Floor Statements

I thank my colleague from the Rules Committee for yielding.

We've got a good freshman class up there on the Rules Committee. And what we've been able to do under the leadership of Chairman Dreier is bring open processes to the floor. Can you imagine, we've got a multitude of budgets down here on the floor. If you want to look at the Congressional Black Caucus budget, you can vote for that today. If you want to vote for the Republican Study Committee budget, you can vote for that today. If you want to vote for Mr. Van Hollen's budget, you can vote for that today. You have your choices today about what your priorities are and about what your vision for America's future is.

And when we have that conversation--and we've had it in the Budget Committee. I'm proud to be able to serve on both the Rules Committee and the Budget Committee--we've had that on the Budget Committee, an honest back and forth. So it pains me to come to the floor today and hear what can only be described as nonsense. Nonsense.

Have you heard anybody on the House floor today say that the Republican budget would change things for seniors? Have you heard that today? I believe you have because I've heard it over and over again. The truth of the matter is the Republican budget changes nothing, nothing for seniors. It says you don't even have to be a senior. If you're age 55 or older, we change nothing in Medicare for you. Nothing.

Yet my colleagues on the left are scaring today's seniors, scaring the folks who have the fewest number of choices in our society, scaring them into believing that folks are coming for them. Not true.

Our colleagues on the left would say $6,000 is what we're going to charge additional to seniors. Well, two things: Number one, again, we're not doing anything for seniors. You've got to be 55 or younger. You've got to be my age to even begin to have a program change.

And more importantly, that $6,000 figure comes from a CBO report looking at things 12 years down the road, which is 2 years after the Medicare program has gone bankrupt entirely. Hear that. Hear that misinformation: $6,000 per beneficiary, a number that comes from a report looking at the program 2 years after our trustees tell us it's going to go bankrupt entirely.

Folks, this is about choices. This is about your vision for America. You have to put forward your plan. I applaud Mr. Van Hollen for putting a plan forward. He could have said, no, I don't have any ideas. That's what the White House has chosen to do. Mr. Van Hollen did better. The Congressional Black Caucus did better. The Republican Study Committee did better.

Look at these budgets. Look at the open process. Make the choice for you about what you believe a better America would look like. The Wall Street Journal talked about the Path to Prosperity and called it the most serious attempt at reforming government in a generation. It absolutely is. I applaud Chairman Ryan for getting that done.

I thank my friend from South Carolina for the time, and I appreciate the Rules Committee giving us this open process that we have today.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

I tell you we see a lot of shrill things here on the House floor. I want to have a slightly different voice. I just want to tell you how proud I am to be here--how proud I am to be here because, as the gentleman who previously said very accurately, I ran on two things: I ran on cutting spending and I ran on creating jobs. And tonight, because of the hard work of my chairman on the Budget Committee, my colleagues on the Budget Committee, I get to vote tomorrow to do just that--just that. I have been here a hundred days, and I get a vote to change the direction of this country, from driving us off the edge of the cliff to restoring the freedom and economic success that we're known for the world around. A hundred days and I get to make that choice.

Now, I'm thrilled, in the spirit of openness, that we have some alternatives. If you want to raise taxes, you're going to have budgets to get to do that. But if you want to close $2.9 trillion in tax expenditures, in loopholes, in lobbyist-funded giveaways, you've got one budget to choose from, and that's the Ryan budget.

We go after those items that, for whatever reason, folks hadn't gone after in years past. We do those things that, for whatever reason, people couldn't find the courage to do in years past. Vote after vote after vote I presume people had to vote on things they didn't like to vote on. They didn't want to run up spending. They didn't want to increase the debt limit. They didn't want to do those things. But they had to do it.

Folks, tonight I'm here to talk about something I want to do. I cannot wait to come to this floor tomorrow and cast a vote for my children, for America's grandchildren, for the future of this land. And that's a vote in favor of the Ryan budget. I am grateful to my colleagues for giving me that opportunity.

Madam Chair, I am glad I had the opportunity to speak after my freshman colleague from Wisconsin.

I was down on the floor earlier. I walked back to my office. I asked Mr. Maroney, who is answering the phones in my office, What are you hearing about? Are you hearing about the continuing resolution?

He said, No. I said, Are you hearing about the budget debate? He said, Not really. I said, What are you hearing about? He said, I am hearing from seniors who are scared. I am hearing from folks on Medicare who are scared.

Now, who does that surprise? It doesn't surprise me, and I don't know what the goal was when we went down this scare tactic path. I will say to the ranking member, I know you know better.

You've got a persuasive case to make, a persuasive case to make for why your vision is better than our vision, but you're scaring people.

I will yield to have the gentleman tell me if anyone age 55 or older will be affected.

If the ranking member is not going to answer my question, I will not yield. You should be ashamed.

I reclaim my time.

I reclaim my time to say we have honest debates here. We have honest disagreements here. But folks are scared because you're scaring them and you know good and well you don't need to.

I want to associate myself with Mr. Duffy's comments that we could get together and solve this problem, or we can just choose to scare people.

I will yield to the gentleman to tell me if anyone age 55 years of age or over will have their benefits changed in any way.

Mr. Speaker, you've heard it a lot of different ways this morning. Our challenge is not that we tax too little. Our challenge is that we spend too much, and we're taking steps to make that happen. But we do tax incorrectly. We do tax in a way that challenges the patience, the tolerance and the intellect of millions of Americans every year. We're coming up on that.

One week from today is Tax Day, April 15, that day that folks dread year after year after year after year. One of the things that makes Tax Day so complicated is the exceptions, the exemptions, the loopholes and those special favors that get written into the Code year after year after year after year.

I want to associate myself with the comments from the previous speaker, the gentleman from California. And we've talked about the very serious--the very serious--discussion of the budget that's been going on in the Budget Committee. I'm pleased to be a member of the Budget Committee.

Bloomberg came out with a report this morning, $2.9 trillion in special tax breaks, loopholes and exemptions erased in that budget. Not that taxes go up for Americans, but that taxes get simpler for Americans and fairer for Americans by taking away $2.9 trillion in special favors and special exemptions.

There's a proposal that goes even further, and I want to mention it now a week out from Tax Day, and that's H.R. 25, the Fair Tax. It's a bill that started with only two cosponsors, one Democrat and one Republican. It grew to two Democrats and two Republicans, and then it grew to four Democrats and four Republicans. Now there are 60 cosponsors in the House, five in the United States Senate, the most widely cosponsored fundamental tax reform bill in this Congress.

And it does this: It abolishes income taxes and replaces them with consumption taxes, because the power to tax is the power to destroy. And what we destroy in this country is productivity. We're the only OECD country on the planet that doesn't have a consumption tax, the only one that punishes our producers instead of taxing our consumers. And it eliminates not $2.9 trillion in loopholes as the budget does, but 100 percent of every corporate loophole.

We've heard it on this floor again and again: Loopholes for oil companies, loopholes for this company. It eliminates every single corporate tax break in existence today. And it eliminates them for individuals as well in favor of a simple, low-rate personal consumption tax.

On Tax Day, we talk about the income tax. The largest tax 80 percent of American families pay is the payroll tax. Everybody in here who's got a job has seen that FICA line. You may not add it up, but it is the largest tax that 80 percent of Americans pay. And there is not a single bill on this floor that deals with that except the Fair Tax, which abolishes that tax so you get to keep what you earn so that nobody touches your paycheck before you do.

As you finalize your tax forms over the next 7 days on your way to April 15, I want you to think about what could be different. I want you to think about how, with the passage of H.R. 25, April 15 could just be another spring day.

Mr. Speaker, the report (H. Rept. 112-53) accompanying H. Res. 200, filed last evening, inadvertently omitted the full descriptions of votes No. 65 and 66 of the Committee. The full descriptions and totals are as follows:

Rules Committee Record Vote No. 65

Motion by Mr. Hastings of Florida to amend the rule to make in order and provide the appropriate waivers for amendment #1, offered by Rep. Doyle (PA), which would reinstate the ability of the FCC to guard against internet access providers from blocking a consumer's access to lawful internet content. Defeated: 3-7

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ms. Foxx.......................... Nay Mr. McGovern........ Yea Mr. Bishop of Utah................ Nay Mr. Hastings of Yea

Florida. Mr. Woodall....................... Nay Mr. Polis........... Yea Mr. Nugent........................ Nay .................. Mr. Scott of South Carolina....... Nay .................. Mr. Webster....................... Nay .................. Mr. Dreier, Chairman.............. Nay .................. ------------------------------------------------------------------------

rules committee record vote no. 66

Motion by Mr. Polis to amend the rule to make in order and provide the appropriate waivers for amendment #2, offered by Rep. Matsui (CA), which would preserve the ``transparency rule'' adopted by the FCC as part of the Open Internet Order requiring broadband providers to make available their network management practices as well as performance and commercial terms so that consumers can make informed choices. Defeated: 3-7

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ms. Foxx.......................... Nay Mr. McGovern........ Yea Mr. Bishop of Utah................ Nay Mr. Hastings of Yea

Florida. Mr. Woodall....................... Nay Mr. Polis........... Yea Mr. Nugent........................ Nay .................. Mr. Scott of South Carolina....... Nay .................. Mr. Webster....................... Nay .................. Mr. Dreier, Chairman.............. Nay .................. ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as tax day is fast approaching. We've heard a lot about the budget that's being introduced today. I'm a proud supporter of this budget because in this country we don't have a revenue problem; we have a spending problem. But what we do have is a problem with the way that we contribute revenue to this country.

There is a better way, and it is called the Fair Tax. The Fair Tax will take the burden off American taxpayers paying on what they earn and change it to a burden on what they spend. The power to tax is the power to destroy, and when we tax income and productivity, we destroy that income and productivity.

Do you want to talk about jobs in this country? Do you want to talk about a magnet for jobs in this country? The Fair Tax is the only bill in Congress that abolishes every single corporate tax break, tax loophole and tax preference. It abolishes the corporate income tax rate and tells international businesses they can locate here with the most powerful, hardest working workers on this planet.

Folks, H.R. 25, the Fair Tax, is a better way. As you fill out your tax forms this year, think about how we could do it differently next time around.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 200 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, what we have today is a resolution that comes under the Congressional Review Act, an act passed by a Republican Congress and President Clinton that gives the Congress the opportunity to look at the regulatory burdens imposed by the executive branch and, in a simple up-or-down vote, say do we want this regulation on the books or do we not.

Today that regulation is the net neutrality regulation the FCC has promulgated. H.J. Res. 37, the underlying bill that this rule allows us to consider, disapproves of the December 21 FCC rule concerning net neutrality on the basis that Congress did not authorize the FCC to regulate in this area. According to a D.C. Circuit Court decision in April of last year, the FCC failed to demonstrate that it had the authority to regulate Internet network management. Until such time as the FCC is given that authority by this Congress, we must reject any rules that it promulgates in this area.

Now, we will hear a lot today in the underlying resolution about the effective compromise that was crafted by the FCC. We will hear a lot about the light touch that was used by the FCC to wade into this area.

But, Mr. Speaker, if you don't have the authority to do it, you don't have the authority to do it. It is Congress' responsibility to delegate that authority. If folks like the underlying rule proposed by the FCC, they are welcome to bring that back as a congressional resolution.

This bill today is about congressional prerogative: Will we or will we not stand up to an executive branch that does not have the authority to regulate? We have done a sad job in this Congress in years past, Mr. Speaker, of providing that oversight responsibility. Republicans had the responsibility of providing oversight to the Bush administration, and we didn't always live up to that measure. Democrats had the responsibility to provide oversight to the Obama administration, and they haven't always lived up to that example.

We have the opportunity today to begin that step forward. Until Congress acts to delegate that responsibility, the Internet should continue as the Internet has grown and always continued as an area free of government interference, as an opportunity for entrepreneurs and investors and students and the elderly to be out there using the Internet as they see fit, free from the hand of government regulation.

I would also like to comment briefly on the nature of this rule. It is a closed rule. I came to this Congress to advocate in favor of an open process, Mr. Speaker, but it needs to be understood that the Congressional Review Act is a closed process by nature. What my constituents said to me is, Rob, if you are doing something complicated, I want you to open up the House floor and have as many amendments and as much discussion as you can because that is the right way to do things. But, what I would really prefer is you bring one bill with one idea and have an up-or-down vote for all the world to see.

Well, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the call that we have responded to today: a simple bill, one page long that says the FCC does not have the delegated congressional authority to act in this area; and as such, their regulations shall be null and void.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to a gentlelady from the committee of jurisdiction, the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to another gentleman from the committee, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 60 seconds just to say in this theme of folks with the best of intentions ending up with the tremendous burdens on small business, I have just been informed and would like to inform this body that the Senate has passed H.R. 4, the House's repeal of the burdensome 1099 regulation requirements in ObamaCare, by a vote of 87-12. The bill is now on its way to the President for his signature.

This represents a huge win for American small businesses, a huge win for the abolition of burdensome government regulation, and the first official partial repeal of ObamaCare that will go to the President's desk and become law.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to a thoughtful member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

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

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

There is a promo out these days for a new television show that's coming on. It's about the CIA and chronicles the fellow's first day at the job at the CIA. He walks in and he looks around and he can't believe the disarray that he sees there. And his senior adviser there steps up and he says, son, have you ever walked into a post office and said, my gosh, I have stepped into the future?

And the answer is, no, the government is not the location where innovation thrives.

To hear this conversation today about how we need government regulation to protect the Internet, Mr. Speaker, we need to protect the Internet from government regulation, and that's why we are here today with this underlying resolution.

This FCC proposal is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. To quote my friend from Colorado, as he was quoting the investment banks, these official rules are around what is already being done in the private sector. It's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

Mr. Speaker, it's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist using authority that the FCC does not have. It's interesting being down here today, as my colleague from Colorado talks about all the big businesses that have bought in and all the investment banks that bought in.

I have to say I don't give two hoots that big business and investment banks have bought in. If the authority does not exist to do it, then it should not be done. Over and over again, Mr. Speaker, we hear from this administration about how they can help, how they can help to solve problems, problems that exist and apparently now problems that don't exist.

If the authority does not exist, they cannot be allowed to regulate in this area, and that's why the subcommittee has brought this forward.

So we have a solution to a problem that doesn't exist using authority that doesn't exist, and where does this lead us?

I want to read to you, Mr. Speaker, from the FCC order dated December 21 of last year: Finally, we decline to apply our rules directly to coffee shops, bookstores, airlines, and other entities that acquire their Internet service from a broadband provider.

Although broadband providers that offer such services are subject to these rules, we note that addressing traffic is a legitimate network management purpose for these premise operators.

Authority that does not exist and the FCC says, in its benevolence, in its benevolence, that at this time it chooses, it chooses, Mr. Speaker, not to regulate the way that coffee shops, bookstores, and airlines provide Internet service to their customers.

Folks, this is the camel's nose under the tent. That is why we have to be vigilant. It doesn't matter if we like the underlying rule. It doesn't matter if the authority does not exist, Mr. Speaker.

We are obligated as one of three branches of government, we are obligated to step in where regulatory authority exceeds its bounds. Now, as we have said, the courts have already looked at this decision and decided, as we have, that the FCC does not have authority to act in this area, solution to a problem that doesn't exist, using authority that it doesn't have that starts to pave the way to regulate coffee shops, airlines and bookstores.

Mr. Speaker, this is a simple rule for a simple bill. We have talked so much about 2,000-page bills with lots of hidden consequences. We have talked broadband section 1099 of the health care act now being repealed and passed now by the Senate and going on to the President's desk. I want to read to you this bill in its entirety if you will permit me the time:

``Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the rules submitted by the Federal Communications Commission relating to the matter of preserving the open Internet and broadband industry practices, and such rule shall have no force or effect.''

That's it. That's it, eight lines, ``no force or effect.''

Mr. Speaker, I urge strong support from my colleagues for this rule that will then bring to the floor H.J. Res. 37 and allow, in its brevity, its complete and total consideration.

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

I thank the Speaker.

I'm glad I was able to get in on the tail end of that previous Special Order. As a proud resident of the State of Georgia, of course we have the King Center open to folks each and every day of the week. And if folks have not had a chance to go by and see that, it is really a fantastic testimony to the life and times of a gentleman whose true impact on this country we may not know for generations and generations to come. I could not be prouder to have that in Georgia, so I very much appreciate being able to listen in.

I, too, am down here to talk about opportunity tonight. It is April 4, it's tax season, and the Fair Tax is a proposal that is near and dear to my heart and a proposal that I believe has its time coming in opportunity.

The largest tax that 80 percent of American families pay, Mr. Speaker, is the payroll tax. That's the FICA tax that our teenagers begin to see when they take on their part-time jobs. Eighty percent of American families pay more in that FICA tax than they do in income taxes or any other tax on their ledger, and yet we spend all of our time talking about income taxes.

We rarely take a look at the payroll tax. We'll spend hours on the House floor talking about tax credits and tax deductions and tax expenditures and tax exemptions. We'll talk about lobbyists and the tax opportunities that they're looking for for their big business clients. We'll talk about loopholes and all of the unfairness of the United States Tax Code, but we rarely talk about the payroll tax.

It has been my commitment here in this month of April--which is one of the few times during the year that everyone is willing to focus on taxes for an extended period of time--to come down here and implore my colleagues to take a look at the Fair Tax and join us in our fight to repeal the income tax--both the personal income tax and the corporate income tax--the payroll tax, the capital gains tax, the gift tax, dividend tax, estate tax, self-employment tax, and on and on, to replace them all with a single-rate personal consumption tax, the Fair Tax.

I was talking with a CEO in my district while I was home who said, Rob, we're trying to leave America just as fast as we can. You've passed some laws recently that make it a littler harder for us to do that, it's going to take us some time, but we're leaving as fast as we can because America is just not a climate to do business in anymore.

We heard my colleagues who spoke previously say that our unemployment isn't because people are being fired; it's because new people are not being hired, and the folks who generate those jobs are the small businesses in this country. How do you generate those jobs when you have the highest corporate tax rate in the world, when you have some of the highest self-employment taxes in the world, and on and on and on?

We can do a lot in this country to destroy success. We can't do a lot to create success. We have a platform here in this country already on which anyone, by the sweat of their brow, can make something of themselves. And yet one of the founders of Home Depot--a very proud company from the great State of Georgia--wrote in The Wall Street Journal last year that if he and his three colleagues got together today to try to start that company they would fail, that they could not succeed in starting a company in today's business environment, the regulatory environment, the labor environment, and the tax environment.

Here in April I'll be returning to the floor each and every day through April 15 to talk about one little part of the Fair Tax. We talked a little bit last Friday about how it does away with every single corporate exemption on the books--every loophole, every credit, every favor, absolutely every one. It's the only bill in Congress that does that, Mr. Speaker. It eliminates every single corporate loophole in the Tax Code because we know that businesses don't pay taxes anyway. We eliminate the corporate income tax, and we allow that to be paid at the personal consumer level.

Tonight, I just want to talk about jobs. I want to talk about that jobs don't come from the Federal Government, that jobs don't even come from big corporations. Jobs come from small entrepreneurs and risk- takers.

The power to tax is the power to destroy, and we have used the power to tax income, to tax that productiveness that each and every American goes to work for every day. Our Founding Fathers had a different view; they taxed consumption. They put tariffs on the goods that they imported from overseas under the theory that if you had enough money to spend on a silver tea set from England, you had enough money to participate in funding your Federal Government.

That all changed in the early part of the 20th century, and we have an opportunity to change it back, H.R. 25, the Fair Tax--the single most largely co-sponsored tax bill in either the House or the Senate, more cosponsors on that bill than any other piece of fundamental tax legislation. We need more help. Today, we have 59 cosponsors of that legislation, and we need more help to make the Fair Tax a reality.

We'll have, over the next 15 days, those opportunities. You can visit our Web page at Woodall.house.gov. You can visit the Fair Tax folks' Web page at fairtax.org. Come and see what the Fair Tax offers in terms of opportunity.

The current Tax Code brings power to this city. Whether you sit on the left or whether you sit on the right, something happens when you get to Washington and you suddenly believe you're the smartest person in the room, and you begin to find ways to manipulate people's behavior in hopes that you can make them happy too.

Well, I could create a world my father would love and my mother would hate.

We're not in the business of making people happy. We're in the business of ensuring opportunity. We can absolutely ensure that everyone in this country is poor. We cannot ensure that everyone is rich. We can only provide opportunity. The Fair Tax provides that opportunity by completely removing the impediments that are there to growth today.

Eighty percent of American families pay more in payroll taxes than income taxes. As you fill out your tax forms headed towards April 15, I want you to look at that income tax figure. And if you're self- employed, you'll see the self-employment tax figure there beside it. Eighty percent of American families never get touched by a tax bill that we do here.

As we move the Fair Tax forward, we're going to change that, and we're going to make America an opportunity society once again.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I'm grateful to you for indulging me this evening to talk a little bit about a passion that's near and dear to my heart.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 194 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would be happy to answer that question.

By eliminating the crushing Federal deficit that we have today? By taking the first steps we have seen in a generation to take the government out of the capital market and put the private sector back in?

I would be happy to try again, Mr. Ellison.

Madam Speaker, I rise to claim time in opposition to the point of order and in favor of consideration of the resolution.

Madam Speaker, it appears that this is going to be an April Fool's theme day, and I suppose I should have known that when I woke up this morning.

I am a little surprised that it begins with folks claiming a point of order against unfunded mandates that they are not sure at all exist in the bill; that they claim a point of order against unfunded mandates in a rule that waives those points of order if they did exist.

I want to say, Madam Speaker, I'm a big proponent of regular order. A big proponent of regular order. And the prophylactic waiver that is in the rule is designed just in case there was something that we missed.

But what is important is that we had the largest and most open debate we have had in this House in a decade on H.R. 1, the only provision that could possibly have an unfunded mandate in it and does not.

This bill does two things, the underlying legislation does two things: It both gives the Senate an opportunity to come out from under its paralyzing inaction and pass H.R. 1; and, it says that if the Senate does not, if the Senate fails to act--we are not asking the Senate to do exactly what we want them to do. We are asking them to act. If they fail to act, that Congress will not get paid. Congress will not get paid. My colleagues on the left won't get paid, my colleagues on the right won't get paid, and my colleagues in the Senate won't get paid.

I would ask my good friend Mr. Ellison, do you believe that this provision that will prevent us from getting paid for not doing our job is the unfunded mandate in that provision?

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Well, let me reclaim my time, Madam Speaker, to say that I appreciate the gentleman's support for making sure we don't get paid if we are not doing our work.

There is a divide in this town, Madam Speaker. There is a crowd that believes that government creates jobs, and the more government activity that takes place the more jobs there are. There is another crowd in this town that believes that only the private sector can create jobs.

As this bill will put more capital into the private markets, it will create jobs. As this bill will provide much-needed certainty that we cannot have under these continuing resolutions, this bill will create jobs. As this bill goes to complete the work that should have happened last Congress but did not, this bill will create jobs.

It is a cruel April Fool's Day joke on the American people, Madam Speaker, that instead of debating the underlying resolution--and I have a rule that I am prepared to bring to the floor that will allow time to debate the underlying resolution--we are instead focused on points of order that even my colleagues on the left don't believe exist.

They accuse us of perverting the process, Madam Speaker, and we have had the most open process in the first 90 days of this Congress than this Congress has seen in a decade. And, in doing so, they pervert the process, raising points of order that they do not believe exist and they know in their hearts do not exist.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

You want to remove the most debated provision we have

had in this entire Congress? You feel that hasn't been debated enough?

The Member pay issue is critically tied to the inaction of the folks on the funding bill. The answer is no, Mr. Ellison, I cannot agree to that.

Madam Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a gentleman who is making sure we do keep our promises on Capitol Hill, the gentleman from California, Chairman Lungren.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to thank the chairman for that explanation, because constitutional principles are paramount, are absolutely paramount on this side of the aisle, and so is accountability, so is accountability for our actions here in this body and our actions across the way. And I could not be more pleased to be a cosponsor of the underlying resolution because it does hold us accountable and says no work, no pay. No work, no pay.

This is April Fool's Day here in the House of Representatives and across the country. We are talking about jobs every day. Every day in this body we are talking about jobs, and yet the debate this morning is focused on are we doing enough debating about a bill that already has been the most aggressively debated bill this Congress has seen in over a decade.

I want to invite my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and in the United States Senate to join me as a cosponsor of H.R. 25. H.R. 25 is the Fair Tax Act. It is the only bill in Congress that eliminates every single corporate loophole, exception, lobbyist-inserted provision. Not a one survives the Fair Tax. It is the only bill in Congress that eliminates the payroll tax, that largest tax that 80 percent of Americans pay.

Do you want to talk about American families and their pain? Let's talk about the largest tax that American families pay. It is the payroll tax, and H.R. 25 is the only bill in the United States House of Representatives that eliminates the payroll tax in favor of a flat rate personal consumption tax that ceases to punish productivity and begins to reward those activities that build jobs in this country. It is the only bill in Congress that puts American manufacturing on a level playing field with the rest of the world.

Do you want to talk about jobs or do you not? Do you want to get America back on track or do you not? Because this is a point of order that we know doesn't exist. It is a point of order just designed to fill the airwaves first thing in the morning. If you want to fill the airwaves, fill it with promises of jobs. Fill it with promises of ending the Tax Code that drives jobs out this country and bringing in that capital that we so desperately need.

Again, Madam Speaker, there are no unfunded mandates in this bill. This has been the most aggressively debated bill that this Congress has seen in a generation, I would argue. The only two things the underlying legislation does, it forces the government to stay open with funding levels, those funding levels provided in H.R. 1 if the Senate passes this bill, and it insists that no work in Congress receives no pay.

Forty days we have waited on the Senate to act. They have defeated two bills, but they have passed nothing, Madam Speaker. They have passed nothing. If you want to talk about jobs, if you want to talk about certainty, you have to bring a proposal to the table. This is a freshmen proposal that reaches out to try to do something to make things happen.

I don't know how you guys break logjams in this city. Clearly, it is not easy. Last year there was a Democratic House, a Democratic Senate, and a Democratic White House, and you still couldn't get a budget passed. You still couldn't get appropriations bills passed. So, clearly, logjams are complicated things. I am not here to assign blame for those logjams. I am here to offer solutions. Over and over and over again you see folks rising here to offer solutions.

Madam Speaker, with that, I ask that you overrule that point of order and allow us to get to the underlying bill.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman from New York (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

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

Madam Speaker, this rule that we have today provides for an hour of consideration on a bill that would do two very simple things.

First, it would provide that, if the House and the Senate fail to do their business, they fail to get paid. It's a pretty basic principle in America: no work, no pay. If the House and the Senate fail to get together and solve this budget crisis, no pay. All the underlying resolution asks is that the Senate act--Senate act. They don't have to agree with the House. They just have to act, act, and send something to the House for negotiation and consideration.

The second thing this bill does--and it's every bit as important as no work, no pay--is that this bill says, for whatever reason, if the Senate cannot act, if the Senate cannot pass something--they've defeated two things but they have passed nothing--then the text of H.R. 1 will control the appropriations of the United States of America and the government will not shut down, will not shut down because we will continue to operate under H.R. 1 funding levels until such time as the Senate can affirmatively pass yet a different bill.

I rise in strong support of that underlying legislation, Madam Speaker.

For the opening of this debate, I yield 5 minutes to my good friend from Arkansas (Mr. Womack).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 60 seconds to apologize to the gentlelady from New York. I am told by my team here that normal order would have been to yield to you before I yielded to my colleague. I'm new, and I apologize for going out of order in that way.

I would just say, as I beg the gentlelady's forgiveness, that as a freshman, I'm just trying to get things done. I'm trying to make things happen. This bill is one of those steps along the way.

I thank the gentlelady.

Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to my good friend and leader, the chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to a freshman from Texas (Mr. Canseco), my very good friend.

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

I would like to ask my good friend Mr. Polis if he would be kind enough to lend me his chart for a moment.

I want to say--and I thank my friend for sharing with me--that's the kind of thing that goes on. I mean, folks often see the frustration on the House floor. You often see the tempers at their height. But the kind of thing that goes on behind the scenes that you don't usually see is exactly the kind of thing I grew up with on TV. And I thank the gentleman for bringing this chart this morning.

Our colleague, Mr. Hastings, actually sang this song for us yesterday. And it was a wonderful treat in the Rules Committee, I think we would all agree. But as you know, when you listen to this song, Madam Speaker, once the bill passes the House, it goes to the Senate and the Senate acts. The Senate acts.

There's all these pleas for negotiation, the suggestion as if we're not doing enough on the House side. Longest debate this House has had, most amendments, more amendments, in fact, on H.R. 1, the bill that's contained in this underlying resolution, than we had on all appropriation bills combined over the past 4 years. This is the proud work product of the House, H.R. 1.

Here's the work product of the Senate, Madam Speaker. It's right here. As my colleague asks, pleads, in fact, that we negotiate with the Senate, here's what the Senate has offered.

How do you negotiate with that, Madam Speaker? How do you negotiate with that?

This is what we learned about. This is what our students are studying across the Nation. This is what the Senate has given us to work with.

Now, you tell me, as a freshman, what is it that I'm supposed to do? What it is that I'm supposed to do when the Senate fails to act?

And what we have done is to say, if the Senate fails to act: You can't pass anything; I don't know why. So just go ahead and fund the government, prevent the government shutdown, fund the government at H.R. 1 levels, and let's continue that negotiation.

I look forward to the day when we don't have a blank sheet here.

I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

Reclaiming my time, I thank my friend. Because he's absolutely right, and that's critically important. There are those who would have you believe that the House is insisting that it's its way or no way at all, but that's not the case at all. We just did our job here, and we're waiting for the counteroffer.

How do you negotiate with this? You can't, Madam Speaker.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Michigan (Mr. McCotter).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to associate myself with the gentlewoman's remarks. Those comments on the bottom of the board are as true today as they were a year ago.

There is no deeming in this bill. And I give my colleagues on the other side of the aisle the benefit of the doubt that they know that and that is just the spin for today.

There is no deeming in this bill. This bill says one thing and one thing only about H.R. 1, and that is, that if the Senate cannot act, we are going to give the Senate some cover. If the Senate doesn't want to commit to H.R. 1 for the remainder of the year, we give them the opportunity to incorporate the language of H.R. 1 into this bill, send it to the President's desk for his signature, make it the law of the land, while we continue to work to sort out our budget differences.

Now, that is critically important; one thing and one thing only this bill does: gives the Senate the opportunity to say, you know, for whatever reasons--and the reasons are still a mystery to me--we can't pass legislation in the Senate. We can defeat things all day long, but we can't pass anything. I'm not sure why that is. This bill says: but none of us want a shutdown.

Now, I have got to be honest, Madam Speaker. I am beginning to wonder if ``none of us want a shutdown'' is actually a true statement, because there are some folks who seem to be driving us right down that road.

This is a bill that just gives us another option, another arrow in our quiver to say, if you cannot act, Senate, if you are paralyzed by inaction, pass this bill, and we will continue those negotiations while H.R. 1 is the law of the land.

And I would like to say to my friend from Michigan, I thank him for his support of the rule. I hope I can persuade him to support the underlying resolution. He suggested that by penalizing Members of Congress for failure to act and curbing our salaries, that would somehow encourage a compromise that would spend more out of other people's pockets. I certainly share that fear if that is what this bill does, but it does not.

What it says is the very best deal we have been able to negotiate among ourselves here in the House was H.R. 1. The most conservative and the most liberal, the work product of all 435 of us, is what came out of this House in H.R. 1. And it says, let's fund at those levels that we are already agreed on, that has already been the work product of the people's House, the most responsive body in politics. Let's incorporate that as our baseline while we continue to discuss.

So it is not going to spend an additional nickel out of anyone's pockets, Madam Speaker. It is only going to say to the Congress and the Senate, if you do not work, you do not get paid. And I cannot think of a constituent back home who would disagree with that.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say that one of the great joys of serving in this body is when you get to take a stand on something you really believe in. And while I have great respect for my friend from New Jersey and I know he represents his constituency well, my constituency does not believe that the government has the power to create a single job. Not one.

In fact, my constituency believes that every single person that the United States Government hires is a job that would have been done in the private sector. It would have been done better in the private sector. It would have spurred the private sector economy, but, instead, we suck that into the Federal Government.

We understand that entrepreneurs create jobs. Entrepreneurs create jobs. And I will say as we continue to count the days since the House has passed H.R. 1 and the Senate hasn't acted, it is the same number of days, Madam Speaker, since I came to this floor, probably shortly after my friend from New Jersey spoke on the H.R. 1 rule, to say if you want to do away with those tax subsidies, if you want to go after the oil companies, if you want to go after the lobbyists, if you want to go after the special exceptions, join me on H.R. 25, the Fair Tax. Not one new friend of mine from the other side of the aisle has joined me since that speech, the only bill in Congress.

I would love to yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

To be clear, Mr. Andrews, I absolutely said that the government cannot create jobs. It can hire people that would otherwise have been hired in the private sector.

Reclaiming my time, I am so thankful to you for bringing that up, because I actually intended to speak to that.

That is critically important, Madam Speaker, and it has been ignored throughout this whole debate.

Do you know what happens in a government shutdown? Those heroes of this country do not get paid. Now, understand that. In a government shutdown, this is a bill to provide a special rule so that we don't get paid, but by the ordinary function of law, our men and women who serve this country at home and abroad in uniform do not get paid. Do not get paid.

Now, it is alarming to me, because I know you share my passion for that, that this is the only solution that has been brought to the floor. I am one of the cosponsors who brought it to the floor, and we have had nothing but contempt for this effort. I am not saying this is the end-all, be-all of good government. In fact, I would associate myself with Chairman Dreier's remarks. I hate that we have to do this.

I have been in Congress for 90 days, Madam Speaker. I haven't gotten to work on the new agenda yet. My time has been wholly consumed with trying to sort out the problems from last year, and it is frustrating to me as someone who wants to look to the future and not look to the past.

But I thank the gentleman for bringing up our men and women in uniform, because they are outrageously disadvantaged by a government shutdown. Say what you want to, because I know my friend would agree with me; when we have a tea party rally on The Mall, they are 100 percent supportive of our men and women in uniform and want to see those folks get paid. This is the only bill to do that.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Again, I want to point out, Madam Speaker, one of the great joys of the job is being able to work with colleagues across the aisle. I think Mr. Andrews is 100 percent right, 100 percent right, because what he struck on is one of those narrow opportunities where the Constitution actually gives the government the responsibility to act. And that is one of the wonderful things, Madam Speaker.

I may be new here on Capitol Hill, but the job came with an instruction book. It is kind of neat. It came with an instruction book. It is the United States Constitution, and it tells us what it is we should and shouldn't be doing, what it is we should and shouldn't be funding.

While I would love to yield to the gentleman, I suspect what I would hear, if I can presume, is a discussion of the constitutionality of this provision that's here before us today. The good news is I read the instruction book before I came to the floor today and I'm very comfortable with where we are headed.

I would encourage my friends to support us on this resolution. Again, it is not the end-all, be-all of government. It's a step in the right direction. And if you are going to have an all-or-nothing attitude, I'm not sure that we are going to get things done. I wish you would work with me incrementally to make this happen.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on both sides.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say what I fear will fall on deaf ears, and that is that H.R. 1255 will not become the law of the land until the Senate passes it and the President signs it. The Senate passes it and the President signs it. That is the only thing we're talking about doing here today.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 16 seconds to point out the irony of being lectured on job creation by the crowd that left us $14 trillion in debt and mortgaged our children's future.

This bill is about responding to our children's needs. This bill is about providing a better day tomorrow than we have today. I stand proudly in support of it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds, and I wish I had more time to refute that misdirection.

What we're asking here is that we pass the only bill that has been passed in either house of Congress. I don't care if the Senate passes H.R. 1 or not. Pass something. Do I need to bring the chart back up of what the Senate has done already? They have done nothing. They need to do something. This bill prods them to do it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, this has been an interesting experience for me as a freshman Member of Congress and as a cosponsor of the underlying legislation. I haven't had my motives impugned quite as much in the previous days as I've had them impugned today.

We're trying to make a difference. We're trying to move the ball forward. I wish our ``I'm just a bill'' song went on to talk about what you do when you have an intransigent Senate that can't act, a Senate that's paralyzed with inaction. I wish that were part of a song, but it's not.

In 7 days, Madam Speaker, the United States Government shuts down. I just want to make that clear. In 7 days, the United States Government shuts down if the Senate can't pass a bill and if we can't get together and define a solution. That means our men and women in uniform don't get paid. That means our USDA inspectors, who inspect all the meat and the chicken that we eat, won't go to work, and those products won't go to the grocery stores. It's not a little deal. It's a big deal. It's a big deal, and this is a step in the direction towards finding a solution. Now, this rule provides for debate on that underlying resolution. We'll get to that this afternoon, and I look forward to that.

I would ask all my colleagues on the left and the right, the conservatives and the liberals of all stripes, to support this rule so that we can move forward and debate in an open fashion the underlying resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 194, I call up the bill (H.R. 1255) to prevent a shutdown of the government of the United States, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my leader, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say to my friend from Maryland, about whom I say regularly back home has a great reputation for fair dealings, that I am tremendously disappointed by that characterization of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 5 minutes to gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Womack), the bill's sponsor, to set the record straight on what the bill actually does.

Madam Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a very serious reform-minded freshman, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita).

Madam Speaker, at this time I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend, a freshman Member, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Nunnelee).

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to a gentleman from your home State, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger).

Madam Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend the gentlelady from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins).

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to one of my fellow freshmen, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Griffin).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to remind the gentlelady that Article I, section 7 says all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives. We failed to do that in the last Congress, and that's why the gentleman stands here today with this bill, proudly.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to a very good freshman colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Landry).

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

Madam Speaker, at this time I am very proud to yield 30 seconds to my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to yield 2 minutes to one of my freshman colleagues, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a good friend and mentor, the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Broun.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to answer my friend from Vermont's question, which is that it is not an appropriate thing to mislead the American people, so I'll just read one more time:

Having passed the House, having passed the Senate, and be signed by the President.

That's the regular order.

I'll say to my friend that I'm sorry we didn't have time to finish our discussion yesterday in the Rules Committee. I really am sorry that we were called away by votes.

With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my very good friend, a freshman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Barletta).

Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

We have had a lot of talk on the floor today about children. We've been reading children's stories and been shown children's books. I've been harkened back to my own childhood in the 1970s and ``Schoolhouse Rock''; and for folks who have not seen the ``Schoolhouse Rock,'' there's an entire DVD now. It's advanced. I recommend that you pick a copy up for the young people in your life because it really is a fantastic beginning step about what it is that we're all about here, what it is that we're all about.

The Preamble is in that ``Schoolhouse Rock'' category. No more kings is in that ``Schoolhouse Rock'' category. And what they talk about is what does it mean for us to be Americans; and what it means is that folks elect their Representatives and they send them to Washington, D.C., and they say get your business done, get your business done. That's what we're trying to do with this resolution here today, get our business done.

I just want to read from the bill. It saddens me. I'm so thrilled that so many Americans watch what we do here on the House floor to hold us accountable, and I'm so saddened by all the misinformation that's circulated. I read here directly from the bill:

``If the House has not received a message from the Senate before April 6, 2011, stating that it has passed a measure providing for the appropriations for the Departments and agencies of the Government for the remainder of fiscal year 2011, the provisions of H.R. 1, as passed by the House, are hereby enacted into law.''

This bill that we send to the Senate, for the Senate to pass, and the President to sign, those provisions are hereby enacted into law. Now, I just want to study that a little bit closer. If the House has not received a message from the Senate stating that the Senate has passed a measure providing for the appropriations of the United States Government.

Folks may be wondering, Madam Speaker, why is it that we're doing that now? Wasn't that supposed to be done last September? Yes, it was. It

didn't get done. Should that have gotten done last December? Yes, it should have, but it didn't get done. So we're here today to get it done.

Forty-one days ago we passed a bill to fund the government. This entire body worked its will in a process that was as open as this House has ever seen: Democrats and Republicans working together, Republicans winning amendments, Democrats winning amendments, Democrats losing amendments, Republicans losing amendments. It made me proud to be a Representative and to serve in this body. It was the best work product this House could put together. We sent it over to the Senate 41 days ago. The Senate defeated it, fair enough. Folks don't have to agree with me. Fair enough. What they do have to do is they have to act. They defeated our bill, H.R. 1. They defeated a Democrat bill. Then they've done nothing.

I got a call earlier today. I held up a board just like this talking about what the Senate had done. Well, there's nothing on this sheet of paper, folks. Golly, you held up the wrong sign. The answer is, no, it's the right sign. Nothing, nothing have we received from the United States Senate. It's the same on both sides, blank. How in the world are we supposed to fund this government with nothing from the United States Senate?

This bill does two things and two things only, Madam Speaker. It says, Senate act. You don't have to act like us, act like Democrats, just act. Act. Do something, send us something, begin the process, make it available. Act.

Madam Speaker, can you tell me how much time I have remaining?

In that case, I would be delighted to yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Absolutely. I appreciate your asking. I appreciate your asking because having had my motives impugned throughout the day, and I know with the collegial relationship that you and I have in the Rules Committee, you know for a fact I wouldn't be here otherwise. I wouldn't be here otherwise.

Now, I'm no scholar of House activities. I know we have passed bills in this House that have incorporated things by reference before, and I'm sure we will do it again, not outside the process. To suggest--and you appreciate this, I say to my friend from Florida--to receive constitutional instruction from the team that brought us ObamaCare is troubling at the most basic levels.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, I will say that this is a unique procedure and these are unique times.

But I will just say to you that in 1999, a Republican Congress, a Democratic President, enacted the foreign relations authorization bill, by reference, in an appropriations bill. That's what we're doing today.

Folks, if you don't like it, call your Senate colleagues and get them to act. This is where we need to be. We need action from the Senate. Call your Senate colleagues. I've called them. I need you to call them, too. We need to move this ball forward.

If the government shuts down, our military men and women don't get paid, Madam Speaker. If the government shuts down, our USDA inspectors go home and beef and chicken leave our shelves in the grocery stores. This isn't play time, going back to our children references. This is serious business. Folks sent us here to do serious things.

And I could not be happier, Madam Speaker, then, for the second provision in this bill to say if you don't work, you don't get paid. It's a basic premise in this Republic, no pay for no work. I'm very proud of the work that we have done, and I implore my colleagues to contact their Senators and get them to do something. Something.

This is what we have from the Senate so far, Madam Speaker. We deserve better. The American people deserve better. And, dadgum it, the Senate can do better.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit, Madam Speaker.

I don't know where to begin. The misrepresentation, after misrepresentation, after misrepresentation. I don't impugn anyone's motives. I admire the passion. But if you really believe with no work, no pay--and I wish we still had that board up there--if you really believe it, all this time we've been spending talking about the Constitution, don't you think we ought to do that in a constitutional way?

I do. Because if we say it, we ought to mean it, and we ought to stand by our conviction.

Madam Speaker, to speak to these constitutional issues, I now yield to my chairman, the gentleman from California.

I would like to let my chairman finish.

Madam Speaker, I would say that I may be a freshman, but I know it cannot be said any better than that.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

My amendment supports a longstanding FAA regulation of medical charter flight services under part 135. There's been a lot of focus on fatigue and pilot rest and duties. I certainly understand that on the passenger side of the equation, but these medical charter flights fall into a little different category.

If you chartered a flight to fly down and pick up a heart for a heart transplant, the lifesaving thing to do is to actually keep that flight coming back, not to delay it with additional rest and regulations. Because of the unique circumstances that these air ambulances are in, that these medical charter flights are in--and we even expanded it to include cargo because in this increasingly regulatory environment I didn't want there to be any confusion that if we had a heart on a plane, that was somehow not a medical ambulance flight because there was no person there to prevent the FAA from re-regulating this area in the same way that they have regulated passenger charter flights.

This has long been treated under a special part of the regs for a special reason because these air ambulance flights provide a critical addition to our health care delivery system in this country and because the flights that they are involved in are genuinely a matter of life and death.

With that, I would ask my colleagues to support this protection of the current regulatory structure of these medical charter flights and prevent the reinterpretation of that structure.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules is scheduled to meet the week of April 4 to grant a rule, which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011.

Any Member wishing to offer an amendment must submit an electronic copy of the amendment and a description via the Rules Committee's Web site. Members must also submit 30 hard copies of the amendment, one copy of a brief explanation of the amendment, and an amendment log-in form to the Rules Committee in room H-312 of the Capitol by 10 a.m. on Tuesday, April 5, 2011. Both electronic and hard copies must be received by the date and time specified. Members should draft their amendments to the text of the bills as ordered reported by the Committee on Energy and Commerce, which are available on the Rules Committee Web site.

Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are drafted in the most appropriate format. Members should also check with the Office of the Parliamentarian, the Committee on the Budget, and the Congressional Budget Office to be certain their amendments comply with the rules of the House and the Congressional Budget Act.

If Members have any questions, Mr. Speaker, I would encourage Members to contact me or members of the Rules Committee staff.

Mr. Speaker, I proudly congratulate two schools from my district, Parkview High School and Simpson Elementary School, for having earned the prestigious 2011 Georgia School of Excellence Award.

The Georgia School of Excellence award is an annual honor awarded by the Georgia School Superintendent to the schools showing the greatest improvement or highest achievement across the state. Parkview High School and Simpson Elementary, both in Gwinnett County, tied as the 7th District school showing the highest achievement as measured by being in the top ten percent in reading and mathematics assessment scores. Each of the schools will receive a grant from Georgia Natural Gas.

I am extremely proud of the work being done at both of these schools and want to recognize Principal David Smith of Parkview High School and Principal Bron Gayna Schmit of Simpson Elementary School and their hard-working faculty and staff for their excellence in providing each and every student with a superior education and enabling each student to meet his or her full potential.

These two schools are in the Gwinnett County School District, a national leader in education and winner of the 2010 Broad Prize for Public Education, an award a competitive, nationwide award given to one school district each year that exemplifies superior overall student and administrative performance.

I thank my good friend from Florida for yielding, and I'm pleased to serve beside him on the Rules Committee.

And I went to work on the Rules Committee because of my enthusiasm about openness in this process. One of the very first things we learned during freshman orientation was that we have a leadership team that is committed to openness the likes of which this Congress hasn't seen in decades, decades.

I didn't plan to come down and speak this morning, but I'm sitting back in my office, and I'm listening to the characterization of what's happening down here today, and it caused me to think about my 65 days here in Congress so far.

You know, the process was more open and involved more debate on the repeal of health care than it did the implementation of health care. I happen to have brought down the NPR bill today.

Now, I'm here in strong support of the rule that's bringing this bill to the floor, and I hope folks will vote their conscience on the underlying bill. That's what we all came here to do, and I hope that happens.

One, two, three, four, five, six, seven--seven pages here today that we've asked Members to read and digest in 3 days. Seven pages. Now, I wasn't here in the last Congress when thousand-page bills rolled through this body under the same closed process and the same closed length of time.

But I can tell you this: my constituents sent me to read seven pages, and I've read them; and I'll be voting my conscience on the underlying bill. But, folks, we are involved in a process here that we need to be applauding, not condemning. We're involved in a process here that we need to be nurturing, not undercutting.

Have you seen the debate on the floor of the House over the last 2 months? Have you experienced the back-and-forth on the floor of the House in the last 2 months, and do you feel the difference? Because I do. I absolutely do. I don't just feel it; I hear it when I go back home.

We are in the people's House. The chain across the front steps--must be a photo op going on out there this morning. The chain was down. It just felt different walking in this morning because you could just walk up the steps free.

Folks, the chains have come down in this House. The chains have come down in the House, and we're free to engage in this debate, and that's what we're doing. Right here today we're engaged in this debate.

Should we have extensive committee hearings on absolutely everything that comes to the floor? I believe we should. Should we have an open process for absolutely everything that comes to the floor? I think that's a laudable goal.

Do we have constraints that require the rules of the House, because there are 435 of us. It's not like that well-ordered body across the Hall where they only have 100 Members and they get along so well together. We've got 435 folks with lots of passion and lots of opinion, and we need some structure to make that happen.

But this leadership team, with this Congress, both on the left and on the right, has created the most open process with the most extensive amendment process, with the most full debate process that this body has seen in years. And I thank the leadership team for doing that. And I rise in strong support of the rule.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 167 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 167 provides a closed rule for consideration of H.J. Res. 48. Keeping in line with the actions of the minority party and its CRs last year, this rule also provides for 1 hour of debate and a motion to recommit.

We are here again today dealing with the continuing resolution, Mr. Speaker, because H.R. 1 sits idly on the Senate side. As you will recall, H.R. 1 has been the singly most debated piece of legislation that we've had in this body this year. In fact, we considered more amendments on that spending bill in February than on all of the previous spending bills in the last two Congresses combined. Yet, even as the House has worked its will, even as, I think, we on both sides of the aisle identify that as one of the finest hours of this body, it sits in the Senate--unused, unexamined, undebated.

Mr. Speaker, we are in the middle of a debate on spending. It's not that we tax too little in this country. It's that we spend too much.

We're operating with $1.4 trillion annual operating deficits, $1.5 trillion, $1.6 trillion, and now they're saying next year it could be $1.7 trillion--spending that we do with money that we don't have.

We need to get to the big picture, Mr. Speaker. We need to have this debate about how do we move beyond what was last year's business and get on to what is this year's business. These thing that we're working on, this three-week CR, Mr. Speaker, is not the real business. The real business is yet to come. I sit on the Budget Committee. If you want to talk about real business, look at the tough decisions that are coming down the pipe from the Budget Committee. Look at what it's going to take to get this budget back in balance. Look at what it's going to take to restore integrity to our fiscal system. Look at what it's going to take to inspire confidence in our foreign creditors. These are the real issues that we have to discuss, but we can't discuss them, Mr. Speaker, because we are still working on last year's business.

Now, I think we're frustrated on both sides of the aisle that we're still working on last year's business, and candidly, it may come as a surprise to you, Mr. Speaker, but I don't blame a soul on the other side. The other side of this body has been our partner in moving H.R. 1 to the Senate. They've been our partner in making the tough decisions that had to be had, and we had Republican amendments that succeeded and Republican amendments that failed. We had Democratic amendments that succeeded and Democratic amendments

that failed, and this body worked its will.

But the Senate has yet to take up the legislation, has yet to take up legislation passed in February, has yet to be taken up as we sit here in the middle of March. Now, I don't know how in the world we have negotiations, Mr. Speaker. We have done our work here in the House. I'm proud not only that we did it but I'm proud of the way in which we did it. But now we wait on the Senate to come to the table and lay down its vision for how we fund this government through September of this year.

We continue to wait, and hopefully, these 3 weeks, Mr. Speaker, will provide the time needed for the Senate to gear up and get going, because I will say it over and over and over again today, this is last year's business, and it is distracting us from the important business that needs to happen.

I'll tell you this. This CR for 3 weeks isn't what I would have liked to have seen. What I would like to see is H.R. 1 come back to this floor. What I would like to see is H.R. 1 go to the President's desk. What I would like to see are the tough, tough, tough decisions that we made and the difficult, difficult, difficult decisions that we had on this floor be translated into the law of the land as it sits on the President's desk and receives his signature. But we cannot move to that point until the Senate acts.

So I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to support this rule that will bring to the floor a continuing resolution that will give the Senate three more weeks to get its house in order to do the business that the American people sent the Senate here to do, to join us in doing the good work that we have done, and to move a bill to the President's desk so that we can get on to the rest of the business that the country has laid before us.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to say that we brought H.R. 1 to the floor under the single most open process this House has seen in 4 years--and I've only been on the job 65 days--the single most open process that this House has seen in 4 years. I'm proud of that. I'm proud of what we did together.

Are there other alternatives out there to H.R. 1? I don't know, Mr. Speaker, because I haven't seen one, haven't seen one come back from the Senate. Is the Senate over there debating things? Absolutely. Are they passing things? No, they're not, and I don't know where we go to move forward with that.

But a gentleman who might, Mr. Speaker, is my good friend, the president of the freshman class from the great State of Georgia.

And I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to the gentleman from New Jersey that I just couldn't agree with him more. The House spoke. It wasn't Republicans that spoke. It wasn't Democrats that spoke. The House spoke with H.R. 1. We need to get to the negotiating table.

Now I don't know when the Senate is going to act. I hope the Senate acts today. And I will stay here just as long as it takes to work through those things with the Senate. But we can't do it alone, as much as we'd like to. As much as we'd like to do it alone, we can't, and we are being held at bay by a Senate that refuses to move something forward. I think all of the gentleman's words would be useful to our friends on the Senate side.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I am tremendously proud to yield 2 minutes to my good friend and a great American patriot, the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Steve King.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Reckless and heartless is exactly the debate that we are going to have to have. Is it reckless to pass on $14 trillion in debt to our children with no end in sight? I would say to you that it is. Is it heartless to saddle our children with that burden that is going to drain their economy dry? I would say to you that it is. Is it reckless to treat the world credit markets as if they will forever feed our voracious appetite? And I say to you that it is. We have to take these steps today.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend and colleague on the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say there are really a number of things that we agree on across this body. The gentleman from Massachusetts has very strong feelings about paying for the bills that we create today. I share his passion, and I look forward to getting into the business of paying for those bills.

What I do know is that we are not paying for the bills today.

What I do know is that when I showed up for Congress on January 3 of this year, that there was no spending plan to get us past March 4. No spending plan.

Just to be clear, I showed up as a brand new Member of Congress in January to learn that getting about the business means putting together a funding bill before March 4 because the previous Congress didn't take care of business.

Now, I know my friend from Massachusetts wasn't in charge of the other side of the aisle last year. He certainly wasn't in charge of the Senate, although we all wish that we could be in charge of the Senate. But the business didn't get done, and that is why we are here today. That is the first reason why we are here today, to take care of business that didn't get done last year.

But the second reason, Mr. Speaker, and the more important reason that we are here today, is because we said when we took over this body on January 5 that we would not go along with business as usual. It would have been a nothing to pass a bill that the President would sign that would say, hey, just keep on funding the government the way you've been funding it. Keep on racking up those trillion-dollar deficits the way you've been racking them up. Don't change a thing. Fiddle while Rome burns.

It would have been easy. Except for my conscience, except for the conscience of the folks who were elected with me in November, except for our principles, it would have been easy.

We chose the road less traveled that said, no, we're not going to put it off. There is always a reason to wait Mr. Speaker. There is always a reason to wait. And we said, no, we are going to begin making the tough decisions today. Today. Now, that today was back in February, and we are still waiting for the Senate to get to the table so that we can have some of those negotiations.

But I will say to my friend from New Jersey, who was so terribly pleased that the riders were not included on this bill: If you think for a minute that I am done fighting for life, you're mistaken. If you think for a minute that I am done working to defund Planned Parenthood and its work that it is doing with Federal dollars, you're mistaken. If you think for a minute that I have given up on ripping every nickel out of the budget that belongs to ObamaCare and the nationalization of our health care system, you are mistaken. And if you think for a minute that I am going to stop trying to repeal every single one of the job- killing, energy price-hiking regulations that the EPA is promulgating across this country chaining our small businesses down, you are mistaken.

That fight might not be today. Today is about cutting $6 billion out of a budget that our children are not going to have to repay. Today is about keeping the government open for 3 more short weeks to give our friends in the Senate a chance to come to the table. But, Mr. Speaker, that day of reckoning is coming. The day of reckoning is coming because these are ideals that deserve the attention of this body. These are decisions that cannot be kicked down the road even further. These are decisions of principle on which compromise is often not an option. Sometimes you just have to take the vote, and somebody's going to win and somebody's going to lose.

I rise in strong support of this rule, and I rise in strong support of the underlying bill.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged concurrent resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.