Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Administration be discharged from further consideration of Senate Joint Resolution 49, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 2 p.m. tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I hadn't planned on talking, but as I conclude my service here in the United States Congress, every time somebody comes down to the well and says that they want to set the record straight, the record winds up looking like the hind legs of my dog: very crooked.

Knowing a little bit about this and caring about this issue, as everybody that serves in this Congress does, I

really feel compelled to talk about where we are. And I'm heartened by the fact that both the Speaker and the minority leader spoke today about the need to come up with a solution.

Last spring, a guy named Jim Cooper, a Member from Tennessee, and I offered in response to the budget resolutions that were going on, something called ``Simpson-Bowles.'' Simpson-Bowles is also known as the fiscal commission appointed by President Obama to look at the Nation's fiscal problems and come up with a set of recommendations.

The fact is that, even though it was President Obama's commission, he has not sought to implement one of the recommendations. Why? Because the recommendations are tough. There's a lot of tough love. You don't get into a situation as a country where you owe $16 trillion and not have a solution that involves some difficulty and some sacrifice.

Included in there--and sadly, as you listen to the news accounts and you listen to some of the comments on the floor--the rhetoric is that those mean, nasty, nasty, mean Republicans are so interested in protecting the rich people in this country that they're not willing to increase and ask them to give just a little bit more. As one Republican who, in fact, says give the President the 2 percent of the rate increases that he's looking for--that still doesn't solve the problem, as Mr. Woodall so eloquently indicated--I would come at it a different way.

If you let the Bush tax cuts expire on the top 2 percent of wage earners in this country, by the President's numbers--not my numbers, not some number that was pulled out of the campaign--it raises about $900 billion over 10 years. Not being the sharpest knife in the drawer when it came to math when I was growing up, even I can do that. If you divide $900 billion by 10 years, you wind up with $90 billion a year. That $90 billion a year is enough to run the Federal Government for 11 days.

The fiscal year around here ends on September 30. The President's proposal, in terms of sticking it to the rich people, making them pay a little bit more, gets you from the end of the fiscal year on September 30 to Columbus Day. Then what? It completely ignores the fact that two- thirds of the Federal budget--the Federal budget is $3.6 trillion.

Two-thirds of the Federal budget is what is called the ``middle class entitlements.'' It's Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and the interest on the debt. Those checks go out automatically. There is nothing that any Member of Congress has to vote on, unless you have a proposal, which Simpson-Bowles was and is.

You may hear the ads playing on the radio from the Nation's CEOs and others saying, We can't play small ball. We've got to come up with a package that actually heals the country.

If there is a sadness that I have and one of the reasons I'm leaving is, if you listen to the people talking, the President's advisers are saying, Well, you know, going over the fiscal cliff, we're putting the Republicans in this box and the 2 percent, that's good for the President. And you hear the Democrats saying, Listen, if we can have this discharge petition, make people not like Republicans, that's good for the Democratic Party as we go forward.

Some people, quite frankly, in my party--the Republican Party--are saying, Hey, listen. If we can paint the President and the Democrats as tax and spenders, then that's good for our party.

Mr. Speaker, when are people going to stop thinking about what's good for themselves or good for their parties and start thinking about what's good for America?

What's good for America is that we've got to come together and solve this problem, not just with taking that $90 billion, which really is not much, but with reforming our Tax Code. We have to look at the programs of Social Security and Medicare, not to eviscerate them, not to throw Granny out on the street, not to not have health care for people in this country, but to make those programs not only viable today--but what about the people in their forties and thirties and twenties?

They did a survey a little while ago of high school seniors, and asked: What are you more likely to see, a Social Security check or a UFO, an unidentified flying object? More seniors picked the UFO, and with some of the leadership around here, I'm not surprised that they picked the UFO.

The fact of the matter is that we can't play small ball. When Cooper and I put this thing on the floor last spring, it got 38 votes; 26 Democrats and 12 Republicans were willing to stand up and do this. It's time for the big deal, and it's time for leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer my congratulations to Dr. Hillard M. Lazarus, in his continued pursuit of excellence in care delivery and commitment to medical innovation. During my eighteen year tenure in Congress, I have had the great honor of working with the University Hospitals Systems (UH) in Cleveland, OH, and experiencing firsthand the exceptional commitment to increasing the quality of care they provide to patients not just from Northeast Ohio, but from around the country. I have also had the opportunity to develop a personal relationship with many members of their dedicated team of care providers.

Dr. Hillard Lazarus is one of those extraordinary members of the UH team. Dr. Lazarus has over 30 years of distinguished experience in his field, and has served as the Director of the Blood and Bone Marrow Transplant Program within the Division of Hematology/Oncology at Seidman Cancer Center for the past 25 years. In this time, Dr. Lazarus has gained a reputation as a leading expert in his field and is widely recognized for his contributions in the areas of mesenchymal stem cell transplants and autologus stem cell transplantation. As a pioneer in non-embryonic stem cells and regenerative medicine, Dr. Lazarus performed the first stem cell transplant in the state of Ohio in 1976 at UH Case Medical Center.

Dr. Lazarus has been identified as an Outstanding Physician in many national and local surveys, was inducted into the Cancer Care Hall of Fame and the American Cancer Society, and has received the American Cancer Society Lifetime Achievement Research Award. He has also authored and co-authored over 270 publications in peer-reviewed journals, 46 book chapters and 66 review articles. His record of ground-breaking treatments and breakthroughs has helped make Seidman Cancer Center a leader in the treatment of leukemia and other blood disorders.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to share some of the highlights of the ongoing work of Dr. Lazarus with the House of Representatives. It is so important to recognize innovators like him, who pave the way for medical breakthroughs that increase the duration and quality of life for millions of Americans. I am proud to offer my congratulations and thanks to Dr. Lazarus for his outstanding achievements and contributions, as well as his service to Northeast Ohio and the United States of America.

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

I thank the gentleman for reserving the point of order. I think when I'm done consuming my 5 minutes, he will perhaps relent and think that that's a bad idea.

The Neighborhood Stabilization Fund has been a valuable tool all across America in helping to revitalize neighborhoods. I would suggest it has one fatal flaw. There are some homes in every community in America, whether it's Detroit, Los Angeles, Cleveland, where I'm from, where some homes just aren't coming back, and you can't revitalize the neighborhoods until you tear those houses down and start afresh.

One of the difficulties with the Neighborhood Stabilization Fund is it restricts the ability for a local community to use those funds to demolish homes. I will tell you from touring a number of these properties in my good friend Marcia Fudge's district on the east side of Cleveland, these are firetraps, these are rattraps. The last two Cleveland police officers who have been injured in the line of duty have been injured as they entered a dilapidated home. We toured one home in fact where the expression ``everything but the kitchen sink'' didn't apply because people had actually taken the kitchen sink, the toilet, the wiring, the gutters, and all of the copper.

Cities are stepping up all across the country to take care of this problem. In the State of Ohio, our Attorney General has devoted $75 million from the settlement with the top five big banks to this purpose. Mayor Jackson in Cleveland has expended a considerable amount of money. And Ms. Fudge and I have introduced legislation that would authorize bonds through the Department of Treasury to supplement the great work that land banks all across this country are doing.

But because that bill languishes in the Ways and Means Committee, this simple amendment would give increased flexibility to communities that want to take grants that they've received from the Federal Government to stabilize their neighborhoods to give them the opportunity to use them for demolition if they reach the conclusion that in order to protect the neighbors in that neighborhood who are paying their taxes or keeping up their house, who are paying their mortgage but whose property values continue to plummet because they have this eyesore next door, that if the mayor of Cleveland or the mayor of Toledo or the mayor of Los Angeles reaches the conclusion that it's better in that instance to rip that house down and start over and work with the land banks that are popping up all across the country, they do that.

So, Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully ask for passage of this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my great friend from Iowa for those kind words. I know his heart is in the right place, even if his legislative initiatives at this moment are not.

A lot of people don't realize the history of rule XXI. I've had great conversations in the past with the prior Parliamentarians, the last two, Mr. Sullivan and Charlie--I can't remember Charlie's last name. We talked about the notion of equity. We're not only bound by the rules of the House, but just like in courts all across the country, the Chair has the power of equity in his possession.

Rule XXI has its origins in 1844 when John Quincy Adams, the only President of the United States to come back and serve in the House of Representatives, decided that the appropriations process was bogging down and, therefore, we should have rule XXI to prohibit authorizing on appropriations bills. It was designed to keep the appropriators from poaching on the territory of the authorizing committees.

We don't have that here. The chairman of the authorizing committee was just here, Mr. Bachus. He doesn't have any problem with this. The only person who is raising the point of order and has a problem with this is the distinguished subcommittee chair of the Appropriations Committee. So that's my first argument on equity.

Secondly, because I had some spare time today, I also looked at the precedents of the House, and I would suggest to the Chair that this is a matter of first impression. The last time that this came to the attention of the Parliamentarian was in 2006. And, sadly, there is a big problem with getting the Congressional Record online, but we did get the previous one, which was in 1995 when the gentlelady from Missouri at the time, Ms. Danner, whom many of us remember, was attempting to make a provision in order on the Transportation, it wasn't Transportation-HUD at that time, it was the Transportation appropriations bill. And in construing the context of clause 2, rule XXI, the Chair at that time indicated that what she was attempting to do is--we have out of the highway trust fund, 2.8 cents goes to transit. That yields a certain amount of money, and she was attempting to wall off $26 million to go specifically to additional transit projects. The Chair in that instance specifically, and I think correctly, found that you cannot mandate or limit the discretion of the Secretary or another Federal official, nor can you mandate that money be used in a certain way that's not contemplated by the law. As a matter of fact, in section 1057 of the House manual that we all revere here very much, it cites the indications where this has been considered before.

The common theme with all of them is that the person offering the amendment or the Appropriations Committee attempting to implement the policy was attempting to mandate action on the part of a Federal official or mandate that money be spent in a certain way.

I brought up the June 9, 2006, ruling by the Chair, which occurs on page 10673, for those who may be following this at home, and in that instance the offending language was that the statement could not say that not less than a certain sum would be expended on that particular purpose.

This amendment was very carefully crafted. As the Chair, I know being a student of the law and parliamentary procedure, will note that we don't have the words ``not less than,'' it's ``not more than.'' Already the existing legislation, the Dodd-Frank Act, contemplates that States who receive--so there's no change in the Federal appropriation. If the city of Cleveland gets a $100,000 neighborhood stabilization fund, they get to spend it. It doesn't change. There's no Federal involvement after that. It's then up to Mayor Jackson to figure out how to expend it.

This expands the contemplated purpose of that that says a portion is already permitted to be used for demolition. This just says ``not more than.'' It's not a limitation. It just is increased flexibility for the communities that have received these grants. And honest to gosh, you know, with all of the problems that we have around this place, to go back and violate the spirit of John Quincy Adams' understanding of why we needed rule XXI, to prevent State and local communities from having the flexibility to demolish homes where fires are occurring, where people are selling drugs, where people are being murdered, is really beyond me.

So I appeal to the Chair not only based upon the precedents of the House, but upon the inherent authority of the Chair to exercise equity and understand that there might be a ``t'' not crossed or an ``i'' not dotted in this particular instance, but the equitable arguments are on the side of this amendment, and I respectfully ask the Chair to overrule the point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I was on the floor about a half an hour ago and went back to my office stunned by the defeat at the hands of Mr. Latham and his point of order and the ruling of the Parliamentarian and the Chair at the time and the interesting comments from my friend from western Ohio, who I trust, after she has the opportunity to meet with Mr. Rokakis and Mr. Kildee in Michigan and Cleveland, will have a different view on whether or not the Neighborhood Stabilization fund, without additional resources to demolish homes, is working well.

When I got back to the office, I turned on the television and I saw-- I like a good Republican bashing as much as other folks, but a string of speakers came to the microphone and just bashed the lack of a Republican plan on transportation.

I'm not going to go back to 1844, but I am going to go back to September of 2009, the last bill, SAFETEA-LU, expired in September of 2009. In September of 2009--people who know the answer, you can shout it out--the President of the United States was a Democrat, Barack Obama, who is currently the President today. The majority leader in the United States Senate--shout it out if you know it--was Harry Reid, a Democrat of Nevada. The Speaker of the House was the first woman- elected Speaker in the history of the United States, Nancy Pelosi of California.

The Democratic Party controlled all three levers of the Federal Government. They had in position as the chairman of the Transportation Infrastructure Committee a gentleman who has forgotten more about transportation than most of us will ever learn, Jim Oberstar of Minnesota. Mr. Oberstar prepared a 6-year fully funded, robust Federal transportation 6-year reauthorization. He was not allowed by the leadership within the Democratic Party to bring that bill forward.

So for people to come to the floor and say that Mr. Latham is not doing his job, this negotiation that is going on on the transportation authorization currently is somehow a failure of Republican leadership, I say get up and look in the mirror. You have to take a look at the fact that everybody is responsible for this mess, and everybody knows that you don't fix the Nation's infrastructure unless you provide the necessary resources to fund the trust fund. Both parties are guilty of being absent without leave, but to blame it and to hang it on the Republican Party is worse than nonsense. It completely ignores historical fact.

One other factoid about the President of the United States, President Obama. He has become the first President since Dwight Eisenhower to not send up his vision of a comprehensive transportation reauthorization bill. A lot of people in this House weren't even born when Dwight Eisenhower was the President of the United States, but he became the first President. And our good friend and former colleague, Mr. LaHood, who is the Secretary of Transportation, he would come before the subcommittee year after year after year and had no ideas, no gas tax, no vehicle miles traveled, no idea how we're going to replenish the highway trust fund until this year. Until this year, he came and said: I've got this

brainy idea. We're going to fund it with OCO, the overseas contingency account, that the United States has used to support our troops in conflicts around the world.

It was worse than fiction; it was a fantasy. And he knew it, but he delivered it with a straight face. I give him a lot of credit for that. But to come to the floor and attempt to hang this around the Republicans for failing to lead on transportation is laughable. Ours is the party of Teddy Roosevelt and the Panama Canal, Abraham Lincoln and the transcontinental railroad, Dwight Eisenhower and the interstate highway system. Ronald Reagan and George Bush all supported working wages to build our infrastructure.

We will not take a back seat, nor will we be criticized by a party that completely failed in its mandate given to them in the election of 2008 to do a single thing, to employ people in the transportation sector and to move this country forward.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I hadn't planned on speaking on this amendment--there are plenty of other voices to do it--but I argued against this amendment in committee. I repeatedly argue against this amendment. I really don't know why we have to repeat this exercise, other than it won by one vote the other time, and we're going to correct that mistake tonight, I will tell you.

But the author of the amendment--the amendment is a wolf in sheep's clothing in that the gentleman offering the amendment isn't in favor of project labor agreements. As a matter of fact, all the people who have spoken----

Are you in favor of project labor agreements? I don't want to slight you if you are.

I yield to the gentleman.

I hear you. And if that was true, the wording of your amendment would be----

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Reclaiming my time, well, let me say this. You know, I do agree with the gentleman from Arizona, which I very rarely do, that, in fact, under this administration, there's sort of a feeling that we should have PLAs, which I happen to think is a good thing into my part of the world. However, this language is almost identical to the Bartlett amendment that was in the defense authorization.

To my belief, this was written by the Associated Builders and Contractors, and the Associated Builders and Contractors are not in favor of project labor agreements. Neither are most of the people, including Mr. Culberson. He's very proud of the fact that they don't have any unions in Texas. Well, we've got them in Ohio.

And I'll tell you, here's the difficulty with this and why this is a wolf in sheep's clothing. What the problem is is, if an agency determines that they want to proceed with a project labor agreement, this language prohibits them from doing it because it prohibits any contractor or subcontractor who may bid a piece of that job to be required to enter into a union contract. And that's the difficulty, because if the agency, independent, without any thumbs on the scale, says, You know what--well, I've got to tell you, CRS is wrong. CRS is flat-out wrong. They're a great organization. They're flat-out wrong.

But what this does is say that if the agency, and let's just take one that's in the news here in Washington, D.C. So the Metropolitan Airport Authority that controls the three airports in this area decides they want to do a project labor agreement, the board votes that way to do a project labor agreement on the silver line which is going out to Dulles Airport and it's covered by this bill, they cannot do a project labor agreement because this language isn't neutrality. This language says you can't have a project labor agreement because nobody, subcontractors can't be required to the terms and conditions that would be in a project labor agreement.

So make no mistake about it, CRS notwithstanding, this is to kill project labor agreements. And if you have that position, that's a great position. You can have that position. Mr. Culberson, I believe, has that position.

He does. I know he does, and we've talked about this. And you know what? He can have that position.

But what you can't do is bring an amendment to the floor that pretends to do one thing and, in fact, does another.

If you don't want project labor agreements to even be considered, vote against Mr. Grimm's amendment. If you think that they should be in the mix, you need to vote for it.

I am happy to yield to my friend from Texas.

Let me take back my time and say that I think it's unfortunate that Texas doesn't feel they have to pay living wages for construction jobs. But beyond that, let me say that, if the language said that, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But the language doesn't say that.

So let's say the VA down in Texas makes a determination that they want to do a project in Texas under a project labor agreement. They can't do it. They can't do it under this language. They are deprived of doing it because, to have a project labor agreement, they would be forced to require the contractors and subcontractors to abide by the

terms and conditions of that agreement. I'm telling you that that's what it says, John, honest to gosh. There is a better way to write this. This wasn't written by friends of PLAs, and it needs to be passed.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

We don't want Ohio to run New York. I think the gentleman misspoke.

We've got enough stuff going on in Ohio.

And you're a gifted orator.

A couple of things. One, I appreciate the gentleman's invitation, but I don't want to postpone the consideration of the amendment.

There is going to be a rolled vote, I assume. You're not going to take extra real time.

There is going to be a rolled vote, and I will be happy to work with the gentleman; but we're going to stand on the Grimm amendment in case we can't come to some accomodation, which I hope we can, not written by the ABC.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman very much for yielding.

I commend the Energy and Commerce Committee for producing a good piece of legislation. I also want to applaud the efforts to enhance the safety of America's pharmaceutical supply chain. While we are fortunate in America to not yet have a widespread problem, counterfeit drugs pose a serious health risk to all consumers.

The current patchwork of State requirements and licensing, however, makes supply chain compliance and safety inconsistent and challenging, which potentially jeopardizes the safety and welfare of millions of Americans. Unless a uniform Federal policy covering all pharmaceutical supply chain stakeholders is enacted, the U.S. will fail to provide the visibility and leverage technology that will provide a superior cost- effective consumer protection.

Third party logistic providers, or 3PLs, are playing a growing and important role in making sure that safe medicines reach their destinations. The term ``third party logistics provider'' refers to an entity that provides or coordinates warehousing, distribution, or other services on behalf of a manufacturer.

Currently, Federal law does not recognize the role of a 3PL. Only one State today offers a license for 3PLs. Other States require a 3PL to apply for a wholesale distributor license, even though 3PLs don't buy or sell drugs.

The varying patchwork of inconsistent State requirements does not provide for optimum law enforcement, and there is an added cost without a safety benefit. 3PLs need to be defined in Federal legislation and properly licensed. Including a 3PL definition in Federal language is a strong first step towards the development of uniform Federal standards and 3PL licenses.

I want to thank my colleagues on the Energy and Commerce Committee in advance for a successful and constructive conference process, and I am confident that we can enhance the supply chain safety in a reasonable and cost-effective manner.

I thank the gentleman very much for yielding.

We've seen this amendment a number of times in the 112th Congress, and, sadly, it doesn't get any better. It's based upon the misconception that somehow PLAs are costing the taxpayer money.

Definitive research was done by the Department of Veterans Affairs that concluded that it really depends on what part of the country you are in and whether you have a heavily unionized workforce in your area or you don't. They concluded that PLAs are productive and actually come in on time and under budget in areas where you have a

heavy unionized workforce and not so much in areas where you don't. And that makes sense because you have to bring people in to do the work.

The amendment, I think, is being billed as ``we just want people given a choice,'' but come on. The people that are advocating this hate PLAs. They don't want PLAs. They want to kill project labor agreements. So this was craftily drafted by the Associated Builders and Contractors to pretend that we're going to give people a choice when they really don't want people to have a choice.

Please reject this. We don't have to go out. And the President's executive order is clear. All it says is you have to consider PLAs in the mix. And I urge us to reject the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I didn't plan to speak on this amendment; but I have to tell you, I find it to be an unfortunate amendment. I find it to be an unfortunate amendment not for what some people might suspect. I was here for the Defense of Marriage Act. I supported the Defense of Marriage Act. I believe the Defense of Marriage Act is constitutional.

But this amendment is symptomatic of what I think the problem of this Congress has been since it convened last January, and that is first the CR and then some other bills, and now the appropriations bills. Some folks have decided that they should just be a pinata, filled with all kinds of extraneous issues that have nothing to do with the core mission.

This issue that is the subject of this amendment, I would tell the author who was not here when DOMA was passed, is being resolved. The Justice Department, I think wrongly, made a decision not to defend the lawsuit. But as Mr. Nadler said in a previous amendment, and I commend him for saying it, that's the executive's prerogative. But once they make that decision, the Congress is not powerless, and the Congress has taken action. And so the committee that exists here in the House voted to employ outside counsel. Outside counsel is vigorously defending the House's position in the Defense of Marriage Act, and I think there are 30 lawsuits across the country.

This matter will be resolved, and the courts will either say that it's constitutional or unconstitutional, and then we will all abide by that decision.

Now, where I find fault with my Democratic friends is that we've had a couple of markups in the legislative branch, and they're all exercised about the money that it's costing us for outside counsel. Well, you can't have it both ways. Either the administration is going to defend it through the Justice Department, or we're going to avail ourselves of our constitutional responsibilities, hire outside counsel. So you can't criticize the speaker for paying a lawyer to defend their position.

Likewise, I would suggest to my side of the aisle that this doesn't belong on Mr. Wolf's bill. There is not a problem. This matter will be resolved; it is being resolved. I think that this entire string of limitation amendments is disturbing because they continue a pattern now that's gone on for 18 months, and I don't think that's what an open rule is all about.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. I thank Mr. Cooper for his courtesy and his partnership.

I want to begin by saying something nice about Paul Ryan. Paul Ryan has got one of the toughest jobs in the country. It's like herding cats to get new guys, old guys, and everybody else to put together the budget that he has for the last 2 years.

However, as Mr. Cooper indicated, his budget is a Republican budget. Mr. Van Hollen's budget is a Democratic budget.

There's an organization called PolitiFact which sort of checks out what public figures say about certain things. This particular chart, Pants on Fire, was awarded for the biggest lie of 2011, and that was those who claimed that Mr. Ryan's last budget ended Medicare as we know it. It got the distinction of being Pants on Fire for all of 2011.

As Mr. Cooper indicated, we have been viciously attacked from the left and the right; and when you know you have a good deal is when the left and the right are pounding the snot out of you. That's what's happening here today.

So I want to give some Pants on Fire to some of the claims that are being made.

The claim that this creates a path for Medicare premium support, if you're making that argument, your pants are on fire.

This slashes benefits for Social Security recipients. False. Your pants are on fire.

This is a $2 trillion tax hike. False. Your pants are on fire.

Repealing the sequester means $1 trillion in increased spending. False. Your pants are on fire.

This would decimate the defense budget. False. Your pants are on fire.

This encourages tax avoidance by corporations and will ship jobs overseas. Your pants are on fire.

The recession would worsen under Simpson-Bowles. Your pants are on fire.

GDP+1 requires deep cuts in health care, including Medicare. Your pants are on fire.

The Simpson-Bowles budget would decimate domestic programs and force massive cuts. Your pants are on fire.

Anybody that wants to read about it, come see Mr. Cooper or me and we will put your pants out.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to take 1 minute of our time and give it to Mr. Wolf for a grand total of 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend and classmate from New Hampshire, a cosponsor of this substitute, Charlie Bass.

And in the spirit of unanimous consents, I would ask unanimous consent that 15 of those precious seconds go to Mr. Cooper and that he be permitted to yield those 15 seconds as ever how he sees fit.

At this time, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to a new Member of the House from the State of Illinois, who has cosponsored this substitute at great political peril, quite frankly; and he deserves to be rewarded by the citizens of Illinois and not punished by the special interest groups of the right or left, Bob Dold.

I yield the gentleman 15 additional seconds.

Mr. Ryan has the right to close on behalf of the committee, and I am the last speaker on our side. Unless Mr. Ryan wants to give us the rest of his time, we can finish this right now.

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

Again, I want to thank my partner, Mr. Cooper. I also want to thank all the brave Republicans and Democrats who are going to vote for this, all the brave Republicans and Democrats who cosponsored it, because this is not an easy vote.

Mr. Chairman, the last three elections have been the wildest elections I have seen in my political life. It has swung between party and party and party, and 2012 is going to be the same thing. But I'll tell you what's different. It's not the Democrats are going to take over or the Republicans are going to take over. The mood in the country is: Throw the bums out. Throw them all out and replace them with new people. Americans are screaming for us to take off our red jerseys on this side, to take off the blue jerseys on that side, and put on the red, white, and blue jerseys of the United States of America.

Our proposal, inspired by the Simpson-Bowles fiscal commission, authorized by the President of the United States, has been viciously attacked from the left and the right. And so I think, Cooper, we're on to something.

I want to make an observation, from a pretty famous American, made just a month ago in the Rose Garden down at the White House. The quote is:

This may be an election year, but the American people have

no patience for gridlock and just a reflexive partisanship,

and just paying attention to poll numbers and the next

election instead of the next generation and what we can do to

strengthen opportunity for all Americans. Americans don't

have the luxury to put off tough decisions, and neither

should we.

President Barack Obama, February 21, 2012.

I have heard a lot of people say that this is hard work, that not now. Well, if not now, when? And if not this, what? Ever?

Mr. Chairman, we're asking that Members tonight stand up, that they stand up to the bloodsuckers in this town that take $5, $10, $15, $25 from our constituents to pretend to defend causes on their behalf. We're asking people to stand up to pledges they had made 20 years ago when we didn't have a $15 trillion deficit owed to China. We're asking people to stand up to honor their pledge that they made on the opening day of the 112th Congress to defend the United States of America from all enemies foreign and domestic. We ask that our colleagues stand up to America's biggest domestic threat and enemy, the $15 trillion--soon to be $22 trillion--that's staring us in the face.

The time is now. We've got to get it done. This is the only bipartisan approach. And this is the only thing that has the chance to be adopted by both parties and the President of the United States, who authorized Simpson-Bowles.

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

I thank the Speaker very much, and I understand that I can't ask unanimous consent to give half to the dean of the House, but we're going to work it out, and since we're talking about the Parliamentarian, hopefully we'll get a favorable ruling from the Parliamentarian on the distribution of time. I'm going to be joined on the Democratic side in this rare burst of bipartisanship by the dean of the House, Mr. Dingell of Michigan, and a number of Members on both sides of the aisle are going to come talk about what to some of us was kind of a shock, and that is the announced retirement of our Parliamentarian, John Sullivan.

Because I'm going to be here for the full hour along with Mr. Dingell, I'm going to yield to Members who have other time commitments, but I want to make sure that they have the opportunity to say what it is they feel they need to express about Mr. Sullivan's service to the House.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to Mr. Thornberry of Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished minority whip for those observations.

It is now my pleasure to yield to the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier of California, who, sadly, like Mr. Sullivan, has decided to move into retirement. And like Mr. Sullivan, he will be greatly missed for his institutional knowledge in the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, its now my pleasure to yield--and you'll notice a theme here. There's nothing greater than the honor of being asked by the Speaker, either Mr. Boehner or Ms. Pelosi or Mr. Hastert, to be the Speaker pro tem and preside over the House, and you'll see a theme of Members from both sides who have had the privilege of doing that and have had the benefit of the counsel of Mr. Sullivan.

One of our best presiding officers, the gentlelady from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), I am pleased to yield to her.

I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for those remarks.

I'm glad that Mrs. Biggert talked about her experiences in the chair because I think all of us have memories

of that, going back a number of years, or a few years.

Just before I yield to my next colleague, I just want to say, in the very first speech I gave on the floor, I had brought in the American humorist, Dave Barry, to be my guest press secretary. Some folks in my party said I should have my head examined, and I'm sorry to report that isn't the first or the last time that that's happened to me over the last 18 years. But he wrote my speech, and it was all about the warning labels that need to be on stepladders. Mr. Johnson was the Parliamentarian, but John was his deputy at the time. And Dave Barry wrote in my speech: ``Now, I'm not saying that all lawyers are scum- sucking toads.'' And we had to go to the Parliamentarian's Office to get it checked out to see if I could call lawyers ``scum-sucking toads.'' I'm pleased to report to the House 18 years later that that's not a violation of the rules, so I intend to use it in future speeches.

It is now my pleasure to yield to someone who, during his championing of eliminating pork and earmarks, wore a path out between where he was seated and the Parliamentarian's desk, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Speaker, I am a little bit surprised that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor), who was a great presiding officer during what we called on our side of the aisle the ``troubled years,'' those of the Pelosi speakership, thinks that our debates are boring and that they're not riveting, seat-of-the-pants, edge-of-the-seat type things.

Another wonderful presiding officer on our side, whose stern countenance keeps the House in order, is the distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bonner), and I would yield to him.

I want to thank the gentlelady from Maryland for her remarks.

It is now my pleasure to yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), another frequent presiding officer and accountant by training and trade prior to his service in the House of Representatives.

I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his observations. And I would simply say that if you and Mr. Dingell and Mr. Visclosky were in charge, we would get a lot more done around here.

With that, every sport needs to have an anchorman. If you want a tug- of-war, you've got to have an anchorman. If you are in baseball, you need to have a closer. And when trouble is a-brewing on the House floor, our side turns to our next speaker, the distinguished gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), and I would like to yield to him.

I thank the gentleman from Indiana.

As do I. The gentleman is the dean of the House. You go first.

I think we need to hear from you, Mr. Dingell.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for your indulgence, and I also want to thank the dean of the House for organizing this Special Order.

The House of Representatives is a building. It's a nice place, but it's really the people. And John Dingell is the House of Representatives, as his father was before him. Pete Visclosky is the House of Representatives. When I got here, Charlie Johnson was the Parliamentarian, he was the House of Representatives, and John Sullivan has replaced him; and he is, in fact, an institution with the House. I don't want to break the mood here, but in my opinion, the jury is still out on Wickham. We'll see how he does, but I think things have the opportunity to be okay.

I just want to tell two quick stories that for me told the measure of the man. The first was a number of years ago when we had a Member who was going to be expelled from the House of Representatives. It was only the third time in modern history that that occurred. The last one was in the 1970s. Nobody had really had a chance to study the precedents and things of that nature, and I was kind of surprised that that process only took an hour of floor time--an hour to basically end somebody's political life.

So I went to John, and he gave me advice, and then he told me to file something to postpone it to a date certain, which I had never heard of, and I bet most Members never heard of, but that gave Members of the House an additional hour to discuss the case. And I think at the end of that, because of John's stewardship and knowledge of the rules, the House, as a body, felt better at the conclusion of that 2-hour debate.

It happened to be a Member of Ohio; and we are celebrating in Ohio that Ohio State is in the Final Four; our guy, John Boehner, is the Speaker of the House; and it also marks the first time in 8 years we haven't had a member of our delegation in prison. So we're pretty pleased about that as well. But I will tell you that it was John's counsel that got us through that.

The second one was more recently. A couple of years ago, August, on our side, we call it the day of the stolen vote. I think the distinguished minority whip, Mr. Hoyer, called it a procedural hiccup. But regardless, if you were here that night, it was wild. People were screaming, yelling, and crying.

And I had the opportunity to watch the videotape about 300 times because we then had a special committee to look into it. And always in all of the frames, there was one rock like the Rock of Gibraltar standing there above the fray saying, We need to be calm. It reminded me a little bit--I don't know if you saw Kevin Bacon in Animal House, where he says, stay calm, stay calm, and the crowd runs him over, and he's nothing but a uniform in the end. That's what was going on around John.

The place could have devolved into a very serious problem. It looked messy, and it was messy, but the measure of John's stewardship of the rules of the House--I would say that there was pressure on him and the rest of the Parliamentarian staff to do what one side or the other wanted him to do or for his opinion to come out one way or the other. The Republicans, we wanted him to say, hey, they stole the vote. It was 215 213, the gavel came down, you hoodwinked us. And from the Democratic side, the pressure was, these things happen, stuff happens; that no rules were broken, no harm, no foul.

John, as he has throughout his service, both as Deputy and now as Parliamentarian, didn't pick sides. He called the game right down the line. He told us what he thought based upon the rules, the precedents of the House. And I will tell you you knew it was a good decision, because neither of us liked it. The Republicans didn't like what he had to say and the Democrats didn't like what he had to say. That to me is the mark of a fair ruling, because he called it as he saw it.

There's one last thing that I want to say about his service. I got here in 1995, and 1995 was the first time the Republicans were in the majority for 40 years in the House of Representatives.

I remember going to my first conference meeting and all these guys-- Charlie Johnson was the Parliamentarian at the time. Speakers would get up and say to Mr. Gingrich: We're not going to keep the Democrats' Parliamentarian, are we? I didn't know what the heck they were talking about. Of course, Mr. Johnson, in fact, stayed. I imagine there were some discussions about that in the Democratic Caucus when things changed in 2007, and I imagine I know there were discussions about that when it changed again in 2011.

The fact of the matter is John is the embodiment of the Parliamentarian's Office. He's not the Democratic Parliamentarian. He's not the Republican Parliamentarian. He's the Parliamentarian for the House of Representatives, and that's what makes his service unique and unique to all of our Parliamentarians.

In closing, I don't know what John is going to do; but, Mr. Speaker, if John writes a book and I have to pay $147 to get it on Amazon.com, I'm really going to be honked off.

I hope, John, if you do write your memoirs or some tome with the Speaker of the House over in Great Britain that you let it come out in paperback so that all of us can enjoy it. And, please, make it a good read and not so dry.

To John and your family, I really appreciate your friendship and your service. You have gotten me out of a lot of messes and not into too many. For your friendship and for your guidance in this House over your career, I'm very grateful. And I thank you and I wish you well in whatever you decide to do.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your patience, and I would yield back the balance of my time.

I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Madam Chair, sadly, in a set of occurrences that is becoming all too frequent in our country, yesterday, at 7:40 a.m., in the town of Chardon, Ohio--for those of you that aren't familiar with our part of the world, about 25 miles east of Cleveland--allegedly, a student brought a gun into the cafeteria of the high school, opened fire and shot five of the students.

As I stand here today, three of those students have succumbed to the injuries received and have passed away. Two continue to be under medical care.

I would indicate that in these tragedies there are also items of heroism. An assistant coach at Chardon High School, Frank Hall, chased the gunman out of the high school at great risk to himself, but perhaps saving further tragedy.

So, Madam Chair, on behalf of all of my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats in the State of Ohio, I would ask the House to observe a moment of silence in honor of the fallen, the staff at the school, their families, and the city of Chardon.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Bishop of New York

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise to engage the gentleman from Florida, the manager of the rule, in just a discussion if I could.

I don't have any problem with the rule--I don't think. The underlying legislation I've got a lot of difficulties with, which is why I filed or participated in the filing of many, many amendments, particularly on

It's fraught with difficulty because, out of these 240 amendments that are out there to H.R. 7, I may have a different view on your rule today unless there is some assurance you're going to produce a second rule that is somehow going to resemble an open rule on these remaining amendments.

I yield to the gentleman for whatever response you choose to make.

Well, the gentleman is an honorable Member and I'm going to go with that, but I want the concern to be mentioned.

I thank the chairman.

One of the useless sorts of pieces of trivia I carry around in my head is that the originator of Superman comics was from Cleveland, Ohio. I think he sold the rights to it for a pittance and was very sorry after that. One of the things I could never get my arms around in the Superman series was the Bizarro Superman. As I listen to this debate, I think that I have landed in a ``bizarro'' world.

To go to another children's story, everyone knows the story of the three little pigs. Those who are criticizing the process or the criticism of the process, not those, the criticism of the process that has brought this bill to the floor, is a little bit like there is a fourth little pig that didn't even bother to build a straw house or a wood house but gets to the brick house where the wolf can't get in and is complaining that the brick furniture is too hard.

Now, listen. No budget was produced in the last Congress. Not one. And so, for the process lovers around here, you know where all of the numbers came from that we had to deal with in the appropriations committee? In the mind of one man from Wisconsin who is now retired. That didn't happen. The budget was passed. You know what else? The budget this year gave lower numbers for the second time straight under this majority, and it is a little more difficult to spend less money than more money. It's easier to spend more money.

But Mr. Dicks and Mr. Rogers did something that was never done under the stewardship of the previous Speaker, and that is we had bills come up in subcommittee. You know what? Any Member could offer an amendment--good amendments, bad amendments, stupid amendments, wonderful amendments--and we voted on them. They went to full committee. The same thing occurred.

I'm going to tell you, the bills came to the floor under open rules. I think I could count on--I wouldn't have to take off my shoes to figure out the number of open rules under the previous Speaker's administration, as they privatized the Nation's health care, one- seventh of the economy of the United States, as they put in place a national carbon tax with no amendments. So for those who are squealing about process, it's really an inappropriate exercise.

And relative to the other body, and I have nothing but respect for Mr. Dicks, but to say that the Senate wasn't doing anything nefarious by linking this bill that was going to put on furlough and shut down the government at midnight tonight and link that to the payroll tax cuts and others, listen, the Senate has become again and again and again the place where legislation goes to die. It is not enough to sit over there in the lofty Senate Chamber and say, ``We don't like what you did, House,'' and not produce a product.

The time has come for them to pass a bill, and then the process is we're only one-third of the government. You can't have this bill unless the Senate passes it and the President signs it.

So again, Merry Christmas to all, and we should get on with this.

I thank both chairmen for yielding and also for the recognition.

Mr. Speaker, it's like a breath of fresh air has blown through this Chamber. I will tell you what a relief it is.

Congratulations goes to Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Dicks and to the subcommittee chairs and the ranking members for getting us to a point that was normal practice for the first 12 years that I was here, which is to do things like have a subcommittee markup. It's where people get to offer amendments--good amendments, bad amendments, in- between amendments--but they were thoughts that they had. We'd debate them; we'd discuss them; and we'd vote on them. The same thing happened in the full committee; the same thing happened on the floor; and we actually had a conference between the House and the Senate. Some people had never been to a conference before because they hadn't been here that long. I had Members come up to me who were new--we have 87, 88 new Republican freshmen, and we even have some sophomores and juniors--who didn't even know what the 5-minute rule was for the discussion of an amendment on the floor.

So everybody in this Chamber understands that sometimes you win and sometimes you lose, but at the end of the day, if you've had a chance to express yourself and to articulate why your position is correct and then it's either accepted or rejected by your colleagues, you can go home and put your head on the pillow and feel pretty good about it.

This product is a result of that.

I'm particularly proud of the piece from the subcommittee that I'm involved in with Mr. Latham as the chair and Mr. Olver as the ranking member. What is remarkable to me is that this wasn't a ``my way or the highway'' negotiation. There were numbers that were important to some of us and not important to others but that were improved between the House version and the conference report. I would cite, for instance, the highway level.

Now, because no one is willing to make the adult decision about what to do with the income stream at the highway trust fund, it was proposed to be a paltry $27 billion. However, through negotiation between the House and the Senate, it's now restored to the authorized level in the extension at $39 billion.

The Community Development Block Grant program as well is recognized in this conference report as being a valuable source of seed money for local communities to add other money and to do good works. Something that is popular and unpopular in certain segments on both sides of the aisle is Amtrak, which is now receiving the money necessary to do its mission.

They've done a good job, and I urge its passage.