Exchange Information Disclosure Act

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 455 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 455 provides for the consideration of three important bills which were reported by the Energy and Commerce Committee: H.R. 2279, the Reducing Excessive Deadline Obligations Act of 2013; H.R. 3362, the Exchange Information Disclosure Act; and H.R. 3811, the Health Exchange Security and Transparency Act of 2014.

H.R. 2279 is a bill to address the burdensome and outdated deadlines for certain rulemaking activities conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Solid Waste Disposal Act and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. This provides flexibility for the Environmental Protection Agency in order to streamline a process critical to cleaning up sites contaminated with certain toxic or hazardous chemicals.

It further requires the Environmental Protection Agency to evaluate existing State or other Federal financial insurance requirements to determine whether additional requirements are, in fact, necessary.

Finally, it requires the owner or operator of a chemical storage site to report the presence of such chemicals to the State emergency response commissions.

It is a commonsense piece of legislation to help clean up areas that have been polluted and allows for their reclamation or development. This could bring jobs and economic benefits to neighborhoods which have been so affected.

As the two health care-related pieces of legislation, these are targeted bills to address just a few of the massive problems the American public has witnessed over the last few months pertaining to the calamitous rollout of the Federal www.healthcare.gov Web site. The data obtained by www.healthcare.gov is one of the largest collections of personal information ever assembled. It links information between seven different Federal agencies, State agencies, and government contractors.

In promising lower costs and widespread health coverage for Americans, President Obama failed to mention that the Affordable Care Act's mandates and requirements will create large-scale disruption of the entire health insurance market. The resulting cancelation of insurance plans and high cost for employers to continue providing insurance for their workers has left millions of Americans with no choice other than to purchase health insurance through the Affordable Care Act's exchanges, subjecting their personal information to the vulnerable security infrastructure.

The initial launch of www.healthcare.gov on October 1, 2013, was plagued with glitches and errors. Not only did the administration fail to establish basic functionality of the Web site, but the initial problems really only break the surface of the deeper security threats in the underlying law. A multitude of gaps remain in the Web site's security infrastructure, making the Web site a wide-open target for hackers and identity thieves. These flaws continue to pose a threat to the security of Americans' personal data.

Mr. Speaker, it wasn't that the administration was not alerted to these security concerns on the Web site prior to the launch. MITRE Corporation, a contractor for the Department of Health and Human Services, alerted the agency that 19 unaddressed security vulnerabilities plagued the Web site prior to its launch on October 1. Top officials at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, including the chief information security officer, Teresa Fryer, along with the Web site's project manager, Tony Trenkle, both refused to sign the Authority to Operate license that was necessary to actually launch www.healthcare.gov. Despite these known issues, the director of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Marilyn Tavenner, continued to launch the Web site.

This is much more than a faulty Web site. This is about the American people, who cannot trust their government to certify that their personal information will be safe on a government-run Web site.

The security threat goes beyond just an individual's primary application. Once an individual's personal information is entered into the system, the exchange has the ability to access information within the Department of Homeland Security, the Internal Revenue Service, Social Security, and the Treasury Department. The administration has opened numerous Federal agencies to data breaches and unauthorized access.

Just before the holidays, the entire Nation saw firsthand what a massive security breach looks like. Over 40 million Target customers, their personal data was compromised by computer hackers who pilfered personal financial information and identification.

Target has gone out of their way to alert customers of the security breach. Unfortunately, the Federal Government has no such obligation under the law. This is a point that I don't think most people are aware of. It is not required. It is not a mandate that you have a Target charge card or that you shop at Target, but it is certainly required and a mandate that you buy your insurance through www.healthcare.gov. This is a coercive Federal policy that now is pulling people into its Web site and refuses to provide them the very same protection that we demand that the private sector do for a voluntary purchase.

Instead of following the same requirements placed on the private sector, the Federal Government has gone out of their way to avoid imposing this basic due diligence in their own exchanges. Even when a notification requirement was specifically requested during the rulemaking process on the exchanges, the administration just simply refused.

In the March 27, 2012, Federal Register, Department of Health and Human Services responded, stating:

We do not plan to include the specific notification

procedures in the final rule. Consistent with this approach,

we did not include specific policies for investigation of

data breaches in this final rule.

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

States rely upon the federally run exchange.

Look, we have spent hundreds of millions of dollars, taxpayer dollars. The American people deserve to know that their personal information is protected and to be notified if that protection lapses.

Let's be honest: www.healthcare.gov is the most talked about Web site in years. The massive amounts of personal information that is collected through www.healthcare.gov and its ability to access multiple government databases creates the perfect environment for targeting by hackers.

Over 16 attempts to hack into the system have already been reported, not to mention the many stories that have been reported in the press on the mishandling and sharing of individuals' data. Identity theft is a threat not only to an individual's credit rating and personal finances but also to overall United States security. Most Americans would be shocked to learn that this level of protection is not already in place for an initiative the size of the Affordable Care Act. Well, today the House is working to correct this injustice, protecting Americans when the administration has refused to do so.

The Obama administration has consistently refused to disclose detailed data on how many Americans have actually completed the Obama Care enrollment process. Now it is more than 3 months after the launch of the exchanges, and we just simply do not know how many Americans are enrolled in the exchange plan.

It was the administration who initially defined the success of the exchange as the number of Americans who actually enroll in the program. The number of enrollments are the only way to evaluate whether the more than $1 trillion that was spent on this thing by the administration is actually working.

The President's commitment to an open and transparent government, repeated so many times during the passage of the Affordable Care Act, represents yet one more broken promise in a long string of broken promises.

Where this administration has failed, the bill before us will require the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to provide detailed weekly reports to the American people about the enrollment number on healthcare.gov. The American people deserve to know what they are getting for their hard-earned tax dollars that they have spent on the demands of this administration.

It is the American people who are suffering because of the mismanagement and failures of this administration. Today--today--we have the opportunity to provide transparency and protect Americans' personal information.

The rule before us today provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided between the majority and the minority for each of the bills contained in the rule. The minority is further afforded the customary motion to recommit on each piece of legislation.

I want to encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bills and stand with the millions of Americans who are asking and who are demanding that we protect their privacy.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I now would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Collins.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, it is often said those who don't remember their history are doomed to repeat it.

The Rules Committee is an important function of this House. It is an important function of this body. Prior to 3 years ago, the Rules Committee was under the jurisdiction of the Democrats. They controlled the Rules Committee throughout the entirety of the 111th Congress. You may recall, that was the first 2 years of the first Obama term. In those 2 years under Speaker Pelosi, this was the first Congress in history--the first Congress in the history of the Republic--not to have a single bill considered under an open rule process.

Now, since Republicans resumed the majority at the beginning of 2011, 31 bills have come under an open rule. The track record may not be perfect, but it is inestimably better than what preceded it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I tire of going through this history lesson every time we come down to the floor, but may I remind you that when the now-Affordable Care Act was passed into law, this was a bill that came over to the House from the Senate. Sure enough, the House had sent the bill over to the Senate in July of 2009, H.R. 3590. It was a bill that dealt with housing. The bill that dealt with housing was amended. The amendment read, ``Strike all after the enacting clause and insert,'' and the health care language, which was de novo, the health care language was inserted.

Now, to be sure, the House had considered a health care reform bill, H.R. 3200. H.R. 3200 has gone to the ether of history. H.R. 3590 passed in the Senate, a 60-vote margin on Christmas Eve in 2009, and then was thrown over to the House of Representatives. Did we have a hearing on H.R. 3590 in the Committee on Energy and Commerce? No, we did not. Did they have a hearing in the appropriate subcommittee of Ways and Means on H.R. 3590, as amended? No, they did not.

The bill came to the Rules Committee. It came to the Rules Committee. I attempted to offer amendments. I was told, No, thank you. The bill was perfect the way it is, doesn't need any changes. This bill that affects every man, woman, and child in this country for the next three decades in a very unfavorable way was passed without any input from the then-minority, the Republicans in the House of Representatives.

So it is beyond comprehension that we can continue to have these arguments about closed processes. This, after all, is the granddaddy of all closed processes. And the consequence, the drafting errors, the problems embedded in the structure, could not be dealt with during the normal legislative process, which is why so much authority has been transferred to the executive branch, to the agencies, and why they are now essentially writing the laws that affect so many Americans.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

I would point out this bill before us today does not--does not-- change the Superfund, but it does allow States the flexibility to deal with problems in their States as they see fit.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire, does the gentleman have any other speakers? If not, I am prepared to close.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the questions for people who have been watching this debate, I'm sure one of the questions that they have, is there any difference as to how the private sector is treated if and when a data breach occurs versus a Federal agency? The simple fact of the matter is there is a difference.

The private sector is governed under State laws and, yes, by some Federal regulations as well.

In fact, earlier this month, in a publication called The Hill, entitled, ``Target's data breach sparks calls for action,'' there was significant discussion about, perhaps, there being more activity on the part of the Federal Trade Commission in protecting consumers who have been exposed to a data breach.

What are the protections for people harmed with a data breach by the Federal Government?

In fact, for that, there is not legislation, there is not a law that was signed by any administration, but there is an executive order of the President's, dating from May 22, 2007, a so-called OMB Circular.

The OMB Circular dealing with data breaches under the section ``Timeliness of the Notification'' reads:

Agencies should provide notification without unreasonable

delay following the discovery of a breach, consistent with

the needs of law enforcement and national security and any

measures necessary for your agency to determine the scope of

the breach and, if applicable, to restore the reasonable

integrity of the computerized data system compromise.

Decisions to delay notification should be made by the agency

head.

You get the impression that this is, perhaps, a rather open-ended or diffuse or poorly defined timeliness of notification for our constituents who are harmed by a data breach by a Federal agency. So that is one of the problems that we are here today to correct.

Today's rule provides for the consideration of a critical jobs bill and critical security bills to clean up our environment and to protect Americans' personal data.

I certainly want to thank Mr. Gardner, Mr. Terry and Chairman Pitts for their thoughtful bills.

I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying pieces of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote on the previous question. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 5016, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to present to the House the fiscal year 2015 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill.

This subcommittee has jurisdiction over a great number of programs and activities, including the Federal Judiciary; the Treasury, which includes the IRS; the Federal Trade Commission; the Federal Communications Commission; the Small Business Administration; and several other activities.

All the agencies under this subcommittee's jurisdiction play an important role in the functioning of the Federal Government, and I think it is appropriate that all the Members of the House have a chance to offer germane amendments that impact the funding that is provided in this bill.

The bill that we are considering today provides $21.3 billion in discretionary funding, which is $566 million, or 2.6 percent less than last year, and $2.3 billion, or 9.6 percent less than the request.

The subcommittee's allocation has been reduced, but it is one that is necessary to live within the confines of the budget agreement that was put together under the Ryan-Murray agreement. The allocation is sufficient to fund priority programs while reducing some of the programs that are not essential to the operation of the Federal Government or have a history of wasting taxpayer resources.

One of the main provisions of this bill is funding for law enforcement. The bill provides increased funding over fiscal year 2014 for several law enforcement activities.

The High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program receives a $6.5 million increase. The Drug-Free Communities program receives a $3 million increase, and the Treasury's terrorism and financial intelligence activities--they are the ones who develop and enforce sanctions--receive an $18 million increase. In addition, we have ample funding for the operations of the Federal judiciary and the D.C. Courts. We also have money for the supervision of offenders and defendants who are living in our communities.

Another priority for the bill is supporting small businesses and assisting in private sector job creation. This bill provides $195 million for the Small Business Administration's business loan programs, and that supports $18.5 billion of lending under a program called 7(a), and it supports $7.5 billion under 504 lending. This bill also provides increases over the current year for the Small Business Development Centers. It provides increases for the Women's Business Centers and for the Treasury's Community Development Financial Institutions Fund program. In addition, this bill asks several of the regulatory agencies to report to this committee and to tell us how they are doing as they attempt to eliminate some of the burdensome, duplicative, and just plain unnecessary regulations.

In order to live within our allocation, we had to reduce funding in some areas. We actually eliminate funding for nine different programs, including the Christopher Columbus Foundation and the Election Assistance Commission. Those are activities that we feel are no longer necessary or are certainly not vital to the operation of the Federal Government. We further reduce funding for more than a dozen agencies and programs that, in our opinion, can operate on a little bit less, like the Bureau of the Fiscal Service, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Federal Communications Commission.

For the GSA, we reduce their funding for the Federal buildings fund by $240 million. We continue to require them to regularly report to us on their spending and on the state of their building portfolio. The bill provides the GSA with enough funds to operate their current building inventory, and it provides new funding for three land port of entry construction projects. We also continue to push the GSA to reduce their surplus and vacant space. We designate some funding to help them consolidate their projects and dispose of some of the projects, but we make sure that they do that only if there are going to be savings in the long run.

In an effort to increase transparency and accountability, we make the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the CFPB, subject to the annual appropriations process of this Congress. When Dodd-Frank set that agency up, they purposefully left it without any oversight from this Congress. We think that is not the best way to go. We think that that is an agency that ought to report to us what they are doing, how they are doing it, and how much money they are spending, and this bill will correct that flaw.

The bill freezes funding for the White House and the Office of Management and Budget. It includes a requirement that OMB submit the President's budget request on time, which is something they have not been able to do in the last couple of years, or they will face a withholding of approximately 7 months of their budget until the President's request is sent. In addition, the bill contains a prohibition on funding for the White House to prepare signing statements and executive orders which are contradictory to existing law.

I would like to touch on the IRS. This committee still remains outraged at some of the activities that we have seen from the IRS in recent times. First, we learned that they were singling out individuals and groups of individuals for additional scrutiny based on their political philosophies. Then we learned that they had wasted millions of dollars in having lavish conferences around the country and in making silly videos. Then we learned that the new Commissioner paid $63 million in bonuses and awards after the prior Commissioner had said we are not going to pay those. Then we find out that some of the people who were receiving those bonuses and awards were, in fact, delinquent in paying their own taxes. So,

last year, we had some reforms on spending, and we had reforms on the targeting, but work remains to be done.

This bill provides the IRS with $10.95 billion. That is $341 million below the level last year, and it is $1.5 billion below their request. Now, people say that is a pretty drastic cut, but that actually leaves the IRS funded at the same level at which they were prior to 2008. We have to remember that the IRS has betrayed the trust of the American people in a lot of different ways, and it is going to take some time for the IRS to restore that trust, because it seems like, just about every week, we read about a new revelation of some sort of IRS bureaucratic incompetence or, maybe, of a willful disregard for existing law--or sometimes even both.

We want to make sure that they begin to clean up their act, and this bill provides that they can no longer subject people to additional scrutiny. They can't waste money on lavish conferences anymore, and they can't pay bonuses and awards to people unless they at least consider the conduct of that individual and whether or not that individual is current on his taxes. We require a certain amount of reporting from the IRS, and we require them to tell us how much official time is being used on union activities.

We also have language in there of this new, revised regulation that they have put forward regarding the definition of what is an organization under 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code, which was a rule that was promulgated based on the investigation that was taking place about the abuse of singling out individuals. In our opinion, the Treasury should wait until that investigation is conducted before any kind of new rule has been proposed. The rule was withdrawn after there were 150,000 comments, and a lot of those comments came from all sides of the political spectrum. We think there is plenty for the IRS to do in terms of time, in terms of energy, in terms of money before they spend that in trying to write a new rule. We also found out just recently that, while the IRS asks us to keep our records for 7 years, they couldn't keep their records for more than 7 months, so there is a provision in here that says they can't destroy any of their records if it is outside existing law.

Finally, I want to say something about the Affordable Care Act. This committee believes that the IRS should not have a role in implementing the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act. The IRS, as I said, has betrayed the trust of the American people. There is not much trust in the IRS today. People don't trust the IRS with their taxes, and they are certainly not going to trust the IRS with their health care. At a time when the IRS hasn't demonstrated much ability to either self- correct or self-police, the bill says that they can't spend any money to implement the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act and that they also can't transfer any money to fund it from the Department of Health and Human Services.

That is it in a nutshell, Mr. Chairman. I think this is a good bill. It takes the money that we have and makes some tough choices, sets the right priorities, and spends money in a wise and efficient way.

I want to thank all of the members of the subcommittee for the work that they have put in. I want to thank our staffs--both the majority and minority staffs--for the work that they have put in.

I want to say a special word of thanks to the ranking member, Mr. Serrano, the gentleman from New York. His input has made this a better bill. Even though he thinks there should be more money and he doesn't agree with everything that is in the bill, he has been a great partner to work with in the spirit of cooperation and particularly in an effort to make sure that we return to regular order, where the appropriations bills are brought before this House, so I want to thank him for that.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JY14.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JY14.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JY14.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JY14.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JY14.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JY14.006

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the full Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Womack), a valued member of the subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) for a colloquy.

Well, I thank the gentleman for yielding and engaging in this colloquy. I also thank him for his leadership on this particular issue and for making great strides regarding the rooting out of government waste, fraud, and abuse. The committee did include the language in question, and we were happy to do so.

As the gentleman stated, this type of practice surely fits within the same realm of government propaganda which is barred by law. When the conference committee is selected and meets to discuss all spending programs and priorities, I will work to see the gentleman's request is considered appropriately and amongst all conferees.

So again, I thank the gentleman for his efforts. I look forward to working with him on this item and others.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I just want to thank him for bringing this to our attention and let him know that I am happy to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment because the bill strongly supports the Treasury's Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence and actually provides $14 million above the request, and that is to make sure there are robust and forceful sanction programs. This bill also supports the TIGTA. It provides $581,000 above the request to ensure that the inspector general can keep a careful and close eye on the IRS activities.

So I appreciate the gentleman's support for the TFI, but it cannot come at the expense of the IRS watchdog. Everyone knows what has been happening with the IRS, and we need a strong IG to oversee the IRS. They are doing good and much-needed oversight, and the bill already provides Treasury's financial intelligence programs with a significant increase.

So, Mr. Chairman, I would encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I appreciate the gentleman from Florida working with the committee on this amendment. We are glad to accept it.

Recently, the IRS began enforcement of this new regulation requiring U.S. banks to report the amount of interest earned on deposits made by nonresident aliens, and this new regulation is detrimental to Florida's economy and the U.S. economy as a whole because it weakens the competitiveness of the U.S. financial institutions and forces foreign capital to flee our country.

The regulation burdens U.S. financial firms with additional paperwork and has the unintended consequence of causing many of these foreign depositors to take their business and capital elsewhere, so hundreds of billions of dollars will flee the economy.

That will impede small business lending and affect local communities. Both Congress and the administration will benefit from a fuller understanding of how the regulation affects banks, their clientele, and all of the communities, so I urge a ``yes'' vote in support of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the intent of the gentlewoman's amendment. I have great sympathy for the situation that the family found itself in, but I have to remind my colleagues that the bill already cuts FinCEN by $3.3 million compared to 2014, and our bill increases taxpayer services by $7.5 million.

So I wish the IRS could do a better job of dealing with taxpayer services. That is one of the areas that they really need to get a handle on because there are too many stories like the one she just told, but FinCEN does good work.

They work with industry to detect and discourage and apprehend money launderers, so I don't think we should cut them any further. As I pointed out, we have increased the funding for taxpayer services, and so for that reason, I have to oppose the gentlewoman's amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say one final thing. In terms of taxpayer services, this bill already provides $2.1 billion for taxpayer services. As I point out, that is an increase over last year. We have already cut FinCEN by $3.3 million.

So, for that reason, Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I just want to thank you for bringing this to our attention and am pleased to support the amendment.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

I just want you to know that we have no objection to your amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank the gentleman, Mr. Burgess, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule today under which three bills are being brought to the floor: H.R. 3811, the Health Exchange Security and Transparency Act; H.R. 2279, the Reducing Excessive Deadline Obligations Act; and H.R. 3362, the Exchange Information Disclosure Act. You wouldn't know by their names what those bills actually do. I discuss that, and, more importantly, I plan to discuss, Mr. Speaker, what these bills fail to accomplish.

These misguided and superfluous bills were brought under a very restrictive process. Two of them are being brought to the floor under a completely closed rule that blocks all efforts by Members to improve the legislation. Democrats yesterday on the Rules Committee proposed an open rule for these bills allowing Members from both sides of the aisle to offer their ideas to make them better, and it was voted down in the Rules Committee in a partisan vote.

Instead of moving forward and tackling challenges like extending unemployment, which has been talked about, or passing a jobs bill or an infrastructure bill or fixing our broken immigration system or reforming our tax system, again, we are discussing bills relating to the Affordable Care Act that don't seek to improve the act and make it work better for the American people but only add more paperwork and bureaucracy and cost to the health care system we already have by putting additional requirements on Federal workers and others that are working hard to ensure that ObamaCare works for America every day. Of the 112 legislative days we have left this year, we need to ensure that we spend them wisely, and I don't think that these three bills are a good way for us to use 2 days of our time.

The first bill, H.R. 3362, calls on HHS to publish weekly reports on consumer interactions with healthcare.gov, including the details of all calls received by the call center. Now, much of this information is already available monthly. There are already reliable updates on enrollment numbers and numerous updates on the Web sites and issues consumers have encountered. Look, while you are fixing the Web site and getting it working is not the time to put additional requirements on those that are laboring to ensure that Americans can sign up for affordable health care. Again, it is more information about who is calling and what they are doing weekly rather than monthly will provide an additional workload for those who are trying to make sure that the Web sites are functioning for America.

It will actually make it harder for the Web sites to function by having to divert some effort if this were to become law simply to building reporting requirements that were mandated by Congress. It is almost as if this bill was designed to make the Web site work worse, Mr. Speaker, by moving developers and others, without any additional resources, away from making the necessary improvements towards building entirely new reporting systems just so people can have information weekly instead of monthly.

It would be great, first of all, to have information weekly. I would love to have information daily. I would love to have information realtime. I used to run an Internet company. It would be wonderful to have that information. You have to weigh the costs and benefits and say, Is it worth building into this system realtime reporting? What are we forgoing by doing that? Is it worth it to say we want the information weekly instead of monthly?

Again, if you are building it from scratch and perhaps if the Republicans had offered this as an amendment into the original Affordable Care Act, maybe this could have been incorporated in 3 years ago and we could have built a system with either realtime or weekly reporting. But here where we are today, clearly the top priority needs to be that this Web site works well for the American people so they can get affordable health care for themselves and their family. That is what the American people want.

Now, let's talk about security and safeguards for consumer information. Again, you have the germ of a good idea. Of course, when the government has our personal information, we need to make sure that there are adequate safeguards. That goes for the IRS, it goes for military personnel files, and it goes for the Affordable Care Act, just as we want to make sure that when the private sector and companies have our personal information that they institute the proper safeguards. And there are examples of failure. Mr. Burgess mentioned Target as a private-sector example of failure.

We certainly hope that we have the infrastructure and security in place to ensure that there is not a failure of security with regard to the Affordable Care Act. But when we are talking about identity theft and how to address it, we need to look at where the real problem is. What is the leading cause of identity theft? Is it the IRS? Is it the Affordable Care Act? Is it the military? No. One of the biggest causes of breaches of personal information is our

broken immigration system, the fact that many immigrants in our country are here with fake paperwork, fraudulent Social Security numbers they have purchased or stolen--and H.R. 15, the bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform package, which in a very similar form has already passed the Senate, would address this.

So if we actually want to reduce identity theft and breaches of security and safeguard, Mr. Speaker, personal information for the American people, we should address the real problem rather than one of many hypothetical problems that, again, is no doubt worthy of discussion, but let's address where immigration--where identity theft actually occurs.

According to the Center for Immigration Studies, which has done a lot of work on identity theft from those who are here illegally, experts suggest that 75 percent of people who are here illegally and working use fraudulent Social Security cards to obtain employment. Again, Americans are the victims of this theft. Children are prime targets. Their report indicates that in Arizona it is estimated that there are thousands of children that are victims of identity theft. H.R. 15 contains mandatory E-Verify, which the Center for Immigration Studies says would curb and stop virtually 100 percent of child identity theft.

So, I mean, if we are serious, Mr. Speaker, about doing something about the fact that drivers licenses and Social Security numbers are being stolen, well, let's pass immigration reform. Let's make sure that people who are working in our country and have a role here have some kind of provisional work permit, some prospect of a pathway to citizenship over many years or decades, and that we have a mandatory E- Verify mechanism of checking, a way of verifying at the employer level that their paperwork is authentic and it is not, in fact, stolen from an innocent American, as it is today. So that would address identity theft. That would address fraud.

We have people today that actually, under our current laws, are incentivized to steal information--personal information--from American people. Our immigration system is clearly broken. We need to fix it. H.R. 15, the House's bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform bill, would create a mandatory employment eligibility verification program. Currently, only 7 percent of employers in our entire country are enrolled in E-Verify to do workplace authentication of those who work here.

So, let's bring this bill to the floor if that is the issue we want to address rather than discuss something that is hypothetically of concern. Yes, of course, we care about secure information in the Affordable Care healthcare.gov site. We care about it in military records, and we care about it in the IRS. But, meanwhile, there are hundreds of thousands of identities being stolen every day, and that is going to continue because this body refuses to bring H.R. 15 to the floor of the House, which would make that number almost zero.

Mr. Speaker, the final bill that this rule brings to the floor is H.R. 2279, the Reducing Excessive Deadline Obligations Act. It is really a package of three bills that would weaken hazardous waste laws like Superfund and the Resource Conservation Recovery Act. It would actually limit the EPA's oversight to ensure that the American people are safe and healthy.

Do we need to remind this body that the reason Congress enacted these safeguards and Superfund is because of tragedies like Love Canal where a residential neighborhood was built on top of 22,000 tons of hazardous waste, and due to the exposure, the residents suffered very high rates of miscarriages, cancers, and birth defects? The situation was so dire that the Federal Government wound up having to evacuate the entire community. That is not the America I want to live in, Mr. Speaker. I oppose H.R. 2279 because it could lead to more situations like Love Canal rather than making sure that the American people are safe and healthy in their homes.

Mr. Speaker, this debate is not really about reporting requirements. It is about making healthcare.gov function less effectively. It is not really about breaches of our personal information. We can solve a big chunk of that by bringing H.R. 15 to the floor of the House. It is not really about improving our competitiveness by removing unnecessary EPA regulations. It is about risking the health of our families.

We need to focus on rebuilding our infrastructure, fixing our broken immigration system, and making sure that we can protect the health of the American people, not jeopardize it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, again the gentleman said there is a risk of information being taken from the healthcare.gov site. There is potential risk from any site. But every day, there are tens of thousands of American identities being stolen because of this body's refusal to simply fix our broken immigration system now.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the ranking member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) that this particular rule has two closed rules on two of the three bills.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, on this 50th anniversary of the war on poverty, 1.4 million Americans have lost emergency unemployment insurance and thousands more stand to lose it each day, each week, that Congress fails to act. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will allow the House to consider legislation that is identical to the bipartisan measure being considered in the Senate and would restore unemployment insurance to those who have lost it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), a leader in the effort to restore unemployment insurance, to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

I am prepared to close.

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 urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question.

The Senate has passed a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration bill, and the Senate is debating unemployment insurance. Meanwhile, the House hasn't dedicated a single second of legislative floor time to any immigration reform bill that would address identity theft.

Let's move forward and pass bills that matter to the American people rather than political bills that aren't going anywhere.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

I am saddened to have to rise in opposition to this legislation today. As a long-time appropriator, I remember the days when we were always able to come together to determine the funding levels for our government in a bipartisan manner and with little partisan warfare. Unfortunately, this bill is not a product of those times.

I do not say this to blame Chairman Crenshaw or Chairman Rogers, as they have always listened to the concerns that our side has had and have tried to accommodate us when they could. Mr. Crenshaw is a great working partner, and he knows that that famous line is really true in this case: it is not personal; it is about this issue. There are many things we have been able to agree on as a result, but they have also been forced to listen to a portion of their caucus that is not interested in the business of governing, and as a result, the good portions of this bill are overwhelmed by the problems that this legislation has.

Let me discuss just a few of the more serious shortfalls of this bill, starting with a seriously inadequate allocation. This subcommittee received an unacceptably low 302(b) allocation that is $566 million below last year's bill. Percentage wise, this is a cut of 2.6 percent, a level that no other subcommittee has been forced to take. The result is that there are several agencies in this bill that are not funded properly.

Primary among these is the Internal Revenue Service. The IRS is funded at $10.95 billion, a cut of $341 million below last year. This means the agency would operate at a level that is below sequestration-- funding levels that were already grossly inadequate. I assume this is being done both as some sort of collective punishment of the Exempt Organizations unit for the problems associated with their scrutiny of liberal and conservative 501(c)(4) organizations, and as one final attempt to hinder the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. We already heard from the chairman that they don't think this committee should be involved with the Affordable Care Act. We keep forgetting that it was passed by both Houses, signed by the President and upheld by the Supreme Court. These actions are irresponsible, and they do more to hurt the American people than does the IRS. Rather than investing in further training to prevent the problems that happened previously or ensuring that we have the resources to go after tax cheats, the majority has chosen to play politics with the agency that brings in the vast majority of our Nation's revenue. Unfortunately, these funding levels will prevent the agency from collecting money from tax cheats, expand the tax gap, and increase our deficit. Talk about fiscal irresponsibility.

The Securities and Exchange Commission is also severely underfunded at a level of $1.4 billion. This is $300 million below the request and is simply insufficient to allow the agency to properly oversee Wall Street and protect investors, including many retirees who have 401(k) and pension plans that are invested in the marketplace. Both parties have created additional responsibilities for the SEC in recent years, but funding has not kept pace. If we keep asking the agency to do more with less, then we cannot be surprised if we experience another financial crisis.

There are numerous other cuts to the bill that are harmful as well, including the elimination of the Election Assistance Commission, cuts to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, and the General Services Administration, all of which have negative impacts on the operations of our Federal Government and private sector job growth. However, I believe that the biggest impediment to reaching compromise on this bill is the large number of partisan riders that have been added. Let me name just a few of the more excessive, all of which are major concerns to our side of the aisle.

There are riders preventing the IRS from implementing the Affordable Care Act and from reforming the 501(c)(4) regulations, which have caused so much confusion and abuse. There is a rider limiting Americans' ability to travel to Cuba on people-to-people visas.

There is a rider preventing the SEC from requiring publicly-traded companies to disclose their campaign donations to their shareholders, even though there is no indication that the agency has plans to do so.

There is a rider that prevents the provision of abortion services in multistate health plans under the Affordable Care Act.

There are riders preventing the District of Columbia from using its own funds to provide legal abortion services to low-income women and to determine its own local criminal justice laws with regard to marijuana.

This is, by no means, an exhaustive list. The number of riders on this bill seems endless. I have no doubt that we will be asked to add even more to this list during debate on this bill.

Before we do that, I would point out that we have spent a lot of time this year discussing how to ensure a return to regular order in the appropriations process. I would suggest that it is extremely difficult to do so when the majority attempts to pack legislation with a laundry list of partisan priorities.

This is irresponsible governing, at best, and they make a mockery of one of this institution's most important functions, to fund the Federal Government.

When we choose politics over the needs of the American people, we should not be surprised when those same people become cynical about their elected representatives. The appropriations process is not and should not be the place to add every partisan priority that the other side cannot pass through the regular legislative process.

I feel confident that the American people would rather just have us get on with our jobs, instead of rehashing the same arguments over the Affordable Care Act, Dodd-Frank, and many other issues.

Our side will attempt to remedy some of these defects through the amendment process; although with the inadequate allocation, it will be difficult to do so. Unfortunately, as it is currently written, this is not a bill that I can support.

Before I finish, let me take a moment to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle for their hard work on this bill. They have all devoted many hours to creating this bill and report, and I know I speak for all the Members on our side when I say that we are grateful for the hard work that they have put into this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member of the full committee.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman mentioned baseball. I would like to remind folks that we are so committed and dedicated to our job that we are not watching the Home Run Derby right now.

With the way we treat Washington, D.C., you would think we were members of the city council. But I am going to shock everyone by actually yielding 2 minutes of time to the gentlewoman from Washington, D.C. (Ms. Norton), who was elected by the folks from D.C.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains on both sides.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) for the purpose of a colloquy.

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

I thank the gentleman for bringing this issue to our attention.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Cybersecurity is of critical importance to our national security and our economic security. I look forward to working with you as we move to conference to ensure that the SEC can effectively address cybersecurity issues.

I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Rhode Island to close.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) for a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to take a second in closing to say that Mr. Cohen's comments were very well taken. I think the mistake we make here is that we continue to add riders to this bill, and a lot of riders in the past had to do with Washington, D.C.

Now, as I have said on many occasions, for me, this is more than a legislative issue. It is a personal issue. I was born in Puerto Rico, raised in New York, and at times I haven't been pleased with the relationship and the way Puerto Rico has been treated by this Federal Government.

So I would just hope that, as we go along, people will continue, continue, continue to realize that the District of Columbia has its own folks, its own elected officials at the local level, and they should be able to conduct their own business.

Lastly, we do this because this country that we love so well and this country that I love so well and that we serve on a daily basis should not treat any segment of its citizens in a different way than it treats other people. I realize that we have a constitutional responsibility, but we don't have to misuse that responsibility.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, departmental salaries and expenses of Treasury have already been cut by $17.4 million this year as compared to last year. That includes the departmental offices account. That means that this portion of the bill is 4.4 percent below what the administration requested.

Mr. Chairman, there is no need to cut it any further. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to this amendment. The IRS has already been cut overall by $341 million from last year's funding level. This will prevent the IRS from going after tax cheats and helping those who are attempting to obey the law.

The Taxpayer Advocate has even said that insufficient funding of the IRS is one of the most serious problems facing taxpayers. This underfunding will force the IRS to operate with 9,500 fewer staff, which means that less than 50 percent of taxpayers who reach out to the IRS for assistance on the telephone help line will be able to get it, while waiting times for those who do get answers will rise to 35 minutes or longer.

As many as 24 million taxpayers would be unable to reach the IRS for assistance. That is unacceptable.

The cuts in this bill will also result in $2 billion in uncollected revenue compared to what could have been collected at the requested level, thereby increasing the deficit by that amount.

Take as contrast funding at more than $1.6 million above last year's level and over half a million more than was requested. I am not sure what they have done to deserve an increase that they didn't even ask for.

During our hearing, it became clear that the IG didn't fairly represent the findings of its own investigator. Its lead investigator reviewed 5,500 emails and concluded that there was no indication of political motivation, yet the IG failed to mention that until months later after his order was released, and you will certainly not hear Republicans mention it now.

So I am not sure what they are trying to reward, but it certainly is not good work. I oppose this amendment and urge that everyone else do so as well.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the majority has passed so few bills into law that it is on pace to become the least-productive Congress in history. And, frankly, I think they are a little bit proud of that. The inability to govern is directly related to the closed legislative process the majority has pursued with vigor over the course of the last year.

At the beginning of the second session of the 113th Congress, the majority has practically shuttered the doors of every committee, save for the Rules Committee. It is a rare day when a bill proceeds through regular order from a committee of jurisdiction to the Rules Committee and down to the House floor. In fact, during the first session of the 113th Congress, major legislation repeatedly originated in the Rules Committee and was rushed to the House floor for an up-or-down vote.

Furthermore, during the first congressional session, the majority relied upon closed rules to shut out the minority and diminish the chance of any compromise. Under a closed rule, no amendments are allowed on the House floor. That cuts out, Mr. Speaker, more than half of the people in the United States of America who voted for Democrats.

During 2013, the majority set new records by approving 19 closed rules in a single week and an unprecedented 11 closed rules in a single day. Even those with no interest in, or knowledge of, the legislative process can understand the impact that such a closed process has on our ability to govern.

Every Member of this Chamber was sent here with a simple duty--to represent our constituents to the best of our ability. But, by closing down the legislative process, the majority is preventing 200 duly elected Members of Congress from being able to do just that. Collectively, we members of the minority represent more than 142 million Americans. Each one of us is entrusted to work on their behalf. How can we do that when the majority takes away our ability to participate in marking up legislation, amending bills, and having a full and open debate?

The Rules Committee has the unique and powerful ability to open up the legislative process and get Congress working again. In our committee, we can amend bills, improve legislation, and set the terms of debate so every Member of the House can participate in the legislative process. That is why I am so dismayed and somewhat disgusted at the proposed rule the Rules Committee has carried to the floor today.

Before us is a single resolution for three bills. Under this resolution, two of those bills are considered under closed rules, which are not amendable, not discussable, and one is considered under a structured rule. And that one came up 2 days ago. It has had no committee action whatsoever.

The bill being considered under a structured rule tries to revoke virtually all regulatory powers from the EPA, the agency that protects our health, our rivers, our air, and our land.

At the same time, one of the bills being considered under a closed rule adds layers of red tape to the Department of Health and Human Services and demands that health care navigators provide everything but their blood type and family history to Congress on an almost daily basis. It is simply designed to slow up the work of signing up Americans for the health care that they want and deserve.

It is very clear this bill is not a serious attempt to serve the American people but is a tactic to keep health care navigators from doing their work. Instead of moving forward with these go-nowhere bills, we should be extending unemployment insurance to the millions of Americans struggling to find work. And without unemployment insurance, the economy is suffering every single day.

Just before we left for Christmas, the last day we were here, to end the debate on the rule of the budget, we had a vote that we could have done to extend the unemployment during the rules debate on the floor. That was under the previous question. The vote failed despite the fact that every Democrat and a Republican voted for it.

By the way, this bill was paid for. It was already taken care of by excess payments that we pay in agriculture subsidies. It was an extension for 3 months, but that was not good enough. So today, you are going to have another chance to do just that, to extend the unemployment insurance, and I strongly urge my colleagues to do it.

If my colleagues will join me in voting ``no'' on the previous question, a 3-month extension of unemployment benefits will come to the floor for an immediate vote. This is the same bipartisan bill that is moving forward in the Senate, and it deserves the same consideration here in the House.

Today, more than 1.3 million Americans and their families have lost access to unemployment insurance. Soon, it will be over 2 million and, by probably the end of March or May, 5 million. For so many, it is their only source of income and the only way they can pay their heating bills and buy food during these cold winter days.

We have to stand up for the millions of Americans struggling to get by through no fault of their own, because, you remember, in order to be eligible for unemployment insurance, you have to prove that you are looking for work. So I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question when it comes up so we can have an immediate vote to extend unemployment insurance and finally do something in this House and through this Rules Committee that will benefit Americans and make our constituents know that we count for something.

Mr. Speaker, The Majority has passed so few bills into law that it is on pace to become the least productive Congress in history. This inability to govern is directly related to the closed legislative process that the Majority has pursued with vigor over the course of the last year.

At the beginning of the 2nd Session of the 113th Congress, the Majority has practically shuttered the doors of every committee, save for the Rules Committee. It is a rare day when a bill proceeds through regular order--from a committee of jurisdiction to the Rules Committee and down to the House Floor. In fact, during the first session of the 113th Congress, major legislation repeatedly originated in the Rules Committee and was rushed to the House Floor for an up or down vote.

Furthermore, during the first Congressional session, the Majority relied upon closed rules to shut out the Minority and diminish the chance for compromise.

Under a closed rule, no amendments are allowed on the House Floor. During 2013, the Majority set new records by approving 19 closed rules in a single week and an unprecedented 11 closed rules in a single day!

Even those with no interest in, or knowledge of, the legislative process can understand the impact that such a closed process has on our ability to govern.

Every member of this chamber was sent here with a simple duty: to represent our constituents to the best of our ability.

Yet by closing down the legislative process, the Majority is preventing 200 duly elected Members of Congress from doing just that.

Collectively, we members of the Minority represent more than 142 million Americans. Each one of us has been entrusted to work on their behalf. How can we do that when the Majority takes away our ability to participate in marking up legislation, amending bills and having a full and open debate?

The Rules Committee has the unique and powerful ability to open up the legislative process and get Congress working again. In our committee we can amend bills, improve legislation, and set the terms of debate so that every Member of the House can participate in the legislative process.

That is why I am so dismayed at the proposed rule that the Majority in the Rules Committee has carried to the Floor today. Before us is a single resolution for three bills. Under this resolution, two bills will be considered

under closed rules and one will be considered under a structured rule.

The bill being considered under a structured rule tries to revoke virtually all regulatory powers from the EPA--the agency that protects our health, our rivers and our land.

At the same time, one of the bills being considered under a closed rule adds layers of red tape to the Department of Health and Human Services, and demands that healthcare navigators provide everything but their blood type and family history to Congress on an almost daily basis.

It is clear that this bill is not a serious attempt to serve the American people, but a tactic to keep healthcare navigators from providing millions of Americans with access to healthcare.

Instead of moving forward with these go-nowhere bills, we should be extending unemployment insurance to millions of Americans who are still struggling to find work.

Just before we left for Christmas, we had a vote on extending unemployment during a rules debate on the floor. That vote failed, despite the fact that every Democrat voted for it. As a result, more than 1.3 million Americans lost unemployment insurance on December 28th.

Today, we will give this chamber another chance to extend unemployment insurance--and I strongly urge my colleagues in doing just that.

If my colleagues will join me in voting ``no'' on the previous question, a 3-month extension of unemployment benefits will come to the floor for an immediate vote. This is the same bipartisan bill that is moving forward in the Senate, and it deserves the same consideration here in the House.

Right now, more than 1.3 million Americans have lost access to unemployment insurance in the last few weeks. For many, it is their only source of income and the only way they can pay their heating bills and stay warm during these cold winter days.

We must stand up for the millions of Americans who are struggling to get by in these tough economic times. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we have an immediate vote to extend unemployment insurance and finally provide for the millions of Americans in need.