Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today in honor and in memory of former U.S. Navy SEAL Chris Kyle. Chris was senselessly killed on Saturday, February 2, 2013, along with a fellow veteran at a gun range 50 miles southwest of Fort Worth, Texas.

Chris was a true patriot who served our country with distinction and honor. Born in Odessa, Texas, Chris joined the United States Navy in 1999, after being initially rejected due to an arm injury sustained during his time as a professional bronco rodeo rider. Following his initial training, Kyle was assigned to the illustrious SEAL Team 3, where he participated in every major battle of Operation Iraqi Freedom. For his bravery, he was awarded two Silver Stars, five Bronze Stars with Valor, two Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medals, and one Navy and Marine Corps Commendation. Additionally, Kyle is credited with sniping more than 160 insurgents throughout his four deployments, making him one of the most lethal snipers in the history of the United States military.

After completing his combat duty in 2009, Chris continued to serve not only his country but also the unit he loved so much--the Navy SEALs--as well as fellow veterans of all branches struggling to cope with the effects of serving their country in wartime. Chris authored the Naval Special Warfare Sniper Doctrine--the first Navy SEAL sniper manual--and became chief instructor training Naval Special Warfare Sniper and Counter-Sniper teams. In 2011, Chris paired with FITCO Fitness to establish the FITCO Cares Foundation Heroes Project to help disabled or struggling veterans improve their lives. Chris knew that his experiences as a SEAL and the challenges he faced upon returning home could best be channeled into helping fellow veterans and their families who have given so much to ensure our safety and our freedom.

Sadly, Chris, along with his friend and fellow veteran, Chad Littlefield, died senselessly Saturday while trying to help another fellow veteran. While we may never be able to make sense of this terrible tragedy, today, we remember the sacrifice of these two brave men, who were not only heroic in their defense of this nation, but were also heroic here at home as they attempted to better the lives of their returning comrades.

Chris Kyle was deeply committed to serving both his country and his fellow veterans and will always be remembered as one who placed honor and duty above his own personal interest and safety. I am humbled by his service and dedication to not just the SEALs, but to his country, his fellow veterans, his community, his friends and his family. His sacrifice exemplifies that set forth in John 15:13, ``Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one's life for his friends.''

May the peace of God be with those they loved and those who loved them and sustain them through this time of sorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Baker and O'Brien, Inc. as they celebrate twenty years of outstanding business.

Founded in 1993, Baker and O'Brien, Inc. started with merely six employees. With their commitment and vision, the company has since flourished to three offices and forty dedicated staffers that have served over 700 different clients. They uphold themselves to the highest standards of professionalism and integrity, which is reflected in the quality of their services and outstanding reputation. I commend Baker and O'Brien, Inc. for holding steadfast to their guiding principles of service, commitment, integrity, and confidentiality in their approach to business. Their success story exemplifies the American Dream; that in this land of great opportunity, hard work and dedication can turn a dream into reality.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in expressing our heartiest congratulations to Baker and O'Brien, Inc. as they celebrate twenty years of success.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 39 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 39.

Today's debate is about one very simple but profoundly important goal, Mr. Speaker, and that is restoring our vibrant economy by reducing the crippling weight of the growing debt caused by our Federal Government.

In the coming months, we face a string of deadlines that will force Congress and the administration to address the fundamental challenge of our trillion-dollar deficit and its mounting effect on our economy and jobs in America. We've already exceeded $16 trillion in debt, and Republicans find this debt level absolutely unacceptable and that is why we are here today. By contrast, President Obama seems to be perfectly comfortable with the idea of reaching $23 trillion, which is where we'll be at the end of his second term if we continue his policies in that direction.

While $16 trillion in debt is stifling our economy, $23 trillion would crush it. It would crush the dreams and hopes and aspirations of our great Nation and the people who will certainly follow us, our children and our grandchildren. That's why, today, we're considering this rule and the underlying bill in order to reverse this course. Our great Speaker, John Boehner, and our majority leader, Eric Cantor, are pleased that this bill is on the floor today to discuss not just this important activity with our Members of Congress, but to let the American people know we are serious about what needs to be done to save this country from this crippling debt.

We will use the upcoming weeks and the looming deadlines before us as a means to enacting a more meaningful and lasting reform so that we can begin to grapple with this skyrocketing debt. At the same time, today's rule and the underlying bill will allow us to turn up pressure on the Senate to join the

House in offering real solutions. Together, these actions will help to reignite our engines to grow our economy and to restore discipline and accountability to our Federal budget.

The first of the looming deadlines we face is the debt ceiling limit. The underlying bill would temporarily suspend this limit so that we have the opportunity to craft comprehensive reforms without risking default on the debt that our Nation has incurred. Risking default would be counterproductive to our Republican agenda of restoring economic growth, getting our fiscal house in order, and ensuring that we do not burden future generations with intolerable debt.

We will not risk the full faith and credit of the United States, but neither will we compromise a long-term extension of this debt ceiling without slashing wasteful Federal spending, enacting meaningful entitlement reform, and ending the era of trillion-dollar deficits. By taking this temporary action, we are keeping the focus where it needs to be: resolving the coming debates on sequestration, the expiring continuing resolution, and the fiscal year 2014 budget through fiscal discipline and entitlement reform. Suspending the debt ceiling until May 19 provides the House and the Senate with much-needed time to pass a budget and then consider how best to deal with the sequester.

The underlying bill also takes action to ensure that the Senate becomes an active partner, which we want and need and the American people, I think, expect, in our efforts to reform Federal spending. For nearly 4 years, the Senate has failed to meet its most basic obligation: passing a budget. During this time, the Senate has collected its own paychecks despite being derelict in its most important duty.

In the private sector, there are consequences for failing to do one's job. This resolution will impose the same accountability on Members of Congress that private sector workers face. Oh, yes, and we're putting that same obligation on the House as we would want them to accept in the Senate. That is, if you don't get your work done, you don't get paid.

The power of the purse is the most fundamental duty the Constitution places upon Congress. For far too long, this power has not been wielded with the discipline and accountability necessary to do so responsibly and sustainably. There are a host of challenges that must be addressed, but the entire process begins with a joint budget resolution. As long as the Senate is unwilling or unable to do its job, our efforts in the House to deliver real solutions to the American people will continue to be impeded.

Some have questioned whether the action we are taking is constitutional. The 27th Amendment of the Constitution prohibits legislation that varies the salary of Members of the current Congress. This provision was intended to prevent Members of the House and the Senate from giving themselves a pay raise without first standing before the voters.

This bill upholds both the letter and the spirit of the 27th Amendment. It would not change a Member's rate of compensation in any way; they just don't get to collect it until they do their jobs. And until they get their work done, we simply cannot adopt a permanent extension to that debt ceiling.

This body will work to ensure that the Senate performs the most basic of tasks to pass a budget, and we'll do our job also. We will continue to work for meaningful entitlement and spending reforms to take us beyond our current cycle of crisis and deadlines in favor of long-term solutions. As we do all of this in order to invigorate our economy and put our Nation back to prosperity for ourselves and for future generations, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I will insert into the Record an article from The Washington Post dated January 22, 2013.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to now discuss, if I can, this Washington Post article which is out today, which says the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid praised House leaders for moving ahead with a bill that would give the government borrowing authority into the future.

He further said that he not only is very glad that we're going to send a clean debt ceiling bill, but that he felt like it would be good for the Senate to be able to take up this action.

Well, Mr. Speaker, what we're trying to do is to empower those things that we know this institution, the House and the Senate--where we work closer together, where we both do our work.

And yesterday, the gentleman representing the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Ryan, who's also Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, in testimony said that he intended to make sure that he would produce a bill exactly supporting what we are trying to do here today, and would bring that to the floor, and would be faithful in doing that.

Look, maybe people are upset that we're putting their pay at risk. Maybe people are upset because it wasn't their idea. But the bottom line is that Paul Ryan, John Boehner, Eric Cantor, the Rules Committee, yesterday said we think it's a good bill, and we were joined by Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader.

When the Senate Majority Leader can agree with Republicans about a great direction to go that will empower the Senate and join with them in trying to make sure that we get our job done, I think that's a rare day. I think that's a good day when we can work together, when we can bring legislation that the Senate openly welcomes and, might I add, the President of the United States, President Obama, would sign this legislation. And he said so in the Statement of Administration Policy.

I reserve the balance of my time.

[From the Washington Post, Jan. 22, 2013]

Reid Say's He's Pleased With House GOP's `Clean Debt Ceiling Bill'

(By Rosalind S. Helderman)

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) praised House

leaders Tuesday for moving ahead with a bill that would give

the government borrowing authority into May, without

demanding deep spending cuts in return.

He said Democrats will discuss in coming days how to deal

with a House provision, attached to the bill, that would

require the Senate to adopt a budget for the first time in

four years or see their pay docked. He said he would be

meeting with the Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty

Murray (D-Wash.) to discuss the Republicans' ``no budget, no

pay provision.''

``I'm very glad that they're going to send us a clean debt

ceiling bill,'' Reid told reporters. ``The other stuff on it,

we'll approach that when we need to. But I'm glad we're not

facing crisis here in the matter of a few days.''

The government hit the $16.4 trillion debt ceiling in

December. The Treasury Department has been using

extraordinary measures to extend the limit but has said that

if Congress doesn't act to raise the limit by the end of

February, the United States will be unable to meet its

spending obligations and will default.

Republicans had been threatening to refuse to raise the

limit unless Democrats offered deep entitlement cuts in

return. They announced a new strategy Monday: Suspend the

debt ceiling until May 19, while pressuring the Senate to

adopt a budget. The House will vote on the temporary lifting

of the debt ceiling on Wednesday.

Reid stopped short of saying the Senate would adopt the

measure without changes if it passes the House on Wednesday.

But by characterizing the House bill as a ``clean'' increase

in the nation's borrowing limit--a longtime demand of the

White House and Democrats--he suggested its passage in the

Senate will not be difficult.

``I'm happy they sent us a debt ceiling not tied to

entitlement cuts and dollar-for-dollar [cuts],'' Reid said.

``That's a big step in the right direction. The other stuff

on it, Sen. Murray is going to be the spokesperson on that

for the next 24 hours or so. We'll see how she wants to

proceed.''

The result of the House action, he said, was to buy time:

``We have many months to work through this,'' he said.

Reid's review was far more positive than that of House

Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), who blasted the GOP

measure as a diversion tactic to reporters Tuesday. If House

Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) has support from fellow

Republicans, however, he can pass the bill Wednesday without

the votes of House Democrats.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman, the ranking member of the committee, who was very faithful and sat through not only the hearing yesterday, but offered her feedback to our speakers who came to the Rules Committee representing the House Administration Committee and representing the Ways and Means Committee. I thought that her questions and her tone were very appropriate.

I think that yesterday the two Republican lead Representatives--the gentlewoman from Michigan, Candice Miller, representing the House Administration Committee; and the gentleman from the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Ryan--adequately not only spoke about, Mr. Speaker, a five-page bill--five pages that we could not only understand, but offer the idea, regardless of who came up with the idea, that represents what I hope will be and believe will be more than 218 votes and I think will be bipartisan. These ideas don't just belong to somebody and we can't share them--they belong to the American people--about a way to move forward, avoiding conflict, working together, coming up with ideas that you can express with great confidence that we believe will work.

Yesterday, during the hearing, we also had some thoughtful conversation.

I'd like to yield 5 minutes to the Rules Committee designee to Chairman Ryan and the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).

Mr. Speaker, as always, this floor is open to people who have ideas. I'd like to say to the American people and to my colleagues that are listening that the Republican leadership has decided to bring this bill to the floor today. We have no clue exactly what date the United States actually needs to make sure that we pass this bill to avoid not paying our bills. The Secretary of the Treasury is in active notification with our leadership and the leadership of the Senate and perhaps all Members because of his openness to speak about this in the press.

We don't know when that day is, and because we don't know when that day is, that's a good reason to begin working on ideas to see whether we can even pass this bill. I think we're going to. I think it's going to be a bipartisan bill. I don't think everybody necessarily has the same concerns that the gentleman from California spoke of, but what we're trying to do is work together. Conservative Republicans in our party do support this bill. I support this bill as a conservative Republican. Our Speaker, as a conservative Republican, supports this bill.

What it's about is avoiding the problems of chaos, avoiding the problems of doing things at the last minute, avoiding the problems of not addressing the issue, and avoiding the problems where the marketplace loses confidence in what we're doing.

Chairman Paul Ryan, chairman of our Budget Committee, a bright young leader for our country, forthrightly brought this idea to our conference and has sold it. It's the right thing to do. We are trying to do here today the right thing, talking with the American people, letting people see that we're moving forward to avoid conflict and avoid problems.

So it was accomplished with this 5-page bill, a 5-page bill which we will then have two committee chairmen, Paul Ryan representing the Ways and Means committee, perhaps Dave Camp, the chairman of the committee, and Candice Miller of House Administration, work through meticulous, thoughtful ideas that really are not difficult to get because it's a 5- page bill.

We think we're doing the right thing, we think we've got the votes, and we think it's going to provide this country and the Senate and this administration, us all working together, the right thing. So if you want to oppose it, I get that. I can understand the positions held. But passing the bill will be a positive thing. It will offer working- together relationships with the Senate. It is supported and not opposed by the President, and I think that gives us an opportunity to put a good foot forward in this new Congress rather than one where we're fighting, disagreeing, and can't get our act together.

The American people demand that we get things done. The American people are asking, hey, when possible, can you guys work together? Yes, we can. Today is the day where we can say, Mr. Speaker, people from Nebraska, people from Texas, people from Ohio, people from all over this country, can you work together? We're trying to find a way, and I'm proud of that. And with great respect to anybody who would disagree with that, we're going to stand behind our product today with a money- back guarantee--a money-back guarantee: if we don't get our job done, we're not going to take the pay.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

The gentlewoman from Houston, Texas, is absolutely correct. We do need long-term growth of our economy. We need jobs. We need job creation. We need to be able to reduce the debt of this country.

The President is well aware, we're well aware here in Congress that each

of the years that the President has been our President he increased spending. He wants a massive tax increase, and we have a deficit. We have a deficit of $1.3 trillion each of these years.

We're trying to work together. We're trying to, as the President said as he addressed a luncheon just an hour after he was sworn in, that he wants to learn from some of the things that he's done and he wants to do better. Some of doing that better is a chance to perhaps reassess: Did I do the right thing the first time? Did I do the right thing when I continue to raise taxes and demand that we do that?

Higher taxes diminish jobs and opportunity and growth in this country, and that's why we are trying to suggest openly, Mr. President, let's grow some jobs. Let's do the things I think that are more in line with what President George W. Bush did, who is referred to as No. 43 in Dallas, Texas. No. 43 had 60 straight months of economic growth, with the underpinning of reducing taxes so that Americans would go and work harder and see the incentive for creating jobs and would want to buy into the philosophy that the harder that we work, our country benefits. The underpinnings of Social Security, of Medicare, of Medicaid, systems that are very important to our country; reducing the number of people who have to receive government assistance is what happens when you have job growth; protecting the long-term interests of this country and growing the American Dream.

The gentlewoman from Houston is absolutely correct. And the methodology towards getting there is not higher taxes, and it is not higher spending. It is giving more freedom and opportunity. It is having a reduced size of government, not a bigger government. It is giving people an opportunity to have fewer rules and regulations, not more rules and regulations.

So the process that the Republican Party believes in deeply is the rights of individuals, freedom and opportunity, and reducing the size of government, which gives more people opportunities to empower their freedom and opportunity for their American Dream.

It's part of what we're doing here today. I think we believe and I think it works. Look at Texas and you will see where we have job growth, job creation, a healthier economy than other places in the country, and an opportunity to say we want more of it for all of America.

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

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, as I have no additional speakers.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

I appreciate my colleagues--the gentleman, Mr. McGovern; the ranking member of the committee, Ms. Slaughter; and those Democrat Members who came down to express themselves. I also appreciate the Republicans who came down to talk about this important issue.

Mr. Speaker, what we're doing is debating a bill, H.R. 325, that ensures that the obligations of the United States are taken care of. We're not trying to stand in the way. Even the United States Senate majority leader said, Great job, House. Thank you very much. We can work with this bill. We can work with you.

Members of my party have said we think this is a responsible way to begin the process to avoid having to make difficult decisions at the very end. We've laid out a process. Yesterday, the gentleman from Wisconsin, our young leader, Paul Ryan, who is the chairman of the House Budget Committee, was asked in testimony, Will you produce your end of the bargain that is in here? Will you take care of your part with the knowledge that we're counting on that?

The Senate has said, as to their part of the bargain, whether they pass this bill or not, they can step up to the responsibility. Those leaders have said, Yes, we think we can.

It's not perfect. By golly, I'm not sure what ``perfect'' is anymore because ``perfect'' may not get passed in this House, but the fair and proper way to handle things is so the American people have confidence in what we're doing, so the markets have confidence in what we're doing, and so the budget is handled. All of these things are placed in a systematic order so that our Members, the Members of this body, can go home and communicate with people as to here is what we think is going to happen next.

Avoiding problems is what Speaker Boehner and our great majority leader, Eric Cantor, are trying to do. They are bringing legislation to this floor that adequately begins the process before we get in trouble. It's a 5-page bill. It's ordered up exactly as the doctor would have wanted--in English, where you can understand it, where it doesn't take a legal degree or for you to have to be in the House for 30 years to figure out what we're trying to say.

What we're trying to say is right here, and that is for the House and the Senate to work together. We do a budget. We lay out to the American people what we're trying to do. We work with the President, and we tell this administration and the government what we're doing. The American people can have confidence in this.

I support this. In fact, as chairman of the Rules Committee, I am asking for our Members and all Members of this body to please see this as a responsible way to deal with the problems that are immediately in front of us but before it becomes a crisis, before it becomes something that we cannot deal with as effectively, and bringing the American people along.

I also want to thank the President of the United States, President Obama, because President Obama said he could live with this.

I want to congratulate Senator Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader. Yes, I'll say that here on the floor because he says it's the right thing to

do, and thank you for passing us a clean bill that will give them the authority and the responsibility to do what they really want to do--not playing hardball, not throwing rocks. As a matter of fact, Senator Harry Reid said, A clean bill--a good thing. Now it's up to them. It's up to them to take up their activities that are for us, and it's up to this House of Representatives.

So, as we finish this, Paul Ryan, the young leader of the Ways and Means Committee, Dave Camp, and others will be here debating these ideas. Immediately after that, you will see that Candice Miller, the House Administration chairwoman, will come and talk with this House and the American people about the responsibility that she has to ensure that what we do is correct and proper. Then this body will have a chance to vote ``yes'' or ``no,'' and that will be an authority and a responsibility once again for Paul Ryan, as the chairman of our Budget Committee, and for those members of the committee, Republicans and Democrats, to do their work, get it done and to produce a bill. We will then comply, but if we don't: no work, no pay. That's something the American people can understand. It's simple. It goes back to 1607: no work, no food.

Members of Congress need to understand we've got to get our job done, so I'm proud of what we're doing here today. I can stand behind this product and proudly say that I think this will pass the smell test of the American people and that it's something they can understand and something they will look forward to. Watch us as we do our job.

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

Parliamentary Inquiry

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

Mr. Speaker, I submit the attached copy of the rules of the Committee on Rules for the U.S. House of Representatives for the 113th Congress:

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 5 o'clock and 6 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, January 23, 2013, at 9 a.m.

I appreciate the gentleman from Oklahoma leading, not just this exercise on behalf of the Rules Committee, but actually on behalf of the Appropriations Committee.

The Rules Committee, I know that the gentlewoman, Louise Slaughter, and I have great confidence, not only in Tom's leadership, but really his insight into what needs to be done. And, Tom, I want to thank you for your strong leadership in this endeavor on behalf of the Appropriations Committee, as well as the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, today what I'd like to do is take just a minute, if I can, and kind of reset where we are. We've had lots of debate today about what we're doing and why we're doing this. But the bottom line is that our Speaker, John Boehner; our majority leader, Eric Cantor; and the minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, understand that we must approach a national disaster such as a superstorm together.

And as a body, whether it was Nita Lowey, whether it was Jon Runyan, Rodney Frelinghuysen, Chris Smith, Michael Grimm, Frank LoBiondo, we, as a body, understood we had a job to do. The gentlewoman from New York, the ranking member of this committee, Louise Slaughter, and I understand the responsibility because we had people back home like Mayor William Akers of Seaside Heights, New Jersey, who talked to Jon Runyan, or perhaps Sylvia Petillo for Hopatcong, New Jersey, talked to her Congressman, Rodney Frelinghuysen, about the needs of the communities, one Nation under God, the United States coming together at a time of extreme difficulty. And that's what we have done.

We have worked well together. We have worked with the Governors, Governor Corbett from Pennsylvania, Governor Cuomo from New York, certainly Governor Christie of New Jersey, Mayor Bloomberg of New York, people who got together and worked.

We did wait for the President's declaration of a national emergency; and we did, after 40 days and some few hours after that, receive the bill. But I think this House of Representatives, on a bipartisan basis, Members working together, Louise Slaughter, Michael Grimm, Tom Cole, others coming together; and we are now getting behind a bill. One of the amendments is called the Rodney Frelinghuysen amendment, and it is an amendment that meets the needs of these States and these people.

So for those who would say we've taken our time, I'd like to say, I think we're trying to do it right. For those who would say, well, we're not sure exactly how much should be in here or not, this body will determine it by the votes. Every Member of this body, I believe, will have a fair and open opportunity, not just as a result of the rule, but us working together.

And I'm very proud of that process, very proud of Hal Rogers, our Appropriations chair, who came to the Rules Committee yesterday and said that he placed before this body what he felt like was an equal opportunity for us to help people, this time in the Northeast--perhaps it will be people in other places--but he wants to make sure that fairness is done.

The Speaker of the House, John Boehner, cares deeply about the people of the Northeast and all the people of this country.

I think this rule today, and I think this bill, is an adequate opportunity for Members to speak clearly and that is, we care about our country, and we care about the people of this country.

Mr. Cole, thank you for yielding me time. I want you to know that we, the Rules Committee, appreciate the time that you have spent on this; and the results, I think, will come to bear for all of us.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 8 o'clock and 22 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Monday, December 31, 2012, at 9 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 21 minutes p.m.), under its previous order and pursuant to House Resolution 839, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, December 20, 2012, at noon, as a further mark of respect to the memory of the late Honorable Daniel K. Inouye.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 827 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Fairport, New York, my dear friend, the ranking member on the committee, Ms. Slaughter, 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.

I rise today in support of this rule, which will provide this body the ability to consider legislation under suspension of the rules for

the remainder of this Congress. However, I would prefer not really to be here today talking about this resolution. I was speaking with the gentlewoman, Ms. Slaughter, a few minutes ago, and we concluded that it sounds a lot like Christmas, and that's why we're all here. It must be Christmastime, and so we're going to work all the way through. But I'd like to be home with my constituents, I'd like to be home with the family, I'd like to be doing things. But the reality is that Congress will have to remain in session for the holiday season because we're the ones that said we would help solve the problems of this country, that we would step up to the plate on behalf of the American people and make sure we did what we said we'd do, and that is to make life better for people. We set the dates, we set the timing, and that's why we're here.

So while families all across the country are with their loved ones, we will be here working. We said we would, and what we're going to wait for is our two sides, our leaders, the President of the United States, Barack Obama, Speaker John Boehner, certainly Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, to lead those efforts to find a legislative deal that is designed to avoid America and this country, including our government, from going off the fiscal cliff. We have heard a lot about that. We are speaking about it. We've had discussions on the floor today about it. That's why we're here. And we're trying to make sure that we, as Members of Congress from both parties, are here trying to help resolve that so we can still do work in between that period of time.

So, 2 weeks ago, House Republicans proposed this solution of trying to make sure that we would have an answer. The President has come back with a solution, and we now know where to point where. Our friends, the Democrats, are insisting upon a tax increase to move forward, and Republicans are saying, hold on, hold on; we need new revenue, but we don't need new taxes, especially taxes on small business owners that are the creators of jobs in our economy. And so Republicans are saying, we're not going to fall victim for being for the President's ideas and the Democrats' ideas that destroy 700,000 American jobs.

So, here we are. We're here. We're going to stay here in town. Republicans have resolved to stay here. We said we'd sit at the table, we said we would do the American workers' and the American people's bidding at the table to make sure that we have a bipartisan answer, and that's what we are going to do.

So we all remember that following the election in November that our Speaker, John Boehner, committed that this body would continue working with the President to reach a compromise that averts the fiscal cliff. Avoiding the fiscal cliff is what we should continue to do, and we should work very diligently. So for my friends that wonder why we're here, perhaps, Mr. Speaker, our families, we're here. We're going to keep working. We're going to work day in and day out, and we're going to hope that our leadership, including the President, is able to make counteroffers until we reach that exact point where a deal can be done.

This is not just about negotiating. It is about finding an answer for the American people. By the way, for people that think this is all about politics and the things that are going on, perhaps it is, but it's going to take both sides--two sides, two willing partners--to want to come to an agreement. That's why we're still in town.

To date, I know we've not seen a lot of progress, and I know we are worried about it. But I would remind us, and I believe this is true, that the President said he is going to stay at the table, he is going to work with Republicans, he is going to get a deal that's good for the American people, and the President said this during the election, and so I think we're here to make sure that is what happens.

Mr. Speaker, in less than 20 days, in addition to the beginning of the New Year, we're going to find out that we also have a new set of taxes that have already been agreed to by the Congress. Ms. Pelosi, when she was Speaker, and the President ran through something that the President likes to call ObamaCare. But there are massive taxes already ahead in law for the American people, many of which we're just now becoming aware of. I guess that's what happens when you don't read the bill before you pass it. But every single American will see their personal taxes already go up, and that's before we get to whatever happens with the fiscal cliff.

This is an arbitrary across-the-board tax increase, the combination of which will mean that if we are unable to resolve the fiscal cliff without raising taxes, we'll already see a lot of new taxes as a result of the health care law on financial transactions, on insurance programs, on every single working American. That's why we have Speaker John Boehner trying to present President Obama with an alternative that says rather than raising taxes, which is already going to happen on January 1 from this massive new tax increase that was in the health care bill, why don't we find a way to understand and have the economy take that in hand first.

I know the President stood here at the State of the Union address and said we're not going to spend one dime of taxpayer money. I know the President stood here and said every single American can keep their own insurance plan. I know the President has made these promises to the American people, and these are the things that we're going to have to understand about January 1 of next year. I believe that's why we need to have John Boehner be successful, and the President, to make sure we avoid further tax increases because we already have a massive tax increase that's going to take place. This would, in essence, be a double whammy on not just a fragile economy, but an economy that is in far worse shape with a country that is far more in debt and much more at risk today.

So you and I understand, the CBO has estimated some 2 million American jobs would be at risk because of the ObamaCare implementation and its massive impact on the free-enterprise system and taxation, combined with what would be this new--if the President gets his way-- tax increase on working Americans and, in particular, small business.

While much has been made about the debates surrounding tax rates, there is, I think, a larger picture that we need to consider. We should focus on employment and jobs. Instead of trying to necessarily aim for fairness just by using this weapon against small business, we should focus, I think, on job creation.

We understand that if the President's bill passes, we will lose 700,000 jobs. That means 700,000 Americans and their families would then qualify, I presume, for unemployment, and it would mean that we begin the new year once again on a negative pathway. That's why we are here today talking and trying to have our leaders of this great Nation make sure that we avoid this.

This country is in desperate need of an economic kick-start. Lower taxes, we believe, through stimulating job creation and job investment and by stimulating the economy, will allow all Americans not only to keep their jobs but also to keep more of their own hard-earned pay. In fact, President John F. Kennedy, I think, agreed with us when he said:

It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and

tax revenues are too low, and the soundest way to increase

revenues in the long run is to cut rates now.

That's exactly where we are. Republicans are arguing not to increase taxes at a time when the American economy is struggling, when families are struggling. Let's not ask them to go into their pockets and pay more to a government that simply wants to spend more of this money.

Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues and I remain committed to staying in Washington, D.C., to try and get this done. Between now and then, what this rule is all about is saying that we're going to put us to work on solving some of the ideas and issues that remain in the workplace where there are answers with suspension votes. So that's why we're here today pending conference reports and decisions that need to be made.

I encourage my colleagues to support this rule with a ``yes'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman makes a number of good points. We did pass in the House the Violence Against Women Act. It passed on May 16 of this year, 222-205. The House has passed, by the way--256 of our colleagues to 171--what's called the Job Protection and Recession Prevention Act. It was passed on August 1.

I will yield in just a second.

Mr. Speaker, this bill would have extended all current rates and would have compelled Congress to enact meaningful tax reform in 2013. We passed this. We've said we ought to do what we should do, and that was back in August.

I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

In reclaiming my time, I do appreciate the gentlewoman in that we will be engaged in many of these debates. We have been in the past, and we will be in the future. I think the gentlewoman makes a good point.

We offered this bill. We debated it. We passed it. We are waiting for the Senate to get to a point at which they can get to conference. I mean, this is how this thing works. We're not going to take the Senate bill and pass it. We passed our bill. Now, if we could get to conference, where the Senate and the House get together and they resolve their differences, then we can bring it back, and we'll have a bill. That's supposed to be how this place works. It's not where we pass our bill and then, all of a sudden, we decide we're just going to take the Senate bill and repass it and negotiate with ourselves. I think what we need to do is to stick to what we understand, and that is that we are waiting for the Senate to come and do business with us.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 5 minutes to a young, new member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).

I appreciate the gentleman's engaging me. I would say to you there is nothing in this rule that will preclude our taking a conference report or any business on what we might call ``regular order'' that would require a rule to come forth.

The gentleman would be correct, and we do expect those.

Mr. Speaker, with great respect to my dear friend, the gentlewoman from San Francisco and minority leader, I'm delighted that she came down to engage us on this very important issue. The gentlewoman does recognize and know that the House on August 1, in fact, did exactly what she is suggesting today, and that is to take action on what the future tax rates would be in this country. And on a bipartisan basis, 256-171, this House of Representatives said let's understand that now is a bad time to raise taxes on the American people; and let's extend for a period of time all of what are known as the tax cuts which allow America to keep working. We passed it 256-171.

Mr. Speaker, I'll insert into the Record a chart that exists on the House Budget Committee that shows the choice of the futures. And one future that was presented, this slide that I've got that's on the House Budget Committee is essentially about the current pathway as the President would choose as outlined in his budget that the gentlewoman, Ms. Pelosi, spoke of that got no votes in the United States Senate. Not one vote. No votes here, the plan that the President has presented which would substantially not just raise taxes, but substantially raise spending.

If you isolate the President's ideas of simply raising taxes on whatever he calls the top 2 percent, those who have a household income of $250,000 and above, what you essentially do, Mr. Speaker, is very quickly lose 700,000 American jobs. And that's the answer that this administration fails to include in their talking points, that there's a huge impact. And part of that impact, Mr. Speaker, comes from the problem where dividends, and dividends are that money that comes back as a result of an investment, would rise essentially from 15 percent to whatever a person's top tax rate is--meaning it could go, at least under the scenario that the President wants, to 39 percent. That means from 15 to 39 percent.

That window, that value in between is what people reinvest in their companies. They reinvest that many times in small business, and that's the job creation element. When you make this rate go up, you arbitrarily take away some 700,000 American jobs that need current capital every day, a small business owner, reputting that money, reinvesting that money for the life of their business.

And this is the part that we believe as Republicans, that we stand on the side of saying we shouldn't lose American jobs just for the sake of fairness, of what the President, what the minority leader is down arguing for, of increasing taxes.

So it's obvious to Republicans that what we believe we stand for is creation of jobs and making sure that that capital that's invested in the economy continues.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to remind the gentleman that Republicans have already passed the bill for the middle class tax cut on August 1 of this year, and it passed 256-171. We're now waiting for the Senate to act on that.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to just make sure that the speaker that was up here, Mr. Becerra, understands that on August 1 of this year we passed a bill to extend tax cuts for the middle class, 256-171. We've already done that, and it's now awaiting Senate approval.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the gentleman, my dear friend from Maryland, whom I have not only regular conversations with but enjoy very much. I would once again remind the gentleman that on August 1 of this year we passed, 256-171, an idea that would be about not losing 700,000 jobs by doing it the way that our friends the Democrats want to do it.

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, it is wrong to lose 700,000 more American jobs, and that's the practical effect.

The minority leader and our speakers here all day want to talk about sequestration. The sequestration came as a result of a promise, a deal, an agreement that we as Republicans and House and Senate and the President agreed upon that we would come to an agreement upon how to cut some spending. The President says it's absolutely essential. Now they want to back away from the deal.

Well, here's what their deal is:

Their deal is, among other things, about the new taxes that will take place. Here's one of them that we know will happen already under law: Medicare DSH payments paid to qualifying hospitals that serve low- income patients will be reduced by 75 percent starting October 1, 2013, in addition to the $700 billion that will be transferred away from senior care. And I know we had an election where we talked about this. One person tried to explain, Well, that's not really right. Those were to a certain group of people that may be rich. But it's right here, to low-income hospitals. That means that we're going to have hospitals that no longer will serve seniors because their payment rate got cut by 75 percent. Tax increases, tax increases on health care; tax increases, as we learned last week, when it was announced that all insurance plans will now be paying an extra $63. Those are passed on to customers, consumers.

This is an outrageous government takeover of health care, and now what they want to do is diminish another 700,000 jobs. No, sir, we're not going to fall victim to that.

[From the House Committee on Small Business]

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is currently

being implemented. The following table lists some of the

provisions affecting small businesses that take effect in

2013.

The gentleman from New York, a very dear friend of mine, really, I think, got something wrong. What we're trying to extend is the law that President Obama signed into law as a result of bipartisan action 2 years ago, and the economy was better then than it is now. We were trying to extend the tax cuts that President Obama was asking us to do, and that's what we simply did in August again. So it is a President Obama last-signed bill that we're trying to offer an extension of.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman, my friend, who formerly was the vice chairman of the Rules Committee. I would like to remind him that when he was the vice chairman of the committee, almost half of the 3,075 bills considered under suspension in the 110th and 111th Congress were for post offices and Federal building namings, or resolutions, or things just like National Pollinators Week.

What we're trying to talk about is, at the end of the year, since we're going to be here waiting for the ``big deal,'' that we're going to make sure that we can take ideas that still exist and reside on a bipartisan basis.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentlewoman for asking. I have no further speakers and will allow her that opportunity, and then I will close.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentlewoman from New York, for this vigorous debate that we had on the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, top to bottom, the leadership of the Democratic Party has been on record here again today saying they want to increase taxes on small business. They want to increase taxes on family-owned businesses and people who get up every day and want to employ people and work harder. Small business is the engine of our economy, and our friends, the Democrats, want to punish them through taxes for fairness issues.

Well, I'd like to say, Mr. Speaker, we've got a bunch of problems in this country, and that's why we're at the fiscal cliff. This thing is not as a result of taxes, it's as a result of spending and too many people not having jobs to be able to pay in not just their taxes, but to be able to sustain our economy.

So we have millions of people that are unemployed and drawing unemployment compensation. We're seeing disabilities rise at a rate of 16 percent every year. One thing which we note is that just before President Obama took effect, the White House figure showed the Federal budget was $2.9 trillion. Next year's estimate is going to be $3.8 trillion. This is a 31 percent increase in spending in just 4 years.

We have someone as President, our great President, who is hung up on taxing and spending. What we need is a House of Representatives that's hung up on jobs and job creation, the American product, entrepreneurship, creativity, and competition with the world. The next new great ideas will not come from this body but from the creativity of the American people.

This is what Republicans are trying to keep alive in our country, the idea of self-reliance and working hard and taking care of people that are not just in your house but are in your neighborhood, your cities, our States, the vibrancy of our country. We are headed over the fiscal cliff after 4 years of leadership from this President who is running-- running--directly to the fiscal cliff, and he has even said, and his Secretary of the Treasury said, We don't mind jumping off this cliff.

Mr. Speaker, we should not be having that kind of attitude. We should have the attitude that we're for everybody. We want to be for American entrepreneurship and especially small business, because it's small business such as family farms, small business such as electrical companies and people who put their name on the buildings, the creative people who get up to go to work every day. That is who we're going to hurt.

We're not just going to hurt them, we're going to hurt their business families, the people they have had employed, small communities, large communities, but small business which is the engine of our economy. That's really who we're going to punish.

Lastly, we should not do it at this time, just like we should not have 2 years ago, but I guess we were aiming for an election at that time, and now the President does not have one ahead of him.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage a ``yes'' vote on the rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today in memory of Air Force Academy Cadet First Class Matthew John Patrick. Matthew passed away on Friday, September 28, 2012.

Born in Dallas, Texas, Matthew developed a love for flying at an early age and dreamed of becoming a fighter pilot. He joined the Civil Air Patrol where he earned the prestigious Billy Mitchell Award and experienced flying solo for the first time. After graduating from the School of Science and Engineering Magnet in 2009, Matthew entered the United States Air Force Academy where he excelled. He majored in aeronautical engineering and would have graduated in May 2013.

I had the privilege of getting to know Matthew during the academy nomination process. Having won numerous math and science competitions, I already knew that Matthew was exceptionally bright. Aside from his academic achievement, I saw his passion when he spoke of his love for flying and of his desire to attend the Air Force Academy. I also noticed that Matthew possessed a quiet confidence, which told me a great deal about his character and leadership style. Indeed, I learned that Matthew was a loyal friend, an intelligent and hard working young man of great character, and the type of person who was always willing to lend a helping hand to others. He was unabashedly bold in pursuing his dream. Mr. Speaker, this is a great loss for the United States Air Force Academy and the State of Texas.

Matthew is survived by his parents, Beverly and Matthew Patrick; his sister, Catherine Ann Patrick; grandparents, Cathy and Jack Robertson; and many aunts, uncles, and cousins.

There are no words that can fully express my sorrow. There is nothing I can offer but prayers to comfort the Patrick family in the midst of this difficult time. May the peace of God be with those he loved and sustain them through this hour of sorrow.

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

Tonight we all rise in support of the favorite son of Rockwall, Texas, and perhaps all of Texas, the Honorable Ralph Hall.

And I think of so many wonderful stories about Ralph. Tonight you'll hear many of them, Mr. Speaker, of the Texas delegation, of the life and times of our members, as we not only try and gather together every week, but also work together.

One of my favorite stories about Ralph Hall really took place with the young woman who was just up here, Kay Granger. One night Kay Granger, then as a Member of my Congress, and myself--this is probably 12, 13, 14 years ago--were with Ralph Hall at the brand-new Reagan airport. And we sat down, waiting for a flight that was going to be in 35 or 40 minutes, that got delayed 35 or 40 minutes or maybe longer, and about an hour and a half later, the American Airlines people came and said, Just so you know, the flight left about 30 minutes ago. Do y'all want to have dinner with us or what?

And we looked up at each other and we'd missed the flight, and that was because Ralph Hall was telling the funniest stories of taking time with Kay Granger and me, sitting around a small table at Reagan airport.

And he was doing more than just telling stories. What Ralph was really trying to do was to mentor Kay Granger and Pete Sessions on, not the life and times of Ralph Hall, but to talk about citizenship and of service and of benefit to people. And he talked about how he, in his personal life, lived his life for the benefit of other people.

From that day forward, I learned more about Ralph Hall and have continued to want to hear him and tell the stories. Every time it is about how you can better your life, about how you can look at what your service and your time and the things that you do is about other people, not yourself. Ralph Hall, for all the years that I am sure he has served, whether it was as a State senator or a county judge or as a distinguished Member of Congress, Ralph has done so for others.

Ralph comes and goes every single weekend. I've never spent a weekend in 16 years that I've been a Member of Congress, and I'm sure Ralph has not in the time he's been here since the early eighties.

Mr. Speaker, Ralph Hall is an important and distinguished Member of this body, and he has brought distinction, not just to the Texas delegation and not just to the people that he recommends, but I think to all of America, as a statesman, a man who gets his work done, not to put himself forward, but to put others.

I think he's a model of success. He's a model of somebody that I want to become more like. But I will tell you what: If we will take the time tonight, those of my colleagues that have not known him, to watch the way Ralph does it, he even does it today the same way he did it the first day he came here. And that, to me, is a legacy of Ralph Hall, a great Member of Congress and one of my colleagues.

I'm proud and pleased to be here tonight with the Honorable Ralph Moody Hall, Member of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, to my dear and distinguished friend, the gentleman, the young chairman of the Rules Committee, David Dreier, thank you very much.

It is David's leadership, not just in the Rules Committee but, I believe, to all of us here in the House of Representatives, that David has led us to be a more open, thoughtful body; a person who used his time and position, power of the Rules Committee in the committee that's upstairs, to speak with all the Members of this body about their ideas that they represent and to make this a more open body. This institution is better because of David Dreier. And I am very aware of what lies ahead for me, but, David, you have done a great job, and thank you. Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today really to support what Chairman Dreier and the gentleman, Mr. McGovern, have been speaking for, and that is a rule and the underlying legislation.

There are over 23 million Americans right now looking for work that are either over- or underemployed in our country, Mr. Speaker. So today is a jobs bill, another jobs bill that is important, and permanent normalized trade relations with Russia and Moldova will provide that much-needed boost, just a little bit. But a boost to the direction of adding jobs and making sure that the jobs we have here in this country to provide goods and services to another country are on an equal basis is important.

This PNTR vote will mean that we're expected to double exports to Russia in just 5 years and to help create and strengthen jobs in this country while providing Russia with a great product at the right price, whether it's in manufacturing, agriculture, or the service industry. I believe this is an important bill for us to move on a bipartisan basis.

Russia is the ninth largest economy and has a population of about 142 million people. It has a large and growing middle class. And Russia holds outstanding potential for the United States, not just in the business interests, but also for goods and services to make the lives of the Russian people even better.

My home State of Texas is the top exporter to Russia among U.S. States, and Texas imports to Russia are growing faster than its exports for the rest of the world. Specifically, Texas exported $1.6 billion worth of goods to Russia in 2011. We, in Texas, value this relationship, the jobs, the exporting, and the ability to have better products and services in Russia, with the Russian people making those decisions to buy these products and services. This legislation today will only help us build on that success, growing not just more jobs, but, really, the American economy.

So I will say this on behalf of all of us. This is an important bill. We needed to work together. We need leadership of this body, all the Members, as well as the Senate and the President to make this happen.

I will yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman.

And reclaiming my time, this is the kind of energy and leadership that David Dreier expects from Members as he gives them not just tasks but opportunities, and the young chairman gave me that opportunity, and I took full advantage of that. As I recall, we were 10 out of 10. All of them voted for it. So I didn't just make up ``all of them.''

Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill we're doing today. This is worthy of our time, and I'm delighted that we're joined by our friends.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Reverend Dr. Ronald E. Hodges and his congregation on the grand opening of the Christian Faith World Ministries Church (CFWMC) in Addison, Texas on September 30, 2012.

Through the prayer, hard work and leadership of Reverend Hodges, the vision of a new church facility is now a reality. Strategically located, CFWMC plans to reach out to the people of Addison as well as to the neighboring communities of Carrollton, Farmers Branch, and North Dallas. The church offers a variety of ministries, including counseling, fellowship groups, and education programs, designed to provide a wide range of opportunities for individuals to serve, connect, and establish community. Faith is of great importance and plays a vital role in our society. It strengthens families and relationships, instills values and principles, and encourages participation for the betterment of our communities.

I am delighted to recognize Reverend Hodges and Christian Faith World Ministries Church as they celebrate this special occasion. Mr. Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in expressing our heartfelt congratulations on the grand opening of this new facility. May God bless Reverend Hodges and his congregation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize my dear friend and colleague, the Honorable Sam Johnson. He is this year's recipient of the Maurice Acers Champion of Free Enterprise Lifetime Achievement Award from the Texas Association of Business.

Congressman Johnson has been a long time champion for the free enterprise system in America. After twenty-nine years of dedicated service in the United States Air Force, Congressman Johnson started a home-building business in North Dallas. He knows firsthand the challenges of starting a business and of the pride in building and maintaining something entirely of your own making. He has continued to advocate for the free enterprise system because he understands its importance. This notion of allowing individuals to make their own economic decisions and grasp the opportunities available in this country is the essence of the American entrepreneurial spirit. It spurs innovation, nurtures creativity, and led to the economic growth and development of our great Nation. Congressman Johnson's continued support for the free enterprise system speaks loudly of his belief in the individual and the tremendous potential each and every American possesses.

From a decorated military career to serving in the Texas House of Representatives and now proudly representing the 3rd Congressional District of Texas in the U.S. House of Representatives, Congressman Johnson has devoted his life to public service. His life story is one that exemplifies the American Dream--that dedication, hard work, and perseverance can lead to great success. He has given his life to serving our country because he believes in a better tomorrow for the next generation.

It is my great honor and privilege to congratulate my friend, Congressman Johnson, on receiving this prestigious award. Mr. Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in congratulating Congressman Johnson on this great honor, and I would like to take this time to thank him for his service.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 779 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman, my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 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, House Resolution 779 provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 6213. This rule provides for the discussion and opportunities for Members of the minority and the majority to participate in this debate.

I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill. The underlying legislation ensures that all American taxpayers will never again be forced to pay hundreds of millions of dollars because of this administration's politically motivated risky bets.

H.R. 6213 draws on the lessons learned from the failed Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program, which invested $535 million into a solar energy company named Solyndra. Unfortunately, Solyndra went bankrupt, leaving hardworking Americans with a check for over half a billion dollars.

Solyndra has become synonymous with the Obama administration's reckless spending programs that have done nothing to create the jobs our country so desperately needs, nor those that had been promised by the President of the United States and the Democratic Party. Despite warnings that the company was unsustainable and would surely fail, the administration was blinded by their political agenda and committed over half a billion dollars in taxpayer dollars to a privately held company.

In fact, during a 2011 restructuring of the loan, the administration placed private investors ahead of taxpayers when it came to reimbursement in the event of bankruptcy. Given these practices, it's no wonder that our current President has created budget deficits in excess of $1 trillion each year he has served as President.

In addition to ensuring that the Federal Government does not throw taxpayer dollars after the investments, H.R. 6213 also highlights the need of the Federal Government to stop propping up failed companies which cannot support themselves in the open market. The Federal Government should not guarantee hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer-backed loans to companies that do not have a business model that supports sufficient private investment. The administration should not pretend to be a venture capitalist with taxpayers' money.

In testimony before the Rules Committee yesterday, Congressman Ed Whitfield, chairman of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy

and Power, testified that the DOE loan guarantee programs spent $15 billion, but only created 1,175 jobs.

That means that each job created cost taxpayers $12.8 million. These statistics demonstrate what House Republicans have been saying for years--this country cannot tax and spend its way to prosperity. Instead, we must encourage the free enterprise system by preventing over-regulation and promoting pro-growth policies, including tax policies that do not push jobs overseas, that create a better free enterprise system, that create not just jobs but also careers for Americans. And they should be designed to incentivize private investment, which is known, Mr. Speaker, as the free enterprise system.

Ultimately, the No More Solyndras Act puts an end to an ineffective government program, protects taxpayers from financing the administration's wish list of projects, and establishes necessary oversight to hold executive branch officials accountable for their actions.

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I know that our Democrat friends think it's absolutely nothing to lose half a billion dollars that a government made a decision on. But what they really don't like is when we bring that up, when we say part of the job of being a Member of Congress as a policy body is to look at the mistakes that were made. We certainly have looked at mistakes that Republicans and Democrats, administrations and others, have made. But to ignore an issue would be a mistake.

This is not just Solyndra. It was the process of a political agenda that did not, could not pass the smell test and even make it out in the real world. It was a political agenda that was so wanted by an administration that they gave lots of money, not just half a billion here, but to other companies.

You know, today's legislation certainly highlights Solyndra as a failure in the DOE, Department of Energy's loan program, but it should be mentioned that there were other companies, not just Solyndra.

It's really a political process that said, Let's go do this thing whether it makes sense or not, whether it makes money. The companies went bankrupt.

Part of this comes from you've got a lot of people in the administration that wouldn't even recognize a business plan if they saw one. They do recognize taxpayer dollars, plenty of those that were made available by this excessive spending. But accountability is now what Democrats don't like when we're saying let's look at what happened, what materialized.

So Solyndra is not just a one-time or one-company failure of an otherwise what would be called a successful program. It's not. This simply became the poster child, and we believe that we shouldn't repeat this failure. We believe we should effectively talk about it on the floor of the House of Representatives. We should take some bit of time. We're not here beating anybody up. You never even heard me mention names behind the administration or who made these decisions or who pushed it. We're not trying to do that.

We're simply trying to say that we believe half a billion dollars, and a review of that, should become available in the light of day, to not just Members of Congress; but we should vote on it and say we drew a conclusion with some issues.

So we believe any objective evaluation of the facts reveals some issues of Federal dollars of a plan that should be stopped, has stopped, but that we should at least tell what the results were. That's what we're doing here today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I would like to go to the report. Let's see what the report out of the Energy and Commerce Committee said. I am quoting what would be on page 5:

However, the Bush administration did not approve any loan

guarantees under the program. This was due partly to the fact

that the DOE office implementing the program was slow in

being set up, and that program funding only became available

in 2007. But even after the Bush DOE had the program up and

running, it ran into difficulties finding applicants whose

energy projects are meritorious.

In other words, they could not find somebody who is asking for the loan who could present a good business plan of not just profit and loss, but where it would fit in the marketplace to even be considered successful. This is the reason why the Bush administration and Republicans did not do that because they could see failure in the marketplace written all over it even as early as 2007.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we're now well into the political extremism that we see many times that exhibits itself not just here on the floor of the House of Representatives but really all across this country--those people that want gasoline to rise substantially because they really don't like gasoline. They really don't like the underpinning of how this country uses the energy that we have. Whether it's natural gas, they attack natural gas. If it's nuclear--which is a non-emitting source of pollution--they attack that. This crowd that really doesn't like free enterprise and what I believe is the heartland of this country, manufacturing, which has really taken off as a result of effective use of natural resources in this country through natural gas and the availability of nuclear power and the availability of oil, which fuels our cars to where we can use the resources that were given us effectively.

What they want to do is they want to tax these industries higher so that prices go up, so that consumers have to pay a lot more money. What they forget is that the cars that we fuel, the electricity that we need is the cleanest and the best here in America. The way these are produced are American jobs. The way they're consumed is about American jobs. The way that consumers pay for them and pay for these advantages is American jobs. And here we're looking at how half a billion dollars worth of taxpayer money was put into an effort that not only not ever got off the ground, it quickly went into bankruptcy because it did not meet the marketplace challenges.

I'm not opposed to competition; I think we stand for competition. But don't push a narrow environmentalist policy, go to the White House, go to the Department of Energy and try and fund these on taxpayer dollars only to see that, whoops, we made a mistake, and then act like, whoops, we don't want anybody to know.

All we're trying to suggest today is that Republicans do believe in American jobs. We do believe in American industry. We do believe in the energy industry. We believe in effective use of resources because we're trying to keep jobs here. Their narrow, political, environmentalist policy is what will diminish American jobs, it will diminish our ability to effectively use the resources that we have in this country, and it will put us in a circumstance--for instance, with the Keystone pipeline--where we could use energy from a friendly neighbor to fuel American needs at a good price and avoid what may happen if we get into a circumstance overseas in the Middle East where we would be held hostage, held hostage by those that have the energy that we need, when we could be having it not only close to home, but in our own home, energy made in America.

So, Republicans, look, all we're trying to say is a half a billion dollars that was wasted, somebody ought to recognize that we shouldn't be doing that. That's what Republicans are doing here today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's very obvious that what Republicans are trying to do is to keep American jobs. We're trying to utilize the free enterprise system, the natural resources that we have in America--clean natural gas, the abundance of other power that we have, including coal, including nuclear--opportunities to keep America strong and keep jobs here, and that's why we're really opposed to the loan guarantees and the things which might take on additional debt and risk by the government. But, more importantly, if it can't be funded within the free enterprise system, then it can't stand on its own.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), one of my colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I have no additional speakers and reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, obviously, we can see that today's legislation answers the question. It ends the debate about Solyndra. Taxpayers know the committee did its work. It held a Rules Committee hearing. Half a billion dollars was lost by Solyndra. We're not down here jumping up and down. We haven't even raised our voices. We simply said that we think that a better process could have taken place, and they're arguing we never should have even had this on the floor--that we don't need any feedback, that everybody already knows. Here is what they know.

We lost half a billion dollars by one company. At least two others had the same outcome where they did not produce anything. They went belly up--bankrupt. We just think that the administration--government-- is really not in the business and shouldn't be in the business--despite what we've heard--of pushing the envelope. Let's go out and invest whether it makes sense or not.

Losing money is still a bad proposition. Republicans think it's a bad proposition. There have been lots of arguments today that the government did the right thing, that this administration did the right thing. I think that the facts of the case say that half a billion dollars in a process that didn't work--we need to hear the feedback, and we need to close the books on it. The rule is here to do exactly that--to place on the floor the opportunity for us to debate now the facts of the case, which is exactly what will happen.

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

The previous question was ordered.