tv U.S. House of Representatives Legislative Business CSPAN February 11, 2016 12:00pm-2:01pm EST
a vote on final passage expected later this afternoon. the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. god of mercy, we give you thanks for giving us another day. we thank you that we are a nation fashioned out of diverse peoples and cultures, brought forth on this continent in a way not unlike the ancient people of israel.
as out of a desert, you led our american ancestors to this promised land, where they declared their independence and constituted a new nation founded upon inalienable rights given to us by you. our creator. bless our nation with wisdom, knowledge and understanding, and bless the members of this people's house. renew in us your spirit that we may affirm our freedoms by actions proven beyond words. bless us this day and every day , may all that is done be for your greater honor and glory, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 he journal stands approved. the plg pledge will be led by the gentlewoman from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen. ms. ros-lehtinen: please join us in the pledge to what our flag represents.
i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to 15 requests for one minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. stefanik: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to celebrate the centennial of the farm credit system. 100 years ago the farm credit system began its commission to provide american agriculture with a steady hand and dependability, which they needed to provide for our nation. throughout its history, the farm credit system has helped our farmers through the great depression, the agriculture crisis of the 1980's, and even the market collapse of 2008. this deep rooted understanding of our nation's complex agribusiness industry and the
people that work tirelessly to send products to market is one -- is what makes the farm credit system so critical to the future success. this dedication to my district in upstate new york and american agriculture across this great nation is why i am proud to stand on the house floor today and honor the farm credit system on its centennial. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. higgins: mr. speaker, in 2010 congress passed landmark aviation safety legislation. the provisions of this law reflected the recommendations of the national transportation safety board which tragically were given urgency after the crash of continental flight 3407 near buffalo, new york. the families of those who were lost in the crash turned their grief into purpose and led a relentless and heroic campaign to pass this lall.
years later at this very moment, in fact, the families are across the street at a ommittee mark up of the f.a.a. authorization bill, amid rumors that regional airlines might encourage amendments to waterdown the safety reforms. i want the families to know that they are not alone. the western new york congressional delegation will fight alongside them and against any attempt to weaken aviation safety standards. tomorrow marks the seventh anniversary of the crash. i call on this house not to forget t i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. on tuesday, president obama released his budget for fiscal year 2017. some might call this a proposal a vision for the future of the country. i'm here to tell you the president's vision for america
ignores our fiscal realities and the magnitude of the problems we face. the national debt is nearly $19 trillion. our country is in the middle of a fiscal crisis driven by reckless borrowing and run away government spending. and president obama once again offers us a budget filled with untenable tax hikes that never balance. something has to change or the legacy we leave to our children and grandchildren will be a crushing debt burden and a weaker nation. washington has a moral obligation to the american people to present a responsible budget that reins in wasteful federal overspending and guarantees accountability for the use of taxpayer dollars. house republicans will continue to do all we can to make this vision a reality. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. adams: i rise today during
black history month to recognize my mentor and friend, fellow artist teacher, the lady of the hamelin miller. eva miller dedicated her life to the art and her students, encouraging us to pursue our artistic goals. from the 1930's, harlem street scenes to stained glass windows in north carolina, mrs. miller's artistic talents range and precision were phenomenal. she was a pioneering voice for african-american art, creating one of the first regional shows of african-american art in the north carolina museum of art in raleigh and founded the african-american with me 25 years ago. an art gallery focusing on african-american art and artists located in greensboro, north carolina. she possessed an unwavering dedication to students as teacher at the tuskegee institute, winston-salem state university, and north carolina at&t. her legacy continues to live on not only through her work by through the many students she
taught and inspired. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek wreck licks -- recognition? mr. thompson: request talk to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: i rise today as co-chair of the bipartisan career and technical education caucus to recognize february as national career and technical education month. career and technical education programs play a key role in closing our nation's skill gap by preparing students of all ages for 21st century work force. that is why i was encouraged by the inclusion of career and technical education center provisions in the recently passed every student succeeds act. not only does the essa provide much needed flexibility to states and local agencies, it encourages businesses to get involved with their local schools. more schools will be able to use federal funds to provide academic credit for apprenticeships and strengthen their career counseling
programs. this is a result of bipartisan legislation i introduced with my colleague and friend, jim langevin, aimed at informing school counselors of local labor market conditions so they the st guide decisionmaking process of their students. it is on my hope that this and other federal education policies will support to schools, businesses, and community organizations in pennsylvania's fifth district and across the country as they work to prepare our students for the future. i look forward to working towards improving and re-authorizing the perkins act for career and technical education training. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? mr. langevin: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. speaker, as co-chairs of the congressional career and technical education caucus, i am pleased to join my good friend, g.t. thompson of pennsylvania, in recognition of c.t.e. month. across the country students are using c.t.e. programs to seek
out career pathways, hone 21st century skills, and find good jobs. unfortunately, while demand has increased for c.t.e., federal funding has been reduced from its high level in 2010 of $1.3 billion. it's time, mr. speaker, that we re-authorize the carl d. perkens creerl and technical education act to deliver student education that provide the right schools for successful careers. we have the opportunity to remack perkins in way that works for the new economy in the 21st century. i urge my colleagues to seize this chance. as rhode island's governor has put it, it's time to invest in skills that matter and work that pays. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to address the need to control our nation's debt.
due to a rapid and unsuss steenable expansion of the federal government, the obama administration has racked up $8 trillion in new debt, pushing the debt to more than $19 trillion. mr. emmer: if we continue down this reckless path, the congressional budget office projects a return to $1 trillion annual deficits by 2022. today the house of presentatives is working towards returning to a more fiscally responsible nation by voting on the debt management and fiscal responsibility act. this legislation will begin to restore fiscal discipline by requiring the u.s. treasury secretary to appear before congress at least 21ies before hitting the debt ceiling to present the administration's plans to reduce the national debt. while more work needs to be done, this legislation is one step closer to financial sanity and security. i want to thank representative marchant for his hard work on this bill and i urge all my colleagues to support it. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the
gentleman from maryland seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. ruppersberger: mr. speaker, i rise in support of the national cybersecurity strategy ncluded in the president's budget proposal for fiscal year 2017. this is a solid framework that includes a 35% increase for cyberand new high level official focused solely on implementing a cyberstrategy across the entire federal government. cyberhackers are costing american companies billions of dollars in intellectual property every year. terrorists like isis and organized criminals and state actors such as iran and north korea are honing their cyberskills which could put our country at critical risk, including infrastructure shut downs. for years, i add vow dated for a cabinet level cyberposition with budget authority because the cyberthreat is so severe. there's no official should have real authority to drive change across the federal government. we must also continue working on issues still unaddressed
such as the insider threat posed by people within the government. an example of that is edward snowden who gave stolen american information to russia and china. this is especially critical in the wake of a data breach affecting more than 22 million current, former, and prospective federal employees last june. i urge my colleagues to support this priority and reserve the balance of my time. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yield back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida seek recognition? ms. ros-lehtinen: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to commend the children's bereavement certainty, an organization located in my congressional district -- center, an organization located in my congressional district that has been providing support and lifting spirits for so many south florida families after facing a tragic loss. founded in 1999, the children's bereavement center office free peer support groups and serves as an outstanding resource for
children, parents, and caregivers providing them with the aid they so desperately need while experiencing the hardship of losing a loved one. a tragedy that some families may one day experience. when dealing with loss, it is often the grieving children who are affected the most. this wonderful organization has made it its mission to assist students at miami-dade public schools having helped over 1,300 children just this past year alone i am so thankful for the noble endeavor that the children's bereavement center has undertaken so adults and children can find a way to find peace and move forward with their lives. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the entlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition?
>> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. costa: mr. speaker, i rise today to speak on the current status of california's devastating drought. i urge california state and federal agencies to maximize the pumping of water in the delta to the allowable legal limits. as a result of state and federal agency's inability to operate at the most flexibility range available, under the biological pinons, over 44,000 acre-feet of water has been lost just this last week during these el nino conditions. and over 131,000 acre-feet of water has been lost this year. water that could be used to grow crops, to feed people. this is morally wrong. congress must pass legislation to provide relief for the people of the san joaquin cali and california. senator feinstein's introduction of water legislation is a critical step and i urge the senate to pass their legislation so we can enter the negotiations with the
house passed bill which i strongly support. time is of the essence and every day of delay results in further losses of the vital water that is necessary for the people of the valley and people of california. californians need to use this water during these times of el nino conditions. i urge that we do the right thing. thank you, i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman from alabama is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to express my disappointment with the president's budget request. i'm especially concerned about the president's proposal to cut the combat ship program. these ships are built in part by a company in my district. i've seen these ships being built. i've talked to the navy leadership and i've visited with the sailors who are actually working on these vessels. mr. bryne: they all support the l.c.s. and the vital role it plays in the navy's fleet.
in fact, just last year secretary of the navy said, we have a need, a demonstrated need, for 52 of these small surface combatants. cutting the l.c.s. program, along with failing to include an additional expeditionary fast transport ship, would be a tremendous mistake as it relates to maintaining the war force base that we have worked so hard to build up along the gulf coast. so i have a message for the 4,000 people who work at the shipyard in mobile. this proposal from a lame duck secretary of defense and a lame duck president will not stand. i will fight every day to make sure that our navy has the resources they want and need to protect our nation and keep sea lanes open. the l.c.s. is a critical part of that mission. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: i ask to address the house unanimously
-- for one minute. i thank the speaker very much. i rise today with great enthusiasm to honor and salute yo landa adams. and enormous and wonderful talent of gospel music. and to celebrate her 10th anniversary of the yolanda adams morning show. many, many know that i introduced legislation to make september gospel music heritage month. to honor the many talented americans who enjoy, sing, write and provide inspiration in gospel music. even elvis presley, who won his first grammy through gospel music. i remember young yolanda adams swinging -- singing in a church in houston and the inspiration she gave even then. a young teacher who worked until they finally knew that her talent was worthy of presenting it to the american people. yolanda adams rose to fame as one of gospel music greats, making her debut in 1988. i remember that. since then she's been a wowing gospel audiences, she's been before the president of the
united states and all over the world. but yet she's a humble person. following a musical career, she began the music and morning show. these shows don't last. but her spirit has guided it forward. she connects with listeners, bringing them warm and inspirational messages and her music and her growth has been wonderful. mr. chairman, mr. speaker, i want to say that her co-host, anthony valerie and marcus d. wily, they give love every morning, camaraderie. they make it not just a morning show but a celebration of friends and family. i'm delighted to stand here today at that call yolanda adams an american treasure. a native daughter of houston, someone who understands god's blessings, but is not selfish and provides them to others through her musical genius. congratulations to you, yolanda, and congratulations for 10 years of the yolanda adams morning show. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from indiana seek recognition?
without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today with a heavy heart, to honor the life and legacy of susan jordan, the beloved principal of amy beskerland elementary school, who served the lawrence, indiana, community for 22 years as an educator. mrs. brooks: in january, when a bus accidentally lost control, principal jordan put herself between her students and the bus, saving their lives and losing her own. i'm extraordinarily moved by mr. herrera: owic sacrifice -- by her heroic sacrifice and the outpouring of love and support from her students, fellow teachers and the fellow lawrence community. principal jordan was known for her warmth and the passion for her students to achieve their very best. at the start of every school day she stopped by each classroom to welcome and encourage her students. under her leadership amy beverland elementary was named a four-star school by the
indiana department of education, its designation for excellence. so on behalf of indiana's fifth congressional district, i offer my deepest sympathy to principal jordan's family and friends, to the students who were injured, to the community, and to all hoosiers who mourn her loss and cherish her memory. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york seek recognition? without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. slaughter: thank you very much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, today i want to talk about flight 3407 that crashed in buffalo, new york, seven years ago tomorrow. this plane crashed inside of the runway on an icy february night. we learned that the pilot and the co-pilot had never been rained or flown into any icy situations and that the young woman co-pilot had flown in the night before from seattle. she was paid so little, around
$13,000 a year, that she could not afford a motel room. to sleep. so she slept on the floor somewhere. you could hear on the black box before the crash, you could hear them yawning. and that plane crash were two of the best musicians in the united states. a woman who now more about rwanda and the problems than anybody else, and one of the most extraordinary anthropologists in the world. they died because these pilots had no idea of how they were going to fly in those conditions. the owners tried to take some responsibility, but we worked with the families of the people who died on that plane, they've selflessly come down here for seven years and we finally got some regulation through the f.a.a. of how much training they had to have, that at least the pilot or the co-pilot had to have some flying time behind them that would be of some use. now, we're facing an f.a.a. bill here today where they are trying to undo those safety regulations. it absolutely applies to every
last one of us in the united states. but for goodness sakes, i implore my colleagues not to let it happen, that those regulations would be weakened and once more we would be flying people with wages, unable to cope with the weather of the elements. we deserve better than that in this century. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, the president submitted his final annual budget proposal to congress this week. it was my hope that the president would have used this opportunity to progress an agenda that reflects our nation's needs. unfortunately it seems to be exactly the opposite. the president's proposed budget is to serve as a blueprint for our nation's prosperity. mr. lucas: sadly, this plan offers an unrealistic way forward. currently our national debt stands at over $19 trillion.
if the president got his way, that number would rise to $27 trillion over the next decade. the president's chosen to ignore the facts. if americans have to balance their checkbooks and live within their means, so should the federal government. to pay for this spending, the a sident hopes to raise an tax on the oil industry. i believe we should work together to ensure certainty, not uncertainty, in today's challenging environment. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. polis: permission to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from colorado is roitsed for one minute. mr. polis: mr. speaker, we are a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws. when those two come into conflict, the responsibility for addressing it belongs in this body, in the united states congress. we are a compassionate people. we need to unite families.
we need to provide a pathway to citizenship. we need to make sure that companies in america have access to the talented employee pool that they need. we are also a nation of laws. we need to get serious about our border security. we need employment verification and real penalties for those who violate our laws. it's past time for congress to act on immigration reform. and i renew my call for congress to restore the rule of law and recognize that our nation of immigrants must also be a moral nation, in leading the way for the next great generation of americans to take their place alongside us. as leaders of american industry, civil society and even in this very body itself. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. burgess: i rise, ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from texas is
recognized for one minute. mr. burgess: mr. speaker, this past weekend, along with other members of the border caucus, i traveled to the lower rio grande valley sector of the united states border. mr. speaker, the flood of illegal immigrants across the southern border has proven to be a mounting american crisis and it greatly impacts texas families. mr. speaker, you simply cannot understand the magnitude of the problem in the lower rio grande valley unless you see it for yourself. it is impossible to understand -- for yourself. it is impossible to understand the characters of this changing region and why it is so difficult to imagine. that's why i make regular visits to the border -- manage. that's why i make regular visits to the border. president obama missed an opportunity when he refused the request to come to the border when he was in texas in july of 2014. i would renew that call for our executive to come to the border. the united states as a nation has a sovereign right and responsibility to define and defend its borders. in order for this problem to be
correctly improved, the executive must travel to the border and we must have an executive who has the will to make this a priority and get it done. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from illinois is recognized for one minute. mr. dold: mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize february as teen dating violence awareness and prevention month. one in three teens will experience some form of abuse in a dating relationship. as a father of three young children, i recognize that this is not a partisan problem. but rather a violation of basic human rights that demands immediate action. i believe it is our collective responsibility as mentors, leaders and even parents, that we find a way to protect our youth and to prevent them from dating abuse. while current federal law
prohibits someone from purchasing a handgun if they are convicted of abusing someone they live with, unfortunately victims who have been abused by a current or former dating partner are not protected. abuse of a dating partner is as unacceptable as domestic abuse. plain and simple. which is why i introduced the zero tolerance for domestic abusers act with my good friend, congresswoman dingell. i encourage all of my colleagues to support this important bipartisan effort. in the meantime, we can make a difference by encouraging our schools, community-based organizations, parents and teens to come together to combat teen dating violence. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair announces the speaker's appointment, pursuant to senate concurrent resolution 28 of the 114th congress and the order of the house of january 6, 2015, of the following members on the part of the house to the joint congressional committee on inaugural ceremonies.
the clerk: mr. ryan of wisconsin, mr. mcarthy of california, and ms. pelosi of california. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. burgess: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time through the legislative day of february 12, 2016, for the speaker to entertain motions that the house suspend the rules as though under clause 1 of rule 15, relating to the bill h.r. 757, to improve the enforcement of sanctions against the government of north korea and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: is here objection to the request? with no ox, so ordered -- with no objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. burgess: mr. speaker, by the direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 611 and ask for its
immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 90, house resolution 611. resolved, that at any time after the adoption of this resolution, the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill, h.r. 2017. to amend the federal food, drug and cosmetic act, to improve and clarify certain disclosure requirements for restaurants and similar retail food establishments, and to amend the authority to bring proceedings under section 403-a. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on energy and commerce. after general debate, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. it shall be in order to consider as an original bill
a, the journal of the proceedings of the previous day shall be considered as approved and, b, the chair may at any time declare the house adjourned to meet at a date and time within the limits of clause 4, section 5, article 1 of the constitution, to be announced by the chair and declare the adjournment. section 3, the speaker may appoint members to perform the duties of the chair for the duration of the period addressed by section 2 of this resolution as though under
clause 8-a of rule 1. section 4. the committee on the judiciary may, at any time before 5:00 p.m. on tuesday, february 16, 2016, file a report to accompany h.r. 3624. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one hour. mr. burgess: mr. speaker, for the purpose of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, pendsing which i yield myself such time as i may consume. during consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. burgess: house resolution 611 provides for a rule to consider a commonsense, bipartisan piece of legislation that will fix a problem that was wholly created by the
intransigence of the bureaucrats at the food and drug administration. this important bill amends the difficultly drafted affordable care act, which rythly mandated that -- rigidly mandated that food establishments provide physical notices of the nutritional value of every food item that they offer. perhaps this is a noble endeavor in theory, until one considers that the inflexible rule put out by the food and drug administration makes no allowances for establishments that allow for multiple variations of their offerings. this could mean that a pizza chain, for example, would have to provide calorie counts for every possible different type of pizza combination that one could order. a mandate that would result in a pizza place needing to literally wallpaper their establishment and perhaps the establishment next door with all of the different scenarios
for personalized pizzas. the rule provides for one hour of debate. it's equally divided between the majority and the minority of the energy and commerce committee. the committee on rules made in order every amendment that was submitted to the committee to be considered, two democratic amendments and one bipartisan offering. finally, the rule affords the minority the customary motion to recommit, a final opportunity to amend the bill should the minority choose to exercise this option. mr. speaker, the issue before us today is in the underlying -- in the underlying bill is not about whether restaurants should provide their customers with nutritional information. the issue is fundamentally one of the proper role of government. since president obama moved into the white house, and nancy pelosi and harry reid served as his stewards in the 110th congress, the democrats have drummed a steady beat toward expanding the role of
government in every direction in our lives. h.r. 2017, the commonsense nutrition disclosure act, is bipartisan legislation introduced by representative mcmorris rodgers and loretta sanchez to fix the food and drug administration's unworkable implementation of the menu labeling law. the food and drug administration's regulatory framework is not just cumbersome for the food industry, it also impedes a business' ability to provide meaningful information that customers can a use to make knew -- can use to make nutrition decisions. the commonsense nutrition disclosure act is critical to avoid harming consumer choice, harming jobs and harming small business. the federal government should not presume to know how restaurants, supermarkets, cafes, convenient stores and entertainment venues can best serve their customers and run their businesses. yet the food and drug
administration has done exactly that. for years now many restaurants and retail food establishments have disclosed chloric information to their cust -- caloiri -- caloric information o their customers. the food and drug administration took 3 1/2 years before finalizing a rule that virtually ignores serious concerns raised about the harm of an overly prescriptive one-size-fits-all approach. not only did the f.d.a. disregard the input of consumers and industry experts, it also extended the scope of the regulation far beyond what anyone could have imagined when they voted for this bill in march of 2010. if the food and drug administration is allowed to implement the rule as it stands, the office of management and the budget has determined it will require more than $14 million, $14 -- 14
million, 14 million compliance hours in addition to costs exceeding $1 billion. . even the f.d.a. acknowledged initial compliance will cost almost $400 million with recurring costs as high as $150 million per year. likely the actual costs for the private sector will far exceed those estimates. perhaps even more concerning than the costs, food service establishments. food service establishments will face federal criminal penalties for even the slightest failure to comply with the framework envisioned by the food and drug administration. under section 403-a-1 of the food, drug, and cosmetic act, food labeling must be truthful and not misleading. food labeling that does not meet the f.d.a.'s standard for
truthful and nonmisleading is deemed misbranded. under the u.s. code, introducing misbranded food into commerce is a prohibited act and the libel party shall be imprisoned for up to one year, fined not more than $1,000, or both. food, to which these menu labeling requirements apply, is deemed misbranded if the food and drug administration's rule requirements are not met. it is not necessary that the person intentionally mislead customers under the food and drug administration's framework, merely adding an extra slice of pepperoni will render the calorie content on the menu misleading and your chef is now a criminal. people say that the food and drug administration won't put people in jail over this. so i don't think there should be
an issue in saying just that, that people will not be put in jail for an extra slice of pepperoni, i done think there's a problem with codifying that in statute. i think it would give great reassurance to food preparers. the food and drug administration regulation applicable to restaurants and similar establishments that sell ready to eat food that are part of chains with at least 20 stores. this would include bakeries, cafeterias, coffee shops, food service vendors, fast food takeout delivery establishments, grocery stores, confectionary stores, quick service restaurants, and table service restaurants. although stores may be part of a nationwide chain, there is substantial variation between regional locations. for example, convenience stores noted in their testimony that unlike a mcdonald's or a doughnut shop, they have -- that have the same format everywhere they go, many convenience stores
have a very different -- have different layouts based upon region so coming up with a uniform standard would, in fact, be challenging. this means that all chains will incur individual cost for nutrition analysis and for menu labeling for each location, not just one time done at the national level. under the rule the definition of a menu is applied broadly to mean any writing a customer uses to place an order. this approach would include everything from in store menu boards to print advertising in the form of door hangers or circulars or online advertising. the rule requires that each menu item have clearly visible calorie count, including separate calorie information for variable food menu items such as toppings or flavor additives. pizza chains estimate that there
are over 30 million combinations available to customers. the calorie content for each option couldn't fit on any menu board that i have ever seen. grocers estimate that the rule would -- grocers estimate that the rule would include hundreds of items in stores offered subject to availability and demand. things such as fresh produce. baked goods. seafood. making it virtually impossible to have accurate menu boards without changing them on a near constant basis. many of these businesses would likely stop offering the range of options that are currently available because it would simply cost too much to comply. clearly the food and drug administration's regulation does not provide a workable framework for businesses. this rule should be about ensuring customers are provided with accurate, trustworthy, nutrition information to help inform their decisions all the while enabling small businesses the ability to comply.
representative mcmorris rogers' bill is carefully constructed to create transparency for consumers while maintaining the flexibility necessary for all regulated businesses to be in compliance. the commonsense nutrition act will establish a more reasonable standard for federal regulation by applying nutritional disclosure requirements to establishments that derive more than 50% of their total revenue from the sale of food. the bill also ensures that inadvertent human error will not subject a local franchise owner to crippling fines or possibly imprisonment. nutritional information could be provided by remote access menu for food establishments where the majority of orders are placed by customers off premises. establishments will self-serve food may comply with the requirements for restaurants or place signs with nutritional
information adjacent to each food item and the bill clarifies that advertisements are not menus. yesterday during the rules committee hearing ranking member pallone testified that it is important that consumers have information at the point of purchase. i disagree with this point. consumers should have the information when they are making their order. a menu board may work for some businesses where customers order at the counter where they also pay. but for something like a pizza restaurant where most people are ordering online, or over the telephone, having the dalry information -- calorie information when they pick up their order won't be helpful to the consumer when they are making the decisions. this is an example of how the food and drug administration did not consider the array of business types included in this rule and this is why a legislative solution not only is necessary but it is required. the food retail sector employs millions of americans. and it provides access to
affordable healthy options. the federal government must not impose arbitrary regulations that will cause unnecessary harm to businesses and customers. the businesses impacted by this rule widely support providing customers with the nutritional information to better inform their food decisions. but they want to do it in a practical and commonsense way. this legislation provides clear guidance to small business owners ensuring compliance and at the same time delivering that critical information. i encourage all of my colleagues to vote yes on the rule and yes on the underlying bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. polis: i rise in opposition to the rule. i thank the gentleman for yielding the time. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman virginia tech. mr. polis: this is one of the had in debates we've my time in the house here on the
floor of the house. we are actually literally debating the fine print of menus in chain restaurants. frankly, i think the american people want to see this body address the real issues that they care about every day. they want our body to fix our broken immigration system and secure our borders, they want us to raise the minimum wage, make college more affordable. they want to make sure that americans are safer and secure in their homes. that we can ensure for the next generation of americans the same promise that our last generation has enjoyed in this country, and we knows it's becoming harder and harder for americans to stay and thrive in the middle class, burdened with more and more college debt, with medical bills. it's time to improve that and make sure that we can restore a robust economy that works for all americans. the finer points of exactly the font size on menus is of course best left to the executive
agencies. it's a complete waste of congress' time. congress is looking at -- there's a 400-page guidance from the f.d.a. and congress is now going into that through this bill and literally doing things like adjusting font size and changing definitions. i mean, what a bizarre way to spend not only an hour for this rule debate, but time for the actual bill debate, amendments, the vote. i mean, i wonder how much taxpayer time we're spending on menu font size. which i don't even know why we're even talking about that. how bizarre. look, the commonsense nutrition disclosure act is advertised as a response by what some perceive to be f.d.a. regulationses they don't like. fine. elect a different president. actually, there will be a different president. that's one of the things this bill ironically does. it delays these rules until
there's a new president. so i don't know, will members of this body like rules better that are set by president trump or president sanders or president clinton? i don't think that's come up in the campaign. what font size they want on menus and where they want the calories listed. i haven't heard it from any of my constituents. i mean, generally people want information about calories and how much they're getting. they want to know that, if you're getting a ham burger, you know, might make a difference -- hamburger, you know, might make a difference. maybe if i'm watching my weight i'll order the smaller one. that's generally what people want. these rules generally do that. but here we are using hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to change a few things and say, by the way, we want president trump or sanders to do this instead of president obama. why? the american people should be outraged. we look at congress and the american people look at congress and what do we have? i think a 6% approval rating.
6% of the american people are saying, right on. 6% of the american people want us to discuss exactly where it says how many calories your hamburger has at your fast food restaurant. maybe those 6% checked the wrong box. on that congressional approval poll. but at least 94% of the american people think we ought to be doing something else. so do i. i think we should be working to balance the budget. i think that we should fix our broken immigration system and restore our borders. i think we should grow the american economy. find a sustainable way to invest in infrastructure. find a way to provide a boost to the renewable energies economy. boost american exports in manufacturing. raise the minimum wage. make health care more affordable and build upon the improvements of the affordable care act. but no. no. the republican majority has decided we're going to spend the rest of the day today and tomorrow debating where and how on menus, not even all
restaurants, just some restaurants, with restaurants on all sides of this issue, by the way, that it says how manycal is are -- calories are -- how many calories are in your hamburger. look, while some say that they don't like the regulations, the reality is, this bill actually delays and waters down the transparency that the american people want. honestly. my constituents have not called about this, i don't think many of them care that much about where it says how many calories are in their burger. to the extent they think about it, they just want transparency. they want to see it. so i do -- so do i as a consumer, by the way. i sometimes order from -- when we work late nights here in d.c., i'll order online. from a delivery service. they'll bring the food to my home. sometimes i go into their store front. and sometimes those stores are chain stores that are under this. as a consumer, i like to see the calories at all those locations. what this bill would actually do is prevent that from happening. it would say, look, mr. store
owner, ms. store owner, of a restaurant franchise chain that delivers, you get 60% of your business at your door that comes in, 40% of your business is delivery. so you don't have to tell your delivery customers on your website how many calories are in that burger. now, if i want -- if i'm one of their delivery customers, i lose out on the transparency because of the measures in this bill. and the converse. what if 60% of their food is delivery food and 40% are walk-in customers? now you're saying that if i choose to go there, walk-in customers, sure, maybe it's somewhere, the calorie thing. maybe it's tucked under a magazine dispenser or on some back wall in the restroom. but it's not on the menu where i can see how many calories are in the item of my choice. the american people like our labeling, they like transparency. you go to the supermarket, every item, you pick it up, there's a label. tells you the calories, tells you the ingredients. people like that for
restaurants. they certainly don't like congress trying to modify the fine print on the font size on 400 pages of thoughtful rules around exactly how this should be done. and punting it to the next president. who we don't even know who that's going to be. to start a whole new rulemaking process about something that's very simple. people want to see how many calories are in what they eat. very simple concept. very simple. people like it. people don't want us wasting time on it. let's not waste time on it. let's discuss things people care about. but, no, we're forced to under this rule, spend even more time . and time is money. time is money. not just the opportunity costs that we could be talking about ending our budget deficit, restoring order to our border, we could be doing that. but actual costses. costs money to keep this body -- costs. sts our money up and running -- costses money to keep our body -- costses money to keep
our body -- costs money to keep ur body running. frank pallone said there's ongoing discussions with f.d.a. and they're well aware of some of these issues that can be improved. and congress is best setting these broad directions. like the broad direction which i support, which congress actually did, this was part of the affordable care act, and if it was a separate vote, i would have been proud to support it too. we said, chain restaurants need to label calorie intake. that's great. that's a broad direction. the details of exactly how to do it need to be figured out on the implementation side. i can only imagine if congress got this involved with every single thing, this country would grind to haufment nothing could ever -- halt. nothing could ever occur, no permit would ever be granted. no approval would ever occur. of anything. it's simply the wrong way to run the largest, wealthiest, most democratic, most free nation on the face of the erget. -- earth. by grinding the country to a
halt over congress, the congress of the united states. setting font sizes on restaurant menus. what the heck are we doing? it's a wonder that 6% of people, mr. speaker, approve of this congress. i think they checked the wrong box. look, the whole point of this labeling measure in the affordable care act was to empower consumers to make healthier decisions about the food they eat by simply allowing them to know what's in it. that's the broad direction set by congress. making sure that we have a public health impact, we need a certain level of standardization. so consumers can compare nutritional information on restaurants, just as we do on packages in stores. if companies that made packaged oods had free rein to invent labels or put
labels on the inside of a container or outside, would anybody this this body argue that those labels were no longer serving the public good for which they were introduced? this is the same thing. this is the same thing as putting a label on the inside of a jar rather than the outside to game the system. seems to me like an effort to deprive the american people of information they want to see. you don't improve federal standards by making them unenforceable in a court of law. you make them irrelevant by making them unenforceable in a court of law. look, mr. speaker, i'm one of these people who wants to know what's in their food. many of my constituents are too. i'm proud to represent the second congressional district of colorado, one of the fittest congressional districts in this nation. one of the districts with the lowest obesity rates. and a district in which people pry them -- pride themselves on nutrition, healthy lifestyles and exercise. i'm proud to be representative of that district. my constituents want to know what they eat. menu labeling, which has been imple -- i.ed -- implemented in five states and dozens of cities since 2016, empowers
consumers to make healthy decisions -- 2006, empowers consumers to make healthy decisions and know what they eat, which has never been more important. we all know that obesity and diabetes are on the rise. last year almost half of american adults had diabetes or pre-diabetes. medical costs are in the hundreds of billions to treat these diseases and growing. eating well is the most significant thing that a person can do as a preventive health measure to prevent themselves from developing these diet-related illnesses. including obesity and heart disease. as it stands now, nutritional information is already available on prepackaged foods. so, when i cook at home i know exactly what ingredients are going into the meal i feed myself and my kids. it's right on the label. but when i go out to eat, i don't have the advantage of that same information. in 2015 for the first time ever, americans spent more money at restaurants than on groceries. let me say that again. americans spent more money at restaurants than groceries for
the first time in 2015. that's a big deal. an important part of the nutritional content that gives us sustenance comes from restaurants and the american people want that same level of transparency at their restaurants. with this particular bill, congress would be moving away from the broad direction that it gave the f.d.a. to basically micromanage over 400 pages of exactly, in instances, where and how labels need to appear, to the detriment of transparency and access. as my friend, mr. pallone, mentioned in the rules committee, the f.d.a. solicited significant feedback from stakeholders, over many years. both during the negotiations of the affordable care act and of course over the course of developing a final rule. they've delayed implementation for two years already. to give restaurants and the retail food community more time. i mean, talking about printing things. how overly generous can you
get? now, now with this bill the republicans are seeking two more years of delay. and it's important to point out it's already been delayed two years. again, this is a typical example of why the american people are so frustrated with congress. this is a bill that will effectively grind things to a halt, grind what to a halt? telling you how many calories are in your hamburger, something people want to know. that's will it will grind to halt. to what end? to no end. it's a bizarre, unusual waste of time for congress to even be debating this. if this bill were to pass and be signed into law, which it won't be, because of course the president does not support this bill, it would postpone regulationses for another two years, leaving an entirely new struck stur about exactly how -- structure about exactly how the calorie intake on the menus is portrayed until the next president of the united states. let's get this done. under this bill, the menu labeling provision would go into effect at the earliest in
2018. and would be significantly watered down. so look. why is congress sticking our noses in over 400 pages of rulemaking regarding this issue? if we have issues with the f.d.a., bring them up appropriately in oversight hearings of the f.d.a. at most, legislatively, perhaps a funding restriction amendment and an appropriationses process around a particular aspect of this regulation, that a majority of this body don't like, might be a legislative way to spend 10 minutes on it and resolve it. 10 minutes. maybe the american people would think it is reasonable to spend 10 minutes. they don't think it's reasonable to discuss this for two days. hamburger calories for two days and exactly what font size and where it appears. i mean, what is going on here, mr. speaker? this is simply an inappropriate way, a shockingly out of touch way for congress to spend its time. look, my colleagues who support this bill have said, it builds flexibility for compliance, they say it can help clarify
nutritional information. i don't agree with those remarks. but i'm more concerned with the provision of micromanaging the way that bills this congress has already passed are implemented. i'm worry this bill would make the proprovision of nutrition information more confusing for several reasons. i think that's part of the nefarious goal of this bill. where are calorie counts supposed to be displayed? this bill would allow the restaurant or retail establishment to publish the information on one board. not necessarily at the point of sale tchofmente stick it in the bathroom. they could stick it in the bathroom. if you don't go to the bathroom, you won't see how many calories are in your burger. who wants that? as mr. pallone pointed out yesterday, h.r. 2017 allows retailers to publish nutrition in the -- information in the format that receives the majority of their customers. just because i order food delivered to my home, i might not get to know how many calories are in my family's
dinner on conversely. if other people order delivery, and i go into a restaurant, i might not get to know. how many calories are in the meal i'm feeding my family. why don't we publish the information on the store, on takeout menus and online. they have it, they know it, they print it. do it. people want to see it. it's transparency. it's like letting packaged goods put their label on the inside of the package where nobody can see, it rather than the outside. or people buy things, if you buy your packaged goods online ing, it's ople do, say on the website so it doesn't need to be on the label. if you go into the store you don't get to know what's in this product. and the businesses are that required to implement these regulations aren't even corner delis or mom and pop shops. this isn't about them. this is about restaurants with more than 20 locations, the f.d.a.'s exempted any business smaller than that. . in fact, rulemaking has many exemptions already, including
exemptions for specialty items, temporary orders, daily specials all exempt. thoughtful process they had, they talked to restaurant owners. i haven't heard any complaints from my district about it and people generally support the overall direction of transparency. i'm especially concerned with how this bill will eliminate mechanisms for enforcement by removing a provision requiring businesses to provide documentation of compliance, it would be essentially impossible for businesses to be accountable whether they're complying with regulations. it would make these regulations in paper and name only. there would be no meaningful enforcement mechanism. if this bill were to become law, which it won't, it would gut those transparency requirements. the bill prohibits civil lawsuits against businesses that attempt to deceive customers or circumvent the labeling process. of course, if companies are willingfully lying about what's in their products and the
calories and nutritional content, of course they should be liable for that. of course. should a company intentionally mislead with confusing labels? customers need a way to fight back. instead, this bill calls for complete indemnity and makes any labeling initiative meaningless because there's simply no reason to comply. look, this bill allows restaurants to essentially invent their own nutritional information, hide information in bathrooms on walls where customers won't even see it, not put it online or only put it online and not at the restaurant and at the same time if customers are able to discern if the restaurant is lying, it strips away the enforcement mechanism and civil liability from that. what a colossal waste of time for the united states congress to descend to the level of whether calories should be displayed in bathrooms or on walls or in menus in
restaurants with more than 20 chains when this nation is in crisis and needs a responsible congress to balance the budget. it needs a responsible congress to secure our borders and replace our broken immigration system with one that works. it needs a responsible congress to ensure the safety and security of the american people. it needs a responsible congress to find a sustainable way to invest in infrastructure and growth. and it does not need a congress to micromanage the font size of menus. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. burgess: mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to recognize our colleague, the gentleman from georgia, member of the education and work force committee, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. carter: i thank the gentleman from texas for yielding. mr. speaker, this is just another example of excessive burdens placed on small businesses from federal regulations.
the proposed menu labeling requirements by the f.d.a., which come from a provision of obamacare, will require restaurants, grocery stores, gas stations and even movie theaters and minute -- miniature golf courses to list the number of calories in food and drinks they sell. thousands of small businesses will have to absorb the cost of providing new menu displays and calorie information, and as a former small business owner, i can tell you this is money small businesses cannot afford. ultimately, the group that will pay the price for these new regulations is the american consumer through increased food and drink costs at their local restaurant and grocery store. several large chain stores have welcomed these new regulations. i wonder why. because they know that their small business competitors can't afford to purchase new menus and signs, placing them at a disadvantage to larger chain companies. find it ironic that this
administration that champions itself as a small business advocate continues to place additional burdens on small businesses at the advantage of larger corporations. .r. 2017, the commonsense -- commonsense commonsense of 2015 remedies this -- common sense nutrition disclosure act of 2015 remedies this expensive red tape so small business owners can continue to compete and grow our economy. i urge my colleagues to support small businesses by supporting this legislation, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: i yield myself three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. polis: so first of all, none of what we're even talking about applies to small businesses. i have friends that own restaurants in colorado and boulder and fort collins. i have a friend that has three restaurants. another one has one restaurant. i actually used to own part of
a restaurant. i don't recommend that business to anybody. it's a tough business. this doesn't apply to any of those people. we're talking about businesses with over 20 restaurants. we're talking about the big guys. i think that's why, for instance, the restaurant association isn't even in favor of this bill because they represent many of the restaurants that feel that this is a step forward. they want their customers to know what's in their food because, guess what, if you know what's in your food you're likely to dine out. restaurants have surpassed grocery stores for meals just shows the importance of restaurants and the american people. people want to know what's in their food. this bill will impede that. it's congress micromanaging the fine print of a thoroughly vetted and negotiated rulemaking process that's already been delayed two years. it's congress delaying it another two years saying somehow this issue of exactly where in restaurant displays a calories is important that
president obama can't be trusted with it, we have to trust president trump or president clintor or president sanders. i -- clint or president sanders. it's time for congress to focus on issues that matter to the american people. this is what my colleagues hear about when we have town halls, when we're out and about in our districts. and i haven't heard a single constituent. i mean, we're not even talking one who said they want the number of calories on the menu items to be harder to see or posted in less places at restaurants. i mean, zero. i've heard literally from zero constituents say they want this. i heard from several saying they like knowing what's in their food and i think most constituents, who i haven't heard from at all on this issue, are just utterly dismayed that congress is spending a day and a half even debating this. just how bizarre when there's real-life bread and butter issues they face putting food on their table, paying their
rent, paying their college loans, replacing your car that burnt out, making sure you don't lose your job, having to work a second job to make ends meet and meet your mortgage. that's what people are facing out there. the fact what this congress is debating is so far removed from that dinner table talk at a family's house is why this congress has such a dismal approval rating which will continue to get worse as long as we debate these kinds of bills. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. burgess: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i'd like to recognize the gentleman from georgia, mr. allen, a valuable member of the house agriculture committee, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. allen: thank you, mr. chairman. and i appreciate this time and, yes, this country does have major problems and certainly regulation is one of them. in fact, i just spent over an hour and a half of my time
talking with the administrator of the e.p.a. about the economic impact of that agency and this is just another example of this government reaching out to require businesses to do things that frankly cost money and cost the economy. and you know, every american deserves the opportunity to a good job, and we must grow this economy and that's why i'm speaking in support of this bill, the common sense nutrition disclosure act. this bill protects american small businesses from unnecessary costs and regulations, which, again, is the big problem we have with growing the economy. many of those in the restaurant and food industries are affected by this, which establishes this one-size-fits-all nutritional disclosure requirement. as a small business owner for over 40 years, i know just how daunting new regulations are. new regulations mean more money spent in countless hours of
compliance. it is estimated that if this regulation is implemented, it could cost american businesses $1 billion to comply and 500,000 hours of paper. this is a serious issue. american small businesses do not have that kind of time nor do they have that kind of money. during a time of slow economic growth, we should not make it harder for americans to start and stay in business. as we've seen in just about every industry, this one-size-fits-all approach is they do not work. i am proud to co-sponsor this bill and encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting h.r. 2017. this bill is common sense. it's just in the name, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. burgess: i'll verve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: i yield myself two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. polis: look, mr. speaker. instead of trying to water down transparency and preventative health measures, we should be focusing on what we can actively do to make this country healthier, happier and safer. like investing in child nutrition, an issue that has broad bipartisan support. in fact, just a couple weeks ago, the senate agriculture committee passed a bipartisan rewrite of the child nutrition act, and there's widespread support for re-authorizing key child nutrition policies like the summer meals program, which really helps some of our most at-risk families ensure kids are ready to learn because they had their nutritional needs met. by some estimates as few as 18% of students eligible for free or reduced school lunch receive a summer meal. we can do better. the time of year should never dictate whether a child goes hungry in this country. a bipartisan group of senators agree and they've offered an innovative solution to the issue in the bipartisan child nutrition re-authorization.
the house and our education and work force committee should focus on issues like summer meals, which actually make a difference for families rather than trying to prevent calorie information from being displayed large enough or in the right place where people can actually see it. god forbid. we should be focusing on policies like farm to school programs which give kids the healthy meals they need. educating our next generation about eating well will simultaneously introduce the values of farmers and growing food in our culture and on our land is a double win. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. burgess: mr. speaker, i'll reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. mr. polis: i inquire if the gentleman is prepared to close? mr. burgess: i am prepared to close. mr. polis: i might have one person who comes. if she does i'll yield to her. otherwise i yield myself the balance of the time.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: mr. speaker, it would be great if congress could get to work on issues that the american people care about rather than debating how to hide calorie information from consumers. we should be discussing how to make better nutritional information available to people, how to feed more kids who go hungry, how to improve our public health and of course the big issues we actually hear about -- securing our borders, making sure the american people are safe and secure, investing in infrastructure, growing our economy. that's what this body should be focused on. i was told by my staff person that zero constituents of mine have called or written in asking me to support this bill. three have written in opposed to this bill. the rest of them, 792,000 of them, don't think we should be debating this bill, and they haven't opined on it and they
continue to grow disillusioned with the congress that's debating for a day and a half how to best hide nutritional information from them rather than improve the quality of their schools, make college more affordable, make sure they can afford their mortgage, getting used to the fact it's harder to get by every day. mr. speaker, national standards are important. they create something that consumers can recognize and can understand. nutritional labeling standards n menus promote consistency, it increases transparency. it makes compliance less costly. the f.d.a. has accommodated retailers that will be affected by the bill and work to put this feedback back in the final bill. sadly, members of this body have responded instead by preemptively introducing legislation that would not only weaken the guidelines but would delay them for two additional years on top of the two years that they've already been delayed.
this bill would create more fusion than it addresses. it undermines the effectiveness of the regulation by limiting the recourse for civil action in court, and it does not make consumers and the american people any healthier. for all these reasons and more, prominent health care groups across the spectrum oppose this legislation, including the american cancer society, the american heart association, the association of state public health nutritionists, the american public health association, the public health institute, doctors, public health advocates oppose this bill. i urge my colleagues to oppose h.r. 2017 as well. menu labeling provides the necessary information to make healthy choices when eating out, easy access about food we eat serves our nation's public health. by rejecting this bill, congress will be sending the message through rank and file, on both sides of the aisle who oppose and bring it down, we're sending the message that congress should have priorities that the american people have. that we need to get congress to
work on dealing with the bread and butter issues that concern american families every day of the week, every hour of the day. mr. speaker, if we defeat the previous question i'll offer an amendment to the rule to bring up a bill to help prevent mass shootings by promoting research into the causes of gun violence, making it easier to identify and treat those most prone to committing heinous acts. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to bring down this rule and restore the faith of the american people in this institution. . and defeat the previous question. vote no on the rule. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. burgess: mr. speaker, the simple truth is the faith of the american people does not hinge upon the fact that we will jail a chef for an
inadvertent mistake at a pizza restaurant. let me take just a few -- i yield myself the balance of my time. let me use a few minutes to recap some of the history of the affordable care act and perhaps a lesson in civics at the same time. i'm just a simple country doctor. my understanding of how a bill became law was perhaps relegated to the video "school house rock" that i saw many years ago as a child. "school house rock," how a bill becomes law. you are just a bill on capitol hill. you go to kea, you go to the senate, you go to coonches committee, you get voted on and you're on your way. but as paul harvey said, then there is the rest of the story. so let's examine the process for a moment. we have the affordable care act. here's a bill that sort of bumped around on capitol hill for a little over a year's
time. finally did get passed into law. we had a section in the affordable care act, section 4205. mr. speaker, i do not recall which special interest wanted section 4205 placed into the affordable care act. i feel fairly certain that there was a special interest who did want this language in the bill. because the entirety of the affordable care act was essentially written by one special interest or another. but here's a section that was in the affordable care act, duly voted on by the house and the senate, passed in march of 2010, i voted no. let me be very clear on that. as did every republican who is in the house of representatives at the time. but section 4205 is not a terribly long section, it's not terribly difficult to read. section 404205 goes on for perhaps -- 4205 goes on for perhaps four pages and it talks about nutritional labeling.
nutritional labeling in and of itself, not a bad thing. but because of the way the law is written, after its passage, it is then handed off to a federal agency and a federal agency who is composed not of elected members of congress, not of anyone who is directly accountable to any single american constituent anywhere, but the federal agency sits down and goes about the work of interpreting what congress intended when it passed the law. and how are we going to make this work? in and amongst all of the other federal rules and regulationses that are out there? -- regulationses that are out there? -- regulations that are out there? so the food and drug administration sat down to go about the task of writing the ruse and regulations that would govern this one section of the affordable care act. this four-page section in the affordable care act. and they indeed published their work in the federal register
monday, december 1 of 2014. it is about 100 pages of -- since we're talking about font size anyway, it's 100 pages of very small font writing, three columns per page, so there's a lot of stuff here. it's pretty dense. now, you've heard me mention that i'm concerned about the fact that an inadvertent addition of a single slice of pepperoni could send someone to jail for a year. that actually is not covered in the remarks in the federal register. so let me save people some time, if they want to read about where the penalties arise, the penalties arise because there was, as a consequence of the language in the federal register, the food -- a law known as the food, drug and cosmetic act, is amended as a result of this work. the food, drug and cosmetic act, section 403, says, a food
shall be deemed to be misbranded if its labeling is false or misleading in any particular, so that's pretty broad. now, if the food is misbranded, that then invokes a second part under the prohibited actses in the food, drug and cosmetic act, under section 331. the following acts and the causing thereof of prohibited. -- are prohibited. the introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of any food, drug, device, tobacco product or cosmetic that is adult rated or misbranded. we go back to the word misbranded. a food shall be deemed to be miss branded if its -- misbranded if its label something false or misleading in any particular. -- labeling is false or misleading in any particular. then we come to a food that's misbranded. the penalty for such an act
when we get to the section of the food, drug and cosmetic act, section 303, under penalties, violation of section 331 of this title, any person who violates the provision of section 331 of this title shall be imprisoned for not more than one year or fined not more than $1,000 or both. so, therein, mr. speaker, is the problem with the affordable care act as written and then interpreted and as it applies to existing law in the united states code. look, i would think that menu labeling as a matter of course, that is a marketing aspect. if you know that your restaurant is putting out food labeling that is accurate, upon which you can depend, great. i may be more likely to go to such a facility.
but there it is a voluntary choice. it goes from voluntary to compulsory under the language of the affordable care act. and therein is the problem. and that is the problem that representative mcmorris rodgers sought to correct. the inadvertent addition of a single food item in food that is prepared in a restaurant that has more than 20 facilities, think about it, name brand pizza place, and you may have a local franchise in your town, and if you go there on a friday night and the calorie count is not identical to what has been posted on the menu board, someone checks, that chef could be imprisoned for a year. and that is the reason, that is the reason that indeed constituents have written, restaurant owners have written, they have asked, they asked mrs. mcmorris rogers, she
responded to their request, and that's why we have the bill before us today. the rule that is under consideration right now provides for the consideration of an important fix to a harmfully crafted law and a poorly written regulation. i applaud my fellow energy and commerce member, cathy mcmorris rogers, for her work and doing all she could to bring all stakeholders together to craft a workable compromise. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on the rule and yes on the underlying bill and i'll yield back the balance of my time. and move the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. polis: mr. speaker, on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. the chair will receive a message. messager: mr. speaker, a
message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has agreed to the conference report accompanying r. 644, cited as the trade enforcement act of 2015. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. burgess: mr. speaker, i ask -- >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials on h.r. 3442, the debt management and fiscal responsibility act. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, pursuant to house resolution 609 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 3442. the chair appoints the gentleman from alabama, mr. birn, to preside over the ommittee of the whole.
the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on he state of the union. pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the first time. the gentleman from texas, mr. brady, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. brady. mr. brady: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. brady: i'm pleased to speak in support of h.r. 3442, the debt management and fiscal responsibility act. i'd also like to thank mr. marchant of texas for his leadership on this legislation. h.r. 3442 is considered by the committee on ways and means in september of 2015 and was passed with strong support. it is also highly relevant. i've just come from our second hearing on the 2017 budget.
anything we can do to add clarity and stability to our budget and debt process is extremely helpful. the amount of debt this country currently owes is staggering. $19 trillion and growing. the congressional budget office estimates that debt will reach $29 trillion in 2026. let's be clear about why this is happening. it's not because americans aren't taxed enough. it's because washington has a spending problem. as we look to the future, revenues will remain half a percentage point above their historical average as a share of the economy. meanwhile, spending will rise from 21% of the share of the economy today to 23% in 2026. both of which are far above the historical average of 19.9%. when republicans took the house in 2010, this government borrowed 40 cents for every $1 it spent. today it is 14 cents. but that's not good enough.
because under the current law, baseline, it will go up to 21 cents per dollar in 2026, so at unchecked, ft deficits will rise from over $500 billion this year to nearly $1.4 trillion in 2026. congress needs to address this and consider real solutionses to lower the debt and britain sustainability to our federal government. we can't do that if we don't have a debt management system that's consistent, transparent and accountable -- accountable. the debt management and fiscal responsibility act would create a system that allows congress to make informed decisions about the debt ceiling and consider changes before it becomes a crisis. this bill would require the secretary of treasury to report to congress before the statutory debt limit ceiling is hit. so legislators have the information they need when considering it. that reporting would include the current state of the as well as t,
future debt projections, and the administration's plans to meet future obligations. the secretary would also report proposals of the president on how to reduce the debt in the short, medium and long term. any proposals to improve the ratio of debt to g.d.p. finally, the administration would have to submit a progress report if it requests multiple debt limit increases. so congress and the american people can finally get information about progress being made. this legislation would also make the secretary's reports available online, so everyone in america can access this important information. we are at a time when serious decisions must be made about how to grow the economy and stop the increase in the national debt. we can't do that if we don't have the necessary information. so this means we need to be on the same page about the drivers of our debt, and to have an open discussion about our intention to reduce the debt. this bill would take a process that's become, i think, chaotic and difficult for everyone, and
instead create a system, a good, smart, open system, that provides a consistent framework. as otherses have said, the national debt is a shared responsibility. and we need to focus on ways to address it and move forward sensibly. current path we're on is just not sustainable. it would require all of us, both in the legislative and executive branch, to work together to find solutions. the debt management and fiscal responsibility act is an important step in improving this process. not only provide -- it not only provides clarity and transparency but creates accountability and establishes a framework on how to reduce this national debt. with that, mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: the chairman says this bill came out with strong
support and was relevant. the vote in the committee, it s many, many months ago, was strictly partisan. this is a diversion. it was marked up at the same time as that pay china first bill. anybody remember? that irresponsible legislation that came to the floor that was passed by the republicans and died the death legislatively it deserved. so here we are with this bill, part of a two-package bill, that is also going nowhere but it's worse than that because it's really a diversion, a diversion from what we really should be talking about. it requires the treasury department to provide to congress information on the debt limit that we already receive.
distracting from republicans' repeated recklessness about default and reinforcing the false belief that the debt limit is a tool for managing the debt. house republicans refuse to shaun .m.b. director donovan to capitol hill this week otestify on the president's budget, an unprecedented action. we asked this morning in the ways and means committee, why id neither the house nor the house nor the senate committee invite the o.m.b. director and they said something like, we don't have time. hat's really shameful. we're debating this bill which would require the treasury secretary to write a report and come testify before congress on
the very debt reduction proposals they're refusing to hear about now, including from the budget director. if nothing else, republicans are proving they're consistent with their inconsistency. if we were to request from treasury a new report related to the debt limit, it should focus on the dire consequences of default. it should provide detail information on the veterans who would not get the benefits they earned. it would tell how many doctors and hospitals would treat medicare patients not get the care they are already provided. it should enumerate the pell grants we don't pay to students who rely on them to pay for college. it should complain and enumerate the catastrophic consequences of default to our economy. that's the kind of information congress might need the next time we debate the debt limit.
if republicans again, once again propose default instead of responsible action. instead, republicans are insisting on a report that would distract from the danger of default and do nothing to help reduce the debt. if the real goal is debt reduction, as i said, republicans should welcome o.m.b. director donovan to explain the administration's ideas, and then they should sit down with democrats and take bipartisan action now as we did during the clinton administration when bipartisan legislation generated record budget surpluses. so the republicans, i guess, are trying to divert the focus from their inability to take action to reduce the deficit and instead blame treasury and the administration. the administration has issued a statement of administrative
policy and they indicate if the president were presented with h.r. 3442, his advisors would recommend he veto this bill. let me close by just saying how unfortunate it is to bring up obscure the problem. instead on acting on legislation that's so badly needed, including addressing inversions that's going on one after another in this country, this i think demonstrates the total failure of republicans to face up to what we are now facing. that uld be acting on instead of this bill. well, this is going to have the same fate as the pay china first bill, such a terrible mistake it was. it's going nowhere. it will be strictly partisan,
so i say to the republicans in this house, you talk about common ground. instead you bring forth something that essential lisa sham, and you can't -- sham and i now ask, if i might, mr. pascrell, a distinguished member of our committee, control the remainder of the time on our side. the chair: the gentleman from ew jersey is recognized. mr. pascrell: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, ranking member. thank you, chairman, who just left, and of course, mr. marchant from texas. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pascrell: this week the president sent his fiscal year
2017 budget to congress, released it to the american people. haze budget included numerous proposals -- his budget included numerous proposals to reduce the deficit by $1.9 trillion and to grow our economy. in fact, under president obama's leadership we have seen deficits shrink to historic lows, the smallest it's been in seven years. however, the chairman of the house budget committee has refused to hold a hearing on the president's budget with the office of management and budget. this is the first time in 40 years that president's budget will not be granted a hearing. we separate the powers, but we never separate respect. ignoring the fact that the president just sent deficit reduction proposals to congress , rebuffing the mosh director's request -- o.m.b. director's request to testify, the house is instead going to debate
legislation that requires the administration to submit deficit reduction proposals and come and testify about the debt limit and the deficit. something doesn't quite add up here. i have tremendous respect for the sponsor of this bill. i think he's acting in good faith. i think it's logical but i don't think it's true. not everything logical is true, you know. the author of the bill and my colleague on the ways and means committee and i believe this legislation misses the forest for the trees. when nearing the debt limit, the most important thing for congress to know is the catastrophic consequences of a default. yet, this bill makes no mention of such a report. instead, the legislation before us today asks the treasury department to report to congress on things that
congress is most equipped to know. so they're asking us to hear what we already should know, the drivers and composition of future debt -- that's us -- and how the united states will meet its debt obligations. that's what's important to us, and that is what is important to the american people. just a reminder of our constitutional roles, the congress has the responsibility to enact spending and revenue measures. the treasury department, part of the executive branch, executes the laws that we enact, not vice versa. they can't spend money that we haven't authorized. this bill would create new statutory requirements for the treasury department that are unnecessary and duplicative.
the secretary of the treasury regularly corresponds with the budget committee about the debt limit, provides regular updates about the status of our ability to meet our debt obligations and, if i might add, just at this point we know what the constitution says about the debt limit. article 14 is very clear. section 4, quote-unquote, the validity of the public debt of the united states, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions, shall not be questioned. that's what the constitution -- we refer to the constitution, we constitutionalists, only when it suits our purpose and supports our arguments. i think we should look at the
constitution as a document which affects everybody at anytime and anyplace within our borders. now, the treasury provides us with the following -- the budget, the mid session review. in fact, it's online. the daily treasury statement online, the monthly treasury statement -- monthly treasury statement online, the monthly statement of the public debt online, the schedule of the federal debt and the financial report of the united states government, all of which, i'm saying again, are available on the internet. at the time this legislation was brought before the ways and means committee in september of 2015, republicans were
considering a default on the full faith and credit of the united states. a default would have catastrophic consequences, including a collapse of world credit markets and a destruction of job markets. should congress fail to raise the debt limit, treasury will not be able to pay veterans' benefits, pay doctors, pay hospitals, take care of medicare patients, pay salaries to our troops or pell grants to students who need them. these are expenditures that have already been authorized by the congress, but if we don't act on a debt limit, we simply can't pay them. we can't. fortunately we are we're able to come together -- fortunately, we're able to come together. we worked together, believe it or not. we suspended the debt limit until march, 2017. the report triggered by this ill, h.r. 3442, would be
duplicative of information congress has already received from the treasury department, the office of management and budget. so much for government efficiency. well, we can and i believe my good friend from texas, what we can and should do is come together in a bipartisan manner on a budget. what we can and we should do but i believe that we will instead see a deeply partisan and ideological budget from my good friends on the other side hat has no chance of garnering any democratic support and maybe -- i hope that's not the motivation. i yield the balance of my time
and reserve the balance of my time and we will be back. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. brady: thank you -- mr. marchant: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. marchant: i'd like to thank the chairman of the ways and means committee for his consideration and his speaking on the bill today and commend my colleague from new jersey. we had a very lively discussion of this -- about this bill in rules, and over the years, my colleague and i have been able to disagree very agreeably and i trust that today we'll continue in that spirit. mr. chairman, i introduced the debt management and fiscal responsibility act because congress and the administration need to focus on finding debt reduction solutions. there is rarely a time that i appear in my district at a town
hall meeting or even a gathering of just a few people where the subject of the debt of the united states of america is not the focal point of the discussion. i never go through a public meeting where someone doesn't raise their hand and say, what is congress doing about the national debt? so when we began to contemplate this bill a couple years ago, we began to think about how we could put into law a process where congress would not solve the debt -- the debt problem but we would begin a process where the committees of jurisdiction would have a full report from the treasury and the secretary of the treasury about where we were with the debt and the plans of the administration and what they would do to reduce that debt. .
when this bill pass -- bill was passed out of the wamente committee -- ways and means committee, the national debt was $1 trillion. now it's over $19 trillion. debt held by the public is now roughly 74% of the economy's annual output. it is also a higher percentage than any -- than at any point in american history, except for a very brief period around world war irving irving. if current law remains unchanged -- world war ii. if current law remains unchanged, federal debt held by the public will exceed 100% of g.d.p. in 25 years. this is unsustainable. everyone knows that the national debt is increasing. but the existing strategy for dealing with the debt limit only fuels conflict and fiscal irresponsibility. this creates disrupping and uncertainty -- disruption and uncertainty and it erodes the confidence in the american
leadership and economy. five times in the last five years the treasury department has had to employ extraordinary measures to avoid reaching the debt limit. these maneuvers are supposed to be a last resort. they are only -- they were only employed sick other times between the 19 -- six other times between the 1980's and 2011. extraordinary measures have not -- have become the new normal. just like record levels of debt. the goal of h.r. 3442 is to establish a new debt limit process that's more transparent, accountable and timely. this legislation would allow congress and the american people to take an early and accurate look at the debt and the statutory debt limit before it is reached. not after the press release that it has been reached is
released. at this time i'd like to reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. >> mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from maryland, the distinguished minority whip, steny hoyer. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. hoyer: thank you, mr. speaker. the gentleman from texas says he gets asked all the time about the national debt. he can give a very simple answer. because the congress keeps spending money and not paying for it. that's how you incur debt. you buy things and you don't pay for them. they can be all sorts of things. they can be social security, they can be made care, they can be battleships, they can be health care. they can be roads, they can be bridges. and if you don't pay for them, it shouldn't be any surprise
you incur debt. who spends money in the united states of america? the congress. under the constitution. we're the ones that spend money. and you might also, i say to my friend from texas, say, well, when you create 8 -- $800 billion-plus of new debt by cutting taxes and not paying for them, you have less revenue but you don't cut buying stuff, you have more debt. $800 billion-plus in december. what takes courage is buying things and if people want them, saying, we need to pay for them. we need to pay for them so our children don't pay for them. so our grandchildren don't pay for them.
because guess what? they're going to have their challenges in their time. national security challenges, natural resources, i mean, natural disasters, like katrina or sandy, challenges, ebola, aids, health crisises. they're going to have to have resources. and we're spending them. i've been here some time. longer i think than the ntleman from texas, longer than my friend from new jersey. there's one person in america that can stop spending in its tracks. i've been here 36 years. no president in the 36 years that i've served has had a veto overridden of a bill that spent too much money. not one. not one republican president, not one democratic president. so, a president can stop pending in its tracks. under ronald reagan, we increase the national debt
189%. it was less than $1 trillion when i came to the congress of the united states. and it was increased under ronald reagan 189%. the largest of any president. under george bush in four years it was increased 55%. under bill clinton, 8%, 36%. but guess what? during the last four years, we had a balanced budget. the only time in the lifetime of anybody in this body, that we've had four years of balanced budgets. my republican friends, ladies and gentlemen, will say, well, we were in charge of the congress. for the last six years you were. but you were in charge of the house, the senate and the presidency under george bush irving i. -- ii. and the budget deficit was increased 87%. may i have two additional minutes? the chair: the gentleman is recognized for an additional one minute.
mr. hoyer: apparently we're out of time. the president says you're going to veto this bill. but the irony is and the chairman sits on the floor, the irony is the director of the office of management and budget has submitted a budget on behalf of the administration to respond exactly to the questions that this bill wants to ask. and for the first time in 41 years the administration has been refused the opportunity to testify. which "the washington post" called gratuitously con temp white house. and then the audacity, my friends, to bring a bill on the floor in the same week and ask the secretary treasury to come down and testify, talk about the debt, when we know darn well why the debt is what it is. and our responsibility, because
we incur it. to make sure that we pay our debt. that is our moral responsibility as well as our constitutional responsibility. his is politics at its most co ntemp tmbing uous level. to pretend the president is responsible. my friends, we ought to reject this bill. not because the bill on itself. we get this information, as has been so often said. you don't need the secretary treasury to come down here and give it to us. he testifies before the ways and means committee, he testifies before many other committees. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. hoyer: let's reject this bill because it's phony. not because substantively we don't need this information. we have it. the redundant. t does what my friend -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas.
mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i appreciate the fact that my time is expired. this bill ought to expire with it. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. marchant: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time the my privilege to recognize the gentlelady from tennessee that serves on the ways and means committee and the budget committee, i recognize her for two minutes. the chair: the gentlelady from tennessee is recognized. mrs. black: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, our nation is $19 trillion in debt. that's more than $58,000 for every man, woman and child. now, tennesseans know that mounting debt burden in washington is not just an economic concern. this is a national security issue and the a moral issue. one that the president is willfully choosing to ignore. his latest budget would cause our debt to spike to important -- to more than $27 trillion over the next 10 years. and when the government maxes out on its credit cards to pay
for this runaway spending, the obama administration routinely insists on the so-called clean debt limit hike, a blank check with no strings attached. mr. speaker, our constituents deserve better than that. they expect the congress would assert its role as a co-equal branch of government and leverage these opportunities to demand real cuts and to engage the administration in an honest conversation about washington's spending addiction. that's why i support the debt management and fiscal responsibility act. this commonsense piece of legislation would require that the administration come to here, yes, the people's house, before any to teng debt limit increase -- any potential debt limit increase, and testify about the drivers of our debt and a plan to fix it. the treasury department would then be required to post this information on their website so the american people can see the facts for themselves. after all, it is their money
that we are spending. mr. speaker, this is about injecting some basic accountability into a budgeting process. taxpayers and the next generation of americans who will inherit this debt burden that we are accumulating today are owed at least that much. i urge a yes vote on the debt management and fiscal responsibility act and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from texas reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pascrell: how much time do we have, mr. speaker? the chair: the gentleman has 15 minutes remaining. mr. pascrell: thank you. mr. speaker, i just want to remind the young lady from the other side of the aisle, my good friend, that everything you've asked for is pertinent, important, but it's already on the internet. now i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, mr. doggett. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. doggett: amnesia. amnesia, mr. speaker.
it once again pervades this republican caucus. where were these great deficit hawks two months ago when they had an opportunity to vote on increasing the national debt? they are raising their hand aye in favor of hiking the national debt. and today they come forward with the audacity to say, let's solve the national debt runaway problem, we want another government report. to do it. yes, at christmas time these deficit hawks went on a spending spree right here in this house. not a spending spree to provide more educational opportunity to our children, not a spending spree to provide more medical research dollars for our scientists and physicians, not a spending spree to do something about our crumbling roads and build a competitive infrastructure. but a spending spree with tax expenditures from the tax code to stuff every silk stocking
they could find, anyone that had a powerful lobby, they were here to get an ex -- an expanded or extended tax cut. there's what was said two months ago. and i quote. budgeting in this country has pretty much become a joke. members of congress give heartfelt speeches, the same kind we're hearing today, about being responsible and then time and time again they cast votes that add billions and even trillions of dollars to the debt. the rampant hypocrisy is quite golf balling. how can lawmakers -- gawling. how can lawmakers say that when they just passed a deficit finance tax deal that blows a hole, a big hole in the budget? those weren't the words of a democrat. those weren't the words of a progressive institution. they were the words of the president of the committee for a responsible budget, a bipartisan organization, on their board is mitch daniels, allen simpson and a host of
republicans. that final bill that they voted for two months ago added $830 billion to the national debt over the next 10 years as they borrowed money from abroad totive go -- to give it to wall street and other special interests. it will cost us about $2 trillion over the next two decades. and one of the biggest items in that budget was a giveaway to wall street banks. the same wall street banks that helped bring this country to its knees in the economic crisis. yet they came in and they got a tax break in order to encourage shipping more jobs oversales. which is what that particular tax break -- overseas. which is what that particular tax break does. they've added to the debt so much, never seeing a tax break for a special interest that they didn't like to borrow from will rogers, they come to us today and say, give us a report, give us another speech, well, we had the treasury secretary in front of our
committee all morning. our chairman, our republican chairman, was candid, he was cordial, but he was candid in saying that everything that the treasury secretary was offering was dead on arrival. would never see the light of day. this is a wasted endeavor. it ought to be rejected. i yield back. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. marchant: i yield three minutes to mr. roskam from illinois. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. roskam: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. marchant. mr. speaker, mr. marchant has gotten people's attention this afternoon. i'm really surprised at how lively and engaged our friends ron the other side of the aisle and so it begs the question -- what is so provock