David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. DREIER. I reclaim my time. Let me say, I asked my staff where this $1.1 billion figure came from. My staff members are right here on the floor, and they said they don't know where the basis of this $1.1 billion figure comes from. Mr. Speaker, what happened in the Judiciary Committee was unfortunate. It was an unfortunate development that took place because the Judiciary Committee proceeded to do something that they should not do, which is they began appropriating. All we are doing with this provision that we have in place is simply saying that the power should, in fact, lie with the House Appropriations Committee and that it should not be mandatory spending that does not provide the first branch of government, the legislative branch, with the adequate oversight. Now, as I walked into the Chamber, my friend from Kentucky was saying that this bill is not focused on job creation and economic growth when, in fact, we know that encouraging creativity and innovation is about our creating good jobs right here in the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, the American people get it. They realize that if we were to take our time and energy and focus on job creation and economic growth we would be able to improve the standard of living and quality of life for the American people. Unfortunately, we've not been vigorously pursuing those. I think that one of the most important things that we can do is to open up new markets around the world for U.S. goods and services and for our kind of innovation that is developing. We at this moment are waiting for three trade agreements that have been languishing over the past 4 years. Unfortunately, this House in the last 4 years has failed to consider them. They would create good union and nonunion jobs for the American worker. Good jobs for union and nonunion members would be created if we were to pursue that kind of policy. Now, those agreements are pending. We've gotten a positive indication that the administration is going to be sending those to us. We need to move on those as quickly as possible. As we look at those market- opening opportunities, having the kind of innovative ideas that will be able to take place, creating new products is going to be wonderful because we'll have new markets for those products around the world. And so that's why, again, Mr. Speaker, here we are under a process that allowed an amendment by my friend from Michigan, the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, to be made in order; my friend from Colorado from Boulder, Colorado (Mr. Polis), I'm very happy that we were able to make his amendment in order. Ms. Jackson Lee was here just a few minutes ago. She withdrew an amendment that she offered before the Rules Committee, and a similar amendment was offered by my colleague from California (Ms. Eshoo). We chose to make that amendment in order, which is virtually identical to the one that my friend from Houston offered. And so as my friend from Lawrenceville, Georgia, my Rules Committee colleague, said, Mr. Speaker, here we are. We've made 15 amendments in order for considering allowing virtually every idea to be considered. My friend from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) has his amendment made in order. And so the idea of somehow criticizing the Rules Committee and the action that we've taken is just way off base. There were 15 amendments that are made in order under this bill; 10 amendments have been made in order for the Energy and Commerce legislation that's come before us.

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, let me say that we obviously are dealing with an irregular development that took place in the Judiciary Committee, that being the notion of believing somehow that they could appropriate dollars. We know full well that the Judiciary Committee cannot engage in the appropriations process itself, and so all that this provision that we are pursuing does is allows us to take from mandatory back to discretionary spending without any cost whatsoever. The power will fall with this institution, with the first branch of government, which is exactly where it should be. And everyone, Mr. Speaker, talks about the concerns that we have over mandatory spending. Both Democrats and Republicans alike have made it clear that if we don't deal with the issue of mandatory spending we're not going to successfully address the economic and budget challenges that we face. So all this provision does is it allows us to deal with what was an irregular development that took place in the Judiciary Committee, and it is for that reason that I support my friend from Florida's effort. Mr. SENSENBRENNER: Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I'm happy to yield to my friend from Connecticut.

Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, my next line, Mr. Speaker, was going to be to my friend from Connecticut, there happen to be 435 Members of the United States House of Representatives, and we have a process known as appropriations. We also have an authorization process as well. Since 1837, the rule that my friends say is misguided, it has been the rule of the House. Mr. Speaker, to call it misguided to comply with the rules of the House, something that our friends in the last two Congresses chose to ignore repeatedly, is outrageous. Now, as we listen to these reports of hunger that exist in the United States of America, I was just talking to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Kingston, who made it very clear that there may be a stupidity factor, but the fact of the matter is there are so many programs that exist today, as Mr. Kingston reported up in the Rules Committee, that people do have an opportunity to benefit from those programs. We also are dealing with tremendous constraints that have been imposed upon us because of the fact that we saw an 82 percent increase in nondiscretionary spending over the past 4 years, and what it means is, with a $14 trillion national debt, we have to make some tough choices. We want to make sure--Mr. Kingston is working on this, as are the authorizers--we want to make sure that those programs that exist actually do provide an opportunity for three, not four or five, but three meals a day for people who are truly in need. And my friend from Grandfather Community, Mr. Speaker, pointed to the fact that we need to put into place a program that will encourage job creation and economic growth. For literally years, we've had languishing agreements that would open up new markets around the world in Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. We have not taken action on that. I hope very much that before August we do. That will help create jobs and get people who may have to look to government programs today in a position where they can, in fact, feed themselves. That's our goal. We want to make sure that everyone has an opportunity, and we want to continue this process allowing Democrats and Republicans alike to be heard.

Mr. DREIER. It's a tall order that my friend from Grandfather Community has just imposed on me, Mr. Speaker, but I will say it's great to be standing here as we proceed with consideration of the appropriations process. Last year, we for all intents and purposes had no appropriations process. When it was done, we all know it was shut down. We are here today considering the third appropriations bill under an open amendment process. Now, my friend from Connecticut has just characterized this as a misguided rule. Since 1837, Mr. Speaker, 1837--it's been a few years-- we have had within the rules of the House a structure whereby the authorizers have a responsibility and the appropriators have a responsibility. She said that we somehow are unraveling this very, very great and delicate compromise that was put together in the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the La Canada Flintridge based Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), its director, Dr. Charles Elachi and all of the JPL employees, on successfully completing the mission of Spirit, a Mars Exploration Rover. Spirit was designed, built and operated by JPL. In the summer of 2003, NASA launched Spirit along with its twin, Opportunity, from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. After traveling for six months and more than a quarter million miles, Spirit landed on Mars on January 3, 2004. The Mars Exploration Rover mission sought to expand our understanding of Mars' geological history and find evidence of water. One of the mission's greatest achievements was Spirit's discovery of minerals indicating that Mars was once a wet environment with hot springs and steam vents. These conditions may have been favorable for microbial life. In addition, Spirit provided us with thousands of breathtaking images of Mars' surface. While Spirit's mission was only planned for three months, it showed amazing resiliency and continued to operate for six years. After surviving three Martian winters, countless dust storms and a broken wheel, NASA lost contact with Spirit last March. Opportunity continues to explore the Martian surface. Mr. Speaker, the success of Spirit's mission, and JPL's scientific accomplishments, demonstrate the need to continue strong support for Mars exploration missions. As you may know, the Mars Science Laboratory is scheduled to launch at the end of this year. It will expand upon the discoveries made by Spirit and provide new insight into Mars' past. Its primary purpose is to determine if Mars was ever capable of supporting microbial life. To accomplish this, the mission will carry the most advanced instruments ever sent to Mars and have the capability to travel farther than past rovers. Mankind has always yearned to explore what is beyond the horizon. However, space exploration does more than inspire our imagination. It provides measurable benefits here at home. From new medical treatments to developing new energy solutions, NASA technology has made our world better. In addition, NASA's research centers, such as JPL, enhance communities, including my own district, by providing high-paying, highly-skilled jobs. Lastly, these projects provide inspiration to the next generation of engineers and scientists who will develop our future industries. Mr. Speaker, I commend JPL and its employees whose tireless work has made Spirit's mission such a tremendous success. I wish JPL the best of luck as it embarks on future projects and continues to expand our knowledge of Mars.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. Let me just say that the characterization that my friend just made of Mr. Boehner's resolution would also have to apply to the resolution offered by our friend from Ohio. We're talking about resolutions here. We're not talking about measures that have the power of law. This is not an act. These are resolutions, which are statements being made by this institution.

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, some have argued that under the War Powers Resolution, a concurrent resolution has the force of law. That just is not correct. Under the Constitution, a law requires the signature of the President. That is true for a declaration of war, for an appropriation, establishment of weights and measures, or any other exercise of legislative power under Article I of the Constitution. Without the Signature of the President, or an override of his veto, it is not a law and just does not bind the Executive. The Supreme Court highlighted this particular point in its landmark case INS v. Chadha which overturned the concept of the legislative veto. The War Powers Resolution predates the Chadha decision, and most constitutional scholars believe that decision creates a constitutional infirmity for resolutions passed pursuant to its terms as they would constitute a legislative veto. So while both the Speaker's resolution and Mr. Kucinich's resolution express the policy of the legislative branch, neither has the force of law.

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding and congratulate him on his management of this extraordinarily important rule. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying that I listened to my friend from Worcester. I was upstairs, and I want to express my appreciation to him for his very sincere institutional commitment, his commitment to our recognizing the preeminence of the first branch of government, and the fact that we, Mr. Kucinich, and Mr. Boehner, all of us, Democrat and Republican alike, recognize that the President of the United States, under article 2 and article 1, has the responsibility, the responsibility, Mr. Speaker, to, in fact, engage the United States Congress. Now, I think that a little clarification may need to be made at this juncture because, as I listen to the debate there seems to be quite a bit of confusion. People often talk about the ``War Powers Act.'' Mr. Speaker, there is no such thing as the ``War Powers Act.'' There was a War Powers Resolution that passed that does not have the power and the strength of an enacted law. Similarly, Mr. Kucinich's resolution, which we will be considering and this rule makes in order, is a measure that will not have the force of law. Yes, it is true that it is an H. Con. Res, meaning that it will be considered in the Senate as well, assuming it passes this House, but it does not have the force of law. And no one, Mr. Speaker, should try to make that claim. Similarly, the H. Res. that Mr. Boehner has offered I personally believe is more responsible because the notion of our calling for withdrawal within 2 weeks is something that virtually everyone has said cannot be done. That's why I believe that Mr. Boehner's resolution is a more responsible one than the one offered by my good friend from Ohio. But it, too, does not have the force of law. So, as we proceed with this debate, I think it's very important for us to recognize that the terms that are being used need to be used correctly.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset that I'm particularly glad that you're in the chair because it was a speech that you delivered last September in which you said that we were going to, in fact, if we won the majority, put into place an entire new structure that we had seen under neither political party over the preceding years, that is, the kind of openness, transparency, and accountability that the American people have said overwhelmingly that they want. And so, Mr. Speaker, let me just say to you personally how much I appreciate the stellar leadership that you've provided us on this very important issue. It is extraordinarily ironic that we last night saw the minority members of the Rules Committee actually vote ``no'' on the first open rule to be considered here in the House of Representatives. And yet over the past several months, they've been offering amendment after amendment in the Rules Committee calling for open rules. And so we report one out, and they vote ``no.'' Now, the other thing that I think is very important for us to recognize is that we have important challenges that are ahead of us as it relates to Homeland Security. My colleague managing this rule who, by the way, is one of the two floor managers, neither of whom has been able to see an open rule in the House of Representatives up to this moment, my friend didn't even mention the very important underlying legislation that is before us. The distinguished chair of the Committee on Appropriations, my friend, Mr. Rogers, is here. He and Mr. Aderholt, Mr. Price, and others on that subcommittee have worked very hard to deal with this priority item. Mr. Rogers had served in the leadership on this subcommittee in the past and continues to have a great interest in it. And we should note that as we look at this new procedure that hasn't been considered since, as my friend from Corning said, July 31 of 2007, what we have is a structure whereby Members will have the opportunity to stand up and offer amendments. And I listened to my friend from Providence, our new colleague, Mr. Cicilline, who said that he opposes this bill because of the fact that it makes a cut that he didn't like. Well, Mr. Speaker, as you know very well, under this rule Mr. Cicilline or any other Member of this House will be able to stand up and if they can find offsets, they can have a vote on the amendment addressing their particular priority. I also have to say that in the Rules Committee our good friend from North Carolina (Mr. Price) was before us talking about his concerns. And he asked for a waiver from the Rules Committee, nearly unprecedented, that would have gone beyond the standard definition of an open rule and provided him extraordinary protection for a priority which he thinks needs to be addressed. Well, Mr. Speaker, under this open amendment process, Mr. Price will again be able to offer an amendment that he will be able to, if he can find an offset, have a vote on here in the House. Now I want to talk about this issue that my friend from Boulder addressed just a few moments ago and that we continue to hear over and over and over again. This so-called ``deem and pass.'' This is not, Mr. Speaker, a deem-and-pass provision. I will remind my colleagues on both sides of the aisle we have already passed, with a very rigorous debate here on the House floor, the budget. We've passed it already. Now, so that we are able to move ahead with the important appropriations work with the 302 allocations that need to be done, it is essential that we deem this budget because we have yet to have a conference report. We've yet to see our friends in the other body pass out a budget. And so it is essential that we deem, which has been done since virtually the beginning of time, to make sure that we can proceed with our very important work. Tough decisions need to be made. Under the leadership of Speaker Boehner, we are poised to make those tough decisions. Mr. Speaker, it's important that we have a strong, bipartisan vote for the first of what will be more and more open rules in the 112th Congress. I urge my colleagues to support this. I look forward to sitting where Speaker Boehner is right now to preside over the first appropriation bill that will be considered under an open amendment process, and I look forward to a very rigorous debate.

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, we have before us a hard-fought compromise for a 4-year extension of the Patriot Act. We know that there are two priority items that need to be addressed here: Number one, ensuring that we do not face another terrorist attack against the United States or our interests; and number two--equally important--to preserve the civil liberties and the constitutional protections that the American people have. This compromise does just that. We had a 3-month extension, the House Judiciary Committee, and specifically Mr. Sensenbrenner's subcommittee, had three hearings. We see a bipartisan and bicameral compromise before us, and I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to simply say that this is a hard-fought compromise. This is a 4-year extension. We've had exhaustive hearings on this issue. We need to ensure our security, number one, and we also need to ensure our civil liberties, and I believe that this measure does just that. It passed the Senate by a vote of 72-23. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend from Boulder, Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. All time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 281 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. tomorrow; and further, when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at noon on Tuesday, May 31, 2011, for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I want to join with all of my colleagues in extending best wishes to Father Coughlin for his very, very important service over the past 11 years to this institution and to welcome and congratulate the new Chaplain of the House of Representatives, Father Pat Conroy of Snohomish, Washington, a very distinguished alumnus of Claremont McKenna College in southern California, a man who has had spectacular service and even greater days ahead with the work that he is going to be doing with every Member of this institution.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chair, earlier today, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler, expressed his frustration that the Committee on Rules excluded his two amendments from consideration on the House floor. In order to clarify the record, I submit a May 11, 2011, letter from Mr. Nadler stating that he wished to withdraw the two amendments that he referenced on the House floor. While one of Mr. Nadler's amendments was not germane to the bill it was my intention, prior to Mr. Nadler withdrawing his amendments from consideration, to recommend to the Committee on Rules that it make Mr. Nadler's germane amendment, No. 13, in order for consideration on the House floor. After Mr. Nadler withdrew his amendments, Mr. Grimm (R-NY) and Mr. Reed (R-NY) offered identical text to the amendment No. 13 previously submitted by Mr. Nadler. I would also like to submit for the Record a statement by Mr. Grimm expressing his support for the original Nadler amendment and his request to have this very timely and appropriate debate occur on the House floor. I would like to thank our newest member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Reed of New York, for his work in championing this amendment and expressing the very heartfelt views of so many of all of our constituents across the country. It was for these reasons that the Rules Committee made in order the Grimm-Reed amendment. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, May 11, 2011. Hon. David Dreier, Chairman, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Louise M. Slaughter, Ranking Member, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Dreier and Ranking Member Slaughter: Yesterday I submitted two amendments to H.R. 754, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011. I am writing to withdraw from consideration both amendments, Nadler-Bishop-Slaughter-Owens Amendment #2, NADLER_025.XML, and Nadler-Bishop-Slaughter-Owens Amendment #1,

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by expressing my appreciation to the distinguished vice chairman of the Rules Committee, my friend from Dallas, Mr. Sessions, for his management of this very important rule. And I think it's appropriate that Mr. Sessions is a manager of legislation that enjoys strong bipartisan support because he's always seeking a consensus on issues where we can find areas of agreement. And the fact is, we have been able to see the chairman and the ranking member of the Select Committee on Intelligence work together in a bipartisan way to deal with the very important security and intelligence needs of the United States of America. My new colleague from Corpus Christi has just said, What a great day for America, the day that we were able to see Osama bin Laden captured and killed, brought to justice. And I congratulate President Obama and, of course, all those who were involved. I congratulate President Bush who, from September 11 forward, was determined to bring Osama bin Laden to justice. And I congratulate all of the men and women in uniform, including those who, as of September 11, 2001, became part of the frontline--that being firefighters and law enforcement--right here on our soil because that was the day, for the first time ever, that we faced an attack on our soil. But this legislation, Mr. Speaker, is specifically designed to extend our appreciation and thanks, based on an amendment that we've made in order from our colleague from Staten Island, Mr. Grimm, to those in the intelligence community who have done such a spectacular job in dealing with the challenge of capturing and bringing to justice Osama bin Laden. We are going to have in this bill a number of amendments made in order. I am particularly proud that as we worked with the members of the Intelligence Committee, recognizing that obviously this bill deals with some very, very sensitive items that, frankly, can't be discussed here on the House floor, but with that in mind, we were able to make in order nine amendments that are going to be offered by Members; five amendments that will be offered by Democrats; four amendments offered by Republicans; and, as I said, the amendment that will allow for the longest period of debate to provide an opportunity for the Members of this House to discuss, and I know it will be, again, bipartisan appreciation to those in the intelligence community who have been able to have the success that we've witnessed most recently. So, Mr. Speaker, I think it's a great day for the United States of America to once again demonstrate the global leadership role that we provide not only economically and geopolitically but through our security, intelligence, and military strength. I urge my colleagues to support both this rule, which, again, will allow for free-flowing debate and an opportunity for both parties to participate, and the underlying legislation itself.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking my friend, the newest member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Corning, New York, for a superb job in the way he has comported himself in the management of this rule and for his great service on the Rules Committee. He has literally hit the ground running, and this is the third bill that he's managed, the second rule, on the House floor, and I congratulate him for that. Mr. Speaker, I listened to the comments of my friend from Worcester, and I will say that this measure that's before us is about several things. Number one, job creation and economic growth is something that Democrats and Republicans alike say that they are concerned about; and that happens to be, continues to be, our priority. Creating jobs for the American people who are hurting right now is what this bill is all about and, at the same time, the notion of trying to free ourselves or at least diminish the kind of dependence that we have on foreign oil. I don't personally believe that we ever in this global economy should be completely free of the flow of energy and other sources, but I do believe that we can take steps that will diminish the level of dependence that we have on sources of energy outside of our country. And that's what this measure is designed to do. I also want to touch on the very important question that was raised by my friend about the issue of subsidization by the American taxpayer of the energy industry. And I know that my friend likes to say, well, the Rules Committee can just take care of this in one fell swoop and make this amendment in order. And it was very interesting that our colleague from Boulder said that if it were to be considered under an open rule, he'd like to allow for consideration of a measure that would reduce the top corporate rate as we look at the issue of ending this kind of subsidization. Well, that is a global approach that I believe needs to be looked at by the House Ways and Means Committee, by the Energy and Commerce Committee; and I'm supportive, I'm very supportive, of our doing that. But the idea of saying that we would do what my friend has proposed, actually under the provision that my friend from Boulder said that he'd support up in the Rules Committee, it's a violation of House rules. So the idea here is we need to do what we can to diminish the level of subsidization. I personally have opposed agriculture subsidization. I'm not a proponent of subsidization of private industry. I do think that in the context of having the highest corporate tax rate of any nation in the world now that Japan has actually reduced their corporate rate, we need to look at ways in which we can bring that rate down and deal with closing loopholes. And that's something that President Obama talked about here in his State of the Union message. So I think that if my friend would recognize that we've had opportunities to do this when they were in the majority, and we've been in session for a matter of a few months, and the idea of saying that we haven't addressed it yet on the House floor, I think, doesn't really pass the laugh test because we are right now in the process of looking at overall reform, and it will include dealing with the issue of subsidies. So I agree wholeheartedly with the need for us to step up to the plate and take this issue on. I want to express my appreciation to the distinguished chair of the Natural Resources Committee, our friend Mr. Hastings. Unfortunately, due to an illness, he's not able to be here this week, but I spoke with him yesterday and he's doing a lot better. And he has every degree of confidence, a high level of confidence, that we're going to be able to effectively address this issue of working to drive energy prices down; to diminish the kind of dependence we have on foreign sources of energy; and the very, very important issue of creating jobs here in the United States of America, which continues to be our priority. So I thank my friend for yielding. I encourage my colleagues to support this rule and support the underlying legislation. And I'm happy to say that we've been able to make almost all of the amendments in order that were submitted to us as long as they comply with the rules of the House. The CutGo provision is germane. We've tried to make most of those in order, and it's a new day. We've had more amendments considered here in the first few months of this Congress than we did in the entire last Congress. So I think that this work product that we're going to have before us today is further evidence of that.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by extending congratulations to my good friend from Corning for his stellar management of his first rule on the House floor, and to say that we have managing this two of my favorite Members, including my friend from Boulder who serves on the Rules Committee with such distinction. I have to say that I'm also glad to see that we have Dr. Roe here, who has, over the past couple of years, regaled us in the Rules Committee of the failures of massive, even State, government involvement in health care and the dramatic increase in costs that he's seen in his State of Tennessee because of the so-called TennCare program that has existed there. I know that we are going to look forward to hearing from him later. Let me, at the outset, respond as the author of H. Res. 9 to the comments that my friend from Boulder has just offered, Mr. Speaker. First, I want to say that I believe that the measures before us are all about job creation and economic growth, improving health care and improving education, all three of the things that my friend from Boulder indicated that he doesn't believe that we are successfully addressing here. Second, I have to say that as we looked at the litany of those 13 items included within H. Res. 9, mark my words, the committees of jurisdiction are already working on and focusing on those priority items. I believe that the purchase of health insurance across State lines needs to be a very high priority as we want to ensure that the American people have access to quality health care. We need to make sure that we have pooling to deal with preexisting conditions. That continues to be a bipartisan priority. And, in fact, on the issue of the purchase of insurance across State lines, and obviously on pooling for preexisting conditions, President Obama, even though he opposed it in the measure, has indicated his support of those items. We need to expand medical savings accounts so that people can be incentivized to put dollars aside for the purchase of direct health care needs and/or health insurance. We also need to do what we can to expand something that actually passed the Republican House of Representatives but was killed by our colleagues in the other body 5 years ago, that is, associated health plans that allow for small businessmen and -women to come together and actually get reduced rates as larger corporations and entities have done. And the fifth item that, of course, we heard the President of the United States say in his State of the Union message he supported but, of course, was not included in the measure and that is real, meaningful lawsuit abuse reform because we continue to see the dramatic increase in health care costs because of the number of frivolous lawsuits out there. We have a load of empirical evidence on that, Mr. Speaker. Again, the President of the United States stood here and talked about how important it was to deal with it, and yet we hadn't. Those are five among the 13 items that are addressed in H. Res. 9. And I will tell you that the committees of jurisdiction are today working on that. Why is it that we are here today? Well, we all know that we did pass the repeal measure out of the House of Representatives. We felt very strongly that the need to focus on some of the most flagrant examples of abuse by passing legislation out of this House needs to continue to be a priority, and that's exactly what we're doing today. Now, I don't like the use of the word ``slush fund'' to be thrown around. It makes me a little uncomfortable, I have to admit. But that is a term that has been used by more than a few people to describe the funds that are granted, such funds as may be necessary and open-ended, without congressional oversight to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. And it seems to me that one of the things we need to recognize in a bipartisan way is that enhancing congressional oversight of the executive branch is an institutional issue. We have a responsibility to the American people to make sure that we scrutinize every tax dollar that is being expended, and this legislation is designed to deal with one of the major flaws in the health care bill, that being the granting, without congressional oversight, of such funds as may be necessary. Similarly, if you look at the expansion in every way of expenditures which are not going to do anything to improve the quality of health care in this country, it seems to me that this is the right thing for us to do. Now, procedurally, I know that my friend joins me. I'm not going to ask him to join, as Mr. Dicks has repeatedly in the past in complimenting the work of the Rules Committee, in providing for a process that allows for greater deliberation. But these two items before us are, in fact, making in order every single amendment that was submitted to the Rules Committee that is germane, complies with CutGo, does not waive the rules of the House. We had amendments that were submitted. One of these measures is going to be considered under a modified open rule, meaning that any Member of the House will have an opportunity, assuming that they submit their amendment into the Congressional Record and if it complies with the rules of the House, they will be able to offer their amendment to this measure. We had 13 amendments submitted to the Rules Committee; five were made in order. The other seven did not comply with the rules of the House, whether nongermane or did not comply with the CutGo rule that was put into place at the beginning of this Congress. So what we've done procedurally here under the rule that my friend from Corning, Mr. Reed, is managing is we are, Mr. Speaker, providing for a chance for a free-flowing debate, what Speaker Boehner indicated before the election last year was absolutely essential for us to do. These are commitments that were made to the American people throughout the election process. They sent a very strong message by sending 87 new Members of the House on the Republican side, nine Members on the Democratic side, 96 newly elected Members of the House of Representatives. But their message was to deal with this issue, ensuring that Americans have access to quality health care, but don't expand the Federal Government's involvement in it, and ensure that since we had bills dropped on us in the middle of the night, one very famous one, the cap-and-trade bill, a 300-page amendment given to us that no one had seen at 3 o'clock in the morning as the measure was being reported out, they said, read the bill. They said, make sure that you have a degree of accountability and transparency in your deliberations. I will say, Mr. Speaker, that if you look at what's happened in the last 4 months, we have had, I believe, more amendments considered, more debate. Just take the beginning of our continuing resolution when we had 200 amendments debated here on the House floor, 90 hours of debate, more Member involvement than we had had in the entire 4 years of the last speakership. And so, Mr. Speaker, we, today are on the right track. In a very, very responsible, transparent and open way we are addressing an issue that the American people said they wanted us to address. Our priority with this legislation is to ensure that every American has access to quality, affordable health care. That's something that we want to make happen. I believe that the legislation that is before us today will enhance our chance to do that as we seek to reduce the size, scope, reach and control of this behemoth, our Federal Government, which has a $14 trillion debt. With one of these measures, we're going to be saving $14 billion, a very important step in the direction which both Democrats and Republicans alike say they want us to achieve. I urge support of the rule.