New Chance for a New Start in Life Act of 2014

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will attach extraneous material to this part of my speech since we only have 30 minutes on two legislative matters.

Madam Speaker, at a time when millions are struggling to find work, the majority has decided that their top priority, one of the first 10 bills of the session that they number, is to continue the decades-long assault on a woman's constitutionally protected right to choose.

Before I go any further, let me be clear: this bill is a hoax. Federal taxpayer dollars are not spent on abortion. This has been true for more than three decades. Under the Hyde amendment, the use of Federal dollars to pay for abortions is flatly prohibited except in the case of rape or incest or when the life of the mother is in danger.

Thus, despite what the majority may claim, H.R. 7 is not a solution to a problem but a poorly, thinly veiled attempt to chip away at ObamaCare and women's reproductive rights, another battle in the war against women.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 7 is a reflection of a majority out of touch with the American people and struggling to understand fundamental truths about reproductive health. And we really mean struggle.

This extreme legislation was originally sponsored by a man, originated from a subcommittee composed of 13 men, and was passed out of the Judiciary Committee with the votes of 21 Republican men. This has been the problem for a long time--men in blue suits and red ties determining what women can and should do when it comes to their own health.

One such Republican man has declared that ``wife is to voluntarily submit'' to her husband in a book that he recently wrote. Another has declared, and this is a new one, this is not the one from the last election, ``the incidents of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low.'' In other words, Madam Speaker, the men who are making these decisions simply don't know what they are talking about.

Meanwhile, a Republican man on the Judiciary Committee recently said that today's legislation is good for reducing the unemployment numbers because:

Having new children brought into the world is not harmful

to job creation. It very much promotes job creation for care

and services and so on that need to be provided for a lot of

people to raise children.

Unfortunately, the hypocrisy of that statement is it comes from a majority that staunchly opposes increasing any funding for pre-K education or paid sick leave for working parents, and the same majority cutting nutritional benefits for the working poor under the farm bill that we will consider tomorrow. Such a hypocritical and mean-spirited agenda reminds me of another quote from former Congressman Barney Frank who once famously said that

the anti-choice legislators ``believe that life begins at conception but ends at birth.'' In other words, once it is born, they don't want to have anything to do with it. In looking at the majority's legislative priorities, it is almost impossible to disagree.

Madam Speaker, a new poll shows that 64 percent of Americans agree that ``decisions on abortion should be made by a woman and her doctor.'' The government should never have gotten into the business of being between the woman and her doctor, or anyone else she wants to consult. Only 24 percent say ``government has a right and obligation to pass restrictions on abortion.'' Perhaps that is why the majority is passing H.R. 7 on the same day as the State of the Union, because we know it is not going anywhere. We know that the Senate will not take this up; and if by some strange set of events it should pass the Senate, which it won't, the President would never sign it.

But anyway, we bring it up on the same day of the State of the Union, rushing it through Congress to make some kind of point to some people somewhere before they leave on a weekend retreat and making one rule to consider two drastically different bills even though we would have had plenty of time to have had two rules here.

Included under today's rule is the conference report on the farm bill, a major piece of legislation that impacts all aspects of the economy. Surely it deserves a full and open debate before its final passage.

Instead, the majority is proposing another closed and House rule- breaking process because we have not had time to read it. This will also be their 100th closed rule since taking control in 2011, and allowing just an hour of general debate for each bill and 15 minutes basically on the rule on our side of the House.

If one wonders at the lack of productivity from this Congress, just look at the closed and partisan legislative process pursued by the majority and you will quickly understand.

Madam Speaker, with all of the major issues facing our country, attacking women's health care shows just how extreme--and extremely out of touch--the Washington Republicans are because the Republicans at home don't feel that way.

We should be passing legislation to create jobs, to grow our economy and to level the playing field for working women, not taking the country backwards with bills that attack women's rights.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on today's rule and the underlying legislation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, for more than three decades, the so-called Hyde Amendment has flatly banned the use of Federal dollars to pay for abortions except in cases of rape or incest or when the life of the mother is endangered. In part, the Hyde Amendment reads, ``None of the funds appropriated in this Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated in this Act, shall be expended for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion.''

Despite the Majority's claims to the contrary, today's legislation goes far beyond the definitive language of the Hyde Amendment in an attempt to restrict a woman's reproductive health options under private insurance plans and her ability to spend private dollars on a constitutionally protected right to reproductive health care.

At the heart of this legislative attack is the extremely broad and vague language included in today's bill that redefines the definition of ``federal funding.'' Under this legislation, the definition of Federal funding would be expanded to include the benefit of a tax expenditure. While this terminology may seem complex, its consequences are quite simple.

If this bill becomes law, a woman purchasing health insurance that includes abortion coverage will be denied a premium tax credit that helps make coverage affordable in the first place. Facing such a circumstance, she would be financially incentivized to buy a cheaper health insurance plan that does not include abortion services. As more women give up health insurance plans with abortion coverage, health insurance companies will stop offering such plans. Very quickly, it will become both prohibitively expensive and difficult to purchase abortion coverage in a health insurance plan.

In so doing, this bill takes particular aim at the reproductive rights of poor women. Women who are struggling to get by rely almost exclusively upon insurance premium subsidies to reduce the cost of health care while more affluent women can often access additional benefits such as Flexible Spending Accounts to reduce their health care costs. While insurance premium subsidies are eliminated under today's bill Flexible Spending Accounts are left untouched.

We should not be restricting either of these tax benefits that serve America's women, but it is particularly immoral for the Majority to be targeting the most vulnerable women among us.

Sadly, targeting the reproductive health care of poor women is nothing new for the Republican Party. As far back as the 1970's Henry Hyde infamously stated ``I would certainly like to prevent, if I could legally, anybody having an abortion: a rich woman, a middle class woman, or a poor woman. Unfortunately, the only vehicle available is the [Medicaid] bill,'' he continued--which as we know only affects low- income women and families.

In addition to taking a tax benefit away from those struggling to get by, today's bill would raise taxes on small businesses in another attempt to make force small businesses to drop insurance coverage. Under this legislation, small businesses that offer health insurance plans that include abortion coverage would be ineligible for the Small Business Tax Credit. Currently, 87 percent of all employer-sponsored insurance plans include coverage for abortion, and the Small Business Tax Credit can be worth 35-50% of the cost of a small business' premiums. Taking away this tax credit would be a major tax INCREASE on small businesses for simply keeping the same insurance coverage that they already have.

In short, today's legislation is an attempt to rewrite our Nation's laws so that it is financially impossible for a woman to access a private health insurance plan that provides abortion coverage. And it is yet another attack on women's rights from a Majority that seems to be struggling to understand the most fundamental aspects of an issue important to America's women.

Indeed, when it comes to the issue of reproductive rights, one member of the Majority has declared that ``the incidence of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low.'' Another member of the Majority has declared that today's legislation is good for reducing unemployment, because ``having new children brought into the world is not harmful to job creation. It very much promotes job creation for all the care and services and so on that need to be provided by a lot of people to raise children.''

Quotes such as these make it clear how such extreme--and extremely misguided--legislation has made it to the floor today. They also remind us why it is so important that the Majority allows an open and transparent legislative process so that such dangerous legislation never sees the light of day.

Unfortunately, it is under a closed legislative process that variations of this legislation have been introduced and pushed through the House of Representatives in recent years. Repeatedly, the Majority has written similar legislation and included provisions that attempted to redefine rape. The Majority, who just weeks ago decried the role of the IRS in Obamacare, has even introduced a variation of this legislation that empowered the IRS to audit any woman who has had an abortion. This in no way should be the responsibility of the IRS and any attempt to impose the IRS in a woman's medical decisions is nothing but an attack on her constitutionally protected rights.

Once again, it is under a closed legislative process--and an abandonment of regular order--that we find ourselves here today considering yet another misguided attempt to restrict women's rights.

In fact, while today's legislation bears the same name, it is not the same bill that was reported out of the Judiciary Committee earlier this month.

Instead, it is an original Rules Committee print that was first made available less than a week ago and includes significant legislative changes, such as the addition of text from two bills that have never received any committee debate, review or mark-up.

Furthermore, the Majority is asking that we consider this new bill under another closed rule. If we do, it will be the 100th closed rule for a Majority that just concluded the most closed session in history.

Madam Speaker, it comes as little surprise that bad legislative process has produced another bad bill.

Over and over again, the Majority has shown no interest in opening up the legislative process and coming to the table to work on commonsense legislation with members from the other side of the aisle. My Democratic colleagues and I believe that we should be voting on bills to create jobs, grow our economy and level the playing field for working women--but we will never be able to do so until the Majority allows us to truly participate in the legislative process.

Finally, I would be remiss if I failed to mention the farm bill conference report that is also brought to the floor by this resolution. Having only received the 900-plus page bill last night Members have had little chance to read the bill. In fact, as my friend Mr. McGovern has noted, even conferees who supposedly negotiated this deal were not given a chance to read it!

But the one policy I know is included in the conference report is a massive, $8.6 billion cut in SNAP, formerly known as ``food stamps.'' Families receiving SNAP benefits already saw a cut in their monthly food budgets of approximately $30 less than three months ago. For some families, this will mean an additional cut of up to $90--a devastating blow for a low-income household.

In closing, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on today's rule, so that we can get to work on real solutions for the American people and put an end to the Majority's dangerous attacks on a woman's constitutionally protected right to choose, as well as their disregard for the plight of the poor and those searching for work.

Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Michigan, Congressman Kildee.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentlelady from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

(Ms. DeLAURO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts, Congresswoman Clark.

(Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts, Congresswoman Tsongas.

(Ms. TSONGAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from California, Congressman Takano.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from New Mexico, Congresswoman Lujan Grisham.

(Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Georgia, Congressman Johnson.

Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Connecticut, Congresswoman Esty.

Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Texas, Congressman Al Green.

(Mr. AL GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California, Congresswoman Lee.

(Ms. LEE of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Rhode Island, Congressman Cicilline.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Texas, Congresswoman Jackson Lee.

(Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Maryland, Congressman Van Hollen.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from New York, Congressman Eliot Engel.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Florida, Congressman Alcee Hastings.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule and give the House a vote on a bill, written by Mr. Van Hollen and Mr. Levin, to extend emergency unemployment benefits paid for with savings from the farm bill that, it seems, this House will pass today.

To discuss his bill, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford).

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on the Budget.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, let me give myself just a half a second to say that, again, we hear how important it is until a child is born, but if it is unemployed later, it is not going to get to eat as long as we have this majority.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. Esty).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), who was not able to testify before those 12 men.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democrat leader.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Brownley.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Madam Speaker, from renewing unemployment insurance for more than 1.6 million Americans to growing our economy and rebuilding our middle class, there is an urgent need for Congress to pass legislation that will help the American people. So I urge my colleagues to reject today's rule so that we can finally get to work, I hope, on real solutions to the problems that face our Nation, not wasting more time with another attack on women's constitutionally protected reproductive rights.

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to give the House a vote on the bill written by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) to extend emergency unemployment benefits, paid for with the savings from the farm bill that, it seems, this House will pass today or tomorrow.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, the only thing I really need to say, other than the absolute requirements here, is that we have had a great demonstration in this rule debate on what is going on here.

H.R. 7, written by men, discussed before a subcommittee of 12 men and then voted on by the main committee, composed mostly of men, who carried the debate, was brought here today; and yet, with the exception of the manager of the bill, not a single woman on the other side came to speak on this bill.

On our side, we had diversity. We had women. We had men getting up and talking about actually complying with the Constitution. And on the other side, we had, once again, men telling women what they are allowed to do.

We are so far past that. When we finally got the right to vote, we said, Let's put all this behind us, certainly in the House of Representatives, the people's House. Can't you understand the difference here in the people's House, that the people represent the diversity of the faces of America, and all the men over there who seem to have devoted their lives to making sure that women do what they expect them to do and what they are told to do and trying to pass laws to require that. I think it was one of the most telling debates that I have ever seen, and I hope that it will not go unnoticed by the American people.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak to the Jackson Lee amendment with great enthusiasm for its seriousness, and I say to my colleagues, there are no smoke and mirrors here.

This amendment exempts rules made by the Secretary of Homeland Security or any consent decree or settlement made as a result of this rule.

I don't think that we need to further educate our very diligent Members, whether they are on the Homeland Security or Judiciary or Intelligence or Armed Services Committees, or many other committees, about the new climate in which we live in this world after 9/11. We simply have to look at the landscape that we are around as we speak: Central African Republic, South Sudan, Ukraine, Venezuela, Nigeria, and Syria. Just a few days ago, I was on the Israeli side of the Syrian border, and I could look into a city very close and see constant mortar fire.

Everybody understands that with the new climate of franchise terrorism, al Qaeda travels from one conflict area to another, each time posing a threat to the United States of America or the West. Yet, we have legislation that does not exempt the actions of the Secretary of Homeland Security, who may be required to make emergency decisions.

This particular legislation has 60 new barriers, procedural requirements, before an important rulemaking can go forward. It requires a 6-month online presence before you can move forward.

I would offer to say that the conflicts in the Central African Republic and South Sudan, the crisis in the Ukraine, on which America is standing on the sides of those who believe in democracy, the fighting in Nigeria between Christians and Muslims, and the conflict in Syria that has a terrible impact as we move forward on the Palestinian and Israeli peace process--how can we not exempt the Secretary of Homeland Security?

Mr. Chairman, not only do we deal with issues of terrorism, but it is also the stand-up agency when America faces natural disasters. For example, Hurricane Rita was the fourth-most-powerful Atlantic storm in history, and made landfall with 120-mile-per-hour winds, which had devastating consequences for many of my Texas constituents. That occurred just a few years ago. Hurricane Rita came out of the gulf, but Hurricane Sandy came out of the east coast and the Atlantic waters. It brought havoc that no one ever expected. FEMA was vital in the restoration of the lives of Americans. In that instance, I would think we would want any rulemaking process to move quickly, to be able to bring aid to those in need.

As indicated, this is a question of national security and the protection of our people. We need swift responses to imminent threats to national security. We need to have flexibility for the Secretary of Homeland Security to make those decisions. H.R. 2804 was created under the guise of increasing transparency. I would offer to say that there are instances when all of us know that our security is crucial.

Mr. Chairman, I ask that my colleagues support this exemption for Homeland Security to protect America's homeland and national security.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of my amendment to H.R. 2804 that provides a common-sense exception to the ``All Economic Regulations are Transparent Act of 2014.''

H.R. 2804 makes numerous changes to the federal rule-making process, including:

1. requiring agencies to consider numerous new criteria when issuing rules, such as alternatives to rules proposals;

2. requiring agencies to review the ``indirect'' costs of proposed and existing rules;

3. giving the Small Business Administration expanded authority to intervene in the rule-making of other agencies; and

4. requiring federal agencies to file monthly reports on the status of their rule-making activities.

My amendment provides an exception to the ``All Economic Regulations are Transparent Act of 2014'' for rules made by the Secretary of Homeland Security or any consent decree or settlement made as a result of the rule. My amendment is simple in that it provides an exception for critical agency rules that the general safety and well-being of individuals in the United States.

Mr. Chair, Hurricane Rita, which was the fourth most powerful Atlantic storm in history made landfall with 120 mile per hour winds and had devastating consequences to Texans, many of whom were my constitutients. Without Homeland Security how do Americans get through hurricanes and tornadoes?

The ALERRT Act packages four measures, all of which are designed to stop, delay, or weaken new protections. The Regulatory Accountability Act (RAA) is the most far-reaching of these measures. It amends the Administrative Procedure Act, but goes far beyond establishing procedures for rulemaking. The RAA acts as a ``super mandate'' overriding requirements of landmark legislation such as the Occupational Safety and Health Act and Mine Safety and Health Act.

Homeland Security is one of the most preeminent concerns of the federal government. The increased need for national security following the attacks of September 11th has increased the demand for Homeland Security to find more effective means to preempt attacks against our nation. And that is why my colleagues should vote to exempt the Department of Homeland Security from this legislation today.

And Mr. Chair, I was pleased to meet with, Jeh Johnson the new Secretary, on Tuesday and he appeared before the Homeland Security Committee yesterday, and I am encouraged to see that he understands just how critical his mission is and the utter importance of being able to respond swiftly to address problems as they arise. Swift responses to imminent threats to national security allow the Department of Homeland Security to protect the

rights and interests of individuals in the United States. Unnecessary delays to rules set forth by the Department of Homeland Security can waste scarce resources that keep our nation safe as well as impede the regular operations of the agency.

What we have before us in H.R. 2804 is an unnecessary reporting burden for the Department of Homeland Security. The Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 12866 already requires agency status updates twice a year. H.R. 2804 requires monthly reporting, which would create additional difficulties for agency to produce requisite reports. H.R. 2804 requires the OIRA to issue an annual cumulative report even though this reporting is already part of existing laws, thus creating duplicative reporting mechanisms and wasting limited federal resources.

The additional reporting requirements create a delay on agency activity and waste valuable resources in creating extraneous and duplicative records. The bill also prematurely calls for agencies to provide cost estimates for proposed rules that are to be finalized in the following year. Executive Order 12866 does not require agencies to report full cost estimates, but rather makes cost-benefit information discretionary. Even though the rule requires the estimation of costs, it prohibits benefit calculations of agency rules.

Further, H.R. 2804 precludes rules from taking effect until the information required by the act is available on the Internet for at least six months. This provision of the bill severely limits agencies' abilities to respond to imminent threats of national security. The amendment would preclude such a delay in relation to Homeland Security rules, consent decrees, or settlements.

H.R. 2804 was created under the guise of increasing agency transparency and regulation, but in actuality, the bill serves as an impediment to the government's ability to implement national security protections with expedience. My amendment to H.R. 2804 is necessary to curb unnecessary delay, waste, and duplication and ensuring that the Department of Homeland Security is able to make haste--not waste.

I ask my colleagues to please support the Jackson Lee amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much, and we obviously have a great deal of mutual respect, I hope, but a great deal of disagreement on the intent and the impact of this legislation.

Let me say that Homeland Security has vast jurisdiction. Congress created it. In the course of that, it has a great deal of jurisdiction dealing with humanity and the necessity to help humanity. So in the crisis of dealing with issues of individuals who have been unfairly put in front of a deportation order who need to have the response of this agency, or the agency needs to correct some aspect of the many responsibilities that it has, from natural disaster to terrorism to ensuring the security of the border, the needs of Customs and Border Protection, the needs of ICE officers for regulatory schemes that will give them better tools to ensure the security of this Nation, I would argue that a 6-month delay, that 60 barriers being put in place of that regulatory scheme, does not give comfort to the American people that their homeland is secure. Give the Secretary of Homeland Security and his fellow Secretaries or Assistant Secretaries or Directors the responsibility and the leadership that they need to have to protect the homeland.

I would just offer to say that my amendment is common sense. It deals with consent orders and settlements that the Homeland Security Secretary is making in the course of making America safe. Please support the Jackson Lee amendment, commonsense security, protecting the homeland, and having us do the job we should be doing on behalf of the American people.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for his explanation. We have noted 653, and you are absolutely right. It thrusts that in the hands of the President of the United States, but I would argue that the Congress created the Department of Homeland Security with a Secretary to be able to be the first line of defense, and I would argue that it is important that we exempt the Secretary of the Department from that because of their number one responsibility, which is securing the homeland, and we live in a different climate.

I think the gentleman accepts the fact that terrorism has become franchised at this moment. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I ask individuals, again, to support the Jackson Lee amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk as the designee of Mr. Johnson.

Mr. Chairman, as I indicated, I am moving this on behalf of Mr. Johnson. The amendment is simple. It would exclude from this bill any rule that would result in net job growth.

I ask that my colleagues support this commonsense amendment to promote job growth and strengthen the middle class. After all, the stated purpose of the ALERRT Act is to grow the economy and create jobs. Although this bill purports to grow the economy and create jobs, we cannot pretend that this bill's myopic focus on regulations will accomplish any of these goals.

I have profound concerns with the ALERRT Act. The bill would undermine the ability of agencies to protect the public interest. It is a continuation of the majority's obstructionist approach that led to the sequester and the shutdown of the Federal Government. The majority continues to rely on debunked and partisan studies that presuppose that regulations have harmful effects. Far from it. There is ample, bipartisan evidence that have found that regulations have a negligible effect on the economy and create jobs.

No one would argue that there is not a positive impact from the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act, and all of the regulatory scheme that has provided for a safe workplace for our workers under OSHA, and those who protect the quality of life of Americans from sea to shining sea.

Leading scholars such as Wake Forest law professor Sidney Shapiro has testified that all of the available evidence contradicts the claim that regulatory uncertainty is deterring business investment. Bruce Bartlett, a senior policy analyst in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, has observed that regulatory uncertainty is the canard invented by Republicans that allows them to use current economic problems to pursue an agenda supported by the business community year in and year out. In other words, it is a simple case of political opportunism, not a serious effort to deal with high unemployment.

Nevertheless, the House Republican leadership continues to bulldoze its deregulatory agenda through Congress. This deregulatory train wreck threatens to send us back to the days before the Wall Street collapse, a financial catastrophe that could have been avoided by responsible policies. Instead of working together to come to a bipartisan solution and end sequestration, this Congress has continued an agenda to make life worse for American families. I urge all of my colleagues to support the Johnson amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, a few minutes ago I stood to the floor of the House and showed a picture that has been made by the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi) of a long line of suit-wearing Americans looking for jobs. Yet this Congress, my friends on the other side of the aisle, have refused to pass extended unemployment insurance, emergency unemployment insurance. Yet they put legislation on the floor pretending to create opportunities for American workers. I can tell you what will create opportunities for American workers, and that is to extend the unemployment insurance, or in actuality, pass my legislation, H.R. 3888, that provides training for individuals for newly created job skills. Or, in fact, as so many of us have done, sign a discharge petition to raise the minimum wage. That is a story for creating jobs or lifting up the opportunities for the American people.

This amendment says simply, if you join us and you believe in job growth, if there is a regulatory scheme that in fact deals with job growth, then this is the amendment that you should support. And I would argue you should support an increase in the minimum wage, and today we should put on the floor of the House the extension of the unemployment insurance, emergency insurance for my constituents and Americans across America. The number is 1.3 million in 2013, rising to 2 million now, with no relief. There is no excuse. The other body had a bill that was paid for, and yet it was refused by Republican Senators in the other body.

I would simply ask that we work together to create job growth. This amendment will say to my good friends that if it creates jobs, then we should in fact support it, that particular regulatory regulation, and we should not subject it to this legislation.

With that, I ask for the support of this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 465 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I claim time in opposition to the point of order and in favor of consideration of the resolution.

Madam Speaker, the question before the House is should the House now consider H. Res. 465. This point of order, Madam Speaker, is a dilatory tactic. I will remind the gentleman that each bill under this rule will be separately considered and debatable on the House floor.

Madam Speaker, in order to allow the House to continue its scheduled business for the day, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of consideration of the resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise to claim time in opposition to the point of order and in favor of consideration of the resolution.

The question before the House is, Should the House now consider H. Res. 465? This point of order,

Madam Speaker, is a dilatory tactic. None of the provisions contained in the underlying measures meet the definition of an earmark under the rule.

The chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary certified that H.R. 7 contains no congressional earmarks by including the following earmark statement in the report accompanying this bill, which was filed on January 23, 2014:

In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the

House of Representatives, H.R. 7 does not contain any

congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited

tariff benefits as defined in clause 9(e), 9(f) or 9(g) of

rule XXI.

The following was included in the Joint Explanatory Statement for the farm bill:

Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House

of Representatives and rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the

Senate, neither this conference report nor the accompanying

joint statement of managers contains any congressional

earmarks, congressionally directed spending items, limited

tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits, as defined in such

rules.

I also remind the gentleman that this conference agreement is a bipartisan and bicameral measure. Nine of the 10 Democrat conferees from the Agriculture Committee have signed the conference report. The conference report was made available to all Members and the public yesterday, in full compliance of the 3-day availability rule.

In order to allow the House to continue its scheduled business for the day, Madam Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of consideration of the resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam 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

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

House Resolution 465 provides for a closed rule allowing for consideration of H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, and provides for separate consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2642, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013, under a standard conference report rule.

Madam Speaker, since 1976, the Hyde amendment--which prohibits the Federal funding of abortions--has been included in relevant appropriations bills. Each year it has been consistently renewed and supported by congressional majorities and Presidents of both parties.

NARAL, an abortion advocacy group, has suggested that prohibiting public funds for abortion reduces abortion rates by roughly 50 percent. That means that half of the women who would have otherwise had a publicly funded abortion end up carrying their babies to term.

In 1993, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the Hyde amendment prevented as many as 675,000 abortions every single year. This means that millions of Americans are alive today because of the Hyde amendment. After 38 years, it is time for this life-saving amendment to become permanent law.

When Barack Obama was elected in 2008, a myriad of long-established laws, including the Hyde amendment, created a mostly uniform policy that Federal programs did not pay for abortion or subsidize health plans that included coverage of abortion, with only narrow exceptions.

Unfortunately, ObamaCare destroyed that longstanding policy, bypassing the Hyde amendment restriction and paving the way for publicly funded abortions. The President's health care law authorized massive public subsidies to assist millions of Americans to purchase private health plans that will cover abortion on demand. In other words, hard-earned taxpayer dollars are now being used to pay for elective abortions. This is simply unacceptable.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 7 will codify the principles of the Hyde amendment on a permanent, government-wide basis, which means it will apply longstanding Federal health programs such as Medicaid, SCHIP, and Federal Employees Health Benefits, as well as to new programs created by ObamaCare. H.R. 7 prohibits the use of Federal funds for abortions. It does so by prohibiting all Federal funding for abortion; prohibiting Federal subsidies for ACA health care plans that include coverage for abortion; prohibiting the use of Federal facilities for abortion; and prohibiting Federal employees from performing abortions.

This bill applies to the Federal funding of abortions, except in cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is in danger. This commonsense measure, which restores a longstanding bipartisan agreement, protects the unborn and prevents taxpayers from being forced to fund thousands of abortions. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote for life by voting in favor of this rule and H.R. 7.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Chair to reiterate her statement made just a few minutes ago about the extent of the remarks that may be made.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I remind my friends on the other side of the aisle and every American watching at home that normal unemployment benefits remain in effect for all Americans in need. What has expired is the additional emergency unemployment compensation that goes above and beyond the normal compensation. This emergency compensation was put in place during the economic downturn and was always intended to be temporary. In fact, we have been told that the recession is over and that it has been over for a long time. Republicans want to help create jobs, and we call on the Senate to act on the bills we have sent them, and we will do just that.

Madam Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. Roe.

Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that our colleagues are doing all that they can to portray this bill as an attack on women's rights. It is not that at all. I appreciate all of my colleagues who have spoken so eloquently on our side of the aisle about what this bill truly is.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Nunnelee).

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

I will say it again. We are not attacking women's health care with this rule and this legislation.

H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, codifies many longstanding pro-life protections that have been passed under both Republican- and Democrat-controlled Congresses.

The majority of taxpayers oppose Federal funding for abortion, as demonstrated in poll after poll. A recent Marist poll showed that 58 percent of respondents oppose or strongly oppose using any taxpayer dollars for abortions.

During the ObamaCare debate, a 2010 Zogby/O'Leary poll found that 76 percent of Americans said that Federal funds should never pay for an abortion or should pay only to save the life of the mother.

A January 2010 Quinnipiac University poll showed 67 percent of respondents opposed Federal funding of abortion.

An April 2011 CNN poll showed that 61 percent of respondents opposed public funding for abortion.

A November 2009 Washington Post poll showed 61 percent of respondents opposed government subsidies for health insurance that includes abortion.

A September 2009 International Communications Research poll showed that 67 percent of respondents opposed any measure that would ``require people to pay for abortion coverage with their Federal taxes.''

Madam Speaker, it is clear. The American people do not want the government spending their hard-earned tax dollars to destroy innocent human life. Period.

Like most taxpayers, employers also prefer plans that preclude abortion coverage. According to the insurance industry's trade association:

Most insurers offer plans that include abortion coverage,

but most employers choose not to offer it as a part of their

benefits package.

Even Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has voted numerous times to prohibit taxpayer funding for abortion in the District of Columbia. President Obama voted against taxpayer funding of abortion in the District of Columbia twice when he was in the Senate, and since being elected President he has signed appropriations legislation into law that prohibits this funding.

As you can see, Madam Speaker, opposition to taxpayer funding for abortion is bipartisan, bicameral, and supported by a majority of the American people. It is time to restore the status quo on government funding of abortion and make this widely supported policy permanent across the Federal Government. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and H.R. 7.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the author of H.R. 7.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, the passage of H.R. 7 will be welcome news for the majority of Americans who do not want their tax dollars paying for the grisly business of abortion. This bill, which is cosponsored by 165 House Members and a quarter of the Senate, will make existing policies like the Hyde amendment permanent and will rid ObamaCare of its massive expansion of public funding for abortion insurance plans.

The President repeatedly assured Americans that ObamaCare would ``maintain current Hyde amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extend those restrictions to newly created health insurance exchanges.'' That promise didn't pan out, like so many other promises he made. It now joins, ``If you like your plan, you can keep it'' in President Obama's panoply of broken promises.

Madam Speaker, last week hundreds of thousands of Americans came to Washington, D.C., braved the cold, and marched for life. Participants hailed from all 50 States, various religions, and all different walks of life. The one thing they had in common was a shared dedication to protecting the unborn.

The March for Life gives a voice to the voiceless and sends a powerful message to Representatives of the people assembled here in Congress. It is heartening that so many Americans of different backgrounds are willing to take a stand for life.

This is not a partisan issue, and this is not a partisan bill. H.R. 7 reflects the bipartisan, bicameral agreement that our government should not be in the business of subsidizing abortions. This is not a radical idea, Madam Speaker. It is a commonsense proposal that codifies a longstanding practice. Therefore, I again urge my colleagues to vote for this rule and H.R. 7.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I am going to say it again, this bill is not an attack on women or an attack on women's rights.

I think it is wonderful that we had so many men here today speaking on behalf of the unborn. Life is the most fundamental of all rights, Madam Speaker. It is sacred and God-given. But millions of babies have been robbed of that right in this, the freest country in the world. This is a tragedy beyond words and a betrayal of what we, as a Nation, stand for.

Before liberty, equality, free speech, freedom of conscience, and the pursuit of happiness and justice for all, there has to be life. And yet, for millions of aborted infants, many pain-capable and many discriminated against because of gender or disability, life is exactly what they have been denied. And an affront to life for some is an affront to life for every one of us. That is the message we want to get across today.

One day, we hope it will be different. We hope life will cease to be valued on a sliding scale. We hope the era of elective abortions, ushered in by an unelected Court, would be closed and collectively deemed one of the darkest chapters in American history. But until that day, it remains a solemn duty for all of us to stand up for life.

Regardless of the length of this journey, we will continue to speak for those who cannot. And we will continue to pray to the One who can change the hearts of those in desperation and those in power who equally hold the lives of the innocent in their hands.

Madam Speaker, the commonsense measure before us restores an important longstanding bipartisan agreement that protects the unborn and prevents taxpayers from being forced to finance thousands of elective abortions. It reflects the will of the American people and is the product of what has historically been a bipartisan, bicameral consensus in Congress. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this rule and H.R. 7.

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

Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order against House Resolution 465 because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act. The resolution--in waiving all points of order against consideration of both H.R. 7, the antiabortion bill, and the conference report on H.R. 2642, the farm bill--waives section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act, thereby causing a violation of section 426(a).

Madam Speaker, first of all, let me just say that it is outrageous, absolutely outrageous, that the Republican leadership has combined a major piece of antiabortion legislation with the farm bill conference report into one single rule, restricting our ability to debate both of these important issues.

There is an $8.6 billion cut to SNAP in this conference report, a cut that will only affect poor families, primarily the elderly and the disabled. Besides being cruel and heartless, this cut is also an unfunded mandate. If States, cities, or towns want to prevent hunger from getting worse, they will have to spend more money out of their own budgets.

Now, I know my Republican friends are in a big hurry to go off to their issues retreat at some luxurious resort, but maybe we could have found another hour somewhere.

Madam Speaker, I am honored to serve on the Agriculture Committee. I was honored to serve on the conference committee for the farm bill. I want to thank Chairman Lucas and Ranking

Member Peterson and all of my colleagues for their hard work.

I want a farm bill. I want to support the farm bill conference. But from the beginning of this process, I made my position very clear that I will not vote for a farm bill that makes hunger worse in America. And this farm bill fails that basic test. If this bill passes, hundreds of thousands of vulnerable Americans will have less to eat, period.

Now, some people will say, well, an $8 billion cut in SNAP is better than what the House Republicans wanted to do. That is a strange argument, Madam Speaker. It is like saying thank goodness the burglar only took the silver, because he could have taken the jewelry, too.

The fact of the matter is that any cut to SNAP will be piled on top of the cut that already went into effect last fall. And any cut to SNAP will result in more Americans going hungry. And any cut in SNAP will increase the financial burdens on State and local governments.

There are those, Madam Speaker, who claim that the Heat and Eat program is some sort of a loophole. It isn't. It is a policy decision. It is a way for States to help some of our neighbors who are struggling through very difficult times. But even if this is a loophole, I ask my friends, of all the loopholes in Federal law, of all of the special interest giveaways, this is the one you are going to target? This is the one that is in your crosshairs, a program that helps poor people get enough food to eat? My goodness.

There are those who say that States and local governments or food banks or food pantries should pick up the slack. Have any of those people actually ever been to a food bank? Have they ever talked to a director of a food pantry? Because they are already at capacity, Madam Speaker. They can't meet the needs of the clients that they already have.

My Republican friends have made their priorities very clear. They want to dismantle the social safety net. They want to get the Federal Government out of the business of helping people get enough to eat.

But I also want to say that I am disappointed, Madam Speaker, in the people in my own party, here in the Congress and in the White House, who are going along with this.

Tonight, the President of the United States will stand in this Chamber and deliver the State of the Union; and when he talks about income inequality and helping people get into the middle class, all of us Democrats--and I hope some Republicans--will stand up and cheer. But before that happens, we have an opportunity to put our votes where our cheers are; we have a chance to match our actions with our rhetoric. And the way to do that is to vote ``no'' on this conference report.

So I say to my fellow Democrats, if cutting SNAP or other programs that help poor people is the price of admission to get anything done, any piece of major legislation passed, then we have strayed very, very far from our principles. Madam Speaker, again, I want to remind my colleagues that this is an unfunded mandate because there will be an increased burden on States, cities and towns to deal with this issue of hunger.

By the way, Madam Speaker, when people are hungry, when kids are hungry, they don't learn in school. When people are hungry, they end up going to the emergency room more often. When children are hungry, when they get a common cold, they end up staying in the hospital for a period of time. That all costs us a great deal in terms of not only Federal money but State and local money. So, in my opinion, this is an unfunded mandate, and this is a burden on the States.

Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

I yield the remaining time to the gentlelady from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order against House Resolution 465 under clause 9(c) of rule XXI because the resolution contains a waiver of all points of order against H.R. 7, the abortion bill, and the conference report on H.R. 2642, the farm bill.

Madam Speaker, the conference report on the farm bill was made public at around 7:30 last night. With nearly 1,000 pages dumped on us at the last minute, we know that no one has had a chance to read the entire thing. I'm a conferee, and even I had an extra few hours to try to digest this monstrosity of a bill, but who knows what is in this bill? That is why I'm raising this earmarks point of order.

As I said earlier, Madam Speaker, one of the things that is most troubling to me and a number of my colleagues, again, is this attack on poor people and is this attack on SNAP, a program that does nothing more than provide food to people.

Madam Speaker, I would like to include for the Record a letter that was addressed to Congress from the mayors of Baton Rouge, Boston, Dallas, the District of Columbia, Gary, Hartford, Ithaca, Los Angeles, Madison, Memphis, New York, Providence, Raleigh, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle and Tucson urging us in both the House and the Senate to reject these SNAP cuts. These mayors have made it very clear that it would have an adverse impact on the people that they represent. They have stressed in this letter the importance of SNAP to help people to be able to put food on the table for their children.

I also would like to reference a statement from the Food Research and Action Center, otherwise known as FRAC. They are urging us to vote against this conference committee report if these SNAP cuts remain in the bill. They have said that SNAP is essential to the nutrition, the health and the well-being of 47 million Americans each month, but every participant suffered a significant cut in benefits beginning last November 1.

As the gentlelady from Connecticut made mention of, on November 1, an $11 billion cut in SNAP went into effect. All 47 million beneficiaries received a cut. Food prices didn't go down, but their benefit went down, and now we are going to pile on. There are some who say, well, it doesn't affect all 47 million. It is only going to be about 1 million or so people that will be adversely impacted, but those people that will be adversely impacted stand a great deal to lose. The November 1 cut for the average family of three resulted in a $31 a month benefit cut. You add this on top of it, and it is another $80 to $90. So that family of three will receive about $120 to $130 less per month.

What are they going to do? Even before these cuts went into effect, they were going to food banks, they were going to charities looking for help because their benefit was so meager to begin with. What are they supposed to do? I think in this House of Representatives, I don't care what your political party or ideology is, it should never, ever, ever be acceptable that anybody in this country--the United States of America, the richest country in the history of the world--should go hungry.

The fact that we are moving forward with the farm bill--a deal that contains this $8.6 billion in cuts--I think is outrageous. I'm all for a deal. I want a farm bill. I'm willing to swallow a lot of things in this bill that I don't like, but the price of doing that should not be to increase hunger and poverty in this country, and that is what this bill does.

We talk about deals. Behind these deals are real people. They are our neighbors. They are in every community. There is not a congressional district in our country that is hunger free. These people are everywhere. We have an obligation to not turn our backs on them. SNAP is one of the most efficiently run Federal programs with one of the lowest error rates.

This is important. SNAP in and of itself is not going to solve the problem of hunger or poverty. The bottom line is by cutting it the way we are doing, we are making things worse for people. I stood on the floor today, and I read the descriptions of individuals in Massachusetts who, if this farm bill passes, will see a significant cut in their benefit, and their question to me is, what do I do? Where do I go? Tell me how to put food on the table for my kids. Tell me how I'm going to survive.

We should not be making the lives of people who are suffering more miserable. That is not our job.

I will also insert for the Record the entire Food Research and Action Center statement.

Madam Speaker, in Massachusetts alone there will be 125,000 SNAP households that could suffer up to a $70 to $80 a month cut in SNAP benefit if this farm bill goes through as it is. There is no reason in the world that we should be cutting this program. This is not an ATM machine to pay for big farm subsidies. This is not an ATM machine to make up for the fraud, the waste and the abuse in the crop insurance program.

Again, I will repeat to my colleagues, tonight we are going to hear the President talk about income inequality, and my criticism here, it is a bipartisan criticism. I'm critical of the Republicans for the cruel cuts that were proposed in the original farm bill--up to $40 billion--and I'm frustrated that there are people in my own party, including in this White House, who don't believe this is worth a fight. Well, this is worth a fight. If this is not worth a fight, I don't know what the hell we are here for. If making sure people in this country don't go hungry is not a priority, then I don't know what we are doing here.

We can explain this away, we can rationalize it and justify it. I have heard all the talking points. My favorite is that nobody will actually lose their benefit.

What that neglects to tell you is that your benefit will be cut down to almost nothing. Yes, they will still get a little benefit, but it might be $15 a month instead of $115 a month. I mean, is that the best we can do, on both sides of the aisle? This never used to be a partisan issue. This never used to be a polarizing issue, and now all of a sudden it has become one. Again, I plea with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let's come together and get a farm bill done, but not at this price.

And I urge the White House to stand up and fight alongside of us on this. They should be taking a greater leadership role on this. It is not enough to just talk about income inequality; you have to fight for it, too.

Mayors of Baton Rouge, Boston, Dallas, District of

Columbia, Gary, Hartford, Ithaca, Los Angeles, Madison,

Memphis, New York, Providence, Raleigh, Sacramento,

Salt Lake City, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, and

Tucson,

January 27, 2014.

Hon. Debbie Stabenow,

Chair, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and

Forestry, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

Hon. Frank D. Lucas,

Chairman, House Committee on Agriculture, Longworth House

Office Building, Washington, DC.

Hon. Thad Cochran,

Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition

and Forestry, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington,

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, the amendment seeks to shield the Department of Homeland Security, a department in need of good government reform, from all of the government rulemaking reforms in this bill. We should not do that. The bill does not threaten needed regulation in the Department of Homeland Security's jurisdiction but simply ensures that DHS will avoid unnecessary regulation, issue smarter, less costly regulation when necessary, and not enter into sweetheart backroom deals for more regulation under the cloak of judicial orders. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I do respect the concerns raised by the gentlewoman from Texas. The Department of Homeland Security has vast jurisdiction, however, and it is an agency cobbled together, a department cobbled together with authorities from a whole host of other areas, and they have not always made things work very effectively there. One of the things that they need is more discipline and guidance in terms of how regulations are written, and that is exactly what this legislation does.

The gentlewoman raises a legitimate concern with regard to the speed with which regulations can be issued in certain emergency circumstances. I would call her attention to section 653 of the legislation, which covers just those circumstances in which the President can take action swiftly because of an imminent threat to health or safety or other emergency. As a result of that, this amendment is not needed because it takes the Department completely out of the reforms provided in this bill. Therefore, I must continue my opposition to the amendment. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman.

I thank the gentlewoman. I am not persuaded that the Department of Homeland Security, especially with a provision that provides for emergency relief from any of the provisions of the bill, cannot be greatly benefited, and all those who have to deal with the Department of Homeland Security will not be greatly benefited, if the Department is operating more effectively and if the regulations they promulgate are more efficient and more effective and more addressed toward what really needs to be done to address problems and not simply adding to the regulatory burden that businesses and American citizens face. So I continue my opposition to the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I share and welcome the gentlewoman's concerns about the impacts of regulations on jobs, but I submit that the right way to address that concern is to join me in supporting the Rothfus-Barr amendment that would make sure that agencies do a much better job of identifying adverse job impacts before they impose them.

The gentlewoman's amendment, offered on behalf of the gentleman from Georgia, unfortunately would have the opposite effect; that is because it would give the executive branch a strong incentive to manipulate its jobs impact and cost-benefit analyses to avoid the requirements of the bill.

The amendment also puts the cart before the horse, offering carve- outs from the bill based on factors that cannot be determined adequately unless the important analytical requirements in the bill are applied in the first place.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would reiterate that the right way to address the concern about the impact of regulations on jobs is to join me in supporting the Rothfus-Barr amendment that would make sure that agencies do a much better job identifying adverse job impacts before they impose them on the businesses and individuals that have to make the tough decisions to close businesses, like the family that manufactures bricks that we referred to yesterday that is looking to have to eliminate two-thirds of the jobs in their business because of repeated increased government regulations, making it less and less likely that they can grow their business, much less add jobs, and are facing the loss of jobs and possibly the loss of the business altogether.

The way to do this is to figure out the impact on jobs before you impose the regulation, and that is what the Rothfus-Barr amendment does. I support that. I oppose this, and I yield back the balance of my time.

First, let me be very clear to my good friend from California. I share his concern about the kinds of explosions that he is concerned about and want to see appropriate ways to deal with these problems through the regulatory process.

It is pretty clear that OSHA has done a pretty poor job of it thus far, and I believe that this legislation will help to improve the rulemaking process and create greater transparency, so that we will get to a resolution of what needs to be done and not do what does not need to be done, in the most effective way.

The amendment attempts to shield yet another agency in need of good government reform from all of the good government rulemaking reforms in the bill. The bill does not threaten needed regulation in OSHA's jurisdiction, but it simply assures that OSHA will avoid unnecessary regulation; issue smarter, less costly regulation when necessary; and not enter into sweetheart backroom deals for more regulation under the cloak of judicial orders.

Ironically, the amendment actually could slow down the progress of improving safety in the workplaces of concern. The whole point of the bill is to assure that regulation remains effective while imposing lower costs.

If employers could spend less money on equally effective OSHA dust regulations, then they would be free to invest in additional safety measures on their own; or, of course, they could use the money to hire more workers and pay higher wages.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentleman from California, let me say that, with regard to the efforts that need to be undertaken when a regulatory process is already underway, is accommodated for in the bill in the new section 553(g), subsection 2(A):

When the agency for good cause, based upon evidence, finds

(and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of

reasons therefor in the rules issued) that compliance with

subsection (c), (d), or (e) or requirements to render final

determinations under subsection (f) of this section before

the issuance of an interim rule is impracticable or contrary

to the public interest, including

interests of national security, such subsections or

requirements to render final determinations shall not apply

to the agency's adoption of an interim rule.

So I would argue that this is going to improve and enhance the process, but it is also going to create more transparency; it is going to create more cost-effective rulemaking; and it is going to prevent lawsuits being brought--the so-called sue-and-settle lawsuits--where a friendly government agency is sued by an organization that wants something; and the settlement of the suit leaves out all the parties who are going to have to provide for it, have to pay for it, have the impact on their workers considered. They don't even get notice of that.

So all of these reforms are good reforms that make the regulatory process better.

I do not believe that it will be appropriate to adopt this amendment. I urge my colleagues to oppose it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, when inspectors general find agency waste, fraud, and abuse and recommend that new regulations be issued or old regulations be modified, the natural instinct of the guilty agency is to try to evade the recommended corrections to its bad behavior. By shielding agencies from the bill's transparency and accountability requirements, the amendment would help them do just that. It

would further entrench the ability of recalcitrant agencies to shirk the recommendations of inspectors general and continue their habits of waste, fraud, and abuse.

Especially in these times of fiscal austerity, we must do everything we can to make sure that agencies pay heed to inspector general recommendations and purge all waste, fraud, and abuse from their operations. The ALERRT Act includes powerful tools to make them do just that.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Congressmen Holding, Collins, and Subcommittee Chairman Bachus for their hard work on this bill as well as committee staff on both sides of the aisle. Four bills combined into one and still under 100 pages will do much to reform, and in some cases eliminate, hundreds of thousands of pages of Federal Government regulations in the future.

Mr. Speaker, we are more than 5 years into the Obama administration. Real unemployment is still a massive problem in this country. America's labor force participation is at record lows. The nominal unemployment rate is down, but that is only because desperate Americans dying for work are abandoning the workforce in droves.

Everybody knows that the only real long-term solution is to restart the engines of economic growth in this country. If we could just somehow increase our growth rate by as little as 2 additional percentage points, things would begin to turn around. One way to do that is to pass the ALERRT Act.

The cost of Federal regulation today is estimated to be a staggering $1.86 trillion. That almost wipes out the $2 trillion this Nation's manufacturers have just produced, the first time in history we have hit that level in 1 year. There is our 2 percent growth right there, and more, gobbled up by the mind-boggling tide of tyrannical regulation flowing out of Washington.

If we could just cut our regulatory burdens by a portion, we could turn this economy right around. The ALERRT Act would do that. It promises real relief from our regulatory nightmare. If enacted, it would change night to day in terms of the level of regulatory costs Washington imposes on our economy, and it would do so without stopping one needed regulation from being issued.

How do I know? Because it says so right in the bill. Right on page 27, it says:

The agency shall adopt the least costly rule considered

during the rulemaking that meets relevant statutory

objectives.

Take away a few key words and what does that say? The agency shall adopt the rule that meets statutory objectives.

So the rules will still be made, and statutory goals will still be met. But put the key words back in, and what happens? America starts to save hundreds of billions of dollars it doesn't need to spend, because the agency shall adopt the least costly rule that meets statutory objectives.

Do that over and over again, and that is real money that we will save, real money that can produce jobs for our constituents, real money that hardworking Americans can use to grow their businesses, all without stopping a single needed regulation from being issued.

My friends across the aisle say that won't happen. They say the bill will bring all good rulemaking to a screeching halt. My goodness, it is ObamaCare all over again. My friends across the aisle haven't read the bill. You have to read the bill to know what is in it. If you read the bill, you understand it. You see there on page 27, the agency shall adopt the rule that meets statutory objectives.

My friends, the people in my district and yours are smart. They can read the bill. They can tell that, although Chicken Little and the Boy Who Cried Wolf seem to want to talk about this bill, the sky is not falling and the wolf is not coming on account of this bill. What is coming on account of this bill is real relief for hardworking Americans and prosperity around the corner.

Vote against this motion to recommit. Vote for this bill. Take Americans' hard-earned dollars out of the hands of Washington's bureaucrats who want to flush it down the regulatory drain. Let it stay in the hands of workers and businessowners who know how to spend it wisely and well. Oppose the motion to recommit. Support the legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.