American Textile Technology Innovation and Research for Exportation (ATTIRE) Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

That people can move between employers;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

Let's talk about immigration reform.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

General Leave

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

The amendments made by this section shall apply to the

taxable years ending after December 31, 2013.

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

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

The amendments made by this section shall apply to the

months beginning after December 31, 2013.

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thought one of the lessons of this last election was that the American people wanted Washington to work, that they wanted us to work toward passing legislation, sensible legislation, that could be passed in both Chambers, that could go to the White House and be signed into law, and we could move this country forward, but I guess that lesson somehow escaped my Republican colleagues because what we are doing here today is another colossal waste of time.

Now, I rise in opposition to this rule, and I rise in opposition to the underlying legislation. The points of the bills that we are considering today seek to prevent the EPA from protecting public health and the environment. It is that simple.

The White House has already issued three veto threats against these bills. The other body is not going to take these bills up, so here we are in this lameduck session with a lot of work that we should be doing, and instead, we are doing this.

On December 11, this government will run out of money. Maybe we should be spending some time trying to figure out how to avoid another government shutdown or to do the appropriations process in a more thoughtful way, but instead, my colleagues are going to wait until the last minute and bring a bill to the floor that most Members will not have time to read, and then that will be that.

Maybe we should be talking about passing an increase in the minimum wage. We are reading story after story about how income inequality in this country is getting bigger and bigger and bigger. Maybe we ought to make sure that work actually pays a livable wage in this country, or maybe we could pass a pay equity bill so that women can earn equal pay for equal work--we are not doing any of that--and that surely would be signed by the White House.

What about an immigration bill? The United States Senate passed in a bipartisan way a comprehensive immigration bill, dealing with a very important problem in this country. It is supported by labor unions, and it is supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and again, it had a bipartisan vote in the United States Senate.

Are we doing that here today? No. We can't even bring that to the floor to have a debate because the leadership in this House runs such a closed process.

We have wasted time in this Chamber debating Republican messaging bills to repeal the Affordable Care Act, to undermine the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, and weaken public health and environmental regulations while failing to consider legislation to help people, to create jobs, to boost the economy and help vulnerable Americans rise out of poverty, so instead of kind of doing the people's business, we are back into Republican messaging bills again.

The three bills that we are talking about here today--H.R. 4795, H.R. 4012, and H.R. 1422--will allow industry to have a greater influence over the policies developed at the EPA, will weaken our air quality, and prevent the EPA from using critical high-quality and peer-reviewed data in their policy development.

Why in the world would we want to do this? Well, because the Republicans' corporate constituency demand it, so this may be a nice way to thank big Republican donors for their support in the last election, but quite frankly, it is lousy policy.

H.R. 4795, the cleverly named Promoting New Manufacturing Act, does nothing to boost manufacturing and does nothing to help improve the permitting process or create jobs. The bill requires the EPA to issue both regulations and guidance concurrently when issuing national ambient air quality standards. If this requirement is not met, a new or expanding facility must only show it complies with the old insufficient standard.

Not only will this legislation create several new avenues for litigation, but it will also weaken air quality protections and threaten public health. Why in the world would we even contemplate doing that? H.R. 4012, the Secret Science Reform Act, will prevent the EPA from using the best available scientific data, harm future research, and delay the implementation of public health protections.

Far from protecting transparency and accountability, this bill will limit the body of high-quality scientific research that can be used and will undermine the EPA's ability to function.

The EPA relies on peer-reviewed scientific research that often contains information scientists are legally required to keep confidential, like an individual's health records. How is the EPA supposed to determine the effects of a pollutant on our health if they are not allowed to look at health data?

Individual health records should be highly protected, and I would like to point out that the peer-reviewed studies that form the basis of EPA's actions are already available.

The purpose of this bill is not to create transparency but to create bureaucracy, to make it impossible for the EPA to develop policies to protect our health and our environment. There is no secret science, just science that my Republican colleagues do not like.

I am pleased to see that the amendment to H.R. 4012, submitted by my good friend from Massachusetts, Joe Kennedy, was made in order. I strongly support this amendment, which would allow the EPA to continue to rely upon peer-reviewed scientific data, even if that data is legally required to be kept private. The EPA must be allowed to continue to use this critical data in their policy development.

Lastly, H.R. 1422, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act, will slow down the EPA's ability to develop regulations and effectively force the EPA to include individuals with financial conflicts on the Science Advisory Board, so long as the conflicts are disclosed.

It isn't logical to include an individual on a decisionmaking board if that individual would be financially affected by its decision.

I should note that the legislation limits the participation of academic scientists with relevant subject matter expertise from providing their advice to EPA, which will lead to panels with disproportionately high amounts of industry representation.

This bill would allow the Republicans' corporate constituency a direct route to disrupting the EPA's ability to create regulations designed to protect our health.

I would say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, ``I get it. You don't like science, and you don't like science that interferes with some of the interests of your corporate clients.''

But we need to rely on science so we can protect the public health and we can protect our environment. One of the main jobs that we are tasked with is to protect our constituencies. So why we would be trying to move ourselves back in a direction that would endanger public health is beyond me.

Mr. Speaker, today, we are considering three bills to undermine public health, hurt the environment, and tie up the EPA in red tape. I would, again, say to my colleagues, ``We are going to have this debate here today. These bills aren't going anywhere. We are wasting our time by doing this today.''

I am just going to close with one other issue that we ought to be talking about. In July, a majority in this House supported an amendment that I had offered, saying that if in fact we had sustained combat operations in Iraq, that Congress would vote to authorize, or not, such action.

Well, clearly, we have sustained combat operations going on in Iraq. We are getting sucked deeper and deeper and deeper into war while this Congress sits and twiddles its thumbs and does everything possible to avoid a debate on whether or not we should be involved in another war.

You know what, there are thousands of Americans that have been put in harm's way, and we are not living up to our constitutional responsibility. Surely, we should be spending some time talking about that, whether or not the United States ought to get sucked into another war halfway around the world, a war that will cost American lives and that will continue to cost a great deal in terms of our national treasure, but instead of debating that and other things that really matter to people, we are doing it on a messaging bill.

I regret the fact that here we are in these few days that we have left in this lameduck session, doing this kind of stuff, when we ought to be doing the people's business.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this restrictive rule, vote against all of the underlying legislation, and I plead to the Republican leadership: let's bring something to the floor that will help the American people.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this point, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to also join with the ranking member in honoring Don Sisson. As she mentions, this will be his last day on the floor. I think his last day is this week.

Mr. Speaker, Don has been working for the Rules Committee for 10 years under both Republicans and Democrats. He is a native of upstate New York, and he has been around for historic debates in Congress and has been an integral part of the Rules Committee staff for many, many, many years. As Ms. Slaughter pointed out, he will be moving on to the White House, and we are going to miss him dearly.

I think it is important for all of us to take a moment just to recognize that Don represents the best, I think, of the staff that work here. He is up here for all the right reasons. He wants to make the world a better place, and he has shown this great ability to work across party lines and to build things and make things happen. I know he will use those skills in his new position at the White House.

Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee meets an awful lot, and we are together an awful lot, and so we are all family. So when somebody leaves, it is painful because it is like a family member moving on and going someplace else. So we are going to miss Don, but he won't be that far away. We will work with him in a new capacity.

On behalf of everybody on that committee, members and staff included, I think we all owe you a debt of gratitude, and we are grateful for your service. You have served this institution with great honor and dignity, and we wish you all the best in your new job. So thank you very much for a job well done.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to announce to my colleagues that I am going to urge that we defeat the previous question, and if we do, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will allow the House to continue the ATTIRE Act. This bill would support textile research and innovation in the United States and will continue to strengthen the Made in America Movement as a conduit for creating American jobs and bolstering our economy. It is the right way to help create American jobs.

To discuss our proposal, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire from the gentleman if he has additional speakers besides himself?

Mr. Speaker, we had one other speaker who is not here, but in light of that, I will close.

Mr. Speaker, as I said before, I am going to ask my colleagues to vote against the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, we will make in order the ATTIRE Act that Mr. Price so carefully described to all of us here today.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me just say in closing that it is frustrating to be back after the election and to kind of engage in the same old-same old Republican partisan messaging bills that are going nowhere that just waste time. We ought to do the people's business in the next campaign which is about to start in a little while.

The fact that we are back here not debating this conflict that is now going on in the Middle East, the fact that we are not debating an immigration bill, the fact that we are not debating a pay equity bill or a minimum wage bill and we are doing this is very discouraging.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to send a strong statement today and vote ``no'' on this rule and certainly vote ``no'' on the previous question. I would also urge, if the rule passes, that we vote ``no'' on the underlying legislation. We have a lot of work to do. What we are doing here today does not constitute that work, and I regret it very much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

50 Things the House Could be Doing Instead of Undermining the

Affordable Care Act

1. Comprehensive Immigration Reform

2. Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of

2013 (H.R. 3546)

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

4. Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act of

2013 (H.R. 1150)

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

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

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

1421)

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

2447)

9. Economy, Energy and Environment Initiative to Support

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

10. Multimodal Opportunities Via Enhanced Freight Act of

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

11. American Textile Technology Innovation and Research for

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

12. Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing and Export

Assistance Act of 2013 (H.R. 400)

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

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

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

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

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

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

19. New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans

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

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

21. Enforcing Orders and Reducing Customs Evasion (ENFORCE)

Act (H.R. 1440)

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

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

24. Reducing Waste and Increasing Efficiency in Trade Act

(H.R. 3004)

25. Research and Development Tax Credit Extension Act of

2013 (H.R. 905)

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

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

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

615)

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

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

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

32. Securing Energy Critical Elements and American Jobs Act

of 2013 (H.R.1022)

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

(H.R. 981)

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

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

1424)

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

37. Partnering with American Manufacturers for Efficiency

and Competitiveness Act (H.R. 1418)

38. The Innovative Technologies Investment Incentives Act

(H.R.1415)

39. Cooperative Research and Development Fund Authorization

Act of 2013 (H.R. 1711)

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

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

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

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

44. American Manufacturing Efficiency & Retraining

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

45. Strengthening Employment Clusters to Organize Regional

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

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

1271)

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

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

1324)

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

1436)

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 756 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 756 provides for the consideration of three important pieces of legislation to create a more transparent and accountable Environmental Protection Agency, one that works in an open manner for all of America. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate for each of the three bills contained within the rule. Further, amendments were made in order for each of the three bills for a total of five amendments from Members of both parties.

Mr. Speaker, the first bill contained in this rule, H.R. 1422, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2013, brings greater accountability and greater oversight to the board of appointed advisors which the EPA uses to review the scientific bases for its official actions. Created in the late 1970s, the Science Advisory Board was intended to be a check on the EPA in order to ensure that the Agency's math and the Agency's statistics were all in order before it promulgated rules or regulations.

In fact, the original authorization for the board made clear that the Science Advisory Board was to report both to the EPA and to Congress on its findings. However, over the course of the past several decades since its inception, the Science Advisory Board has become little more than a rubberstamp for whatever the EPA Administrator wishes to accomplish, with the board members being handpicked by the Administrator, likely being chosen primarily on the basis that they hold the same environmental worldview as whoever the head of the EPA happens to be at any given point in time.

The bill before us would provide for a more balanced representation on the Science Advisory Board, setting out parameters regarding whom the Administrator can choose and ensuring that State and local governments have representation on the board so that they are not simply relegated to environmental activists, which, unfortunately, has been the case for some time now.

Indeed, current regulations exclude industry experts from serving on the

Science Advisory Board, but not officials from environmental advocacy groups. The new regulations are necessary to ensure against any appearance of impropriety on the board.

This legislation becomes even more critical when one considers the numerous regulations that the Environmental Protection Agency is currently contemplating, which could have significant impacts upon the Nation's economy.

From proposed carbon regulations to ratcheting down ozone regulations, the Science Advisory Board has been tasked with reviewing the science that will back up some of the most expensive rules in the Environmental Protection Agency's history.

It is critical the American people have confidence in what their Federal Government is doing and confidence that it is justified. I fear that, absent any significant reform to the EPA's process, that is currently not the case.

The second bill contained in this rule, H.R. 4012, the Secret Science Reform Act, is also intended to make the Environmental Protection Agency's rulemaking process more transparent, a goal that at one time was supposedly shared by the President.

The legislation states that the Environmental Protection Agency may take official action on an environmental regulation only if it has identified all scientific and technical information upon which the Agency has relied for that particular action, and further, it must use only publicly available studies and can thus be independently peer reviewed. This would bring the EPA's process in line with how many scientific journals operate when they publish peer-reviewed studies.

Further, the bill is prospective and will not interfere with any previously-enacted rules or regulations by the EPA. To address concerns expressed during the Science Committee's consideration of the bill, the legislation spells out that nothing in these requirements would jeopardize any privacy concerns with scientific studies.

The CDC has successfully made its studies available without exposing any of its test subjects' personal information, and the EPA should have no problem similarly complying with these requirements.

Finally, H.R. 4795, the Promoting New Manufacturing Act, the third bill included in the rule before us today, provides for greater transparency and would cut much of the red tape surrounding the permitting process for manufacturers attempting to comply with the Clean Air Act's requirements.

It would require the EPA to publish guidance on how companies may more efficiently obtain construction permits and navigate what is often a lengthy and arduous process.

Mr. Speaker, Americans are waking up to how much of the United States economy is subject to the EPA and its regulations, from carbon dioxide to ozone, and people are rightly anxious over how these new and, in some cases, unprecedented rules will affect consumers' wallets.

It is reasonable and expeditious to ensure that the science upon which the EPA is relying to craft its regulations will be transparent and available to all and not just a select few who the EPA deems worthy to see its work products.

Even the congressional committees who are charged with legitimate oversight over EPA's actions have had difficulty in obtaining basic scientific justifications for its actions over the past few years. The bills before us today will begin the process of making the EPA accountable to the very constituency the Agency claims to be protecting, the American people.

I encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bills, and I will reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to join the gentlewoman from New York in congratulating Don Sisson for his new position at the White House Office of Legislative Affairs and certainly look forward to working with him. I actually am somewhat comforted to know that there is an Office of Legislative Affairs in the White House and look forward to his occupying that position.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers.

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

Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of three important bills to provide for open and transparent rulemaking at the Environmental Protection Agency. I certainly want to thank the authors for their thoughtful legislation. I want to urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying bills.

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