[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.''
____________________