Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. It is my belief that I will have one. The gentleman does understand that the CBO, in order to get it correctly processed, we have not pushed them. They have advised us they would anticipate having a score, they believe, tomorrow evening.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, this morning, the Rules Committee issued announcements outlining the amendment processes for two measures likely to be on the floor next week. An amendment deadline has been set for Monday, March 13 at 3 p.m. for H.R. 1259, the VA Accountability First Act of 2007; and H.R. 1367, to improve the authority of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to hire and retain physicians and other employees. The text of these measures is available on the Rules Committee website. Feel free to contact me or my staff.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, it is a delight for me to join the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck) on a piece of legislation that actually has his name on it, he is responsible for, understands, and is prepared today to fully debate. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Florida, a member of the Rules Committee, for not only coming down to offer his argument against the facts of the case as they reside today on this important piece of legislation, but I also want to acknowledge that I know the frustration. I know there is a lot of frustration. There is a lot of frustration from our colleagues who have lost the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. They are in the middle of what might be called wandering, as they have called it, in the darkness or in the doldrums of being deep in the minority. With that said, there is an agenda that is being laid out before the American people. It happened, Mr. Speaker, directly as a result of what we call an election--an election where all these issues, or most of them that have been discussed by the gentleman, were fully debated not only in a theater near you, but directly in congressional contests, in senatorial contests and the debates for the President of the United States. The facts of the case are really pretty simple. The Republican Party will be talking about all the issues that the gentleman brought up today right before our eyes. Probably on C-SPAN, trying to compete against us, is a hearing in the Energy and Commerce Committee. The gentleman, Greg Walden, the chairman of the committee, over the weekend released the text of the chairman's mark, the ``bill'' of the Republican Party of how we are going to look at health care. It is true that we have Chairman Devin Nunes of the Intelligence Committee looking at the issue that was brought up of Russia. We have forthrightly, over the weekend, said: All right. We are being asked to look at this. Just so you know, media, American people, we are going to do that. We are going to do what you have asked because we believe it is the right thing to do: open hearings, open debate, acknowledgement of the issues, and a certainty that we will go look into it, and we are going to let you know what we find. That is really where we are. This morning, at 8 a.m. in my office, I cohosted with the gentleman from Florida an opportunity for the American Bar Association. We brought in, from across this country--I didn't bring them in; they came into my office from across the country--a number of well-established, thoughtful, and articulate people. We didn't ask: Are you Republican? We didn't ask: Are you Democrat? We said: You represent your organization, and we want to hear from you. This is the kind of leadership that I believe not only myself but also the gentleman, Mr. Hastings, wants to be associated with. We want to be associated with listening to the American people, trying to be thoughtful about what we do and have equal participation. The gentleman knows that at the Rules Committee yesterday we had a very thoughtful person representing the Republican Party. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) came up. We had Mr. Buck, who was able to come and talk about this issue today. In fact, it might be an arcane issue to the American people, but it consumes a lot of time, and it has a deliberative effect on the outcome of important cases in Federal courts and State courts across the country. We feel like it is worthy of an afternoon, an afternoon at the Rules Committee, to fully vet the legislation and an afternoon here on the floor of the House of Representatives. But like any other good majority, we have a lot of other things going on, and we are looking at the Affordable Care Act, how it worked and how we might thoughtfully replace it. We are looking at the issues related to Russia. We are looking at the American Bar Association. Members of Congress are extremely busy, but, Mr. Speaker, I think, with great respect, we should give the author of the bill, Mr. Buck, his time to come and thoughtfully explain why we are doing what we are doing. I am just a dadgum chairman of the committee. I just do the things that I hope are necessary to look at every single item and being fair-- being fair in the ability that people have to come and bring their ideas and trying to be fair in trying to bring them down here. So I want to thank the gentleman for acknowledging this body is busy. This body is engaged in, as we speak, a public, open debate about what direction health care should go. What I would like to offer is my evaluation of where we are going to be. We are going to be at a point where we do not have to scare people about where we have been or why we are going to a place. I am on what is known as ObamaCare. As a Member of Congress, I am legally required to be on ObamaCare for health care. But, Mr. Speaker, it is twice as expensive as what I had before; and it is not working for me, it is not working for my family, and it is not working for a lot of people. So we are trying to look at how we might carefully, thoughtfully, artfully work with the American people, so we put the bill up and let you see it. We don't have to pass it to find out what is in it. We are trying to read the bill and understand it first. Mr. Speaker, it is not a pledge. It is a hope that every single Member of this body will understand what is in the bill before they can respectfully, whether somebody disagrees or agrees with it, explain the bill for what is correct. What is correct about the bill is this: if you like your own doctor, you can keep your own doctor. If you like your own healthcare plan, even if it is ObamaCare, you can do that, too. The Republican Party is open about what we believe. We are trying to be thoughtful with the American people. Mr. Speaker, I believe, with the leadership that we have of Paul Ryan who has attempted to work through a difficult issue, the American people will understand why Republicans not only won the election, but why Republicans have better ideas in health care, too.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, without continuing the dialogue, I would like to at least respond to the gentleman and look right at you, Mr. Speaker, and tell you, in fact, we are going to have a CBO score. We are going to have a CBO score when we have an agreed-upon bill. This is a process that is open. The bill is being proposed. The bill is going to be debated. Then there are going to be votes. For them to presume that they know the score before they know the outcome is not the way the chairman of the committee looks at it. Mr. Walden looks at it that he is going to let the committee vote and come up with a bill, and there are significant changes that could happen one way or another. I think it would be a presumptuous viewpoint to say here is the bill and here is the score, take it or leave it. I know Chairman Walden very well, and Greg Walden is trying to operate off openness and the agreement to look at the bill. When it is finalized, a score will become available. I appreciate the gentleman bringing this issue up.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 156 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule. It is a fair rule that enables thoughts and ideas from both sides of the aisle to be considered on the House floor today. It enables us to proceed with the work that the American people have sent us here to accomplish. It is of great measure of the work that we are doing today. We had an extensive and long committee hearing at the Committee on Rules yesterday with witnesses from both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats, who felt strongly about the issues and ideas that were before them and the ideas which will be presented on the floor of the House of Representatives today, the underpinning of which are entitled to give the American people a better shot at a better life not only from a business perspective, economic development, but also the creation of jobs in the United States of America. Madam Speaker, I also rise in support of the underlying legislation contained in this rule. These bipartisan initiatives will enhance transparency, provide for a check on Federal agencies, and I believe help create a better process in the Federal Government for the people we serve, which are the people of this great Nation. Congress enacted the Administrative Procedure Act in 1946 to ensure that the public had an opportunity to provide expertise, opinions, and other comments during the rulemaking process that takes place in the administration. It was designed to provide guarantees of due process in administrative procedures for self-governing American citizens who have to live under these rules that are promulgated by those unelected and not necessarily known by the American people. The Administrative Procedure Act, known as the APA, as it is commonly referred to, was designed to require agencies to keep the public informed of the information and ideas, procedures, and rules, and to provide a means for public participation in the rulemaking process that would take place here in Washington, D.C. Unfortunately, as is too often the case, Federal bureaucrats over years and previous administrations have exploited the broad language of the Administrative Procedure Act to focus the rulemaking process solely for special interest reasons. Sometimes it is groups, sometimes it is ideas, and sometimes it is against the voices of the average American who wishes to participate in this process. This clearly was not the APA's legislative intent and reflects yet another encroachment on Congress' Article I powers which are enshrined in the United States Constitution. This shift away from the intent of the Administrative Procedure Act, known as the APA, has meant that most agency deliberations are carried out without a record or even a public review of those decisions that are made. Additionally, and possibly more troubling, agencies have undermined the purpose and the spirit of the notice-and-comment process by actively campaigning in support of their ideas using government resources and processes to that advantage. The clearest example of this abuse can be found recently and numerously at the Environmental Protection Agency, known as the EPA. After issuing the waters of the United States notice of proposed rulemaking, the EPA undertook a public campaign utilizing social media platforms to solicit support for what was, at the time, a promulgated rule. Following this abuse, the GAO issued a report finding that the EPA violated propaganda and anti-lobbying provisions concerning the use of their fiscal year 2014 and 2015 appropriations. The Regulatory Integrity Act of 2017 helps ensure transparency in the rulemaking process by prohibiting Federal agencies from anonymously issuing statements for propaganda purposes, in other words, an agency lobbying for itself, its ideas, as opposed to the public comment period, final rulemaking, and then issues and ideas being discussed with and by the people of the country. Specifically, H.R. 1004 requires agencies to make available online information about public communications on pending regulatory actions. Further, H.R. 1004 requires that agencies ``expressly disclose that the Executive agency is the source of the information to the intended recipients.'' Why is this important? This is important because too many times information is provided without the basis of the facts behind it. It is opinion, Mr. Speaker. When members of the public see information that is provided, a source should be behind that information. Further, H.R. 1004 prohibits agencies from ``soliciting support for or promoting . . . pending agency regulatory action.'' A simple concept of transparency and, I believe, professionalism that both sides of the aisle should not only demand, but also welcome from any executive agency, regardless of who is in the White House. It is in the best interest of the American public, and transparency and honesty related to that should be above reproach. Unfortunately, this has also not been the instance, as there are abuses and overreach by Federal agencies and unelected bureaucrats. Presidents of both parties have required a centralized review of regulations since the 1970s. This has largely been handled by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, or OIRA, as it is commonly referred to. Every President since President Ronald Reagan has required a centralized review of regulations at OIRA so that an agency can do cost-benefit analysis of regulatory actions, which means there is a centralized process for the administration to look at what they do. In 1993, President Bill Clinton put into place Executive Order 12866 to designate OIRA as the repository of expertise concerning regulatory issues. The executive order limited OIRA's review of regulations to only significant rules changes, those that have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. This office is responsible for reviewing the regulatory actions at both the proposed and final rulemaking stages. Unfortunately, lately, agencies have blatantly ignored the principles of the executive order from President Clinton, Executive Order 12866, and other governing authorities, including those requiring State, local, and tribal consultation in the rulemaking process have been ignored. According to a policy center at George Mason University, agencies usually satisfy 60 percent or less of the requirements called for in the regulatory analysis, meaning that certain times we have found the executive branch did not even follow the well-known processes that are there to protect the people who they are trying to provide services to. Mr. Speaker, we believe that is partially why we are here today, to clarify and correct these problems. For example, between 2000 and 2013, 98 percent of the Environmental Protection Agency's final rules contained no estimated compliance costs. That means that the agency chose not to follow the process that is prescribed by the executive order. Additionally, the EPA routinely justifies its regulatory activities by claiming benefits from matters unrelated to the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, you can well see why there is consternation not only among people in the United States, but uncertainty with business that is attempting to follow the well- understood rules and regulations and the processes that go therein only to find out that our government chooses not to follow the rules and regulations that they should be following. H.R. 1009 codifies the requirement for OIRA to conduct a review of significant regulations to ensure the regulations are consistent with applicable law and the principles set forth in the executive order. It also establishes new transparency measures such as requiring increased disclosure when extending review time, explanations about regulations that are dropped from the unified agenda, and a redline of changes that agencies make to regulations while it is under review by OIRA. OIRA review is important to provide a double check on agencies to ensure not only compliance with the law, but the well-understood proposals that are made by agencies and the processes that they expect to understand in that process. That is why the main tenets of the underlying legislation have been supported by Presidents in the past, Members of Congress in the past, and even the judiciary that should expect that processes and procedures are followed properly. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a note, if I can, and add into the Record a Statement of Administration Policy that came from one of our former colleagues, now the Director of the OMB, the Honorable Mick Mulvaney. Mr. Mulvaney, in his new duties as the Director of the OMB, provided his first Statement of Administration Policy. It is concerning exactly the act that we are speaking about. I would like to congratulate the young Director of the OMB for his ascension to not only an important role, but helping the United States Congress to clarify for the American people that which is in their best interest. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 998--Searching for and Cutting Regulations that are Unnecessarily Burdensome (SCRUB) Act (Rep. Smith, R-MO, and three cosponsors) H.R. 1004--Regulatory Integrity Act of 2017 (Rep. Walberg, R-MI, and eight cosponsors) H.R. 1009--OIRA Insight, Reform, and Accountability Act (Rep. Mitchell, R-MI, and four cosponsors) The Administration is committed to reducing regulatory burden on all Americans. On January 30, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, which provides for repeal of two regulations for every new one issued. This historic step accelerates the retrospective review process to make common- sense reforms to regulations across the Federal Government. Legislation is helpful where it amends agencies' regulatory processes to ensure they are transparent, and appropriately balance costs and benefits. Each of these bills would address different aspects of the regulatory process. The SCRUB Act, H.R. 998, addresses the numerous outdated, duplicative, and otherwise unnecessary regulations that have accumulated throughout government. The Regulatory Integrity Act of 2017, H.R. 1004, would restrict the use of agency funds to advocate on behalf of regulations, and the OIRA Insight, Reform, and Accountability Act, H.R. 1009, would codify specific executive branch regulatory review procedures. The Administration supports the SCRUB Act, the Regulatory Integrity Act, and the OIRA Insight, Reform, and Accountability Act. The Administration looks forward to working with the Congress on technical and other amendments to these bills. The Administration appreciates the efforts of the Congress to rationalize the regulatory system and looks forward to continuing to work together to reform the regulatory process.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the gentleman's thoughtful observations on this rule and on the bills. I will acknowledge that yesterday at the Rules Committee there was a vigorous discussion--I thought, professional on both sides--where there was an idea about the intent of this bill and what it would, in essence, lay off on the administration, or any administration, in trying to make sure that they complied with the law. I will tell you that our Appropriations chairman, as well as the Appropriations Committee, would be able to deal effectively with this if they believed they needed more money in order to accomplish these efforts. But I think that transparency is an important issue, and I think that our authorizing and appropriating committees will understand that, as they deal with agencies, a better dialogue, whether it be Republican or Democrat in office, needs to be able to deal with Congress, provide us information, provide the American people with information, and be forthright about the decisions that they are going to make. I think that the new Director of the OMB, the Honorable Mick Mulvaney, responded in his advice back--meaning the statement of administrative policy that directly took on this issue--that he looked forward to not only working with Congress on their needs, but also complying with the spirit of the law. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that what we are doing today is providing information to a brand-new administration and saying to a brand-new administration that it is okay if you have your ideas about those issues that you would wish to take up, but you have to be forthright about what you are doing. You have to provide information not only to Congress, but the American people; and when you propose changes or rules, you have to be honest and forthright in doing that. It may be a little bit more money, but this Congress will stand behind this. And I believe that the new Trump administration, at least through my conversations with our new President and the head of OMB, they intend for across the government, across a new administration to attempt to be forthright and direct about what they are doing and why we are doing it. Now, more than ever, whether you are a Republican or Democrat or not--you could be a person back home--you are entitled to try and clarify and ask information. That is what we are doing. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse), a member of the Rules Committee, who served his State honorably as their agriculture commissioner.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, I do not have additional speakers. I would wish to not only close myself, but to present a little bit more information. I would allow the gentleman, if he were prepared to offer his close, I would do the same.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the debate today has been fair and above board. I want to congratulate and thank the gentleman from Colorado not only for his service on the Rules Committee, but his service today in annunciating not just his party's policies and ideas on this, but also his own, as he brings a vast business experience not only to Congress and to the Rules Committee, but to serve the people of his congressional district. However, with that said, Mr. Speaker, I think that this will be overwhelming success on a bipartisan basis today, and the reason why is, because what we are doing is in the best interest of the American people. We are doing this because the American people want and need an opportunity, as they petition their government, to know that they were heard, for their issues and ideas to be seen. And I would think now more than ever, especially if it were a prior administration, we would be accused of trying to jam down their throats something that we saw that was trying to put an undue burden on another administration. But, in fact, we are not. And so the thoughts and ideas today should be--regardless of the administration, regardless whether you completely agree, or somewhat disagree, we would want that government, that agency to be able to operate with the confidence of the American people. And that means that they are not there for their own purposes, or special interests, or for them to skew facts or information that might be provided to the American people, but, in fact, were opinions as opposed to something that was reasonably gained as a result of a scientific fact or information that was based on facts of the case. Mr. Speaker, the regulatory state in this country has grown exponentially and, really, to unprecedented levels. Unelected bureaucrats have exceeded their authority, they are creating regulations, they are negatively impacting the marketplace, which causes a problem for me back home, and Members of Congress back home, as businesses talk about following rules and regulations rather than the marketplace, and trying to add employees and to turn the cash register. Accordingly, the American Action Forum, when totaling all available regulatory costs reported by executive agencies, the Obama administration imposed more than $600 billion in regulatory costs from 2009 to 2014. That is $600 billion worth of regulatory costs imposed on the American people by unelected bureaucrats that have increasingly become unaccountable, not only to economic growth, but also to the American people, and I believe to Congress. Other studies have produced the same conclusion and it is this: that runaway regulations have a disastrous effect on the United States economy, impacting not only job creation, but also the effective opportunity for the free enterprise system to exist. Federal agencies should exist to serve the American people. And as such, they should heed and respect their views and comments, while staying within the parameters of laws passed by lawmakers or ensuring the rulemaking process is transparent and free of propaganda. Mr. Speaker, we appreciate you allowing us time to debate this on behalf of the American people today. This rule and the underlying legislation will provide an important check on the regulatory state that we find exists today in the United States, and to return transparency, responsiveness, and, I believe, honest dignity to the American people that we serve, for this overreaching process. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, this morning the Rules Committee issued announcements outlining the process for amendments for three measures likely to be on the floor next week. An amendment deadline has been set for Monday, March 6, at 3 p.m. for H.R. 725, the Innocent Party Protection Act. And a deadline has been set for Tuesday, March 7, at 10 a.m. for H.R. 720, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act; and H.R. 985, the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act. The text of these measures is available at the Rules Committee website, and feel free to contact me or my staff with any questions.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, the Rules Committee issued an announcement outlining the amendment process for H.R. 428, the Red River Gradient Boundary Survey Act. The amendment deadline has been set for Monday, February 6, at 3 p.m. Amendments should be drafted to the bill as introduced and which can be found on the Rules Committee website. Mr. Speaker, please be advised, if there are any questions, Members may contact me or any member of the Rules Committee staff.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), who sits on the Rules Committee, and Mr. Buck, who is handling, I think, his first rule as a member of the Rules Committee today. Mr. Buck is from Windsor, Colorado. He is a second-term Member and is doing an awesome job not only on his homework duties of recognizing how important it is for Members to understand what we are talking about and why we are doing things, but also enunciation of rules that we are talking about that were promulgated by an administration. Mr. Speaker, what we are really here today to talk about is there are some of those rules and regulations where perhaps you didn't go through the process that you should have or where there was really a determination made by the American people that rulemaking goes too far. That is why we are here today. We are here today because there is a group of rules that were promulgated that don't work and that did not really see, in our opinion, the balance of what was going to be in it for the American people. So, in particular, we are here to talk about a Social Security rule that discriminates against individuals with disabilities by denying them their constitutional rights. The gentleman, Mr. McGovern, spoke very clearly about a meeting that we had at the Rules Committee. I think that the witnesses that we had were very specific and that they questioned--including Mr. Buck, who was most active in his participation in the hearing--to work through the rule that is promulgated but doesn't make sense when you evaluate it. The administration chose to, I think, without due process, take away from a person based upon a disability that had nothing to do with their ability to effectively control a weapon, but based upon other criteria and to take away a person's Second Amendment rights. We oppose that. That is one of the reasons why we are here today. This rule that we are going to take away wrongly discriminates against those receiving disability benefits and, I believe, falsely promulgates a stereotype against individuals with mental illness, calling them dangerous. There are people who do have mental illnesses, there are people who are struggling in life, and there are people who need help and seek help; but that is not a criteria for taking away a person's constitutional right. We are joined in what we believe by the National Council on Disability. This is what they said in a letter that they sent that was dated January 24 of this year: ``There is, simply put, no nexus between the inability to manage money and the ability to safely and responsibly own, possess, or use a firearm. This arbitrary linkage not only unnecessarily and unreasonably deprives individuals with disabilities of a constitutional right, it increases the stigma for those who, due to their disabilities, may need a representative payee. . . . `' So what happened is the rule by the administration linked together these characteristics that they think identify a person as being a risk so they take away their constitutional right. We couldn't really relate to anybody that had done this, but it simply sounded like a good idea, I am sure, to people, and so they did this. Mr. Speaker, we are not trying to right all wrongs at the Rules Committee, but when you take away somebody's constitutional rights and take advantage of a person because of their disability, I don't think that is fair. I am proud of what Mr. Buck is doing here. I am proud that we stood up on this issue, and I am pleased to be on the floor not only to support Mr. Buck, but people who also live in the congressional district that I represent in Dallas, Texas. I have received several calls from people. While I will not say their names, they live in Dallas, Texas; Garland, Texas; Wylie, Texas; and Rowlett, Texas; and they are worried about their ability to lose their constitutional rights simply because they have some help in managing their affairs but not related to a constitutional right of owning a weapon. So I am pleased to do this. There is no grandstanding necessary. There is an understanding of some things that can be written properly and some things that can't, and I simply think they got it wrong, and that is what we are going to do here today. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Buck, for allowing me the chance to speak on this important issue.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts not only, once again, for being here, but for responsibly standing up for his party and the things which they not only have a right to bring to the floor, but an opportunity for him to discuss those things as he chooses to justify the rules that we are going to not only discuss their merits, but to really ensure that the American people understand why we believe that these rules that were promulgated need to be overturned. Mr. Speaker, the second joint resolution that was included in Mr. Buck's rule is a resolution that discusses the Securities and Exchange Commission related to what is called disclosure of payments by resource extraction issuers. My gosh, what does that mean? Well, we understood the previous administration is anti what they call Big Oil. They are after anybody that is in the oil business. You and I both understand that our country and the world is stronger because we don't freeze to death in the winter and we don't get too hot in the summer because we have available energy at a great price. But it means that companies in the United States also go around the world to find other places where they may extract oil or resources related to energy, and the Securities and Exchange Commission published in the Federal Register, on July 27, 2016, a rule that would place American companies--and only American companies--that extract valuable resources--meaning energy--from other places in the world and that they would have to publicly disclose arrangements and deals that they make related to them buying these resources. The Securities and Exchange Commission understands already the rules that are on American companies, including a rule that we know as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which means that an American company cannot go overseas and induce through bribing someone to do something. But now, in order to stop these companies--many of them large companies, many of them medium-sized companies, but their nexus is that they are energy companies--they are going to require in this rule that that company tell everybody, including competitors, what the deal might be that they got. So a private contract that might be between a country, a company, and an American company is now going to see the light of day. Mr. Speaker, I think that is wrong. Fortunately, so does my party. We think that is wrong, because it unnecessarily puts U.S. companies at a competitive disadvantage to many state-owned competitors around the world who are competing, many times, for the same resources. In other words, we just told them what the deal is--how much money, what the arrangement is, how it might be concluded--and that is a violation, in my opinion, of not only the power that the SEC has, but I think it is unwise. I think it is blatantly unwise that we would unearth contracts from the free enterprise system while, at the same time, knowing they have to follow the rules of engagement, meaning the rules under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, at the same time. So, Mr. Speaker, what we are here to say is that we believe that these agencies are trying to harm America's opportunity to go and seek out good deals, better deals, and to find long-term contracts around the globe, wherever they might be, and that they have singled out energy companies, that they have gone out of their way in what was known as the Obama administration to single out energy companies because they don't like energy deals. Mr. Speaker, what has happened as a result of not only this, but legislation that the Congress has done on December 18, 2015, is we changed the Federal law related to the export of U.S. energy. Before, there was a provision, some 40-year-old provision, that did not allow energy from the United States to be sold overseas. Once we did that, it completely turned the market upside down. So what might be deals then and deals now are in the best interest of consumers instead of what might be OPEC or a few other energy-rich countries. We think that what this was done for was to punish those companies that can go find better deals by telling everybody what happened--but it was mostly done to punish--and it put us at a disadvantage. We are here on the second part of this joint resolution to say that the rule that was promulgated on July 27, 2016, is bad for America, is bad for consumers, and most of all, it is bad for America to have rules and regulations that take away the power of a private contract. We stand up and say: What are we going to do about it? We are going to go through the deliberate action that was taken not only at the White House, but was taken on the floor of the House of Representatives so that we have our say in the matter on rules and regulations. Mr. Speaker, I would advise my colleague, Mr. Buck, that there is a person who heard this debate going on and has come to the floor. I don't know if he would choose to yield time to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie), but I have been told that Mr. Massie would like to help me along on some of my comments because of his excitement about what this rule does.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming not only for being on the Committee on Rules, but also today for handling her first rule. Welcome to Congress and welcome to the Committee on Rules. Madam Speaker, the bill that we have before us today is an extension of, really, a bipartisan agreement that we have had for 30-plus years: that we should not have abortions that are paid for by the taxpayer. The bottom line is that this is a very difficult issue, no matter which side you might be on; but I believe that the right thing to do is to say that, based upon the morality and, really, the right thing, that the Federal Government, the taxpayers, should not be engaged in paying for abortions, killing of babies in this country. We believe it is morally wrong, and all we are simply doing today is standing up and saying we are going to extend the same privileges that we have had on a bipartisan basis for 30-plus years not only with the Hyde amendment, but placing that across all pieces, parts of appropriations and bills and things that we do here in Congress. This has absolutely nothing to do with taking away a woman's right to choose. It has nothing to do with dealing with the Supreme Court. It has everything to do with using taxpayer dollars. Yesterday we had a very appropriate and a very timely conversation at the Committee on Rules, and I think both sides handled their arguments and their agreements and disagreements well. It is my hope that we do this here today. But let me say this, that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) came up as an advocate for women, as an advocate for women who are engaged in the scurrilous trading of women and misconduct with women. I think he was seen for what he is. He is a strong advocate for life and for women who need to feel safe in this country. He stood up yesterday as an advocate for saying we should not use taxpayer money to pay for abortions, and that is really what this bill is. I thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming for allowing me to be here.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(2) of rule XI, the Committee on Rules' rules of procedure for the 115th Congress are transmitted herewith. They were adopted on January 4, 2017 by a nonrecord vote. RULE 1.--general provisions (a) The Rules of the House are the rules of the Committee and its subcommittees so far as applicable, except that a motion to recess from day to day, and a motion to dispense with the first reading (in full) of a bill or resolution, if printed copies are available, are non-debatable privileged motions in the Committee. A proposed investigative or oversight report shall be considered as read if it has been available to the members of the Committee for at least 24 hours (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, or legal holidays except when the House is in session on such day). (b) Each subcommittee is a part of the Committee, and is subject to the authority and direction of the Committee and to its rules so far as applicable. (c) The provisions of clause 2 of rule XI of the Rules of the House are incorporated by reference as the rules of the Committee to the extent applicable. (d) The Committee's rules shall be published in the Congressional Record not later than 30 days after the Committee is elected in each odd-numbered year. rule 2.--regular, additional, and special meetings Regular Meetings (a)(1) The Committee shall regularly meet at 5:00 p.m. on the first day on which votes are scheduled of each week when the House is in session. (2) A regular meeting of the Committee may be dispensed with if, in the judgment of the Chair, there is no need for the meeting. (3) Additional regular meetings and hearings of the Committee may be called by the Chair. Notice for Regular Meetings (b) The Chair shall notify in electronic form each member of the Committee of the agenda of each regular meeting of the Committee at least 48 hours before the time of the meeting and shall provide to each member of the Committee, at least 24 hours before the time of each regular meeting: (1) for each bill or resolution scheduled on the agenda for consideration of a rule, a copy of-- (A) the bill or resolution; (B) any committee reports thereon; and (C) any available letter requesting a rule for the bill or resolution; and (2) for each other bill, resolution, report, or other matter on the agenda a copy of-- (A) the bill, resolution, report, or materials relating to the other matter in question; and (B) any report on the bill, resolution, report, or any other matter made by any subcommittee of the Committee. Emergency Meetings (c)(1) The Chair may call an emergency meeting of the Committee at any time on any measure or matter which the Chair determines to be of an emergency nature; provided, however, that the Chair has made an effort to consult the ranking minority member, or, in such member's absence, the next ranking minority party member of the Committee. (2) As soon as possible after calling an emergency meeting of the Committee, the Chair shall notify each member of the Committee of the time and location of the meeting. (3) To the extent feasible, the notice provided under paragraph (2) shall include the agenda for the emergency meeting and copies of available materials which would otherwise have been provided under subsection (b) if the emergency meeting was a regular meeting. Special Meetings (d) Special meetings shall be called and convened as provided in clause 2(c)(2) of rule XI of the Rules of the House. rule 3.--meeting and hearing procedures in general (a)(1) Meetings and hearings of the Committee shall be called to order and presided over by the Chair or, in the Chair's absence, by the member designated by the Chair as the Vice Chair of the Committee, or by the ranking majority member of the Committee present as Acting Chair. (2) Meetings and hearings of the Committee shall be open to the public unless closed in accordance with clause 2(g) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. (3) Any meeting or hearing of the Committee that is open to the public shall be open to coverage by television, radio, and still photography in accordance with the provisions of clause 4 of rule XI of the Rules of the House (which are incorporated by reference as part of these rules). (4) Before a motion to report a rule is offered, a copy of the language recommended shall be furnished to each member of the Committee. Quorum (b)(1) For the purpose of hearing testimony on requests for rules, five members of the Committee shall constitute a quorum. (2) For the purpose of taking testimony and receiving evidence on measures or matters of original jurisdiction before the Committee, three members of the Committee shall constitute a quorum. (3) A majority of the members of the Committee shall constitute a quorum for the purposes of: reporting any measure or matter; authorizing a subpoena; closing a meeting or hearing pursuant to clause 21(g) of rule XI of the Rules of the House (except as provided in clause 2(g)(2)(A) and (B)); or taking any other action. Voting (c)(1) No vote may be conducted on any measure or motion pending before the Committee unless a majority of the members of the Committee is actually present for such purpose. (2) A record vote of the Committee shall be provided on any question before the Committee upon the request of any member. (3) No vote by any member of the Committee on any measure or matter may be cast by proxy. (4) A record of the vote of each member of the Committee on each record vote on any measure or matter before the Committee shall be made publicly available in electronic form within 48 hours, and with respect to any record vote on any motion to amend or report, shall be included in the report of the Committee showing the total number of votes cast for and against and the names of those members voting for and against. Hearing Procedures (d)(1) With regard to hearings on matters of original jurisdiction, to the greatest extent practicable: (A) each witness who is to appear before the Committee shall file with the Committee at least 24 hours in advance of the appearance a statement of proposed testimony in written and electronic form and shall limit the oral presentation to the Committee to a brief summary thereof; and (B) In the case of a witness appearing in a nongovernmental capacity, a written statement of proposed testimony shall include a curriculum vitae and a disclosure of any Federal grants or contracts, or contracts or payments originating with a foreign government, received during the current calendar year or either of the two previous calendar years by the witness or by an entity represented by the witness and related to the subject matter of the hearing. (C) The disclosure referred to in subdivision (B) shall include-- (i) the amount and country of origin of any payment or contract related to the subject matter of the hearing originating with a foreign government. (ii) the amount and country of origin of any payment or contract related to the subject matter of the hearing originating with a foreign government. (D) Such statements, with appropriate redactions to protect the privacy or security of the witness, shall be made publicly available in electronic form not later than one day after the witness appears. (2) The five-minute rule shall be observed in the interrogation of each witness before the Committee until each member of the Committee has had an opportunity to question the witness. (3) The provisions of clause 2(k) of rule XI of the Rules of the House shall apply to any hearing conducted by the Committee. Subpoenas and Oaths (e)(1) Pursuant to clause 2(m) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, a subpoena may be authorized and issued by the Committee or a subcommittee in the conduct of any investigation or series of investigations or activities, only when authorized by a majority of the members voting, a majority being present. (2) The Chair may authorize and issue subpoenas under such clause during any period in which the House has adjourned for a period of longer than three days. (3) Authorized subpoenas shall be signed by the Chair or by any member designated by the Committee, and may be served by any person designated by the Chair or such member. (4) The Chair, or any member of the Committee designated by the Chair, may administer oaths to witnesses before the Committee.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, tonight I rise in support of describing to each of my colleagues some important attributes of a big issue that we are all working on, and that is about health care. I rise today to talk about not just the current state of health care, but also a direction about where this body has an opportunity and a chance to go to make America's healthcare system even better so that it is the greatest healthcare system in the world. President Obama signed what is known as ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act, into law on March 23, 2010. This was an attempt then by the President and his party, receiving no votes from the Republicans in the House or the Senate, to offer a brand-new vision to the American people of their idea of health care. It took several years for the American people really to comprehend and understand this undertaking, but we are now in the sixth year of ObamaCare, and it has turned out that it not only is not sustainable, but it has provided millions of people who have lost coverage, higher premiums. It is not uncommon to see where some healthcare providers are raising their rates by 60 percent, and in 2013 alone, 4.7 million Americans had their preferred healthcare system canceled. So the plan began with the high accolades of President Obama and Democrats, only to see, in its sixth year, it has become a concrete life preserver to many who are not only on the plan, but those who would wish to have their own healthcare coverage and cannot because of this law. Tonight what I would like to describe to my colleagues is a chance for them to begin understanding that the American people have elected Donald J. Trump, Republicans, back into the majority, and Republicans back again into the majority in the United States Senate. This was done because there were a number of ideas that were made well aware to the voting public that Republicans would have an answer not only to repeal, but to replace the Affordable Care Act. Republicans, in fact, now that we are in our second or third week of being in the majority, with President Trump taking office last Friday, Republicans have begun working not only with themselves, but with this administration on ideas that will make the replacement of ObamaCare even better for each and every person in this country. The ability to make this transition, I believe, will require a deliberate and disciplined approach by Members of Congress and the American people for us to listen to each other, for, you see, Republicans do have better ideas to fix health care for all Americans. The basis of the understanding about where Republicans will come from, I believe, is embodied in the law as it exists today. In 1943, employer-sponsored insurance exemption was given. It was during World War II. It was at a time when there were wages that were frozen but opportunities for benefits to be given to employees that would not be taxed. And so back in 1942, this benefits system arose. Sure, it became an opportunity as a result of being employed. It became an employer benefit. And that is what has taken place today with about 150 million Americans who receive the benefits of pretax contributions not only by their employer, but also by the employee to their healthcare system. Well, just last December, under the 21st Century Cures Act, Congress made a new change, updating, allowing more people in the system, this time small business, allowing small business the opportunity to deduct up to $4,500 per employee, a chance for them to receive their health care on a pretax basis. What this has established now is a different, unfair system that Mr. Trump was speaking about when he was on the campaign trail. He referred to it as a rigged system. Now, he was not just speaking about the healthcare system. He actually was speaking about much of the way America operates, systems that are not fair for the average American not only to have a shot at making their life better, but in this case, a healthcare system where about 150 million Americans get their health care on a pretax basis and others do not. This is the basis of where I believe Republicans have an opportunity to help make the tax advantage for all Americans available. So the question is: Who is insured and who is uninsured? Well, we can go to the chart that we see here. About 49 percent of all the people in this country who are insured, health care would be provided by an employer, meaning that an employer most likely is able to offer, as a benefit, a healthcare package on a pretax basis, and the employee is able to receive that, allowing them to make their own contributions on a pretax basis. As an example, as a Member of Congress, I have this opportunity. My employer, being in the House of Representatives, provides about 70 percent, which is standard for the operations of almost any business in this country, 70 percent, and the employee would provide 30 percent. In this case, I provide the premiums of about $13,000 for my health care. Then I have a $3,600 deduction under my ObamaCare health insurance that I receive. I am required by law, as a result of being a Member of Congress, to receive, to buy into health care that would be ObamaCare, and then I have a $3,600 deductible that is a pretax contribution. So I make about a $17,000 contribution to my health care every year. Not unusual for employer-provided contributions on a pretax basis. Medicaid is about 20 percent of all the people who are insured, and then, as you see here, Medicare is about 14 percent. As you look at Medicaid, Medicaid is what is commonly known as insurance for those people who are at or below the poverty level to gain coverage. But it comes with strict requirements. Many of those requirements work against the opportunity to go and get a job for fear that they will lose their contribution that comes from the government because they might not have an opportunity to receive other help. Then, as you see, we have got exchanges, and those that just buy their own insurance. And then about 9 percent, or about 30 million Americans, are uninsured. This is the current status of where we are in America today. When I say these things to people back in Dallas, Texas, I receive a lot of feedback, and one of them that I have selected comes from a man who is self-employed. He falls under the what might be off exchange, meaning he pays for his own health care without it being on a pretax basis. He said: I am being penalized for being an entrepreneur-- penalized. This is true of the 20 percent who are on Medicaid. They are in a system that essentially keeps them there and keeps them from going to gain the opportunity to receive full-time employment because it might not be an employment that provides health care. So Republicans have a daunting challenge. We have a challenge to understand that there are about 12 to 20 million people who presently are on ObamaCare, including Members of Congress, and it is a very expensive--not only to the country, but also to individuals--insurance plan. The biggest problem with ObamaCare is not its expense. The problem is that people are not on the system, as we were told would happen. We were told there would be upwards of 40 million people, providing an opportunity for more people to pay into the system, to sustain the system, and for it to be, what I would say, structured in such a way to where it had young people, middle-aged people, and perhaps older people up to Medicare age who would be paying in or be a part of a system--and it didn't work that way. Younger people are not in ObamaCare because it is tremendously expensive, and they have found that to meet their deductible, it takes thousands and thousands of dollars. It does not meet their needs. It does not meet my needs with my family. It would not be a preferred healthcare choice that I or my family would make. So we now have a choice, a chance as a result of the American people saying: Okay, Republicans, let's see what you can do. Bring us your ideas to make health care better. Here is one of the facts that we know. We know that of the family working status of uninsured, 74 percent of people who are uninsured go to work. Now, this is a staggering fact because we were told by President Obama and Democrats that they were going to make sure that people got health care, the working poor, as we were told, people who needed coverage. But, in fact, 74 percent of 30 million people get up and go to work. What we find is that they have lost, many times, their full-time status because of ObamaCare rules and regulations, mandates on employers to where employers cut their full-time status to part-time workers. Because we have so many part-time workers, they cannot afford to get the payments that are necessary, even though they were above the Medicaid line. So Republicans now have a choice to be able to say, if we are going to outthink ObamaCare, if we are going to make sure that we believe--as President Trump has said just in the last few weeks and on the trail as he was running, he believes we should have a system that is not rigged. We should have a system that helps cover every single American and creates an opportunity that is sustainable and does not mean that we have 60 percent or even double-digit increases every year in health care because of the inequities that exist in the system. This is the system that exists today. So what might be one of those options or alternatives? One of those options or alternatives might be a bill that I have worked on for 2 years, with over 500 physicians from across this country, known as the National Physicians' Council for Healthcare Policy. The National Physicians' Council for Healthcare Policy has formally met with hundreds of doctors nine times. They are co-chaired by Dr. Marcy S. Zwelling from Los Angeles, California, and Dr. John T. Gill from Dallas, Texas. We have worked diligently with economists also to put together a plan that matches what President Trump is speaking about, but probably has not had time to fill in all of the rest of the activities. This is what I would like to tell you. We believe that we should first allow every single American to be a part of a pre-tax credit, an advanceable credit that can be given to every single American to allow them to buy into a nongovernment healthcare system. That means, yes, people who are on Medicaid today can receive their health care and go out and get a job without fear of losing their healthcare coverage. It means that you no longer would have to go to the Federal Government and the IRS and to tell them how much work or how much money you think you will do this next year, and if you guess wrong, to pay differently. It creates a well-understood system, and can be done for the same amount of money that is presently in the system today. It means that a person, a family, would be able to, effective this next November, go online and go to a database and fill it in. I am from Dallas, Texas. I would put my name in, I would put my wife's name, our social security numbers, and our children, and it would allow this pre- tax credit that is advanceable, assignable, and refundable, not coming to me, but going to a healthcare plan that I could then purchase. I could co-purchase, I could put my own money in on a pre-tax basis. But what it would mean to me, Pete Sessions, is that I would be out of ObamaCare. I would choose to be in what is called a health savings account, an HSA. A health savings account requires that you have a major medical component with any coverage that you get. What is major medical? Major medical is hospitalization, the chance, the risk that you would have of needing hospitalization. It could be a car wreck, it could be cancer, it could be something really unexpected. But I would then purchase this major medical policy that is well known in the marketplace today, and then have a choice of deciding the type of coverage where I would pay the first $5,000 that is required. And then after that, based upon the risk that I would choose. If I were younger, I would choose probably a plan that would be 90/ 10. That means that I would pay 10 percent beyond what happened after I paid my $5,000. Perhaps I couldn't afford that and would want to move to a 70/30 where I accept more of the risk. The other component that I would then choose is a health savings account. That is I would take the $17,000 that I contribute to my health care every year, cash, and I would take that to a pre-tax cash account that would be available for me to go to the doctor. Instead of showing up with a card, I would shop the doctor that I choose, only buying the things that I and my family needed, choosing my doctor, and asking my doctor and the marketplace what services would be available for a cash price. Generally speaking, cash prices are about 18 percent less. Because a doctor would receive that money directly in, rather than having to file a claim, or wait time to get back their money. It would allow my family a chance to receive virtually an 18 percent opportunity upfront savings. It would allow me to manage the things which I needed to and not worry about paying for the things I didn't use. It would save my local doctor, who would then look at me as a preferred customer as opposed to me shopping around, perhaps with others in the marketplace, based upon a model of ObamaCare, which today you can't always count on who your doctor would be. A far better idea. Every single American that would qualify would receive this opportunity, but not required. Now, how do we make it better, because there is more? We would, under every single one of these circumstances, take away the mandate on an individual and the mandate on the business. We would do away with the Cadillac tax, because I don't think health care should be taxed. I think everybody should have an opportunity, and the world's greatest healthcare plan would allow that. Every single person would have a chance to have their health care provided, just as I have mine, too. So what I want to say to the Members today is Republicans are going to be sharing ideas. We are going to be presenting our ideas at the Energy and Commerce Committee, at the Ways and Means Committee, and we believe we have an opportunity under three scenarios to make sure that health care is available and ready for every single American. First, we need to establish a Republican alternative that can be implemented this year. Not waiting. Our better idea is ready in a bill ready to go. Would we do hearings? Yes. Would we want to scrub that and maybe add some things? Yes. We should be ready to do it and make the transition this year. We should use reconciliation to repeal the most onerous parts of mandates. Yes, we should. And I believe we are doing that. Should we make sure that we replace before we repeal? Absolutely. And we should allow HHS, under what is today becoming Dr. Tom Price, a proud Member of this body, a chairman of the Budget Committee, who is in hearings over in the Senate to be the secretary of Health and Human Services, he should use everything that is available in law today to manage a system and to make it better. But my bet is that he will count on real people, not government, to make these decisions. And in doing so, he will empower a better opportunity. So what Republicans want to do is to establish a tax benefit system while allowing a continuation of an employer-sponsored system. Those people that are on a system today that is provided by your employer, that would continue. But we would do away with the mandates on the individual and the business and the Cadillac tax. And we would encourage each of these companies to continue that system and work with their employees on a benefit system to make it better. We would make HSAs available to every single person, not just Members of Congress, to where they would have an opportunity to have a system that would help their health care and their families and not be use it or lose it. It would make no sense that I would have to spend $43,000 a year simply to start over next year when I could actually benefit from saving and being efficient with my money. Maybe I am 30 years old and want to save for the future. Maybe I am 50 and cannot save, but I would roll over the system and make it work for me. It will allow private physicians to endure. And what this does is empowers the private physician. But there is more. And that is we will also keep--I believe we should, and the world's greatest healthcare system would, keep what are known as consumer protections that today exist in law: dependent coverage through age 26, no lifetime or annual limits, modified guaranteed availability and renewability, prohibition on preexisting condition exclusions, prohibition on discrimination based on your health status, and nondiscrimination in healthcare coverage. I would like to tell the Members that back in Dallas, Texas, I am proud to also represent the disability community. I believe I can look at every single person back in Dallas, Texas, in the 32nd Congressional District of Texas, and say this: If you like your health care, you can keep it. If you like your own doctor, you can keep your own doctor. But, more importantly, I believe that we will give equal to or better than opportunities for every single American. We will end the discriminatory services that ObamaCare is today. Because virtually every single doctor and virtually every single hospital will begin taking coverage, where today only about 24 percent of doctors take ObamaCare because it does not reimburse properly. And hospitals all over Dallas that do not take ObamaCare, leading edge hospitals in Dallas, Texas, and across this country, will begin taking this new health care because it reimburses based upon actual cost and marketplace availability. So to my colleagues who want to go back home and talk to their constituents about Republican ideas, I don't know which one we will end up with. What I do know is that Senator Bill Cassidy and I have worked with hundreds of physicians for 2 years, and we have a bill, the world's greatest healthcare plan. The world's greatest healthcare plan is a bill that you can understand that is guaranteed to provide people a better opportunity without guessing about their healthcare coverage, and it is not use it or lose it. So it is my hope that my colleagues that saw this this evening and took part in this will understand that there is an opportunity to go back home and sell the world's greatest healthcare plan for their people back home, too. I thank my colleagues for being here tonight. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, tonight, what I would like to do is engage the American people on several subjects. I will be speaking for quite a bit of time tonight on the health care issue facing America. Mr. Speaker, before I get there, I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry), a very dear friend of mine. Windswept Plains of Nebraska

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry) not only for taking time today to discuss the important things that he has on his mind, but also for sharing with the American people his ideas about where our country is and where we are headed with the new Presidency, a new Senate, and a new House of Representatives. Tonight, Mr. Speaker, I rise to talk about the current state of our Nation's healthcare system. Mr. Speaker, tonight I am given this time as a result of the majority leader, Mr. McCarthy. He has given me time to talk about an important issue that faces not only our country, but also elected Members of the House of Representatives and the United States Senate and the President of the United States, our new President, President Trump. As each of us is aware, the issue of health care is one of the most important issues that has been faced in our Nation for many years. Back in 2009, President Obama began the search that he talked about for what was called an Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act seemed to be a promise to make health care better. It seemed to be a word, in the words of the President, an Affordable Care Act that would help all Americans to receive health care on a fair basis and one that would be sustainable. The President stood before this body several times and talked about his ideas about health care. It took about a year, maybe a little bit more, for the Democratic Congress to work through this issue. On or about March 21 or 22, 2010, a bill popped out of the United States Senate, came to the House of Representatives, and we handled the matter here up in the Rules Committee, brought it to the floor, passed it with debate, no opposition--no opposition, meaning Republicans were not allowed to present an alternative case, a bill. It was a closed rule. And the Democrats passed it and went to the White House the next day, March 23, 2010, and signed the bill. The American people had grave reservations about that, but what happened is that it took several years in which they were working through this process. We did not know exactly what would happen; but, almost immediately, hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of spending would take place and taxes would take place. What the President did and what the Democrat Party did is they tied health care directly to employers and put mandates on top of employers and mandates on top of individuals with the belief that individuals would be forced into taking what was then ObamaCare--health care--under the Affordable Care Act. What has happened over the years, including as we stand today, is that only some 12 to 20 million people are on ObamaCare at any one time. That is because the system that was devised and run by the Affordable Care Act is a system that does not work well. It is very expensive. It provides limited benefits. And perhaps worst of all, the promise that it would make health care available and better for poorer people never materialized as they sold it. In fact, healthcare providers are reimbursed 50 percent less than from normal insurance; meaning that, while you may have some bit of coverage, the people who would accept that health care are hard to find. It is true that many times you could find someone who is a GP-- someone who is a family physician, someone who is an internist who might take what is known as ObamaCare--but if he found something that might be wrong or needed to refer that individual, it was very difficult to do. In my hometown of Dallas, Texas, major hospitals do not take what is known as ObamaCare under the Affordable Care Act, and it is because of this problem that it is a false promise for the people who are on it. Members of Congress are legally required to be on ObamaCare if we accept the health care from our providers, but President Obama did not ask anyone else in government to fall under the same opportunities that we would have as Members of Congress. Over the years, it became a festering point--a sore--among not only those who were paying the costs, but also those who were on it saw it as a concrete life preserver, one that did not live up to its billing. Repeatedly, businesses would come to the House of Representatives--to Members of Congress--and say to us: This law is not only not working, it is causing us to make full-time employees become part-time employees because we cannot either pay or do not want to or do not have the ability to follow all of the requirements of the law. We here in America saw not only dwindling opportunities for employment, but we also saw the skyrocketing cost--from taxes, from behavior that did not help health care. So Republicans, yes, and the American people began talking about some way that we could isolate health care to where we would have our friends who were Democrats want to accept one of these opportunities to fix this broken system. Over the years, Republicans offered some 60 different alternative votes-- piece parts, rifle shots--that said we want to fix ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act. We picked 60 different things about the bill that were either incomplete, that did not live up to the billing, that caused bad behavior, or that simply were tremendously anticompetitive in their nature. It was a lonely few years. As the chairman of the House Rules Committee, day after day, we would seek opportunities for our colleagues to come join us to present their ideas, and they not only disagreed with us, but they chastised us. We kept going. We kept offering alternatives to a healthcare system that was not working. Mr. Speaker, what happened is the American people soon saw, as we came close to another election, that we were going to have to ask the American people to be a part of the solution. We had tried in Washington, D.C. We had over 60 votes and we had made it a regular part of our discussion. Republicans, each time, had better ideas, better alternatives--ways to take 60 different pieces and trade them out so that we could better this terrible law that was not working. Then came the election. With the election, one of the most key and cleanest issues that was discussed was not only the repeal of ObamaCare, but the promise that Republicans would replace it also. For the past 4 or 5 years, Republicans have had a talking point that we want to repeal and to replace the healthcare system that was known as ObamaCare. Mr. Speaker, that is why I am here tonight--to talk about Republican ideas that we think are better for health care and ideas that we think will work not only in a marketplace, but that will be able to be used by a vast number of people here in America. It will not be something that is use it or lose it, as health care many times is. It will be sustainable. Perhaps, more importantly, there will be the ability for families to get what they want and to not have to pay for what they do not need. It passed on March 21 by a vote of 219-212. No Republican supported the Affordable Care Act, but every Republican understands that health care is important to families. It is important that a family takes the responsibility and tries to cover its family. Tonight, as I speak with you about where we are in health care, I want to include the words that come from Dallas, Texas--my home--of the families whom I have gotten to know and of the families who have communicated with me, because, as their Member of Congress, I am expected not only to listen, but to try and work for their betterment. I am probably no different than hundreds of other Members of Congress who come to Washington every week with a message. This is from Julie Ross of Dallas, Texas, with her two beautiful children. This is a very high-level conversation in which she says: Now that my daughter is at home and thriving--who was in the hospital--we depend upon these protections to provide health care for her complex healthcare needs. ObamaCare did not meet those needs; but as a Member of Congress, if I am going to talk about repealing, I need to also, forthrightly, talk about replacing what is a bad healthcare law with a better healthcare alternative. Republicans have better ideas to fix health care, and I am going to speak about these. The first thing I would like to speak about is the reality that about 150 million Americans have an opportunity to receive their health care on a pretax basis. That means that our employers and our employees who work for large companies have a chance to get their health care without paying for it on an after-tax basis. I pay about $13,000 myself out of pocket for my health care. My employer pays essentially what is a 70-30 split, but that entire amount is on a pretax basis. The 1943 employer- sponsored insurance exemption and the 21st Century Cures, which we just passed this last December, allow businesses an opportunity to provide their employees with pretax health insurance. Pretax health insurance means that they are able to deduct the contributions that they make for their employees, and employees are allowed to receive this as a benefit. However, this, I believe, is part of what we have known for a long time as being an unfair, rigged system. It is a system that says, if you work for one of these larger companies, you will get that tax advantage; but if you do not--if you are self-employed, if you are an entrepreneur, if you are a 941-type employee, meaning perhaps you are a real estate agent who is self-employed or perhaps you work for a small company--then you are not offered this pretax opportunity. It is probably true that you could deduct that amount next April. As you pay your taxes, you would file if you qualified based upon the amount of money that you spent. Mr. Speaker, this right here is the disadvantage for about 100 million Americans. They do not receive what 150 million other Americans do, and that is to get their health care on a pretax basis. I have worked now for some 2 years with some 500 physicians who are across the country. We have worked on a system that would allow every single American not only to have better health care, but to have an opportunity to participate on a fair basis. The gentleman from Lubbock, Texas (Mr. Arrington) will participate with me tonight and will speak about how important this is for him.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington), one of our brand new freshman from Lubbock, Texas. Jodey not only comes from the high plains of Lubbock, a young man who has given great service to the State of Texas, but he also comes as our newest member from the Texas delegation who stands not only with the principles of that district, but with the principle of caring about other people. I thank the gentleman for letting his voice be heard about what will be a bill that will be before the House of Representatives tomorrow. Mr. Speaker, continuing our discussion about health care and Republican ideas. Back in 2013, some 4.7 million Americans that had their own health care were knocked off that health care because it didn't qualify in the way that President Obama and Democrats wanted to have a comprehensive healthcare plan. So it knocked off 4.7 million Americans, and what it did is it placed America into a circumstance where we began looking for options and alternatives about how we would insure the uninsured. We were told: Just watch and wait. This Affordable Care Act is going to make sure that it takes every single American and gives them an affordable healthcare plan. Here is what happened, Mr. Speaker. We found out that we still have some 30 million people in this country--now in the sixth year of ObamaCare--that do not have coverage. We have learned that about 49 percent of those who are insured work for employers, about 20 percent of the marketplace is Medicaid, about 14 percent is Medicare, but we still have some 9 percent who were uninsured. We then find out that what happened is that the Federal Government decided that insurance was not working, so we had coops that were invented out of the Affordable Care Act. Seventeen out of the 23 coops have now gone into bankruptcy. They could not provide the services that the Affordable Care Act was just so sure, with government-run programs, would work; and they wiped out almost unilaterally every single insurance plan where they came in. I don't know if it was just because they undercut them, but what they did is provided a false indicator for people. Well, the Federal Government is here. Barack Obama and Democrats now have a healthcare plan for every single American. Only a few short years later, they are gone. They are gone from the marketplace after wiping out the insurance that was there. Perhaps worst of all, as they left, there was a requirement by the Obama administration that somebody had to come and renew insurance, even late in the year, or they would receive a $2,000 penalty because they did not have insurance at the end of the year. Mr. Speaker, this is what the insured and the uninsured look like. A gentleman from Dallas, Texas, Kennis Ketchum told us: I am being penalized for being an entrepreneur. I am in here, and I want to be in here. I want to be able to go and to allow myself to be in insurance, but I cannot afford it because I do not have the tax advantage. So Republicans finally have the chance for our ideas that we believe are bigger and better. We have a chance to do, I think, what we have wanted to do for a long time; and that is to repeal the Affordable Care Act, but with the promise that we need to make sure that we replace it with something better. What does this mean? Well, I will tell you what it means, Mr. Speaker. What it means is that Republicans are going to understand that a simple plan that can be paid for literally with the existing dollars that are in health care today and authorized by law--some $1.2 trillion that exists in law and authorized today--can be utilized for a healthcare system to take care of each and every American. I would like to describe that. First of all, it is important for us to understand that of the uninsured in this country, 74 percent work. That means that people that are no different than me and you, Mr. Speaker, get up and go to work to the best of their ability. It might be that they don't have all the advantages of education that I have. It could be that they have something in their life that might be an impediment. It could be some sort of perhaps what might be a difference or a disability. I understand this. I have a son that has Down syndrome. Alex is not really capable of taking care of himself, so he is not necessarily one of these that would qualify for what we know as the alternative to ObamaCare. There are millions who do need the help, who do want and need insurance and not insurance that is like the Affordable Care Act because we know that reimburses at 50 percent less than insurance, some 25 percent less than Medicaid, a plan that limits the number of physicians and healthcare professionals that a person can see. No. The American people need something that they can count on. They need something that is better, that provides better reimbursement to where virtually every hospital would take their plan instead of a few, where four times as many doctors would take their plan, their insurance as opposed to them being on ObamaCare. These people who want and seek health care need a plan that is worthy of the representation that would be given to them, and that is the Republican idea. So Republicans have a chance, an opportunity. Just one of the ideas is to allow the healthcare tax benefits to be consistent with those of every American who works for a large company. You see, there are two ways to look at this. One might be a high standard deduction that an employee or a person would be able to take and buy health insurance and, next April, be able to write that off, so to speak, as a pretax deduction. You know the problem with that and so do I. Seventy-four percent of the people who are uninsured do not have the money to buy health care. Seventy-four percent of the people who are uninsured might not have enough money to be able to go buy insurance and wait all year long to get back their money next April when they file their taxes. So one of the ideas that I have--and I shared this plan with Senator Bill Cassidy from Louisiana--is that what we would like to do is to provide a $2,500 tax credit for adults and a $1,500 tax credit for dependent children that would be advanceable, assignable, and refundable. What would this mean? This would mean that this year every single American that did not receive the tax advantage--the tax advantage like I receive and some 150 million Americans receive by getting their health care on a pretax basis--would have an opportunity to go online. They would be able to go online and look at the insurance in their area, and they would be able to receive this benefit, this tax advantage. It would not ever come to them. It would go directly to their insurance program. They would be able to take, for a family of four, some $8,000. They would be able to use this first $8,000--the exact same tax advantage that Pete Sessions and 150 million other Americans get--January 1st of next year and to assign this $8,000 to their healthcare plan. They could decide they wanted more, and they would be able to do that on a pretax basis also up to $5,000. They could decide that they would like perhaps to get a plan that would be at their local hospital. That is fine. They could decide that they would like to have what is called a health savings account, an HSA, which, more generally, is an opportunity for them to control their costs. This is very attractive for young people and advantageous for young people because they would be able to control their costs and roll these advantages or savings over year after year after year as opposed to losing what they had saved or, at the beginning of the year, starting back over. Republicans have an opportunity to make things fair. I think this is what President Trump talked about when he was candidate Trump. I think he talked about a rigged system. When you have a system where 150 million Americans get a tax advantage and you don't, you would describe that as a rigged system. So Republicans, at least one of the proposals that is out there-- because it is Senator Cassidy's and mine, known as the World's Greatest Healthcare Plan--employs an opportunity where up front we allow every single American to have health care January 1 that is superior in nature to whatever they had with ObamaCare. It allows the purchase of a nongovernment plan and it allows each individual, if they choose, to go to a health savings account. What is a health savings account? A health savings account is a well-known product whereby a family would be able to get what is called major medical coverage. They actually, as part of their plan, would make sure that, if they were in the hospital or a member of their family was in the hospital, they would have to cover the first $5,000, but that the insurance plan then that they could find about affording out of this $8,000 for a family of four would give them a chance then to have either a 90/10, 80/20, or 70/30 contribution. Meaning they could decide what they wanted to afford based upon their age, based upon their risk, based upon their own circumstances. But they, as a consumer, would be able to make sure that they are taken care of if they go in the hospital. Then that contribution, to the level that they would choose--either they would pay 30 percent or 20 percent or 10 percent for expenses past $10,000--gave them the coverage that they need in the marketplace. Maybe it is a baby. Maybe it is major surgery. Maybe it is cancer. But they would receive hospital coverage. Then with the remaining amount of money, they could then put that into a health savings account and use cash for their doctor's visits. Cash is king. Cash is also the most economical way to get your health care because you go and actually, instead of negotiating with a doctor or looking at what your insurance company negotiated, you negotiate paying that person today instead of the doctor having to file insurance and go through the necessary elements to receive their money back. You go to the doctor you choose. You pay for what you want. You pay for those things that you have made a decision, and you pay out of your cash account. It is the most leading edge, fastest way to get health care in America, and, generally speaking, it is 18 percent cheaper. Mr. Speaker, these are but one of the ideas that Republicans bring to the table. And it is why I can stand up, as chairman of the Rules Committee, when my colleagues say: oh, you are going to take away something that people had with the Affordable Care Act. And I say: you know, I think we have got a better way to look at it. Instead of only some 27 out of 100 doctors being available to you as a patient, I would like to double or quadruple that. I would like for you to be able to make your own decisions, and, in the long run, you will be better. But there is more to the story. And the more to the story is, what this will do is allow a robust marketplace where, instead of forcing people to go into a system and then penalizing them, we encourage people to go into a system and encourage them to be not only consumers, and not only to take care of themselves, but to help everybody out because it helps the curve. It helps people get in of all ages, of all needs, of all types back into the marketplace automatically January 1st. Didn't have to guess at how much money they were going to make; didn't have to worry about whether they got laid off; didn't have to go check with the IRS; didn't have to ask Uncle Sam. We are automatically giving the tax advantage by virtue of them being American and us doing the right thing off the existing money that exists in ObamaCare and health care today. Mr. Speaker, that is a better idea. That is a better opportunity for us, as Republicans, to go back home, and, no matter who we want to look at, we can say: we get it. We do get that you want and need health care, that we want and need America to have the greatest healthcare system in the world, but we need to make sure we can pay for it. And it should not restrict business. It should not come and tell a business or a group of people what they will--how they will tie themselves together with their health care and their job that makes absolutely no sense. I know we were told that is the way it would happen, but it did not. It became a concrete life preserver for employees, employers, and for the marketplace. So, Mr. Speaker, this health insurance tax advantage is but one of the ideas that is available to the American people and to the Republican Party as part of the world's greatest healthcare system. I believe that we need a very disciplined approach. I believe that we need to be thoughtful. I believe that we need every single Member of Congress to understand what kind of healthcare system America deserves, not only for the physicians and the hospitals back home but for the real live people who are called constituents. And we as Members of Congress should know, the day we pass a bill, how we intend it to work. My colleagues, the Democrats, for 6 years have bumbled around and, even today, don't even understand, nor will they admit, what a disaster ObamaCare is. So, the American people did it for them. The American people voted in Donald J. Trump. They voted in Republicans to the House in the majority. They voted in Republicans to the Senate. And now we are in Washington, and we are going to struggle. We are going to struggle mightily. We are going to throw ideas onto the wall. We are going to have committee hearings. We are going to have the best thought process. We are going to be able to go back home and to sell to the American people not only some of the ideas that I have but some of the ideas that my colleagues have. And we are going to come up with a better healthcare system. So what we are about is fix the system before we repeal it. I believe it is wise to say that Republicans owe it to the American people to say: before we go replacing something--before we repeal something, let's replace it. And more and more and more and more of my colleagues are saying this openly. It only makes sense. We have nothing to fear with a Republican option and an alternative that will be superior for the American people, and every single person will be able to see that. We believe establishing a Republican alternative that can be implemented this year is the best answer. Now, this is my idea. My idea is, let's go get it on. We know what we are doing. Let's go hold our hearings. Let's go to the American people. Let's sell the ideas that we have got. Let's go move forward and get this process on. Secondly, we believe that what we have got to do is use reconciliation to repeal the most onerous mandates. What might those be? Well, the individual and the business mandate, the Cadillac tax. We believe that we have got to go and use the processes, the leverage that we have got. And then we have got to count on what I hope will be the gentleman from Georgia, Tom Price, who is today the chairman of the Budget Committee, but tomorrow has been nominated to be the Secretary of Health and Human Services. We will count on Dr. Tom Price actually sitting in the seat, looking at the exact same law that was overwhelmingly voted by Democrats and no Republicans, and using those levers that he has that were expressly given to the head of HHS to make wise decisions on how to implement the law as we move forward. I will tell you, Chairman Price, as a physician with a long history of understanding health care, as a provider of health care for years, as an awesome physician, Tom Price knows the problems, and he will use those same opportunities that exist in the law today. Instead of it being something that would be more difficult for a consumer, more difficult for a person on ObamaCare, more difficult for what might be an employer, more difficult and time consuming for a consumer, more costly to the consumers of this country, but, perhaps worst of all, making it harder to provide better health care for a patient, Tom Price will have that opportunity. So this is a three-tier process for Republicans, for us to also bring the best ideas. The American people should be checking with their Member of Congress who will be able to understand the Republican alternative. This is great for the American people to know. We are going to use the levers of laws to change them, to repeal and take back the most onerous parts of ObamaCare, and we are going to work within the law that Mr. Price, as head of HHS, would be able to use exactly the same levers that someone sat there, if they really wanted to fix health care instead of making it harder for someone. We know that Republicans have better ideas, and that what we want to do is to establish a tax benefit system while allowing the employer- sponsored insurance tax system to remain. That means that every single American will have parity on the opportunity to buy health care on January 1 of every year; that no longer will we find that people lag behind because they can't afford, or it is a rigged system, or they have a disadvantage. Republicans have an opportunity to level the playing field. This is why Republicans openly in any crowd can say: we have better ideas. We don't have to force anybody. We will invite them to come be a part of what we do. And I guarantee you, more people will flock to our system than fled and ran from ObamaCare, because it has to work for everybody, not just some of us. The healthcare system that we have today, ObamaCare, literally, young people ran from the system. They could not afford it. But worst of all, they could not pay the high deductible. And if you have such a high deductible, it means, by and large, insurance is useless to you. So, Mr. Speaker, what Republicans are doing is going to allow a tax benefit system. Republicans are going to make HSAs available as an option, an alternative, so that people have a choice and a chance to buy what they need but not pay for what they don't want. We want an opportunity for them to become consumers. We want them to be a part of a system where it is not use it or lose it, rather, they can only, through their own means and their hard work, roll over perhaps $1,000 a year, $1,000 at 21, $1,000 at 22, $1,000 at 23, and to allow private physicians to make sure they are in the system. Lastly, as my time is moving forward, I want to say something to each and every American because it seemingly has been a part of the lexicon in my Democrat friends' viewpoint, and it is this: The Republican plan has available to it and, I believe, will accept the rights that were known as under ObamaCare, which were very bipartisan, dependent coverage through age 26--Republican plan, you bet. No lifetime annual limits--Republican plan, absolutely. Modified guarantee availability renewability, just like what was in ObamaCare--you bet we will have that too. Prohibition on preexisting conditions exclusions--literally, just the same. You have to buy in. And if you don't, then you have a problem. But if you buy in the first time you get a chance, it is an opportunity just like ObamaCare. Prohibition on discrimination based on health status--absolutely. That is a Republican idea, too. It is not owned by just one party. It is a generally accepted idea and would be a part, should be a part, of a Republican plan, and nondiscrimination and healthcare coverage. Mr. Speaker, what I have tried to do in this hour is to give the American people and my colleagues the confidence that what lies ahead will be an awesome debate, but it will be done in public. It will be done above board. It will be done where Members of Congress can go back home and explain to people not only what we want to do but be willing to take their own feedback also. It will be a system that will fix the inequities, the things that were unfair about tax benefits. And it should be, and I hope will be, a system that will be available this next year so that, on January 1 of this next year, as we find the American people wanting eagerly to look at the health care that their families would want and need, that they will find a tax benefit that is consistent with what any other American gets. Now, the last point I would like to say is a thank you. I would like to say a thank you to some 500 physicians of the National Physicians' Policy Council who have worked through, for 2 years, 9 very large meetings across this country, the last one, the first week of December here in Washington. Dr. John T. Gill, national co-chairman, and Dr. Marcy Zwelling--Dr. Gill is from Dallas. Dr. Zwelling is from Los Angeles--and our 16 vice chairmen, who have devoted not only hard work but a belief that a healthcare change should be done with physicians, with the people who care about not only patients but care about the system that they would be engaged in, the system of health care in America, that is the greatest system that we know of. They have sent me hundreds of ideas and hundreds of things which we have openly discussed where we rubbed elbows trying to decide how do we hone this idea. It has come down to every single American should end up with a better healthcare system than one that was designed that they could not explain and still leaves some 30 million people uninsured in America, and that is called ObamaCare. We should not have a system that demands that a person be on that system or have to pay a huge fine. No. We would want a system where people gleefully came to it, liked their healthcare system, became a consumer, were proud of what they got, and perhaps more importantly, could go to the doctor of their choice instead of calling a number and being assigned or take the person that they were given. Mr. Speaker, there are lots of ways to get things done in this country, but Republicans have, for years, had better ideas. The idea on health care is one that Republicans are eager--eager--not only to accept this challenge, but eager to say that we are going to work together. Speaker Ryan has pledged himself to our Conference. We have Members of the United States Senate, Mitch McConnell--the other body-- and there are a number of Members, including Dr. Bill Cassidy and Dr. Rand Paul who have come out with their own healthcare bills, ways to attract not just other cosponsors, but their colleagues who are Democrats also. So I would say tonight to my colleagues: I would like for you to take just a minute to look at the world's greatest healthcare plan. I would like for you to be concerned, instead of the some 12 to 20 million people across the country--everybody has their own congressional district, and there might be a large number in some of their districts. But by and large, the vast number would not be on ObamaCare, and each of our Members owe them a better healthcare system also. But if we all get together, every single person can have the opportunity to have a nondiscriminatory system where virtually every hospital would take your coverage instead of only a few. ObamaCare is only a few, only a few doctors. And if we work together and form larger team sizes, we can make health care even better for all Americans. So, Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity tonight to talk about not only better ideas to fix health care, but it would be done through a deliberate, disciplined approach, one in which every single Member of this body should be able to describe what they want. If they want to be for ObamaCare and say that only 24 percent of physicians and only a few hospitals will take their plan, then let them stand on that. But I want to be for a system where virtually every hospital and virtually every doctor would take the healthcare plan that I would like my family to be on and them, also. That is why I stand up tonight and speak favorably about the Republican advantages of where we will head, specifically about the world's greatest healthcare plan that Senator Bill Cassidy and I have cosponsored and, more specifically, that the American people can be sold by every single one of us to make health care work and be better for each and every American. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), a bright young member of the Rules Committee who today is offering the rule on two very important issues that face this great Nation. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. I rise in support of the work that the Rules Committee did for the right reason and I will yield the right results. The American people spoke on November 8, and they asked for change, a change from business as usual. Mr. Speaker, that does mean you can look at geopolitical facts and draw a conclusion as opposed to geopolitical facts and ignore things that happen in the world, and that is exactly what we are doing here today. The American people no longer want unelected bureaucrats promulgating rules. They no longer want Washington to be so important in their lives. They want and need to be able to have an opportunity to make their own decisions and to work well within the law. They have spoken; and they want what I believe the Republican House, the Republican Senate, and a Republican President will bring to the country. It is called accountability. The REINS Act, sponsored by Mr. Collins today, addresses many of the issues that I just discussed. The legislation requires that a joint resolution must be approved and must be passed by both Chambers of Congress and signed by the President before any major new rule or regulation is promulgated by the executive branch before it can take place. These are rules written by the Congress, rules then associated and determined by the executive, but with the intent of Congress to make sure that the American people are not further harmed. Now, Mr. Speaker, we have just heard an opportunity to discuss what was--this discussion that we are having about Israel and the administration. The bottom line is that the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Representative Ed Royce, came before the committee yesterday and said he really did not take issue with what they were doing. He would not support it because it did not address the problem that occurred when the Obama administration, for political purposes, hung the people of Israel and the State of Israel out for the world to condemn and take advantage of. It bypassed years and years of American foreign policy. It stunned not only Members of Congress, but it also stunned people who recognize that Israel is in a fight for their life. Mr. Speaker, we did not, based upon the determination of the Rules Committee, make in order the bill that they had asked for. They can bring it to the floor today, and we are not going to make it available because it does not even discuss the basic facts. That is, the President of the United States unilaterally allowed the State of Israel, who is a dear friend of the United States, to be hung out in the political and the economic world and the world of foreign affairs to be tarnished and taken advantage of. Mr. Speaker, we are here to say that we were appalled by what our government did and we are going to stand up and call it for what it is. America should always be a trusted friend to Israel, and we are doing exactly that here today. Mr. Speaker, I predict an overwhelming vote that will take place today to enunciate what we believe is correct and also what was wrong.