[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.
____________________