H.Res. 351

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Joint Resolution 59 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Rochester (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 have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of H.J. Res. 59, the Continuing Appropriations Resolution for Fiscal Year 2014.

The rule is a closed rule and provides for the consideration of a short-term continuing resolution, keeping the government funded until December 15, 2013. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided between the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee of Appropriations.

Additionally, the rule incorporates an amendment by Representative Scalise, which fully defunds ObamaCare and also ensures that the government prioritizes interest and principal payments on our national debt and Social Security payments in the event that the debt limit is reached. The rule also provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Finally, the rule permits the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules from September 26 to September 29.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my friend, Chairman Rogers, for bringing a bill to avoid a government shutdown to the Rules Committee. Within the Republican Conference, we've had a very spirited debate on this issue; however, it's led us to a good product.

There are a number of things I like about this bill. First, it extends the funding for operations of all programs until December 15, allowing the Appropriations Committee the needed time to finish its work on the 12 full-year spending bills.

Second, this continuing resolution adheres to the post-sequester caps of the Budget Control Act, maintaining our commitment to reduce the deficit.

Third, this bill fully defunds ObamaCare.

Mr. Speaker, it seems the closer that we get to the implementation of the Affordable Health Care Act, the more unpopular it becomes.

Already, the President has agreed with Congress to make major changes to this legislation on seven different occasions. Additionally, he's delayed major provisions like the employer mandate unilaterally another seven times.

If business is chafing under these mandates and in need of a delay, then surely the American people should be given the same relief. The continuing resolution provides them that relief.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, this legislation provides certainty to our creditors that they will get paid. Some of my friends on the other side have called this the ``Pay China First Act''; however, nearly 70 percent of our debt is owed domestically. This legislation would provide for the prioritization of U.S. bondholders and people on Social Security at the front of the line to be paid if the government hits its borrowing limit.

Mr. Speaker, this is the responsible thing to do. Some have said that this is just brinksmanship and an attempt by Republicans to lead to a government shutdown. That could not be further from the truth. The Appropriations Committee has brought this bill to the floor explicitly to avoid the threat of a shutdown.

It's a good bill, and I urge the support of the rule and the underlying legislation.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As usual, my friend makes a skillful and thoughtful case in defense of the Affordable Care Act. The problem is that the jury is the American people. They're still not convinced. They haven't been convinced for 4 years.

Repeatedly, poll after poll after poll has shown this to be an extraordinarily unpopular piece of legislation. In fact, I'd suggest my friends probably lost their majority in their pursuit of this legislation. It was their continued defense of it that may well have cost them the opportunity to regain that majority when the President was reelected.

If you look at the evidence, it's not only unpopular as we approach the implementation date, but more of the people that supported it are asking either for delay or for it to be overturned altogether. We had a lot of labor unions recently march down to the White House and request the President--these are people that helped pass the bill--to please fix it, change it, delay it, do something--it's going to hurt our members and their families.

The President himself acknowledged this bill isn't working very well. We're going to have to delay it for a year for all sorts of businesses.

We've been told repeatedly that this was some day going to become popular. But I would suggest the experience of not weeks, not months, but years has taught us that it's never going to be popular with the American people.

My good friend also talked a little bit about the sequester. I think that's worth visiting again because we probably have some common ground there. I would suggest that we ought to get rid of the sequester. But let's remember how it got here and what it was designed to do.

Sequester is in law because of the President of the United States. He's the one who proposed it. He's the one who advocated for it. He's the one who signed it into law. We all agree it's not a very artfully drawn piece of legislation, but the President insisted on it.

We twice in this House acted to provide opportunities to get rid of sequester. Neither time did our friends on the other side pick up those opportunities, either in this Chamber, the Senate, nor the President of the United States.

We are more than willing to renegotiate sequester. We are not willing to give up the savings. We would like to spread those cuts and savings over the entire budget. And we think we can work through the problems without surrendering the savings unilaterally or raising taxes, another thing which we don't think is the appropriate way to deal with this particular piece of legislation.

My friend talked about food stamps, which are not directly relevant for our debate, but it's worth thinking for a minute that, under President Bush, the amount of money we spent on food stamps doubled. And under President Obama it has doubled again. In other words, 100 percent and another 100 percent.

All our bill is suggesting is perhaps 5 percent of that massive increase. At a time when unemployment is coming down and the economy is supposedly on the mend, we could, through reforms, reclaim and save. That's all this is.

Finally, there was some discussion of the Senate and what it will and won't do. I learned a long time ago not to try to predict what the Senate of the United States is going to do. Some of my colleagues, frankly, on our side of the aisle have been asking for an opportunity to express their opinion on ObamaCare and have an opportunity to get in the fight. I think they ought to have that opportunity. Frankly, I suspect there are some Democratic senators who may be on the ballot for the first time since voting for ObamaCare that might want to reconsider their positions and if not defund, perhaps delay.

But in any event, our job here is to do what the American people sent us here to do. That's, number one, to fund the government, which this bill certainly does. And, number two, in the case of the majority, to repeal, reform, delay, or somehow postpone ObamaCare. That's what we're doing.

We'll send this over to the Senate. We'll see what our colleagues can do over there. They've got some remarkable tools that we don't have. They have things like cloture. It doesn't exist on our side of the aisle. They have things like the filibuster. It doesn't exist over here.

Again, the political situation suggests they may be able to find allies. Regardless, they certainly deserve the opportunity to have the fight and debate and discussion that they requested. I think this House is acting wisely and well in giving that chance.

Once they've made their decision--and we're not here to express the will of the Senate, and they're certainly not there to express the will of the House--they'll send something back. At that time I have no doubt that we'll pick it up and react to it and try to respond in an appropriate fashion.

But nothing is going to begin until we pass something out of this House. That's what we're trying to do today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

I want to assure my good friend we have no intention and no desire to shut down the government. Absolutely not. If that was our aim, we wouldn't be bringing a bill to the floor whose main purpose is to keep government funding open.

We want to take the 75-day window, roughly, and sit down and negotiate with our friends and make sure--particularly my friend and our chairman, Mr. Rogers, have an opportunity to work through the appropriations process. So that is not our intention.

As for the President's concern about sequester, again I will just remark that this was his idea. This was his proposal. He signed it into law. He is not an innocent bystander in this process. So if he would like to sit down and redo it, we are more than happy to do that; but he's not going to dictate the outcome from the White House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my fellow member of the Rules Committee, my classmate, the distinguished physician from the great State of Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my great friend, the chairman of the Rules Committee, the distinguished Member from the great State of Texas (Mr. Sessions).

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

I know that Bob Woodward is a widely read author. I can look at the book sales that he racks up and know that there's a lot of people in this town that read what he has to say. But evidently my friends on the other side have never read what he had to say.

Let's be clear: sequester was the President's idea and proposal. Now, where I agree with the President is that I think we need to save money in the Federal budget. Sequester was supposed to be a trigger to force that negotiation.

Unfortunately, for whatever reason, I was not a member of the supercommittee; but I think all of them worked hard and in good faith, and I cast no aspersion, but they didn't get there. So sequester, the President's recommended method, happened.

We would still like to sit down with the President and our friends on the other side and renegotiate where those cuts occur. Sequester is about $85 billion on an annual basis in a $3.5 trillion budget that is roughly $700 billion out of balance as it is. So the idea that we can't find 2.5 percent if we negotiated over the entire budget I think is probably, frankly, not a very sustainable proposition. We could do that without some of the distortions we are going through now. We would be more than happy to do that with my friends on the other side, and certainly with the President of the United States.

No, I will hold my time, but I will yield in a moment.

But let's be clear whose idea this was and who has not put a solution on the table. I could go ad nauseam into cuts that did not have to occur in the Defense Department that have occurred because the administration insisted on them, but that's for another time and another debate.

I agree with my friend that this is a time to come to a deal. That's what we are trying to do, actually, in this rule and in the underlying legislation: set aside a 75-day window to sit down and let the appropriators and those above them come to an agreement, and let's get out of this cycle--I agree with my friend--of short-term fixes and deals and let's move back to what I know my friend wants to do, and that's to establish regular order.

But to do that, we have to start the process; we have to begin now. Let's pass this resolution. It reflects the will of the majority. Let's move it to the Senate and let's see what the Senate is prepared to do. They will send us something back. Then, hopefully, at the end of that process, a CR will be arrived at.

My friend alluded to the fact that people want to shut down the government. That's the last thing we want to do. I thank my friend for accurately putting my position out there on both government shutdown and on default. I've made it abundantly clear I think those are bad ideas. I thought they were bad ideas.

By the way, Tom Coburn quotes me in his book in 1995 telling him not to do it. I was his political consultant back then. So I have never thought this was an appropriate tactic in government. I don't think we need to do it now.

But let's do that, and at the same time let's give the Senate an opportunity to vote up or down, whatever they want to do, on ObamaCare. We've gotten to do it multiple times. They seem to be anxious to have the opportunity. I think they should. But they will send us back a product, and I'm sure we will respond.

With that, I yield to my friend if he had a point he wanted to make.

In reclaiming my time, it's certainly true that we've had multiple proposals to try and limit spending. We walked in with a $1.4 trillion

deficit, so we thought maybe we ought to try and bring it down a little bit. Is it the exact form of this sequester? Absolutely not. No Republican ever came up with a sequester and had 50 percent of the cuts coming out of defense. So, in that sense, I don't think you can equate that.

Regardless, let's not argue over history here for a minute; although, again, just for the record, I, too, have had Bob Woodward in my office, and I actually had him sign 60 of those books, which I gave to my colleagues, because I thought it was such an interesting look, and the players and the process are still the same.

The bottom line: let's pass this legislation. It's going to move out of the House. Let's let the Senate act. Then let's see what they send back to us, and let's act in turn.

I yield just quickly to the gentleman from Maryland because I'm running low on time, and I do have other speakers.

I certainly wouldn't agree if it yields the cuts, but I think the structure of it is inappropriate, and it's flawed.

We ought to repeal it and get savings across the entire budget. I think that's what we should do.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have, from time to time, wondered about where the business community is on this issue, so I would like to insert for the Record a letter from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which notes, as ``the world's largest business federation representing the interests of more than 3 million businesses . . . '' it favors the passage of H.J. Res. 59, the Continuing Appropriations Resolution for 2014, to ensure the uninterrupted funding of the Federal Government into the next fiscal year and to defund ObamaCare.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Chamber of Commerce of the

United States of America,

Washington, D.C., September 18, 2013.

To The Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The

U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business

federation representing the interests of more than three

million businesses and organizations of all sizes, sectors,

and regions, as well as state and local chambers and industry

associations, and dedicated to promoting, protecting and

defending America's free enterprise system, urges the House

of Representatives to pass H.J. Res. 59, the ``Continuing

Appropriations Resolution, 2014,'' to ensure the

uninterrupted funding of the federal government into the next

fiscal year at spending levels consistent with P.L. 112-25,

the Budget Control Act of 2011.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce fully recognizes the

importance of restraining federal spending, both

discretionary spending and mandatory spending, to reduce

federal budget deficits, contain the growth of federal debt,

and thereby re-establish fiscal discipline in the near-term

and for the long haul. However, as the Department of Labor's

recent lackluster jobs report reminds us, the U.S. economy

continues to underperform, reinforcing the need for the

federal government to preserve its normal operations pending

a successful outcome of broader budgetary reforms. It is not

in the best interest of the U.S. business community or the

American people to risk even a brief government shutdown that

might trigger disruptive consequences or raise new policy

uncertainties washing over the U.S. economy.

Likewise, the U.S. Chamber respectfully urges the House of

Representatives to raise the debt ceiling in a timely manner

and thus eliminate any question of threat to the full faith

and credit of the United States government. Treasury

Secretary Jacob Lew has indicated the Treasury may exhaust

its borrowing capacity and cash management tools as early as

mid-October.

The nation faces many serious fiscal issues on which the

Congress and the President have thus far yet to reach

agreement. These issues include correcting the unaffordable

path of entitlement spending to stabilize federal finances

and the need for fundamental tax reform to strengthen the

American economy. These issues also include the need to

correct the many grave deficiencies in the Affordable Care

Act. The Chamber believes each of these and related issues

demand immediate attention. The Chamber also asks the

Congress to work to clear the individual spending bills so

that the improvements and changes reflected in this year's

work may be signed into law.

It is readily apparent none of these important issues are

ripe for resolution. We therefore urge the House to act

promptly to pass a Continuing Resolution to fund the

government and to raise the debt ceiling, and then to return

to work on these other vital issues.

Sincerely,

R. Bruce Josten.

I am prepared to close whenever my colleague would like to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I don't want to put you under any pressure, but we're counting on you.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to thank my good friend, the gentlelady. It's always great to have the opportunity to come down here and

exchange views with her. I want to make a couple of points in closing.

First, remember, we did bring down legislation--and passed it out of this House--to deal with sequester twice. The Democrats in the Senate didn't pick it up, and the President didn't pick it up.

To my friend Mr. Van Hollen, frankly, your legislation hasn't made it out of committee. You've got to get it out of committee before it comes to the floor, and so far, as persuasive as you are, you've not been that persuasive. Frankly, I don't think it would work on the floor.

If I finish my remarks, I certainly will yield to the gentleman.

My friends on the other side have repeatedly said we want to shut down the government. That's the last thing we want to do. This bill actually keeps the government open. It's not about shutting down the government; it's about keeping it open so we can negotiate and arrive at a larger deal.

We intend to send this to the Senate with the defunding of ObamaCare, something the majority of this House feels strongly about, and then we're going to wait and see what the Senate sends back to us. My guess is at the end of the day--as you never know what's going to happen over there, maybe I won't make a guess. We'll just wait and see what comes back. But I certainly want to give some of my friends over there the opportunity to carry on this fight.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Reclaiming my time, after you turned us down twice, we just think you guys are an awfully hard sell. The Senate is also a difficult sell on this. So let's move and do this CR and sit down in the next 75 days. I think we have an opportunity, frankly, to come to a very large deal where we can deal with sequester, we can deal with the long-term deficit that we know is a huge problem for us, and we can move forward, I hope, in a bipartisan manner. This is our opportunity to do it. Let's pass this rule, pass this bill, and get to work.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 351 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. And congratulations to the Clerk for the long reading of the rule.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Worcester, Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my dear friend--

and I spent a lot of time with him yesterday--pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

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

House Resolution 351 provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 687 and H.R. 1526, and provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 3102.

Mr. Speaker, the first of these bills is H.R. 687, the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act. This bill permits a land conveyance which will lead to the development of important copper deposits in Arizona that is estimated to create 3,700 jobs and $60 billion worth of economic opportunity. That is a great reason to be on the floor on behalf of the Republican Party of the United States of America.

We are on the floor today because people in Arizona, on a bipartisan basis, have asked that their elected representatives, on a bipartisan basis, come to the United States Government and ask for swapping lands that will result in 3,700 American jobs--probably about 3,700 jobs in Arizona--and up to $60 billion worth of economic opportunity. What a great reason for Paul Gosar and Doc Hastings, the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, to approach the Rules Committee about getting that bill on the floor today.

We hear over and over and over and over about jobs and job creation for the middle class. Well, let me tell you what, Mr. Speaker, 3,700 jobs for the middle class in Arizona and up to $60 billion worth of economic opportunity are available to Members of Congress today where they can make a decision about what they want to vote on. I would submit to you the Republican Party is for those 3,700 middle class jobs.

The second bill before us today is H.R. 1526, the Restoring Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act. This legislation will improve the health of our Nation's forests by promoting effective forest management while simultaneously strengthening a timber sales revenue-sharing program which is, once again, designed to allow rural communities to benefit from their local natural resources.

I will go back and say it again. The reason why we are on the floor today is that the Republican Party wants local, rural communities to have a part of their cost sharing with the money that would come in to help rural communities to benefit from what sits in their own back yard, their own natural resources, which we as Republicans understand is best admired and best taken care of when local people take care of their own needs. Point two why the Republican Party is on the floor of the House of Representatives today: for local rural communities.

The final bill considered in this rule is H.R. 3102, the Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act. This vital legislation reforms--and I add the word ``reforms'' because it needs reform--reforms our Nation's nutrition programs, saving taxpayers about $40 billion while maintaining critical benefits to helping America's neediest families, seniors, children, and veterans. H.R. 3102 reinforces our country's commitment to those who cannot help themselves while working to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse.

What is the waste, fraud, and abuse? It is many, many people who should not be receiving these needy items--that should be reserved for those who need it the most--people who are able-bodied; and we should not extend those benefits to people who actually can take care of themselves.

So you're going to hear a robust argument today that will take place--it took place for hours yesterday in the Rules Committee as we considered amendments after amendments, ideas after ideas. Each and every person, whether they be Republican or Democrat, were treated with fairness and the opportunity to equally present their ideas with the knowledge that there was a committee, the Rules Committee, on a bipartisan basis, that was available and ready to engage each of those Members on their ideas that are called amendments. That is why we are on the floor of the House of Representatives today.

I urge my colleagues to support the rule--we will talk a little bit more about it--and to support the underlying legislation. And of course we will talk about that more during this hour.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), who serves on the Natural Resources Committee and the Budget

Committee, from Oak Grove, California.

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

I appreciate the gentleman from Minnesota coming down and giving us his thoughts on what we are attempting to do today. The bottom line is that what we are going to do is we are going to make natural and, I believe, reasonable changes to the nutrition program that will help sustain it. Rather than growing and growing and growing and growing the amount of money that's necessary to sustain this, we are going to put it into a perspective where it is available and ready for the neediest of Americans, which is what the food stamp program really is all about.

In fact, we are here to make sure that when our great chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Frank Lucas, goes to a conference with the United States Senate that we give him a full portfolio of the thoughts and ideas about the changes that we would make to the entire agriculture bill. Chairman Lucas is one of the most awesome members of our conference and who, yesterday, spent a number of hours with us, not just to get us to understand what we are trying to do, but why we are trying to do what we are doing. It means that we will arm him with the available content to go to the conference with the Senate to make the farm bill that includes the nutrition program even better and sustainable.

I think the gentleman, Mr. McClintock, said it best, and that is that what we are trying to do is to make sure that the neediest Americans get what they want and need. But it simply and, I believe, carefully says, where you're able-bodied and on food stamps, you have got to be looking for work also. You have to make sure that you're a part of trying to go and better your life, not using the food stamp program as an alternative to the hard work which will help make you and perhaps your family, but certainly your community and your country even stronger. So it becomes an incentive to do exactly that.

Just like what we did in welfare reform in the early nineties where, in welfare reform, jobs became a substitute and really a demand that you needed to go look for a job, millions of people took us up on that and bettered their life, that's what we are trying to do now. There are still jobs available in America. There are still jobs available. They might not be the job that you would want to stay in for the rest of your life, but it means that you need to go and actively participate, because there are those behind, so to speak, the program that are the neediest of most Americans.

I will tell you that I understand some of those people, some of these people that live within the district that I represent in Texas, but I also understand them firsthand in dealing with disabled people and families with disabled children and families with disabled adults. Where a person cannot take care of themselves, we are not putting that at risk at all. Where a person cannot take care of themselves and needs the benefits of the community, in this case a nutrition program, we need to make sure that there is more money that is available to them.

There was a discussion about the average cost not being very much, and I think that's a true statement. We would like to increase the money for more and better food, including fruits and vegetables and other items, in the future, but the only way we can do this is if we are aiming at the people who need it the most.

That's where this great Nation will continue. Not only through their food banks that are available across the country because of local people getting involved, but also the competition that comes from the Federal Government to help work with them to better the lives, the nutrition, of children and seniors and veterans and families that need them the most. That's what this is trying to do to reform that program.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, my party and I do understand that our country has for 5 years gone through very difficult times. Our party and the American people, through various ways, have been asking this administration and the Democratic Party to please allow us to have an opportunity with more jobs being available in the United States of America. The Democratic Party, up to and including the President of the United States, is more interested in an out-of-balance environmental policy that is placing a demand on the consumers to pay double the prices that they did before the President came into office for gasoline and double the prices of food and the availability of jobs.

Just as we are here to talk about, in Arizona, 3,700 new jobs, we've tried to do this with the XL pipeline, which would extend across a number of States. I don't know if some of the faces of hunger were included in those that could be hired as a result of the XL pipeline, but, every day, there are Americans who are losing their jobs and who are losing careers because of the policies of our President, Barack Obama, and the Democrats--elected Members of Congress--who insist on having rules and regulations, up to and including a government-run health care plan, which is diminishing careers and opportunities for people to have health care and full-time jobs.

If it weren't true, someone would say it was just a cruel joke; but the bottom line is that the business community all across America is now changing the rules of employment from 40-hour workweeks to 30 or even 20. This is happening directly as a result of the policies of the people who complain most about the middle class not having jobs. It is perpetrated exactly on a partisan basis--with zero Republicans participating--to have rules, regulations, and a government-run health care system that is unemploying America, only to turn around later to find out: so we've got to spend more money to take care of people who don't have jobs.

Mr. Speaker, there are divides in our country. There are divides between the parties, but, today, the Republican Party is on the floor trying to say that we need to change the law so that local communities that have forests in their backyards can share in the money, that Washington can't have it only--you've got to share with them. We are here to say that we are for a land swap that people in Arizona completely agree with. They sent their elected Representatives here on an elected citizenry basis to come and say: we'd like 3,700 more jobs in Arizona, $60 billion worth of economic activity; and we are here today to say: because we have such expanding roles of people who are hungry in America and who are filing to get food stamps, we need to be able to set a mark, and that mark is: as long as you're looking for a job and you're able-bodied, then we understand, but the neediest of Americans need what we're doing, and that we are not going to give up on.

So the Republican Party is here with an open ear, a strong voice and a kind heart; but what we are saying back is: Mr. President and Democrat Party, you need to help us grow jobs in America. You need to let loose the Keystone pipeline, which has been studied to death for the last 5 or 6 years. You need to be with us today on the 3,700 more jobs in Arizona. You need to be with us today because we're the ones who are talking about jobs in healthy forests, with timber, back home in rural areas because rural people deserve a chance to have a job and to be taken care of, too.

The Republican Party is quite consistent in our behavior--we want jobs; we want job creation; and we put legislation on the floor that accomplishes just that. That's why we're here today. We are a party that cares about people, and we are trying to make life better for the middle class and for all Americans in this country.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman who served in the United States Air Force, from Gainesville, Georgia (Mr. Collins), who serves on the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Judiciary Committee, and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Hood River, Oregon (Mr. Walden), who is the chairman of the Communications and Technology Subcommittee for Energy and Commerce.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think we should have a standard of at least being honest about what's in the bill. We are not throwing people off who are disabled. It is an able-bodied standard, and the gentlewoman knows that.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Hood River, Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Mr. Speaker, I have a disabled child at home, a Down Syndrome young man. I understand very well about the need for our country to help and provide assistance to disabled people. It is not true, and it's unfair for someone to characterize this bill as taking someone who is disabled off the SNAP rolls.

And I'm sorry that we have Members who evidently have not read the bill and do not understand what we're doing. But that's a fact; and we should not pass along information that, in fact, is not true. I hope that this body would stay away from that very emotional issue because not only is it not fair, but it's not true.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 30 seconds.

I would like to explain, if I can, ``compassionate conservatism.'' It's called 60 straight months of economic growth, 60 straight months of this country growing stronger because people had jobs under a Republican House, under a Republican President, under a Republican Senate. Sixty straight months of economic growth that made our country stronger and better. And that is compassionate conservatism. That's the Republican Party. We're trying to get back to job growth, job creation, and help the middle class of this country.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Once again, the gentleman comes down and evidently is either unwilling or has not read the bill to an understanding where the statement was made about preventing 280,000 children from receiving a free school lunch. Nothing in this bill makes changes to the school lunch program.

The National School Lunch and the School Breakfast Programs automatically qualify students who are enrolled in SNAP for free school meals. The school meals programs are not authorized under this bill nor are eligible for requirements under this committee's jurisdiction.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I appreciate the gentleman asking. I am down just to the close, and I thank the gentleman for seeking that information.

Mr. Speaker, today we follow the pattern that we did yesterday in talking about the needs of this great Nation, not only men and women who are unemployed, but who also need the benefits of the food stamp program.

And today, the Republican Party, as a result of the work we did in the Rules Committee, is bringing several bills in this rule, two of them talking directly about jobs and job creation.

One, Hood River, Oregon; the gentleman, Greg Walden coming to talk about, please, give us a chance to have jobs. Our people want jobs. They don't want to be on food stamps. They want jobs. A narrow, political, shrill agenda, environmentalist agenda, is the reason why we don't have that--the Democrats and Barack Obama.

Secondly, Arizona. Arizona is asking for 3,700 jobs, $60 billion worth of economic activity right in this bill. They are jobs bills.

We are trying to do the things that the Republican Party talks about; that's the middle class of this country, jobs, and job creation.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule, ``yes'' for jobs, ``yes'' for the underlying legislation, ``yes'' so that we can employ people back at home, rural areas, people who don't have jobs, ``yes'' for the opportunity for the Republican Party to, once again, stand on this floor and say, we believe the legislation that is here is better for America than the policies that we have today, the policies of unemployment, the policies of less than a 40-hour workweek, now to a 30-hour workweek, the policies of taxes and spending.

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. Sessions), my friend, the chairman of the committee, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day in the people's House. Today, the Republican leadership is bringing to the floor one of the most heartless pieces of legislation I have ever seen, a bill to take food away from some of our most vulnerable neighbors.

After a $20 billion cut was voted down by the House in June, the Republican leadership has decided to double down on the cruelty with a $40 billion cut. It is terrible policy wrapped in a terrible process.

This is a 109-page bill that would cut the SNAP program, cut billions of dollars and make major changes to the way SNAP works; and there hasn't been a single hearing, not a single markup. It didn't even go through the Agriculture Committee. And today it's being brought to the floor under a closed rule. It was just cooked up in the majority leader's office as some sort of Heritage Foundation fever dream.

CBO says that the bill would cut 3.8 million low-income people from SNAP in 2014 and millions more in the following years. These are some of America's poorest adults, as well as many low-income children, seniors, and families that work for low wages. Let me say that again, Mr. Speaker, so there's no confusion. People who work but who don't make enough to feed their families will be cut from this program.

The biggest cut affects millions of unemployed, childless adults who live in areas of high unemployment. These are poor people. Many don't have the skills or education they need to find a job. It is a group whose average income is about $2,500 a year. And for most, SNAP is the only government assistance that they receive.

Now, if that weren't bad enough, 210,000 children in these families would also lose their free school meals; and 170,000 unemployed veterans will lose their SNAP benefits as well. Let me repeat: 170,000 veterans will lose their benefits. These are the people who have served our country. How can you do that?

Mr. Speaker, we are 45 years and a million miles away from the War on Poverty. The Republican leadership has instead launched a war on poor people.

This bill is not about reform. It is not about making SNAP a better, stronger program.

Mr. Speaker, it is not easy to be poor in America. It is not a glamorous life. It is a struggle just to make it through the day. The average SNAP benefit is $1.50 per meal. Housing costs, transportation costs, childcare costs, they all add up.

You know, fighting hunger used to be a bipartisan issue. Think of people like Bob Dole and Bill Emerson. And I know that a lot of Republicans--moderates and conservatives--are very nervous about this bill. So I would say to them: don't do this. Please don't do this. Don't go along with cutting food benefits to millions of struggling families. Don't make hundreds of thousands of children and seniors and veterans go hungry. Don't put the food banks and church pantries in your districts into an even deeper hole. The people who rely on SNAP to feed their families struggle every single day. Please don't make their lives even harder. It is not too late. We do not need to pass this bill in order to go to conference on the farm bill.

I would urge my colleagues to search their consciences and to vote against this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), the ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. Speaker, Republican talking points aside, according to CBO, this bill, if passed, will result in 3.8 million people losing their benefits, including 170,000 veterans. That is shameful.

I appreciate the gentleman's concern about the waivers, but I remind him that his Governor of Texas, Rick Perry, has requested waivers on a number of occasions because people haven't been able to find jobs in his State of Texas. So if you've got a problem with the waivers, you ought to talk to your own Governor.

At this point, I yield to the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Fudge) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. O'Rourke) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Capps) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Lee) for a unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch) for a unanimous consent request.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, my Republican friends don't like the President. We hear it every day. I get it.

While you debate his policies, don't take it out on poor people. The CBO says 3.8 million people will be thrown off this benefit, and 170,000 veterans will lose their benefits.

This bill is not a thoughtful bill--it is a thoughtless bill--because it hasn't even gone through committee. This is more a political statement than it is sound policy or even bad policy. It's just plain politics. It's red meat for, I guess, the extreme right-wing base. I'm hoping there are people on your side who will see through this and who will stand with us and do the right thing, because it has been a bipartisan tradition in this Congress to support efforts to prevent hunger.

At this point, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 seconds to remind the gentleman who just spoke that there are

36,000 households in his district in Georgia who rely on SNAP. I think they're counting on him to vote a different way.

At this point, I yield 1 minute and 15 seconds to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 seconds.

I just wanted to say to the gentleman from Oregon that there are one in five Oregonians who are on food stamps as we gather here today. In his district, there are nearly 60,000. You talked about trees, but there are a lot of people that will be adversely affected.

I have no remaining time to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

(Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. Speaker, let me just suggest to my Republican colleagues that maybe they ought to deal with sequester, maybe they ought to stop threatening to shut the government down, and maybe they ought to bring the President's jobs bill to the floor to put people back to work, and, in the meantime, they ought not to throw poor people off food assistance.

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

I yield the gentlewoman from California an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say to my friend from Texas, we know exactly what you are all doing here. What you are doing is throwing 3.8 million people off of this program who, quite frankly, rely on it to put food on the table.

And I just want to point out for the record, the average length of someone on SNAP is about 9 months. There are people who work, who work full time who are on SNAP because they don't earn enough. People do want to work. People don't want to be on public assistance. But the bottom line is that we have had a Congress here that has blocked every major piece of legislation that might produce jobs. So let's get our facts straight here.

At this point, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

Mr. Speaker, I will just remind the gentleman that compassionate conservatism also gave us the Great Recession.

At this point, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes).

Mr. Speaker, at this point, it's my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I need to qualify something here. I want to respond to what the gentleman just said.

The fact of the matter is, when children's parents get cut from SNAP, then children are no longer eligible for free breakfast and lunch in school. That's where we get the number of 270,000 kids who will lose their free breakfast and lunch programs. That's the connection. So it is connected. So I would point that out because it is important. I don't want anyone to be fooled by the fact that somehow this doesn't affect school meals. It does, very directly.

At this point, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Speaker, it's my privilege to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Could I ask the gentleman how many more speakers he has?

Mr. Speaker, before I close, I'd like to insert into the Record letters from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the United States Conference of Mayors, AARP, and a list of a number of other groups that are opposed to the bill.

And I'd also like to insert into the Record a September 4 New York Times story, entitled, ``On the Edge of Poverty, at the Center of a Debate on Food Stamps.''

Committee on Domestic Justice

and Human Development,

September 11, 2013.

Dear Representative: As the House considers a proposal to

address nutrition programs apart from the Farm Bill, I write

to urge you to oppose harmful cuts and changes to the

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The House

proposal would cut SNAP by $40 billion and harm hungry

children, poor families, vulnerable seniors and workers who

are underemployed or unable to find employment.

Adequate and nutritious food is a fundamental human right

and a basic need that is integral to protecting the life and

dignity of the human person. SNAP is one of the most

effective and important federal programs to combat hunger in

the nation by helping to feed millions of persons in need

every year.

SNAP helps relieve pressure on overwhelmed parishes,

charities, food banks, pantries and other emergency food

providers across the country that could not begin to meet the

need for food assistance if SNAP eligibility or benefits were

reduced. The faith community and the private sector are vital

in the fight to combat hunger. But government has an

indispensable role in safeguarding and promoting the common

good of

all. This includes ensuring poor and hungry people have

access to adequate and nutritious food.

Struggling people are not seeking a life of government

dependency but rightfully deserve decent paying jobs to

provide for them and their families. Even with evidence of a

modest economic recovery, the economy still has not improved

the standard of living for many people, especially for the

poor and the working poor. More than four million people have

been jobless for over six months, and that does not include

the millions more who have simply lost hope. For every

available job, there are often five unemployed and

underemployed people actively vying for it. SNAP remains an

essential tool to help struggling individuals and families

avoid hunger and stay out of poverty.

Proposals to eliminate access to SNAP for people who have

at some point in their lifetime committed certain crimes are

counterproductive and an affront to human dignity. Persons

who have paid their debt to society and their families should

not be penalized for the sins of the past. A on-size-fits-all

approach to state waivers on SNAP work requirements is

unreasonable. States should continue to be afforded the

flexibility to assess and respond to local needs and economic

conditions. Ending state waivers will only harm vulnerable

people.

How the House chooses to address our nation's hunger and

nutrition programs will have profound human and moral

consequences. This is a crucial time for our nation to place

a circle of protection around programs that build a more just

framework and put poor and hungry people first. I

respectfully urge you to reject efforts to reduce or

restructure SNAP, and to pursue instead the common good in

agriculture and food policy that works from a genuine

preferential option for the poor.

Sincerely,

Most Reverend Stephen E. Blaire,

Bishop of Stockton, Chairman, Committee on Domestic Justice

and Human Development.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record the story of Melinda, a cancer survivor and single mother from Texas, a face of hunger.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague just asked the question about have we no decency. Have you no decency?

And these are good friends here. We're colleagues. We come to work for America.

But all who can read, and all who can feel the pain of hunger should ask the question and should beg and plead: don't cut SNAP; $40 billion, 3.4 billion in meals, and 24 meals a month for a family.

Unless you have the cure for poverty, 46 million Americans, then how dare you come to the floor and eliminate a lifeline. Yes, school breakfasts, but what about the children who are from zero to 3 to 4 who are at home with parents, who are at home with the families, the spouses of Active Duty soldiers who use food stamps?

And then the absolute insult: a State like Texas that is prosperous, you give them the instruction to cut people off of food stamps, and then give them a bonus--a bonus--for hurting people and taking their life away.

This is a shameful act. Vote down this rule and this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to the rule for H.R. 3102, the Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act.

I am in opposition to this bill for four reasons: hunger is a real problem in the United States; the solution for reducing dependence on government subsidized food programs is full employment, this bill will hurt the poor and most vulnerable in our country and finally the bill is too draconian and pointedly anti Urban.

September has been declared hunger action month--1 in 6 Americans are going without enough food to sustain a healthy life.

The United States is considered to be the world's wealthiest nation but 14.5 percent or almost 49 million Americans do not get enough to eat.

17 million children live in food insecure households. Children with inadequate nutrition are affected by cognitive and behavior development problems.

The majority of SNAP recipients, about 68 percent, do not work; they are children, elderly, disabled or those caring for a disabled family member in their home or for a child less than 6 years of age.

To qualify for SNAP benefits in Texas, a person cannot have more than $2,000 in a bank account and they can make more than $14,079 annually.

The annual income limitations increase by nearly $5,000 for each additional person living in the household.

To qualify for SNAP benefits, the combined income for a family of four cannot exceed $28,665.

According to a report released Wednesday by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Texas has the third-highest rate of food insecurity in the nation--18.5 percent of households struggled to acquire enough healthy food in 2011. 14.7 percent of U.S. households had difficulty affording healthy food at some point in 2011.

More than 3 million Americans, including 302,800 Texans, will lose food stamp benefits in 2013 if the U.S. Congress approves proposed federal cuts to the SNAP, according to the federal Office of Management and Budget. About 8.5 percent of Texans were enrolled in the program as of June 2012.

Based on the estimates from the OMB, the Texas Food Bank Network calculated the number of Texans that would lose food stamp benefits in 2013 by county.

2 million rural households experience food insecurity. The counties in the United States with the highest disproportionately high rates of food insecurity are rural not urban or suburban.

We should pass the American Jobs Act

Prior to the financial crisis, 26.3 million individuals a month on average received SNAP benefits, getting an average of $96 per month in benefits. Over the course of the ``Great Recession'' SNAP spending has increased from $33.2 billion for fiscal year 2007 to $78.4 billion for fiscal year 2012. The Congressional Budget Office says the economy is the cause of the nearly 65 percent increase in SNAP spending between 2007 and 2011.

The Congressional Budget Office said in its May 2013 baseline update estimate that SNAP participation would begin to decline as the economy continued to recover, falling to an average of $34.4 million per month.

SNAP benefits also help those who earn 130 percent of the federal poverty guideline. 83 percent of SNAP households have gross income at or below 100 percent of the poverty guideline. This translates into incomes of $19,530 for a family of 3 in 2013. These households receive about 91 percent of all benefits.

Unemployment remains at 7.3 percent with about 11.3 million people unemployed. There are 6 million long term unemployed people who have been searching for work 27 weeks or longer.

In July, unemployment percentages by state: Texas 6.5 percent, California 8.7 percent, Nevada 9.5 percent, North Carolina 8.9 percent, South Carolina 8.1 percent, Rhode Island 8.9 percent, Tennessee 8.5 percent, Michigan 8.8 percent, Arizona 8.0 percent, and Arkansas 7.4 percent.

In August 2013, there were still 2 million fewer jobs than when the ``Great Recession'' began in 2007. There are still 3 unemployed people for every new job created by the private sector. 60 percent of the jobs lost were mid-wage occupations--people who did not need Federal or State food assistance or housing assistance programs.

Mid-wage good paying jobs make up only 22 percent of the new jobs created during the recovery. Low-wage jobs represented 21 percent of the jobs lost but now make up 58 percent of the new jobs.

The need for SNAP is greater because the recovery is not as strong as it should be nor reaching the people it should reach.

Over the last decade the number of households that were working or had no income while receiving SNAP more than tripled, from 2 million in 2000 to about 6.4 million in 2011.

This bill will hurt the most vulnerable

Having SNAP funds does not guarantee access to nutritious food. The Department of Agriculture says that food deserts make it difficult for urban, suburban and rural poor to find nutritious food.

A food desert according to the Department of Agriculture is a ``low- access community,'' where at least 500 people and/or at least 33 percent of the census tract's population live more than one mile from a supermarket or large grocery store.

The USDA defines a food desert for rural communities exists where the distance to a grocery store is more than 10 miles.

In Harris County, Texas, 149 out of 920 households or 20 percent of residents do not have automobiles and live more than one-half mile from a grocery store.

Hunger is silent--most victims of hunger are ashamed and will not ask for help, they work to hide their situation from everyone.

In 2009-2010 the Houston, Sugar Land and Baytown area had 27.6 percent of households with children experiencing food hardship.

In households without children food hardship was experienced by 16.5. Houston, Sugar Land and Baytown rank 22 among the areas surveyed.

The bill is too draconian and pointedly anti-Urban

The bill creates a nationwide ``pilot program'' that directs states could impose new work requirements on SNAP recipients, including on parents of young children. The bill authorizes states to conduct drug testing of SNAP applicants as a condition of receiving benefits.

The bill is blatantly anti-urban in calling for a pilot program to reduce retailer fraud be conducted in a large urban area that administers its own SNAP program.

The bill requires that SNAP recipients receive at least $20 or more in aid from the state through the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) before they could receive an increase in SNAP benefits.

The bill before prohibits states from telling someone about SNAP food programs. The bill defines this type of communication as recruiting SNAP participants by advertising the SNAP program.

The bill eliminates states' ability to waive work requirements. In addition the bill would impose new work requirements on parents of young children.

The bill would restrict ``categorical eligibility'' this would impact people who qualify for other low-income aid.

The bill requires that SNAP benefits be used by beneficiaries within 60 days of being posted to an account. If they have the benefits then the benefits should be there when the opportunity to go to a store is available to them--which may be more than a 2 to 4 week period.

People who are poor are not criminals and we should stop trying to treat them as if they

committed a crime. This bill is right out of the 47 percent playbook that was defeated last year during the Presidential Election and this bill needs to be defeated as well.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bill would reduce net SNAP spending by 39 billion over 10 years and that 2.8 million people on average would lose their benefits while 850,000 would see benefits cut.

SNAP benefits help the disabled, which include men and women who have served our nation during times of war. It is reported that nearly $53 million in food stamps had been cashed in by people eligible to shop in base commissaries, including disabled veterans. The use of food stamps in commissaries increased 9 percent from 2012 to 2013. Military commissaries sold about $31 million under the Women, Infants and Children program in 2012 and nearly $15 million by June of this year.

Food is not an option--it is a right that all people living in this Nation must have to exist and to prosper.

Next year if this bill become law the nearly $40 billion cuts in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programs also known as SNAP that is proposed by this bill 4 million Americans would fall though our Nation's food safety net.

In 2011, according to Feeding America: 46.2 million people were in poverty, 9.5 million families were in poverty, 26.5 million of people ages 18-64 were in poverty, 16.1 million children under the age of 18 were in poverty, 3.6 million (9.0 percent) seniors 65 and older were in poverty.

In the State of Texas: 34% of children live in poverty in Texas, 21% of adults (19-64) live in poverty in Texas, 17% of elderly live in poverty in Texas.

In my city of Houston, Texas the U.S. census reports that over the last 12 months 442,881 incomes were below the poverty level.

In 2011: 50.1 million Americans lived in food insecure households, 33.5 million adults and 16.7 million children. households with children reported food insecurity at a significantly higher rate than those without children, 20.6 percent compared to 12.2 percent.

More Facts on Child Hunger

According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 16.7 million children under 18 in the United States live in households where they are unable to consistently access enough nutritious food for a healthy life.

Food Insecurity

16.7 million children lived in food insecure households in 2011. 20% or more of the child population in 37 states and D.C. lived in food insecure households in 2011. In 2011, the top five states with the highest rate of food insecure children under 18 were New Mexico, the District of Columbia, Arizona, Oregon, and Georgia.

Emergency Food Assistance

Nearly 14 million children are estimated to be served by Feeding America, over 3 million of which are ages 5 and under. 54 percent of client households with children under the age of 3 participated in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).

Poverty

In 2011, 16.1 million or approximately 22 percent of children in the U.S. lived in poverty.

Participation in Federal Nutrition Programs

In fiscal year 2011, 47 percent of all SNAP households contained children. During the 2011 federal fiscal year, more than 31 million low-income children received free or reduced-price meals through the National School Lunch Program. Unfortunately, just 2.3 million children participated in the Summer Food Service Program that same year.

As elected representatives we should see our Nation's vital interest to be to feed hungry children and all hungry Americans.

At the core of our vital interest is a stable and thriving economy, a strong and healthy population that is able to contribute to the economic engine that fuels our economy.

I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and restore fully the food programs to the farm bill.

The previous question was ordered.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, if the House of Representatives fails to act, the government will shut down on October 1.

A government shutdown would result in the furlough of hundreds of thousands of government employees, stop the flow of Social Security checks, and hold up Medicare benefits for our seniors. In short, there are very real and very significant consequences to what we do here today.

Given the stakes, one could reasonably expect the majority to avoid extremism and partisanship and allow this Chamber to keep the government open. But this bill doesn't do that. Unfortunately, the opposite is happening here today.

Unable to pass 8 of 12 annual appropriations bill, the majority has been forced to resort to a continuing resolution--and this CR should have been clean, as the CR is in the Senate. But today's proposal includes a self-executing amendment to defund the Affordable Care Act and put medical decisions back into the hands of the insurance companies. And that will not go through the Senate. So we will, once again, go to the very brink of disaster, hoping that we can pull out of it while letting most Americans hang by their thumbs, wondering what we're going to do.

As the newspaper The Hill wrote this morning, today's proposal makes ``shutdowns more likely'' because the Affordable Care Act will never be repealed as long as President Obama is in office and the Democrats control the Senate.

The fact of the matter is the Affordable Care Act is already delivering on its promise of lower health care costs and more secure health care. States are just 11 days away from opening online health care exchanges, where individuals will be able to compare health plans and purchase an insurance plan that fits their needs. In many cases, these exchanges will allow individuals to purchase health insurance cheaper than ever before.

In my home State of New York, premiums for some insurance plans have already dropped by 50 percent. This week, Secretary Sebelius announced that many monthly premiums will be less than $100.

Perhaps most importantly--not something I'm sure everybody knows--the Affordable Care Act flips the script and takes the power out of insurance companies' hands. Instead of having lifetime and annual caps on what the insurance company will spend on your health care, the Affordable Care Act enforces limits on what you will have to pay out- of-pocket for your health care.

Does everybody know that? Because when your constituents find it out, they're going to be bummed out at you for trying to kill it.

For example, in 2015, those covered under a group health insurance plan will not have to pay more than $6,350 out of their pocket for medical procedures and medicine. That is such a gift. People will no longer have to go bankrupt to pay health bills. That is going to be covered from that point on. Once you've reached that limit, your insurer is going to pick the rest of it up. My constituents don't want to lose that. It's a landmark change and just one of many reasons why the majority's attempt at repeal will never become law.

Today's legislation falls short when it comes to ending the devastating cuts within what we call the sequester. The sequester has been one of the most devastating policies ever implemented in the history of the United States. Just today, the head of the FBI said that the idea of having to get rid of 300 employees and putting all of his employees on 10-day furlough makes it almost impossible for him to run the FBI.

Because of the sequester, tens of thousands of cancer screenings have been canceled at public health clinics right now, more than $1.6 billion has been cut from the National Institutes of Health, and more than 70,000 children have been kicked out of Head Start. And over the next 12 months the CBO estimates that 1.6 million jobs will be lost because of the economic drag caused by the sequester.

Last night, the Budget Committee ranking member, Chris Van Hollen, came to the Rules Committee and requested to have a vote on the House floor in order to end the sequester. That was the eighth time that his request has been denied by the Rules Committee. Given the chance for bipartisan cooperation and to rid ourselves of this plague that is so worrying and causing such devastation, the majority simply walked away.

Finally, today's legislation also includes a proposal to protect some bondholders, including China, from any economic fallout that would occur if the majority refuses to lift the Nation's debt. This legislation has no place in a continuing resolution. Furthermore, it should never have been considered, for the faith and credit of the United States should never be in doubt.

Mr. Speaker, every Member of this House is sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States and to ``promote the general welfare.'' And that's a far cry from what we're doing here today, not only in this bill but in the one that preceded this, where we're cutting $40 billion out of food that will affect, as you heard before, veterans, the elderly, Meals on Wheels, and school nutrition. It's not what we are and not what we do.

Everybody knows, though, that what is happening here today is what every mother knows. When a child has a tantrum--and a tantrum is being had here over health care--you slap a pacifier in the mouth. That's exactly what trying to redo the health care bill is--it's a temporary tantrum retarder so that we can get by today. There is no real plan. It's just how will we get by today.

After the majority passes this bill, the Senate will take the legislation. With a pure majority, they can remove the partisan attacks within it and they will send us back a clean CR if they can get 60 votes, which we will have to pass or chaos will ensue. By the time we get around to all this--which we could be doing today--we're on the edge of a cliff.

In the meantime, the majority's refusal to work on a balanced plan to create jobs, grow the economy, and to invest in our future, which is such an important thing that's been neglected, and stop the brain drain being caused by the sequester is hurting our economy and threatens a government shutdown.

With time running out, the decision to play politics has dire consequences. Think about it for just a moment. We've gotten reports about substandard bridges and roads and the neglect of the railway. We could put all those people to work that would be needed just to rebuild those, and spend some money on ourselves, instead of $2 billion a week on the wars, as we did in Iraq for 10 years.

So I urge my colleagues to vote against today's rule and the underlying legislation so we can consider bipartisan solutions instead of games. I can promise you that our side stands ready and willing. We have nothing to do with any of this today. No Democrats were involved. We want to be a part of it as well.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor-HHS.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to say that, while I did not make a Federal case out of it here, I deeply regret that my colleague has disparaged the President of the United States.

I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer)--I wish I could give him an hour and 40 minutes to counter what we have heard, but unfortunately I can only give him 3--the Democratic whip.

I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Rob Andrews.

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

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to finally let the House vote on Mr. Van Hollen's proposal to replace the sequester with a sort of balanced deficit reduction plan that bipartisan panels of experts have all recommended.

To discuss this bill, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the ranking member of the House Committee on the Budget.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire if my colleague has more speakers. If not, I am ready to close.

Thank you, Mr. Cole.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, as my Democrat colleagues and I have stated, instead of proposing a clean and noncontroversial continuing resolution, today the majority wishes to bring a proposal to the floor that would defund ObamaCare--their favorite--and prioritize bond payments to China in the event of financial default.

This type of legislative maneuver unnecessarily injects partisanship and politics where it does not belong. With time running out on the fiscal year, we have to put politics aside and come together to keep the government open and serving the American people.

To that end, I want to state to all of my colleagues in their offices--or wherever they may be--who are preparing to come over and vote: this vote on this previous question may be one of the most important votes that you have ever taken.

All of us, while we were at home during our district work period, heard over and over and over again from businesspeople, from hospitals, from schools--from everybody--that the sequester was ruining them. We have visited this plague upon them, and we can take it away. We can do it now.

I will remind you that this CR continues the sequester. Let's take this opportunity we have now with this previous question, and everybody vote ``no'' on it on both sides, please. The simple thing that will happen here is we can vote on Mr. Van Hollen's proposal, which he just explained. It not only replaces the money that the sequester would cut, but we get more deficit reduction from Mr. Van Hollen's proposal than we get from the sequester.

Every one of us who fails to vote ``no'' so that we can do that, which is the least of our responsibilities here, ought to have to explain it every single day to our constituents as to why we did not want to remove that awful burden which we inflicted. I am sure that every one of us--I'm certainly guilty of it myself--told our constituents back home that the House would never do that, that it was too dumb to be believed. But no. Now that we've done it, we like it-- but you don't see the consequences.

Dr. Francis Collins, who is the head of the NIH, says that we are losing our scientists and that we are losing our research edge as we know we are falling further and further behind in education, in jobs, in the future of this country. We've failed to invest anything in our future. We are living with crumbling roads, crumbling infrastructure-- everything around us--but the uncertainty overrides it all: What next? What does this mean for me? Will I get to keep my job? Am I going to have to lay off all of those employees? How can I run the FBI when people are out on furlough?

Why in the world would we put our people through this disgraceful charade here simply because we made a mistake?

We have an opportunity now by voting ``no'' on the previous question, which would simply allow Mr. Van Hollen to get a vote on his measure. For heaven's sakes, please do that.

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, with all of my heart, I urge everybody to vote ``no.''

I want you to vote ``no,'' too, Mr. Speaker.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule. The underlying bill is not as important to me as getting this sequester out of the way. Vote ``no'' on this at least, whatever you do.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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