[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 113 (Thursday, August 1, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H5276-H5285]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 367, REGULATIONS FROM THE EXECUTIVE 
 IN NEED OF SCRUTINY ACT OF 2013; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 
  2009, KEEP THE IRS OFF YOUR HEALTH CARE ACT OF 2013; PROVIDING FOR 
PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PERIOD FROM AUGUST 3, 2013, THROUGH SEPTEMBER 6, 
  2013; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2879, STOP GOVERNMENT 
                               ABUSE ACT

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 322 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 322

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 367) to amend chapter 8 of title 5, United 
     States Code, to provide that major rules of the executive 
     branch shall have no force or effect unless a joint 
     resolution of approval is enacted into law. 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 the Judiciary. 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 for the purpose of amendment under the 
     five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in 
     the bill modified by the amendment printed in part A of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. That amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     shall be considered as read. All points of order against that 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No 
     amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     shall be in order except those printed in part B of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules. Each such amendment may be 
     offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion 
     of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee 
     shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
     amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a 
     separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the 
     Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute made in order as original text. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2.  Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2009) to 
     prohibit the Secretary of the Treasury from enforcing the 
     Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health 
     Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill 
     shall be considered as read. All points of order against 
     provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any 
     amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
     except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled 
     by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 3.  House Resolution 292 is laid on the table.
       Sec. 4.  On any legislative day during the period from 
     August 3, 2013, through September 6, 2013, --
        (a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day 
     shall be considered as approved;
       (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 I of the Constitution, to be announced by 
     the Chair in declaring the adjournment; and
       (c) bills and resolutions introduced during the period 
     addressed by this section shall be numbered, listed in the 
     Congressional Record, and when printed shall bear the date of 
     introduction, but may be referred by the Speaker at a later 
     time.
       Sec. 5.  The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the 
     duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed 
     by section 4 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a) 
     of rule I.
       Sec. 6.  Each day during the period addressed by section 4 
     of this resolution shall not constitute a calendar day for 
     purposes of section 7 of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 
     1546).
       Sec. 7.  Each day during the period addressed by section 4 
     of this resolution shall not constitute a legislative day for 
     purposes of clause 7 of rule XIII.
       Sec. 8.  Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2879) to 
     provide limitations on bonuses for Federal employees during 
     sequestration, to provide for investigative leave 
     requirements for members of the Senior Executive Service, to 
     establish certain

[[Page H5277]]

     procedures for conducting in-person or telephonic 
     interactions by Executive branch employees with individuals, 
     and for other purposes. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: 
     (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Oversight and Government Reform; and (2) one motion to 
     recommit.
       Sec. 9.  Upon passage of H.R. 2879, the following bills 
     shall be laid on the table: H.R. 1541, H.R. 2579, and H.R. 
     2711.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yoder). The gentleman from Oklahoma is 
recognized for 1 hour.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentlelady from New York 
(Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is 
for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and 
reported a rule for consideration of H.R. 367, the REINS Act; H.R. 
2009, the Keep the IRS Off Your Health Care Act; and H.R. 2879, the 
Stop Government Abuse Act.
  The rule provides a structured rule for consideration of the REINS 
Act, allowing debate time for 12 of 23 amendments submitted. In 
addition, the rule incorporates a technical correction to the bill from 
Chairman Sessions. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally 
divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Additionally, the rule provides a closed rule for consideration of 
H.R. 2009, the Keep the IRS Off Your Health Care Act, and provides for 
1 hour of debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking 
member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Furthermore, the rule provides a closed rule for consideration of 
H.R. 2879, the Stop Government Abuse Act, and provides for 1 hour of 
debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides floor management tools to be 
used during the August recess.
  Mr. Speaker, America's job creators have struggled against strong 
headwinds to recover. In fact, since President Obama took office, 131 
new major regulations, costing at least $70 billion, have been added to 
America's regulatory system.
  Under current law, Congress only has the power to disapprove 
regulations put forward by the executive branch. H.R. 367 flips that 
presumption on its head. Any major regulation estimated to cost over 
$100 million would need to be approved by Congress and must be given an 
``up-or-down'' vote within 70 legislative days.
  In his State of the Union address, President Obama said:

       To reduce barriers to growth and investment, when we find 
     rules that put an unnecessary burden on businesses, we will 
     fix them.

  H.R. 367 does just that. It allows Congress to decide whether major 
rules place unnecessary burdens on job creators.
  The second bill covered by this rule, Mr. Speaker, would prohibit the 
Treasury Department, including the IRS, from implementing or enforcing 
any provision of ObamaCare. In the last few months, the American people 
have learned that the IRS has targeted and intimidated Americans 
exercising their First Amendment rights. Given the recent scandal and 
the massive amount of sensitive information the IRS is required to 
collect under ObamaCare, it's completely inappropriate for the IRS to 
be given this responsibility.
  A recent poll showed that 53 percent of Americans want ObamaCare 
repealed entirely. Mr. Speaker, health care decisions should be made by 
a patient and his or her doctor, not Washington bureaucrats.

  The final bill covered by this rule, H.R. 2879, was extensively 
debated on the floor yesterday. In fact, it combined three bills, all 
aimed at limiting government and returning that power back to the 
people. This bill accomplishes three major objectives:
  First, it caps bonuses for Federal employees at a maximum 5 percent 
of their salary through the end of fiscal year 2015. With Federal 
officials furloughing employees due to sequestration, the government 
should not, at the same time, be handing out millions of dollars in 
bonuses to other employees;
  Second, this bill allows for senior Federal officials under 
investigation for serious misconduct to be put on unpaid leave. Under 
current law, agencies have little recourse but to put officials on paid 
leave, where they can collect a paycheck for months or even years while 
the investigation occurs;
  Finally, this bill allows for citizens to record their meetings and 
telephone exchanges with Federal regulatory officials. In my home State 
of Oklahoma, along with 37 other States, this is already the case. 
However, 12 States require all parties involved in the conversation to 
consent to recording. This bill would allow individuals in all 50 
States to record their conversations when meeting with Federal 
officials acting in their official capacity.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 367, H.R. 2009, and H.R. 2879 all express the views 
of my constituents. They're increasingly concerned and opposed to an 
intrusive and expansive government that seeks to tell them what they 
can and cannot do. These bills seek to stem the tide of crushing 
regulation and rein in an overbearing Federal bureaucracy.
  I urge support for the rule and the underlying bills, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank my colleague for yielding me the 30 minutes, 
and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the final week that the House will be in session 
before we begin our recess. I don't like to call it recess since we 
work as hard at home, but this is probably the last time we'll get 
together until we come back in the fall. As the clock runs out on 
another legislative session, we are voting for the 40th time to repeal 
or to undermine the Affordable Care Act.
  By now, we all know how today's debate will end. The majority will 
pass the bill, the Senate will refuse to take it up, and we will have 
wasted, again, the public's time and their patience. And then they will 
adjourn for August recess, only to return in September with issues like 
jobs, immigration reform, and sequestration left unsolved, as they are 
today.
  The other night, I was watching comedian Stephen Colbert on his 
program. He was talking about the number of times we've voted to try to 
repeal health care. He had a good idea for the Republicans. He said, 
Obviously, you're not going to be able to do it if you say you're going 
to repeal health care, so he suggested that a bill be written that is 
titled, ``This is Not Another Repeal of ObamaCare, We Swear, But Don't 
Look Inside It, Just Sign It Act.'' If you put that act out, maybe you 
would get somewhere with it.
  Some speculated the GOP is desperate to get rid of this law because 
they know it is working and will work better as it gets fully 
implemented and they know they have firmly planted their feet on the 
wrong side of history once again. I can't comment on their motivation, 
but it's clear that millions of Americans are using this law because of 
the incredible benefits that it provides.
  I was really stunned by the last speaker on the 1-minutes this 
morning talking about Maryland, because we just got the statistics from 
Maryland. The health plans are better than ever. Just last week, 
Maryland announced their rates are going to be among the lowest in the 
country, and not, as he said, a 20 percent increase.
  Nevada announced a young adult will be able to purchase a 
catastrophic health insurance plan for less than $100.
  And I said last week, when we had the other vote to get rid of health 
care, New York had just come out with wonderful news on the exchanges. 
Seventeen insurers had applied to provide insurance in the State of New 
York, and it would cause those premiums to fall by more than 50 
percent. And we join 11

[[Page H5278]]

other States with the same kind of news. It's happening all over 
America.
  For those States that decided not to do an exchange and are going to 
let the government do it, fine. I think they'll do okay there. Maybe 
we'll move closer to single-payer, which is what we should be doing.
  Sixty-two days from now, those new exchanges will open their doors 
and they're going to provide millions of Americans with secure and 
affordable health care. For the very first time, insurers are going to 
be barred from denying coverage because of a preexisting condition and 
barred from placing lifetime and yearly limits on an individual's 
health care. They are sending checks back to customers all over the 
country, because the new law requires them to spend 80 percent of the 
premium dollar on health care. And since far less than 80 percent is 
spent, many companies are doing rebates, and people are getting those 
checks.
  I really can't go on much further without talking about what it is we 
are doing here today. I think it's somewhat historical, but it may not 
be the first time. It's probably not. I have not had the pleasure 
before of doing a rule which consists of five bills with very little in 
common being stuffed into one because the House, basically, imploded 
yesterday. I've done all of the rules on health care repeal. If I had a 
machine, I could just press ``repeat'' and walk out of the room and do 
the same speech over and over again.
  The other day I asked Dr. McDermott, who's a psychiatrist, ``What do 
you call someone or one group that does the same thing over and over 
and over again, anticipating a different result?'' and he gave me the 
psychiatric definition for that.

                              {time}  1300

  We all know that today's vote is not a single thing except another 
cynical attempt to score political points. As we go to our districts 
this August, the question is whether or not the majority will double 
down on their failed agendas in September and continue the 
irresponsible attempts to repeal the health care law. If they do, they 
will be escalating their brinksmanship to a new level and risking a 
government shutdown simply because they don't want to compromise.
  Already, as you know, Members of the majority are threatening to shut 
down the government if the Affordable Care Act is not repealed. That 
does show kind of an act of desperation, doesn't it? In fact, a dozen 
Republican Senators have signed a letter vowing to vote against a 
continuing resolution--that we have to have because nobody got their 
work done--that funds the Affordable Care Act, and more than 60 House 
Republicans have called on the majority's leadership to defund the 
Affordable Care Act in any continuing resolution that comes before the 
House.
  Instead, I want the majority to make a change here. My fellow 
Kentuckian, Hal Rogers, who is the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee, yesterday made it plain to everybody that this is all a 
hoax. He talked about sequestration and the impossibility of bringing a 
transportation bill that scarcely has enough money to maintain what 
roads we have, and it imploded on the floor when nobody would vote for 
it. While we're out on recess, please think about this, and think about 
what sequestration is doing in the United States.
  I hope you read former Senator Byron Dorgan's article in The New York 
Times talking about the devastation on the Indian reservations because 
of the money that we owe them by treaty, which is being lost through 
sequestration; the people who are doing health research at the National 
Institutes of Health, where they tell me in the human genome project 
that they are very close to finding a cure for cancer, but now they 
have to stop it. As a scientist, I can promise you, you do not turn 
research off and on like a faucet. And think of all the people who 
can't get their treatment because of sequestration. Think of all the 
people who live in this area and work for this government and keep this 
government working, many of them two members of the family on the 
Federal payroll, who have suffered as much in that family as a 40 
percent pay cut.
  And the bills that are in here today, again, saying to the Federal 
employees: We don't value you for anything. We've already passed 
legislation in here that hurts their pensions. They haven't had a raise 
in 4 years. What we're saying now, if this bill passes today, is that 
they can be fired without cause and that their phones will be tapped by 
any citizen in the United States. I really am concerned about what's 
going on here.
  We talk about too much regulation. I want to close with something I 
mentioned last night at the Rules Committee because I realize most 
Americans don't know it. But let me talk about under-regulation.
  In the food market, chickens are inspected 100 at a time--100 a 
minute going through the conveyor belt. They're covered with barnyard 
debris and feces and whatever else. One person is inspecting them as 
100 of them go by. So what's going to happen now they have decided to 
regulate? They will have to do 140 chickens a minute.
  Recently, The Washington Post had a front-page story that stunned me 
to the core. It said that a young food inspector, working for the 
government, his lungs bled out and he died from the chemicals that he 
inhaled from his chicken inspection days. Now, after the chicken goes 
through a conveyor belt, it goes into a bath of cool water and Clorox. 
Then it's ready to be packaged and all plastic-ed up and have it for 
dinner. Is that overregulation? For heaven's sakes, give me more 
regulation than that.
  But I want to urge my colleagues today to vote ``no'' on this rule, 
the underlying legislation, and quit this farce in the House of 
Representatives.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to quickly respond, if I may, to a couple of points my good 
friend made.
  First, I want to begin by agreeing with her because, quite frankly, 
as I've stated publicly on many occasions, I don't believe a government 
shutdown is a good idea either. I think that's not a responsible 
political tactic. And while my good friend has been concerned that some 
people in my party have advocated that, I would also express a similar 
concern, quoting press reports that some advisors to the President have 
recommended that, should we send a so-called ``continuing resolution'' 
that funded the government that did not repeal sequester, he should 
veto it and that would shut down the government.
  So I think there's been a little bit of irresponsible discussion 
about shutting down the government--which, with my friend, I agree, is 
never a good idea--that's come from both sides of the aisle.
  In terms of her observations about sequestration, as an appropriator, 
again, we probably find some common ground here. I would like to see us 
also get rid of sequestration, but I'd like to do it by redistributing 
the cuts to the nondiscretionary side of the budget where I think they 
belong. We need to keep the savings--that's why the deficit is coming 
down--but there are certainly smarter and better ways to do that. And 
if the President is willing to do that, I suspect he would find a 
willing negotiating partner on our side of the aisle.
  In fact, though, many of my friends advocate what is effectively a 
third tax increase this year. We had a tax increase with the so-called 
``fiscal cliff.'' When all the Bush tax cuts ended, the President used 
that to raise taxes. We have a tax increase this year associated with 
his health care plan kicking in that's major. And now my friends on the 
other side of the aisle want a third tax increase to keep the 
government open and operating. We think we can spend money better and 
smarter, and that we ought to continue to reduce spending, not increase 
the burdens on the American people.
  Finally, I want to talk to my friend, who discussed ObamaCare, and 
she's absolutely right; we certainly would like to repeal it, and we 
certainly have tried to make that point repeatedly. Frankly, her 
disagreement is not with us so much as it is with the American people. 
This is an extraordinarily unpopular law. No poll has ever shown that 
more people like it than dislike it; quite the opposite. People would 
like to see it repealed. It's simply not a very good idea. Frankly, 
we're seeing signs of that right now. The President himself, in a 
signature piece of legislation, had to ask that the business mandates 
actually be pushed back by a

[[Page H5279]]

year. We would like to help him in that, and we'd like to do it for 
individuals as well, but that suggests this was certainly a bill not 
ready for prime time.
  A former Presidential candidate--I very seldom quote Howard Dean in 
agreement, but he had an interesting piece in The Wall Street Journal 
this week on why the central cost-control mechanism of ObamaCare--the 
Independent Payment Advisory Board--simply wouldn't work. Now, that's 
not us; that's criticism from somebody that probably supports a 
national health care plan of some kind.
  Finally--and I think this does get overlooked in a debate, and I want 
to end my comments on a point of agreement, because while we have voted 
repeatedly to repeal, there have actually been times that we have, on 
both sides of the aisle, agreed--and agreed with the President--about 
changing this bill.
  In the last couple of years, we have actually passed seven pieces of 
legislation when we were in the majority--they obviously had to go 
through a Democratic Senate and to the President's desk--that changed 
or modified ObamaCare--and saved, by the way, about $62 billion. My 
friends, after ramming that legislation through, looked at the so-
called 1040s that were going to be attached to every $600 purchase and 
said, you know, you guys are right, that's a really bad idea. The 
President thought so too. And we got rid of it.
  We also got rid of the assisted living portion of it, the so-called 
``CLASS Act'' that was just financially unsustainable. Why? Secretary 
Sebelius looked at it and said, you know, this really isn't going to 
work. And I'll bet you sooner or later we'll get a medical device tax 
elimination down here on this floor--people on both sides know it's 
nuts to be taxing people's wheelchairs and oxygen cans because they're 
sick and use that to fund health care, and I'll bet you we can probably 
find common agreement on that.
  So, while we would like to repeal, we certainly are willing to work 
when we find common areas and continue to try and improve a very flawed 
product.
  With that, I'd like to yield such time as he may consume to my good 
friend and fellow Rules Committee member from Florida (Mr. Nugent).
  Mr. NUGENT. I thank my good friend on the Rules Committee, a member 
that I have the pleasure of serving with.
  Today, I rise in support of House Resolution 322 and the underlying 
legislation, H.R. 367, the Regulations from the Executive in Need of 
Security Act. I want to thank my friend for bringing this forward as 
the rule. But this is better known as the REINS Act. The underlying 
legislation would bring much-needed reform to our broken regulatory 
process.
  Now, my good friend from New York (Ms. Slaughter) talked about 
chickens--and she mentioned it last night. But the issue really, what 
she's talking about when you're talking about the number of chickens 
being observed by the USDA, this is the President. They want to 
increase the number. They want to go to a private system. So I agree 
that it's a bad idea. But maybe the REINS Act could actually help in 
that particular instance because you could bring it back to this House 
to talk about it because, as a valued member of the Rules Committee, 
she brought up a good idea.
  But somewhere along the line we have lost sight of what Congress' 
responsibility in the role of regulation is all about. Through the 
years, we have delegated away our responsibility. We gave it to 
unelected bureaucrats to make decisions that have far-ranging effects 
on the American people. I'm pretty sure that our Founding Fathers 
really didn't envision us doing that; that bureaucrats are going to 
decide the fates of small businesses and industries. That's exactly 
what we let happen because it was easy--it's easier. And all too often, 
in making regulations in D.C., we just aren't in touch with how that 
actually affects real Americans, real jobs in this country.
  We all hear from folks back home about how regulations passed in D.C. 
are preventing their businesses from growing and expanding. It's a 
common refrain, Mr. Speaker.
  The REINS Act, however, would return us to the vision our Founding 
Fathers had for this institution and for this Nation. It does so by 
ensuring that any major rule--that's a rule that has over $100 million 
in impact to our economy--receive approval from this body and from the 
Senate before it actually goes into the process of regulation.
  Certainly, regulations with an impact this large deserve to have our 
attention, our review, and ultimately our blessing by our vote. 
Frankly, they deserve more than just a public comment period that 
regulatory agencies give the public. For that reason, I urge support of 
the rule and the underlying legislation.
  I'll just give you one anecdote, Mr. Speaker. Back home, we have a 
cement kiln that produces cement for use all over the United States; 
employs 200 people right there. And I come from a county today that 
still has unemployment of 8.9 percent. What the EPA is looking to do is 
put those businesses out of existence.
  When I talked to the folks that actually run the cement kiln, they 
said, Rich, we can just go across the border into Mexico, where they 
don't have any restrictions on air pollution, and we can do it cheaper 
because we don't have to have the pollution controls. But you know 
what, that air doesn't stop at the border, it comes back into the 
United States. So when you force companies out--and we have some of the 
strongest and most stringent EPA requirements for air and water--when 
you force those companies to leave our country, take the jobs with 
them, we still breathe dirtier air than we would have. So there has got 
to be a common ground.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, let me take just a second to say another 
case of un-regulation is the fertilizer plant blowing up in West, 
Texas, that had not been inspected in over 20 years.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.
  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the ranking member of the Rules Committee, my 
friend, Ms. Slaughter, for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I have a great deal of respect for 
the gentleman from Oklahoma. But I say that this House is not working. 
And the American people are angry with all of us, 100 percent of us.
  The gentleman from Florida just said ``surely we can find common 
ground.'' The gentleman talked about shutting down the government being 
an unreasonable response, although many in his party promote that. The 
President's not promoting it; the President is against it. You know our 
side is against that. Surely, we can reach common ground.
  Yesterday, we had eight bills on the floor on suspension. The public 
doesn't know process, I understand that--they're not too interested in 
hearing about process. But suspensions make for short debates and no 
amendments, no ability to make changes in those bills. That's why they 
were offered on suspension.

                              {time}  1315

  Apparently, three of those bills were pulled because they didn't 
think they had the votes. I don't think they had the votes either--
``they'' being the majority.
  So what did they do in their pursuit of a transparent ``let the House 
work its will'' pledge that they had made to the American public when 
they sought control, being in the majority? They've gone to the Rules 
Committee. One rule, five bills. How can you debate five different 
bills with rules, whether the rules are correct? And what are those 
rules? Closed, no amendments, limited discussion.
  Yesterday, we had an appropriations bill on the floor. It was pulled. 
It was pulled, as I predicted it would be, because the Republican 
majority cannot get its act together. It disagrees with itself. It is a 
deeply divided party.
  I was just on television, and they played a clip of Rush Limbaugh 
before that, and Rush Limbaugh said ``we ought not to compromise 
because we don't have anything in common with them''--meaning 
Democrats. My response was: ``Oh, I think Rush Limbaugh is wrong.''
  We are all Americans, and we are all elected here by Americans to 
serve

[[Page H5280]]

them and to serve their country, to serve our communities and our 
neighbors, and to try to do things that make sense. Americans elected 
all of us from different places, different interests.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. I say this because, Mr. Speaker, the American people need 
to know what's happening.
  They pulled the Transportation-Housing bill. I wasn't for that bill 
as it came out of committee, nor were any Democrats that voted on it in 
committee, but they brought it to the floor and then pulled it. Nine 
days from tomorrow, nine legislative days from tomorrow, we are going 
to have that issue of how we are going to fund government and keep it 
running.
  The Senate just a few minutes ago refused to allow the Senate--
because the Republican Party voted ``no'' on bringing debate to close 
after days of debate and discussion, and they voted ``no'' to take the 
HUD bill up for discussion.
  So in both Houses the Republican Party has abandoned the 
appropriations process. Now, I've just said that.
  Hal Rogers, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, a conservative 
Republican, says this:
  ``I am extremely disappointed with the decision to pull the bill from 
the House calendar today. The prospects of passing this bill in 
September are bleak at best, given the vote count on passage that was 
apparent this afternoon. With this action, the House has declined to 
proceed on the implementation of the very budget it adopted'' without a 
single Democratic vote.
  He went on to say--Mr. Rogers, conservative, Kentucky, chairman of 
the Appropriations Committee, Republican:

       Thus, I believe that the House has made its choice: 
     sequestration--and its unrealistic and ill-conceived 
     discretionary cuts--must be brought to an end.

  The Ryan budget was unrealistic when it was considered on this floor. 
Mr. Rogers voted for that budget. He knew then it was unrealistic. He 
knew then it could not be implemented.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. I predicted then that if you took every Democrat out of 
the House and every Democrat out of the Senate, that that budget could 
not be implemented through the appropriations process and through the 
Ways and Means process, and I was right.
  Yes, we need to seek common ground. We are hurting the economy, we 
are undermining the confidence of the American people and, indeed, we 
are undermining the confidence of our international partners.
  Tom Cole sits here representing the Rules Committee. I want to tell 
everybody in America Tom Cole is a reasonable Member of this House. 
He's been a leader of this House. He wants to see common ground, in my 
view, so I do not criticize him.
  But I say, Mr. Speaker, as you tap the gavel, time is not only 
running out on Steny Hoyer, time is running out on this House, time is 
running out on America, time is running out on the patience of 
Americans that their House is not working.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, we are witnessing on full display the utter 
failure of Republicans to govern as the majority.
  Yesterday, after the Speaker and Majority Leader pulled the 
Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development appropriations bill from 
the floor, because they didn't have the votes to pass it, chairman Hal 
Rogers of the Appropriations Committee--that is, Republicans' top 
appropriator--issued a scathing rebuke to his party's own sequester 
strategy.
  He wrote:

       With this action, the House has declined to proceed on the 
     implementation of the very budget it adopted just three 
     months ago. Thus, I believe that the House has made its 
     choice: sequestration--and its unrealistic and ill-conceived 
     discretionary cuts--must be brought to an end.

  Not my words, Mr. Speaker, but the Republican chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee.
  What a shame that we are now harming our national security and 
limiting our ability to protect the most vulnerable people in America 
through this sequester process.
  It is also hurting our economic recovery, as the nonpartisan CBO has 
estimated it could cost us as many as 1.6 million jobs that would have 
been created by the end of the next fiscal year--and 1.3 percentage 
points of added GDP.
  The sequester is a result of Congress stalling on tough decisions and 
an insistence by tea party Republicans on divesting from America and 
dismantling the foundations of the American Dream.
  And it has been embraced by the Republican leadership as their 
singular approach to deficits.
  But the sequester is not a rational or responsible solution.
  It was never meant to be.
  The mere threat of sequester was intended to be so severe that it 
would compel both parties to cooperate and find a balanced alternative.
  Now, like Chairman Rogers, many Republicans are growing tired of the 
sequester and are ready to compromise.
  But not the Republican leadership, and that is very sad.
  The complete implosion of their appropriations strategy demonstrates 
that, in order to pass appropriations or any substantive legislation, 
Republicans will have to compromise and work with Democrats in a 
bipartisan way.
  It is sad and shameful that we are about to adjourn for a 5-week 
district work period, leaving critical business to create jobs and 
tackle deficits unfinished, while Republicans waste this Congress's 
time on a 40th vote to repeal ObamaCare.
  When we return in September, I hope Republicans will see this week's 
appropriations debacle as their own appropriations chairman has--and 
abandon their reckless support for the sequester.
  Let us focus now on seeking bipartisan compromise and the big, 
balanced solution that will restore fiscal sanity and give American 
families and businesses the certainty they deserve.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My friend--and he is my friend--I think is really one of the great 
speakers of this Chamber. I mean that with all sincerity.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. COLE. But this isn't the Senate. We don't have unlimited debate 
over here, so he's kind of stretching it a little bit, but it's always 
worth listening to.
  Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COLE. I will certainly yield to my friend.
  Mr. HOYER. I used to be the majority leader, and the thing that I 
hated losing most was my magic 1 minute, because as the gentleman will 
recall, it was an unlimited 1 minute.
  Mr. COLE. And I want to say, my friend, the gentleman, exercised it 
to the extreme, but he's always worth listening to.
  I want to underscore a point my good friend made, because I do agree 
with you very much about government shutdown. I don't think that's a 
responsible tactic. I've seen it advocated from time to time from 
people on both sides of the aisle. We've had reports of it from 
advisors to the President. I certainly wouldn't suggest the President 
would agree with that. But I hope we don't get there, and I will pledge 
to work with my friend to make sure that we do not.
  I also think, though, that we ought to recognize that we have worked 
together on some occasions. My friend and I worked together on the 
fiscal cliff, we worked together on violence against women, we worked 
together on Sandy, we worked together, actually, on the CR in March. So 
there are times when we can come together.
  We are working together now. I suspect the President will soon sign 
the Student Loan Act, an act that was originated on our side--problems 
were on the Senate side--and passed. Eventually, they came around and 
saw the same thing the way the President and we saw it on this side of 
the aisle.
  Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman will yield, I say respectfully to my 
friend, we think the President sent down a piece of legislation similar 
to yours, correct. But we both worked together; you're right.
  Mr. COLE. We did. I appreciate that, and we found common ground. I 
hope we can again.
  But also when we're lectured a little bit on rules--and, look, we 
both wear

[[Page H5281]]

these hats occasionally--I will remind my friends, when they were in 
the majority, the rules under which they brought a massive health care 
bill to this floor with almost no debate, a massive stimulus, billions 
of dollars, with essentially no debate and no consideration, the Dodd-
Frank rule.
  So whatever sins have been committed on our side of the aisle, I 
would suggest this is one where you need to look at the log in your own 
eye in terms of the size and scope of that legislation and the rules 
that accompany them.
  Mr. HOYER. Will my friend yield on that point?
  Mr. COLE. I will yield to the gentleman on that.
  Mr. HOYER. The gentleman is correct. Both sides have done it. But you 
will recall, your side criticized us very substantially and said you 
would not do it. That I think is the difference. But both sides, you're 
absolutely correct, have brought rules that have been closed and 
limited in their scope.
  Mr. COLE. Reclaiming my time, I seriously doubt that you have never 
said we wouldn't do this. I've heard the same thing when we talk about 
debt ceiling where we know the rules get reversed from time to time.
  So I think this legislation--and I think it's very significant 
legislation--but I don't think it ranks with either of the three 
examples that I gave in which this body was not given the opportunity. 
Frankly, I think the Republican majority is here today largely because 
that's the way the House was operated the way the last time my friends 
had an opportunity to do that.
  But regardless of that, I appreciate my friend's remarks as always. I 
always enjoy the exchange, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the distinguished ranking 
member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the gentlelady for yielding to me some time to 
talk about one specific bill that this rule would allow the House to 
consider.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and a ``no'' vote 
on the underlying bill. It's called the REINS Act, Regulations From the 
Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act.
  What does that mean? Well, that's a bill that says anytime there's a 
regulation adopted pursuant to a law that we passed that costs over a 
certain amount of money, Congress is going to pass the regulation. 
Well, that just delays things and means special interests can get in 
here and stop those regulations that are needed to protect the public 
health and the environment.
  I want to give an example. I asked the Rules Committee to make in 
order that this particular bill shouldn't stop proposed FDA food safety 
regulations. Well, they didn't even allow me to offer that amendment.
  But the reason I wanted to offer that amendment and the reason this 
bill is not a good bill, is that foodborne illnesses, we are seeing 
outbreaks striking often and more frequently, and that can happen to 
anybody, Democrat or Republican. Foods we never thought would have 
imagined to be unsafe--everything from spinach to peanut butter--have 
sickened an untold number of Americans. Our food supply has also become 
increasingly globalized, which poses another danger. So 50 percent of 
our fresh fruit and 20 percent of our fresh vegetables are imported, 
and this imported food is responsible for a large share of the number 
of foodborne illness outbreaks. Since 2011, eight of the 19 multi-State 
outbreaks were from imports.
  So what did Congress do? Well, we said we've got to do something 
about it, and we adopted a bill on a bipartisan basis called the FDA 
Food Safety Modernization Act. It passed in 2010. That law provided FDA 
the power to set a way to police the food supply and make significant 
improvements throughout the food chain from the farm to the dinner 
table to stop these unsafe foods.
  FDA has been working hard to comply with this mandate. This year, 
they issued three proposed rules that would implement some of the key 
pieces of the food safety legislation.
  One rule would require farmers to comply with science-based standards 
for safe production and harvesting of produce. Another would require 
companies that process or package foods to implement preventive systems 
to stop outbreaks before they occur.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield an additional minute to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. WAXMAN. The purpose of these rules are to stop and prevent the 
outbreak of foodborne illnesses.
  Last week, FDA issued a proposed rule to mandate that importers 
demonstrate that the food they bring into the country is safe. Well, 
these rules will not be allowed to go into effect until Congress--both 
the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States with 
all their committees and subcommittees--meet to consider the 
regulations that FDA adopted. While they're doing all of that, we'll be 
exposed to foodborne illnesses.
  My amendment would make this process of the REINS bill unnecessary as 
it applies to this particular area, but it illustrates why the REINS 
bill is not well thought through. Congress shouldn't have to adopt 
every regulation if we adopt a law saying to an agency ``adopt 
regulations based on the science, adopt regulations to enforce the 
law.''
  I would urge we oppose the rule and oppose the REINS bill as well.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Nolan).

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. NOLAN. Mr. Speaker, there were 87 new Members elected in the last 
session of the Congress--about half of them Republicans, about half of 
them Democrats. I'll tell you what, we all got the same message in the 
last election, and that was that the people in this country had had it 
with gridlock and partisanship, and they wanted to see some more 
collaboration, some cooperation, some problem-solving, fixing things, 
getting things done.
  There is so much that we agree on. I mean, our roads are in need of 
repair; our bridges are literally falling down; the rich are getting 
richer and the poor are getting poorer; the middle class is getting 
crushed, and we all want to rebuild this middle class; there are 
millions of people who are unemployed every day, and there are millions 
more who are underemployed.
  Mr. Speaker, I'm a businessman. I've been a business owner, 
responsible for the bottom line and for getting things done in my 
business. I've got to tell you, if we weren't getting the job done, we 
wouldn't be going on a 5-week recess, vacation--or whatever it is you 
want to call it. There are so many pressing needs, and we are scheduled 
to be in session for 9 days in September, and we know what those 
Mondays and Tuesdays are like. We know what happens here. So we're 
looking at about 3 or 4 days, and what have we got to deal with? We 
have to deal with appropriations, the budget, the farm bill, the jobs 
bill, immigration, transportation, the debt ceiling--and there are 
Members of this Congress who are calling for a shutdown of the Federal 
Government.
  So I wanted to address just two things today. One is to postpone, or 
delay, this recess; and let's take up a couple of things. Like I said, 
our bridges are falling down. Let's take up the SAFE Bridges Act that 
Congressman Rahall has offered. Let's take up the American Jobs Act 
that the President has offered. Let's put people to work in this 
country. Let's support Congresswoman Slaughter's motion to defeat the 
previous question, and let's amend it to allow for the consideration of 
the SAFE Bridges Act.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a 
member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, what is particularly frustrating about what we are doing 
here today is that this is a colossal waste of time. We are taking up 
five bills that are going nowhere in the Senate. The President has 
already issued veto threats on all of them. These are just press 
releases that the Republican National Committee has decided would be 
good things for Republican Members to release in their

[[Page H5282]]

districts. None of this stuff is meaningful. It's going nowhere.
  We are also repealing the Affordable Care Act for the 40th time. When 
the gentleman says that the Affordable Care Act is not popular, I will 
remind him that we had a referendum on the Affordable Care Act--it was 
called a Presidential election. The last time I checked, Mitt Romney 
was not in the White House. I think he's out on his yacht somewhere, 
but he's certainly not in the White House.
  So we are doing this meaningless stuff, and we have 9 legislative 
days left before the end of the fiscal year, before we approach a 
government shutdown, and we have people on the other side of the 
aisle--people running for President on the other side of the aisle--
publicly bragging about how they want to shut the government down.
  Now, I have great respect for the gentleman from Oklahoma. I think he 
is a reasonable, rational, good Member of this Congress. I wish there 
were more like him on his side of the aisle, but there aren't. In fact, 
the Republican Party is being ruled by the fringe right-wing elements 
of that party--those who are pushing for a shutdown, those who are 
saying compromise on nothing, those who helped defeat the farm bill, 
those who, quite frankly, are insisting on budget numbers that are so 
unbelievably low for things like our infrastructure that they had to 
pull the Transportation-HUD bill from the floor yesterday.
  We ought to be fixing sequester. Chris Van Hollen, on our side of the 
aisle, has an alternative to sequester. We ought to vote on it. My 
Republican friends haven't allowed a vote on an alternative to 
sequester all year--nothing. We ought to go to conference on the budget 
so that we can actually get a budget so that we can have reasonable 
numbers on our appropriations bills that we can pass and be proud that 
we're doing something to put people back to work. We are doing nothing 
in this House. We ought not go on recess until we do the people's 
business.
  Mr. COLE. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we did have a referendum on ObamaCare. Do you know what 
we got? We got a split decision because, while the American people 
certainly reelected the President, they also reelected a Republican 
House. That's a hard thing to achieve in what my friends would regard 
as a great Presidential victory. We had 435 different referendums about 
this. So the American people, for whatever reason, either wanted the 
debate to continue or certainly didn't want to leave the President, as 
they did in 2009 and 2010, with essentially total control over the 
legislative branch. They didn't like what they saw then, and I don't 
think they would like what they would see if that were to happen.
  As for our friends in the Senate, letting them decide what the agenda 
is going to be in the House, I think, is, quite frankly, a mistake. 
They don't get a lot done over there. Every now and then, though, 
they'll surprise you.
  I remember hearing these same arguments about the Student Loan Act in 
that, gosh, what we were planning and proposing, even though it was 
relatively close to what the President proposed, was never going to 
happen. In fact, if you'll remember at one point and if I recall 
correctly, I think the President, himself, issued a veto threat against 
the legislation. So, had we followed our friend's advice, everybody's 
student loans in America would be skyrocketing right now.
  Every now and then, you just have to go out and fight for the things 
that you believe in; and, amazingly, sometimes the United States Senate 
will come around, and, occasionally, the President of the United States 
will change his mind or at least will decide this was close enough to 
be good enough.
  So I would suggest we just continue to get up every day as we all do, 
to work as best we can for the things that we believe in, and at the 
end of the day--believe me--the American people will make a judgment, 
and we'll see what happens.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham), a member of 
the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
  Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today 
in opposition to this rule.
  Every weekend, I go home to New Mexico, and my constituents always 
ask me: What's going on in Congress? What is Congress doing to create 
jobs and grow the economy and end the sequester?
  There are currently 2,000 constituents in my district who are getting 
furloughed every week, and they want to know. There are countless 
teachers, construction workers, small business owners, and first 
responders; and they want to know. Unfortunately, the answer is 
``nothing'' because of the House Republican leadership. They simply 
cannot govern.
  Yesterday, Republicans pulled the Transportation, Housing and Urban 
Development appropriations bill from the schedule, illustrating that 
the sequester and the Republican budget are not feasible. Tomorrow, we 
will adjourn for a 5-week district work period, and we still haven't 
passed a jobs bill or a budget that replaces the sequester or that 
reduces the deficit, and we haven't passed comprehensive immigration 
reform. Instead of addressing any of these critical issues, House 
Republicans have decided that it's more important to vote one more time 
to repeal the Affordable Care Act--for the 40th time.
  Mr. Speaker, New Mexicans and Americans want Congress to focus on 
jobs and economic growth.
  Mr. COLE. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to a number of points my friends have 
made about the issue of sequester. I simply want to remind them whose 
idea it was. If they have any doubt, they should read the Bob Woodward 
book, ``The Price of Politics,'' or follow the lively correspondence 
that came after the book was published.
  The reality is that the idea of sequester was the President's 
proposal. He proposed it; he advocated for it; he signed it into law. 
Now we hear from our friends, gosh, the Republicans won't undo it or we 
didn't really mean that it would actually ever happen.
  We've had this discussion before. The simple truth is that we are 
willing to renegotiate where the cuts come from. We actually agree with 
our friends on that. What they're not willing to do is to actually 
reduce spending. That's essentially what the debate is about.
  This is the method that the President recommended, signed and 
advocated for. If he wants to undo it--something, by the way, this 
House twice in the last term did, but our friends in the Senate never 
picked it up, and the President never came up with a counteroffer, so 
we're sort of still waiting over here--and if the President would like 
to redistribute the cuts, I have no doubt the Speaker would like to 
talk to him. But the idea that we're just going to simply undo it and 
lose all the savings, I think, is also unlikely to occur.
  So let's sit down. We all know there are better ways to do this. 
We're willing to do that on our side, but we are not willing to raise 
taxes, and we are not willing to lose savings.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus), a member of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure.
  Ms. TITUS. I thank the gentlelady for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule and the 
underlying bills. I am especially disappointed that my amendment to 
H.R. 367, the REINS Act, wasn't made in order.
  My amendment would have protected women and children from the delay 
and obstructionism in this bill by exempting the Family Medical Leave 
Act, the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, the Individuals With 
Disabilities Education Act, and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act from 
the bill's intrusive provisions.
  These four laws safeguard the economic, social, and physical well-
being of women and children in Nevada and across the country. They give 
mothers the chance to care for a new child, ensure that our students 
have access to nutritious food, protect the rights of students with 
disabilities, and help women fight for equal pay for equal work.

[[Page H5283]]

  My amendment would have offered the Republicans a chance to be 
reasonable and to dial back their war on the most vulnerable in our 
country.
  H.R. 367, like the other bills being considered under this rule, 
would hinder our government's ability to serve the people, and it is 
simply a waste of valuable time. I urge my colleagues to reject it.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth), a member of the Committee on 
Oversight and Government Reform.
  Ms. DUCKWORTH. I thank the gentlelady from New York for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, instead of bickering over partisan pieces of legislation 
that will go nowhere, we should be working to fix the sequester and 
hammer out a budget that creates jobs, grows our middle class, and 
responsibly reduces the deficit.
  We should be taking up a well-funded Transportation and Housing 
appropriations bill rather than the draconian measure that drastically 
underfunded projects like those in my home district, such as the Elgin-
O'Hare and the Barrington Road and Interstate 90 interchange. We need 
to make investments to rebuild our bridges, to improve our 
infrastructure, and to keep our children safe. We should be working on 
comprehensive immigration reform that is practical, fair, and humane. 
Reform with a pathway to citizenship will expand our workforce, secure 
our borders, and bring in new revenue to help us balance our budget.
  I was sent to Washington to work on legislation that creates jobs and 
tackles the deficit. I don't want to leave for a 5-week district work 
period without taking some action on our critical, unfinished business.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, we will offer on our 
side an amendment to the rule that allows the House to consider the 
SAFE Bridges Act, which funds emergency repairs and creates countless 
American jobs. We are about to go into a 5-week break; and so far, the 
Congress has done nothing to end sequestration or to create jobs for 
the country. My amendment will prevent the House from going home until 
we have done the job we were sent here to do.
  To discuss our proposal, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Larsen), a member of the Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support 
Ranking Member Slaughter's motion to call up the SAFE Bridges Act.
  In May, a portion of a bridge on Interstate 5 in my district 
collapsed into the Skagit River. Like most of my constituents, I've 
driven over that bridge hundreds of times. The fact that no one died 
when it collapsed was a blessing, but not everyone has been so lucky. 
My colleagues will remember in 2007 when a bridge spanning the 
Mississippi River in Minneapolis crashed down during rush hour, killing 
13 people and injuring 145.
  So, today, I want to ask my colleagues a very simple question: Should 
not Americans be able to drive across a highway bridge with the 
reasonable expectation that it will not crumble away from underneath 
them?
  There are 67,000 bridges in our country that are rated structurally 
deficient--67,000 bridges. When those bridges fall, it isn't just the 
unlucky few on those bridges who suffer. Whole economies that rely on 
safe and efficient transportation suffer. The I-5 bridge across the 
Skagit River doesn't just connect Burlington and Mount Vernon. It 
connects the entire west coast and carries millions of dollars' worth 
of trade every day between Canada and the U.S.

                              {time}  1345

  Here's the good news: we know how to build safe bridges. There are 
thousands of civil engineers devoting their lives today to building 
good structures that don't fall down, but we need to pay for them. We 
need to maintain our bridges until they're old and replace them when we 
need to. We can't wait for them to crumble into the water below.
  In light of this obvious need, how much has this Congress done to 
improve bridge safety or invest in infrastructure?
  Mr. Speaker, that was the sound of how much congressional action has 
been taken--nothing.
  Just yesterday, house leadership pulled the Transportation 
appropriations bill because they couldn't find enough Republicans to 
support its draconian cuts. Instead of rushing home, we should take up 
the SAFE Bridges Act introduced by Mr. Rahall to immediately invest in 
bridges. Rather than repealing ObamaCare for the 40th time this 
Congress, we should invest in our infrastructure for the first time.
  If you think your constituents should be able to drive over a bridge 
without wondering whether it will crumble beneath them, then this 
Congress must act on robust transportation funding.
  Mr. Speaker, I enter into the Record a State-by-State funding table 
under the SAFE Bridges Act.


    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

    ESTIMATED DISTRIBUTION OF $2,750,000,000 FOR EACH OF FISCAL YEARS 2013 AND 2014 BASED ON THE DRAFT BILL,
                               STRENGTHEN AND FORTIFY EXISTING BRIDGES ACT OF 2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                State                     Estimated  FY 2013       Estimated  FY 2014        Estimated  Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA..............................               34,528,552               34,528,552               69,057,105
ALASKA...............................               10,150,614               10,150,614               20,301,227
ARIZONA..............................               14,438,937               14,438,937               28,877,874
ARKANSAS.............................               28,254,401               28,254,401               56,508,803
CALIFORNIA...........................              232,052,224              232,052,224              464,104,449
COLORADO.............................               15,902,404               15,902,404               31,804,807
CONNECTICUT..........................              126,132,725              126,132,725              252,265,450
DELAWARE.............................                8,962,416                8,962,416               17,924,832
DIST. OF COL.........................               20,403,500               20,403,500               40,806,999
FLORIDA..............................               46,328,630               46,328,630               92,657,259
GEORGIA..............................               24,586,058               24,586,058               49,172,116
HAWAII...............................               17,770,494               17,770,494               35,540,988
IDAHO................................                7,397,016                7,397,016               14,794,031
ILLINOIS.............................               88,159,721               88,159,721              176,319,441
INDIANA..............................               37,906,433               37,906,433               75,812,866
IOWA.................................               31,283,878               31,283,878               62,567,756
KANSAS...............................               22,117,236               22,117,236               44,234,472
KENTUCKY.............................               38,179,080               38,179,080               76,358,160
LOUISIANA............................              123,906,912              123,906,912              247,813,824
MAINE................................               18,533,603               18,533,603               37,067,205
MARYLAND.............................               63,577,346               63,577,346              127,154,692
MASSACHUSETTS........................              137,288,383              137,288,383              274,576,767
MICHIGAN.............................               49,782,579               49,782,579               99,565,158
MINNESOTA............................               22,911,312               22,911,312               45,822,625
MISSISSIPPI..........................               20,657,648               20,657,648               41,315,297
MISSOURI.............................               63,319,326               63,319,326              126,638,651
MONTANA..............................                7,815,085                7,815,085               15,630,171
NEBRASKA.............................               15,165,106               15,165,106               30,330,212
NEVADA...............................                2,891,304                2,891,304                5,782,609
NEW HAMPSHIRE........................               15,442,851               15,442,851               30,885,702
NEW JERSEY...........................              137,486,038              137,486,038              274,972,076
NEW MEXICO...........................                5,953,606                5,953,606               11,907,212
NEW YORK.............................              341,675,601              341,675,601              683,351,202
NORTH CAROLINA.......................               63,124,530               63,124,530              126,249,060
NORTH DAKOTA.........................                3,830,998                3,830,998                7,661,997
OHIO.................................              111,055,549              111,055,549              222,111,097
OKLAHOMA.............................               39,269,408               39,269,408               78,538,816

[[Page H5284]]

 
OREGON...............................               54,382,275               54,382,275              108,764,549
PENNSYLVANIA.........................              250,234,865              250,234,865              500,469,731
RHODE ISLAND.........................               37,487,542               37,487,542               74,975,083
SOUTH CAROLINA.......................               21,911,959               21,911,959               43,823,919
SOUTH DAKOTA.........................                6,903,255                6,903,255               13,806,510
TENNESSEE............................               29,951,857               29,951,857               59,903,714
TEXAS................................               73,722,532               73,722,532              147,445,064
UTAH.................................                6,055,018                6,055,018               12,110,037
VERMONT..............................                9,894,077                9,894,077               19,788,153
VIRGINIA.............................               84,581,236               84,581,236              169,162,472
WASHINGTON...........................               79,795,827               79,795,827              159,591,654
WEST VIRGINIA........................               28,908,317               28,908,317               57,816,633
WISCONSIN............................               14,616,136               14,616,136               29,232,273
WYOMING..............................                3,313,600                3,313,600                6,627,199
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    TOTAL............................            2,750,000,000            2,750,000,000            5,500,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. May I inquire if my colleague has more speakers?
  Mr. COLE. I do not have any more speakers, and I'm prepared to close 
whenever my friend is.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I shall close, and I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  As we speak, sequestration is hitting very hard in communities all 
across the country. Federal employees are furloughed; important 
investments in science, technology, public health, and defense are 
being curtailed; children are being shut out of Head Start. Meanwhile, 
the majority has repeatedly refused to repeal the sequester and have 
failed to pass a single job bill creation into law.
  The American people need us to stop these political games and get 
down to work creating jobs and rebuilding this economy. Now is not the 
time to adjourn Congress, and we should not leave here until we have 
produced real results for the American families that are truly 
struggling to get by.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment into the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' to 
defeat the previous question and to vote ``no'' on the rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In closing, I want to begin by reminding my friends whose idea 
sequester was. It was the President of the United States.
  The President likes to take some credit--and in some ways he deserves 
some--for our budget deficit coming down. Frankly, after four trillion-
dollar deficits in a row, a Republican Congress came into office and 
that deficit is now moving down. It's about half of what it was. We've 
worked with the President to actually achieve something he said he 
wanted to, which is lower the deficit. He likes to take credit for it.
  Second, I'd like to also remind my friends, Mr. Speaker, in closing, 
that I think these bills really are good bills. They provide important 
checks on the expanding power of the executive branch. How many times 
have all of us gone home and been regaled with tales of bureaucrats 
that are simply out of control or rules that make no sense or have an 
enormous economic impact? It happens all the time. That needs to 
change.
  Senator Daniel Webster described the Federal Government as ``made by 
the people, made by the people, and answerable to the people.'' I would 
suggest we've forgotten the last of these three phases, ``answerable to 
the people.'' That's what these bills are about, trying to make the 
Federal Government more responsive and more answerable to the people. 
The underlying bills recognize just that and restore the power of 
governance to elected officials, not to unaccountable Washington 
bureaucrats.
  I would urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, when the Committee on Rules filed its report 
(H. Rept. 113-187) to accompany House Resolution 322 the Committee was 
unaware that the waiver of all points of order against consideration of 
H.R. 2879 included:
  A waiver of clause 9(a)(2) of rule XXI , prohibiting consideration of 
a bill or joint resolution not reported by a committee, unless the 
chair of each committee of initial referral has caused a list of 
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, and limited tariff 
benefits in the bill or a statement that the proposition contains no 
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff 
benefits to be printed in the Congressional Record prior to its 
consideration. The required statement from the chair of the Committee 
on Oversight and Government Reform, the primary committee of 
jurisdiction, was printed in the Congressional Record dated July 31, 
2013. However, the required statement from the chair of the Committee 
on the Judiciary, which also received an additional referral, was 
submitted for printing on August 1, 2013. Both statements provide that 
H.R. 2879 does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax 
benefits, or limited tariff benefits.
  A waiver of clause 11 of rule XXI, prohibiting the consideration of a 
bill or joint resolution which has not been reported by a committee 
until the third calendar day (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, or legal 
holidays except when the House is in session on such a day) on which 
such measure has been available to Members, Delegates, and the Resident 
Commissioner. While the text of the bill is substantially identical to 
the three bills previously debated in the House on July 31, 2013, H.R. 
2879 was not introduced until later that day.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

    An Amendment to H. Res. 322 Offered by Ms. Slaughter of New York

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 10. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     2428) to direct the Secretary of Transportation to assist 
     States to rehabilitate or replace certain bridges, and for 
     other purposes. 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 Transportation and Infrastructure. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and 
     reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then 
     on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately 
     after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of 
     rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill
       Sec. 11. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of the bill specified in section 10 of this 
     resolution.
       Sec. 12. It shall not be in order to consider a concurrent 
     resolution providing for adjournment or adjournment sine die 
     unless the House has been notified that the President has 
     signed legislation to provide for the creation of American 
     jobs.


        THE VOTE ON THE PREVIOUS QUESTION: WHAT IT REALLY MEANS

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to

[[Page H5285]]

     offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House 
     should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holding). The question is on ordering 
the previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________