. Collins and Emma are five pounds of pride and joy to their loving grandparents, Barclay and Lorita Resler of McLean, Virginia and Michael and Marilyn Lenihan of Fredericksburg, Virginia. I am so excited for this new blessing to the Lenihan family and wish them all the best on their future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise on the floor today really for two reasons, perhaps three. First of all, to support and defend the Committee on Rules last night where we overwhelmingly are in favor of making sure that every Member of this body has an opportunity to vote up or down on this terrible piece of legislation that is the law that is known as the Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare.

This last election the people of this country openly asked the question in many districts across this country: Are you for or against this terrible law that was put through this Congress without one Republican vote? So it is only obvious that every single new Member of this body would want to have an opportunity to vote up or down.

Secondly, I want to defend the gentleman, Dr. Burgess, a member of our committee, who was attacked last night. I unfortunately had taken 2 or 3 minutes away from the chair to attend to some other matters of the committee and was not available to be in the chair.

Thirdly, I want to stand up for my State of Texas. In defense of the State of Texas, there has been a lot of talk about Texas lately, not just last night, but lately. So I want to make sure that people have a better understanding to know why Texans are being attacked, and that is because we reject big, liberal government that is embodied in the laws that are known as ObamaCare, or the Affordable Care Act.

In defense of our great State of Texas, we represent people of the State of Texas, and I strongly stand with my fellow Texan and fellow committee member, the gentleman from Lewisville, Texas, Dr. Michael Burgess. Dr. Burgess is not just a proud member of our delegation and a proud Member who represents Texas, just as I do, born in Waco, Texas, but I stand today for why Texas is a great State.

Evidently we have got to defend our honor. It was done last night in the Committee on Rules; it is being done today on the floor of the House of Representatives. I stand in defense of Texas; although Texas I don't think really needs much defense.

Texans are proud people, and we have been a proud people since the days of the Alamo and San Jacinto. That is when we used to be our own nation. Texans are fiercely independent, and we, I think, lead to the very best not only for ourselves, but we are trying to do that also for America.

Texas is thriving, and the reason why we are thriving is because of economic growth, robust job creation, and overall quality of life. American families and businesses all across this country, I think, look to Texas as the leader in freedom and economic opportunity. That is what the Lone Star State is.

In our system of federalism, people can also vote with their feet. In the last 5 years, the Texas population grew by 1.8 million people. People from all over the United States, all 50 States, found a brighter future for themselves in Texas.

Over 1.6 million veterans call Texas home. These are men and women who fought for the freedoms that we enjoy and have today. Because of our communities, they support our veterans, and people know when they look to Texas, those people in Texas care about veterans and protecting our country.

Our churches, our schools, our hospitals, and our charities all lead the way in providing our citizens with things so that the government does not have to.

Yesterday, in the Rules Committee, Dr. Burgess was merely reflecting the views of our home State and the people who live there. Our Nation does better when we allow individuals to succeed, rather than look to government. We need to have a limited government, and people will then have more freedom.

While some people may think that limited government and empowering families is ``crazy,'' I disagree. I think the numbers prove it. Texas has been called the great American job machine because we are the State that leads the Nation and the world. In fact, if Texas were its own country, it would have the 13th highest GDP in the world.

I thank the gentleman very much, my fellow Eagle Scout from California.

In fact, I did walk on the floor here, and I noticed that Ms. Kaptur is here, Mr. Tonko is here, and you are having a vigorous discussion which is important with the American people.

I am about to be in receipt of a bill that will come down that will be presented to the floor here in just a minute, so if I keep talking here for just a minute.

I would, pending receiving those, which is just about to happen, say to the gentleman that his ideas that he brought to the Rules Committee, in fact, were received well, the ideas about shipping in American ships, building of American ships, the opportunity for American ships to employ people as they transported American products around the world.

We will be ready here in half a second, so anybody who is watching gets high drama.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 48 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, Judge Hastings, 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 have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I bring to the floor on behalf of the Rules Committee and the Republican Conference a rule and the underlying legislation which helps address a problem that has been created by the Obama administration.

The administration has decided to slow the export of liquefied natural gas to countries with which we do not have a free trade agreement. This means that American companies have plenty of liquefied natural gas to sell to our allies across the globe but that delays by the administration are preventing them from selling it. This decision, I think, comes at a terrible price for the millions of Americans who cannot find work. This decision comes at a terrible price for those in need of a good-paying job--perhaps even of a long career--that will help support their families, their communities, and, most of all, that will help make America stronger.

The administration's inaction also comes at a terrible price for our friends in Europe who are being bullied by thugs, namely the Russian Government. Currently, many of our allies in Europe are forced to buy natural gas from Russia instead of from the United States of America. We have seen how they use this leverage to push around our allies. Our other friends around the globe, such as India, Japan, and Haiti, also need energy, and this administration's inaction is also costing these allies dearly. Let me see if I can paint a picture of how the administration's decision has been executed.

The administration's Department of Energy has slow walked. It has taken an antiquated approval process for applications to export liquefied natural gas, which is known as LNG. Since 2010, the Department of Energy has only issued final decisions on five of the 37 applications to export LNG to countries with which the United States does not have a free trade agreement. These delays have nothing to do with the environment. In fact, natural gas is one of the cleanest sources of energy in the world. Yes, I think we know what the problem is. The problem is they simply do not want to participate in this marketplace for Americans to have jobs.

As a result of these delays, all of us in America are squandering the boon in liquefied natural gas, which has made the United States the world's largest provider of natural gas in oil beginning, really, in 2013. Here we are now, 2 years later, and it is time for America to come to action. That is, again, why the United States Congress--the Republican Congress--is coming to the American people with a bill to help do something about this.

The administration's broken application process is delaying good- paying jobs at a time when the labor participation rate in our marketplace is at historic lows. That hurts real people. That hurts real people who want and need opportunities to have jobs today, not to look up and find out that Washington is broken and is keeping them from good-paying jobs.

I have much to say about this, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

This issue about liquefied natural gas and natural gas perhaps comes naturally to Texans. I am from Dallas. I have been around the natural gas industry. I have seen the attributes of energy policy and how important it is.

Let me tell you what: the Republicans have taken a keen interest in this. This is why the marketplace is producing gasoline at $1.72 a gallon. That is why gasoline prices have fallen, that is why natural gas is plentifully available at a great price--but, Mr. Speaker, it is also jobs behind this.

I will tell you one other thing. It is also a bipartisan idea. Yesterday, this gentleman that I am going to introduce, the sponsor of the bill, Bill Johnson, a 26-year veteran of the United States Air Force, came up to the Rules Committee and had one of the most delightful conversations on a bipartisan basis with other Democrats and Republicans and talked about the attributes of jobs and this natural resource.

Thank God we live in America and have these opportunities to where we can help other countries.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson), the original sponsor of this bill.

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

We really do want to address both of your questions. I think they are both legitimate questions.

First of all, according to Hungary's Ambassador at Large for Energy Security, lifting restrictions on import ``would send an extremely important message of strategic reassurance to the region which currently feels more threatened than any time since the cold war.''

I will yield in a second to the author of the bill because he understands that piece of the pie.

We talk about thuggery from Russia. The Ukrainians had to renegotiate the amount of money that they were paying just to get their natural gas and stay warm because the Russians raised that price on them. We think that is gouging and taking advantage of people.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson) to discuss this point that you asked about.

Reclaiming my time, it does help us. I thank the gentleman.

Let us keep going on the second part of the question, which was: Can President Obama just get any bit of credit, just any bit, just a small measure? Well, I would respond to the gentleman: yes, but when he earns it.

The President has made it known from the very beginning that he opposed energy policy that the free market tried to produce. Take this example: even though he was at the groundbreaking for the Keystone pipeline, he has been incapable of making a decision for 6 years on something that multiple people, including at least two former Presidents and lots of other people, said it makes a lot of sense to do.

Also, the facts of the case are the Congressional Research Service reported that domestic natural gas production has risen by 19 percent since 2009 but decreased by 28 percent on Federal lands.

So, the idea that the President has tried to help this while reducing it by almost a third from Federal lands, the evidence is just not there to give him credit.

I know that there are people who want to get credit for things even though they didn't do things, even though they didn't complete the task that was in front of them, making decisions, making wise decisions, showing the American people what you stand for.

I would do this for the gentleman and help him out, but the administration clearly has been on simply the other side of that issue and that ball.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Corpus Christi, Texas (Mr. Farenthold), who was with me on the border this last weekend as we looked at border security. He comes from an energy-rich section of our Nation and represents some of the most vibrant companies that are trying to make this country energy-sufficient and to help make sure that what is at the pump is at a great price and is a great product for consumers.

I thank the gentleman very much, not only for taking time to discuss these important issues but really for his representation of an industry that can do so many great things, not only for the American people but, really, to help out our friends around the world.

It becomes a part of a very positive foreign affairs policy that the United States, instead of going overseas to get energy, we can be delivering that energy. Instead of having to have a blue water navy, a navy that is stretched to keep shipping lanes open, we can be handing these off to other countries to take them.

Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, there was a vigorous opportunity, on a bipartisan basis, a discussion that not only did Bill Johnson take part in but also Mr. Garamendi, the gentleman, the Democrat from California, and Ed Whitfield, the subcommittee chairman, about how the delivery of this LNG can be on American ships.

A shipbuilding industry to build the ships to meet the specifications that would be necessary to put them in the water to deliver these around the world can be an American-made product also.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

I thank the gentleman.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, yesterday, at the Rules Committee, for the first time in a long time, we did not receive a Statement of Administration Policy that the President is opposed to this.

It was a bipartisan presentation in the Rules Committee yesterday. Not unprecedented but a really good feeling about us working together for the common interest, to make sure that the American worker comes out on top of this, that the taxpayer comes out on top of this, that we are producing good legislation that can go to the United States Senate, this time, to be heard and passed on, so that we can get this legislation so the President does earn that part of his check on the box that says: And thank you, Mr. President, for agreeing and working with us. Thank you for helping us out.

I think this can get through the House. I think it can get to the Senate, and I think the President will sign it.

Mr. Speaker, if that is not a positive declaration about the President seeing great things, and me wanting and needing and expecting the President to do what I think is the right thing, then we are simply miscast today.

This is a good thing for America. This is a good thing for both parties. But this is a good thing for our friends around the world and diplomacy also.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Friendswood, Texas (Mr. Weber), my dear colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the gentleman stick around for a minute because, as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, he is most genuinely involved in trying to make sure that discussions about America and our allies and how the world sees us are well understood.

As a man who comes from not only Friendswood, Texas, which, like Mr. Farenthold, is right in the center of this enterprise where we ship our natural resources around the world, I would really like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman to talk about the impact of foreign affairs.

The gentleman, Mr. Hastings, had asked a question about, well, why does this matter?

I thank the gentleman from Friendswood, Texas, who, Mr. Speaker, has a keen understanding about not only what is in America's best interest, by serving on the Foreign Affairs Committee, but who is also a proud man who understands that people who work hard have jobs-- clean, natural gas, an opportunity for America to get the benefits of one of God's greatest gifts to the United States that we can share with others.

Mr. Speaker, I think that there are a whole lot of ways for us to look at not only what lies ahead with opportunity, but I think we can also look at some models of success, and one of them might be my home State of Texas.

My home State of Texas has incredible opportunities and benefits that have arisen from the ability to have energy abundance, the ability to have oil, natural gas, and other elements that can be used in this industry to make our country stronger, but what is happening is that we have also used it to Texas' benefit and America's benefit. That is right.

Just to tell a story, if it weren't for Texas, net job growth over the last 7 years in America would be flat. That means you take all 49 States, level it out--the minuses, the pluses, net it out--America would not have net positive job growth. But because of Texas, I can tell you that we now have created a net increase of 1.2 million jobs in America, net, and that has come because of Texas. So it is literally entirely a Texas product.

The essence of this has come from not just lower taxes, not just better roads, great schools, better education, good people, but it comes from a philosophy of understanding that we need to utilize these natural resources for the benefit of our world. To make jobs, job creation important, instead of delaying things, Texas had to make sure that what we did is we used it to our advantage.

So instead of not making decisions, like this Federal Government does by delaying major initiatives, we signed them into law. We got them done. We made things happen. So by doing that, when you do that, then you stand a chance to better everybody's life.

I would now like to give the gentleman from Florida a chance to finish his time, so I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as I explained earlier, Texas is the great American jobs machine. We talked about how we create jobs because we have effectively used the resources that, in many instances, Mother Nature and God have given us. So now it is time for Washington, I think, to learn from models that we do in Texas, where we learn to capitalize on all of

our resources--in this case, the energy revolution that is at hand.

Look, what Republicans have done today is brought a bill that is common sense to the floor to unleash our natural resources, to make sure that it helps out not only our foreign policy, but workers and jobs in this country, and that is important. So it is a policy issue. The Republican Party is dead-on. There is going to be a bipartisan vote today.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation.

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

The previous question was ordered.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(2) of rule XI, the Committee on Rules' rules of procedure for the 114th Congress are transmitted herewith. They were adopted on January 7, 2015 by record vote of 7 yeas and 4 nays.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 27 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, we are here today because of failed liberal policies of the President of the United States. Through his unilateral executive actions taken in November and through policies pursued throughout his administration for a number of years, the President's policies have harmed the American taxpayer.

Specifically, that is why we are here today as part of this funding bill, to make sure that we address those problems that we see. Today, the House of Representatives will fight the President's failed liberal Democratic dogma and provide for a Homeland Security bill that actually protects the homeland and the American taxpayer.

This past summer, the American people saw what happens when the executive branch pursues policies that are not in the best interests of the American people. Over 70,000 unaccompanied minors from South and Central America entered our country illegally. They did this because they believed that this administration would allow them entry into the United States--and, by the way, it looks like it worked.

This influx was a costly mistake for the taxpayer and for communities all across this country. Federal taxpayers paid $553 million. We put local schools at risk and stretched the resources of communities all across this country to a tipping point.

Mr. Speaker, that is why we are here engaged in this fight. This bill represents conservative Republican solutions on how to protect the homeland and the rule of law. Within this rule is a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security, as well as five amendments that represent a united fight against the President's executive amnesty plan.

Let me be perfectly clear. I believe that the President's actions on executive amnesty are unwise and unconstitutional, and they must be stopped. This package provides this body with the opportunity to effectively block and reverse the President's unilateral amnesty, reassert the rule of law, and uphold our Constitution.

America became the laughing stock of the world by the way we dealt with this issue, and it lands directly at the feet of the President of the United States. That is why we are here today and are issuing this bill to the United States Senate, to have them take the appropriate action that is necessary, so that we may work together so that America is safe and that we do not have actions that America should not undertake.

We have a number of Republicans who wish to speak on this rule today. I look forward to hearing their thoughts, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Congressman Lou Barletta, who came to the Rules Committee last night to speak about the importance of this bill, the former mayor of Hazleton, Pennsylvania.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Lewisville, Texas, Dr. Burgess, from the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ranger, Georgia (Mr. Graves).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen), one of our brand new freshmen.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from the First District of Georgia, Pooler, Georgia (Mr. Carter).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Monroe, Georgia (Mr. Jody B. Hice).

Mr. Speaker, that is a very sad way to explain what we are doing here today. The gentleman knows that these 11 bills have all been heard, most of them voted on the floor, overwhelming majorities, if not----

No, sir. We covered this yesterday in the Rules Committee, and we intend to move forward. And they are great bills that will help the economy and jobs in this country.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield----

Mr. Speaker, I have the time and I appreciate that.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Cassville, Georgia, Congressman Loudermilk, a freshman Member of this delegation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the Seventh Congressional District of Texas, Congressman Culberson, the gentleman from the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Raleigh, North Carolina, Congressman Holding.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Appleton, Wisconsin, Reid Ribble.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Gainesville, Georgia, Congressman Collins, a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, but I would like to ask how much time remains on both sides.

I will reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we are here because the law requires that the House of Representatives pass funding bills. Today we are here because we are going to fund Homeland Security, and that we are. We are going to fund Homeland Security because every single member of this Republican Conference, and I believe every single Member of this House, understands how important Homeland Security funding is to protect this country and our citizens.

But we also need to understand that the President of the United States last year, and perhaps the year before, took actions which we disagreed with, which I believe embarrassed this country, which I believe we were unprepared to fulfill the responsibilities, and that is directly related to issues of executive orders and ideas that he had about illegal immigration.

Mr. Speaker, we are here because we feel passionately about the rule of law and the Constitution of the United States. It is the President of the United States who we believe has gone well past not only his constitutional authority, but the authority that I believe is vested in him: well and faithfully executing the laws of the country, which is his oath of office.

So we have gathered together, united in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. We are also going to follow the Constitution and pass it here today and tomorrow with the bill and send it to the United States Senate and let them deal with it.

Thank goodness we have Republican control in the Senate; otherwise, it might not even be heard with the other 360 pieces of legislation that the former head of the Senate decided not to take up in that body to debate or to have a vote on.

So we stand today prepared to fight the President's unwise and unconstitutional executive amnesty plan. It is time for this House to fight, I believe, for what is a constitutional issue, and we are going to politely do this. There was no screaming and yelling on our side. We have great resolve. We have an understanding about what is in the best interest of the United States.

So I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a remarkable individual from Dallas, Texas for his induction into the National Football Federation's Leadership Hall of Fame last night January 8, 2015. I would like to thank Chairman Archie Manning, Troy Aikman, Tom and Laura Leppert, and Roger Staubach for recognizing Dr. Kenneth Cooper for his dedication to health and fitness and his continued leadership in the North Texas community as a whole.

Throughout Dr. Cooper's career he has continued to revolutionize health and fitness and has proven to be a leading pioneer in preventative medicine. Known as the ``Father of Aerobics'' he has motivated thousands of people in Texas and across the United States to exercise in pursuit of good health and overall well-being. I want to express my heartiest congratulations to Dr. Cooper on this outstanding accomplishment and sincerely thank him for his immense contribution to the Dallas community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a remarkable individual from Dallas, Texas, to recognize him for his introduction into the National Football Foundation's Leadership Hall of Fame last night, January 8, 2015.

I would like to thank Chairman Archie Manning, football player Troy Aikman, Mayor Tom and Laura Leppert, and football player Roger Staubach for recognizing Dr. Kenneth Cooper for his dedication to health and fitness and his continuing leadership to health care for all.

Throughout Dr. Cooper's career in the United States Air Force and in a medical career in Dallas, Texas, he has continued to revitalize health care and fitness. He is also the father of preventative medicine and known as the father of aerobics, trying to make sure that the American people and the world understand how important fitness is to our life and our health.

I want to express my hearty congratulations to Dr. Cooper on receiving this outstanding award on behalf of the National Football Foundation, and I hope the American people and, today, the United States Congress will do so as well.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 3(b)(2) of House Resolution 5, 114th Congress, and section 4(c)(5)(B) of House Resolution 567, 113th Congress, I hereby submit the following regulations regarding the conduct of depositions by committee and select committee staff for printing in the Congressional Record:

1. Notice for the taking of depositions shall specify the date, time, and place of examination (if other than within the committee offices). Depositions shall be taken under oath administered by a member or a person otherwise authorized to administer oaths.

2. Consultation with the ranking minority member shall include three business days' notice before any deposition is taken. All members of the committee shall also receive three-business days notice that a deposition has been scheduled.

3. Witnesses may be accompanied at a deposition by counsel to advise them of their rights. No one may be present at depositions except members, committee staff designated by the chair or ranking minority member, an official reporter, the witness, and the witness's counsel. Observers or counsel for other persons, or for agencies under investigation, may not attend.

4. At least one member of the committee shall be present at each deposition taken by the committee, unless the witness to be deposed agrees in writing to waive this requirement.

5. A deposition shall be conducted by any member or staff attorney designated by the chair or ranking minority member. When depositions are conducted by committee staff attorneys, there shall be no more than two committee staff attorneys permitted to question a witness per round. One of the committee staff attorneys shall be designated by the chair and the other by the ranking minority member. Other committee staff members designated by the chair or ranking minority member may attend, but may not pose questions to the witness.

6. Questions in the deposition shall be propounded in rounds, alternating between the majority and minority. A single round shall not exceed 60 minutes per side, unless the members or staff attorneys conducting the deposition agree to a different length of questioning. In each round, a member or committee staff attorney designated by the chair shall ask questions first, and the member or committee staff attorney designated by the ranking minority member shall ask questions second.

7. Any objection made during a deposition must be stated concisely and in a non-argumentative and non-suggestive manner. The witness may refuse to answer a question only to preserve a privilege. When the witness has objected and refused to answer a question to preserve a privilege, the chair of the committee may rule on any such objection after the deposition has adjourned. If the chair overrules any such objection and thereby orders a witness to answer any question to which a privilege objection was lodged, such ruling shall be filed with the clerk of the committee and shall be provided to the members and the witness no less than three days before the reconvened deposition. If a member of the committee appeals in writing the ruling of the chair, the appeal shall be preserved for committee consideration. A deponent who refuses to answer a question after being directed to answer by the chair in writing may be subject to sanction, except that no sanctions may be imposed if the ruling of the chair is reversed on appeal.

8. Committee staff shall ensure that the testimony is either transcribed or electronically recorded or both. If a witness's testimony is transcribed, the witness or the witness's counsel shall be afforded an opportunity to review a copy. No later than five days thereafter, the witness may submit suggested changes to the chair. Committee staff may make any typographical and technical changes. Substantive changes, modifications, clarifications, or amendments to the deposition transcript submitted by the witness must be accompanied by a letter signed by the witness requesting the changes and a statement of the witness's reasons for each proposed change. Any substantive changes, modifications, clarifications, or amendments shall be included as an appendix to the transcript conditioned upon the witness signing the transcript.

9. The individual administering the oath, if other than a member, shall certify on the transcript that the witness was duly sworn. The transcriber shall certify that the transcript is a true record of the testimony, and the transcript shall be filed, together with any electronic recording, with the clerk of the committee in Washington, DC. Depositions shall be considered to have been taken in Washington, DC, as well as the location actually taken once filed there with the clerk of the committee for the committee's use. The chair and the ranking minority member shall be provided with a copy of the transcripts of the deposition at the same time.

10. The chair and ranking minority member shall consult regarding the release of depositions. If either objects in writing to a proposed release of a deposition or a portion thereof, the matter shall be promptly referred to the committee for resolution.

11. A witness shall not be required to testify unless the witness has been provided with a copy of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives and these procedures.

Madam Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I offer a privileged concurrent resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Rochester, New York (Ms. Slaughter). During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I insert for the Record a section-by-section analysis of the resolution as well as a July 21, 2014, memorandum prepared by the Office of the Parliamentarian for the Over-Criminalization Task Force of the Committee on the Judiciary.

H. Res. 5

Adopting Rules for the 114th Congress

Section-by-Section Analysis

Section 1. Resolved Clause.

This section provides that the Rules of the 113th Congress

are the Rules of the 114th Congress, except with the

amendments contained in section 2 of the resolution and

orders contained in sections 3, 4, and 5.

Section 2. Changes to the Standing Rules.

Disclosure of Foreign Payments to Witnesses. Subsection

(a)(1) requires, to the greatest extent practicable,

nongovernmental witnesses to disclose payments or contracts

to the witness or an organization they represent originating

from foreign governments received in the current and

preceding two calendar years, to the extent that such

information is relevant to the subject matter of, and the

witness' representational capacity at, that hearing.

While failure to comply fully with this requirement would

not give rise to a point of order against the witness

testifying, it could result in an objection to including the

witness's written testimony in the hearing record in the

absence of such disclosure.

Jurisdictional Changes. Subsection (a)(2) adds language to

the Committee on the Judiciary's jurisdictional statement

with respect to the criminalization of conduct.

The Committee on the Judiciary's jurisdiction over criminal

penalties and criminal law enforcement would remain

unchanged. That is, the committee would maintain its existing

jurisdiction over measures that create or repeal a crime, and

over measures that alter criminal penalties with regard to

crimes already existing in law.

The rules change is intended to cover measures that alter

the elements of a crime so as to criminalize new conduct and,

in so doing, trigger an existing criminal penalty. This rules

change is not intended to cover measures that merely supply

the regulatory framework or address the regulatory

underpinnings of the overall enforcement scheme. Past

measures proposing merely to adjust the elements of such a

crime--as opposed to adjusting the penalty for commission of

the crime--have been out of the jurisdictional reach of the

Committee on the Judiciary. Even though such measures have

left the criminal penalty unchanged, they have nonetheless

subjected new conduct to that criminal penalty. In other

words, new conduct was criminalized. If the relatively rare

practice of criminalizing new conduct within the framework of

existing penalties is left unchecked, it calls into question

the efficacy of the Committee on the Judiciary's

jurisdictional statement in providing a comprehensive look at

criminal penalties and criminal law enforcement. Hence, a

rule X statement of ``criminalization'' is the most

appropriate way to address this circumstance.

The jurisdiction of other committees over the elements of a

crime--particularly in the context of a regulatory scheme and

outside of title 18, United States Code--would remain the

same, except that it potentially would be shared with the

Committee on the Judiciary in some instances. In that

respect, it is similar to the criminalization of new conduct

accompanied by a new criminal penalty; this change is to

ensure that it is the act of criminalizing conduct, and not

just the penalties themselves, that gives rise to a

jurisdictional interest by the Committee on the Judiciary.

This rules change is not intended to alter existing

jurisdiction over any enforcement scheme that falls outside

of the ambit of criminal law enforcement. Rather, it is to

confirm that the creation of a new crime subject to criminal

law enforcement is what gives rise to the Committee on the

Judiciary's interest, and not merely the establishment or

modification of the penalty.

For instance, the change is intended to address a situation

analogous to H.R. 2492 of the 112th Congress, which addressed

attendance at animal fighting events through amendments to

the Animal Welfare Act--compiled in title 7 of the United

States Code--and to title 18. That measure was referred to

both the Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on the

Judiciary. Portions of that measure were later included in

H.R. 2642 of the 113th Congress and addressed a type of

animal fighting to be covered by the Animal Welfare Act, but

did not amend the existing criminal penalty in the Animal

Welfare Act and did not touch title 18. As a result, the

Committee on the Judiciary did not receive a referral of that

measure.

Committees with jurisdiction over a regulatory statute will

continue to exercise that jurisdiction, and the interest of

the Committee on the Judiciary will extend to the creation of

a new crime without a change to an existing penalty only to

the same extent it would to creation of a new crime with an

accompanying penalty prior to the 114th Congress.

The subsection adds language to the Committee on

Appropriations' jurisdictional statement with respect to

certain loan obligations and new loan guarantees with a

textual reference to section 504(b) of the Congressional

Budget Act.

Clarifying the Jurisdiction of the Committee on House

Administration. Subsection (a)(3) clarifies the Committee on

House Administration's jurisdiction over the Chief

Administrative Officer.

Committee Activity Reports. Subsection (a)(4) reduces the

frequency of committee activity reports from two times per

Congress to one time per Congress.

Dissenting Views. Subsection (a)(5) codifies current

practice by updating the rule regarding supplemental,

minority, or additional views to include ``dissenting''

views.

Consolidating Requirements for Written Rules. Subsection

(a)(6) requires committees to include in their written rules

pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule XI certain audio and

visual coverage rules described in clause 4(f) of rule XI and

formerly required by such clause.

Conforming Committee and House Broadcasting Standards.

Subsection (a)(7) conforms the language in clause 4(b) of

rule XI with clause 2(c) of rule V to ensure consistent

application of broadcasting standards.

Eliminating the Point of Order Against Considering

Appropriations Measures without Printed Hearings. Subsection

(a)(8) eliminates the point of order against the

consideration of appropriations measures without printed

hearings. This information is largely available through

archived broadcasts, testimony, and other documents available

on the Appropriations Committee's website and the public

hearings themselves.

Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Subsection

(a)(9) increases the size of the committee to 22 members,

with not more than 13 from the same party.

Committee on Ethics. Subsection (a)(10) prohibits the

Committee on Ethics from taking action that would deny a

person any rights or protections provided under the

Constitution of the United States of America.

Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group. Subsection (b) updates the

authorization for the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group to

conform to current practice and codifies a separate order of

the 113th Congress.

Cost Estimates for Major Legislation to Incorporate

Macroeconomic Scoring. Subsection (c) requires the

Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation,

to the extent practicable, to incorporate the macroeconomic

effects of ``major legislation'' into the official cost

estimates used for enforcing the budget resolution and other

rules of the House. The subsection requires, to the extent

practicable, a qualitative assessment of the long-term

budgetary and macroeconomic effects of ``major legislation'',

which is defined to cover legislation that causes a gross

budgetary effect in any fiscal year covered by the budget

resolution that is equal to or greater than 0.25 percent of

the projected GDP for that year. This subsection also allows

the chair of the Committee on the Budget, or in the case of

revenue legislation the House member serving as the Chair or

Vice Chair of the Joint Committee on Taxation, to designate

``major legislation'' for purposes of this rule.

This subsection also repeals the existing provision in

clause 3(h)(2) of rule XIII that requires a macroeconomic

impact analysis of revenue legislation, which is superseded

by the new rule.

Providing for Reconvening Authority for the House of

Representatives. Subsection (d) allows the Speaker, after

consultation with the Minority Leader, to reconvene the House

during an adjournment of three days or less, at a time

other than previously appointed. This codifies separate

orders from the 112th and 113th Congresses.

Providing Conference Committees with Time to Reach

Agreement. Subsection (e) modifies clause 7(c)(1) of rule

XXII by providing conference committees 45 calendar days and

25 legislative days after the formation of a conference to

reach agreements before additional motions to instruct

managers may be offered.

Contents of Committee Reports Showing Changes to Existing

Law. Subsection (f) requires that a Ramseyer print to show

the entire text of amended or repealed sections of a statute

along with the proposed changes.

Mandatory Ethics Training for New Members. Subsection (g)

requires that new Members of

the House, in addition to employees, complete ethics

training.

Technical and Conforming Changes. Subsection (h)(1)

conforms the standing rules to reflect the name in statute of

the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT). Subsection (h)(2)

updates an outdated statutory citation and removes a

reference inadvertently left in place at the start of the

113th Congress, which is no longer necessary due to the

enactment of the STOCK Act.

Section 3. Separate Orders.

Independent Payment Advisory Board. Subsection (a)

eliminates provisions contained in the Affordable Care Act

that limit the ability of the House to determine the method

of consideration for a recommendation from the Independent

Payment Advisory Board or to repeal the provision in its

entirety.

Staff Deposition Authority for Certain Committees.

Subsection (b) provides the Committees on Energy and

Commerce, Financial Services, Science, Space, and Technology,

and Ways and Means deposition authority to be conducted by a

member or committee counsel during the first session of the

114th Congress. Depositions taken under this authority shall

be subject to regulations issued by the chair of the

Committee on Rules and printed in the Congressional Record.

Providing for Transparency with Respect to Memorials

Submitted Pursuant to Article V of the Constitution of the

United States. Subsection (c) clarifies the procedures of the

House upon receipt of Article V memorials from the States by

directing the Clerk to make each memorial, designated by the

chair of the Committee on the Judiciary, electronically

available and organized by State of origin and year of

receipt.

In carrying out section 3(c) of House Resolution 5, it is

expected that the chair of the Committee on the Judiciary

will be solely charged with determining whether a memorial

purports to be an application of the legislature of a state

calling for a constitutional convention. The Clerk's role

will be entirely administrative. The chair of the Committee

on the Judiciary will only designate memorials from state

legislatures (and not petitions from individuals or other

parties) as it is only state legislatures that are

contemplated under Article V of the Constitution.

In submitting the memorials to the Clerk, the chair of the

Committee on the Judiciary will include a transmission letter

with each memorial indicating it has been designated under

section 3(c) of House Resolution 5. The Clerk will make

publicly available the memorial and the transmission letter

from the chair. Ancillary documentation from the state or

other parties is not expected to be publicized.

The chair of the Committee on the Judiciary is also

permitted to designate memorials from earlier Congresses to

be made publicly available under the same procedure.

Spending Reduction Amendments in Appropriations Bills.

Subsection (d) carries forward the prohibition from the 112th

and 113th Congresses against consideration of a general

appropriation bill that does not include a ``spending

reduction'' account, the contents of which is a recitation of

the amount by which, through the amendment process, the House

has reduced spending in other portions of the bill and

indicated that such savings should be counted towards

spending reduction. It provides that other amendments that

propose to increase spending in accounts in a general

appropriations bill must include an offset of equal or

greater value.

Budget Matters. Subsection (e)(1) provides that titles III,

IV, and VI, of House Concurrent Resolution 25 (113th

Congress), as well as the allocations, aggregates, and

appropriate levels contained in the chair of the Committee on

the Budget's statement submitted in the Congressional Record

on April 29, 2014, as adjusted, will continue to have force

and effect until a budget resolution for fiscal year 2015 is

adopted. This subsection also provides that the chair of the

Committee on the Budget may revise allocations, aggregates,

and appropriate levels for measures maintaining the Highway

Trust Fund, provided such a measure does not increase the

deficit over the 11-year window and revise allocations,

aggregates, and appropriate levels to take into account

updated CBO baselines.

Subsection (e)(2) carries forward from the 113th Congress

the requirement that prevents the Committee of the Whole from

rising to report a bill to the House that exceeds an

applicable allocation of new budget authority under section

302(b) (Appropriations subcommittee allocations) as estimated

by the Budget Committee and creates a point of order.

Continuing Litigation Authorities. Subsection (1) addresses

continuing litigation in which the House is a party.

Paragraph (1) authorizes the Committee on Oversight and

Government Reform, through the House Office of General

Counsel, to continue litigation to enforce a subpoena against

the Attorney General related to the ``Fast and Furious''

investigation. This lawsuit was authorized by H. Res. 706

(112th Congress). It also authorizes the chair of the

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (when

elected) to take certain actions necessary to continue the

litigation. Paragraph (2) authorizes the House to act as

the successor in interest with respect to ongoing civil

actions regarding the implementation of the Patient

Protection and Affordable Care Act. The lawsuit was

authorized by H. Res. 676 (113th Congress). The subsection

also carries forward the authorities provided by H. Res.

676 (113th Congress) to remain in effect in the 114th

Congress. Paragraph (3) authorizes Michael W. Sheehy to

provide testimony in an ongoing criminal action in

accordance with authorizations from the Permanent Select

Committee on Intelligence in the 112th and 113th

Congresses.

Duplication of Federal Programs. Subsection (g) carries

forward from the 113th Congress the authorization of a

committee chair to request that the Government Accountability

Office perform a duplication analysis of any bill or joint

resolution referred to that committee. The subsection also

requires committee reports to include a statement on whether

any provision of the measure establishes or reauthorizes a

program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of

another Federal program. This order has been modified to

allow for a statement that no program is being established or

reauthorized for purposes of complying with the order.

Estimates of Direct Spending. Subsection (h) carries

forward from the 113th Congress the prohibition of

consideration of a concurrent resolution on the budget, or

any proposed amendment to or conference report thereon,

unless it includes specified information and estimates

related to direct spending, including means-tested direct

spending and nonmeans-tested direct spending. The subsection

also requires the chair of the Committee on the Budget to

publish a description in the Congressional Record of covered

programs

Disclosure of Directed Rulemakings. Subsection (i) carries

forward from the 113th Congress the requirement that

committee reports on bills or joint resolutions are to

include an estimate of the number of directed rule makings

required by the measure. The subsection defines ``directed

rule making'' to include those rule makings specifically

directed to be completed by a provision in the legislation,

but does not include a grant of discretionary rule making

authority.

Subcommittees. Subsection (j) waives clause 5(d) of rule X

to allow the Committees on Armed Services and Foreign Affairs

up to seven subcommittees and the Committees on

Transportation and Infrastructure and Agriculture up to six

subcommittees. Other than the inclusion of the Committee on

Agriculture, this is similar to provisions carried in the

rules package during the last several Congresses.

Exercise Facilities for Former Members. Subsection (k)

continues the prohibition on access to any exercise facility

that is made available exclusively to Members, former

Members, officers, and former officers of the House and their

spouses to any former member, former officer, or spouse who

is a lobbyist registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of

1995.

Numbering of Bills. Subsection (1) reserves the first 10

numbers for bills (H.R. 1 through H.R. 10) for assignment by

the Speaker and the second 10 numbers (H.R. 11 through H.R.

20) for assignment by the Minority Leader.

Inclusion of U.S. Code Citations. Subsection (m) adds, to

the maximum extent practicable, a requirement for parallel

citations for amendatory instructions to Public Laws and

Statutes at Large that are not classified in the U.S. Code.

Broadening Availability of Legislative Documents in Machine

Readable Formats. Subsection (n) instructs the appropriate

officers and committees to continue to advance government

transparency by taking further steps to publish documents of

the House in machine-readable formats.

Temporary Designation. Subsection (o) designates a

temporary location for documents to be made publicly

available pending the official designation by the Committee

on House Administration under clause 3 of rule XXIX.

Congressional Member Organization Transparency Reform.

Subsection (p) allows participating Members to enter into

agreements with eligible Congressional Member Organizations

for the purpose of payment of salaries and expenses. The

subsection requires the Committee on House Administration to

promulgate regulations, consistent with current law, to carry

out this subsection.

Social Security Solvency. Subsection (q) creates a point of

order against legislation that would reduce the actuarial

balance of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust

Fund, but provides an exemption to the point of order if a

measure improves the overall financial health of the combined

Social Security Trust Funds. This subsection would protect

the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund from

diversion of its funds to finance a broken Disability

Insurance system.

Section 4. Committees, Commissions, and House Offices.

Select Committee on the Events Surrounding the 2012

Terrorist Attack in Benghazi. Subsection (a) carries forward

the select committee as authorized by H. Res. 567 (113th

Congress) as it existed at the end of the 113th Congress.

Additionally, the subsection provides the select committee

authority to adopt a rule or motion allowing for a ten-minute

rule for the questioning of witnesses.

House Democracy Partnership. Subsection (b) reauthorizes

the House Democracy Assistance Commission, now known as the

House Democracy Partnership.

Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission. Subsection (c)

reauthorizes the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission.

Office of Congressional Ethics. Subsection (d) reauthorizes

the Office of Congressional

Ethics (OCE) for the 114th Congress and clarifies that term

limits do not apply to members of the OCE. The subsection

reaffirms that a person subject to a review by the Office of

Congressional Ethics has a right to be represented by

counsel, and establishes that invoking such right is not to

be held as a presumption of guilt. The subsection also

prohibits the Office of Congressional Ethics from taking

action that would deny a person any rights or protections

provided under the Constitution of the United States of

America.

Section 5. Additional Order of Business.

Reading of the Constitution. This section allows the

Speaker to recognize Members for the reading of the

Constitution on any legislative day through January 16, 2015.

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

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

I, too, want to welcome the gentlewoman from Rochester, New York, the ranking member of the Rules Committee, as we begin another session in this new year. I am delighted to know that the Rules Committee will be ready and available to handle the pieces of legislation that the gentlewoman spoke of in terms of helping the American people to understand what Congress' role is in working with the President to help with policies that will get this country back to work.

Mr. Speaker, just a year ago, we recognized as we came back to Washington that we were at a GDP growth of a negative GDP. We had to fight out of these terrible, terrible tax increases and the things that are occurring to our economy.

The American people found new footing this year because it was the Republican majority who gave new meaning and life to ``we are going to make this place, meaning Washington, D.C., and government, smaller and make things bigger and better for people back home.''

We have now lived through what has become a reality with Republican policies on energy, for a competitive marketplace for there to be alternative fuels that are available that have dominated the marketplaces and put other countries on their heels and have given an advantage to American drivers who are here, families who are trying to make a go of it. The price of gasoline at the pump has dropped.

We still have much to do. As we know of the first year that President Obama was in office, food prices began doubling, energy prices began doubling. Republicans now are giving the American people a sense that we can manage our country better, so that they cannot only have a job and keep a job, but that they can take care of their families.

We are going to aim this year on a lot of things; but today, we are here for the rules package that will enable the opportunities for all of our Members to know what the rules are and to become engaged.

Four years ago, Mr. Speaker, we pledged to the American people that Speaker Boehner, through the rules of this House and our package that we would have, would allow Members from both sides of the aisle to engage in robust debate under an open process.

I am proud to announce that in following through with that promise, which is what we have done, we now have a new, larger group of Republicans because of the hard work we have done and have sold to the American people about effectively managing their affairs in Washington,

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

Mr. Speaker, there they go again, more tax increases, bigger government, the Democrat party. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, in fact, Republicans are going to use a doctor to get the budget done this time.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price), the young chairman from the Budget Committee.

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

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

I do have one additional speaker, and then I will close.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

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

Overall, this package demonstrates Republicans' commitment to an open process from Members on both sides of the aisle on the issues of the day that need to be debated, on legislation that will make a difference in the lives of the American people.

We have heard from the Republican chairman of the Budget Committee and the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee. I believe this is a great package.

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