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 waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 367 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my dear friend from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the ranking member of the Rules Committee, 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 367, of which we're here for today, provides for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.J. Res. 59, the Continuing Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2014.

Mr. Speaker, at midnight tonight, just a few short hours from now, the Federal Government will shut down if Congress, that is both the House and the Senate, do not act to provide the necessary appropriations to run our government. The legislation before us today will ensure that a shutdown does not happen, and we will take important steps to ensure that ObamaCare, known as the Affordable Care Act, does not have the opportunity to hurt American jobs and continue to drag down our economy by delaying the individual mandate for 1 year. Additionally, this CR will ensure that Congress is not exempt from ObamaCare and that Members and their staffs do not receive a special taxpayer-funded health care subsidy.

These are important issues, Mr. Speaker. They're being talked about all across America today. They were talked about on Sunday at tables all across America as families gathered together about the rightness of what we, as Republicans, are attempting to do, and that is we are attempting to save this country and the American people, the free enterprise system, and free people from having to have a government-run health care system.

This government-run health care system has already been estimated to cost twice what it was expected to do, and since this health care law has come into play, for every one full-time job, there have been six part-time jobs created. We do not want a part-time working America, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, our country cannot be the greatest Nation in the world if we're a part-time working society.

Mr. Speaker, the American people did not agree with this bill at the time it was passed. Despite that, the Democrats rammed this through the House and the Senate, and it was signed by the President in record time while millions of Americans were protesting all across America the same day it was passed in the House.

Mr. Speaker, this has been an issue that has harmed American businesses. Business leaders, businessmen, unions, and union leaders are all gathering together to say this is the wrong thing to do.

The law takes advantage of those people who have health care today. It is a direct violation of what the President said it would do; and in my State of Texas, if you have a deceptive trade practice, if you sell something one way and the product is another, it is talked about in a way that it would be against the law.

What we're trying to do is change the law. Republicans, over the last few years, have tried to delay it, defund it, get in the way of it, change it, talk about it, and to engage the President of the United States at the highest levels.

We are now at a point where there is a must-pass piece of legislation. Republicans do not intend to shut down the government; but we are insistent, Mr. Speaker, that the legislation that we bring forth today will level the playing field on a terrible piece of legislation.

The American people sense the unfairness, and they have seen it take place in their marketplace, in their workplace. And as we all become unemployed or move to part-time work, we will see that this devastating law of a ``one-size-fits-all for everybody'' health care plan, run by the government, is not a wise way to go. So that's why we're here on the floor today.

Republicans are on the floor today. We were here earlier in the week. We were here last week. We've been here ever since the day it was passed. We are consistent in our behavior. Every single Republican believes this is a bad way to do things. I think business sees that too.

The American people, in a poll of The New York Times and in a CBS poll just last week, 60 percent of those who responded to The New York Times and CBS said that they are not supportive of this bill.

So will someone stand up for the American people? Dadgum right: it's called the Republican Party. Our great Speaker and our great leader, John Boehner and Eric Cantor, have asked us to come to the floor today to move a bill; and the Republican Conference is there. We're hoping that the United States Senate and the American people all get together on this, and then President Obama will see the wisdom behind learning from mistakes that have been made in the past.

I have every reason to believe that what we're doing here will be good for the American people. We will listen to the voices, and we will move forth together. We're giving everybody a chance to be heard from today, and tonight will be an opportunity for the American people to know that it was

the Republican Party that stood up on their behalf.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

The gentlewoman from New York, my dear friend, makes many, many important points about not only the law that was passed but about maybe some comments about what we're doing here.

I have great sympathy, respect for men and women, people, children, seniors who are born with diseases that sometimes emanate during their lives, great respect for that. And I do agree with the gentlewoman that our government, in a public-private partnership--we are working with States--should, needs to, must create a better system to take care of those who are uninsured, or maybe had been ``uninsurable.''

And this is where, for years, there had been a big debate in Washington about how to best do that. And the facts of the case are real simple: that every time we had an opportunity in the Republican Party to try to get that

done, it became a point of decisionmaking by the Senate, and they blink. The House many times passed all sorts of bills that would allow people to be insured across State lines, better ways to make larger team sizes for insurance so that risk pools would have a better opportunity to be managed.

But instead of us taking care of some 23 million to 30 million people who were in this circumstance, the bill aimed at 230 million people. And it put rules and regulations and restrictions on business and hiring. And it was less about coverage and more about a hammer from Washington, D.C. There are lots of examples of this; but one of them might be the IPAB, the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which the Democrats wrote into the law that it could not receive any legislative or judicial updating. You could not challenge the law that they decided on of benefits and payments. That's just one part of this outrageously expensive and overbearing health care bill. We've talked about that. We've talked about how expensive it is and how it's causing business--

Delta Air Lines, as an example. And Delta Air Lines has a very good plan. But they came to the administration in February this last year and said, it's going to cost Delta Air Lines $100 million more in just the first year.

Now, that's not helping people. That's highway robbery. That is harming business, harming the free enterprise system.

Mr. Speaker, I'm for balance. I'm for reasonableness. I'm for opportunities, and so is my party. But we are not for diminishing the greatest economy in the world by arbitrarily doing it with a one-size- fits-all ObamaCare that not one Republican voted for and that Democrats are still gleeful about.

So we're here today; we've been here for quite some time, as the gentlewoman admitted, yes, day after day. We're kind of relentless about this because we're worried about what's happening. We've seen employment figures, higher taxes, more spending, more government. Oh, by the way, indecision along the way, where the administration really can't figure out what they're doing.

So what we're saying is that we think everybody ought to be into the same bucket that employers are in, and that is we've already delayed it, so we should do the same for individuals.

And we're going to shut down the government over that?

That's the question. We're going to shut down the government, Republicans, because we want to put individuals on the same footing as what President Obama gave a pass to business?

Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm from Texas, and I recognize that we like freedom and opportunity and less taxes and more opportunities. By golly, we employ a lot of people. But I think the whole country sees this, and what the whole country sees is the reasonableness that the Republican Party comes to the floor--and we're going to keep the battle going--to say we think everybody, at least the individual, ought to be treated the same as business. We think the President of the United States made a mistake, and we're politely, today, trying to say: Mr. President, can we please fix that mistake? Can we please give to the individuals of this country, men and women who pay their taxes and work hard, can we give them equal representation with what you gave to people who run businesses?

Now, I'm a business guy, but I'm also an individual, and that's why the Republican Party is doing what we're doing, Mr. Speaker. We are not asking for anything that's unreasonable. As a matter of fact, we're going to--if I'd hurry up, we could get it quickly to the floor to where we could vote on this, but an explanation's necessary.

Reasonableness, common sense, and doing the right thing, and that's what the Republican Party is here doing. That's what our great Speaker, John Boehner, is doing. That's what our awesome majority leader, Eric Cantor, is doing.

We are going to bring to the floor--our Republican majority will be here--and we're going to pass this that says we believe the same thing that happens to business, where the Obama administration was not ready for them and so they gave them a pass for a year, we think the same thing is true for individuals.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Knoxville, Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the favorite son of Humble, Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Lewisville, Texas (Mr. Burgess), a member of the Rules Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee.

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

I appreciate my dear friend, the gentleman from Maryland, coming to the floor and speaking. But I want to say something real fast, if we can, Mr. Speaker. This is to fund the government.

The second part. This is to say that the President of the United States gave a pass to business. The pass was because the President has not provided enough content and information to business to let them know how it's supposed to work. But we're not going to do the same for individuals.

And that's what this legislation says. We're going to fund the government. We're not trying to stop having people from receiving things. We're trying to say, Give us the same opportunity. Because the individuals that it does help, I do have a sense of responsibility about them. But those times thousands of more who will be harmed by what we're doing is not a balance that Republicans can put up with--the overriding effect.

So, in fact, we're here, and I can look myself straight in the mirror, Mr. Speaker. We're trying to do the right thing for the American people.

At this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee and a very bright young man.

Mr. Speaker, some of my favorites in the Democratic Party

are taking their chances to come down tonight in this spirited debate and opportunity--the very best of the Democratic Party is here. I admire these men. I began serving with Mr. Davis some 17 years ago. He's one of the most honorable and respected Members of this body, and I'm delighted that Danny has come down.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the Sixth District of Florida (Mr. DeSantis).

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed), the former mayor of Corning.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from California, not only for coming down, but for her kind words about many commonsense things. I think she also knows that this bill that's before us tonight is not to shut down the government.

I come from a family that the former Speaker has known for a long, long time. She knows a lot about me. I'm a part of this bill. I was taught by my father, yes, but also others, that you stay at the table until you get something done. It may be a little bit late at night; it may take a little bit of hard work; it may take some creative thinking. And then the athlete in me says you run through the tape. As a track guy, I always ran through the tape. As a football guy, I ran until the clock went out.

I think what the Republican Party is here trying to say is we are here at work. We are going to get our work done. We are challenging the United States Senate to do the same. We are going to pass this bill tonight because it's the right thing to do. We will stay open tonight and we'll receive their, in ping-pong terms, the ping and the pong back and forth, and we'll be ready.

Mr. Speaker, I'm sure you'll stay on duty. You may drink a couple cups of coffee, but you're doing the right thing for the people of Johnson County, Kansas. I know where you are from and I know what kind of man you are.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).

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

I would like to advise the gentlewoman I have no further speakers, and I'll wait for her to run through her time and close, then I will do the same.

That would be correct.

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

In closing, we are here tonight because the Republican Party recognizes that men and women of this country are worried about their future, worried about economics, worried about taking care of their family. We've seen food prices double since the President has been our President. We've seen energy prices double. We've seen more rules and regulations. We've seen a war on coal. We've seen all sorts of things that have taken place.

But taking over your health care is a pretty serious matter. We disagreed with it then, but we've tried to work with the President. We've had seven or eight bills that actually did work, but the President recognized that there were fraudulent parts of the bill that needed to be taken advantage of and we got rid of those.

Tonight, we are here to say ``fairness.'' You should not give one group of people one thing and not give to the others. Likewise, we believe the President of the United States and his administration should be in the exact same health care that Members of Congress are in. So I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is certainly right: we have been here time after time after time on this issue. But we are standing on the brink of the worst government shutdown in modern history. Unlike 1994, the pending government shutdown would reach across the entire Federal Government. In 1994, half of the congressional appropriations bills had been signed into law by the President; and as a result, those Federal agencies were able to operate through the shutdown.

But this year, because of the draconian budget levels included in the misguided sequester, the majority was unable to pass a single appropriations bill into law. In fact, they ran out of money about halfway--well, certainly after we got through the Defense budget and, for the first time since I have been in Congress, were unable to pass the Transportation bill. And because of that, again, we find ourselves in this terrible position. Now as a result, should the government shut down, it is going to be more harmful and more widespread than the last one.

Mr. Speaker, these are very real and very serious consequences that we face, and it is in the face of these consequences that the majority has chosen to continue what can only be described as dangerous partisan games. We have, indeed, been here before. The first time, the majority wanted to defund the Affordable Care Act, and second, they decided to just delay it. But then on that bill, they threw in a chance to do away with the medical device tax, which will create a trillion-dollar deficit increase over the next 10 years and will hit women's reproductive rights next time.

Just today, we saw the first lady of Texas, Ms. Anita Perry, who said in an interview that abortion should be a woman's right and that she believed that women should have the right to choose; and we thank her for that and couldn't agree with her more.

But now what are we coming up with today? Well, we are not going to back away from anything. We are just going to try to kill the health care bill, which we know we can't do. It's taking effect tomorrow morning.

What we are going to do now, they say, is to delay the mandate, which is a large part of the funding for the bill; and in addition to that, they have decided that Members of Congress and our staff will not be able to get the government copay that most people get. In fact, most people who have health care in America get it from their employer. And we aren't going to be denied from being able to do that because the gentleman from Iowa, Senator Grassley, who claimed that he made a mistake, inserted that into the bill when he said just this week that he did not mean for us not to be a part of the government health care system, but that somebody had misinterpreted his idea and wrote it wrong. So that's where we are with that today.

But the majority's proposal before us today is going to do that, and they are going to say to all these young people who come to Washington with such promise and such energy and such verve, really, to try to do something good for their country and who look forward so much to being able to have the great privilege of working in the Capitol of the United States that they're not going to have help with their health insurance, driving many of those, I think, to leave and to find other work and others to really not be able to get the health care that they need.

So why did we do that? Heaven only knows. But, frankly, I would be embarrassed--and I have mentioned this in the Rules Committee--to look around the room at the staff that we praise all the time for their ingenuity, for their faithfulness, for their willingness to stay, as we did Sunday morning until 12:30, without ever making a complaint at all and punishing them through health care.

As offensive as this proposal is, it's a fitting example of the vision for America that the majority has. It's a vision of an America where insurance companies are put back in charge of the health care system, where price-gauging and price discrimination go unchecked, where the most vulnerable among us, including cancer patients, the victims of domestic violence and children born with preexisting conditions, could be denied access to health care.

The New York Times did some wonderful pieces on that in The Sunday Times yesterday, talking about people who have been burdened so much that they are literally bankrupt from the cost of health care. This bill takes every step to avoid that in the future.

I'm not sure that people understand that what happens is that we have turned around what used to be the yearly cap that insurance companies would charge their clients and now say that if you are a single person with health insurance, that once you have paid out of pocket $6,400 for medical procedures and medicine, the insurance company then for the rest of the year will pay your costs. What's not to like about that? If you are a family, $12,000 is the cost.

After seeing what we saw yesterday and reading in The Times that people with cancer many times were unable at all to try to even get the care and that we know--and I know from the work that we have done with cancer patients--that many of them go untreated. If there's anything worse than getting cancer, being diagnosed with cancer, it has to be being unable to pay for treatment.

These are the things that the majority wants to do away with. I've never seen so much work in all my life to try to prevent 30 million Americans--our brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, everybody--from being able to have health insurance, many of them for the first time in their lives.

I met a woman in the last campaign who told me that she was so excited because she had just signed up for Medicare. The woman was born with cerebral palsy; and under the present insurance laws, she was not at all insurable. So she went through her whole life, bringing up children, running a household, driving a car, all the things that could cause the kinds of accidents that leave you permanently impaired without a dime's worth of health insurance.

She was not alone in that. Children who had head injuries or other members of the family could often use up their lifetime limit of about $1 million in less than a year, and they were never insurable again in the United States. We're not going to go back to that.

So there's something we can do here today. What we can do is vote this down, go back to the Rules Committee, take up the Senate's clean bill, which is over here at the desk, pass that bill in the House and the Rules, bring it here, pass it in the House in a bipartisan way--by the way, that wouldn't hurt. And then lo and behold, that bill is ready to go to the President's desk, and we could get that signed. A shutdown would be averted. Health care would be available to people who desperately need it and desperately want it.

We should not continue to be the only industrialized country on the face of the Earth that does not provide health care for its people. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and the underlying legislation and demand that we pass the Senate bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), a member of the Committee on Rules.

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

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

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Nolan).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), a member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, I have one further speaker. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).

Mr. Speaker, if my colleague has no further requests for time, I am prepared to close.

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

Today is a truly shameful day in the distinguished history of this House. Far from the noble mission that some from the other side may claim, what is before us is an extreme--and extremely cynical--attempt to extract a ransom from the American people. They have issued their demands knowing full well they will not be met. Yet they are taking another step towards a government shutdown in order to deny 30 million uninsured Americans health care.

Time has run out. We are down to our last chance. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on today's rule and the underlying legislation, and ask once more that we be given the opportunity to vote on the Senate bill, a clean bill, that can go directly to the President.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the Continuing Resolution to fund the Federal. The Senate sent over a Continuing Resolution that would fund the government and included an agreement that the men and women of the armed services should receive their pay.

Unfortunately, the House Rules Committee, which must review and establish a rule for all bills brought before the House has once again changed the Senate bill to require a 1 year delay in the personal mandate for the Affordable Care Act, but added another change that would remove a subsidy for members of Congress and their staff.

What they fail to say is that Congress and Congressional staff are the only group in the nation that is required by the law to only get its healthcare through the Affordable Care Act Health Exchange Marketplace.

Ecclesiastics says that ``To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: There is a purpose or reason for everything that happens, be it called good or be it called bad, by whomever perceives it as such. No matter, there is a time and place for everything.''

The men and women of this Congress know that the time and season for making decisions regarding the budget of our Nation ends at midnight tonight--Monday, September 30, 2013.

The season for making decisions about funding the government began in January of this year, stretched on through the Spring, and was with us during the Summer now the end is upon us.

The majority of this body has not been able to organize themselves to do--or consider anything during the season for budget drafting and appropriations' legislation except to attempt to end the Affordable Care Act.

The members of the United States House of Representatives know the rules for the legislative budgetary process very well, but for the benefit of the millions of people who are watching this debate or listening to it--you might find it helpful to understand why there is so much dissention.

I would like to give you a brief outline of the work we are supposed to do on your behalf regarding funding the government: The Congress is to:

Pass a budget that is agreed to by both the House and the Senate;

Pass 12 appropriations bills that do not exceed the agreed upon budget to fund the entire Federal Government for the next fiscal year;

Complete the appropriations bills with both the House and the Senate agreeing to the language of each before and agreed to by both the House and the Senate and sent to the President's desk for signature; and rarely use Continuing Resolutions when Congress fails to complete all 12 bills before the fiscal year ends to ensure that the business of the Federal Government continues uninterrupted.

For most Americans this may mean very little because it is a Congressional administrative function that often used to help fund a few appropriations measures that may not be completed before the end of calendar year, which is midnight, Monday, September 30, 2013.

This year the use of the Continuing Resolution is different because we have not completed work on a budget bill nor have we completed work on any appropriations bill--not even the Defense Department's Appropriations legislation.

The House and the Senate have found agreement that a Continuing Resolution for the next Fiscal Year that will begin at 12:01 Tuesday, October 1, 2013 should provide that the Armed Forces who risk their lives to protect our freedoms deserve the support and resources needed to perform their duties, and that includes being paid in full and on time so they can provide for their families and loved ones.

Mr. Speaker, it would not be necessary to have to devote the considerable amount of time needed to debate and pass this legislation in the House and Senate and present it to the President if the House would simply pass the clean continuing resolution passed yesterday by the Senate.

The CR approved by the Senate funds the government and avoids a shutdown. President Obama has stated that he will sign it into law.

The clean CR passed by the Senate ensures that all the employees of the federal government are paid for the valuable and important service they provide to our nation.

Mr. Speaker, instead of exempting certain groups and persons from the harm caused by a government shutdown, we should instead be focused on avoiding a shutdown, which helps no one and hurts our economy.

Those of who were serving in this body 17 years ago remember the harm caused when the Republicans shut down the government on two different occasions, which directly cost taxpayers $1.4 billion. That is $2.1 billion in today's dollars.

The last time Republicans engineered a shut down of the government:

368 national park sites were closed.

200,000 applications for passports went unprocessed.

$3.7 billion of $18 billion in local contracts went unpaid.

My state of Texas would be hit very hard and suffer unnecessarily if a government shut down is not prevented.

Within days Texas would begin experiencing the impact of cutbacks in the $64.7 billion in federal spending that it receives annually, including the loss of:

$518 million in federal highway funds,

$411 million for interstate highway maintenance,

$130 million in home energy assistance for the poor,

$71 million in Homeland Security grants,

$55 million in coordinated border infrastructure and

$97 million in federal adoption assistance.

As a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee, I am particularly concerned over the impact of a government shutdown on operations and activities that protect and secure the homeland Impacts of shutdown in Texas on homeland security.

For example, a shutdown would adversely affect the following:

Law Enforcement and Other Training: Law enforcement training would cease, including those conducted through the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center and the Secret Service's J. Rowley Training Center. This would impact CBP, ICE, Secret Service, the Federal Air Marshal Service, and would delay their ability to bring new hires into operational service. TSA would also not be able to conduct training for screeners, Behavior Detection Officers or canine units.

Frontline Personnel Hardships: The majority of the workforces in Custom and Border Protection's (CBP) Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, (ICE) enforcement efforts, Transportation Security Administration (TSA) aviation passenger screening, and the Coast Guard, who are heavily reliant upon receiving biweekly paychecks, would not be paid biweekly during a federal funding hiatus

Grant Programs for State and Local Preparedness: All DHS and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) personnel working on grants programs would be furloughed, ceasing any further activity intended to help build state and local resiliency. Should a federal funding hiatus be prolonged, state and local communities may have to eliminate jobs that are dependent upon grants funding. Further activity under the Securing the Cities program would be suspended.

In addition, a government shutdown will hurt children, seniors, working families, and the economically vulnerable:

Military Readiness: In Texas, approximately 52,000 civilian Department of Defense employees would be furloughed, reducing gross pay by around $274.8 million in total.

Law Enforcement and Public Safety Funds for Crime Prevention and Prosecution: Funding will be halted to Texas on an annualized portion of the $1,103,000 in Justice Assistance Grants that support law enforcement, prosecution and courts, crime prevention and education, corrections and community corrections, drug treatment and enforcement, and crime victim and witness initiatives.

Vaccines for Children: In Texas around 9,730 fewer children will not receive vaccines for diseases such as measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, whooping cough, influenza, and Hepatitis B due to reduced funding for personnel who administer programs that provide funding for vaccinations.

Nutrition Assistance for Seniors: Texas would lose approximately $3,557,000 in funds that make it possible to provide meals for seniors.

For these reasons, we should be working to pass H.J. Res. 59 as amended by the Senate. That is the best way to keep faith with all persons who serve the American people as employees of the Federal Government, and those who depend upon the services they provide.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding and for her leadership on this very important issue. And what is that issue? Do we, as Members of Congress, intend to honor our responsibilities to the American people by making tough choices to keep government open and working for the American people?

Mr. Speaker, this weekend, in the dead of night, the Republican majority had a simple, but clear, choice to make: they could make a choice to accept Democrats saying ``yes'' to them on their budget number to proceed to the negotiating table to come up with a budget for our country, or they could choose in the dead of night to continue, like hounds baying at the Moon, once again--for like the 44th and 45th time--to try to overturn the Affordable Care Act. And what did they choose--and I say this with great apology to hounds because I love dogs--they chose to bay to the Moon. It was a sad thing because so much is at stake.

We should all, as Members of Congress, have confidence in what we believe in and debate full throttle the issues that are important to our country and to our constituents. We shouldn't take hostages because of the weakness of our ideas. We should go confidently to the table of policymaking to debate them, but to say we're going to shut down government unless you overturn the law of the land--that has been upheld by the Supreme Court and validated by the last election--we are going to shut down the government.

Now, the decision that they made the other night--baying night-- they're continuing today, attempting to put on the floor a resolution that has no possibility of becoming the law.

We as Democrats say, you have put forth two really unpleasant proposals; one, to overturn the Affordable Care Act; and the other is hiding the terrible budget bill that they are putting forth, which even their own chairman says does not enable government to function, does not even enable us to do the job that we're here to do for the American people.

Two ``noes'' do not make a ``yes.'' Two ``noes'' make matters worse. Democrats are absolutely, totally opposed and determined that we will not shut government down. We will not be party to shutting government down, and so we're willing to take your budget figure, with the accompanying 6-week opportunity to go to the negotiating table, and develop a bill that will get rid of sequestration and all the harm that that does to our national security and to our investments in the future. Take ``yes'' for an answer.

This debate is about the budget. Keeping government open is about passing a bill, a continuing resolution to do that. Don't be insecure about your own ideas and say the only way we can prevail is if we threaten to shut government down if we don't have our own way--if we don't have our own way, we're going to shut government down. You and that attitude are a luxury this country cannot afford.

So again I say, this is an explicit offer to the Republicans in the Congress to agree to your number in this legislation and take the next weeks ahead to come to the table and negotiate--something we should have done 6 months ago. In March, the Republicans said they wanted regular order. Regular order means you pass a bill in the House and a bill in the Senate, and you go to conference--at least that's what the book says. That's what regular order is. The Republicans wanted regular order. That's what they told the President of the United States in the Oval Office. How would you like to proceed, the President said. We want regular order, said Speaker Boehner and Leader McConnell.

The House passed its budget bill. Republicans started saying things like ``no budget, no pay'' to the Senate, the taunt. The Senate had planned to--and did--pass its budget bill. That would be the regular order. Now we go to the table to reconcile our differences.

The minute the Senate passed its bill, the Republicans abandoned any interest in the regular order. Why? Maybe they were afraid that people would see the contrast of what they want to do in their budget compared to the investment in the future, the statement of our national values that our Democratic proposal had under Chairwoman Patty Murray in the Senate and Chris Van Hollen in the House.

Whatever the reason, for 6 months they have not wanted to negotiate, and for 6 months they were saying the President doesn't want to negotiate. But they are the ones who have the responsibility, under the regular order of the House, to come to the budget table to reconcile our differences.

I salute the President for saying that the full faith and credit of the United States is not negotiable. We will not default on the debts that we have all incurred already.

That is over here. So when he says that's not negotiable, that doesn't mean that we won't negotiate on the budget which is in the form of a continuing resolution, a separate issue.

You can only conclude that ``insecure'' because of the poverty of ideas or ``just determined to shut down government,'' maybe because they don't fully understand the consequences of it.

The Republicans have once again come to the floor with a bill which they know will shut down government. 5\1/2\ hours from now--5\1/2\ hours from now--we either bay to the Moon again or we'll make the right decision to take ``yes'' for an answer, we agree to your number for the purpose of going to the negotiating table.

Our number is what we agreed to with you in the Budget Control Act, a

bipartisan agreement--$1.58 trillion versus $986 billion. That's an $80 billion comedown. That number was a comprise to begin with. That wasn't like plush with spending. It was a comprise to begin with. Now we are underfunding government; and that's not good enough for you, to underfund in meeting the needs of the American people. You want to shut down government.

I would hope that all who think this is not a good idea will express themselves on the rule, because the rule does not allow us to have a vote, a clean vote, on your suggestion for a continuing resolution at $986 billion. Let's give the Republicans a vote on their number. Let's give the Republicans a vote on their proposal, and let's do it in a way that is clean and does not place in doubt whether government will be open in the morning to meet the needs of the American people.

I hope that in the previous question enough people will reject what the Republicans are putting forth, and certainly on the rule we can do that. Otherwise, we'll go time and time again--46 times--to vote against undermining the Affordable Care Act. Instead, we could have passed an immigration bill. We could have passed a bill to make sure we had background checks for people who are legally able to purchase guns to make sure that they are. God willing, we could have passed legislation creating jobs, investing in the future for our country.

But all of those things can be the legitimate--not all, but the stuff about the job initiatives and investing in the future are the legitimate debate of priorities that is the budget debate. That is what I hope the Republicans will allow: something they asked for--the regular order; something they asked for--$986 billion in the bill; something I think we all want--keeping government open.

With that, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 367, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 59) making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2014, and for other purposes, with the House amendment to the Senate amendment thereto, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. 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 further consideration of H.J. Res. 59.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to move forward once again with H.J. Res. 59, the short-term continuing resolution that will keep the government open after the end of the 2013 fiscal year at midnight tonight.

We simply can't wait a second longer. At this late hour, we must move ahead at an accelerated pace to keep the doors of our government open. For the sake of our Nation, we must pass this continuing resolution. Mr. Speaker, the operative word here is ``continuing.''

The bills we've had on the floor, including this most recent version, do not shut down the government, as many colleagues on the other side of the aisle have falsely said. This bill, and the ones before it, continues the important functions of the Federal Government. That means our citizens will continue to benefit from these programs and services, and passing this bill will allow this Congress to continue to make progress on our important legislative work, including finding meaningful, responsible, bipartisan solutions to our fiscal problems, like the debt ceiling, sequestration, and the most immediate issue at hand, funding the government for the 2014 fiscal year.

We did not bring a resolution to shut down the government, Mr. Speaker. We brought a continuing resolution to continue the government.

A shutdown will help no one. It will only harm our Nation's security and

our economy. It will hurt our people, who rely on the Federal Government's programs and services in some way or another and who put faith in their government to act in their best interests.

Mr. Speaker, the House is not the body that is refusing to act. We aren't the ones who are not willing to budge. This is the third or fourth compromise we've offered to the Senate. They simply ignore us, throw it in the trash can.

House Republicans have now offered multiple bills, including one with just a repeal of the widely unpopular medical device tax. We've even incorporated changes that the Senate had proposed, but the Senate still refuses to engage, as does the White House. Today we offer yet another piece of legislation designed to keep the government open.

As with the previous CRs that the House has considered, this continuing resolution will fund the government through December 15 at the current post-sequestration funding rate.

It will incorporate most of the Senate's changes to our first CR, and include the few additional changes that I proposed as an amendment and that were added in the House on Saturday night. It will also delay for 1 year ObamaCare's individual mandate, and eliminates the employer subsidy for the health insurance plans of Members of Congress and our staffs and for political appointees at the White House.

No one, Mr. Speaker, is going to like everything in this bill. I don't like everything in this bill. But the continuing resolution before us today is the most immediate path to avoiding a shutdown. I expect that the House will do the right thing and approve this CR today.

I remain hopeful that the Senate will work with the House and pass this legislation. The people of this great Nation deserve more. They deserve a government that works for, not against, them. At the very least, that is a government that keeps its doors open.

So I urge all Members, every single Member, to vote ``yes'' on this continuing resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Lexington, Kentucky (Mr. Barr), my neighbor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee for Labor, Health and Human Services.

The gentleman is recognized for an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the very distinguished Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how many speakers the gentlelady has remaining.

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

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