[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 5 (Thursday, January 9, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H87-H96]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2279, REDUCING EXCESSIVE DEADLINE 
  OBLIGATIONS ACT OF 2013; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3362, 
EXCHANGE INFORMATION DISCLOSURE ACT; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF 
    H.R. 3811, HEALTH EXCHANGE SECURITY AND TRANSPARENCY ACT OF 2014

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 455 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 455

       Resolved, That at any time after 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. 2279) to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act 
     relating to review of regulations under such Act and to amend 
     the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 relating to financial responsibility 
     for classes of facilities. The first reading of the bill 
     shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute recommended by the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce now printed in the bill, it shall be in order to 
     consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
     under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 
     113-30. 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 A of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. 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

[[Page H88]]

     passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3362) to amend 
     the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to require 
     transparency in the operation of American Health Benefit 
     Exchanges. All points of order against consideration of the 
     bill are waived. The amendment printed in part B of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution 
     shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall 
     be considered as read. All points of order against provisions 
     in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and 
     on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except: (1) one hour of debate, with 40 minutes 
     equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and 
     20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; 
     and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 3.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3811) to 
     require notification of individuals of breaches of personally 
     identifiable information through Exchanges under the Patient 
     Protection and Affordable Care Act. 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 Energy 
     and Commerce; and (2) one motion to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1 
hour.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), 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. BURGESS. 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 Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 455 provides for the 
consideration of three important bills which were reported by the 
Energy and Commerce Committee: H.R. 2279, the Reducing Excessive 
Deadline Obligations Act of 2013; H.R. 3362, the Exchange Information 
Disclosure Act; and H.R. 3811, the Health Exchange Security and 
Transparency Act of 2014.
  H.R. 2279 is a bill to address the burdensome and outdated deadlines 
for certain rulemaking activities conducted by the Environmental 
Protection Agency under the Solid Waste Disposal Act and the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. 
This provides flexibility for the Environmental Protection Agency in 
order to streamline a process critical to cleaning up sites 
contaminated with certain toxic or hazardous chemicals.
  It further requires the Environmental Protection Agency to evaluate 
existing State or other Federal financial insurance requirements to 
determine whether additional requirements are, in fact, necessary.
  Finally, it requires the owner or operator of a chemical storage site 
to report the presence of such chemicals to the State emergency 
response commissions.
  It is a commonsense piece of legislation to help clean up areas that 
have been polluted and allows for their reclamation or development. 
This could bring jobs and economic benefits to neighborhoods which have 
been so affected.
  As the two health care-related pieces of legislation, these are 
targeted bills to address just a few of the massive problems the 
American public has witnessed over the last few months pertaining to 
the calamitous rollout of the Federal www.healthcare.gov Web site. The 
data obtained by www.healthcare.gov is one of the largest collections 
of personal information ever assembled. It links information between 
seven different Federal agencies, State agencies, and government 
contractors.
  In promising lower costs and widespread health coverage for 
Americans, President Obama failed to mention that the Affordable Care 
Act's mandates and requirements will create large-scale disruption of 
the entire health insurance market. The resulting cancelation of 
insurance plans and high cost for employers to continue providing 
insurance for their workers has left millions of Americans with no 
choice other than to purchase health insurance through the Affordable 
Care Act's exchanges, subjecting their personal information to the 
vulnerable security infrastructure.
  The initial launch of www.healthcare.gov on October 1, 2013, was 
plagued with glitches and errors. Not only did the administration fail 
to establish basic functionality of the Web site, but the initial 
problems really only break the surface of the deeper security threats 
in the underlying law. A multitude of gaps remain in the Web site's 
security infrastructure, making the Web site a wide-open target for 
hackers and identity thieves. These flaws continue to pose a threat to 
the security of Americans' personal data.
  Mr. Speaker, it wasn't that the administration was not alerted to 
these security concerns on the Web site prior to the launch. MITRE 
Corporation, a contractor for the Department of Health and Human 
Services, alerted the agency that 19 unaddressed security 
vulnerabilities plagued the Web site prior to its launch on October 1. 
Top officials at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, 
including the chief information security officer, Teresa Fryer, along 
with the Web site's project manager, Tony Trenkle, both refused to sign 
the Authority to Operate license that was necessary to actually launch 
www.healthcare.gov. Despite these known issues, the director of the 
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Marilyn Tavenner, continued 
to launch the Web site.
  This is much more than a faulty Web site. This is about the American 
people, who cannot trust their government to certify that their 
personal information will be safe on a government-run Web site.
  The security threat goes beyond just an individual's primary 
application. Once an individual's personal information is entered into 
the system, the exchange has the ability to access information within 
the Department of Homeland Security, the Internal Revenue Service, 
Social Security, and the Treasury Department. The administration has 
opened numerous Federal agencies to data breaches and unauthorized 
access.
  Just before the holidays, the entire Nation saw firsthand what a 
massive security breach looks like. Over 40 million Target customers, 
their personal data was compromised by computer hackers who pilfered 
personal financial information and identification.
  Target has gone out of their way to alert customers of the security 
breach. Unfortunately, the Federal Government has no such obligation 
under the law. This is a point that I don't think most people are aware 
of. It is not required. It is not a mandate that you have a Target 
charge card or that you shop at Target, but it is certainly required 
and a mandate that you buy your insurance through www.healthcare.gov. This is a coercive Federal policy that now is pulling people into its 
Web site and refuses to provide them the very same protection that we 
demand that the private sector do for a voluntary purchase.
  Instead of following the same requirements placed on the private 
sector, the Federal Government has gone out of their way to avoid 
imposing this basic due diligence in their own exchanges. Even when a 
notification requirement was specifically requested during the 
rulemaking process on the exchanges, the administration just simply 
refused.
  In the March 27, 2012, Federal Register, Department of Health and 
Human Services responded, stating:

       We do not plan to include the specific notification 
     procedures in the final rule. Consistent with this approach, 
     we did not include specific policies for investigation of 
     data breaches in this final rule.

  Furthermore, State laws required that many of the 14 State-run 
insurance exchanges, that they do disclose such information. No such 
law exists for the federally run exchange. Mr. Speaker, I would remind 
you that 36

[[Page H89]]

States rely upon the federally run exchange.
  Look, we have spent hundreds of millions of dollars, taxpayer 
dollars. The American people deserve to know that their personal 
information is protected and to be notified if that protection lapses.
  Let's be honest: www.healthcare.gov is the most talked about Web site 
in years. The massive amounts of personal information that is collected 
through www.healthcare.gov and its ability to access multiple 
government databases creates the perfect environment for targeting by 
hackers.
  Over 16 attempts to hack into the system have already been reported, 
not to mention the many stories that have been reported in the press on 
the mishandling and sharing of individuals' data. Identity theft is a 
threat not only to an individual's credit rating and personal finances 
but also to overall United States security. Most Americans would be 
shocked to learn that this level of protection is not already in place 
for an initiative the size of the Affordable Care Act. Well, today the 
House is working to correct this injustice, protecting Americans when 
the administration has refused to do so.
  The Obama administration has consistently refused to disclose 
detailed data on how many Americans have actually completed the Obama 
Care enrollment process. Now it is more than 3 months after the launch 
of the exchanges, and we just simply do not know how many Americans are 
enrolled in the exchange plan.
  It was the administration who initially defined the success of the 
exchange as the number of Americans who actually enroll in the program. 
The number of enrollments are the only way to evaluate whether the more 
than $1 trillion that was spent on this thing by the administration is 
actually working.
  The President's commitment to an open and transparent government, 
repeated so many times during the passage of the Affordable Care Act, 
represents yet one more broken promise in a long string of broken 
promises.

                              {time}  1245

  Where this administration has failed, the bill before us will require 
the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to provide 
detailed weekly reports to the American people about the enrollment 
number on healthcare.gov. The American people deserve to know what they 
are getting for their hard-earned tax dollars that they have spent on 
the demands of this administration.
  It is the American people who are suffering because of the 
mismanagement and failures of this administration. Today--today--we 
have the opportunity to provide transparency and protect Americans' 
personal information.
  The rule before us today provides for 1 hour of debate equally 
divided between the majority and the minority for each of the bills 
contained in the rule. The minority is further afforded the customary 
motion to recommit on each piece of legislation.
  I want to encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and 
``yes'' on the underlying bills and stand with the millions of 
Americans who are asking and who are demanding that we protect their 
privacy.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentleman, Mr. Burgess, for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule today under which three 
bills are being brought to the floor: H.R. 3811, the Health Exchange 
Security and Transparency Act; H.R. 2279, the Reducing Excessive 
Deadline Obligations Act; and H.R. 3362, the Exchange Information 
Disclosure Act. You wouldn't know by their names what those bills 
actually do. I discuss that, and, more importantly, I plan to discuss, 
Mr. Speaker, what these bills fail to accomplish.
  These misguided and superfluous bills were brought under a very 
restrictive process. Two of them are being brought to the floor under a 
completely closed rule that blocks all efforts by Members to improve 
the legislation. Democrats yesterday on the Rules Committee proposed an 
open rule for these bills allowing Members from both sides of the aisle 
to offer their ideas to make them better, and it was voted down in the 
Rules Committee in a partisan vote.
  Instead of moving forward and tackling challenges like extending 
unemployment, which has been talked about, or passing a jobs bill or an 
infrastructure bill or fixing our broken immigration system or 
reforming our tax system, again, we are discussing bills relating to 
the Affordable Care Act that don't seek to improve the act and make it 
work better for the American people but only add more paperwork and 
bureaucracy and cost to the health care system we already have by 
putting additional requirements on Federal workers and others that are 
working hard to ensure that ObamaCare works for America every day. Of 
the 112 legislative days we have left this year, we need to ensure that 
we spend them wisely, and I don't think that these three bills are a 
good way for us to use 2 days of our time.
  The first bill, H.R. 3362, calls on HHS to publish weekly reports on 
consumer interactions with healthcare.gov, including the details of all 
calls received by the call center. Now, much of this information is 
already available monthly. There are already reliable updates on 
enrollment numbers and numerous updates on the Web sites and issues 
consumers have encountered. Look, while you are fixing the Web site and 
getting it working is not the time to put additional requirements on 
those that are laboring to ensure that Americans can sign up for 
affordable health care. Again, it is more information about who is 
calling and what they are doing weekly rather than monthly will provide 
an additional workload for those who are trying to make sure that the 
Web sites are functioning for America.
  It will actually make it harder for the Web sites to function by 
having to divert some effort if this were to become law simply to 
building reporting requirements that were mandated by Congress. It is 
almost as if this bill was designed to make the Web site work worse, 
Mr. Speaker, by moving developers and others, without any additional 
resources, away from making the necessary improvements towards building 
entirely new reporting systems just so people can have information 
weekly instead of monthly.
  It would be great, first of all, to have information weekly. I would 
love to have information daily. I would love to have information 
realtime. I used to run an Internet company. It would be wonderful to 
have that information. You have to weigh the costs and benefits and 
say, Is it worth building into this system realtime reporting? What are 
we forgoing by doing that? Is it worth it to say we want the 
information weekly instead of monthly?
  Again, if you are building it from scratch and perhaps if the 
Republicans had offered this as an amendment into the original 
Affordable Care Act, maybe this could have been incorporated in 3 years 
ago and we could have built a system with either realtime or weekly 
reporting. But here where we are today, clearly the top priority needs 
to be that this Web site works well for the American people so they can 
get affordable health care for themselves and their family. That is 
what the American people want.
  Now, let's talk about security and safeguards for consumer 
information. Again, you have the germ of a good idea. Of course, when 
the government has our personal information, we need to make sure that 
there are adequate safeguards. That goes for the IRS, it goes for 
military personnel files, and it goes for the Affordable Care Act, just 
as we want to make sure that when the private sector and companies have 
our personal information that they institute the proper safeguards. And 
there are examples of failure. Mr. Burgess mentioned Target as a 
private-sector example of failure.
  We certainly hope that we have the infrastructure and security in 
place to ensure that there is not a failure of security with regard to 
the Affordable Care Act. But when we are talking about identity theft 
and how to address it, we need to look at where the real problem is. 
What is the leading cause of identity theft? Is it the IRS? Is it the 
Affordable Care Act? Is it the military? No. One of the biggest causes 
of breaches of personal information is our

[[Page H90]]

broken immigration system, the fact that many immigrants in our country 
are here with fake paperwork, fraudulent Social Security numbers they 
have purchased or stolen--and H.R. 15, the bipartisan comprehensive 
immigration reform package, which in a very similar form has already 
passed the Senate, would address this.
  So if we actually want to reduce identity theft and breaches of 
security and safeguard, Mr. Speaker, personal information for the 
American people, we should address the real problem rather than one of 
many hypothetical problems that, again, is no doubt worthy of 
discussion, but let's address where immigration--where identity theft 
actually occurs.
  According to the Center for Immigration Studies, which has done a lot 
of work on identity theft from those who are here illegally, experts 
suggest that 75 percent of people who are here illegally and working 
use fraudulent Social Security cards to obtain employment. Again, 
Americans are the victims of this theft. Children are prime targets. 
Their report indicates that in Arizona it is estimated that there are 
thousands of children that are victims of identity theft. H.R. 15 
contains mandatory E-Verify, which the Center for Immigration Studies 
says would curb and stop virtually 100 percent of child identity theft.

  So, I mean, if we are serious, Mr. Speaker, about doing something 
about the fact that drivers licenses and Social Security numbers are 
being stolen, well, let's pass immigration reform. Let's make sure that 
people who are working in our country and have a role here have some 
kind of provisional work permit, some prospect of a pathway to 
citizenship over many years or decades, and that we have a mandatory E-
Verify mechanism of checking, a way of verifying at the employer level 
that their paperwork is authentic and it is not, in fact, stolen from 
an innocent American, as it is today. So that would address identity 
theft. That would address fraud.
  We have people today that actually, under our current laws, are 
incentivized to steal information--personal information--from American 
people. Our immigration system is clearly broken. We need to fix it. 
H.R. 15, the House's bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill, 
would create a mandatory employment eligibility verification program. 
Currently, only 7 percent of employers in our entire country are 
enrolled in E-Verify to do workplace authentication of those who work 
here.
  So, let's bring this bill to the floor if that is the issue we want 
to address rather than discuss something that is hypothetically of 
concern. Yes, of course, we care about secure information in the 
Affordable Care healthcare.gov site. We care about it in military 
records, and we care about it in the IRS. But, meanwhile, there are 
hundreds of thousands of identities being stolen every day, and that is 
going to continue because this body refuses to bring H.R. 15 to the 
floor of the House, which would make that number almost zero.
  Mr. Speaker, the final bill that this rule brings to the floor is 
H.R. 2279, the Reducing Excessive Deadline Obligations Act. It is 
really a package of three bills that would weaken hazardous waste laws 
like Superfund and the Resource Conservation Recovery Act. It would 
actually limit the EPA's oversight to ensure that the American people 
are safe and healthy.
  Do we need to remind this body that the reason Congress enacted these 
safeguards and Superfund is because of tragedies like Love Canal where 
a residential neighborhood was built on top of 22,000 tons of hazardous 
waste, and due to the exposure, the residents suffered very high rates 
of miscarriages, cancers, and birth defects? The situation was so dire 
that the Federal Government wound up having to evacuate the entire 
community. That is not the America I want to live in, Mr. Speaker. I 
oppose H.R. 2279 because it could lead to more situations like Love 
Canal rather than making sure that the American people are safe and 
healthy in their homes.
  Mr. Speaker, this debate is not really about reporting requirements. 
It is about making healthcare.gov function less effectively. It is not 
really about breaches of our personal information. We can solve a big 
chunk of that by bringing H.R. 15 to the floor of the House. It is not 
really about improving our competitiveness by removing unnecessary EPA 
regulations. It is about risking the health of our families.
  We need to focus on rebuilding our infrastructure, fixing our broken 
immigration system, and making sure that we can protect the health of 
the American people, not jeopardize it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I now would like to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Collins.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, it is a new year. We come down 
and begin this week, and I have made a commitment, as I think many of 
us do, as resolutions on what are we going to do for the new year and 
you always try to learn something new, and today has been a busy day 
with meetings and other things. I have learned a lot, but I have 
actually come to the floor today to learn something that was amazing to 
me, and it was not only that a bill that we are talking about under 
this rule would actually be designed to make, that was accused of 
making the ObamaCare Web site worse. I didn't know that was possible. 
And undoubtedly, it can be, but I think it actually helps when we look 
at what we are doing for the country and what we are doing as we move 
forward protecting the interests of the people.
  So it is with that I rise in strong support of the rule and the 
underlying pieces of legislation, and in particular, H.R. 3811, the 
Health Exchange Security and Transparency Act of 2014.
  Even before ObamaCare was signed into law, pundits and politicians 
alike have speculated on the impact it would have on American families. 
Skyrocketing premiums, loss of coverage, and poor quality of care were 
all correctly predicted by many on this side of the aisle.
  We come here today, however, because Americans aren't just faced with 
unaffordable health care and broken Presidential promises--the security 
and privacy of our personal information is at great risk due to 
ObamaCare.
  One of the things that I think is mentioned here and should be noted, 
that protecting the information that is being forced to be given should 
be of our utmost importance and it is not something that should be just 
said is we should be doing other bills. Believe me, I would want to be 
talking about other things too, but this is something important that is 
protecting Americans' interests, and we need to continue to do so.
  I believe that the best health care system is one that is patient 
centered and as far removed from the flawed policies enshrined in 
ObamaCare as possible. Over the upcoming months, I look forward to 
debating the merits of ObamaCare versus true health care reform with my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle. But today is not that day. 
Today we come to the floor simply to say that American families should 
know about breaches of personally identifiable information in the 
ObamaCare exchanges.
  Regardless of the letter of your political affiliation, wouldn't you 
like to be notified if the security of your personal information has 
been compromised? If we get outside the politics of Washington and ask 
our constituents, I firmly believe that answer would be yes. It would 
actually be a resounding yes.
  So as I come to speak in support of this rule, and speaking also with 
the underlying bills and especially when I believe something such as 
protecting the security of our personal information is so important, I 
believe it is also important for us to remember as we start a new year 
that when we come here, people listen, people are concerned about their 
lives, they are concerned about what has gone on.
  And over the past few months, especially when it comes to health 
care, you can go to teachers in Georgia right now who have had their 
health care changed because of the ACA. That has just been an 
interesting mark everywhere I go in listening to people in what is now 
a health care system that they used to have their own insurance is now 
lost into something that they are struggling with; or whether it is the 
identifiable nature of the issues of their information on the Web site 
that possibly could be compromised, to just simply saying that we need 
regulations for our businesses and making sure our

[[Page H91]]

environmental projects are the ones that are prioritized and not just 
simply at the whim of a certain administration priority.

                              {time}  1300

  What we have got to do here is to continue to look forward to doing 
the people's business and, in doing so, in such a way that matters to 
everyday Americans.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, again the gentleman said there is a risk of 
information being taken from the healthcare.gov site. There is 
potential risk from any site. But every day, there are tens of 
thousands of American identities being stolen because of this body's 
refusal to simply fix our broken immigration system now.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman 
from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the ranking member of the Rules 
Committee.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, the majority has passed so few bills into 
law that it is on pace to become the least-productive Congress in 
history. And, frankly, I think they are a little bit proud of that. The 
inability to govern is directly related to the closed legislative 
process the majority has pursued with vigor over the course of the last 
year.
  At the beginning of the second session of the 113th Congress, the 
majority has practically shuttered the doors of every committee, save 
for the Rules Committee. It is a rare day when a bill proceeds through 
regular order from a committee of jurisdiction to the Rules Committee 
and down to the House floor. In fact, during the first session of the 
113th Congress, major legislation repeatedly originated in the Rules 
Committee and was rushed to the House floor for an up-or-down vote.
  Furthermore, during the first congressional session, the majority 
relied upon closed rules to shut out the minority and diminish the 
chance of any compromise. Under a closed rule, no amendments are 
allowed on the House floor. That cuts out, Mr. Speaker, more than half 
of the people in the United States of America who voted for Democrats.
  During 2013, the majority set new records by approving 19 closed 
rules in a single week and an unprecedented 11 closed rules in a single 
day. Even those with no interest in, or knowledge of, the legislative 
process can understand the impact that such a closed process has on our 
ability to govern.
  Every Member of this Chamber was sent here with a simple duty--to 
represent our constituents to the best of our ability. But, by closing 
down the legislative process, the majority is preventing 200 duly 
elected Members of Congress from being able to do just that. 
Collectively, we members of the minority represent more than 142 
million Americans. Each one of us is entrusted to work on their behalf. 
How can we do that when the majority takes away our ability to 
participate in marking up legislation, amending bills, and having a 
full and open debate?
  The Rules Committee has the unique and powerful ability to open up 
the legislative process and get Congress working again. In our 
committee, we can amend bills, improve legislation, and set the terms 
of debate so every Member of the House can participate in the 
legislative process. That is why I am so dismayed and somewhat 
disgusted at the proposed rule the Rules Committee has carried to the 
floor today.
  Before us is a single resolution for three bills. Under this 
resolution, two of those bills are considered under closed rules, which 
are not amendable, not discussable, and one is considered under a 
structured rule. And that one came up 2 days ago. It has had no 
committee action whatsoever.
  The bill being considered under a structured rule tries to revoke 
virtually all regulatory powers from the EPA, the agency that protects 
our health, our rivers, our air, and our land.
  At the same time, one of the bills being considered under a closed 
rule adds layers of red tape to the Department of Health and Human 
Services and demands that health care navigators provide everything but 
their blood type and family history to Congress on an almost daily 
basis. It is simply designed to slow up the work of signing up 
Americans for the health care that they want and deserve.
  It is very clear this bill is not a serious attempt to serve the 
American people but is a tactic to keep health care navigators from 
doing their work. Instead of moving forward with these go-nowhere 
bills, we should be extending unemployment insurance to the millions of 
Americans struggling to find work. And without unemployment insurance, 
the economy is suffering every single day.
  Just before we left for Christmas, the last day we were here, to end 
the debate on the rule of the budget, we had a vote that we could have 
done to extend the unemployment during the rules debate on the floor. 
That was under the previous question. The vote failed despite the fact 
that every Democrat and a Republican voted for it.
  By the way, this bill was paid for. It was already taken care of by 
excess payments that we pay in agriculture subsidies. It was an 
extension for 3 months, but that was not good enough. So today, you are 
going to have another chance to do just that, to extend the 
unemployment insurance, and I strongly urge my colleagues to do it.
  If my colleagues will join me in voting ``no'' on the previous 
question, a 3-month extension of unemployment benefits will come to the 
floor for an immediate vote. This is the same bipartisan bill that is 
moving forward in the Senate, and it deserves the same consideration 
here in the House.
  Today, more than 1.3 million Americans and their families have lost 
access to unemployment insurance. Soon, it will be over 2 million and, 
by probably the end of March or May, 5 million. For so many, it is 
their only source of income and the only way they can pay their heating 
bills and buy food during these cold winter days.
  We have to stand up for the millions of Americans struggling to get 
by through no fault of their own, because, you remember, in order to be 
eligible for unemployment insurance, you have to prove that you are 
looking for work. So I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on 
the previous question when it comes up so we can have an immediate vote 
to extend unemployment insurance and finally do something in this House 
and through this Rules Committee that will benefit Americans and make 
our constituents know that we count for something.
  Mr. Speaker, The Majority has passed so few bills into law that it is 
on pace to become the least productive Congress in history. This 
inability to govern is directly related to the closed legislative 
process that the Majority has pursued with vigor over the course of the 
last year.
  At the beginning of the 2nd Session of the 113th Congress, the 
Majority has practically shuttered the doors of every committee, save 
for the Rules Committee. It is a rare day when a bill proceeds through 
regular order--from a committee of jurisdiction to the Rules Committee 
and down to the House Floor. In fact, during the first session of the 
113th Congress, major legislation repeatedly originated in the Rules 
Committee and was rushed to the House Floor for an up or down vote.
  Furthermore, during the first Congressional session, the Majority 
relied upon closed rules to shut out the Minority and diminish the 
chance for compromise.
  Under a closed rule, no amendments are allowed on the House Floor. 
During 2013, the Majority set new records by approving 19 closed rules 
in a single week and an unprecedented 11 closed rules in a single day!
  Even those with no interest in, or knowledge of, the legislative 
process can understand the impact that such a closed process has on our 
ability to govern.
  Every member of this chamber was sent here with a simple duty: to 
represent our constituents to the best of our ability.
  Yet by closing down the legislative process, the Majority is 
preventing 200 duly elected Members of Congress from doing just that.
  Collectively, we members of the Minority represent more than 142 
million Americans. Each one of us has been entrusted to work on their 
behalf. How can we do that when the Majority takes away our ability to 
participate in marking up legislation, amending bills and having a full 
and open debate?
  The Rules Committee has the unique and powerful ability to open up 
the legislative process and get Congress working again. In our 
committee we can amend bills, improve legislation, and set the terms of 
debate so that every Member of the House can participate in the 
legislative process.
  That is why I am so dismayed at the proposed rule that the Majority 
in the Rules Committee has carried to the Floor today. Before us is a 
single resolution for three bills. Under this resolution, two bills 
will be considered

[[Page H92]]

under closed rules and one will be considered under a structured rule.
  The bill being considered under a structured rule tries to revoke 
virtually all regulatory powers from the EPA--the agency that protects 
our health, our rivers and our land.
  At the same time, one of the bills being considered under a closed 
rule adds layers of red tape to the Department of Health and Human 
Services, and demands that healthcare navigators provide everything but 
their blood type and family history to Congress on an almost daily 
basis.
  It is clear that this bill is not a serious attempt to serve the 
American people, but a tactic to keep healthcare navigators from 
providing millions of Americans with access to healthcare.
  Instead of moving forward with these go-nowhere bills, we should be 
extending unemployment insurance to millions of Americans who are still 
struggling to find work.
  Just before we left for Christmas, we had a vote on extending 
unemployment during a rules debate on the floor. That vote failed, 
despite the fact that every Democrat voted for it. As a result, more 
than 1.3 million Americans lost unemployment insurance on December 
28th.
  Today, we will give this chamber another chance to extend 
unemployment insurance--and I strongly urge my colleagues in doing just 
that.
  If my colleagues will join me in voting ``no'' on the previous 
question, a 3-month extension of unemployment benefits will come to the 
floor for an immediate vote. This is the same bipartisan bill that is 
moving forward in the Senate, and it deserves the same consideration 
here in the House.
  Right now, more than 1.3 million Americans have lost access to 
unemployment insurance in the last few weeks. For many, it is their 
only source of income and the only way they can pay their heating bills 
and stay warm during these cold winter days.
  We must stand up for the millions of Americans who are struggling to 
get by in these tough economic times. I strongly urge my colleagues to 
vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we have an immediate vote 
to extend unemployment insurance and finally provide for the millions 
of Americans in need.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 16 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Colorado has 13 minutes remaining.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, it is often said those who don't remember their history 
are doomed to repeat it.
  The Rules Committee is an important function of this House. It is an 
important function of this body. Prior to 3 years ago, the Rules 
Committee was under the jurisdiction of the Democrats. They controlled 
the Rules Committee throughout the entirety of the 111th Congress. You 
may recall, that was the first 2 years of the first Obama term. In 
those 2 years under Speaker Pelosi, this was the first Congress in 
history--the first Congress in the history of the Republic--not to have 
a single bill considered under an open rule process.
  Now, since Republicans resumed the majority at the beginning of 2011, 
31 bills have come under an open rule. The track record may not be 
perfect, but it is inestimably better than what preceded it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Burgess) that this particular rule has two closed rules on two of the 
three bills.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to join the Rules Committee and 
thank Members on both sides of the aisle for their hard work, but I 
want to associate myself with Ranking Member Slaughter for recognizing 
that we represent millions of people, and the constant closed-rule 
approach for bills that have not even been heard by committee makes it 
difficult to represent your constituents. So I associate myself with 
her plea for equity and comity.
  I also ask that we recognize that 1.3 million and growing, 3.6 
million, 4,000 a week, of the individuals who worked and invested in 
this Nation have received letters, like my constituent in Houston, 
letters with no offer of assistance but simply that your unemployment 
benefit, insurance benefit, has been canceled. Cancel your life, cancel 
your housing, cancel your food, cancel your medicine, cancel taking 
care of your children, cancel your life.
  And so I believe that it is extremely important that we vote today--
again--and we hope that we will draw bipartisan support, to avoid the 
loss of some 200,000 jobs, to avoid the loss of serving 20,000 military 
veterans who are in fact beneficiaries of unemployment insurance, 1.3 
million Americans, 2 million children impacted, to avoid the loss to 
the American economy. Mr. Speaker, $1.55 is generated by this 
insurance, millions of dollars to be lost.
  And then I would say that it is important to be able to have a rule 
structure, more than a structured rule, more than a closed rule, 
because the bills that are before us today, the underlying bills, I am 
opposed to because my district is impacted by the Superfund.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman.
  The three Superfund bills, no involvement of the Federal Government, 
taking authority away from the Federal Government, having the States 
override the Federal Government on Superfunds. There are neighborhoods 
that are still suffering.
  And then with respect to this issue of privacy, I support the idea; 
but what I would say to my friends, and this privacy with 
healthcare.gov, what I would say to my friends is that we cannot 
continue to chip away at a bill, the Affordable Care Act, where 
millions of people have received health care. Let's work to ensure 
privacy for all of the sites of the Federal Government. Let's not pick 
away at the Affordable Care Act, which has been documented that it is 
secure, healthcare.gov.
  If Republicans wish to help make all of government secure, we are 
ready to do that, but what I would suggest is that this bill is not 
going in the right direction. I ask for a ``no'' vote on the rule and 
on the underlying bills.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I tire of going through this history lesson 
every time we come down to the floor, but may I remind you that when 
the now-Affordable Care Act was passed into law, this was a bill that 
came over to the House from the Senate. Sure enough, the House had sent 
the bill over to the Senate in July of 2009, H.R. 3590. It was a bill 
that dealt with housing. The bill that dealt with housing was amended. 
The amendment read, ``Strike all after the enacting clause and 
insert,'' and the health care language, which was de novo, the health 
care language was inserted.
  Now, to be sure, the House had considered a health care reform bill, 
H.R. 3200. H.R. 3200 has gone to the ether of history. H.R. 3590 passed 
in the Senate, a 60-vote margin on Christmas Eve in 2009, and then was 
thrown over to the House of Representatives. Did we have a hearing on 
H.R. 3590 in the Committee on Energy and Commerce? No, we did not. Did 
they have a hearing in the appropriate subcommittee of Ways and Means 
on H.R. 3590, as amended? No, they did not.
  The bill came to the Rules Committee. It came to the Rules Committee. 
I attempted to offer amendments. I was told, No, thank you. The bill 
was perfect the way it is, doesn't need any changes. This bill that 
affects every man, woman, and child in this country for the next three 
decades in a very unfavorable way was passed without any input from the 
then-minority, the Republicans in the House of Representatives.
  So it is beyond comprehension that we can continue to have these 
arguments about closed processes. This, after all, is the granddaddy of 
all closed processes. And the consequence, the drafting errors, the 
problems embedded in the structure, could not be dealt with during the 
normal legislative process, which is why so much authority has been 
transferred to the executive branch, to the agencies, and why they are 
now essentially writing the laws that affect so many Americans.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.

[[Page H93]]

  I was listening as a student of history myself to our friend from 
Texas. In that little last bit about affordable health care, he left 
out one little piece of history, which was that the Republicans of both 
the Senate and the House, to a person, decided it a priority to oppose 
the health care reform act no matter what was in it.
  To now come back and say we weren't given an opportunity to amend 
something that we decided we were going to oppose--remember Jim 
DeMint's words: if we can defeat this bill, it will be President 
Obama's Waterloo, no matter what is in it. So we need to remember 
history in its full context.
  And speaking of history, knowing of my distinguished friend's love of 
it, it was almost 35 years ago when the 96th Congress answered the 
cries of communities across the country facing the life-threatening 
effects of hazardous toxic waste. Who can forget, speaking of history, 
the Love Canal disaster in New York or the Valley of the Drums in 
Kentucky, the unexplained increase in the incidence of cancer, birth 
defects, and miscarriages?
  In an overwhelmingly bipartisan effort then, that Congress did the 
right thing by creating the Superfund program, offering communities a 
way to remediate contaminated sites, to protect public health, and hold 
polluters accountable.
  The success of the Superfund is clear: according to the EPA, as of 
April of last year, remedial actions have been completed at more than 
1,145 national priority list sites, and an additional 365 have been 
completely cleaned up and deleted from the list. That is called 
success. That is called a program that is working. That is 70 percent 
of the sites that had been added to the priority list.
  Today, human exposure is under control at 1,361 priority sites and 
contaminated groundwater under control at 1,069 sites.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Yet, despite that success, with communities still in 
need, in process, the House majority wants to peel back that progress 
and repeal what we have done.
  Can the Superfund be improved? Of course. We are committed to do 
that. But the answer isn't letting industry off the hook and leaving 
families exposed to hazardous waste and high cancer rates.
  I urge defeat of this bill.
  I thank my colleague for giving me the extra time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I would point out this bill before us today does not--does not--
change the Superfund, but it does allow States the flexibility to deal 
with problems in their States as they see fit.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on this 50th anniversary of the war on 
poverty, 1.4 million Americans have lost emergency unemployment 
insurance and thousands more stand to lose it each day, each week, that 
Congress fails to act. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer 
an amendment to the rule that will allow the House to consider 
legislation that is identical to the bipartisan measure being 
considered in the Senate and would restore unemployment insurance to 
those who have lost it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Kildee), a leader in the effort to restore unemployment insurance, to 
discuss our proposal.
  Mr. KILDEE. Thank you, Mr. Polis, for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in defeating the 
previous question, as my colleague said, so that we can immediately 
take up the question of the extension of emergency unemployment to 
millions of Americans who have lost their job and who are seeking to 
find their next opportunity to contribute to our economy and to support 
their families.
  I am part of the freshman class. We just began our second year in 
Congress. Something about the 2012 class that I think defines us is 
that we believe that we were sent here by the electorate of 2012 not to 
posture, but to get things done, to take action, to solve problems. 
That is why myself and the rest of the Democratic freshman class 
yesterday sent a letter to Speaker Boehner asking that he immediately 
bring up an extension to the unemployment compensation for so many 
Americans.
  Let's be clear about something, though. Unlike what I have heard from 
so many on the other side, being unemployed is not a choice; it is not 
a lifestyle to be sought. It is a condition that is often 
unanticipated, and it is one that nobody in my district that I know of 
who is unemployed would ever seek to try to maintain.
  I can only speak for the people I represent, but I suspect this is 
true of my colleagues. Folks that we represent back home that are out 
of work would gladly, today, trade unemployment compensation for a job 
that puts them to work and gives them the dignity of work and the 
ability to meet their obligations to their family and their community. 
It is about survival. It is about making your rent payment. It is about 
being able to pay your car payment, to put food on the table for your 
kids. It is about being able to keep the house warm. It is not a 
lifestyle to be sought.
  I think the notion that somehow people who are unemployed want to be 
there is condescending and offensive.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in defeating this previous question 
so that we can immediately take up the work that the American people 
are asking us to take up.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. KILDEE. And that is to make sure that 1.3 million Americans have 
a chance to support their families until they can find meaningful work. 
Eleven million people since 2008 have been saved from poverty because 
of unemployment compensation. That unemployment extension was supported 
by the vast majority of Members of this House, signed by President 
Bush, with no strings attached.
  What is different about 2014 than what was experienced in 2008? 
Nothing, except that we have the same obligation to those same 
Americans to make sure that they don't go broke, that they don't lose 
their house, that they don't lose their car, that they don't lose their 
family, as a result of the lack of basic decency.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I appreciate this opportunity to comment not only upon this rule 
which provides, of course, for mostly closed rules--no amendments, no 
ability to change or modify, particularly two bills that had no 
hearings, went to no committees, and were reported out doing stuff 
that we did for 2013 almost without exception--but what I really rise 
to say is that I want to urge every Member to vote against the previous 
question.

  Mr. Speaker, I know the American public will hear ``previous 
question.'' What does that mean? The previous question, if defeated, 
will give us the opportunity to put on this floor what the overwhelming 
majority of the American people want on this floor, which I understand 
the gentleman from Michigan, as I just was walking in, I think was 
talking about. That is to deal with the most pressing issue confronting 
this country right now today. That is that we have 1.3 million 
Americans who have simply been dropped through whatever safety net we 
thought we had constructed.
  So, Mr. Speaker, the American public understands, the previous 
question will give us the opportunity, if it is defeated, to put that 
legislation on the floor now, to extend for those 1.3 million people 
the help of the American people who want to do it. In every poll they 
say, no, we ought to have this help.
  When George W. Bush was President of the United States, five times we 
extended unemployment insurance for long-term unemployed--five times--
without paying for it.
  And make no mistake about it; the vote on the previous question is 
whether or not you want to give long-term unemployed who have lost 
their insurance and are having trouble putting food on their tables, if 
you want to give

[[Page H94]]

them help, you will vote ``no'' on the previous question. Don't hide 
behind a procedural issue. This is a substantive issue. This is an 
issue of whether we are going to give help now.
  The American public that is for this ought to be looking at it. And 
every Member who votes ``yes'' on the previous question is voting not--
not--to give help to those folks, 1.3 million of them, 20,000 veterans 
who can't find a job. And there is only one job available for every 
three people that are looking for a job.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. That is why George W. Bush extended unemployment. That is 
why we ought to do it. And we can do it. We have the ability to do it. 
Vote ``no'' on the previous question. It is a substantive vote on 
whether or not you want to help the long-term unemployed who have lost, 
as of December 28, 3 days after Christmas, the season of giving and 
caring, whether you want to give them the unemployment insurance that 
they count on to feed themselves and their families and have their 
heads above water.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule and urge a vote instead to 
bring to the floor a bill introduced by the ranking member of the ways 
and means committee, my friend Mr. Tierney.
  His bill will do what Congress ought to have done before we left for 
the holidays: extend the emergency unemployment insurance benefits that 
were cut off so suddenly for 1.3 million of our fellow citizens who are 
looking for work.
  It is shameful that Republicans continue to block an extension of 
this lifeline for so many who are struggling to find jobs and are 
facing an extremely difficult job market, where in some places there 
are three job seekers for each open position.
  Democrats will continue to put pressure on our colleagues across the 
aisle to work with us in a bipartisan way to extend these emergency 
benefits while our jobs recovery continues.
  Representative Tierney's bill would extend these benefits for three 
months to allow Congress time to work on a long-term solution.
  There is no reason why 1.3 million people--a number that will grow by 
an average 72,000 a week for as long as Congress fails to act--should 
have to go without the emergency income that supports them and their 
families.
  We need to promote job creation and get our people back to work, 
while at the same time ensuring that we're helping people stay out of 
poverty.
  I call on my Republican friends to join with us in extending these 
emergency benefits right now and then working together to invest in the 
economic competitiveness that will create the jobs we need.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode 
Island (Mr. Cicilline).
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  In the last 12 days, nearly 1.4 million Americans have been cut off 
from their emergency unemployment benefits. Thousands more Americans 
will lose their benefits every week without congressional action.
  It is unforgiveable that this Congress will adjourn tomorrow without 
addressing this crisis. Instead of offering a solution to extend 
emergency unemployment benefits, this rule does not allow us to address 
this critical issue of extending unemployment insurance immediately.
  The longer we wait to fix this problem, the more serious it becomes 
for the long-term unemployed and their families. Punishing unemployed 
Americans and their families who have been hit hard in this tough 
recession through no fault of their own is just plain wrong.
  My home State Senator, Senator Jack Reed, has offered a proposal in 
the Senate. It is a critical step in the right direction to preserve 
this critical lifeline while we work on a long-term solution, and we 
should do the same thing here.
  Surely my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want the 
opportunity to vote on extending unemployment insurance. So I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, to defeat the 
previous question, so we can take up the issue of extending 
unemployment insurance for many Rhode Islanders and Americans all 
across this country who desperately need these benefits.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire, does the gentleman 
have any other speakers? If not, I am prepared to close.
  Mr. POLIS. I am prepared to close.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of 
the amendment in 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 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and 
defeat the previous question.
  The Senate has passed a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration bill, 
and the Senate is debating unemployment insurance. Meanwhile, the House 
hasn't dedicated a single second of legislative floor time to any 
immigration reform bill that would address identity theft.
  Let's move forward and pass bills that matter to the American people 
rather than political bills that aren't going anywhere.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the questions for people who have been watching 
this debate, I'm sure one of the questions that they have, is there any 
difference as to how the private sector is treated if and when a data 
breach occurs versus a Federal agency? The simple fact of the matter is 
there is a difference.

                              {time}  1330

  The private sector is governed under State laws and, yes, by some 
Federal regulations as well.
  In fact, earlier this month, in a publication called The Hill, 
entitled, ``Target's data breach sparks calls for action,'' there was 
significant discussion about, perhaps, there being more activity on the 
part of the Federal Trade Commission in protecting consumers who have 
been exposed to a data breach.
  What are the protections for people harmed with a data breach by the 
Federal Government?
  In fact, for that, there is not legislation, there is not a law that 
was signed by any administration, but there is an executive order of 
the President's, dating from May 22, 2007, a so-called OMB Circular.
  The OMB Circular dealing with data breaches under the section 
``Timeliness of the Notification'' reads:

       Agencies should provide notification without unreasonable 
     delay following the discovery of a breach, consistent with 
     the needs of law enforcement and national security and any 
     measures necessary for your agency to determine the scope of 
     the breach and, if applicable, to restore the reasonable 
     integrity of the computerized data system compromise. 
     Decisions to delay notification should be made by the agency 
     head.

  You get the impression that this is, perhaps, a rather open-ended or 
diffuse or poorly defined timeliness of notification for our 
constituents who are harmed by a data breach by a Federal agency. So 
that is one of the problems that we are here today to correct.
  Today's rule provides for the consideration of a critical jobs bill 
and critical security bills to clean up our environment and to protect 
Americans' personal data.
  I certainly want to thank Mr. Gardner, Mr. Terry and Chairman Pitts 
for their thoughtful bills.
  I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying 
pieces of legislation.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

      An Amendment to H. Res. 455 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 4 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. 
     3824) to extend emergency unemployment benefits. 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 Ways and Means. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. All points of order against 
     provisions in the bill

[[Page H95]]

     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. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration the bill as specified in section 4 of this 
     resolution.


        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 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. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote on the previous 
question. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous 
question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226, 
nays 191, not voting 15, as follows:

                              [Roll No. 5]

                               YEAS--226

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--191

     Andrews
     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Barton
     Cleaver
     Cole
     Gabbard
     Guthrie
     Heck (NV)
     Jones
     McCarthy (NY)
     McClintock
     Ruiz

[[Page H96]]


     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Schiff

                              {time}  1356

  Messrs. JEFFRIES, VELA, and NADLER changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 5, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 223, 
noes 186, not voting 23, as follows:

                              [Roll No. 6]

                               AYES--223

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--186

     Andrews
     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Barton
     Becerra
     Cardenas
     Castro (TX)
     Cleaver
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Fattah
     Gabbard
     Guthrie
     Heck (NV)
     Jones
     McCarthy (NY)
     McClintock
     Nunes
     Rogers (KY)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Schiff
     Turner

                              {time}  1406

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 6, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________