Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules, and relating to consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 2642) to provide for the reform and continuation of agricultural and other programs of the Department of Agriculture through fiscal year 2018, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman, my friend from Texas, the chairman of the Rules Committee, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. And I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this is a martial law rule that will allow for consideration of a yet-to-be-seen continuing resolution and a yet-to- be-seen debt ceiling bill. This martial law rule also adds to the farm bill the dreadful and hurtful cuts to food stamps that the Republicans approved last week, a cut that will throw 3.8 million people off the program, including 170,000 unemployed veterans.

This was a truly awful piece of legislation; and the way the Republicans continue to diminish the plight of poor people, the way they continue to beat up on programs that benefit them stuns me. It takes my breath away.

Mr. Speaker, once again, the Republican majority is back on the House floor, trampling upon regular order and eliminating any possibility of a fair and transparent legislative process.

When the majority assumed control of this Chamber in 2011, they promised to adhere to regular order. On March 10, 2010, National Journal reporter Major Garrett asked Speaker John Boehner:

If you are Speaker, will you ever bring a bill to the floor

that hasn't been true to the 3-day rule?

Speaker Boehner replied with one word, ``No.''

In the same interview, Congressman Boehner said:

We need to stop writing bills in the Speaker's Office and

let Members of Congress be legislators again. We have nothing

to fear from the battle of ideas.

Those promises seem a million miles away today.

Sadly, since that time, the Republican majority has repeatedly violated their own promises of openness and transparency; 33 times, the majority has violated its own 3-day promise and rushed legislation to the House floor. They have avoided the committee process and brought legislation straight to the House floor 48 times. And despite promising to let the House ``work its will,'' the majority has approved 157 closed or structured rules and just 31 open or modified rules. In short, the majority has shut out the Democrats and shut out many Republicans and shut down the democratic process.

Why have they done this? Not because they are letting the House work its will. They have abandoned regular order because an extreme faction of the Republican Party is so uncompromising that they are willing to shut down our government or implode our economy unless they get their way.

As a potential government shutdown looms just a couple of days from now, we still do not know what the Republican majority is planning to do. What we do know is that whatever they propose will have been written behind closed doors in an attempt to appease the most extreme elements of the Republican Conference.

Mr. Speaker, time is running out. Now more than ever, the American people deserve a fair and transparent legislative process so that we can keep our government open and our economy on track. Implementing martial law, as this rule would do, would be a step in the wrong direction. And I urge my colleagues to reject today's rule and protect our democratic process.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would strongly urge my Republican friends not to shut this government down. Now, we've heard rumors that behind closed doors, Republicans are gathering and are trying to figure out what to do. And I know that you have to check with Ted Cruz before you bring anything to the House floor. But the rumors that we are hearing is that what you are proposing is even more right-wing than what the Senate has already rejected, in other words, a nonstarter.

I would urge my friends, do not put the American people through yet another manufactured crisis that will do great damage to our economy. Stop the drama. This has become theater of the absurd.

I am praying that there are some grownups in the Republican Conference who will take charge and avoid an unnecessary shutdown by passing a clean CR and also by passing a clean debt ceiling bill that isn't porked up with Tea Party sweeteners. Time is running out. The American people are frustrated. It's time to get real. This isn't a game. People will be hurt by your intransigence. Do the right thing. Do your job.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record an article entitled, ``Why a Government Shutdown Could Be a Pricey Proposition,'' talking about the cost to the taxpayers if the Republicans move ahead with the shutdown.

Why a Government Shutdown Could be Pricey Proposition

(By Carrie Dann)

[From NBC News, Sep 28, 2013]

If past is prologue, a looming government shutdown could

actually cost U.S. taxpayers money. A lot of money.

According to the Office of Management and Budget, the two

shutdowns in 1995 and 1996 cost taxpayers $1.4 billion

combined. Adjust for inflation and you've got $2 billion in

today's dollars.

Those two shutdowns lasted a total of 27 days, but there's

no telling how long the government could be shuttered this

time around if Congress fails to act by Monday at midnight.

Even shorter shutdowns have proven successful at draining

government funds.

In the immediate aftermath of the first government shutdown

in 1981, the most conservative estimate--conducted by the

General Accounting Office (now called the Government

Accountability Office)--put the cost of shutting the

government down for a single day at $8.2 million, or almost

$21 million in today's dollars. A House panel later concluded

that the day-long furlough cost taxpayers 10 times more than

that.

``Past shutdowns have disrupted the economy, and this

shutdown would as well,'' President Barack Obama said at an

address at the White House on Friday. ``It would throw a

wrench into the gears of our economy at a time when those

gears have gained some traction.''

It may seem counter-intuitive that pressing the pause

button on the federal government's operations could come with

such a hefty price tag . . . so why does it take so much cash

to keep the government's lights off? And why do estimates

vary so widely?

First, there's the actual mechanics of preparing for a

shutdown, like alerting staff of procedures and preparing to

secure files and facilities. For example, during the first

five day shutdown in 1995, the Labor Department alone spent

almost $12,000 on postage, printing and paper for furlough

notices. The Treasury Department calculated the cost of

developing contingency shutdown plans at just over $400,000.

That process--and some of the costs associated with it--is

already underway days or even weeks before a shutdown

deadline, whether the crisis is averted or not.

``Those costs begin to be incurred now, when the debate is

still going on,'' said Bruce Yandle, a professor of economics

at Clemson University who served as the executive director of

the Federal Trade Commission during the Reagan

Administration. ``It's what employees are already discussing

around the water cooler. It's already affecting decisions

being made by management.''

The impact of a brief shutdown--or even just the threat of

one--for government contractors can also mean higher costs

for federal agencies in the future, although it's almost

impossible to assign a dollar amount, says Roy Meyers, a

political science professor at the University of Maryland

Baltimore County and a former CBO analyst.

``It can reduce the profits of the contractors,'' says

Meyers. ``And the next time they consider working with the

federal government, they count that as a risk, and they

charge more.''

That impact could be felt acutely in the Washington, D.C.,

area, where many contractors are based. And that could be

compounded by the impact on tourism in the District as

federally-funded museums and monuments are shuttered. The

shutdowns of the 1990s cost the District of Columbia an

estimated $50 million in lost business and cancellations,

officials said at the time.

There's also the issue of back-pay for furloughed workers.

While only those workers deemed ``non-essential'' would stay

home during a shutdown--about 40 percent of the federal

workforce during the mid-1990s--there's a precedent for

lawmakers granting those individuals their pay once the

government is back up and running, even though they weren't

producing any work.

Cost estimates must also factor in delays in the collection

of fines and fees typically gathered by federal agencies.

OMB said after the twin shutdowns in 1995 and 1996 that

$2.2 billion worth of licenses for U.S. exports were delayed

and that some $60 million in environmental fines and

settlements were not collected or negotiated.

Most of those fees eventually get collected, says Yandle,

but the delays and the inconvenience to businesses and

consumers can end up having resonance that won't show up in

cost estimates at all.

``Those costs that cannot be estimated are often much more

important than those that can,'' he said.

Meyers argues that a shutdown's cost to the budget or the

effects on the overall economy estimates--flawed as they may

be--pale in comparison the societal cost of a government that

seems bent on playing political chicken rather than focusing

on solving problems.

``The real costs are really not in terms of consumer

confidence or any of the standard measures in macroeconomics

or even the federal budget,'' he said. ``The real costs are

in trust in government and belief that government officials

are paying attention to the real issues of the country.''

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

Let me just say, before I yield to the gentlelady from New York, the Republican talking points we just heard are absolutely wrong, absolutely wrong.

To suggest that somehow senior citizens will get less care is just false. The fact of the matter is we see expanding care for senior citizens. We see preventative care being covered without copays. We see the doughnut hole in the Medicare prescription drug bill that the Republicans passed, where seniors are asked to pay huge out-of-pocket expenses, closing down.

We are seeing young people being able to stay on their parents' insurance until they are 26. It is no longer considered to be a preexisting condition if you are a woman in this country because of the Affordable Care Act. And I could go down the list of all the things that have been accomplished.

Now, let me just say to my Republican friends, you lost the last election. You lost big. President Obama won reelection. Your whole election was about the Affordable Care Act. He won reelection by 5 million votes. Democrats picked up seats in the Senate. We even picked up seats in the House. And by the way, in terms of the congressional races, Democrats received 1 million more votes than Republicans did. You lost the last election.

Now, if you don't like the Affordable Care Act, there's a way you can deal with it: you can go out and try to win some more seats. And then you can come to the floor, introduce bills, bring them through committee, you know, have the Senate do the same thing, conference them, and then send them to the President's desk. And by the way, you can try to win the Presidency. That's the normal way to do legislative business.

What you are doing here is you have distorted the legislative process. This is making a mockery of the legislative process. You have turned this House of Representatives into a laughingstock. And the bottom line is, what the American people want us to do right now is to keep the government moving ahead, keep it running--not shut it down-- deal with the debt ceiling without holding that hostage to all the Tea Party sweeteners, and do our job.

Democrats are willing to work with Republicans to get things done. But instead, you are all huddled in this secret meeting somewhere in the Capitol, where there's no transparency, where we have absolutely no say, where we're going to be told, Here it is; take it or leave it. That's not the way this process should work. This process has become a disgrace.

So I say to my colleagues that the notion that somehow your health care

benefits have been decreased because of the Affordable Care Act is just so far from the truth, it's comical.

At this point, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee.

I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlelady.

Mr. Speaker, oh, my goodness.

First of all, I would say to the gentleman from Texas who just went on this kind of diatribe trashing the President of the United States and the Affordable Care Act, rather than doing that, maybe he can enlighten us about what's going on in that secret meeting downstairs? What has the right wing decided to do in terms of bringing a CR to the floor or debt ceiling? I'd be happy to yield 10 seconds to him to tell us what's coming to the floor.

I was referring to the other gentleman from Texas, but if this gentleman from Texas can inform us what, in fact, is coming.

I yield the gentleman 10 seconds.

That's not particularly enlightening; but, let me ask the gentleman: Are we going to have any hearings on what is being decided in the back room somewhere in the Capitol here? Will Members be able to offer amendments? Or are we just going to be given something and told to take it or leave it?

I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, in other words, none of the committees of jurisdiction that oversee a lot of the issues in the CR will be having any hearings or there will be any markups on that.

I would also say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) who kind of went on about no hearings, there were lots of hearings on the Affordable Care Act. Maybe he didn't go to them, but there were lots of them, number one.

I would like to ask him: How many hearings were there on the bill that the Republicans brought up last week to cut the food stamp program by $40 billion, throwing 3.8 million low-income people off the program, throwing 170,000 veterans off the program? How many hearings on that? None. Zero.

This is becoming a habit in this House where the committees of jurisdiction don't even have a say. The Agriculture Committee didn't have a chance to hold a hearing or even a markup on that bill. This is the way this House is being run.

I would just again remind the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) again, look, you may not like the Affordable Care Act--I get it--but it passed with a majority of votes in the House and a majority of votes in the Senate. The President signed it into law. That's the way we do things here. That's the way laws are passed. And you didn't like it and you went to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court upheld it. I'm sorry you don't like it, but the majority voted for it, and I think a majority of people in this country, once they understand that all the falsehoods and distortions that are being told here are nothing more than Republican talking points, I think they'll appreciate the fact that health care will be a right in this country and not a privilege.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

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

Maybe the gentleman from Texas can enlighten us as to what's going on in the secret meeting downstairs with the Republicans because we have no idea what's going to come to the floor. We have no idea about what's going to be in this continuing resolution or whether we're going to have a debt ceiling bill or anything. We're in the dark here. We'd like to know. I think the American people would like to know what's in this bill.

Can you enlighten us about what's happening in this secret meeting? Is Ted Cruz in the meeting? What's going on?

I yield to the gentleman from Texas for 5 seconds.

Reclaiming my time, I would say to the other gentleman from Texas that we're all elected, too. We respect and appreciate and value the Constitution every bit as much as he does, and there is a constitutional way to run the government, which we are all supporting here.

It seems what the gentleman wants to do is just trash all that. He wants to say that what happens in the House and the Senate doesn't matter; the President signs it, it doesn't matter; the Supreme Court rules, it doesn't matter. I don't know where he's coming from.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, it's pretty clear what's going on here today. My Republican friends didn't get their way so now they're throwing a tantrum.

I see many more Members on the floor today as these speeches have gone on. I'm just curious: Can anybody enlighten us on what in fact happened in your secret conference, what we're going to vote on? I think the American people would like to know.

I yield to anybody if they can tell me one fact that has been decided.

I guess nobody wants to tell us.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the gentleman, if it's not a secret meeting, can someone tell us what happened in it, or is just for Republicans only? I think we ought to know what we're voting on before we vote on it. Maybe that's a radical idea in this Republican-controlled House, but I think it's a reasonable request.

At this time I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we are voting on a martial law rule that will allow us to bring up either a continuing resolution or a debt ceiling bill this very day, and nobody has seen anything. Nobody has seen any language.

There has been a secret meeting with Republicans to talk about what they can pass, but none of that information has been shared with us. There have been no hearings. There's been nothing. What a lousy way to run a government. This is not the way it should be done, And it doesn't have to be done this way.

Mr. Speaker, the stakes are very high. You know, come Monday at midnight, if we don't do the right thing, the government is going to shut down. And as I said earlier in the debate, that is going to cost the American taxpayers a great deal of money. Shutdowns aren't free.

Part of the problem here is that my Republican friends can't get over the

fact that they lost the Presidential election. The right wing is holding the economy hostage based on a fixation on this view that everybody in this country doesn't deserve health care, when I think the majority of Americans believe that everybody should have access to good, quality health care in this country.

I know you don't like the Affordable Care Act, but it passed. It passed the House and the Senate, signed by the President. The Supreme Court even upheld it. If you want to work with us to make it better, we're willing to do that. But the idea that you want to hold this economy hostage to repeal this is just ridiculous.

I would urge my colleagues, in closing, to listen to your constituents. The majority of people in this country do not want you to shut this government down. The majority of people do not want you to defund the Affordable Care Act. Listen to your constituents--and not some guy in the other body, who one of his own colleagues referred to a ``whacko bird.''

The bottom line is: do the right thing. Do the right thing. Keep this government open. Do not shut the government down. I appeal to the grownups in the Republican Conference to come together. Let's have a compromise that we can pass and that we can send to the President and keep this government going and also address our debt ceiling issue. But let's stop the theatrics.

Let's do the right thing. Let's vote on a clean CR and send it over to the Senate, and then let's get on with our other business.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 361 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 361 provides this body with an expedited procedure necessary to ensure that all legislation needed to prevent a government shutdown can be expeditiously considered without delay. That is why we are here today, Mr. Speaker.

Additionally, this resolution allows for consideration of legislation designed to ensure that our government

does not default on its debt obligations.

Finally, House Resolution 361 provides the necessary framework to move forward with consideration of the farm bill, with our friends in the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, at midnight on Monday, just 2 days from now, the Federal Government would shut down if Congress does not act to provide the necessary appropriations. There are varying schools of thought on what these appropriations should look like, but I believe that all Members, regardless of party affiliation, are united in the understanding that a government shutdown is detrimental to this Nation and to the American people.

Over the next couple of days, there will be much deliberation over how to appropriately fund this effort and the government. This resolution before us today is necessary to ensure that once a decision is reached, this body can quickly react without undue delay to prevent a government shutdown.

I recognize that this is an important time, as do all of my colleagues. Even the House Chaplain is here on the floor of the House today because he has great expectations that we, as a body, can work together to do the things that will ensure that our government is seen in the light by the American people as doing the right thing for them, because that is what our job and our oath of office is, to make sure that the American people are protected and that we, as one Nation under God, will move forward together.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

With great respect for the gentleman from Massachusetts, we have been debating these issues for a long, long time--not just the closed rule and the way that the ObamaCare bill was rushed to the floor of the House in March a couple of years ago, but since then, a complete denial about what really the real impact of ObamaCare is.

And the gentleman is right, the gentleman is absolutely correct: Republicans, 100 percent of us, are absolutely opposed to ObamaCare. But there are reasons why. It's not some narrow political ideology. In fact, it's reality.

And the reality is--and I will lay these out in several different formats, Mr. Speaker, just to make it easy for the American people to understand what we're talking about--the cost to taxpayers. And I know we were told there won't be any cost to taxpayers; but, in fact, there was a $716 billion cut to Medicare. That means senior care. This ObamaCare cuts seniors' care. It takes $716 billion out of Medicare to pay for ObamaCare. That's wrong. That is taking this out on America's seniors.

Next, there will be $1.8 billion that we know about that we will be spending over the next decade alone to fund ObamaCare.

The cost to families. I'm from Dallas, Texas. On average, Texas families face a potential premium increase from 5 to 43 percent in the individual market and a 23 percent increase for small groups. That's the little bit that we know about the announcement that came out the other day. It could be up to a 43 percent increase.

The cost to employers. Well, the cost to employers is also a cost to their workers. It's a cost to the economy. It's a cost to stock prices, which people have their pensions in. Recently, Delta Airlines announced that ObamaCare will cost the company $100 million in increased premiums in just 1 year. That's a huge cost, $100 million.

The impact on health insurance coverage. Americans are losing their current health insurance. Employers have begun dropping spouses from their health insurance. Just last week, UPS also announced an extra 15,000 spouses of its employees will be dropped from their health insurance plan.

ObamaCare's impact on American jobs: fewer jobs. According to the CBO, ObamaCare will shrink employment by .5 percent. Well, let's see what that does. It doesn't just decrease it by .5 percent. It really means that full-time workers are becoming part-time workers directly as a result of ObamaCare.

ObamaCare puts 3.2 million jobs at risk in the franchise industry alone. Fewer hours and more part-time jobs. Since ObamaCare was passed, there have been seven part-time jobs created for every one full-time job.

That's simple. I get that. As a former employer, I understood if you put rules and regulations on who is required to pay for full-time workers, they simply understood that and ducked out by hiring part-time employees. Full-time growth has only expanded by .23 percent. That's two-tenths of 1 percent since ObamaCare has passed.

This is not the direction America ought to be going. The Republican Party is opposed to ObamaCare. We are here on the floor of the House of Representatives again; and I think we are gathering support across the lines of the American people, including union leaders who say this is the wrong way to go.

I don't know that this is the last time to say ``no.'' But we are taking every opportunity we can, as the Republican Party, to say that where we are headed with this costly health care change, which will diminish and destroy America's greatest health care system in the world, is what we are going to stand up for.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the facts of the case are a daunting task for our American economy to overcome. And that's why the Republican Party, the party of full-time jobs and careers, is on the floor of the House of Representatives, thoughtfully articulating here and to the American people about why we're doing what we're doing.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ten days ago, we had a debate on this floor where we heard about what the Republican Party was doing: Taking food away from disabled people; that's not true. Today, we hear about how Republicans want to repeal all laws that are related to clean water, clean air, all of these onerous things that they talk about; not true. We're for clean water; we're for clean air.

I, myself, and many of my colleagues, are outdoorsmen who believe in not only the wilderness of this country but also the freedoms that come with that. We're for clean water and clean air, but we're not for the rules and regulations that kill jobs like the Democrats' war on coal, and that's when Republicans do stand up, Mr. Speaker. We stand up and say: We're not going to tolerate taking away our constitutional rights nor the rights of free people to have their jobs by rules and regulations that are based upon premises that just aren't even true, that cannot stand the test of sound science.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), who is one of the brightest Members of our body and who also sits on the Rules Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

I certainly can, and I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

We're gathering our ideas together, and we're going to come to this floor of the House this afternoon and, with resolve, help the American people.

I appreciate the gentleman engaging me.

An announcement has been made, Mr. Speaker, that the Rules Committee will be in this afternoon to do just that. I thank the gentleman

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Houston, Texas (Mr. Culberson).

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

It is a meeting all Republican Members are attending, and we are meeting together and speaking. We will be up in the Rules Committee this afternoon.

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

I appreciate the gentlewoman's arguments that she makes on the floor, but the facts of the case are the facts of the case.

ObamaCare took $716 billion out of Medicare to fund ObamaCare. Secondly, since ObamaCare was passed, there have been seven part-time jobs added for every one new full-time job added.

We cannot pay for this bill. It is nonsustaining, and it's harming America and its future. That's why Republicans are here, gathering in strength and in numbers with resolve again today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

There's a lot of words that are coming out of my friends' mouths about a secret meeting, about things that are happening, like they can't figure it out.

Mr. Speaker, right behind me are going to be 230 strong Republican Members of Congress who were in a meeting where we, with great resolve, saw the future of this country. They saw it not only the same way, but we're going to do our job.

I think the height of irresponsibility is any of these two bodies sending their Members home. Speaker John Boehner has the Republican Members of Congress who are here, ready, willing, and able to vote.

And you're right, you did hear these Members gathering together with excitement about helping our future, helping the American people. That's why we're here today. We're proud to be Republicans. We're proud to be Americans, one Nation under God.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we have our Republican majority Members here ready, willing, and able not just to do the work of the American people, but to do the things that will make sense about our future for the next generation of Americans.

I am through with any speakers that we now have and would reserve the balance of my time for the gentleman to close and use his time as he chooses.

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. In fact, I will confine my remarks to you, Mr. Speaker, because we appreciate your great service. We also know that you represent John Boehner, our great Speaker, who has Republican Members here today to do the business of the American people. We are not a body that cuts and runs; we're a body that stays here and gets our work done.

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

The gentleman from Massachusetts asked and made a point about same- day rules. In fact, Democrats in the 110th Congress were faced with this circumstance 17 times; in the 111th Congress, 26 times. It becomes normal and regular that you have to be here to get your work done, and that is what we're doing.

Mr. Speaker, plain and simple: the Republican Party is here today because we are opposed to ObamaCare and the big government that comes behind it. We're opposed to what it is doing not just to the American people and our economy, but taking freedom away from people and making us more reliant upon the Federal Government. Less pride and freedom will be available in America if we do not do something about it.

The cost is simple. The cost means that we're finding that $716 billion was taken by the Democrats out of senior care in ObamaCare to fund the ObamaCare issue. The bottom line is, since ObamaCare was passed, there have been seven part-time jobs created for every one full-time job. That is not a future that we are going to stand with. The Republican Party is here in strength and numbers today.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Thank you very much. I appreciate my colleague for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from Massachusetts did a very good job of refuting what we heard in the talking points, but let me add just one or two things to it.

We've always known that if people say an untruth often enough, loud enough, that they begin to believe it themselves. But we still hope that the country out there at large will not.

Let me just put it this way as succinctly as I can. The same group that's fighting today also fought the Social Security law and the Medicare law. They hated it all. They didn't want any of that done, and I don't believe that the American people now are feeling very good about giving up either one of those.

Their fear right now is that when this bill goes into effect--not until January--all the awful things you have heard about are not even in effect yet because this bill is not in effect--that it is going to be a success, and they are going to have a lot of explaining to do.

Now, a report just released that I heard about yesterday showed that only 1 percent of businesses in the United States of America have made any changes at all. And, indeed, small business gets great benefits providing health care in tax rebates.

Now, the most important thing I want to say--because the contrast to what we're doing here today is so glaring. When we did the health care bill--and every President since Teddy Roosevelt has tried to--when we did it, it went through the committee process in both Houses, and everybody had a chance. Every committee in the House and in the Senate contains both Republicans and Democrats who proposed amendments. Some of them were accepted. In fact, one of the ones we are working with now is to try to make some sense out of the one that was added by Senator Grassley over in the Senate, a Republican.

The idea that we rammed this thing through in the middle of the night and nobody had ever seen it is absurd.

Everybody knew about it. The whole thing was transparent. The committee meetings were all open, and everybody had a chance.

Never in the world have we ever seen people fight so hard to do away with a piece of legislation that is a legitimate law. And what do they do with the rest of it? They have dropped the entire process of governing the House of Representatives. We have, over this year, seen not a piece of work get down. Appropriations bills in the House and Senate, none. Absolutely none. So we are having to do a continuing resolution because we have no budget. A budget was passed in the House; a budget was passed in the Senate. The Republicans in the House of Representatives have refused what is normal process, to sit down and confer over that budget and give us a budget.

Since January of 2011, 42 votes have been held here to defund or to undermine the historic law. They have repeatedly failed to complete the most basic of congressional functions, which is passing the appropriations legislation to keep the government open. In fact, what their mantra is: Do we need to create jobs in America? Well, let's repeal ObamaCare. Do we need to balance our budget? Well, let's repeal ObamaCare. We need to keep the government open; oh, my goodness, let's repeal ObamaCare--the answer to everything and the cure for absolutely nothing.

And now their legislative malpractice--and I don't know of anything else that you can call it--has led us to the brink of a major crisis. Reading just this morning from Frank Keating, the former Republican Governor of Oklahoma: What in the world is going on here? What in the world do we think we're doing?

As they begin to see the consequences of their action, they're doubling down, putting forth a list of demands that even the greediest child on Christmas morning would be put to shame. In exchange for averting government shutdown and a global economic crisis, the House majority considers making the following demands:

A 1-year delay of the individual mandate, which would gut the health care law; the implementation of Congressman Ryan's tax reform plan, which does away with Medicare, by the way, despite the fact that voters, as my colleague said, rejected his draconian vision as he ran for Vice President last year; and the repeal of Dodd-Frank.

The repeal of Dodd-Frank so that we can go back to an era of unregulated Wall Street banks; and they want to construct the Keystone pipeline.

None of this has anything in the world to do with what is facing us today. They want to do away with all of the environmental regulations. The list goes on and on.

It is time for this temper tantrum to end and for cooler heads to prevail. There must be some cooler heads here on the other side. With time running out, the majority has to act to keep this government open and try to get this economy on track. The American people must be spared from the consequences of a majority that cannot find the will or the ability to legislate.

Let me begin by paraphrasing Sir Walter Scott, and I think it's really an accurate description of what is going on on the other side of the aisle with the Republican majority. Sir Walter Scott said:

Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to

deceive.

This is about deception of where we are moving forward.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. It aims to put our country on the same radical, dangerous, ideological path that was decisively repudiated at the polls last November. We all know one definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over. Well, here we are again.

The House majority is trying to move one step closer to locking in the deep, automatic cuts caused by sequestration. Everyone in this room knows these cuts are destroying jobs all across America, robbing children of the education they need, slowing the pace of lifesaving research, and threatening everything from public safety to public health. Even the chair of the Appropriations Committee--I might add, a Republican--has said:

Sequestration--and its unrealistic and ill-conceived

discretionary cuts--must be brought to an end.

This rule does exactly the opposite. It allows the majority to advance a budget that makes these dangerous cuts permanent.

This resolution also seeks--for the 43rd time--to deny quality, affordable health care to millions of Americans. In fact, the Affordable Care Act has passed the Congress--House and Senate. It was signed into law by the President. It was upheld by the Supreme Court. And it was reaffirmed by the American people at the ballot box.

Let me say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: get over it. The Nation doesn't want to repeal this bill. They do want, if there are problems, to make changes. In short, it is the law of the land--one that will help Americans lead healthier lives without having to worry about being bankrupted by an injury or an illness.

And what my colleagues want to do, quite frankly, is they want to return your decisions on your health care back to the insurance companies to make the decisions on your health care, and to tell you that they're not going to cover you for a preexisting condition. They won't cover your child who may have asthma or autism, or for someone like myself, who is a cancer survivor.

And because they cannot repeal the law through the usual process, the majority is threatening to bring down the government--and soon, the economy--to get their way. This could not be more irresponsible.

They also want to push forward a rule that will move their farm bill with $40 billion in cuts in the food stamp programs, while at the same time providing $90 billion in crop insurance subsidies for wealthy agribusiness. Deep cuts to the food stamp program have nothing to do with cutting the debt and everything to do with the majority's radical ideology.

The Department of Agriculture reports it spent $14 billion on crop insurance last year alone. This majority chooses to force over 4 million low-income Americans to go hungry--children, seniors, veterans, and working families--while continuing to provide the richest of subsidies to the rich.

Let's be clear: we are at the eleventh hour. It is time for the majority to stop playing games, stop trying to repeal the last election, and stop trying to push a government and the entire economy into a shutdown. We have to do better.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.

Mr. Speaker, on September 27, 2013, and September 28, 2013, I was absent from the House and missed rollcall votes 491 through 500.

Had I been present for rollcall vote 491, on the motion to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate Amendments to H.R. 1412, the Improving Job Opportunities for Veterans Act, I would have voted ``yes.''

Had I been present for rollcall vote 492, on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 3096, to designate the building occupied by the Federal Bureau of Investigation located at 801 Follin Lane, Vienna, Virginia, as the ``Michael D. Resnick Terrorist Screening Center,'' I would have voted ``yes.''

Had I been present for rollcall vote 493, on agreeing to the resolution H. Res. 361, waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules, and relating to consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2642, to provide for the reform of agricultural programs of the Department of Agriculture through fiscal year 2018, I would have voted ``no.''

Had I been present for rollcall vote 494, on ordering the previous question to H. Res. 366, providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 59) making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2014, and for other purposes, and providing for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 3210) making continuing appropriations for military pay in the event of a government shutdown, I would have voted ``no.''

Had I been present for rollcall vote 495, on agreeing to the resolution H. Res. 366, providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 59) making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2014, and for other purposes, and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3210) making continuing appropriations for military pay in the event of a government shutdown, I would have noted ``no.''

Had I been present for rollcall vote 496, on the motion to suspend the rules and pass, as amended, H.R. 2251, to designate the United States courthouse located at 118 South Mill Street, in Fergus Falls, Minnesota, as the ``Edward J. Devitt United States Courthouse,'' I would have voted ``yes.''

Had I been present for rollcall vote 497, on concurring in the Senate amendment with amendment #1 to H.J. Res. 59, making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2014, and for other purposes, I would have voted ``no.''

Had I been present for rollcall vote 498, on concurring in the Senate amendment with amendment #2 to H.J. Res. 59, making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2014, and for other purposes, I would have voted ``no.''

Had I been present for rollcall vote 499, on passage of H.R. 3210, making continuing appropriations for military pay in the event of a government shutdown, I would have voted ``yes.''

Had I been present for rollcall vote 500, on the motion to suspend the rules and pass, as amended, H.R. 2848, the Department of State Operations and Embassy Security Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2014, I would have voted ``yes.''