Helping Sick Americans Now Act

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 175 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

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

House Resolution 175 provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 1549. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided by the chair and the ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

The rule makes in order two amendments, one Republican, one Democratic, with 10 minutes of debate for each. Further, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying bill. The underlying legislation is a needed piece of relief for the hundreds of thousands of Americans who were promised by their President that they would be covered under the Affordable Care Act's Preexisting Condition Insurance Plan and then were told, as of February 1 of this year, Sorry, we're closed. This is one of the many promises the President made that he has failed to uphold.

In response to the President's failed promise, Chairman Joe Pitts introduced H.R. 1549, the Helping Sick Americans Act, to continue to provide insurance for those Americans who are most in need of immediate care. And to pay to give those most vulnerable patients insurance and care, we use the Prevention and Public Health Fund, an allocation of money that should be going to help patients, but it's instead being used for administrative costs to set up the exchanges that won't be online for some time now and for glossy brochures to extol their virtues. The money could be used to help people now, and that's why Republicans are here today.

The Affordable Care Act created the new Preexisting Condition Insurance Plan, which was, arguably, duplicative of actions taken by 35 States prior to 2010 that were operating risk pools, that were operating re-insurance programs and served over 200,000 Americans.

It has been shown that State-based programs play an important role in lowering costs across markets and then providing coverage options for those with preexisting conditions. In some States, those plans merged with the Federal plan into an existing high-risk pool. In other States, like Texas, the Federal plan operates in parallel to the State's pool.

But whether the States merged their pools, adopted a State- administered preexisting plan, or whether the Federal preexisting plan is the only option, this program is the only answer for those who have found themselves unable to purchase insurance on their own because of a medical condition.

Shortly after the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the chief actuary for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services estimated that the creation of this program would result in roughly 375,000 gaining coverage in 2010. However, to date, only 107,000 individuals were enrolled in the program as of January 1 of this year.

On February 15 of this year, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced to States that the agency was suspending enrollment in the Preexisting Condition Insurance Program. Very little was said of the fact that this program was intended to help individuals with preexisting conditions through the 1st of January of 2014.

Despite lower than expected enrollment, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced that it will no longer enroll new individuals in the program, and it will bar States from accepting new applications because of their financial constraints.

According to a report from The Washington Post:

Tens of thousands of Americans who cannot get health

insurance because of preexisting medical problems will be

blocked from the program that was actually designed to help

them.

On March 5, along with Republican leadership and the leadership from the Energy and Commerce Committee, we wrote to the President. We let him know that this was not right. We let him know that, while we may have designed the preexisting pool differently, Republicans have supported risk pools, and that he could easily use funds from other accounts in the Affordable Care Act like the Prevention and Public Health Fund. But so far, the response to our letter from the President is zero.

I support prevention activities. As a doctor, I know it's better to keep a person well than to treat an illness; and to anyone across the aisle, we've demonstrated this in the past. If we want to modernize government programs where they have fallen behind private insurers and employers in avoiding disease and getting people more involved in their health care, we're here to talk.

But the prevention fund has been used in a haphazard way, with no unified vision and in many ways that are quite questionable, with the mere hope, with the mere aspiration that 10 years from now we can look back and think that we've made a difference. But it's really something I cannot support when we are $17 trillion in debt and sick Americans are being turned away from an insurance coverage that they were promised by the President.

As a physician, ensuring those with preexisting conditions have access to quality and affordable health insurance is a priority. As much as I believe that the Affordable Care Act stretched the bounds of constitutionality--and I still do--I was concerned that if the Supreme Court had invalidated the law last summer, those who were in this new Federal preexisting pool would have had the rug pulled out from under them and they could have been barred from merging into their States' pool because of the previously provided coverage.

That's why, to ensure that that did not happen, I was prepared to answer that challenge, had it arisen, by introducing legislation prior to the Court's decision to provide States with the financial backing to decide how best to provide coverage for this population through some type of risk pool, reinsurance, or other innovative method.

I will also note that unlike many of the complaints that the Preexisting Condition Insurance Program has faced, that bill, as well as the bill that we are considering today, did not require those with preexisting conditions to jump through hoops or to remain uninsured for 6 months before being eligible for coverage. On the other hand, instead of making sick Americans a priority, the administration is telling them to just give us 10 more months. Well, what a striking comparison.

There are always stories of those who have done the right thing and insured themselves and then, for whatever reason--falling on bad luck or hard times--have fallen out of the system, usually because of a job loss, they get a medical diagnosis, and when their employment status changes, they find themselves forever locked out of coverage. Those were the stories that people thought of when they did say they wanted something done about this issue.

I might add that when the Affordable Care Act was passed, the administration and congressional Democrats vastly oversold this concept. We were told time and again there were 8 to 12 to 15 million people wandering the country with some type of preexisting condition that were excluded from coverage. It's interesting that now, here we are 3 years later, spending $5 billion and they've enrolled a hundred thousand people in the program. But it's a hundred thousand people with a very compelling story.

We were told by the American people they wanted us to fix this problem, they didn't want us to screw up the rest of the country's health care, and they wanted some help on cost. But, unfortunately, we failed on every one of those counts.

Since the administration has cut off enrollment, how many people have signed into or aged into the 6-month exclusion that would otherwise be able to sign up? The fact is we don't know. But we had a hearing 4 weeks ago where we heard from some of these people. They do have compelling stories. How many were awaiting coverage but are now told, especially in States where the Federal preexisting program is the only option, you just wait until 2014. So do the best you can with what you've got between now and then.

I will admit that many of the current State-based programs are underfunded and lacking the ability to meet their needs. It is costly to deal with this population of patients. I was prepared in the bill that I offered last summer to authorize $30 billion to provide coverage. House Republicans supported $25 billion in our substitute to the Affordable Care Act back in November of 2009.

H.R. 1549 will redirect $3.5 billion from the Prevention and Public Health Fund and then eliminate the fund in 2016. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that, unlike the authors of the Affordable Care Act, we have provided enough funding to meet the needs

of the program through the end of the year, while ultimately reducing the deficit. Furthermore, once the ``train wreck'' of failed implementation occurs, the amendment that Mr. Pitts plans to offer would provide an escape valve for Americans with a preexisting condition by providing States with a block grant to fund State high- risk pools.

The majority is serious about funding these programs and dealing with the issue, and those cost are a drop in the bucket as to what the Affordable Care Act will cost our country in the future. But those efforts recognize that for those who do need insurance and are truly uninsurable in the market, it will be costly but we will make the decisions that set our priorities straight.

Where the President's response was to tell the people tough luck, not to prepare for needing more money or transfer funds out of other parts of the Affordable Care Act or to look for efficiencies or mismanagement in the preexisting condition program or even approach Congress for funding, dead silence from the administration. Well, here Republicans will lead and ensure that we help sick Americans now.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).

(Mr. ROTHFUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield myself 1 minute.

You know, on the subject of wasting time, it was 6 or 7 weeks ago that Chairman Pitts sent a letter to the President saying: What are you proposing to do about this? This was not something that was in the plan. You promised something that was different. What are we to tell people who are now calling our committee and asking us how you're going to respond to this?

The President chose not to respond to that letter--it's been 6 or 7 weeks--but, boy, it didn't take him 24 hours to turn around a Statement of Administration Policy that said they would veto this bill should it pass the House. That's another reason for me to be for it.

But, look, in this Statement of Administration Policy, it says: The Affordable Care Act forces most insurance companies to play by the rules. Well, I think this House has an opportunity today to say to the administration: Play by the rules.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

It takes me back to when the Affordable Care Act passed this House and the tumultuous time in March of 2010. I had 18 amendments in the Rules Committee the night before that. The ranking member may remember that. None of those amendments were made in order. Look, if that's the yardstick by which we're going to measure, we've got a long way to go.

But I need to respond to something that was said by the minority whip. He referenced the Appalachian train wreck. These are not my words. These are words that were used by a senior Democratic committee chairman about this bill. And then just today, breaking news, I'm handed an article from Politico, another senior Democrat, chairman of the Health Committee over on the Senate side, is putting a hold on the administrator for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services nomination.

And why is that hold being placed? An aide said that the Senator objected because CMS was using Prevention and Public Health Funds to pay for the health law implementation; the very reason we're here today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

There's nothing that has been more damaging to job creation in this country than the first 2 years of the first Obama term. During that time, with vast majorities in both the House and the Senate, the anti- employment, the outright hostility to the productive sector of American society, was palpable. People responded to that in very predictable ways, so they hunkered down.

And then you come throw the wet blanket of the Affordable Care Act. What did that do to job creation? It killed it in this country, and it is killing it today.

If you want job creation in this country, you will provide some stability, some sanity, to allow those people who are still in that hunkered-down modality that they've been in since the first Obama administration was sworn in, allow them a chance for real economic recovery. That's why it's important to divert those funds from the Prevention and Public Health Fund, help those people with preexisting conditions, and, yes, we may get some sanity out of the administration on the implementation of the health care law if we do that.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

The last Congress we had this debate over and over again, which obviously culminated with the significant findings in our Committee on Energy and Commerce on what happened with the energy company called Solyndra. The moneys that were pushed out the door by the Department of Energy in the first 4 years of the Obama administration, those moneys were poorly spent and unwisely invested. And what did we get for that investment? More debt.

Here we are faced with a condition in the Prevention Fund where these dollars are going to be pushed out the door hiring navigators. Remember, part of the Affordable Care Act was to absolutely remove insurance agents and brokers from the environment, and now we're going to populate the environment with these navigators that are going to help sell people health insurance, and they're going to be paid for out of the Department of Health and Human Services with the prevention fund. It doesn't sound like prevention to me. I think we ought to prevent that from happening.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 1 minute.

Since the gentleman wasn't here in the spring of 2010 when the Affordable Care Act passed, he probably didn't hear the utterance of the then-Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, who famously, from that chair, stood up and said, ``We've got to pass this law to find out what's in it.''

Here we are a little over 3 years later, and we're still finding out what's in it. Yes, the law is the law--the law has passed; the law is signed--but what has happened since that time is this torrent of regulations that has come out of the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of the Treasury, the Office of Personnel Management--all of those Federal agencies charged with implementing this failed product. Now, we can argue all we want about settled law being settled law, but rulemaking is going on even as we speak. New rules are coming out. New rules are being promulgated.

Look at the Essential Health Benefit Rule. Why did the administration hide the ball on that one until 2 days after election day? Because they were afraid of what the public's response would be when they saw what that rule actually said. It turns out that most of the Nation's Governors said, We don't want any part of this.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 1 minute.

I think it's important for Members of this body to understand one of the things we're talking about today. It's section 4002 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. In my copy, it's found on page 466. This delineates the outline of the Prevention and Public Health Fund.

Section A: The purpose is to establish a Prevention and Public Health Fund.

That all sounds good. It's to be administered through the Office of the Secretary to provide for the expanded and sustained national investment in the maintaining of public health. All good as it sounds.

Then the funding section. The funding section is important because it's unlike other sections of law. Yes, it started small with literally a half billion dollars in fiscal year 2010. It escalated from there, and by next year, this fund will be up to $2 billion a year. That's self-replenishing in perpetuity. That's until the Earth cools another time or the Second Coming. It's $2 billion a year forever.

Now, the use of the fund is the next section. That is telling because there is broad authority for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to transfer these dollars to other areas she wants. That is what leads to the problem. That is what leads to the difficulty with this section.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I will go as long as the gentlelady wants, but I guess I have no more speakers other than myself.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, as the gentlelady mentioned, we've heard a lot today.

I think I've said over and over again how I, unequivocally, oppose the Affordable Care Act and would like to see it forever dismantled and thrown on the dustbin of history. Guilty as charged. That is what I would like to see, but that's actually not what we're talking about today.

We're here today to talk about the President's promise to help people with preexisting conditions obtain health insurance, and it has been one of the few areas of agreement between Republicans and Democrats over the last several years. House Republicans have urged the President to work with us on a solution to this issue, but all we've heard from the White House has been silence. So, today, we are offering a solution:

The bill transfers funds from an unnecessary slush fund and, instead, prioritizes the Nation's most sick and vulnerable who have been denied coverage and who have been the victims of the Affordable Care Act's broken promises. This bill does not provide more money to government health care programs, but instead it helps those who are in desperate need have access to privately run health insurance. Instead of continuing to use the Prevention and Public Health Fund to prop up the Affordable Care Act's flailing exchanges, we would use the money allocated for public health to actually help sick Americans.

If we do not act, the administration will continue to spend this money on heaven knows what: neutering programs, pickle ball--whatever the heck that is--and programs that are rife with potential for fraud and abuse to support their own failing implementation plans. Instead of further increasing this Nation's $17 trillion deficit, we can pass this bill that will provide health care to the sick and will reduce the deficit at the same time.

In the end, it's not about the money. It's about America's patients. The President should be embarrassed. His political bait-and-switch is not working. Instead of putting the care of the sick first, you tell them, Sorry, Sister, we're closed. Come back in 10 months.

Ten months, a week, a day may be the amount of time some of these patients have to get treatment or else face the consequences of the progression of their illnesses.

America's doctors and hospitals will be there, and they'll always be there. But why deny them the means to get their services paid for with insurance coverage?

Mr. President, your health bill fails this country, and, most importantly, you have failed the thousands of sick Americans who can't get health coverage because you think implementing the health care law is more important than taking care of the people who you promised to take care of.

So today we can end the use of the slush fund and use it to actually help people. A vote for this bill is a vote to help sick Americans now.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and support the passage of H.R. 1549.

With that, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

We begin this week the way we've begun every week since January: spinning our wheels.

As we speak, sequestration is hitting communities across our country. Flight delays have started, Head Start programs are turning away children, and unemployment benefits are being curtailed. Despite the calls from me and all my Democratic colleagues to stop the sequestration, the majority refuses to act. In fact, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, Representative Van Hollen, has come four times to the Rules Committee with an amendment that would repeal sequestration, but the majority has rejected it every single time.

The majority has also left the job of passing a budget unfinished. With budgets passed by both the Senate and the House, it is now time to finish the job, and for the majority that constantly calls for regular order and concerns itself with no Senate budget, they now refuse to appoint the conferees. And they must, if we're going to get the budget.

Instead of taking meaningful action on these two important issues, the majority is proposing a bill that is nothing more than a political gimmick. As everyone knows, there's no chance that the Senate will consider this bill. Even if it did, the President's senior advisers have stated that they will recommend the President veto the bill.

In the short history of the 113th Congress, I have been repeatedly dismayed that the leadership of this Chamber has refused to bring forth meaningful legislation that has any chance of becoming law; and today is a telling example of the majority's failure to lead.

In news reports earlier this morning, we were told that today's bill, dubbed by reporters as ``CantorCare,'' may even be pulled before it gets a vote. One Member of the majority was purported to say that today's bill does nothing but shift money from a program he doesn't support to another program he doesn't support. And, indeed, given the fact that not a single Republican voted for the Affordable Care Act, it seems incongruous to me that they are now here today with great bleeding-heart concerns about the people with previous conditions that keep them from being insured.

So given the multiple reports of dissent within the majority, I have to ask, If no one supports this bill, then what are we doing this afternoon except, as I pointed out earlier, what we do every week? Even if we continue to move forward on the bill, it is already clear the legislation is solely designed for political gain. For while the majority claims that they want to strengthen the Affordable Care Act, their intent is clear: they want to repeal the law.

Last week, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius testified before the Senate Finance Committee where she was criticized by GOP Senators for using her legal authority to fund the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. As Secretary Sebelius replied in her testimony, Congress' failure to pass a budget has forced her to take the independent action, which she's allowed to do, in order to fund the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. It's as simple as that. In the face of an unproductive Congress, Secretary Sebelius has done everything she can to provide the lifesaving health care to the American people.

While reporting on Secretary Sebelius' testimony, Washington Post columnist Ezra Klein explained the majority's approach towards the Affordable Health Care Act. In part, Mr. Klein wrote:

``Insofar as the Republican Party has a strategy on ObamaCare, it goes like this: The law needs to be implemented. The GOP can try and keep the implementation from being done effectively, in part, by refusing to authorize the needed funds,'' as they did in this case. I think it was $1.5 billion.

``Then they can capitalize on the problems they create to weaken the law, or at least weaken Democrats up for reelection in 2014. In other words, step one: create problems for ObamaCare. Step two: blame ObamaCare care for the problems. Step three: political profit.''

The legislation before us is little more than a continuation of these games.

If the majority were making a serious attempt to expand health care coverage, they wouldn't be funding their proposal with money from a different program in the Affordable Care Act. Specifically, the majority wouldn't be removing $4 billion from the Prevention and Public Health Fund. This is a fund that is already helping States research ways to reduce instances of cancer, obesity, and heart disease.

Preventive health measures are vital to reducing the cost of health care in the United States because we know it is always cheaper to prevent disease than to treat it. In an age where more than 33 percent of our population is overweight or obese, when heart disease is the number one cause of death and the number of diabetes cases continue to grow, including children, gutting our Nation's only Federal preventive health program is not a responsible budget decision; it is simply an underhanded attack to dismantle the Affordable Care Act one program at a time.

Finally, the majority's newfound concern for people who are uninsured because of preexisting conditions might be more believable if they had allowed one of the numerous commonsense amendments presented to the Rules Committee to come to the floor. Among the amendments were responsible proposals to cover Americans with preexisting conditions by ending tax breaks for Big Oil, ending subsidies for owners of corporate jets, increasing taxes on cigarettes--a preventive health measure in its own right. Proposals like these would expand health care to those who need it while protecting the preventive health measures included in the Affordable Care Act. It is truly unfortunate that, in yet another restrictive process executed by the majority, these amendments were denied a vote on the House floor.

The majority and the press have made it clear that today's bill is not a serious effort, but a political gimmick that has no chance of becoming law. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on today's rule and the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we will be doing, as I said, a previous question amendment to this rule to hold a vote on the Put America Back to Work Act, and I would like to yield now 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.

(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman from Maryland.

Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford), a member of the Committee on Natural Resources.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Matsui).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as it takes me to read this message. It needs to be answered, and I want everybody in America to listen up. You've been told it's a job-killing bill and that it has caused all this grief. Let me say:

Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, the United

States has added more than 6 million private sector jobs. The

health care industry alone, which many opponents of the law

predicted would face job-killing new regulation, has added

more than 750,000 jobs.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Hahn).

Madam Speaker, may I inquire if my colleague has more requests for time? I have none, and I am prepared to close.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First, at the end of my remarks I will insert in the Record the Democratic amendments that were disallowed last night from the Rules Committee.

In closing, Madam Speaker, we've heard a lot today, but I think probably one of the most important things for America to know--because you hear constantly how many jobs this bill is going to be killing--is the fact that we have produced 6 million new jobs, 750,000 in health care alone.

So the most important thing we can do for Americans with preexisting conditions, which is the subject today, and for every American seeking quality and affordable health care is to support the full implementation of the Affordable Care Act. Unfortunately, the proposal put forward by the majority today is an attempt to dismantle a crucial part of that important law.

Summary of Democratic Amendments Not Made In Order by the Rules

Committee for H.R. 1549--Helping Sick Americans Now Act

(Summaries derived from information provided by sponsors)

Listed in Alphabetical Order--Prepared April 24, 2013

Amendment #4

Sponsor: Capps (CA)

Description: Removes the public health and prevention trust

fund as a pay-for and instead pays for the bill by ending the

section 199 domestic manufacturing deduction for oil and gas

production.

Amendment #5

Sponsor: Green, Gene (TX)

Description: Makes the same changes to the PCIP program

that the underlying bill does, but is paid for by requiring a

minimum term and a remainder interest greater than zero for

new Grantor Retained Annuity Trusts (GRATs)

Amendment #10

Sponsor: Horsford, Steven (NV)

Description: Requires the HHS Secretary to transfer all of

the monies in the Fund for the next four fiscal years to the

PCIP program except those monies from the fund that are used

for reducing health disparities among minority populations.

Amendment #1

Sponsor: Pallone (NJ)

Description: Makes the same changes to the PCIP program

that the underlying bill does, but is paid for through a 4

cent per pack increase in the tax on cigarettes.

Amendment #2

Sponsor: Pallone (NJ)

Description: Makes the same changes to the PCIP program

that the underlying bill does, but is paid for by continuing

the solvency of the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund by

increasing the per-barrel amount that oil companies are

required to pay into the fund by four cents.

Amendment #3

Sponsor: Schakowsky (IL)

Description: Extends funding for reopening enrollment under

the Preexisting Condition Insurance Program (PCIP)

Madam 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.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to my friend from Virginia, the majority leader, for the purposes of inquiring about the schedule for the week to come.

I thank the majority leader for the information on the business for next week.

I would observe that he and I cochaired, the honorary cochairs, with John Lewis, of course, the chair, our leader, along with Terri Sewell, Spencer Bachus, and Congresswoman Roby, a delegation to march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge to recognize the Voting Rights Act and the acts that led up to that. I thank the majority leader for bringing the gold medal bill to the floor, sponsored by Congresswoman Sewell, recognizing those four little girls who at the Birmingham church lost their lives to what could rightfully be referred to, I think, as a terrorist act, a bomb going off, with no specific objective in mind other than to kill people inside that church.

The little girls were the closest to that explosion, and they lost their lives. And as the majority leader has pointed out, that event and the events that occurred in the square just across the street from the church led to this country living out its principles better than it had done to that date. But some lost their lives, these four little girls, and some gave dearly to accomplish that objective. So I thank the majority leader for facilitating that bill coming to the floor.

Mr. Leader, I noted on the schedule, however, that there is no motion to go to conference on the budget. As the gentleman knows, the House has been requesting for some years now a budget, which the Senate has passed. That budget has now been sent to the House and it is ripe for us to go to conference.

The gentleman, the Speaker, and others have been talking about regular order for some period of time. I agree with them. Regular order leads to better results. Regular order leads to an ability to sit down and try to come to compromises on where there are differences and to make progress. I would hope that we would follow regular order now that the Senate has acted.

Speaker Boehner said, in January of this year, ``Regular order works best.'' I think he was absolutely right. There was a headline in Politico just a couple of days ago where it says, ``GOP Clamors for Regular Order.'' Speaker Boehner said on December 8, 2011, regarding a bill we had passed:

The House has passed its bill. Now the Senate has passed

its bill. And, you know, under the Constitution, when we have

these disagreements, there could be a formal conference

between the House and Senate to resolve our differences.

You said that same year:

We have committed and the Speaker has committed to make

sure that our committees will go through regular order.

Paul Ryan, the chairman of the Budget Committee on November 29, 2011, said:

We're going to restore regular order.

I think you were correct in all those instances, and I want to associate myself with those remarks.

Now we have an opportunity for regular order, and we're going to be meeting next week, and then we'll be taking off a week. That is all time that a conference could be working to try to get us to an agreement so, frankly, we could not only have an agreement, which I think the country would welcome, but we could also, I think, substitute that agreement for the sequester, which is currently having and will have a very negative effect on our economy, on jobs, and on the confidence that Americans have that we're pursuing rational policies. The gentleman and I both have agreed that sequester is not a rational policy in that it deals with high-priority and low-priority items in very much the same way.

So my question, Mr. Leader, is there a possibility--it's not on the calendar and you didn't announce it, but I would urge you that we go to conference, preferably the first day we're back after this weekend, so that we could get to work on trying to get to an agreement on one of the most pressing problems confronting this country, and that's getting ourselves on a fiscally sustainable path.

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

I want to say I have a lot of respect, as the gentleman knows and I have expressed on this floor, for Mr. Ryan. I think Mr. Ryan is a very able and dedicated and conscientious Member of this House. I have equal respect for and confidence in Senator Murray, who chairs the Senate Budget Committee.

And while I'm appreciative of the fact they're having discussions, frankly, the American people need to have a

transparent view of discussions that would occur in a conference committee. So not only would the chair of the House Budget Committee and the chair of the Senate Budget Committee--now, that implies, therefore, that in the Senate there are no Republicans participating in those discussions and in the House there are no Democrats participating in those discussions.

In light of the fact that we have 315 million to 320 million people who are represented by both Democrats and Republicans, Mr. Leader, I think it would be very useful and would accelerate--not impede--the process of getting to an agreement so the American public could weigh in with their views as they saw a conference committee debating and discussing the alternatives between the Ryan budget and the Murray budget and, indeed, the President's budget.

I've seen press reports that Mr. Ryan wants to have discussions and he wants to have parameters, but, frankly, you and I both know that if we wait to have Mr. Ryan and Ms. Murray agree, we're going to be probably waiting a long time. Senator Murray participated along with Jeb Hensarling in the supercommittee which met for many months and ultimately came to no conclusion. That's not good for the country; it's not good for our economy; and it's not good for jobs and growth.

As I understand, Mr. Ryan has said he's having discussions with Senator Murray; but I would urge us to have the ability to go to conference, move to go to conference, appoint conferees, and pursue regular order.

If the gentleman wants to respond to that, I yield to the gentleman; if not, I'll go on to another subject.

Mr. Leader, I don't think it was on the announcement, but I do know there is discussion in your memorandum and you've been quoted about a debt ceiling, a debt prioritization piece of legislation that would be considered. I would hope, as I said last week, that we could deal with, in a nonpartisan, bipartisan, nonpolitical fashion, the protection of the creditworthiness of the United States of America and to the maintenance of America's credit rating. It was reduced for the first time in history when we had a debt cliff debate in 2011, and we were reduced by one point in the creditworthiness of our country. That was unfortunate, and I think it hurt our country.

President Reagan said in 1986:

Unfortunately, Congress consistently brings the government

to the edge of default before facing its responsibility. This

brinkmanship threatens the holders of government bonds and

those who rely on Social Security and veterans benefits.

Interest rates, et cetera, would skyrocket if we did that, and he was urging the then-Democratic Congress and Republicans to support an increase in the debt, which, as you know, was done.

In addition, Keith Hennessey, who was George Bush's National Economic Council Director, said on January 14:

Payment prioritization doesn't stop payments; it just

delays them. Then the aggrieved party sues the government and

probably wins, and it turns into a bloody mess.

That was Keith Hennessey, who was Bush's National Economic Council Director.

Tony Fratto, Deputy Press Secretary for President George Bush, said:

Prioritization is impossible. Is the government really

going to be in the position of withholding benefits,

salaries, rent, contract payments, et cetera, in order to pay

off Treasury bondholders? That would be a political

catastrophe.

I suggest not only would it be a political catastrophe, with which I agree--and I presume he's referring to the Republican Party, as he's a member of the Republican Party--but also a disaster for our economy and not, I think, something that would be helpful in growing jobs and expanding confidence, which the gentleman has talked a lot about and with which I agree with him on. We need confidence.

This constant utilization of the debt limit for political leverage, I think, is not in the best interest of our country or the people we represent, and I would hope that bill would not be brought to the floor but that we could together, in a bipartisan fashion, resolve that the debt limit will not be put in question by this Congress.

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for his observation. If I can, there is some irony in the gentleman's response.

We've been talking about two items: one, the going to conference on the budget, which does, in fact, deal with prospective spending, a prospective increase in debt or deficit, because we buy more or spend more or cut revenues more. The debt limit, as the gentleman so well knows, deals with what we've already done. It doesn't have anything to do with increasing what we're going to spend. The budget does that.

Now, we're not dealing with the budget, but there is discussion about dealing with this prioritization. Frankly, we should have made that determination when we spent the money, and both sides have spent a lot of money. Our country is determined to spend a lot of money. Two wars cost us a lot of money we didn't pay for. I'm not going to go through the litany--the gentleman knows that litany--but it is somewhat ironic when we're not dealing with going to conference on the budget deficit, but we're talking about a prioritization of the debt that we've already incurred.

I think the American public will understand that raising the debt limit is simply a recognition of what we've already done and that we're going to pay our bills--that we're not going to welch, that we're not going to default--that the most creditworthy, greatest Nation on the face of the Earth is going to pay for what it bought.

So I would urge the gentleman to not do prioritization, but let's deal with raising the debt limit so we pay our bills, and let's go to conference so we can make sure that, in fact, we keep that debt from going higher and, in fact, decrease it through reforms that we can adopt in a budget conference. I would hope the gentleman would agree with that.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic whip, for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House is not in session. On Tuesday, the House will meet at noon for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes of the week are expected no later than 3 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a few suspensions on Tuesday and Wednesday, a complete list of which will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. Of the suspensions, I'm proud to announce that the House will consider a bill by Representative Terri Sewell to award the Congressional Gold Medal to the four young girls who lost their lives in the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham 50 years ago, which served as a catalyst for the civil rights movement.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, we'll take up H.R. 1549, the Helping Sick Americans Now Act. This bill, authored by Representatives Joe Pitts, Michael Burgess, and Ann Wagner, will help Americans with preexisting conditions obtain insurance coverage without delay.

We will also consider H.R. 527, the Responsible Helium Administration and Stewardship Act, a bipartisan bill sponsored by Chairman Hastings. This legislation applies pre-market principles to future sales from the Federal Helium Reserve and will protect thousands of American jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I appreciate the spirit with which he recommends that we proceed along the lines asked for by those individuals he spoke about.

I would say to the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, that I'm told that our chairman and the chairman on the other side of the Capitol, Mrs. Murray, they're meeting and looking to see the path forward so that we can effect a meeting of the minds and do what the American people are asking us to do, which is to get the fiscal challenges addressed at the Federal level so they can go on about making their life work and continue to create their dreams and live the life they want and have the life they want for their kids.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his desire to see a satisfactory resolution of issues surrounding the fiscal challenges.

Obviously, the debt ceiling is another point with which we will be faced on how to deal with the spiraling debt and out-of-control spending in Washington. I know that the gentleman shares with me the desire to see the reduction in the need to borrow, the balancing of our budget and, actually, a return to a real growth in America of jobs and the economy, of economic opportunity for all. It is in that spirit that I know that he approaches this issue, and so do I.

I would say to the gentleman, when the rating agencies look at the creditworthiness of our Nation--and I think some have said as much--it is, yes, to observe a political system that works, but it is also to make sure that there is demonstrable evidence that we are making progress in dealing with the problem, and that is the focus that we must all maintain.

I mean, we know that the disproportionate problem of the debt in this country and the deficits we are running have to do with the unfunded liabilities of the entitlement programs, and we can see the White House and the President call for tax increases every other day--every day for that matter--and those are not going to deal with the spiraling, out- of-control spending that raises the need for more debt.

Again, the differences on this subject, Mr. Speaker, are well known, and I am hopeful that we can work towards setting aside the differences and focusing in on how far we can work towards accomplishing success in dealing with the problem of the mounting unfunded liabilities of the Federal Government.

I thank the gentlelady, the ranking member of the Rules Committee, for yielding.

I rise in opposition to the underlying bill and in opposition to this rule and for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can substitute Mr. Connolly's bill for this bill, which will mean we will substitute something that will grow jobs from something that will waste time, not because those with preexisting conditions aren't worthy of our consideration--and, in fact, were considered in the Affordable Care Act and will have, as of January 2014, some real protections, not just high-risk protections, some real protections for them and their families.

The previous speaker said ``this train wreck.'' This train wreck has already benefited millions of people: millions of seniors, millions of women, millions of people with preexisting conditions, millions of students, millions of young people who couldn't get insurance but can stay on their family's policy, millions of people who didn't have their benefits capped. Millions of people have already benefited.

The Republican Party continues to oppose. They want to see this bill be a train wreck and are doing everything in their power to destroy the tracks, everything in their power to make sure it doesn't work, make sure that hundreds of millions--yes, hundreds of millions--of Americans won't be benefited by bringing down cost and making insurance available to millions of people.

Just like the little boy who took the lives of his two parents complained to the court, ``Give me mercy because I'm an orphan,'' they are destroying the tracks that have been constructed to give Americans health care assurance.

Now, let me say, if we vote against this previous question, we will have an opportunity to consider Mr. Connolly's bill. That bill will be consistent with the Make It In America agenda--job creation, not wasting time.

We're going to do a bill on Thursday and Friday that we could do in 10 minutes--totally noncontroversial; it's about helium. We're going to take 2 days to do that bill; it could be done in 10 minutes. We are spinning our wheels, as the gentlelady suggested.

One bill that will be something that we can do for America and jobs as part of the Make It In America agenda is H.R. 535, the Put America Back to Work Now Act, sponsored by my friend from Virginia (Mr. Connolly). It would permanently extend the Build America Bonds program to help State and local governments leverage private capital to finance infrastructure projects--jobs.

Build America Bonds have been strongly supported by mayors, city managers, county legislators, and State officials from both parties--a bipartisan support for this bill. At the local level, it is a bipartisan solution that we know works because these bonds were used effectively in 2009 and 2010 before they expired.

When it comes to making investments in our Nation's infrastructure, we should be able to support local governments that want to attract manufacturing and invest in making their communities safer, cleaner, and more secure.

By the way, if we create these jobs, the probability is these people who get these jobs will have health insurance and will be served, as the doctor would like, as I would like--hopefully.

But let us not continue to waste time on a bill that we know has a deeply divided Republican Party--as we're going to see on this vote, I'm sure--and will not get through the Senate and will not be signed by the President. We're just wasting our time here--political messages.

By the way, you've garbled your message pretty badly, as I understand from Club for Growth and Heritage Foundation and FreedomWorks.

So vote against the previous question. Vote for building America and growing jobs.