Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J.Res. 59) making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2014, and for other purposes, and providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules.

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.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 59, which makes continuing appropriations for Fiscal Year 2014, because it continues the devastating cuts to education set in motion by the sequester and permanently defunds the Affordable Care Act (ACA), legislation that will help save the lives of millions of Americans.

H.J. Res. 59 locks in the damaging sequester cuts through December 15 and even sets funding slightly below the current, post- sequestration level.

It is long past time for Congress to reverse course from the austerity approach that included slashing education across-the-board by 5 percent this year--the equivalent of cutting nearly all education programs and Head Start by roughly $3 billion.

We need to end the sequester now by passing H.R. 900, the ``End Sequestration Now Act,'' of which I am an original co-sponsor.

Madam Speaker, the level of cuts imposed by sequestration have already taken federal funding back to pre-2004 levels while our nation's schools are serving nearly 6 million more students since that time.

Madam Speaker, to ensure equity for all students, Congress must reverse this course.

To date, a disproportionate share of sequester cuts have impacted higher-poverty communities and therefore, students most in need--57,00 children have already lost critical seats in Head Start classes, schools served by Impact Aid have already seen drastic reductions in funding, and additional harmful impacts are beginning to be felt in classrooms as the school year begins.

Many of these school districts and their students rely heavily on federal resources for education funding; some even up to 5 percent of their total revenue.

Madam Speaker, Americans have suffered long enough from the adverse impact of sequestration that House Republicans seek to continue with resolution. The damage has been great and continues to get worse with each passing day the Republicans refuse to work across the aisle to reach agreement on a budget plan that is balanced and sensible.

Consider the damage inflicted or to be inflicted on the American people by sequestration:

Education

Teachers and staff for the 23 million students in high-poverty schools would be reduced by up to 47,000.

Education services for 6 million students with disabilities would be curtailed.

National and Local Security

Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program would be eliminated, resulting in 1,400 fewer police officers on the street.

Our national security is being weakened as Army training rotations are being canceled; earlier this year nearly one-third of Air Force squadrons were grounded; and maintenance on equipment and facilities is being deferred.

More than 600,000 civilian Defense employees (85 percent) were furloughed this summer for more than one week, meaning a pay cut of more than $1 billion.

$37 billion in cuts to defense this fiscal year is harming economic growth and our military readiness.

Health

Cutting $1.5 billion from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) means less research into preventing, treating, and curing diseases that affect millions of Americans, like cancer, diabetes, and heart disease.

A $285 million cut for the Centers for Disease Control is limiting their ability to detect and combat disease outbreaks like pandemic influenza; plan for public health emergencies; and facilitate immunizations that keep you and your family healthy.

Cutting NIH by $6.7 billion will hold back life-saving research.

Seniors

More than 5 million fewer meals are available for low-income seniors through Meals on Wheels and related programs.

Infrastructure and Job-Creating Investments

Community Development Block Grants to ensure decent affordable housing, provide services to the most vulnerable, and create jobs by expanding and retaining businesses cut to lowest level in its history.

Clean energy and efficiency research are cut by nearly one-half and breakthrough cutting edge advanced energy research cut 81 percent from 2013 enacted level.

Major job-creating investments in highways, transit, railways, bridges and ports through the TIGER program would be eliminated, while putting modernization of the air traffic control system at risk.

EPA cut by more than \1/3\ and grants to local communities for clean water and drinking water slashed.

It is time for Congress to reject a continuation of these draconian cuts and replace the sequester with a balanced package that demands additional revenue, including closing corporate tax loopholes.

Instead of continuing sequestration levels of funding, and trying for the 42nd time to defund, delay, or impede the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, we need to work together to develop a balanced and responsible plan that makes the necessary investments that will generate economic growth and create jobs that will enable Americans to live a middle class life.

We should reject this resolution and adopt the substitute resolution offered by my colleague, Congressman Van Hollen, the Ranking Member of the Budget Committee.

The Van Hollen alternative is vastly superior to the resolution before us because it eliminates the sequester's immediate, excessive, and irresponsible cuts to vital investments and replaces these with a roughly 50/50 combination of targeted spending cuts and limits on tax breaks to reduce the deficit in a balanced way.

Moreover, the proposal achieves over $75 billion more in deficit reduction than the sequester would have achieved by doing the following:

Targeted spending cuts--refocuses farm subsidies and makes targeted reductions to out-year defense spending consistent with both the President's budget request and the House Democratic budget.

Additional deficit reduction--reduces deficits by over $75 billion more than the sequester amount.

I urge all members of the House to join me in voting to reject this irresponsible resolution that will not create jobs, places our economic recovery at risk, threatens the health security of millions of Americans, and jeopardizes the creditworthiness of our nation.

[From the Houston Chronicle, Feb. 25, 2013]

Sequestration Budget Cuts Would Be Across-the-Board in Houston, County

(By Mike Tolson)

Like a hurricane churning across the Gulf of Mexico, the

looming federal sequestration threatens everything in its

path. If the deep and automatic federal budget cuts actually

take place starting Friday, there will be damage somewhere,

perhaps a lot of somewheres.

In Houston and elsewhere, airport lines could grow and

flights canceled. Passport lines may stretch even longer out

the door. Criminal investigations could move at a slower

pace. And federal housing vouchers might not be issued,

leaving low-income residents and their landlords in a

frightening limbo.

The broad cuts designed under the umbrella of sequestration

were intended by Congress and President Barack Obama to

create such a severe alternative to bipartisan compromise

that it would force lawmakers to come up with a better budget

solution. So far, no such luck.

``We all agree that we need to cut unnecessary waste in the

federal budget and streamline operations, but sequestration

isn't the way to manage government spending,'' said Houston

Congressman Gene Green, a Democrat. ``It's like taking a

hatchet to surgery instead of a scalpel. I'm hoping

leadership resolves their differences before the eleventh

hour.''

Ted Cruz, the freshman GOP senator from Texas, said in

Houston last week that he saw little hope that a deal would

be reached.

``There is a very substantial likelihood that the sequester

will go into effect,'' said Cruz, who blamed Obama's

unwillingness to embrace other cuts. ``I am hopeful that if

it does . . . it will result in some compromises.''

A statement from the White House Sunday said: ``The

President is willing to compromise, but on behalf of the

middle class he cannot accept a deal that undercuts their

economic security.''

Obama has a plan to reduce the deficit by more than $4

trillion.

Because the cuts are across-the-board, there is little

order or sense to what will be affected. Most agencies and

programs would see cuts in the range of 8 to 10 percent,

though some things are exempted, such as food stamps, college

loan grants and the school lunch program.

`Devastating blow'

Experts say the effect will be gradual in many cases. A

quick political resolution would see minimal disruption.

Should the impasse continue, the cuts will be seen and felt

in scores of different places, from neighborhood Head Start

programs to the world-renowned Texas Medical Center, where

$652 million of federal National Institutes of Health grant

money comes in every year for medical research.

``We don't know how it's going to play out, but it could be

a devastating blow,'' said Dr. Robert Robbins, president and

CEO of the Texas Medical Center Corporation. ``We are talking

hundreds of grants a year. We are very concerned about this,

needless to say.''

Johnson Space Center already has suffered cutbacks from the

end of the space shuttle program and a hiatus in human

spaceflight. Now it could see an estimated 5,600 jobs

affected, with other space centers across the nation facing a

similar scenario.

``These damaging cuts would slash roughly 5 percent from

the agency's current annual budget during the remaining seven

months of the 2013 fiscal year, a loss of about $726 million

from the president's budget request,'' NASA said in a

statement.

In some instances, the effect of sequestration cuts could

be noticed right away. U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray

LaHood warned that air travelers will encounter longer lines,

canceled flights and shuttered airports in some cases, if

Congress fails to act before the deadline. In preparing to

reduce its expenditures by $600 million, LaHood said he will

begin to furlough 47,000 employees for approximately one day

per pay period through September.

A report prepared by the Texas House in January found:

--Texas would be one of the most severely affected by job

losses, standing to lose almost 99,000 defense jobs and

60,500 non-defense jobs, putting the state third behind

California and Virginia with the top job losses per state.

--The Texas Education Agency's estimated reduction of

$517.6 million is the most significant agency cut. The

Houston Independent School District has estimated a possible

loss of $12 million, much of it aimed at low-income students.

--The University of Texas system predicts that cuts to

research could total from $114 million to $123 million

annually across all institutions.

--Texas Department of Transportation stands to lose up to

$50 million of the $3 billion it normally receives, based on

estimates. Road building and transit projects eventually will

face money woes, but sequestration's effects won't be

immediate, and the agency is awaiting clarity from federal

officials before making any changes to upcoming projects.

Major transit projects, meanwhile, are unlikely to suffer at

all.

Defense cuts were ``especially concerning'' to the House

committee that looked at the impact. Texas is home to 15

active-duty military installations. Sequestration cuts would

affect not just active duty military but also civilian

employees and thousands of contractors and suppliers in the

state as well as the Texas National Guard.

Eviction threat

Texas cities, likewise, face daunting cutbacks in numerous

areas. More than 900 families in the Houston Housing

Authority's rental voucher program, for example, could be at

risk of eviction if the cuts come down, said CEO Tory

Gunsolley, who noted that the city covers 70 percent or more

of their rent. Also slashed would be funding for homeless

families, emergency shelters and housing for those with AIDS.

``At this point you're cutting into bone,'' Gunsolley said.

Counties, too, will face tough decisions. Nonprofit and

community groups rely on Harris County's Community Services

Department for program funding, which is awarded in October.

Each funding letter reminds the recipient that if HUD funding

is cut, their funding will drop, too, said director David

Turkel.

Some possible cuts in Texas

According to White House estimates released Sunday, the

sequestration could include these cuts this year in Texas:

$274.8 million: in military pay to 52,000 civilian

Department of Defense employees who would be furloughed

$51 million: for about 620 teachers, aides and staff who

help children with disabilities

$8.5 million: for clean water and air quality efforts, as

well as pollution prevention from pesticides and hazardous

waste

$6.8 million: to help prevent and treat substance abuse,

resulting in around 2,800 fewer admissions to substance abuse

programs

$3.6 million: for meals for senior citizens

$2.3 million: for job search assistance, referral and

placement for 83,750 unemployed residents

$2.2 million: in grants for fish and wildlife protection

$1.1 million: in grants that support law enforcement,

prosecution and courts, crime prevention, corrections, drug

treatment and enforcement, and crime victim and witness

initiatives

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.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 352, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 59) making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2014, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the consideration of H.J. Res. 59, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Madam Speaker, the continuing resolution that we bring up today will keep the government operating into the next fiscal year. The base CR is straightforward, it's clean, it's short-term, it continues reductions in Federal discretionary spending. But most importantly, Madam Speaker, it will prevent a government shutdown.

The legislation also includes an amendment to the base bill, which adds the text of H.R. 2682, the Defund ObamaCare Act of 2013, and the text of H.R. 807, the Full Faith and Credit Act.

H.J. Res. 59 will fund the government for the first 76 days of fiscal year 2014, until December 15, 2013. It provides $986.3 billion in funding, approximately the same rate as the current post-sequestration level, with some minor adjustments.

The base bill is extremely clean. Additional provisions were only added in a very limited number of cases where adjustments were needed to prevent catastrophic shortfalls or unintended disruptions to critical programs or services. It simply keeps the lights on in our government to provide for the safety, security, and well-being of all Americans.

I'd like to remind my colleagues, Madam Speaker, both in the House and the other body, that a government shutdown is a political game in which everyone loses. It shirks one of our most basic duties as Members of Congress, and it puts our national security at stake.

To be clear, if this legislation is not enacted and we embark on a government shutdown, the consequences are severe. Our brave men and women in uniform don't get paid; our recovering economy will take a huge hit; and our most vulnerable citizens, including the elderly and the veterans who rely on critical government programs and services, could be left high and dry.

A government shutdown, even the illusion of the threat of a shutdown, says to the American people that this Congress does not have their best interests at heart.

This continuing resolution keeps this Congress moving in the right direction. It gives us time to solve the urgent fiscal issues facing our Nation, finding a balanced and attainable plan that eliminates sequestration, implements careful reforms for both discretionary and mandatory spending, and keeps our economy growing.

It is my hope that the House will pass this bill today, and that the Senate will act in short order so that this matter will be wrapped up well before the deadline on the 30th.

So I urge my colleagues to do their jobs as Members of the House, and to do what's best for this country, and vote ``yes'' on this bill today.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), the chairman of the Energy and Water Subcommittee on Appropriations.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter), chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Appropriations.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson), chairman of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Appropriations.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), chairman of the Financial Services Appropriations Subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson), the chairman of the Interior Subcommittee on Appropriations.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Granger), the chairman of the State, Foreign Ops Subcommittee on Appropriations.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the chairman of the Commerce, Justice, Science Subcommittee on Appropriations.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt), the chairman of the Agriculture Subcommittee on Appropriations.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Gardner).

Will the gentleman yield?

First, I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado for all of his efforts to help Colorado through all of this turmoil, a terrible disaster, and to recover from the flooding, especially.

I am aware of the dire need to help Colorado and provide access to emergency resources, including access to emergency transportation dollars. I look forward to working with the gentleman to address this important funding matter as quickly and expeditiously as possible.

I know I speak for all of the House when we say to the people of Colorado that our hearts are with you and our prayers are with you, and thank you for your great service.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader of the House, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Nunnelee), a hardworking member of our Appropriations Committee.

Madam Speaker, might I inquire as to the time remaining?

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

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

We are doing a CR, even though the Appropriations Committee on the House side passed 11 of the 12 bills through the committee, four of them across the floor of the House and the remaining ones waiting for floor time as we've run out of time. Consequently, this continuing resolution will continue the government past the September 30 end of the fiscal year.

We were unable to pass the appropriations bill singly on the floor because of lack of floor time, but also because the House and Senate never agreed to an overall number to which we could mark. Consequently, we were not able to bring those bills out because of that limitation.

With this CR until December 15, if we are given a number common with the Senate to which we need to mark the individual 12 bills, we will do so. This is a hardworking committee. We are pragmatists. We know that we have to pass bills to fund the government, thus this bill.

If we were intending to close down the government and shut it down, we wouldn't be here with this bill. We would just sit there. But this is an effort by the majority party in the House to continue the government and avoid a shutdown while we work out the differences on these funding bills for fiscal year 2014.

Madam Speaker, this continuing resolution is straightforward, it's clean, it's short term, it continues reductions in Federal discretionary spending. I would point out we've actually cut discretionary spending the last 2 years by $120 billion, the first time that's occurred since World War II. We're trying to be responsible. This bill is responsible, and I urge a ``yes'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve a point of order.

Madam Speaker, I withdraw my reservation on the point of order, and I rise in opposition to the motion.

This continuing resolution we spent the last hour debating is absolutely necessary to keep the lights on in our government. A shutdown is not what our businesses need, not what our troops need, not what our people need, and not what our country needs.

The CR is straightforward. It's short term. It gives us the time we need to sort out our fiscal differences with the other body. By funding the government until December 15, Congress and the President will have time to construct a budgetary path forward that deals with the most pressing fiscal issues we face, raising the debt ceiling and constructing one common discretionary number while we find true savings, especially through entitlement reform.

Now this motion to recommit picks out a few programs and would fund them for the entire next year, not the next 90 days, not until December 15. This motion would pick out a few programs to continue funding for the rest of the year. Well, that's not the issue. It misses the point. The issue is whether we can get agreement on an overall discretionary number and replace sequester for all programs, not just a few. To get the additional time to negotiate, we've got to pass this CR now.

The motion also addresses the importance of Social Security and Medicare. There's nothing in this CR that does anything but preserve these programs and protect the benefit payments for each and every recipient.

For better or worse, Madam Speaker, we have spending levels in place that are enforced by sequestration. Should my Democrat colleagues wish to do away with those limits, I would respectfully invite them to vote against this motion to recommit so we can keep the government open and negotiate a full debt package between the House, the Senate, and the President.

This bill is about keeping the government open, preventing a shutdown, and providing the important services that only the Federal Government can deliver for our people. The gentleman's motion is tantamount to shutting down the government because it will never allow for passage of the one thing critical to the functioning of government, which is the continuing resolution before us. So I urge my colleagues to vote against the motion and for final passage of the CR.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, of course we are here today to discuss the rule that will allow the continuing resolution to come to the floor; and coupled with the continuing resolution is language that will forever affect the funding for what is known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Let us pause for a moment to remember how the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was visited upon the United States of America.

This was not something that was a product of any House hearing. This was not something that was a product of the House in any way. This was a product of the Senate Finance Committee; developed between Thanksgiving and Christmas in 2009; put on the floor of the Senate on what I like to describe as the ``darkest evening of the year'' in a

cloture vote, December 21, 2009; followed by a vote by the Senate on Christmas Eve.

Many of you will remember that day. There was a snowstorm descending upon Washington, D.C. The Senators wanted to get home, they wanted to get out of town, so they simply voted one after the other until they got the 60 votes for the Affordable Care Act and then left town under the cover of darkness. They never thought that what they were voting on on Christmas Eve 2009 would ever become law.

But a funny thing happened. A dog ate my homework, and I turned in the rough draft and it accidentally got signed by the President 3 months later. That's where we are today. That's why this law has been so difficult to implement. That's why the American people have never embraced this. And now more recent polling in the past several days shows that the American people actually reject what is being visited upon them.

A headline in The Wall Street Journal yesterday, Walgreens has told their employees, well, guess what, we're not going to pay for coverage any longer; we will give you money. Good luck in the exchanges, and we'll see you on the other side. UPS dropping family coverage. The unions wrote the minority leader in the House of Representatives and the majority leader in the Senate and said: please help us. Please help us. We've helped you. We've manned your phone banks; we walked neighborhoods for you; we got you elected. The administration is not listening to us. You have broken the contract with the middle class by voiding the 40-hour work week. By redefining full-time employment as 30 hours, you have essentially broken the back of the middle class.

The American people, regardless of political persuasion, are crying out for our help. Fortunately, today and tomorrow, we are going to be able to provide them that help.

We are frequently hearing about 40 or 41 votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act. I'll tell you what, as many as it takes. But seven of those efforts to restrict and repeal portions of the Affordable Care Act, seven of those have been passed by the Senate and signed by the President. So it's not entirely a fruitless effort.

But probably more telling is the President himself, who has, whenever it suited him, simply jettisoned a portion of the law--a law that he signed in March of 2010 that we all remember. Those of us who were in the House at that time, those of us who watched news shows during the summer of 2009 and on into 2010, the cry that went up: we've got to do something about people with preexisting conditions. There are just far too many people in the country who are frozen out of the insurance market because of an unfortunate medical diagnosis.

But the reality is the large group plans in this country have open enrollment periods. So the preexisting condition conundrum generally is a problem for people in the individual and small group market. How do I know this? How do I know that this number is much more manageable than the 8 to 12 million people that then-Speaker Pelosi and the President of the United States talked about? Because on the eve of the Supreme Court's ruling on the Affordable Care Act, when I thought it was going to be important for this House to respond to those people who had the Federal preexisting program taken away from them by a Supreme Court action, I did an investigation: how many people had been signed up in the so-called ``Federal PCIP program.'' The number at that time was 65,000; by the end of the year, it was nearly 100,000.

Then, Mr. Speaker, something really strange happened. On February 1 of this year, less than 2 years after the Affordable Care Act was signed into law, people showing up at the teller's window over at the Department of Health and Human Services saying I would like to buy my insurance in the Federal preexisting pool were told, sorry, that window is closed. We will only take care of the people who are already enrolled. If you're coming in today wanting that kind of help, so sorry, program terminated. There were no headlines in that regard. There were no cries of anguish that the President had stopped providing coverage for people with preexisting conditions. You had people who were waiting the 6-month waiting period--they were required by law to wait and not have insurance--show up for this Federal preexisting pool. But what did they hear when they got to the window? Sorry, sister, window is closed. Go somewhere else. Eleven months from now you will have the full Elysian Fields of ObamaCare. And maybe if you can make it until then, you'll be fine.

Well, what else went by the wayside? Remember the discussion about: we're going to put a cap on out-of-pocket expenses so no longer will people have to pay excessive copays and deductibles. Oh, by the way, they postponed that for a year. That was supposed to start January 1, 2014. Now it's been put off until January 1, 2015.

The Small Business Health Exchange, supposed to open--we are going to get the power of competition in the small group market--was supposed to open January 1, 2014; delayed for a year, January 1, 2015.

Who can forget the Tuesday evening before the 4th of July holiday this year when on a blog post Valerie Jarrett put out that the employer mandate was in fact suspended for a year. Three days later they had to say that, oh, yeah, by the way, all of those reporting requirements that we were requiring under the employer mandate, well, we're not going to require those either. We're just going to trust people to tell us the truth when they come in to sign up for benefits, not that any Federal program administered by the Department of Health and Human Services has ever had a problem with fraud or misrepresentation.

Probably one of the most telling things is the lack of anyone within the agency to be able to answer a simple yes or no question about: Will the exchanges be open for enrollment on October 1? The head of the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight was in our Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations just this morning. I asked that question; a simple yes or no, sir, is all that I require. I got a long answer that, yes, there will be Web sites; yes, you will be able to access Web sites. Yes or no, will people be able to go to register for insurance on October 1? They could not give me a yes or no answer.

Second question: What about will people be able to sign up for the insurance on January 1 as advertised, yes or no? Again, unable to give a yes or no answer to that question.

Will people be able to buy insurance cheaper as the President suggested when he was running for office? Unable to answer with a yes or no.

These are the problems we have, Mr. Speaker. We cannot get people from the agencies to come and give us a simple answer, a simple direct answer to a simple direct question. No wonder the American people are full of questions about this. No wonder they are full of fear about what is just around the corner.

This rule vote will allow the House to vote on a bill that keeps the government funded and open until December 15 of this year. But that vote, very importantly, allows people's voices to be heard that they do not trust what has been quoted in the Affordable Care Act. They feel that the investment has been a bad investment so far, and they are telling us: don't sink one more dime into this.