Congressional Made in America Promise Act of 2013

Madam Speaker, when talking on the floor, presenting legislation, it is always good to have a compass, so you can have some sense of where you are going and what it is all about.

This is one I often bring to the floor when we talk about the issues of the day. This is from FDR--Franklin Delano Roosevelt--and he said the ``test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.''

It is a compass, and it is a way of judging progress or a lack of progress, and we seem to have more of the latter than the former. We have much to do if we are going to add to those who have little.

In America, the American middle class, the working men and women, the families who raise their children try to buy a home, a car, maybe take a vacation--they have been struggling for the last 20 years. It has been tough. They have not seen income growth.

The statistics are stark and clear. The middle class of America has stagnated, and, in fact, it has shrunk, as more and more Americans have fallen into the lower income class.

There is something we can do about it, and we, Democrats, intend to do just that. We want to jump-start the middle class. We want to put in place

policies that will grow the opportunities for the working families of America, for those men and women that get up in the morning, feed their children, get them off to school while they are getting off to a job.

There are things we can do. I want to talk about that tonight. Some of my colleagues will join us a little later.

Let me put up the agenda for jump-starting the middle class, the Make It In America agenda, rebuilding the American manufacturing sector, which was the heart and--in many ways--the soul of the working middle class of America, where they could get a decent wage, where they know that a husband or a wife, by themselves, could provide sufficient income for the family to have a home, a car, and enjoy the benefits of this great Nation.

So we will talk about the Make It In America agenda, and we will go at that in some length tonight because that is our basic subject matter.

The other one is very simple. It is a reflection on the demographics, and it is a reflection on the working people of America, and it is women. It is women. What we say is that when women succeed, America succeeds.

There is a set of policies that we need to put in place all across this country that will guarantee that the women of America that are out there working day in and day out have an equal opportunity. Right now, they don't.

They make about 70 cents on every dollar that a man makes. There is an inequality that exists in America's workplace, and our agenda is to end that inequality, to make sure that whether you are a man or a woman, you are going to be paid an equal amount for the same amount of work, the same experience, the same productivity. So when women succeed, America succeeds.

There are several other policies here that are family-friendly policies, and we will talk about that another day.

If the middle class is to succeed, if we are going to jump-start the opportunities for the middle class, a key element is education. So that is the third plank--the third leg upon which we rest our policies.

How can we jump-start the middle class? Education--there are very many things that we can do in education. One just passed the House of Representatives on a bipartisan vote after almost two decades of struggle.

We are revamping the job training programs in America, so that the preparation that people need to get a decent job are streamlined, effective, and efficient, and that is part of it, the job training programs, but it is more than that.

American students now have to--in almost every case--borrow an extraordinary amount of money in order to get a higher education, whether it is community college or the 4-year colleges and beyond.

That extraordinary debt burden is enhanced by extraordinarily high interest rates, so what we want to do is to bring down those interest rates, and there are three or four different pieces of legislation that our Democratic team has put forth, all of them to accomplish the same goal, bringing down the interest rates.

We would like to see it go down to the same interest rates that banks pay for the money that they borrow from the Federal Government and the Federal Reserve--wouldn't that be nice--because it is almost zero, but we don't think we can get that far.

We know it can bring that interest rate down from 6, 7, 8 percent down to the 3 percent, maybe the 4 percent range--literally cutting in half the cost of that money. So there are a series of policies on education.

Let me turn to the one that we want to focus on tonight, which is the Make It In America agenda. There are many pieces to this. One of them was put forward by our team, and there are about seven different elements to this program. This is our logo, Make It In America, so that Americans can make it.

Trade policy, taxes, energy policy, labor, education--which we just talked about--research, and infrastructure, these are the elements of a solid program to have the middle class have an opportunity, to jump- start the working men and women so that they can, once again, make it in America--by rebuilding the manufacturing sector, by having decent trade policies, where we don't give it away and see the American corporations simply run off to China or Bangladesh or wherever to get the lowest possible wage, trade policies that are fair to America.

Our tax policy is critically important. If anybody was reading the newspapers, The Wall Street Journal or other business newspapers last week, the word now is ``inversion.''

Well, what is inversion? It is simply a runaway American corporation, running away to the lowest possible tax haven in the world and making themselves domiciled in that country, leaving America behind, where they got their start, where they built their enterprise and simply running away, leaving those who cannot run to pay the burden of operating this great country's security, our defense, and all of the other things we need to do. So tax policy fits into it.

Energy policy, labor--we will go through some of these tonight. We won't get to all of them.

I want to deal very quickly with this last one, which is the infrastructure. We passed a bill last week, and it was a stopgap. It was a kick the can down the road bill to keep our national highway system funded. It was really a pretty lousy bill.

It would extend for some 10 months an inadequate amount of funding for the transportation systems of this Nation, and it was funded by a cockamamie scheme of somehow smoothing pensions, which basically meant that American corporations didn't have to pay as much into their pension system, so that they could pay more in taxes. It is not going to happen.

If you wonder why Detroit, why San Jose, why other cities and companies across this Nation have troubles with their pension systems, it is because of this kind of foolish legislation.

What are you to do? Let the highway program stop? No. We passed the bill, and we will see where it winds up.

What we really need is what the President has proposed--a robust, comprehensive make it and build it in America program. It is called the GROW AMERICA Act, to grow America, to build the infrastructure, and there are several pieces to this piece of legislation--all of them deserve the immediate attention of the 435 of us in the House of Representatives and the 100 Senators--proposed by the President and, therefore, dead on arrival here.

If it had been proposed by--I don't know--any other leader in the world, it probably would have passed by now, but the Republicans will not allow President Obama's proposals to move forward.

Here it is, the highway system. Now, this is just in 2015. The highway system would get even more money than it has today, some $60 billion total, $7.6 billion to fix the current highway system, and this is in addition to the money that the States and locals are putting in-- public transit, an increase in public transit, the buses, the light rail trains, and the like, inner city rail, Amtrak, boosting that--I am going to come back to Amtrak in a few moments.

International trade--back to what I talked about a few moments ago in the Make It In America agenda--international trade, the ports, revamping the ports, a freight policy--really, for the very first time, we would have an opportunity to have, in the United States, a freight policy.

How do you get the containers off the ship in Long Beach, put them on a railcar, travel across the United States to some terminal, and then, once again, put them on a truck to go to wherever they are going? A policy, a comprehensive policy about how we move freight is critically important to the United States. International commerce and fair trade is important because it does allow for the boosting and the growth of the American economy. Now, free trade is something different, and that basically means give it away to some other country, which we should not do.

This GROW AMERICA Act is one of the principal elements in jump- starting the middle class. Why? Because these are middle class jobs. These are construction jobs on the highways, on the transit system, in the railroads, and certainly in the ports and the freight system-- middle class jobs. How do we grow the economy? Build the infrastructure, increase the jobs for the

working men and women and the families of America, and we grow the economy.

By the way, we also grow the tax revenues because people are working. They are not tax takers, they are taxpayers.

So this is a proposal that the President has put forward. There has not been one hearing in the House of Representatives on this proposal that is now over 4 months old. Why? Why? Why is it that we have not given the President of the United States at least the consideration and the courtesy of having a hearing on his proposal? We should do so because it happens to be a very, very good proposal.

Let's take a couple of these elements for a moment. This bridge collapsed. Now, this isn't a bridge from Donetsk in Ukraine that was bombed during that war there. This is a bridge in Washington, a bridge north of Seattle on Interstate 5, the highway system between Canada, the United States, and Mexico, right down the coast, the west coast of California. This bridge collapsed just a couple of years ago. And this is not unusual. We have had bridges collapsing all across the United States.

This is part of the GROW AMERICA agenda. It is part of the agenda that we have in mind for the middle class, jump-starting the middle class, because when this bridge is built of American-produced steel in the Buy America laws that are presently on the books--which, by the way, the President says we ought to make even more robust so that your tax dollars are spent on American-made steel, American-made concrete, and the other elements that go into building these infrastructure projects, in other words, spreading the opportunity that comes from the transportation system and the growing and the building of the transportation system into all the other elements in the economy. It can be done.

The GROW AMERICA Act is specifically designed to deal with the deficiency in America's roads, and particularly in the bridges. Oh, the economic loss as a result of this highway system being shut down? Unfathomable. Didn't have to happen. And if we pass the GROW AMERICA Act, it is not likely to happen.

I want to pick up that little piece about what happens when you spend your tax money on American-made systems. Now, we talk a lot about green energy, as we should. We talk about energy conservation, as we should. We talk about wind turbines, and we talk about alternate energy systems such as solar, as we should. But where are those manufacturers? Where are the wind turbines manufactured? Where are the solar systems manufactured? Oh, China. By the way, we have a trade suit against China for dumping solar panels in the United States and decimating the American manufacturing system.

This piece of legislation, 1524, I like it. I am the author of it. H.R. 1524, Make It In America, create clean energy manufacturing jobs-- simple. Your tax dollars must be spent on American-made solar, wind, and green energy systems. Now, if some developer out there wants to build a solar energy plant and use your tax dollars as a subsidy to pay for that plant, then if this becomes law, he must buy American-made solar panels. Now, if he wants to use his own money, he can buy whatever he wants. But I believe your tax dollars ought to be spent on American-made equipment, which is part of the Make It In America agenda.

There are many other pieces to this puzzle, and in the Democratic Caucus, we have introduced well over 50 pieces of legislation to advance the program of Make It In America so that the American middle class has a chance to grow and a chance to prosper. We can do that. Any number of those bills--or, in fact, all of them--would advance the middle class, literally jump-starting the middle class and giving American families an opportunity to enjoy the benefits of this incredible society and this incredible country we call America.

Joining me tonight is a woman from Ohio who has spent many years dealing with manufacturing and talking about the things we need to do to build and to grow the manufacturing sector of America.

I think you come from the heart of that. Marcy Kaptur, welcome. Please share with us your thoughts.

I thank you, Ms. Kaptur, for bringing to our attention ways in which we can actually do something. It may seem small, but we get thousands and thousands of people coming through the gift shop here at the Visitor Center, can they find something made in America. They ought to be able to.

I like your bill, and it will send a message, a message to us, because we will set the policy. If we set that policy right, we can grow the American middle class, jump-start the American middle class, and give the working men and women a real opportunity to enjoy the benefits of this society.

I noticed while you were chatting a colleague of mine who often shares this hour, Mr. Tonko from New York. Thank you for joining us once again. We were here last week, weren't we?

Would you excuse me?

Before you came to Congress, were you not responsible for the State of New York innovation, energy, and related issues?

Representative Tonko, thank you.

I was just thinking through that Export-Import, and the buzz inside the Beltway here in Washington that it only helps the big companies-- General Electric and Boeing. The fact of the matter is, yes, it certainly helps those companies export airplanes and jet engines and whatever else, but it is the small companies that really take advantage of it. It is the start-ups and the growing companies that need that support.

I asked my staff, actually an intern, to do some research on the kinds of financing mechanisms that China, Japan, and Korea use to export their ships that they make.

The great shipbuilding industry is no longer in the United States, it is in those countries. There are one or two European countries that are also involved, but each of those countries support those shipbuilding companies with programs that are exactly the same as the Export-Import Bank, which is a loan guarantee. And it works.

I actually think, if I might say so, it is a small group in the Republican Party that is really taking the lead in this issue. Somehow they believe that government ought not be involved in commercial enterprise, when in fact since the very beginning of our Nation government has been involved, and together with the private sector is responsible for the growth of this incredible economy. This is but one example. There are numerous other ones.

I was just thinking about some of the words that the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) spoke regarding energy policy.

We are now generating and extracting a large amount of natural gas, and so much so that now there is a desire

to export that natural gas in liquid form called liquefied natural gas, LNG. We have to be careful because that natural gas has given us the opportunity to pull down our energy costs, manufacturing costs, so we are now seeing companies returning to the United States. Dow Chemical is but one example. I used to represent their major plant out in Pittsburg, California. They are coming home because of energy policy, so we have to be careful about the export of LNG because it can drive up the price and harm the growth of our manufacturing sector.

However--and here is an opportunity--the LNG is a strategic national asset. It is bringing down our cost of energy. Shipbuilding is also a strategic national industry. Our United States Navy, the most powerful and most effective and awesome in the world, depends upon American shipyards. However, private shipbuilding in the United States has basically gone downhill, together with the mariners, the maritime crews that are on those American-built ships. We have an opportunity here. If we are going to export LNG, then we ought to export that LNG on American-built ships with American crews.

It is an issue of public policy. We can do this, and in so doing, we can revitalize an important sector of the American economy, the shipbuilding economy, which is found on all of the coasts of America, from Maine, Philadelphia, around in the gulf to San Diego, and all of the way up to Seattle. There are shipyards that are desperate for business, and the LNG export is an opportunity to capture and bring home the shipbuilding, and when it is coupled with the Export-Import Bank issue, we can really restart and rebuild a critical element in the economy of America.

If I might interrupt you, before you move to the research agenda, which is absolutely critical, today the President of the United States signed the revamping of the job training programs in America. This is a bipartisan effort. It passed the House on a bipartisan vote--I think almost universal votes for the Democrats; the Republicans, maybe two-thirds voted for it and a third against it--but it is a complete revamp of an important element of what you just described, which is the job training and the job preparation and the training that is needed for these advanced manufacturing technologies.

You are so correct.

Let me give you an example. Yesterday I called together my manufacturing advisory committee. We had about 50 manufacturers, some very, very large--Boeing was there--and some very small companies. The discussion centered around precisely what you talked about. We had representatives from Lawrence Livermore National Lab, Sandia National Lab, Lawrence Berkeley Lab, and the University of California Davis, researchers, the most advanced research going on in the world.

Their discussion was not about nuclear weapons, which you might expect from Lawrence Livermore and Sandia National Labs, because that is their principal job, how to deal with the nuclear weapons issue, but they were talking about technologies that they have come into and have advanced through their research, like laser research.

One of the companies that was there was a spinoff from research that was done at Lawrence Livermore National Lab on laser technology, and it is called laser peening. Now you have heard of a ball-peen hammer that is used to strike metal, and in striking the metal, it actually strengthens it. Well, now they are using lasers to strike that metal, and the result of it is that you significantly strengthen the metal. And this is now used by General Electric and others in the manufacturing of some of the internal parts in the jet engines. It substantially strengthens them.

That is just one example of the way that research can flow into the manufacturing sector, enhancing the job opportunities for the middle class, and once again, it is made in America and is giving the middle class a jump start.

These things all come together, so this manufacturing group yesterday dealt on everything you talked about. They were talking about export. They talked about tax policy. They talked about research into the private sector.

Another example, the University of California, which I have the honor of representing, has a very large engineering school. It is one of the largest in the Nation, and they are producing--I

think they have 8,000 students in their engineering program.

A couple of the graduates, a few years back, developed a new way of programming machine tools--computer-assisted machine tools. They were so advanced that a Japanese machine tool company, one of the largest in the world, began to look at this and said: we need that technology.

They incorporated it into their program, and then they decided they needed to be near the researchers. So they have now located in Davis, California, a major manufacturing program to make these very advanced machine tools, using the research that comes from the university, a marvelous example of what we need to do in our public policies.

Can I give you another example? It was exciting--it was a really exciting day, Mr. Tonko.

One of the small businesses--of several of them, actually, after listening to the heads of these extraordinary laboratories said: yeah, but I am just a small company, I don't have any money to go and work with you guys on products that we want to develop.

The fellow from the SBA, the Small Business Administration, raised his hand--you know, I kind of see him wanting to jump into the conversation--so I called on him and he said: we can help.

I am going: You are from the government, and you can help? He said: we can help, we can help, we have a voucher program.

I didn't know this existed in the Small Business Administration, but they have a voucher program that a small business that wants to connect to one of the national laboratories or one of the universities can get a voucher that is worth a certain amount of money, take it down to the laboratory, and begin to work with the laboratory on transferring technology to that business.

Wow, I mean, do businesses know that such a thing exists? Are we promoting that? Are we supporting the Small Business Administration, so that they can help these small businesses in really what I think is a unique and wonderful way?

I interrupted you. My apologizes, Mr. Tonko.

There are so many pieces to this puzzle. At the top of our Make It In America is trade policy. Thank you for bringing that issue back onto the floor. It is something we constantly need to deal with.

We have not talked this last year--actually, since Republicans took control of Congress, we have not talked about the manipulation of currency by China. I know when the Democrats controlled the House, we were putting forth legislation multiple times to address the currency manipulation issue, but there are many, many pieces to this trade policy that are relevant to us.

As you were talking about the manufacturing, I put up one of my favorite photos, a Make It In America photo. You have seen my photo here, I am sure, of a locomotive. The American Recovery Act, a stimulus bill which really did work--trash it politically, but it actually worked--there was money for Amtrak to buy locomotives.

In that particular section of the Recovery Act, Congress wrote--and you voted for it--I wasn't here at the time, I wish I was because I would love to take credit for this--wrote a little paragraph that said this money must be spent on locomotives that are 100 percent made in America--100 percent made in America--a couple hundred million dollars to build these locomotives.

Companies looked at it. A German company said: that is a lot of money, we can build locomotives. Siemens, a large international industrial manufacturing company--located in Sacramento, building light rail cars--said: we can build American-made locomotives.

They started a new manufacturing plant. They have over 600 workers there today. They are producing 100 percent American-made locomotives because of public policy. Your tax dollars are spent on American-made locomotives.

That supply chain is all across this Nation--not made in Germany, made in America--the wheels, the trains, the tracks, the electronics, all of that, American-made. It is a matter of public policy. The Export-Import Bank, tax policy, how you are going to spend American taxpayer dollars--these are the things we wanted to do to jump-start the middle class--Make It In America.

Mr. Tonko, we have got about 7 or 8 minutes left, so let's roll on.

Mr. Tonko, it is always a great pleasure to be on the floor with you. You are so clear. Your vision and your purpose is so very, very clear.

The Make It In America agenda has many pieces: trade policy, tax policy, energy, labor, education, research, and infrastructure. All of it is designed for one purpose, and that is to give American working families an opportunity.

It has become part of our jump-start for the middle class. This is our policy. These are the things that we want to do as Democrats. We want to see the working families of America make it. We want it made in America, and we want American families to be making it, so the Make It In America is one part of this agenda.

When women succeed, America succeeds. This is the fact that a majority of the workforce in America is now women. The reality is they make 70 cents on the dollar for every man that makes a dollar, so we need to address that. We need to make sure that they have the opportunities.

Right now, there is an increasing concern about on-demand labor, which is mostly women. You can imagine the destruction to family life when a woman that is working at a retail store gets a phone call and has to immediately report to work for 3, 4, or 5 hours.

This is craziness, but there is a whole series of family-friendly policies for women that are involved in this issue, including the minimum wage.

Finally, the issue of education, which we have talked about. These are the jump-start the middle class policies that we are pushing forward.

Make It In America is the agenda that you and I have talked about so many times here on the floor--little progress is being made--but I am telling you, if we had the majority in this House, these pieces of legislation that we have talked about today would be sitting over in the Senate and they would be on the President's desk very, very quickly--critical policies for the future of this Nation, critical policies for the working men and women and the families of America.

We intend to do it. We intend to see this agenda, the agenda for the working men and women advance.

Mr. Tonko, do you want to have another 30 seconds before we are told to wrap?

Mr. Tonko and Ms. Kaptur, thank you so very much for joining us tonight.

America will make it when we Make It In America.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Well, I want to come to the floor to wish the Republicans a happy anniversary. I brought a gold ring. This is the 50th repeal of ObamaCare. I want to wish my colleagues a happy 50th anniversary for the appeal of ObamaCare.

Like any marriage that lasts 50 years, it takes a lot of work. The American people have shown that they want this marriage to last. They have shown that by reelecting Barack Obama as President. They have shown that by electing a Senate that won't even consider a repeal of the Affordable Care Act; but also like any marriage, it takes work along the way to improve it, to work at it, to make changes to it.

Democrats stand ready to work with President Obama, to fine-tune this wonderful marriage celebrating the 50th anniversary of its repeal here today, to make sure it endures for another 50 repeal votes by the House Republicans here in the coming months. We are ready to make the changes that we need to, to ensure that the Affordable Care Act works for every American.

There are issues in the implementation in my district. Two of my counties, Summit and Eagle County, have among the highest insurance rates in the exchange in the entire country, these two counties. That is due to a problem that the State had in implementing it, but we would love to work with Republicans on a Federal fix for Eagle and Summit County, and the other Colorado counties that are affected by it.

I would be proud to work with my colleagues to replace the revenue and the medical and device tax with other sources of revenue to ensure that the Affordable Care Act works.

There are a lot of great ideas, and perhaps it is time that, rather than continue to celebrate anniversaries of repeal, that we enter couples counseling sessions today, and we work together in trying to find common ground.

Rather than talking about repealing ObamaCare and going back to a system we know wasn't working, in which 40 million Americans didn't have health care insurance, in which Americans and my constituents and yours were frustrated that, year after year, rates were going up 10, 15, 20 percent--rather than going back to a formula we know didn't work, let's enter couples counseling and work together to make health care work in our country, to talk about a path forward, with the President, with Democrats, with Republicans, with Independents, to ensure that these cost increases that have been epidemic the last couple of decades come to an end, that we can extend coverage to more American families, that we can ensure that the quality of health care that is our Nation's pride can continue to be available to Americans, regardless of their economic background.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Isn't that wonderful? Isn't this great that the President has made 19 changes to improve the Affordable Care Act to make it work?

You know what? That is what a marriage takes. That is what has helped the Affordable Care Act withstand the 50th vote to repeal it here in the House. Had the President been inflexible--just like in a marriage, if one partner is inflexible, it would have been a lot harder to survive 50 votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Here, we are celebrating the golden anniversary of repeal votes, 50 votes.

But thanks to the President's flexibility with 19 changes, hopefully, there are more along the way to ensure that all Americans have access to affordable health care:

That no American faces pricing discrimination or is kept out of a plan because of a preexisting condition;

That people can move between employers;

That somebody can leave a large company to be an entrepreneur and have a startup without worrying about losing their health care if they have a preexisting condition;

Making sure that young Americans, as they are trying to find a job or working part time, can stay on their parents' plan;

Making sure that Americans have a real choice in the exchanges that choose between multiple providers.

These were some of the elements that I think the American people want to keep and one of the reasons that this health care act has not only withstood 50 votes to repeal and is celebrating its golden anniversary, but will survive the next 50 votes if the House Republicans choose to have them to try to appeal the Affordable Care Act.

The American people want to see changes to make it work. We applaud the President for the 19 changes he made. We encourage him to use the discretion that we rightly give him under the Affordable Care Act to help make it work.

We encourage the discretion at the State level that many Governors, like the Governor of Kentucky and others, have shown to make the Affordable Care Act work in their State.

We applaud the fact that there are over $200 billion of deficit reduction in the Affordable Care Act. If we can find additional savings and replace lost revenue, we are certainly open to that discussion. So I rise in celebration of having withstood 50 repeal votes. We are ready for the next 50.

We use these opportunities to highlight the American people on the benefits of the Affordable Care Act and to say that we are ready to have a real discussion with Republicans, to exert our legislative privilege, to make changes, and in the absence of that, we applaud the President in using the abilities that we give him under the act to help make sure the Affordable Care Act truly makes health care more affordable for American families.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

This bill--this 50th anniversary--golden anniversary of ObamaCare repeals here in the House--50th vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act, gutting mental parity, health parity, gutting protection for Americans with preexisting conditions, went through no hearings, no markups, no amendments that we are allowed to discuss or debate or vote on here on the floor of the House. This is not the process for improving the quality of health care for American families.

The American people have made it clear they want this marriage to last. They want to make it work. They know it requires hard work. The President has made 19 wonderful changes to the law.

I am not a constitutional lawyer. If there are folks on the other side who want to sue the President, who think that he did something contrary to the law we passed, they are certainly welcome to sue. I believe that the President was given broad discretion under the law to make it work.

I hope that this legislative body takes up the gauntlet and makes the changes we need to make the Affordable Care Act work. Any marriage takes effort. Here, we have a marriage between the Affordable Care Act and the American people, and 50 votes to repeal it are not going to break up that marriage.

It is a stronger marriage than that because the American people have voted on it. They didn't elect a Presidential candidate who wanted to repeal the Affordable Care Act. They didn't elect a Senate that wanted to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

So here we are, and we are welcome to have another 50, 100, 200 votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act; or we can get to work on an open process, letting Members of both parties offer floor amendments. This rule allows no floor amendments.

Having a markup in committee, having hearings in committee about how we can deliver better health care value to the American people will make sure

affordable care is available to every American family and affordable for small businesses, to make America more competitive.

But instead of going through an open process, encouraging ideas from Republicans and Democrats to make health care work in our country, we are presented with the 50th vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

In the absence of meaningful improvements and legislation, the President is using the authority that we gave him under this bill to make the changes that he needs to make, to make sure the Affordable Care Act works.

This body can reassert itself and take back its prerogative whenever we want by passing commonsense bipartisan bills to improve the Affordable Care Act, but it truly is hypocritical to criticize the President out of one side of one's mouth for making changes that actually improve the law and make it work better, when here in this body we are refusing to make some of those same commonsense changes.

I hope that if people think that there was authority of the law that exceeded, they are welcome to work that out in the courts. That is what the court is for, to settle the differences of separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches; but I hope, more important, because the American people care about affordable health care, that this body is willing to take up some of those improvements that we can make, to make sure that this marriage can endure for the next 50 votes as well.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, make no bones about it. The individual mandate is a linchpin of RomneyCare--or whatever you would like to call it--modeled on, in fact, the insurance reforms in Massachusetts. This component is critical to ensuring that people with preexisting conditions are not discriminated against in pricing in the exchange. It is important to make sure that we have a younger, healthier risk pool in the exchange to bring down rates for all Americans.

If this bill were to become law, which it won't--it is simply the 50th repeal of the Affordable Care Act, the golden anniversary of repeals--the entire affordable care structure, including the pricing in the exchange, would go up for American families, and it would devastate health care reform. This is not a bill that has support from the President. It is not a bill that has support from the proponents of the Affordable Care Act. It doesn't make the Affordable Care Act better. It is, in fact, the 50th repeal of the Affordable Care Act.

I was on the Education and Labor Committee, as it was called at the time, two Congresses ago. My colleague from Texas talked about the process under which the health care bill was written. We did have a substantial markup. There were other committees: the Ways and Means Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee. My committee was one of the committees that it was reported out of, and there were other committees it was not reported out of.

This was an amazing process of writing this bill over the period of a year. In fact, in our Democratic Caucus meetings, we even, essentially, functioned as a committee of our entire Caucus, where we went through the bill page after page, and we made suggestions. There were a number of bills that were written by Republicans that were included in the Affordable Care Act, and there were amendments that I was involved with that were included. Like in any legislative process, some that I advocated for were not included in the final bill.

Unlike this bill, which had no hearing and no markup in any form-- because the gentleman from Texas is right. This bill number came from the Senate, and that is the normal process around here. We sometimes have bills from the Senate we approve, and sometimes they originate here and go over there. So this bill number and this title came from something else, and they approved it in reconciliation.

Yet the Affordable Care Act--the bill that led to it--went through my committee. I remember being up until, really, I think, 7 o'clock in the morning. We went straight through the night, under Chairman Miller, offering a number of amendments, some passing and some not. Sometimes I was on the prevailing side, sometimes not. We had a lively discussion over amendments from Democrats and Republicans, some of which made it into the final bill and some of which didn't. That is the legislative process.

To somehow compare that to the legislative process around this bill is like night and day. So, although the gentleman from Texas is technically correct--the bill number was a reconciliation from the Senate that the House concurred in and sent back with some changes--the work that went into forming that bill had countless hearings and had several markups, including one that I participated in and offered amendments in and voted for and against amendments from both sides of the aisle in.

We are where we are. We would love to see the Affordable Care Act go through a process now. Again, why not allow amendments under this rule? Why not allow Republicans or Democrats, who have ideas to make health care more affordable, to offer them now to the floor? If they would pass, then they would move on to the Senate.

Instead, we have a narrowly focused Affordable Care Act repeal that makes health care less affordable for American families by leading to a risk pool in the exchanges that is less healthy and older. We need to ensure that young people are part of the exchanges. Young people want to have insurance, and they want to have affordable insurance. Let's make sure they have a way to do that in the exchanges. This bill would repeal that.

I reserve the balance of my time.

To the gentleman from Texas, I say it is possible I will have one more speaker. If I see her arrive, I will yield to her. Otherwise, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this week, the number of people who lost their unemployment benefits as a result of Congress' failing to extend the Emergency Unemployment Compensation program has climbed to 2 million Americans. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up legislation that would restore unemployment insurance and provide much-needed relief to countless families across the country as well as to stimulate our economy.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I do urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question and to vote ``no'' on the underlying bills.

We could be doing a lot of important work here in the House rather than to have, I think, what both sides would agree is a purely symbolic 50th vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act, unless there are, perhaps, some who think ``50'' is the magic number. I think anybody who has a degree of political sense realizes, if the other 49 didn't go anywhere, this one is very unlikely to go anywhere. Rather than proceed with something that isn't going anywhere and that gives the Democrats once again the opportunity to talk about how important it is to make health care more affordable--and the American people overwhelmingly want health care to be fixed, not repealed--we could be doing a lot of important things that the American people actually want this body to do.

Let's talk about immigration reform.

There is a bill that passed the Senate with Democrats and Republicans--68 votes. It is rare for more than two-thirds of the United States Senate to come together around a commonsense solution. How did they do that? They did that because the American people want this problem solved. They are sick and tired--and they should be; I am, too--of having over 10 million people illegally in this country. In my district, there are tens of thousands of people who are there illegally. We don't even know because there is no way to even count. President Obama has deported over 2 million people at an enormous cost to taxpayers--$10,000 to $20,000 per deportation. That is how much it costs taxpayers--you and me, Mr. Speaker.

Guess what? There is a bipartisan solution supported by the law enforcement community, supported by the business community, supported by the technology industry, supported by both the agriculture industry--farmers and farmworkers--and supported by business and labor, supported by the faith-based community, supported by over 75 percent of Americans across the political spectrum, supported by a majority of Republicans and a majority of Democrats and a majority of Independents. That bill is ready.

There is a bipartisan House version, H.R. 15. Let's bring that forward under a rule. That bill would have the votes to pass tomorrow if we brought it forward. We could send it to the President. We could reduce the deficit by over $100 billion, increase our GDP, create hundreds of thousands of jobs for American citizens, as the bill has been scored. Finally, we could secure our borders so we could have control over who comes and goes, both people and illicit products. That is what the American people want. Let's get that bill through rather than celebrate yet another empty anniversary for the repeal of the Affordable Care Act.

I strongly suggest that my colleagues start bringing forward bills that the American people want to see pass. If we can bring forward immigration reform with bipartisan support and get it out of this body and to the President's desk, the American people will start to improve their opinions of this institution. When I see the polls and they say, oh, 15 percent approval is what Congress has--or 12 percent--it is really no wonder because it is a little bit like a broken record around here. They are, frankly, sick and tired of our every week, it seems like, repealing the Affordable Care Act and making health care more expensive for the American people. They don't want to see us talking about golden rings and 50th anniversaries of votes. They want to see us solving problems.

We offer the Speaker and the majority leader the opportunity to do that. We welcome the Republican immigration principles. There are ample grounds to work on a bipartisan solution based on H.R. 15 or on another bill that encapsulates those principles that the Republicans laid down on which we can find common ground so as to solve a very real problem, to grow our economy, to reduce our deficit, to secure our borders, and to ensure that America remains competitive in the global economy. I challenge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reach a solution on that issue and to really move forward with regard to making health care more affordable.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this closed process--this closed rule--that allows no Republican ideas and no Democratic ideas to come forward, to enter this discussion. I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so the Democrats can bring forward the unemployment insurance bill, and I also encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

We were, and it is always a pleasure to join with you, Representative Garamendi, and with Representative Kaptur for the purposes of highlighting what can be done in this arena to cultivate a climate that grows private sector jobs and to be supportive of American-made products. So I stand here this evening in support of H.R. 1524, which would allow for us to prosper with the energy innovation and energy alternative technology which, as American produced, would be highlighted, would be the focus of attention with H.R. 1524.

Absolutely. I served as president and CEO before this work in Congress at NYSERDA, the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, and some of the partnerships that we inspired, public-private matches, where NYSERDA would have a piece of the action working with our innovator community and our entrepreneurial community and come up with these innovative designs that would allow for us to meet energy demands or to foster energy efficiency concepts which are very important to the outcome of energy policy and performance in this country. So, absolutely, I was involved in that.

I know that that is a growing edge. It is a meteoric rise within our manufacturing sector with all of this challenge as energy consumers to not only provide for alternatives and more efficient and effective outcomes and perhaps, in many cases, reduce costs, which are important, but also embracing an environmental agenda that deals with carbon emission and methane emission through the concepts of climate change and global warming.

So it is an across-the-board win, Representative Garamendi. I applaud you for H.R. 1524 and am supportive of H.R. 194, just recently spoken about by Representative Kaptur, where we have the opportunity, again, to govern the decisions to either sell American-made products in gift shops or not.

One thing I would like to highlight here this evening, we have many traditions that have followed through the Halls of this Congress through the decades, one of which is the Export-Import Bank. So as we talk about product development and working within an international marketplace, there are those concepts in competing nations that help them with their export-import development. We have such a bank. The Export-Import Bank is at risk because it needs to be reauthorized, and, again, there is a sluggish outcome here where there is denial as to that concept.

I can tell you that Export-Import Bank supports about $1 billion worth of sales in my own district. That is no small change. And so we need to make certain that we move forward with this concept of the Export-Import Bank being reauthorized. You look at the Ex-Im Bank and where it provides great services, and that is with the small business and medium-sized business community. Those are the up-and-coming efforts within the resurgence of our economy that need assistance. This program does it. Whether you are selling state-of-the-art energy innovative products or whether it is alarm systems or whether it is electronics, there is a great bit of assistance provided by the Ex-Im Bank.

Just last month, the National Association of Manufacturers and the United States Chamber of Commerce, who don't always agree, came together supporting their togetherness in swiftly addressing reauthorizing the Ex-Im Bank. So I think it is very important. You have an organization here that has supported $37 billion worth of sales through last year that sustains some 200,000-plus jobs with over 3,400 companies. The important thing to note is their track record is stellar. For 80 years, they have been performing without assistance from taxpayer dollars. Their default rate is below 2 percent. Who can argue with that sort of success story?

So as we develop this Made In America agenda, we need the complementary efforts of the Ex-Im Bank so we can wholeheartedly go forward with every tool in the kit for our American manufacturers and our businesses, small and medium and industrial style, to be able to allow them the engine that heightens their export-import opportunity, and that is the way the work should be done, not denied here, not procrastinating about whether or not it should be reauthorized, not making it a political football, but really going forward and showing enthusiastic support based on tradition, on history, on performance, on success.

Let's get it done. Let's do our Export-Import Bank reauthorization. It is the right thing to do. This majority in the House of Representatives, the Republican majority, ought not hold back that progress. It is a support network that is essential to the future, the soundness of our business community, from small to medium to large.

Absolutely. They are more aggressive than our program. So why would we reduce the complementary force that we provide to Ex-Im Bank. Ninety percent, as you just pointed out, a great amount of the activity, is with our small and medium-sized community; 90 percent is with the small and medium-sized business community. So what gives? Why are we not going forward with great energy, with great passion to say we can't miss, we need to reauthorize.

Instead, we are hearing vibes about not reauthorizing. We are having all kinds of groups coming together in nontraditional fashion, imploring us to do the right thing here. And again, it is being held back by the majority in the House. It is unacceptable, and it is unintelligent to do so.

I hear you making mention of a long-standing skill set, that of shipbuilding. It is important as we look at that Make It In America agenda that the Democrats in the House of Representatives have put together, a very sound platform of initiatives, of policy and resource advocacy, a multifaceted concept of how to underpin the strengths of our manufacturing sector.

As we move forward with those skill sets that are required to build these ships, we need to make certain there is an investment in skills development and training, retraining, so we are doing it smarter. It doesn't have to be the cheaper price delivered to the market; it has to be the most quality also. And so we can win several of these contracts through brain power, through the investment of our intellectual capacity.

We are a Nation of pioneer spirit. I think that holds true to this day. Our humble beginnings taught us that we impacted not only the growth of this country with a westward movement, but through an industrial revolution. It affected positively the quality of life throughout this world because of that intellectual capacity, because of that pioneer spirit, because of that creative genius. And so it is important for us to include in our package as we do training and retraining, education formats, and research. We see it in the energy sphere. We see it across the board. It is important.

Absolutely. And it is the way we keep our cutting edge as sharp and precision-oriented as possible.

We know that it is three areas of investment. It is investment in capital infrastructure, physical infrastructure, and human infrastructure. Having that quality workforce, well prepared, skill sets that are at the cutting-edge quality so that we can continue to prosper as we compete, our companies compete, our businesses compete, at that international market. So it is important for us to constantly invest in that upgrading, in that training and retraining, and in that enhancement of education for our young people.

So there is the cornerstone of our plan, along with research which, as we have seen through the last couple of decades, it is critically important. If we look back as far back as the global space race, that space race required an investment of research. Landing a person on the Moon first of any nation, with that American flag being anchored onto the surface of the Moon, didn't just happen; it took an order of planning and commitment and passionate resolve so that with that passion we could make a difference. Well, it happened, and America was energized and it was lifted in the eyes of nations around the world as that leader.

We are at a critical juncture again, and can we afford to walk away from an investment in research? Can we afford to walk away from an investment in training and retraining? Can we afford to walk away from an investment in education, or the Export-Import Bank, or all sorts of incentives that provide for upgrades to manufacturing, advanced manufacturing, robotics, technology that allows us to build the best product out there, and we set the pace, we set the tone? It is about this wonderful agenda of Make It In America, established by so many people, including yourself, Representative Garamendi, the leadership in our House, Leader Pelosi and the Democrats in the House, advancing this cause of investment in tomorrow, investment in today. It is how we get there and how we always achieve by seeing the problem, meeting the challenge, and investing in America and her people.

We don't get there by cutting our way to prosperity, by denial, by games on the House floor, by resoundingly defeating a reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. It is absolutely essential that we do those building blocks that take us to the next generation of competition, the next generation of workers, and it can happen only if we plan accordingly and if we take that effort to lead rather than just hold back.

It is interesting, as you highlighted the discussion, the dialogue with your advisers. The business of representing congressional districts, of representing any district in the halls of government, the key factor is listening, opening up to discussion, ideas, constructive criticism of what needs to be done out there, what is being done and what can be done better, what is not being done that needs to be done.

Go for it, Representative.

No, no. It is fine because you are just speaking to the point of listening and responding, learning from our constituents, learning from the front line of the business community and the worker community. Basically, when we travel this route, if we gather the information and then act accordingly, great things can happen. Prosperity blooms and blossoms.

I believe that when the business community is speaking--from small to medium to large industry--when they are telling us we need workforce development investment, we ought to listen. When they are telling us they need immigration reform, we ought to listen. When they are talking about reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, we ought to listen.

When they talk about incentives that modernize and transfer and transition traditional manufacturing into advanced manufacturing, we ought to listen. The list goes on and on.

Just recently, I toured a manufacturing center, a factory in my district. My grandparents called the district I represent home. Ironically, a set of them worked in that factory. I am a product of immigrants--grandparent immigrants, who were dairy farmers and factory workers.

Those factory workers worked on that same floor that we were visiting, those grandparents--my grandparents. One couldn't help but wonder the equipment changes that have come in those decades that have passed. While they wove carpets--they were weavers in that carpet industry--today, they are weaving fiber strands for defense contracts, for huge equipment out there.

The owner implies and states to me that: I can't compete, I have to offer my product at a 1985 price level.

Why? One would ask why? He responded rather quickly and theoretically: a, our foreign competitors are subsidized by their government--they oftentimes own the factory, the government owns the factory. In this case, China manipulates the currency.

He said: you take away any of those factors, any one, and I can compete; you take all of them away, and I am a winner, hands down.

When our communities speak to us--in this case, workers, businesses, management--when they speak, we ought to respond accordingly. I don't understand the lack of action on an Export-Import Bank reauthorization. I don't understand the dumbing down of research opportunity. I don't understand the lack of resources to provide for a Make It In America agenda fostered by the Democratic leadership of this House, understanding full well that we are at our best when we invest in our tomorrow.

That pioneer spirit comes fully alive when we do that. Let's move forward with progress by committing to that order of agenda.

Okay. Well, some of those trends that saw decline in some of the manufacturing sectors in our economy over the decades are now beginning to close on that gaping bit of disparity.

Labor rates, for instance--as countries had very, very cheap labor rates, they witnessed that their labor population began to demand more, which is a sign of civilization. When you are investing your skill set, your brain power, into the development of products and working on that assembly line, you will begin to understand that remuneration for what you do is important.

An order of social fairness, social justice, comes into play, economic justice,

so the discrepancy between the labor rates has narrowed.

We have earlier talked about the energy supplies and energy costs. Many now are citing us as the millennium of Mideast here, with the supply of natural gas and energy issues that are being addressed significantly through innovation and alternative supplies and through natural gas supplies.

So the energy quotient in that formula for manufacturing has been very much flipping, cycling favor for the U.S. economy.

As these major factors begin to steady our way, there is a brighter bit of hope out there that is launched. If we accompany that with the appropriate policies and attached resources, if we can adopt, if you would, the Democratic agenda for Make It In America, great things can happen.

It takes a vision, and it takes leadership, and it takes planning so as to get to that point where we are investing in that pioneer spirit of America. I earlier talked about my grandparents and the fact that they claimed the 20th Congressional District in New York as their home.

They tethered their American Dream there. They went to work in those factories, on those farms, and made certain they could climb that ladder for economic opportunity. They shared that with their children and their grandchildren. They wanted to make certain that this American Dream was there for their family and then share it with others. That is us at our best.

Why not invest in that American Dream, so that as families go forward, as they dream their dreams, as they tether those dreams, as they become all they can be, as they submit to an American agenda that has always been about opportunity, about taking your natural skills, talents, and abilities and investing them for your own growth, but certainly for the growth of community and the American culture--that has been us, that is our history. Let it speak to us.

As we hear others who speak to us about the needs to grow the economy, let us respond. Let us do that with a keen sense of awareness, of empathy, of attachment to an American agenda for jobs.

Absolutely. Just underscoring your statement that when women succeed, America succeeds--when women succeed, that lifts all families, whether it is a single female head of family, whether it is a male-female household, two women in the household, whatever it is, across the board, that is a win situation.

So families prosper, families succeed, and then, of course, America succeeds. Again, a multifaceted agenda that speaks to core needs. It speaks to social and economic justice. It speaks to the fact that pay equity and equal pay for equal work is a cornerstone to our women succeed, America succeeds agenda, the minimum wage being lifted, and certainly quality child care, affordable child care. That is what sustains the agenda, so that when women succeed, families succeed, America succeeds. We move forward with a vibrancy that began with its underpinnings of support here on the Hill in Washington, with Congress working toward the needs of workers and the business community and making certain that we respond to the present-day needs that exist out there that only build upon the richness of history and allow America to truly succeed.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 497 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 497.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 497 provides for consideration of two bills, one of which addresses the country's worsening health insurance situation due to the Affordable Care Act; the other addresses the Environmental Protection Agency's attempts to cripple our economy with costly regulations which have dubious health benefits.

The rule before us today provides for 1 hour of debate for each bill, controlled by the primary committee of jurisdiction. The committee made in order every amendment submitted for consideration to H.R. 3826, the Electricity Security and Affordability Act, including three amendments offered by Democrats and five amendments offered by Republicans. Finally, the minority is afforded the customary motion to recommit on each bill, allowing for yet another opportunity to amend the legislation. This is a straightforward rule for consideration of two very important bills.

H.R. 3826, the Electricity Security and Affordability Act is a bipartisan response to the Environmental Protection Agency's wrongheaded approach to our energy future. It was carefully crafted by Democratic Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia and the Republican chairman of the Energy and Power Subcommittee, Ed Whitfield from Kentucky. The bill requires the Environmental Protection Agency to acknowledge within its greenhouse gas regulations that different sources of fuel--such as natural gas, such as

coal--require different approaches to the regulatory sphere. Further, it prevents the Environmental Protection Agency from unilaterally imposing new regulations on existing power plants--those power plants that are already up and running, providing heat to our Nation, which is currently under the throes of a significant cold snap. This limitation exists until Congress has weighed in and passed a law specifying an effective date for the regulations to begin.

Finally, as is just good government, the bill requires strengthened reporting requirements from the Environmental Protection Agency.

One of the most frustrating parts of the EPA's new venture in regulating our existing energy infrastructure is that the EPA has actively blocked proper congressional oversight from receiving the science and calculations used in crafting these new costly regulations. That simply must end. If the Environmental Protection Agency is proposing new regulations because they believe they will truly make Americans healthier, let them share the data. Let them share the data with the United States Congress so it can be peer reviewed. Both the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Science Committee have continually been ignored when requesting such data. That is unacceptable. That must end. This legislation is a step toward bringing accountability to an agency that for too long has run roughshod over our economy.

The second bill contained in this rule, H.R. 4118, Suspending the Individual Mandate Penalty Law Equals Fairness Act, addresses the disparity that President Obama and Secretary Sebelius have created between big businesses, which have been given a reprieve from having to comply with the mandates in the Affordable Care Act, and individual Americans, who have been given no such help by this President. Just this week, the press reported that the administration will delay yet another provision of the Affordable Care Act by allowing insurers to continue offering health plans that do not meet the Affordable Care Act's minimum coverage requirements. It is becoming so commonplace for this administration to waive or ignore provisions--by their own admission, this is their signature law, and they continue to waive provisions. The American people cannot seem to get an even break, and no one even seems to notice anymore. There is little doubt that this is exactly what the President is hoping for.

In the last 8 months, the President has delayed or modified overly 22 provisions in his signature health care law. We are all familiar--we have all seen the headlines: delays in the preexisting program; delays in the employer mandate; delays in the reporting requirement; changing the rules under which Congress has to buy insurance; delay, delay, delay, in his own law. The President has been quick to fix parts of the law that have political consequences for his allies and to protect his own talking points.

Yet, where is the President's protection for the American people?

Under the health care law, Americans who don't have health insurance and refuse to purchase a government-approved insurance policy will face an annual fine--an annual fine--that increases every year.

However, purchasing a government-approved plan also means you have to pay big premiums. You are forced to navigate a dysfunctional Web site. You may lose the doctor you like and place your personal information in jeopardy on an unsecure Web site.

Today, Republicans are offering a legislative solution to help Americans get out from under the crushing weight of the so-called Affordable Care Act. H.R. 4118, also known as the Simple Fairness Act, will give hardworking Americans the same relief that the President has already given to big businesses across the country.

The administration has no problem delaying the employer mandate, not just once for 2014, but a second time for another full year for employers with 51-100 employees. Shouldn't that same relief be provided to rank-and-file Americans?

The President has refused to work with Congress to change the law so today, we are moving ahead and doing what is right for the American people. The Simple Fairness Act will eliminate the penalty for 2014 for those individuals who chose not to purchase a government-approved health care plan.

It is clear that H.R. 4118 offers the only feasible lifeline to millions of Americans who are faced with purchasing an expensive health care plan that does not meet their needs. It is Congress' job to protect the American people. I urge my colleagues to pass this rule so Washington can stop making decisions about American's health care and instead individuals can be free to decide for themselves. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bills.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes for a response.

Mr. Speaker, there have been 36 changes to the Affordable Care Act since it was signed into law. It has been a little over 3 years since the bill was signed into law. Thirty-six changes means one a month.

How does the breakdown of those 36 changes occur? According to the Galen Institute published this morning, 15 times, Congress has passed and the President signed legislation changing the Affordable Care Act. Twice, the Supreme Court modified the Affordable Care Act, but 19 times, President Obama made a change unilaterally.

We are here today debating a delay on the penalties under the individual mandate, but it might interest the Congress to know that the President himself delayed the individual mandate. The administration changed the deadline for the individual mandate by declaring that customers who had purchased insurance by March 31 will avoid the tax penalty.

Previously and by law, they were required to purchase that insurance by Valentine's Day, February 14, so there has already been a 6-week delay. We are simply trying to place in code what the President is doing unilaterally.

You want to talk about a closed process where people don't have an opportunity to participate? That is governing by executive fiat. That is what we are trying to stop today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I would just emphasize there have been changes by administrative action, some 19 that President Obama has done all on his own, without any influence from Congress.

Now, if the gentleman were truly interested about an offset for repealing the medical device tax, perhaps he might look more favorably on the bill before us today, H.R. 4118. The Congressional Budget Office scores a significant savings by passing H.R. 4118.

Perhaps there are some other things that could be done with that money as well; but nevertheless, the President has, on his own, delayed employee reporting, delayed subsidies through the Federal exchange. He closed the high-risk pool.

He has doubled the allowable deductibles. He has required self- attestation and eliminated the reporting requirements under the law that he signed in March of 2010.

He last fall said: Okay. I give up. Insurance can offer plans that we just told you were illegal, that they were crummy insurance, and now, we are going to allow them to be offered again.

All of these were actions taken by the executive under a closed process. With no input or oversight by the people's House--by the United States House of Representatives.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, here is the Affordable Care Act. The President says it is the law of the land. How does it describe the effective date for the individual mandate? Under section 1501, subparagraph D, effective date:

The amendments made by this section shall apply to the

taxable years ending after December 31, 2013.

Pretty unambiguous, pretty easy to understand. It doesn't seem to have a lot of flexibility or wiggle room written into it.

How does the language read that describes the effective date for the employer mandate? Well, that reads under section 1513, subparagraph D, effective date:

The amendments made by this section shall apply to the

months beginning after December 31, 2013.

It doesn't sound as if there is a lot of flexibility; yet the President, on his own, found the flexibility only within the executive branch to say that effective date is no longer valid.

We are simply saying for Mr. and Mrs. American--for the average American, we should be able to delay the effective date of the penalty because this law has been a disaster from start to finish. Stories about the Web site are now legion.

We should give the same relief to the average American that the President gave to his friends in Big Business.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

It sounds as if the gentleman is going to vote for the bill under consideration today because, after all, it is an opportunity to give long-suffering Americans an opportunity to be out of the penalty part of the Affordable Care Act.

Let's be honest, I mean this thing is one of the most coercive pieces of legislation that has ever been passed by the United States Congress. I might just remind people here in the House of Representatives that this law, which was H.R. 3590, was actually not subject to any hearings or any markups in the United States House of Representatives. Maybe it was when H.R. 3590 first passed the House when it was a housing bill in July of 2009.

But remember, what became the health care bill was a housing bill that was amended. The amendment read over in the Senate: ``strike all after the enacting clause and insert.''

And what was inserted was language written by special interests over in the Cloakroom of the Senate Finance Committee, was passed by the Senate on Christmas Eve, and then thrown back over here to the House.

Since the House had passed H.R. 3590 as a housing bill, not as a tax bill like the Affordable Care Act was but as a housing bill, the question before the House then became: Will the House now concur in the amendments to H.R. 3590? It took 3 months for the Speaker to cobble together the 217 votes that she needed to pass this thing, but H.R. 3590 was never heard as a health care bill in my committee, the Committee on Energy and Commerce. It was never heard in the Ways and Means Committee. It was never heard in the Education and Labor Committee. That was H.R. 3200. H.R. 3200 is long gone--no one has seen it for years--but H.R. 3590 is what is embodied in the President's health care law.

So, really, to say that everyone had a chance to participate in this and to debate it, that is, in fact, hypocritical. What is really hypocritical is that H.R. 3590, when it came back to the House, was presented to this House under a closed rule. That is a fact, and that is a fact that should be recognized by the minority. This bill was the product of a closed rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, seeing no other speakers on my side, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Talk about doing the will of the people. There was an election in Texas yesterday. There was a question on the ballot--to support or oppose the President's takeover of the health care industry in this country. Ninety-two percent of the people were recorded as being in opposition to the President's takeover of health care. So, in fact, in the district I represent, that is a significant amount.

Today's rule provides for the consideration of two bills to provide relief for hardworking Americans who are faced with the administration's expensive and restrictive mandates both in the health insurance and energy sectors.

I want to thank my colleagues Lynn Jenkins from Kansas, the Republican Conference vice chair, as well as the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power, Mr. Whitfield from Kentucky, for their thoughtful pieces of legislation.

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bills.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this is just not an ordinary day, this is a very important thing that is happening here, particularly for those of you who watch Congress a lot and want to know what it is we are about. This is a very special occasion here. As you can see by this poster on my right, we are celebrating a double golden anniversary. Today, the majority is holding the 50th vote to repeal or to otherwise undermine the Affordable Care Act under the 50th closed rule.

Now, to people who don't understand what a closed rule is, that means this rule is coming to the floor to debate these bills, and it will not allow them to be amended. That is not exactly an open Congress in a great democracy.

The majority has defied all expectations in reaching those milestones today, and as one often does when celebrating a colleague's 50th birthday or acknowledging a friend's 50th wedding anniversary, I want to take a moment to reflect on all that the majority has done to achieve this great honor.

Indeed, many Americans, including myself, were doubtful we would ever see the majority hold their 50th vote to repeal a good health care law that is already benefiting more than 9 million Americans because, why would Congress want to take health care away from people?

I remember back in 2012, when CBS News reported that the majority had spent 80 legislative hours--costing approximately $48 million--to hold 33 votes to repeal the ACA. That is just the amount of money spent on floor time and committee time. They had held 33 votes at that time to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Given the incredible waste of time and taxpayer money, I was hopeful that the 33rd vote might be the last. But the majority has persevered, and continued to ignore the Nation's pressing priorities to make it to today's 50th vote.

Of course, getting this far wouldn't have been possible without the help of a closed legislative process--a process that has allowed the majority to pursue a 50th vote without pause.

Last year, the majority presided over the most closed session in history, and repeatedly passed closed rules that shut out the voices of the nearly 200 duly elected Members of Congress who sit on my side of the aisle. Now today, the majority is presenting their 50th closed rule in order to hold a 50th go-nowhere vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

It is truly amazing that the majority has managed to hold the same vote 50 times while so many Americans and so much of the world cries out for help. As we know, there are global crises from Ukraine to Afghanistan. At home, there are millions still looking for work; millions more are working for a minimum wage upon which they cannot survive.

In fact, just this week the number of Americans whose emergency unemployment insurance has expired will surpass 2 million individuals, including almost 200,000 veterans. We could have averted the crisis weeks ago, and we have tried numerous times to do that, but the majority has repeatedly said ``no.'' Indeed, some of our colleagues have said it would be immoral to help out those who have no money coming into their home.

Meanwhile, the Center for American Progress released a report today that found that raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour would reduce Federal spending on food stamps by $4.6 billion a year. Despite a similar estimate from the Congressional Budget Office declaring that raising the minimum wage

would lift 900,000 people out of poverty, the majority refuses to join my Democratic colleagues and me to give America a raise.

Mr. Speaker, there are dozens, if not hundreds of bills that deserve our consideration, but today's attempt to repeal a good health care law is not one of them. In fact, I have a list of 50 votes that we could be taking today instead of another vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act--everything from rebuilding our crumbling bridges and roads to creating American manufacturing jobs.

Of particular importance is a bill that I authored called the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act that will address the immediate crisis of antibiotic-resistant diseases and help to save lives. Despite the urgent need to protect public health, we have been unable to even get a hearing on this important legislation.

The majority's refusal to take action on any of these pressing issues is truly an achievement, not one to be proud of. I hope I have made it clear that we cannot celebrate that achievement.

Mr. Speaker, it is my sincere hope that the milestone the majority is reaching today will be the end of the line for their tired political game. We have far too many issues that need our attention, and it is well past time that we got to work. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on today's rule and the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

50 Things the House Could be Doing Instead of Undermining the

Affordable Care Act

1. Comprehensive Immigration Reform

2. Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of

2013 (H.R. 3546)

3. Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013 (H.R. 1010)

4. Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act of

2013 (H.R. 1150)

5. Paycheck Fairness Act (H.R. 377)

6. Make It in America Manufacturing Act of 2013 (H.R. 375)

7. Advancing Innovative Manufacturing Act of 2013 (H.R.

1421)

8. American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act of 2013 (H.R.

2447)

9. Economy, Energy and Environment Initiative to Support

Sustainable Manufacturing (E3) Act (H.R. 2873)

10. Multimodal Opportunities Via Enhanced Freight Act of

2013 or the ``MOVE Freight Act of 2013'' (H.R. 974)

11. American Textile Technology Innovation and Research for

Exportation (ATTIRE) Act (H.R. 937)

12. Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing and Export

Assistance Act of 2013 (H.R. 400)

13. Put America Back to Work Now Act (H.R. 535)

14. Build America Bonds Act of 2013 (H.R. 789)

15. The Customs Training Enhancement Act (H.R. 1322)

16. American Export Promotion Act of 2013 (H.R.1420)

17. Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act (H.R. 1276)

18. Global Free Internet Act of 2013 (H.R. 889)

19. New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans

Solutions (NAT GAS) Act (H.R. 1364)

20. Invest in American Jobs Act of 2013 (H.R. 949)

21. Enforcing Orders and Reducing Customs Evasion (ENFORCE)

Act (H.R. 1440)

22. Export Promotion Reform Act (H.R. 1409)

23. Bridge to Jobs Act (H.R. 1419)

24. Reducing Waste and Increasing Efficiency in Trade Act

(H.R. 3004)

25. Research and Development Tax Credit Extension Act of

2013 (H.R. 905)

26. The Bring Jobs Home Act of 2013 (H.R. 851)

27. Patriot Corporations of America Act of 2013 (H.R. 929)

28. Market Based Manufacturing Incentives Act of 2013 (H.R.

615)

29. Advanced Vehicle Technology Act of 2013 (H.R. 1027)

30. American Jobs Matter Act (H.R. 1332)

31. Small Business Start-up Savings Accounts (H.R. 1323)

32. Securing Energy Critical Elements and American Jobs Act

of 2013 (H.R.1022)

33. Resource Assessment of Rare Earths (RARE) Act of 2013

(H.R. 981)

34. Congressional Made in America Promise Act (H.R. 194)

35. Security in Energy and Manufacturing (SEAM) Act (H.R.

1424)

36. SelectUSA Authorization Act of 2013 (H.R. 1413)

37. Partnering with American Manufacturers for Efficiency

and Competitiveness Act (H.R. 1418)

38. The Innovative Technologies Investment Incentives Act

(H.R.1415)

39. Cooperative Research and Development Fund Authorization

Act of 2013 (H.R. 1711)

40. Advanced Composites Development Act of 2013 (H.R. 2034)

41. All-American Flag Act (H.R. 2355)

42. GREEN Act of 2013 (H.R. 2863)

43. Workforce Investment Act (H.R. 798)

44. American Manufacturing Efficiency & Retraining

Investment Collaboration (AMERICA Works) Act (H.R. 497)

45. Strengthening Employment Clusters to Organize Regional

Success (SECTORS) Act (H.R. 919)

46. Job Skills for America's Students Act of 2013 (H.R.

1271)

47. National Fab Lab Network Act (H.R.1289)

48. Workforce Development Tax Credit Act of 2013 (H.R.

1324)

49. Job Opportunities Between our Shores (JOBS) Act (H.R.

1436)

50. Broadband Adoption Act of 2013 (H.R. 1685)