David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman who led our effort to bring about reform of the rules and help put this package together, my very good friend, Mr. Bishop, the gentleman from Utah.

Mr. DREIER. I am happy to give my friend an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume, and I would like to respond to some of the comments made by my very good friend, the minority whip. On the issue of CutGo versus PAYGO, I think it's important to note that in the bipartisan agreement that was put together just last month, supported by President Obama, there was an actual embrace of the John F. Kennedy vision of recognizing that economic growth and an enhanced level of revenues to the Federal Treasury come about by keeping marginal rates low. Now I will say, Mr. Speaker, that was a bipartisan agreement; and so what we've said is that as we look at growing the economy, we are very enthused at the fact that job creators are going to be able to have revenues focused on job creating, therefore enhancing the opportunity for more revenues coming to the Federal Treasury. Second, I think it's also very important for us to realize that the focus does need to be on spending; and we believe very passionately that, in the last 4 years since we've seen a 92 percent increase, a 92 percent increase, Mr. Speaker, in nondefense discretionary spending, that we need to have a laser-like focus on that. Now, Democrats and Republicans, Mr. Speaker, have come together to decry both the lack of jobs that exist in our economy, as well as deficit spending. There's clear bipartisan agreement on that. We all want to create more private sector jobs, and we all want to see the deficit reduced. Now, how is it, Mr. Speaker, that we deal with those two issues? The single most important thing that we can do to ensure that we address that is to ensure economic growth. And so the notion behind PAYGO, which would, in fact, bring about, unfortunately, an increase in taxes that dramatically would stall this recovery--and even Keynesian economists, those through the 1930s, 1940s--John Maynard Keynes died in 1950--there are many people who have followed his economic model, that being stimulating through greater Federal spending. Keynesian economists, Mr. Speaker, acknowledge that increasing taxes, when you're dealing with a difficult economy, in fact, undermines the potential for economic growth. Now, let me take the second issue that my friend mentioned, Mr. Speaker, and that issue has to do with the question of our delegates. They're all friends of mine and I respect--I've visited most of the territories, if not all, and I will say that these are very diligent, hardworking Members. But we all know what the bottom line comes to here. The bottom line comes down to that the vote here in the Committee of the Whole counts until it doesn't count, and it doesn't count if it counts. And that's why I understand. And my friend, Mr. Faleomavaega, said correctly, this is a symbol. It is a symbol. And I think that their membership and participation on committees is important, and there is a great deal of camaraderie that does go on with our friends. But the fact is, when you have a structure where the vote counts until it doesn't count and doesn't count if it counts, it seems to me that that is not the proper route for us to take; and so that's the reason that this action has been taken. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to my very good friend, the distinguished minority whip.

Mr. DREIER. I've actually been here a few months longer than my friend has.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if I could reclaim my time, I would say that I began by talking about a great Democratic President, John F. Kennedy, who used this model. And the notion of simply looking at 1981, 1989, and 2001 is not the simple basis for the argument that I'm propounding. I'm beginning, if you look at modern history, with John F. Kennedy as President of the United States. And I will also say that, in looking at the 1993 bill, I am convinced, as I stand here today, that if we had had simply that tax increase and not put into place the measures that we did in 1994, 1995, 1996 that focused on job creation and economic growth, reducing the top rate on capital gains and, in fact, bringing about marginal rate reduction, we would not have enjoyed that tremendous period of growth that we experienced through the decade of the 1990s which, as we all know, was the time that the Republicans were, in fact, in control here. We've had a nice exchange. If I could reserve the balance of my time. I would love to hear further from my friend if Ms. Slaughter would yield to him.

Mr. DREIER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. As we've seen here today, Madam Speaker, we are marking an important turning point in the history of the United States House of Representatives. We have before us a package of reforms that will bring greater transparency and accountability to this House, and it will once again give the American people the opportunity to participate in the legislative process. They've made clear to us that what their priorities are--job creation, economic growth, and a smaller, more accountable Federal Government--must be done. The reforms included in the rules package are designed to ensure that those priorities are met and that we are held responsible for our actions to do the people's work. Madam Speaker, I want to thank each and every one of my colleagues who have worked tirelessly on this rules package. Never before in history has there been the kind of Member involvement--bipartisan Member involvement--in an opening day rules package. I particularly want to thank my good friends Greg Walden, who led our transition team, and Rob Bishop, who led the rules reform effort, as well as the other members of our transition working group. We had four new Members of Congress who right after the election got involved in working on this very, very important transition, and I want to express my appreciation. As I said, Madam Speaker, this has, for the first time, ever been bipartisan. I don't want to claim that my Democratic colleagues are supportive of this rules package, but I will say that when we began the process, I'm happy that former Speaker Pelosi designated as liaisons to work with us through the transition process the distinguished former chair of the Administration Committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brady), and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), and I want to express my appreciation to them again for their hard work. As we looked for ways to chart a new course and reduce congressional waste, we knew that we had to consider good ideas from both political parties, and that's why I'm happy to say we had input from both Democrats and Republicans in fashioning this opening day rules package. Our Democratic liaisons were tremendous partners, and again, I express my appreciation to my Democratic colleagues for joining with us in this effort. Now, having completed our transition work, we are now beginning a new Congress. Each of us faces the new beginning with the knowledge that congressional approval ratings are abysmally low. It's rare that the Congress is held in high esteem by the American people--we all know that--but it is even rarer to have an approval rating that is as low as it is right now. Now, why is it that this body has become so unpopular? The reason is that the American people felt that they were not being listened to. They have sent us here to conduct the 112th Congress differently than any Congress of the past. I'm not going to just talk about the last two Congresses, Madam Speaker; I'm going to say that they sent us here this year to perform differently than any Congress of the past. What's more, they have given us, as Speaker Boehner likes to say, some pretty simple and clear and direct marching orders when it comes to our work: fulfill our constitutional duties in an open and transparent way. Now, Madam Speaker, this rules package that we have before us provides us the tools to do just what the American people have asked: to perform our constitutional duties in a transparent and open way. Because our highest priorities are job creation and economic growth, we must rein in the government spending that has spiraled out of control over the past several years. We're taking several steps to meet that goal. For starters, we're requiring that any new spending be offset for five 10-year budget windows. If a bill increases the deficit by more than $5 billion in any of these 10-year windows, it will be subjected to a point of order. In other words, we're changing the rules of the House to ensure that we look at short, medium, as well as long-term consequences to Federal spending. We should not, and cannot, consider legislation that pushes the Federal budget deficit and the problems down the road. We will also be reforming the spending process by replacing PAYGO with CutGo. Rather than pairing spending with tax increases, job- killing tax increases, we will pair it with spending cuts. It's often been said that we don't have a revenue problem; we have a spending problem. These new rules will make it easier to reduce spending rather than increase it. In fact, the idea behind this package is to focus on ways in which we can increase the opportunity to reduce spending rather than increase it. Now, Madam Speaker, we're also taking important steps to make us more accountable to the American people, the people whom we're so honored to represent. We won't be voting on bills unless they've been available for at least 3 calendar days. We will be returning much of the legislative work back to the committees where greater transparency will be required. The work product, the recorded votes, and the video archives of all committees are required by these rules to be posted online. No longer will massive legislation be written behind closed doors, regardless of political party, and rammed through the House before anyone has the chance to review or amend the text. Our work will be done in an open way that affords all Members the opportunity to participate and scrutinize. Another key reform by this rules package is the creation of an electronic format for legislation. This represents a dramatic change in how legislation is made available, not just to Members but to the public and the press as well. Now, Madam Speaker, for the last two centuries, legislation was considered available when a paper copy was dropped off in the document room across the street. Now it will be considered available when anyone with access to the Internet can look it up. This new format will evolve over time, and there's work ahead that still has to be done as we implement these rules changes, but no Member should consider this vote as the end of the reform efforts of this Congress. Again, what we're doing here today is simply the first step in what is going to be a one-year, 2-year process of reform. We will not be wed to the way we used to do things. Rather, we will be looking for new and different ways to do our jobs and to do them in the most transparent and accountable way. And let me say again, Madam Speaker, it is very important for us to ensure that we have the input of my friend from Rochester (Ms. Slaughter) and other Democrats, as well as Republicans, in this process. Madam Speaker, this rules package is a very significant first step. We have learned the hard way that bad process inevitably results in bad outcomes. We need look no further than our ailing economy and spiraling deficit, not to mention Congress' abysmal approval rating, to see that that is true. By reforming the rules of the House, we set the stage for reforming the entire Federal Government. Ultimately, we ensure fidelity to the original rules document, that being the Constitution. And I am so pleased that tomorrow on the House floor, led by our friend from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), we will be having a bipartisan reading of the Constitution. Madam Speaker, our Founders understood better than anyone the importance of restraining Federal power. I think that Thomas Jefferson put it best when he said, ``In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.'' Now, Madam Speaker, in this Congress, we will refocus our efforts on fulfilling our constitutional duties in a transparent and responsible way. We will be reform-minded and accountability-oriented, and we will be driven by the number one concern of the American people--getting our economy back on track. Madam Speaker, form dictates function, and these new rules will set us on the path toward greater economic growth and confidence for the American people. With that, I urge support of this very important resolution and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to our very distinguished new Republican whip, my good friend and fellow Californian, the gentleman from Bakersfield, Mr. McCarthy.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 45 seconds to the distinguished new chair of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman would yield, I would say, Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Florida is absolutely correct. Clause 3 of rule XXI, as amended, does not change the way in which the underlying programs are funded, which is through contract authority provided by authorization acts.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Auburn, Washington, Sheriff Reichert, our distinguished colleague and a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Rochester, New York (Ms. Slaughter). Pending that, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield on that point?

Mr. DREIER. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, everyone is very enthused about today. It is a great day. We have 96 new Members of this institution--87 Republicans and nine Democrats--nearly 100 new Members. They are here having carried a very strong and powerful message from the American people, which is we have got to create jobs, get our economy growing, reduce the size and scope and reach of government, and do it in a more transparent, open and accountable way. Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we are doing. That is exactly what we are doing with this rules package. Now, there seems to be a little disagreement on the notion of dealing with spending and taxes. The fact of the matter is we all know--several of us have said it through the debate--that we don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem. What we need to do is to focus on reducing spending, and we are absolutely committed with a laser-like approach to doing that. It is going to be tough. It is going to be painful. I hope that, as we reached out and had bipartisan input on this rules package for the first time ever, that we will be able to do the exact same thing, Mr. Speaker, when we deal with the question of getting our economy growing and the other challenges that lie ahead of us. We never before have had the opportunity that we are going to have in just a few minutes. The Rules Committee is going to meet after we are seated, and when I came to the Rules Committee two decades ago, I was told by the dean of the Washington press core, David Broder, that the Rules Committee hearing room was small by design. Why? To keep us out, Mr. Broder said to me. Well, Mr. Speaker, for the first time in this quest for transparency, we are going to have online streaming of our Rules Committee meeting that will take place after we are seated here. General Leave

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, congratulations. It's very nice to see you in the chair. I would like to insert a section-by-section analysis of the resolution to appear at this point in the Record. section 1. resolved clause. This section provides that the Rules of the l12th Congress are the Rules of the 112th Congress, except with the amendments contained in section 2 of the resolution, and orders contained in sections 3, 4, and 5. section 2. changes to the standing rules. Citing Authority under the Constitution. Paragraph (a) creates a new clause 7 in rule XII providing that a Member may not introduce a bill or joint resolution unless the sponsor also submits a statement citing as specifically as practicable the power or powers under the Constitution authorizing the enactment of that bill or joint resolution. The statement will appear in a separate section in the Congressional Record and be made available to the public in electronic form. While the rule requires that a Member submit the statement at the same time as the bill is introduced, there is nothing in the rule to prevent the sponsor of the bill from submitting an additional statement later in the process if he or she wants to revise the initial statement. With regard to electronic availability, appearance in the electronic version of the Congressional Record will initially satisfy the electronic availability requirement of this paragraph. However, ultimate the intention is that the Clerk will make the statements available in a searchable, sortable, and downloadable database as soon as practicable. With respect to Senate bills, the provision authorizes the chair of a committee of jurisdiction, prior to consideration of the Senate bill, to submit a statement as if the chair were the sponsor. Finally, the provision also repeals the current requirement for a similar statement in committee reports. When a Member introduces a bill or joint resolution, the Clerk must ensure that a statement required under this paragraph accompanies the measure. However, the Clerk is not required to evaluate the content of the statement or its adequacy; those are matters to be considered by Members during consideration of the legislation. Three-Day Availability for Unreported Bills. This provision adds a new clause to rule XXIX establishing a point of order against consideration of a bill or joint resolution that has not been available for three calendar days. This provision mirrors existing layover rules prohibiting consideration of bills reported by a committee or conference reports. Transparency for House and Committee Operations. Subparagraph (i) directs the Committee on House Administration to establish and maintain standards for documents made available in electronic form by the House and its committees. Subparagraph (2) provides that a measure or matter will have been considered as having been ``available'' within the meaning of the rules if it was publicly available in electronic form at a location designated by the Committee on House Administration. The intention of these provisions is to ensure that Members and the public have easy access to bills, resolutions, and amendments considered in committee and by the House. The standard for electronic documents is intended to evolve over time. While the standard may initially include more static formats such as a searchable PDF, the intention is to eventually transition to more flexible structured data formats, such as XML, as the tools become available to ease the creation and ensure the integrity of House documents. With respect to availability, the provision is intended to place electronic distribution on par with traditional printing; rather than entirely replace it. Finally, the rule contemplates a singular location that will direct Members and the public to the text of measures to be considered by the House and its committees. Subparagraph (3) amends clause 2(g)(3) of rule XI to provide for a minimum notice period of 3 days for a committee meeting. This joins the current requirement for 7 days notice for a committee hearing. The provision maintains the current ability of the Chair, with the concurrence of the ranking minority member, to waive both notice periods if they find good cause to start the hearing or meeting sooner. The provision can also be waived by a majority vote of the committee. Subparagraph (4) requires that the chair of the committee make the text of the measure or matter being marked up publicly available in electronic form at least 24 hours prior to commencement of the meeting. This provision is intended to ensure that members have the text of the measure or matter in sufficient time to review the measure and draft any amendments. Accordingly, if the committee is considering a committee print, or the Chair of a committee intends to use an amendment in the nature of a substitute as the base text for purposes of further amendment, circulation of that text will satisfy this requirement. While the rule requires that the text be circulated at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, that text should be circulated as early as possible to provide members the maximum amount of time to review the measure or matter and draft any desired amendments. Subparagraph (5) requires that the chair of a committee make the results of any record vote publicly available in electronic form within 48 hours of the vote, while subparagraph (6) requires that the text of any adopted amendment be made similarly available, along with the text of the measure being marked up, within 24 hours of commencement of the markup or adoption of the amendment. Subparagraph (7) requires the posting of non-governmental witness ``truth-in-testimony'' information (with appropriate redactions, such as a home address or phone number, to protect the privacy of the witness). Subparagraph (8) requires public availability in electronic form of the committee rules. Subparagraph (9) requires each Committee, to the maximum extent practicable, to provide audio and video coverage of each committee hearing or meeting and maintain recordings that are easily accessible to the public. This subparagraph is not intended to require audio and video coverage in situations where it would be technically impracticable, such as where a hearing or meeting is held in a room without audio and video broadcast equipment, or create a defect with a hearing or meeting if a webcast or recording is not available due to technical issues. Subparagraph (10) strikes an exception, adopted in the 110th Congress, for the Committee on Rules to accurately report its votes in committee reports to accompany a rule, joint rule, or a special order of business. Subparagraph (11) amends clause 2(d)(1) of rule X to require committees, during development of their oversight plan, to include proposals to cut or eliminate mandatory and discretionary programs that are inefficient, duplicative, outdated, or more appropriately administered by State or local governments. Initiatives to Reduce Spending and Improve Accountability. Subparagraph (d)(i) replaces the current ``pay-as-you-go'' requirements with a ``cut-as-you-go'' requirement. The provision prohibits consideration of a bill, joint resolution, conference report, or amendment that has the net effect of increasing mandatory spending within a five-year or ten-year budget window. This provision continues the current practice of counting multiple measures considered pursuant to a special order of business which directs the Clerk to engross the measures together after passage for purposes of compliance with the rule and provides a mechanism for addressing ``emergency'' designations. Subparagraph (2) strikes the ``Gephardt rule'' that provides for the automatic engrossment and transmittal to the Senate of a joint resolution changing the public debt limit, upon the adoption by Congress of the budget resolution, thereby avoiding a separate vote in the House on the public debt-limit legislation. Subparagraph (3) adds a new clause to rule XXIX that clarifies that the chair of the Committee on the Budget, rather than the entire committee, is authorized to provide guidance to the presiding officer on the budgetary impact of legislative proposals. This change reflects the current practice under majorities of both parties. Subparagraph (4) modifies clause 3 of rule XXI, pertaining to transportation obligation limitations, to protect the balances of the Highway Trust Fund by establishing a point of order against consideration of any general appropriation bill or joint resolution, or accompanying conference report, that provides spending authority from balances in the trust fund (other than those from transfers from the General Fund of the Treasury) or reduces or limits the accruing balances of that trust fund for anything other than activities authorized for the highway or mass transit programs. Subparagraph (5) modifies clause 7 of rule XXI, which places restrictions on reconciliation directives contained in a budget resolution. The new modification would specify that it would not be in order to consider a budget resolution or amendments thereto, or a conference thereon which would have the effect of increasing net direct spending. Other Changes to House Operations. Paragraph (e)(1) provides the Chair of the Committee of the Whole with authority to employ two minute voting during a series of votes. Subparagraph (2) changes the current rule regarding electronic devices, which prohibits the use of mobile phones and personal computers on the floor, to prohibit the use of any mobile electronic device that is disruptive of the decorum. This change will give the Speaker greater latitude in deciding which mobile electronic devices may or may not be used by Members on the floor. For historical purposes, it is important to note that the use of electronic devices in the chamber of the U.S. House of Representatives is governed by the rules of the House. In the 111th Congress, the fourth sentence of clause 5 of rule XVII read as follows: ``A person may not smoke or use a wireless telephone or personal computer on the floor of the House.'' The House first adopted a rule prohibiting the use of ``personal, electronic office equipment (including cellular phones and computers)'' on the floor in 1995. The rule was specifically changed in 2003 to prohibit the use of ``a wireless telephone or personal computer,'' thereby tacitly permitting a smartphone (e.g., a BlackBerry) to be used on the floor. No formal ruling has been made by the Speaker on whether an electronic-tablet device (e.g., an iPad) might constitute a ``personal computer'' within the meaning of the version of the rule in 111th Congress. Members of the House have used them on the floor, both informally and even while under recognition, without reprimand. The Parliamentarian has informally advised that they may be used unobtrusively pending review of the broader questions their proliferation might engender. Wi-Fi service has not been enabled in the chamber of the House. However, like many smartphones, some electronic-tablet devices have wireless-data capability that enables internet access in the chamber. As the popularity of electronic-tablet devices increases, the House has observed how Members use them and their effect on decorum and has evaluated whether the use of electronic- tablet devices poses either audible or visual impairments to decorum in the chamber. Unlike bulkier notebook and laptop computers, electronic-tablet devices can be used without obscuring the Member behind a screen or creating the visual of a sea of screens across the chamber. In addition, these devices are implemented with silent keyboards that limit audible disruptions. The House has reconsidered the way it regulates the use of such devices. Rather than continuing to address devices by category (e.g., ``phones'' or ``computers''), the current rule will instead will address them by their attributes (e.g., form-factor or character). The rule speaks generally of devices that are disruptive of the decorum of the House and leaves it to the Speaker to enunciate policies to react to changes in technology. (This approach already has been employed to extend the prohibition on the use of wireless telephones also to the wearing of wireless headsets while in the chamber.) Subparagraph (3) updates the House rules governing the media to eliminate references to specific media organizations. Subparagraph (4) ends the ability of delegates and the Resident Commissioner to vote in, and preside over, the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Subparagraph (5) strikes clause 11 of rule XVIII, which allows a motion to strike a provision from a bill that is asserted to be an unfunded mandate, even if the amendment would not otherwise be in order during consideration of the bill. Subparagraph (6) clarifies the Armed Services Committee jurisdiction over Department of Defense administered cemeteries. The jurisdiction of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs with respect to cemeteries for veterans remains unchanged. Subparagraphs (7) through (9) change, respectively, the name of the Committee on Education and Labor to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to the Committee on Ethics, and the Committee on Science and Technology to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Subparagraph (10) eliminates the Select Oversight Panel of the Committee on Appropriations. Subparagraph (11) reduces the size of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence from a total of 22 members (13 from the majority party) to 20 members (12 from the majority party). The next subparagraph restores the term limit rules for committee chairs to the same state it existed in the 109th Congress. Subparagraph (13) increases the frequency of committee activity reports from once per congress to four times per congress. This provision is intended to provide the House with more frequent updates regarding the oversight and legislative activities of the committees. Subparagraph (14) modifies existing staff deposition authority for the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform by requiring the committee to adopt a rule requiring that a member of the committee be present at any deposition conducted by a staff member. The deponent is permitted to waive this requirement. Technical and Clarifying Changes. These provisions correct a host of typographic and other simple errors. Subparagraph (1) corrects a typographic error, and subparagraph (2) corrects an errant reference to simple resolutions. The next subparagraph corrects an unintentional narrowing of the circumstances regarding the Speaker's regulation of access to the floor, and the following provision corrects another word that was inadvertently removed during the recodification of the House rules in the 106th Congress. Lastly, the provision eliminates unnecessary usage of ``Members of the House'' and makes clear that the Clerk does not have to disclose actual Member signatures, just their names, when making a disclosure under clause 13 of rule XXIII. Section 3. Separate Orders. Budget Matters. Subparagraphs (a)(i) through (3) clarify that section 306 of the Budget Act (prohibiting consideration of legislation with the Budget Committee's jurisdiction, unless reported by the Budget Committee) only applies to bills and joint resolutions and not to simple or concurrent resolutions. It also makes a section 303 point of order (requiring adoption of budget resolution before consideration of budget-related legislation) applicable to text made in order as an original bill by a special rule. Specified or minimum levels of compensation for Federal office will not be considered as providing new entitlement authority. Subparagraph (4) prevents the Committee of the Whole from rising to report a bill to the House that exceeds an applicable allocation of new budget authority under section 302 (b) (Appropriations subcommittee allocations) as estimated by the Budget Committee and creates a point of order. Budget Enforcement. Subsections (b)(1) and (2) require the chair of the Committee on the Budget to submit for printing in the Congressional Record budget aggregates and allocations contemplated by section 301 (Content of the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget) for 2011, and 2011 through 2015. Publication of these aggregates and allocations will be considered to be the adoption of a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2011. This provision is intended to give the Chair of the Committee on the Budget authority to set aggregates and allocations to complete the unfinished fiscal year 2011 budget resolution cycle, taking into account the latest CBO baseline, including its 5-year projections. Emergencies and Contingencies. Subparagraphs (c)(1) and (2) provide for exemptions for designated emergencies and the continuation of contingency operations related to the Global War on Terror. Deficit-Neutral Revenue Reserve. Paragraph (d) allows the Budget Committee to make appropriate budget adjustments prior to the adoption of a budget resolution to account for the repeal or modification of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010. Limitation on Advanced Appropriations. Subparagraphs (e)(1) through (3) restrict the ability to provide advanced appropriations by establishing an aggregate spending ceiling. Compliance with Section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990. Paragraph (f) provides temporary budget enforcement for matters related to certain off budget trust funds. Limitation on Long-term Spending. Subparagraphs (g)(1) and (2) prohibit the consideration of measure which increase mandatory spending above $5,000,000,000 for any 10 year window within a 40 year period. Exemptions. Subparagraphs (h)(1) through (7) authorize the Budget Committee Chair, prior to the adoption of a budget resolution, to exempt from estimates the budgetary effects of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. It also exempts the budgetary effects of the repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010. The budgetary effects of AMT relief, estate tax, trade agreements and small business tax relief are also exempted. The exemption is limited to measures which do not increase the deficit or revenues over the ten-year budget window, except for increases in revenue which meet certain specific criteria. Determinations for PAYGO Acts. Paragraph (i) allows the Chairman of the Budget Committee to take into account the exemptions provided under paragraph (h) for the purpose of complying with Statutory PAYGO. Spending Reduction Amendments in Appropriations Bills. Paragraph (j) requires that in each general appropriations bill there be a ``spending reduction'' account, the contents of which is a recitation of the amount by which, through the amendment process, the House has reduced spending in other portions of the bill and indicated that such savings should be counted towards spending reduction. It provides that other amendments that propose to increase spending in accounts in a general appropriations bill must include an offset of equal or greater value. Certain Subcommittees. This section waives clause 5(d) of Rule X to allow the Committees on Armed Services and Foreign Affairs up to seven subcommittees each, and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure up to six subcommittees. This is a standard provision carried in the rules package during the last several congresses. Exercise Facilities for Former Members. This section continues the prohibition on access to any exercise facility which is made available exclusively to Members, former Members, officers and former officers of the House and their spouses to any former member, former officer, or spouse who is a lobbyist registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. Numbering of Bills. This provision reserves the first 10 numbers for bills (H.R. 1 through H.R. 10) for assignment by the Speaker and the second 10 numbers (H.R. 11 through H.R. 20) for assignment by the Minority Leader. Section 4. Committees, Commissions, and House Offices Subparagraphs (a) and (b) reauthorize the House Democracy Partnership and the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission. Subparagraph (c) reauthorizes the Office of Congressional Ethics for the 112th Congress. Subparagraph (d) continues House Resolution 451, 110th Congress, directing the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) to empanel investigative subcommittees within 30 days after the date a Member is indicted or criminal charges are filed. Section 5. Additional Orders of Business Reading of the Constitution. This paragraph allows the Speaker to recognize Members for the reading of the Constitution on the legislative day of January 6, 2011. Providing for Consideration of Certain Motions to Suspend the Rules. This provision provides that on January 6, 2011 the Speaker may entertain motions to suspend the rules related to reducing the costs of operation of the House and allow two hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. Let me just say to the commission that I think it is very important to note that they argued that there should be a reduction to 26 percent as the top corporate rate and 23 percent as the top tax rate. I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER. It is with a great deal of zeal, enthusiasm, and gratitude that I move the previous question and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all of our Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on this measure.

Mr. DREIER. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I have the honor of representing the Foothill communities at the base of the San Gabriel Mountains. Included in my district are the Angeles and the San Bernardino National Forests. These National Forests are two of the most widely visited forests in the Nation. In addition, they provide over 30 percent of the drinking water for Los Angeles County alone. Unfortunately, this area is also prone to devastating wildfires. Ensuring the public safety of our first responders and residents remains a top priority of mine. That is why I have been working for over a year with multiple parties on a proposal to assist our firefighters and preserve recreational activities in the region. It is also vital that we continue to care for our natural resources. The Angeles and San Bernardino National Forests Protection Act, which I am introducing today, adds approximately 17,700 acres of forest lands to the Cucamonga and Sheep Mountain Wilderness Areas. With their close proximity to dozens of communities, the Angeles and San Bernardino National Forests provide residents with an opportunity to easily enjoy the public lands in their own backyard. It is my hope that this legislation will protect this area for the benefit of future generations. Throughout this entire process, my number one focus has been to protect our firefighters and other first responders who are responsible for keeping lives, homes and communities safe from approaching fires. I have worked closely with the Los Angeles and the San Bernardino County fire departments and have incorporated their suggestions on how we can make their job easier and safer. I am pleased that this legislation has the support of both the Los Angeles County and the San Bernardino County fire departments as well as the support of local fire chiefs. I will continue to work with our fire departments to ensure they have the resources needed to do their job as safely and effectively as possible. This legislation also calls on the Forest Service to reduce the severe maintenance backlog that exists in both the Angeles and San Bernardino National Forests and to restore valuable recreational opportunities that were lost in the devastating 2009 Station Fire. Numerous facilities and trail markers were damaged during this fire and my legislation calls on the Forest Service to restore the facilities impacted in the Station Fire. This will allow individuals and families to enjoy our public lands for many years to come. I also want to take this opportunity to note that this legislation will not impact any existing private property or water rights in this area. Multiple recreational uses, including horseback riding as well as hiking currently occur in these National Forests and these activities must be allowed to continue. As this legislation works its way through the legislative process, I will keep working with all of the interested parties to ensure that our first responders can safely and securely protect our communities from forest fires while also preserving recreational opportunities for everyone.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, let me first say it is great to see you presiding over this great deliberative body. I offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, our top priority is to get our economy going again. Helping families keep more of their hard-earned money and providing businesses with additional resources to invest in their operations will help create jobs and get our economy back on track. The Fair and Simple Tax (FAST) Act is a commonsense plan that will provide certainty in the tax code and a boost to the economy. The bill cuts the current 6-bracket tax structure in half and employs three simple rates of 10, 15, and 30 percent. By reducing marginal rates and preserving major deductions, including mortgage interest, charitable, state and local taxes, the child tax credit and the personal exemption, the FAST Act provides working Americans with more money for their needs. The FAST Act also addresses the need to get our economy moving again by providing important investment incentives and creating new opportunities for workers and job creators alike. As American businesses continue to participate in the global economy, the FAST Act makes domestic employers more competitive by reducing the corporate tax rate from the highest in the world to a more competitive rate. In order to encourage innovation and boost entrepreneurship, the FAST Act provides a permanent extension of the Research and Development Tax Credit. In addition, under the FAST Act, the tax code rewards, not penalizes, success by reducing the individual capital gains tax rate from 15 percent to 10 percent and indexing the tax for inflation. The FAST Act is based on the principle that Americans deserve a tax code that is fair and easy to understand. This year, Americans are projected to spend $392 billion preparing their taxes. To make this process easier, the FAST Act creates a simple, one-page tax filing form that employs the simplified marginal rate structure. This bill brings a sense of fairness to the tax code by permanently repealing the Death Tax and indexing the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) to inflation. In doing so, the FAST Act ensures that fewer taxpayers will be impacted by the AMT each year. In addition, the bill permanently extends the 2001 and 2003 tax relief measures. As Americans seek to save money for retirement, education and other needs, the FAST Act provides incentives to encourage individuals to save more. The FAST Act creates three new, tax-free savings accounts: the Retirement Savings Account, the Lifetime Savings Account, both providing a $5,000 tax-free contribution, and the Lifetime Skills Savings Account, which provides a $1,000 tax-free contribution. Each provides Americans with additional ways to save money for their future needs. Americans should have more control, not less, over their health care expenses. That is why the FAST Act creates a $7,500 tax deduction for individuals and a $15,000 tax deduction for families who do not have access to employer-sponsored health coverage. This expanded deduction provides individuals and families with additional assistance to purchase health care and allows unspent funds to be allocated to a Health Savings Account (HSA). Mr. Speaker, the FAST Act reforms the tax code to provide permanent tax relief and clarity for American families and businesses, while encouraging innovation and entrepreneurship vital to our economic recovery. I encourage all my colleagues to join me in this pro-growth economic policy.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the roots of our broken immigration and employer verification system can be traced to three underlying factors: too many unreliable documents, including the Social Security card; a faulty employment verification system; and lax enforcement. The cornerstone of any immigration and border security reform plan must include an effective employment verification system and enhanced enforcement of our immigration laws. My bill, H.R. 98, the Illegal Immigration Enforcement and Social Security Protection Act, provides a strong foundation on which to build upon. The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act created the I-9 system for employers to verify the work authorization status of prospective employees. Currently, there are 26 documents that individuals can use in 102 different combinations to establish work authorization status in the U.S. While well intentioned, this program forces employers to be identification experts while allowing unscrupulous employers to hire illegal immigrants. The 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act sought to improve reliability of the I-9 system by creating the Basic Pilot Program, now known as E-Verify, which allows employers, on a voluntary basis, to use an online system to verify the work authorization status of new employees by checking validity of the Social Security numbers with the Social Security Administration. The implementation of this program has been a step in the right direction. However, several studies have found that the E-Verify program is unable to detect identity fraud, allowing those with valid, but stolen documents, to secure employment. H.R. 98 builds on the E-Verify program by creating an easy to use electronic verification system based on a secure, tamper-proof Social Security card, which employers can use to electronically verify the work authorization status of prospective employees. The new card includes a digitized photo of the cardholder, as well as an encrypted electronic signature strip, allowing employers to instantaneously verify a prospective employee's work authorization status with the Department of Homeland Security's Employment Eligibility Database, either through a toll-free number or electronic card-reader. H.R. 98 also increases penalties for employers who hire illegal immigrants or fail to verify their employment eligibility by increasing fines to $50,000 from $2,000, applying jail sentences of up to 5 years per offense, and requiring the employer to pay for deportation. In addition, the bill adds 10,000 new DHS personnel whose sole responsibility will be to enforce employer compliance and prosecute those who illegally employ illegal immigrants. Mr. Speaker, with newly improved document standards, employers will have a much higher degree of confidence in their hiring decisions. This will help to prevent the hiring of unauthorized workers and stop illegal immigration.