Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic whip, for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at noon for morning-hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Tuesday and Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour and noon for legislative business. On Thursday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes of the week are expected no later than 3 p.m. On Friday, no votes are expected.

Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a few suspensions next week, a complete list of which will be announced by the close of business today. In addition, the House will consider two bills next week to fund government operations.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, House and Senate appropriators are working towards a bipartisan agreement on an appropriations package to fund the government for the remainder of the fiscal year. I expect an agreement to be reached soon. The House will consider this package next week.

Mr. Speaker, to facilitate this, we will need to pass a short-term CR to allow the Senate time to process the bill. I expect to pass this under suspension of the rules early next week.

Finally, I expect the House to consider H.R. 3362, the Exchange Information Disclosure Act, sponsored by Representative Lee Terry. This bill requires full transparency and accuracy from the administration on data reported from the ObamaCare exchange.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman in response to his question, the expected termination, if you will, expiration of the CR will be Saturday, January 18. So giving a week really, Mr. Speaker, for the Senate to act, because we will be acting next week in the middle of the week. We hope that they will finish their business by September--I mean January 18.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and just for the record make clear that the bill, or the measure, that the gentleman is speaking to is a bill that would extend beyond the more than 6 months that unemployment benefits insurance is available now.

As the gentleman knows, we have been trying to focus this Congress on getting back to a more optimistic view of what the economy can do. It is about jobs; it is about growth.

Our focus is about wanting people to get a job. It is on employment, not unemployment. So I would say to the gentleman, if we could work together in trying to reject what unfortunately is seeming to become the new norm for many, instead, let's talk about the things that we do, maybe skills training.

Those who are chronically unemployed frankly could find a job if they had the skills necessary to do so. We would love to be able to work with the gentleman in a bipartisan fashion to perhaps do those kinds of things. Unfortunately, this Congress, this House has passed the SKILLS Act, and there was no bipartisan support for that.

We need to be focused on growing the economy, getting people back to work--and know that there is a lot of pain out there right now. The best response to the pain, in someone looking for some hope for the future, is a job.

And so I would respond to the gentleman, we are watching what the Senate is doing, and I think the reports today indicate the Senate is going to have some difficulty in passing what was thought to have been an easy thing to pass a few days ago. So I would ask the gentleman to join us in looking towards a more optimistic future for this country and economy, focusing on employment and those who have been chronically out of work.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

If I could just revisit the issue of the SKILLS Act. The gentleman speaks to the amount of money called for in the bill; and I would say to the gentleman the thrust behind the SKILLS Act was to try and refocus the program on actual effectiveness and results. I think the gentleman will agree that the job picture right now is not as bright as it should be.

As I indicated earlier, a lot of the folks who are trying to access skills training are unable to do so. There is evidence that existing programs are not results oriented like we would like them to be. And the purpose behind that bill is to realign the focus of the skills and training programs across the country with job availability and openings in the different regions of the country.

So rather than insisting on spending more money on a one-size-fits- all Washington approach, we provided flexibility for the regions so it could be tailored. The skills training programs could be tailored to the job openings in these specific regions of the country. And they are different. They are different in my region of the country than they are in the Pacific Northwest.

They are different in the Midwest than they are in the Northeast. We know that there is diversity in this country, and we should allow for those differences and the improvement reforms necessary to make it so that we are not accepting the status quo. I would ask the gentleman to take a look at that again as something that perhaps we can work on together.

I would also say, again, the jobs numbers, the gentleman is completely correct that these job numbers, this latest report this morning reflects the lowest number of jobs added since January of 2011. That doesn't speak well about the track record of what is going on here. So let's focus on jobs together.

As for the question about immigration, Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman is right. Immigration reform could be an economic boon to this country. We have got to do it right; and along those lines, the Speaker has said that we are going to look for the release of a list of principles of our position in the majority here in the House of what we believe is an appropriate path forward for immigration reform.

There are plenty of things that we can agree on. As the gentleman knows, I have been a strong proponent of the KIDS Act that I am working with the chairman of the committee on, because I think all of us can agree that we shouldn't hold kids liable for the misdeeds or illegal acts of their parents. This country has never been about that. There are plenty of things like that, strong border security, and making sure that that occurs first so we don't see a continuing problem of illegal immigration.

I think there are plenty of areas for agreement. Hopefully, Mr. Speaker, we can see after the release of a set of principles of our side that there can be some productive discussions, bipartisan with the White House, so that it is not ``my way or the highway,'' and then we can see a proper way forward.

I would say to the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, that there is an expectation that the list of principles will be released in the near future, and that is about as definite as I can be. But again, the sense is that there is common agreement on certain issues.

I think that, unfortunately, thus far, given the track record around this town, there is very little room for discussion, negotiations, and hopefully this can be different. But thus far, Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that we are looking for the release of those principles in the near future.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet on Monday next, when it shall convene at noon for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Speaker, and I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin.

I rise today in support of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013.

Mr. Speaker, in a divided government, the American people expect Members of both parties to come together and find common ground to move America forward. While this budget agreement is not perfect, it is a step forward towards bridging our differences and bringing fiscal responsibility to Washington.

The legislation before the House today will reduce our deficit, it will make long-term pension reforms, and it will do so without raising taxes on the hardworking middle class families of our country. This budget deal also protects our national security at home and around the world by preventing dramatic cuts to our national defense as a result of the sequester.

Mr. Speaker, I think we can all agree that arbitrary, indiscriminate across-

the-board spending cuts are not the smartest way to cut spending. Last year, House Republicans passed two bills that would have replaced the sequester's indiscriminate across-the-board cuts. This bill before us is a reflection of our priority to replace the sequester with permanent savings that will responsibly reduce our deficit.

This legislation will allow Congress to concentrate on appropriating taxpayer funds to our country's highest priorities. Let's stand together and show the American people that we are focused on reining in Washington's out-of-control spending habits while growing our economy.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, the chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan, for his perseverance and his quest to rein in the wasteful spending, to work towards balancing our budget. I want to thank him for his tenacity in negotiations that he had with Senator Murray in arriving at this deal. I want to thank him and his entire committee for their hard work.

This is a bipartisan budget agreement, one that has not been frequently seen in terms of bipartisan agreement on this floor. I urge my colleagues in the House to support this agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Act. I also would like to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Vermont, for his courage in providing bipartisan support, along with some other colleagues in support of this bill, as well as the Republican cosponsors, Gregg Harper from Mississippi and Tom Cole, my colleague from Oklahoma who is here in this Chamber.

For those colleagues who are here in the Chamber, we are joined by Gabriella Miller's parents, Ellyn and Mark Miller, who are in the gallery. I want to thank them for their courage in being here and for their understanding of what goes on on this floor and to not take it in any other way other than we are trying to do what is right in terms of delivering on the legacy of their daughter.

Mr. Speaker, Gabriella Miller, a young girl from Virginia, was only 9 years old when she found out she had an inoperable brain tumor the size of a walnut and wasn't given long to live. Despite her diagnosis, Gabriella and her family chose to fight and share her dream with others of overcoming childhood disease.

Gabriella was so determined that she captivated people's hearts at rallies, through online videos, and raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for the Make-a-Wish Foundation. She even wrote a book for other children about understanding cancer. She poured every remaining ounce of her life into raising awareness for pediatric research for other children, with the hope that they would not have to suffer the same fate. In her last few months, Gabriella left a mark on the world that will never be forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that Washington has a spending problem. The problem is not only that we spend too much, but that we are spending taxpayer dollars on the wrong priorities. Medical research for children should be a national priority.

The first NIH bill I scheduled as majority leader was a bipartisan bill authored by Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers and Representative Lois Capps to strengthen pediatric research networks. The President signed the bill into law last month.

The bill before us today builds on that legislation by providing resources through the NIH Common Fund for high-risk, high-reward research that has the potential to transform pediatric research for children suffering from many different diseases and disorders. For the first time, Congress will establish a Pediatric Research Initiative Fund that will serve as an accountability mechanism to help ensure that dollars are reaching their intended target.

While all of us support the NIH, this bill is an opportunity to push the agency to make big discoveries that will improve and ultimately save so many lives. We don't have to accept the status quo as the best we can achieve. Yes, the NIH needs taxpayer resources, but it also matters how we invest and apply those dollars.

Now, Mr. Speaker, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say this is just a drop in the bucket compared to the sequester cuts. I agree. The sequester cuts were, unfortunately, indiscriminate, and I and my colleagues have proposed alternatives to them, but let's not let Washington politics get in the way of any effort to help these kids. This is one step of many that we should take together.

How many times do we meet parents and families who share their stories and ask for help? I recently had the privilege of meeting Gabriella's parents, Ellyn and Mark, and they personally shared with me Gabriella's fighting spirit. In fact, in one of her last interviews-- and you can view this online--when asked what Gabriella would like to tell our political leaders, she said, ``Stop talking. Start doing. We need action.''

This, Mr. Speaker, is our opportunity to act.

Outside of this building, this legislation has tremendous support. The leading children's research hospitals, United for Medical Research, and over 100 patient advocacy groups support this bill. Currently, it leads all other bills on cosponsor.gov with over 2,500 citizen cosponsors. This kind of support is great, but what matters now are the Members of this House and how they vote. The question before the Members today is simple: What is more important--finding cures for our children or balloons for party conventions and catering for politicians?

The bottom line is that this bill is a choice between allocating moneys for political conventions or pediatric medical research. That is the choice. The bill isn't just about a government agency or taxpayer dollars. It is not about Democratic issues or Republican issues. It is about a cause, frankly, that should unite each and every one of us.

Yes, I would say to my colleague from California that this is a serious first step--it is not everything--but to not sit here and impugn anyone's motives, much less say something that is somehow a commentary that this isn't constructive towards the plight of the parents like the Millers who are around this country and who are searching for some indication that we can break the political gridlock on an issue like this. I align myself with the comments of my colleague from Vermont, who says, Can't we just put down the battle axes for something like this? Can't we all do that for somebody like Gabriella?

Now, Gabriella may no longer be with us, but her fight lives on. I ask, Mr. Speaker, that all of us stand united today and join in this fight.

Again, I want to thank Congressman Gregg Harper, and I want to thank Congressman Peter Welch for introducing this bill as well as to thank Congressman Cole from Oklahoma. Earlier this year, they began the effort to join with so many who have come before in order to raise awareness of the need for medical research and, yes, this time, of the need for us to prioritize the funding for pediatric research.

I would like to thank Gabriella's parents, the Millers, who are so brave in their commitment to this effort and who realize this is just a first step--being here with us today and joining us in this fight.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic whip, for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at noon for morning-hour and at 2 p.m. for legislative debate. As announced previously, no votes are scheduled on Monday. On Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour and at noon for legislative business. First votes of the week will occur no earlier than 2 p.m. on Tuesday. On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes for the week are expected no later than 3 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a few suspensions next week, a complete list of which will be announced by the close of business Friday.

On those suspensions, I am pleased to announce that the House will consider H.R. 2019, the Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Act sponsored by Representatives Gregg Harper and Peter Welch, which has over 2,000 citizen cosponsors, and puts into practice what I hope we will all agree on, which is to place a priority on pediatric medical research over political party conventions.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of legislative items which may become available for consideration next week, including legislation pertaining to the sustainable growth rate in Medicare, a budget agreement, and legislation pertaining to farm programs, including potentially a full farm bill conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I remind the gentleman that the expiration of the benefits that he just referred to were benefits that were passed by this Congress 5 years ago as emergency spending, as emergency need, at a time in which we were facing near bottom in terms of our economy, the fallouts of the financial collapse; and those benefits, again, were brought about in those contexts.

I would say to the gentleman further, Mr. Speaker, that if he were to look at the jobs legislation that this House has passed, all of which is awaiting action in the Senate--the SKILLS Act, the Working Families Flexibility Act, the Keystone pipeline, the REINS Act, the Offshore Energy and Jobs Act, Federal Lands Jobs and Energy Security Act, Veteran Emergency Medical Technician Act, and the Veterans Economic Opportunity Act--all of these are measures which the House passed because, I think the gentleman would agree with me, the best way to address the chronically unemployed is to help them get back to work. These bills, especially the SKILLS Act, was one specifically designed to do that, to help those chronically unemployed to access the necessary skills that they need to enter the job market of today.

I would also further point out, Mr. Speaker, that this week, December 3, the Congressional Budget Office issued a report in response to a request for the extension of unemployment benefits in which it said that some unemployed workers who would be eligible for those benefits would reduce the intensity of their job search and remain unemployed longer, which would tend to decrease output and employment. This is the Congressional Budget Office speaking on the question that the gentleman raised.

Mr. Speaker, I would say that such policies, if we were to continue, would lead to greater Federal deficit, which would eventually reduce the Nation's output and income slightly below what would occur under current law. So I think that we should be focused on how we get folks back to work. That is where the House has been focused. Unfortunately, after 140-some bills we passed over to the Senate, they still await even consideration at all by that body.

I thank the gentleman for the recitation of his desired wish list for what he would like to see on the floor. I would also like to remind the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, this House has passed well over 149, 150 bills, very much focused on job creation, very much focused on trying to make sure that we address the needs of those who are most vulnerable right now, trying to make sure that we can sustain the safety net while equipping those that are without the tools necessary to get up on that ladder of success.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Senate has just refused to take up most of those bills. In fact, the House has passed and sent 189 bills to the U.S. Senate so far this Congress, and that is excluding what we've done this week. And of those 189 House bills, 41 have been signed into law by the President; 148 bills have stalled in the Senate.

The Senate has, so far this year, passed only 43 bills this Congress; and out of those 43, only 14 have been signed into law by the President.

So, Mr. Speaker, we have done our work. We have got a lot more work to do on behalf of the American people.

One of the things I did not hear the gentleman, the Democrat whip, mention was the issue of health care. And obviously health care has been very, very much on the minds of America right now as they have witnessed the utter disaster of a rollout of ObamaCare.

As the gentleman knows, his constituents, as well as mine, are faced with higher premiums, faced with the realization now that the President has broken a major promise when he had said to the American people that they could keep their health care plans if they liked it. We know now that wasn't true, and so people are having to go and figure out what kind of plans are actually there for them.

The administration has claimed this week the Web site is working just fine. Well, we know good and well that the back end of that Web site is not working just fine. I am glad that people are able maybe to get on and see what is there. We don't really know because of the lack of transparency as to how successful the signups and enrollments are.

We do know now, though, that most Americans in the individual plan arena are facing higher premiums. Those that have had to give up their plans are facing higher premiums and plans that they don't necessarily choose, that they are now forced to have because of the operation of this law. I would say to the gentleman we need to focus on that very issue. What are we going to do? What are the alternatives?

We Republicans have an alternative. We voted on that alternative back in 2009. It was a plan that was centered on patients first. It was a plan that the Congressional Budget Office said would reduce premium costs for taxpayers, for patients out there. We have not resolved this question of health care. There is a better way; and I would say to the gentlemen, we ought to be spending some time focused on how we are going to resolve that for the millions of Americans who are very, very unhappy right now, given their options for healthcare under ObamaCare.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I say, Mr. Speaker, no, it is not politics. Mr. Speaker, it is about what people right now are concerned about. They send us here to reflect their problems and to try to reach solutions for the problems that they are facing. Right now more people in America, I would venture to say, are concerned about the choice they have for health care right now and how they will seek coverage for their family. And it is not about the politics. There are some things that actually do transcend Washington partisan politics, and right now, that is about health care.

We care about health care. Republicans care about health care. Democrats care about health care. Right now there is a serious problem given this ObamaCare law. We need to address that for the people. We need to help people, and that is what I am talking about, Mr. Speaker. I am not talking about the politics of it. I am talking about what is on the minds of millions of Americans right now as they are losing the coverage that they know and they have chosen and they can afford, facing the opposite. It is a disaster right now concerning ObamaCare. We have got to help the people of this

country when it comes to their health care. That is what it is about.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that the discussions that I have had with Chairman Ryan would lead me to some optimism that the two sides actually can come to an agreement. The agreement has not been made, so I don't want to say that there is a deal; but I am optimistic that, in fact, this time of year when the differences between the two sides have certainly been on display all year long, that perhaps we could agree that we need to reduce the deficit. We need to do something about the wasteful spending. And once again, I don't think the gentleman, nor I, thinks that the sequester is the best method to cut spending. It is indiscriminate. It cuts bad programs the same way as good programs, to put it simply. There are better ways.

Our side has always said, Mr. Speaker, that we have got to do something about the mandatory programs, the autopilot spending of the Federal Government that is disproportionately causing our deficit. I am hopeful that next week we can show the people of this country that we can produce something that is smarter than the way we are going about things now.

Obviously, a big concern to me is the national security and the defense of this country, as I know it is for the gentleman. And so again, I am hopeful that will be the case.

Now, the form that that agreement may or may not take I think right now is undetermined. I think it would be premature to even guess at that, and I would say to the gentleman that I know that he joins me in hoping that there is an agreement where we can maintain the trajectory in reducing spending and do it in a smarter way so we can get about the business of prioritizing the expenditure of taxpayer dollars here in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet on Monday next, when it shall convene at noon for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

I thank the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Protecting States' Rights to Promote American Energy Security Act.

Over the last 10 years, America has been experiencing a shale energy boom; and because of new technology in hydraulic fracturing, the development of energy resources has been environmentally friendly. While the technology that has made this boom possible is truly impressive, I want to take a moment and focus on the impact this boom is having on hardworking middle class families.

Many of these families are living paycheck to paycheck. Many have gone years without a meaningful raise, but powering their lights or heating their homes is not an optional expense. An unexpected rise in the monthly utility bill means less money for new school clothes, the college savings account, or even a night out at the movies. That is why it is so important that we pursue policies that lower energy costs. Hydraulic fracturing is one such policy.

A recent study found that, absent hydraulic fracturing, a family's home energy bills and other costs for goods and services would have been $1,200 higher last year. The study concludes that the continued production of our domestic energy resources could increase disposable household income--principally by lowering costs--by $800 over the next 2 years. This is the type of relief American families deserve.

But lower energy costs for working families is not the only benefit of hydraulic fracturing. The same study showed that the natural gas and shale oil industry contributed over 1.7 million jobs in 2012 alone. Going forward, it is predicted to add a total of 2.5 million jobs by 2015. These are good, well-paying jobs right here in America. For those who have been struggling to find work for months or, in some cases, for years, this kind of advancement in energy technology could allow these folks to find work, to get back on their feet, and to provide for their families. It is no coincidence that areas of our country with active domestic energy production from hydraulic fracturing are experiencing lower levels of unemployment.

These benefits to working families are now under threat. They are under threat from newly proposed Federal regulations by this administration that would cost our economy jobs, keep energy bills from falling, and hinder our cause to become more energy secure.

State governments and local regulators have been very effective with implementing environmentally sound regulations to meet the specific geologic requirements of their States for over 60 years. This act will keep the Federal Government from imposing redundant regulations and needless red tape that will only raise the monthly utility bills of millions of American families and cost America new jobs.

The States and local regulators should be allowed to do this job without any Federal interference. I saw firsthand, when I accompanied my colleague from North Dakota, Kevin Cramer, to Williston, wellheads that were being drilled, and the last thing they need in that State, in that area, are the Federal regulators coming in to tell them how to drill a well.

This bill is an opportunity for the House to act in a bipartisan manner and show our constituents that we are serious about creating jobs, that we are serious about easing the burden of high energy costs, and are serious about strengthening our energy security.

I want to thank all of those involved and the chairman of the committee, as well as Congressman Bill Flores and the rest of Chairman Hastings' Natural Resources Committee, for their hard work and dedication to this issue for working middle class families. I also want to thank Chairman Lamar Smith and the Science Committee for their important contribution to this legislation.

I urge my colleagues in the House to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California. I want to thank him, as well as the gentlelady from the District of Columbia, for their work on the DATA Act.

Mr. Speaker, I do rise today in support of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act. The American people deserve a functioning government that is both open and accountable. The DATA Act is an important step to achieving this goal because it will publish Federal spending data and transform it from disconnected documents into open, searchable data for people to see and read through online.

This easily accessible data will create an abundant amount of resources and opportunities for innovation to occur. It will bring about new start-ups and innovators, all of which will be aimed toward turning this data into actionable information.

This information can then be used to help solve some of our Nation's most pressing problems and help all of us better determine where we can better eliminate waste.

Over the last year, Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of visiting a civic start-up called Code for America in California. It is an organization that is committed to helping solve problems, primarily at the local level.

It has a long list of programmers and developers who are ready to take action across the country. They want to use their skills and apply those skills to help government and its citizens be more efficient. But they, first, need to know, when they go into a locality, whether the kind of information they need is going to be accessible.

We can begin to do that today here at the Federal level. With the passage of the DATA Act, we will be one step closer to the American people being able to hold government bureaucracies accountable. Plain and simple, Federal spending data will be easier to access under this bill.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of controversy surrounding the rollout of ObamaCare over the last month. And beyond the core problem of the law's causing the cancelation of individuals' insurance, beyond the core problem of the law's causing the increase in costs to millions of Americans for their health care, one of the more frustrating issues is a lack of transparency on the part of government bureaucracy.

We just cannot tell what the information is right now. How many people have really signed up for ObamaCare?

We don't know whether it is people who have purchased plans on the healthcare.gov site, or whether it is people who have just put them into their shopping carts. Again, very, very frustrating, not only for folks around the country, but for those of us who want to try and help the situation so that government is not cramming down on anyone its prescribed method of health care coverage.

So the DATA Act is an opportunity for both parties to come together and to demonstrate that we are serious about creating a more open and effective government and about holding government accountable. Let's pass this bill so we can begin to restore trust with the American people.

Again, I want to thank the gentleman from California, Chairman Darrell Issa, as well as the gentlelady from the District of Columbia, for their work on this bill, the other members of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee for their hard work; and I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

I thank the chairman, the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Keep Your Health Plan Act.

Many Americans today are worried. They are worried about their jobs, worried about saving for their children's college educations or worried about saving for their retirements, and now, Mr. Speaker, millions of Americans are worried about coming home and opening their mailboxes to find out that their health care coverage has been taken from them because of the President's health care law.

The President repeatedly said that if you liked your health care plan, you could keep it. We knew this was a promise he could not keep, and now it is a promise he has broken. As a result, millions of Americans across the country are receiving cancelation letters just like this one.

Mr. Speaker, this letter was sent to me by a constituent of mine. His name is Bruno Gora. He is from Richmond, Virginia. Bruno is self- employed, and he purchases his health care plan through Anthem BlueCross/Blue Shield. A few weeks ago, he was shocked to receive this letter because this letter clearly reads: ``To meet the

requirements of the new law, your current plan can no longer be offered.'' Purchasing a new plan could potentially cost Mr. Gora thousands of dollars.

Why should he or anyone else be forced off their plan if they want to keep it?

Working families across America were counting on the President to keep his promise. Now they are counting on us to ease some of the pain that his health care law has brought on them.

Yesterday, President Obama announced that he was going to be making some unilateral changes, but the changes he proposed and the ones we are proposing in the House have some very clear differences.

The President's plan restricts coverage previously available to only those who already had it while forcing others to purchase a plan from healthcare.gov or to buy more expensive coverage that may not fit their needs. The White House doesn't even know how they are going to implement the plan they announced yesterday.

This proposal that we are talking about here, Chairman Upton's plan, aims to help Americans keep their health insurance and give their neighbors a chance to buy the same plans rather than forcing them onto a faulty Web site to buy new coverage they may not like or cannot afford. Under this legislation, there is no confusion. The Keep Your Health Plan Act removes the impediment in the law that restricts insurance plans from being offered.

The only way to completely stop any more cancelation letters like the one Mr. Gora received is through a full repeal of ObamaCare. Today, however, we have an opportunity to stand united and pass a bipartisan measure that aims to slow the growing number of Americans harmed by this law.

I would like to thank Chairman Upton for his hard work and dedication to the issue, and I urge all of my colleagues in the House to support this bill.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic whip, for yielding.

On Monday, the House will meet at noon for morning-hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Tuesday and Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour and noon for legislative business. On Thursday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes of the week are expected no later than 3 p.m. On Friday, no votes are expected.

Madam Speaker, the House will consider a few suspensions next week, a complete list of which will be announced by close of business today.

In addition, the House will consider three bills to increase domestic energy production, create American middle class jobs, and lower the cost of energy for our families. These bills are H.R. 2728, the Protecting States' Rights to Promote American Energy Security Act, sponsored by Representative Bill Flores; H.R. 1965, the Federal Lands Jobs and Energy Security Act, authored by Representative Doug Lamborn; and H.R. 1900, the Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act, sponsored by Mike Pompeo.

Together, these bills represent our continuing commitment to energy independence and putting more money in the pockets of working middle class families.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

I would say to the gentleman we certainly have three conference reports we are looking at hopefully completing with the Senate. One is the WRRDA conference report that we voted on in the House this week to go to conference. The other is the farm bill conference report, as well as the NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act.

I would say to the gentleman, Madam Speaker, those are certainly the conference reports we would like to see resolved so we can have a vote in the House. The gentleman correctly points out that the sustainable growth rate program and its formula expires at the end of the year. Certainly, our committees are at work trying to see a way forward, as well as trying to seek out the proper budgetary pay-fors necessary for the plan that has been put forward by Energy and Commerce, as well as the Committee on Ways and Means. I know there have been some bicameral discussions on that as well. I am hopeful we can resolve that, but certainly knowing full well we have to act prior to the end of the year.

I would also point out to the gentleman that there is considerable work being done on the issue of patent reform, and we hope that comes to the floor prior to the end of the year. And obviously, the larger item having to do with the Budget Committee conference, headed up by Chairman Paul Ryan and in the other body Senator Patty Murray, and we look forward to a resolution there. That is certainly the intention, Madam Speaker.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and would say the gentleman is correct. Certainly, the sooner, the better, as far as I am concerned. I am concerned as well about any resolution on the Budget Committee conference. I know the gentleman has spoken to both Chairman Ryan as well as the other body's chairman. In speaking to Chairman Ryan, he tells me that there has been a lot of discussion, not only public discussion in meetings, but certainly his meeting with the chairman from the Senate, in trying to find a way forward.

The gentleman knows that the issue that is central to these discussions is not unlike the issue that has been under discussion for some time here, and that is how do we go about seeking reform of some of the mandatory programs and trying to reach resolution there in exchange for a commensurate relief on the across-the-board budget cuts that are currently in place.

I don't know, Madam Speaker, whether they are going to meet the deadline next week or not that the gentleman says will be preferable. I know that our chairman is very mindful that

the quicker, the better, so we can get on about our work here in the House.

As the gentleman knows, we have had the discussion before about the majority's position on the Senate bill. We don't support the Senate bill. The Speaker I think spoke out on that this week. Our Members don't support the Senate bill. We have said all along Chairman Goodlatte and his committee are going about a much more deliberative process, a step-by-step approach in trying to address the problems with a broken immigration system. I do think, and I will tell the gentleman that there is consensus on our side of the aisle as well as his, that the system is broken and needs to be fixed. Certainly there are differences on how to go about doing that.

We remain committed, as does the chairman, in trying to move in a step-by-step manner to address the various issues involved with immigration reform, but not to do it the way the Senate did because, as we have seen, many of those who actually voted for the Senate bill in the other body now say they regret that vote or they perhaps would do some differently. I guess it is up to the House to try to address it much more deliberatively and try to fix the problems that exist so we don't see them happen again.

I would say to the gentleman, the House will continue its work; and, as the gentleman knows, the news of this week, unfortunately, has been many, many Americans very unhappy with the work product coming out of this town as far as health care is concerned. I would posit to the gentleman that a bill like ObamaCare or a bill like the Senate immigration bill produces the kind of impact and effect that we are seeing this week and last week and the prior. We don't want to commit that same kind of mistake. We want to be smarter about it.

As the gentleman knows, our committees are hard at work in trying to identify how we can help people with their health care right now since they are facing the very real prospects of not having the health care insurance plans that they like, contrary to the promises that were made when that comprehensive bill was passed a couple of years ago in the same way the Senate bill, the immigration bill, was passed, with not a lot of focus on the detail.

We intend to try and focus on the details of immigration reform, try to come together, see if we can actually have some positive reception on the gentleman's side of the aisle both in this House and the one across the way as well as the White House to actually work together finally to produce a bipartisan outcome that will be satisfactory because none of these partisan bills have ended up working. As you see, ObamaCare, case in point. That is why we have the train wreck that is upon us. It was a strictly partisan bill that came out of the Congress, House and Senate, and look what has happened.

So I say to the gentleman, we do care about the immigration issue and want to go about reform in a smart way.

I would say to the gentleman, Madam Speaker, it is under consideration as to the timing when we bring that bill to the floor.

I would again reiterate that Chairman Goodlatte is trying to take a holistic approach to the immigration reform issue--the bill that the gentleman mentioned is obviously one of the pieces in trying to figure this out--and do so in a way that we can effect a positive result, not just result for result's sake. And I again direct the gentleman's attention, Madam Speaker, to what is going on with ObamaCare right now and how many millions of Americans are extremely disappointed in their government and certainly in the representations that were made by the

White House and President insofar as that law is concerned. I don't think that we ought to be engaging in those kinds of commitments when you can't deliver.

So again, we want to be working together. We want to be deliberative about this process, and hopefully we can move forward in a way that is expeditious and thoughtful.

Madam Speaker, I would say to the gentleman if he recalls that in the not too distant past, it was his side that opposed that bill when it was brought to the floor.

My response will be the same. We want to bring bills together. We can work in a cooperative fashion to effect a result. Unfortunately, as the minority opposed stapling green cards to diplomas on that bill that was brought in the past, we are trying to figure out a way where we can bring something forward and actually get it across the finish line with the other body.

Madam Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that the purpose is not just to make sure that a vote occurs and then nothing happens. The purpose is to pass bills and then allow for the bicameral effort to get a result. That is the frustration.

If the gentleman would also note, on the farm bill, we actually have a conference committee ongoing now. So the reason we employed the process we did was to get in a position that we could actually get a result and not just say we did something and fail to deliver for the people.

I would say to the gentleman again, these bills that he is bringing up all fit into a larger puzzle. We need some indication from the White House and from the majority in the Senate that they will actually work with us. Given the track record that this administration has amassed since 2009, there is not a lot of indication they are willing to work together.

Again, I would point to the prospects of that being what is key, because this week is demonstrative of what happens when you just move without bringing everyone together. The effects of this health care law are going to be lasting on people. They are scared to go to the exchanges. They are worried they are not going to have insurance. This is the impact and result of passing laws by just one body and expecting the other body to just go along. We can't do that now because we are two separate bodies, and we need the White House and the Senate to cooperate with the majority in the House.

Madam Speaker, I will say to the gentleman again, the track record of this administration and the majority in the Senate has indicated an unwillingness to sit down and talk. They have not done so. Certainly, the White House has not done so on the immigration issue, did not do so on the health care issue. Again, it doesn't help the American people for this insistence on ``my way or the highway'' kind of mode of operation.

We have gotten the message now. If it is going to be my way or the highway, we will try to do whatever we can to help people, as we did today on the floor with a bipartisan vote. The gentleman continues to say that we don't like the health care bill. That is true. I think the American people have spoken out pretty loud and clearly over the last 10 days or so, as indicated by the White House and the President's move yesterday. Obviously, the law is not working.

We don't want to get into another situation like that. We want to make sure we work together comprehensively because there are step-by- step actions that need to be taken, but we need results. We need the White House to sit down and talk to us. We don't need any more speeches, and we don't need any more press conferences by the President. We need some actual talk.

On the immigration issue, they have just not come forward. They have said ``my way or the highway.'' I say to the gentleman that is not how you work in a bipartisan process.

The gentleman complains about partisan action on the floor. Well, there is an inherent partisanship when you have a majority versus a minority, and the will of the House is reflected in the votes here. The Senate is controlled by

the gentleman's party, and so is the White House. So to get any kind of result, such as the farm bill, we are going to need a bipartisan result. He is correct on that. It doesn't mean that if we pass something in the House it automatically has to be something the Senate will support.

Again, I would say to the gentleman, let's all try to work together. I think our side has indicated a willingness to do that. Obviously, we want to go and get these conference reports out, but we have not seen a willingness on the part of the gentleman's party, this President, to say we can work together to effect positive immigration reform--not just my way or the highway.

Madam Speaker, I would just say to the gentleman that we don't want a repeat of what is going on now with ObamaCare. That bill constructed as it is by the Senate is a last-minute effort to get it across the finish line. I think there is a lot that could be done a lot better in that bill. The gentleman, I believe, knows that, as well. If he doesn't share my opinion, then we can agree to disagree on that.

I would just say again, let's be mindful, Madam Speaker, of what happens when you put together a bill like ObamaCare. There are real consequences for millions of Americans right now, and they are scared that they are not even going to have health care insurance that they have today come January 1. There are plenty of reasons for that: the mishaps with the Web sites, the call centers, the stolen identities. All the things that don't seem to be working right now are scaring people out of even considering in a rational way what is going on. How could they? There are no answers being given. I would say to the gentleman it is largely due to the unfortunate architecture of that bill, some of which can be blamed on the process by which it was put together. We don't want to the make that mistake again.

I would say to the gentleman that I look forward to working with him in a deliberate and thoughtful approach. We are not bringing up the Senate bill. We are not going to do that. I have said that to the gentleman. Hopefully, we can work in a much more positive way.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet on Monday next, when it shall convene at noon for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislation business.

Mr. Speaker, millions of Americans are coming home and opening their mailboxes to find shocking news; their health care plans are being taken away from them.

The President broke a promise we knew he couldn't keep, and now millions of Americans feel betrayed, wondering why their health care plans are being canceled.

Mr. Speaker, this letter was sent to me by a constituent. His name is Bruno Gora, and he is a constituent of mine in Richmond, Virginia. He is a self-employed individual who purchases health insurance through Anthem BlueCross/BlueShield. A few weeks ago, he was stunned to receive this letter in the mail, and it clearly reads: ``To meet the requirements of the new law, your current plan can no longer be offered.''

Any new plan could cost Mr. Gora thousands of dollars more. Why should he or anyone else be forced to buy a different insurance policy if they are happy with the one they have?

With every new day that passes, we continue to learn more and more about people in the same situation. Mr. Gora and this cancelation letter represent millions of ObamaCare victims across the country who are having their health insurance ripped away from them.

As a result, we House Republicans will put the Keep Your Plan Act on the floor for a vote tomorrow. The only way to stop every cancelation letter is by full repeal of this law. However, this bill will hopefully begin to ease some of the pain that working families are feeling because of President Obama's health care law.

Tomorrow, we will see who will put their constituents before policies and vote for a bill that could allow Americans to keep their plans.

I sincerely hope that my colleagues will act as a united voice and take the first of many steps to provide relief to the American people from the many burdens brought about by ObamaCare.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman from Pennsylvania for his leadership in bringing this bill to the floor as I rise in support of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2013.

Mr. Chair, our economy remains weak, and many working families are struggling. Many are having a hard time paying their bills, and others are struggling to find work. The American people deserve an efficient, effective, and accountable government that is focused on finding bipartisan solutions that will reignite our economy so those who are looking for a job are able to find one. The legislation before us today will provide a big step in that direction.

This is a fiscally responsible bill that will create jobs and ensure that America remains competitive in the global economy. It will encourage investing in our national water transportation networks, while cutting red tape and streamlining the infrastructure project delivery process.

Our waterways and ports support over $1.4 trillion worth of goods each year, and over the next few decades our trade volume is expected to grow exponentially. Every State in this country and millions of hardworking American families depend on the many parts of our waterway infrastructure to be strong economic arteries.

Other countries around the world have been investing in their commercial infrastructure to improve their standing in the global marketplace and so that they can gain a competitive edge. As a result, improving and strengthening our ports and inland waterways is not just an economic desire, it is an economic necessity.

This bill authorizes the Army Corps of Engineers to develop, maintain, and build important development projects, streamlines redundant environmental reviews, and establishes a transparent process for future activities with strong congressional oversight--and it does so without any earmarks. This is a commonsense bill that should garner bipartisan support because it will help revitalize our waterways, our ports, and our economy. The American people are counting on their elected leaders to restore trust in our government and faith in our economy, and this bill is an important part of achieving that goal.

Again, I would like to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Chairman Shuster, and the rest of the members on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on both sides of the aisle for their hard work on this issue, and I urge my colleagues in the House to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic whip, for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at noon for morning-hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Tuesday and Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour and noon for legislative business. Last votes of the week are expected Wednesday afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a few suspensions next week, a complete list of which will be announced by close of business Friday. In addition, the House will consider two bipartisan bills from the Financial Services Committee: H.R. 992, the Swaps Regulatory Improvement Act, authored by Representative Randy Hultgren; and H.R. 2374, the Retail Investor Protection Act, sponsored by Representative Ann Wagner.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and would respond by saying that I think the gentleman knows that both the Speaker and I have said that we are not going to consider the Senate bill because we object to the Senate bill, although we

do want to make some progress in reforming our broken immigration system, and there are plenty of bipartisan efforts underway and in discussion between Members on both sides of the aisle to try and address what is broken about our immigration system. The committees are still working on this issue, and I expect us to move forward this year in trying to address reform and what is broken about our system.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

As the gentleman knows, the conference committee has been appointed, it is meeting, and we anticipate a productive discussion on the farm bill and the reforms that the House voted on in all parts of the bill. We hopefully look forward to resolution on the differences between the Senate so that we can produce yet another bill that can be signed into law.

I would just underscore the fact, Mr. Speaker, that talks and negotiations are, yes, the way to go about trying to accomplish more for the American people. Along those lines, it is about trying to focus on the things and the beliefs that we have in common and not allowing those things that we disagree on to get in the way. If that spirit of negotiation is adopted by both sides, I believe there could be progress on the farm bill as well as other issues.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I agree with the gentleman that it is desirable. I look at it as a priority that we allow for the appropriations process to begin again, but that will require us to arrive at an agreement on what that top line number is, as the gentleman knows as a former appropriator.

We have said and maintained all along on the majority side of the aisle that the sequester is not the best way to go about achieving spending reductions, and I have said continuously that we would like to exchange for sequester mandatory savings and put that into law in exchange for the sequester. There are items in the President's budget that we agree on as well. That goes to my point, Mr. Speaker, of working and focusing on things that we have in common, things that we believe in in common, and leaving aside those things that we disagree on.

The main item that we disagree on in these discussions has been higher taxes. The Republicans and the majority in the House do not believe we ought to raise taxes, and we will not go about raising taxes in exchange for sequester relief. What we want to do instead is to allow for sequester relief and put into law mandatory savings that, in the long run, will exceed the kind of spending reductions that are in the sequester. They are smarter reductions. They make more sense and will allow us to provide, as the gentleman said, for the needs of those who are most wanting in our society. It will also allow for the defense of our country and will put us on to a path of fiscal stability.

Mr. Speaker, it takes us focusing and limiting our discussions to those things we have in common. I believe that is the best way forward.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

As we just discussed, we expect there to be a farm bill conference report that we will consider here in the House. We will also look to consider items dealing with our domestic energy supply and the ability for us to maximize the indigenous assets and resources we have here to increase our competitiveness as a country for investment, for job opportunity, and to increase the standard of living for all of working middle class Americans as well as all Americans.

I would also say to the gentleman that if the Senate acts in time, we look forward to a conference report on the National Defense Authorization Act as well as various provisions that expire at the end of the year. Obviously, we have SGR and other things that will

expire that we will have to take time to deal with.

Obviously, we maintain our focus on the rollout of ObamaCare, Mr. Speaker, and our committees will be hard at work trying to understand exactly what is going on with the signup on these exchanges and to once again assert that it is only fair that all Americans are treated equally and fairly under this law, as is expected under every other law.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the order of the House of January 3, 2013, regarding morning-hour debate not apply tomorrow, and when the House adjourns on Thursday, October 24, 2013, it adjourn to meet on Monday, October 28, 2013, when it shall convene at noon for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.