Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. McGovern.

Madam Speaker, this is pretty exciting this morning. I think this is the first time in 5 years that I have been here that we were actually having a debate, discussing what both sides stand for.

Mr. DeFazio was wonderful. He is absolutely right. He knows what he is talking about. We haven't built infrastructure. Do you know, we haven't built one airport from the ground up in the United States since 1972, and every place else in the rest of the world has brandnew airports?

They are all whizzing about on high-speed rail. We don't have any; but we spent $2 billion a week while we were in Iraq. We were willing to spend that, maimed 46,000 young people, killed thousands of them as well, as well as people in those countries--for oil.

What we really do hear this morning and what pleases me so much is we are really showing the difference in this country and what the two sides believe in. We don't believe over here that the richest people should get richer. We don't believe that we need a budget right now that lowers the corporate tax rate.

We believe that all Americans should be paying their fair share, so we can build back up, and maybe we can start to enjoy some of the things that are happening elsewhere in the 21st century.

This budget is a misguided proposal driven by flawed math. At worst, it is a cynical choice to balance our budget on the backs of the most vulnerable Americans in order to protect the incomes of powerful special interests and the wealthiest few, and it does precisely that.

It is not news to anybody in the country that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer and the unemployed are desperate. Everybody knows that. The issue is: What is the Congress of the United States going to do about that?

Now, with this proposal, the majority gives an average tax cut of $200,000 to families earning more than $1 million a year, so they are okay. They earn $1 million a year, and they are going to get $200,000; but to pay for it, we have to raise taxes on the middle class.

Let me tell you how we do that. With this proposal, they defend the tax loophole that we have been trying to close

ever since I have been in Congress, the money we give oil companies so they will drill.

The five major oil companies, we pay them $4 billion a year so they will drill; like they weren't having the biggest profits on the face of the Earth and no one needs to encourage them to drill, but we pay for that, and to do that, they are going to turn Medicare into a voucher program.

We have discussed this before. That means your aged parents and grandparents will go into a marketplace by themselves--or maybe you can go with them--and look for their own insurance policy.

They will be given a government voucher or a stipend or whatever they want to call it to help pay for it, but it may not cover the cost, so the rest of the cost will come from the senior citizen. It will take exactly away what Lyndon Johnson had in mind in 1968. The benefit guaranteed by Medicare will be gone.

To pay for that, again, they want to keep the Medicare plan we have today, and with this proposal, the majority reduces the tax rate paid by corporations. I have said that before, and I want to say it again. Corporation tax rates are reduced, and we already know that most of them put all of their assets in the Cayman Islands or in some other country and pay no taxes whatsoever.

If we just brought some of the tax money back from the Cayman Islands, I bet we could have high-speed rail in the United States. Wouldn't that be wonderful?

So they take $137 billion in nutrition assistance, the food people live on, out of the mouths of low-income families struggling to get by. The author of this budget said such draconian cuts are necessary because:

We don't want to turn the safety net into a hammock that

lulls able-bodied people to lives of dependency and

complacency.

If that is his goal, then he and his colleagues have written a budget that badly misses the mark. For the hammock of dependency isn't found in the homes of working Americans, but on the beaches of the Cayman Islands, where powerful special interest and the wealthiest few depend upon policies like this budget to build their own hammock out of the social safety net that used to support the largest middle class on Earth that is fast disappearing.

For more than three decades, the wealthy and the powerful have used money and influence to secure tax cuts, to deregulate industries, and to pass free trade deals that put corporate profits before America's jobs.

In so doing, they have redirected revenue away from the Federal Government and made it virtually impossible to fund the programs that have made our Nation the envy of the world.

With the wealthy and powerful exempted from paying their fair share, our Nation put tens of billions of dollars and two wars on the Nation's credit card and failed to invest in maintaining our roads, modernizing our airports, or building efficient passenger rail here at home.

As a result, highway bridges are literally falling into the water, our airports have become laughably out of date, and our trains travel at speeds half as fast as those found in Germany, China, and Japan.

Far from solving this crisis, the majority's budget doubles down on the failed policies by reducing taxing for the rich and powerful even further. We have already said a millionaire gets a $200,000 tax cut, so we are going to ask the most vulnerable Americans to pay the price.

Under this budget, 170,000 children will lose Head Start, and 29,000 teachers and aides will be left without jobs. College students, who are already suffering under staggering costs of higher education, would be told that they must repay their loans while they are still in school.

And $205 billion would be cut from programs like Pell grants, making it harder than ever to get the education that is needed to succeed in the modern world.

Perhaps, most egregiously, the promise of secure and affordable health care would be broken with the repeal of the Affordable Care Act and the end of the Medicare guarantee. Under the majority's budget, Medicare would be turned into a voucher, as I said before.

On Sunday, the news program ``60 Minutes'' traveled down the winding roads of the Cumberland Mountains into the heart of Appalachia in a RV called the Health Wagon. The aging vehicle is the only source of health care for thousands of Americans in desperate need of medical attention.

The vehicle is staffed by two incredible nurses and other medical volunteers, including Dr. Joe Smiddy, the Health Wagon's volunteer medical director. After completing medical school, Dr. Smiddy had to enroll in truck driver school so he could drive the Health Wagon's x- ray lab, an 18-wheel truck that provides insight into diseases that were going undiagnosed.

These volunteers have seen the price individual Americans pay when the Chamber puts the priorities of the rich and the powerful ahead of everyone else. Dr. Smiddy said of life in the Cumberland Mountains:

This is a Third World country of diabetes, hypertension,

lung cancer, and COPD in the United States.

Madam Speaker, a Third World country.

Though the work of the Health Wagon does every day is heroic, no individual living in the wealthiest Nation on Earth should be relying upon the good will of volunteers to receive modern medical care.

Doctors and nurses of the Health Wagon should not be relying on Federal grants.

That is why we say this budget is not a reflection of our values, but theirs.

It is through the budget we decide whether we protect tax loopholes for Big Oil or provide our fellow citizens with access to secure and affordable health care, an education, a job, and a place to live. It is through our budget we decide whether kids can go to college or not.

Only by choosing to act and asking every American, including corporations, to pay their fair share--corporations are people, I understand, we have established that in the Supreme Court--we will be able to put every American on a path to prosperity and restore our role as the most advanced nation in the world.

I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise against the 52nd closed rule and the 52nd attempt to dismantle the ACA, the Affordable Care Act.

Once again, my colleagues in the Republican Party are standing on the wrong side of history. In 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed an ambitious program called Social Security in order to ensure that America's seniors had a measure of financial safety in their old age, a floor through which they could not fall; yet as it was being debated in the halls of Congress, Republicans and their allies in the business community tried to portray Social Security as something far more sinister.

Representative Daniel Reed of New York predicted that, under Social Security, Americans would feel ``the lash of the dictator,'' while Republican Senator Daniel Hastings of Delaware declared that Social Security would ``end the progress of a great country.''

Republican Congressman John Taber even said of the proposed law:

Never in the history of the world has any measure been

brought here so insidiously designed as to prevent business

recovery and to enslave workers.

Thirty years later, these same arguments are being used to decry the creation of Medicare as the beginning of socialized medicine, and it was strictly with the votes of Democrats that the legislation to create Medicare was passed out of the Ways and Means Committee and the Rules Committee before being brought to the floor.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, we have been through this same story many times. A cynical person might believe that one of the reasons that the ACA has been fought so hard, as this is the third time Republicans failed to come up with any program that would help Americans either achieve independence or security in their old age, is that since every one of them voted against it, it is in their best interest that it fail.

All those claims that were made were absolutely untrue; and today, despite the current majority's attempts to portray the Affordable Care Act as another law that will steal personal freedoms, destroy the economy, and hurt American workers, the facts are once again proving them wrong.

Instead, it is quickly becoming clear that the Affordable Care Act will stand alongside Social Security and Medicare as an enduring commitment to the welfare of our fellow citizens.

Mr. Speaker, when we passed the Affordable Care Act in 2010, our Nation had reached the depths of a crisis that was decades in the making.

In fact, Presidents dating back as far as Harry Truman, including Republicans like Richard Nixon and Democrats like Bill Clinton, saw the urgent need to reform our health care system and expand coverage to every American, yet each time that a President tried to act, their efforts failed.

As a result, by 2010, our Nation was spending 17.6 percent of the Nation's gross domestic product on health care, and yet a record high number of 49.9 million Americans had no care at all.

With the health care crisis more acute than ever, President Obama and Democrats in Congress decided that we had to act. In fact, the percentage of GDP that health care was consuming

was rising beyond 18 percent, causing a serious threat to our economy. Thus began one of the most comprehensive legislative debates in history, a debate that included the views of both Democrats and Republicans, since they occupy all committees, and a debate conducted in full view of the American people.

The House held nearly 100 hours of hearings and 83 hours of committee markups. We heard from 181 witnesses, and 239 amendments from both Democrats and Republicans were considered in the three committees of jurisdiction, and 121 of them were adopted.

Finally, the bill was available for 72 hours before Members were asked to vote on it on the House floor. Despite this thorough and collaborative process, not a single member of the Republican Party on this floor voted for the historic law, true to their pattern of decades.

Today, thanks exclusively to the votes of Democrats, the numbers of Americans with access to health care is going up, and most importantly, the cost to providing health care to our citizens is slowing down. We have seen the slowest growth in the rise of health care in these last 2 years than we have in 50 years.

We all know that 7.2 million Americans registered for health insurance this year through the online health care exchanges--and even more in State exchanges, and we don't have that number yet. Indeed, RAND put out a report this week stating that 20 million Americans are benefiting, including the number of children under 26 who are on their parents' health care insurance. So, this week, in addition to that, the Los Angeles Times said at least 9.5 million previously uninsured Americans now have health insurance because of the ACA.

For those of us who have been carrying health insurance and been lucky enough to have it from our employers, each of our policies have cost $1,000 more because of what we were having to pay for uncompensated care for those who had no health insurance. That alone is one measure that is going to reduce the cost of insurance.

In the face of its success, it is not surprising the majority has come here today with a 52nd attempt to undermine the Affordable Care Act. After unanimously opposing its passage, spending millions of dollars campaigning against it, the majority has firmly planted their feet on the wrong side of history. Their only way forward is to dismantle the ACA as quickly as possible and prevent the American people from seeing more benefits under the law.

Mr. Speaker, even though the majority may claim that today's legislation is an attempt to fix the Affordable Care Act, it is, in fact, a fiscally irresponsible attempt to undermine the law. First, the legislation is not paid for, which flies in the face of the rules of all the Republicans in the House. The bill costs $74 million, and there is no hint at all of how that is going to be paid for. In fact, the Rules Committee last night, as it may, waived the rules of the House that require a pay-for, despite denying countless similar waiver requests in the past.

According to analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, this legislation would increase the deficit by $74 billion and force 1 million people to lose their sponsored health care coverage and increase the number of uninsured. It is not true that under this piece of legislation no one would lose their health care.

Over the next few hours, we will surely hear many claims about how much we care about the American worker. And I have no doubt that each claim contains a measure of truth because, after all, those American workers are our constituents. Words, no matter how moving, are only as powerful as the actions that are taken to back them up. It is the vote we take, not the speeches we make, that will show how much we care for the well-being of the American people.

Will we continue the progress being made under the Affordable Care Act, progress that is providing millions of Americans with access to health care for the very first time, or will we vote to try and undermine the progress with a bill that is before us today?

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on today's rule and the underlying legislation. The facts become clearer every day. The Affordable Care Act is delivering on its promise of lower cost, greater access to lifesaving health care for millions of Americans. Millions, Mr. Speaker, for the first time, have health care because they had been born with a preexisting condition which no longer hampers their having health care.

It is time the majority stop playing political games and start supporting the historic law that will benefit Americans now and for generations to come. As I have pointed out many times on the floor during a rule, running the House of Representatives of the Congress costs $24 million a week. This is again another week where we do nothing to earn that.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my fellow New Yorker, Mr. Bishop.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman another 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire if my colleague has more speakers?

Then I am prepared to close and yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we heard, again, today that the Affordable Care Act has caused a lot of job loss, which simply flies in the face of reality because since the bill was passed, 8.6 million new jobs have been created in the United States. And every time we see one of those ads where somebody says, oh, I couldn't do this, I couldn't do that because of the health care bill, we have discovered that, generally, oftentimes people have been paid to say that on ads or that they have, unfortunately, been mistaken.

Now, today's rule grants 3 hours of debate on a bill going nowhere because we don't have anything else to do. We all know that the Senate will never take up this legislation, and if it did, the President has already said he would veto it. So instead of wasting 3 hours of debate on a 52nd attempt to undermine the Affordable Care Act, I urge my colleagues to finally hold a vote to reform our immigration system, renew unemployment benefits, raise the minimum wage, or create jobs.

This economy would be roaring if we could pass some of our bills. We have 48 bills ready to go that would create new jobs that we can't put on the floor because of our single occupation here of trying to dismantle the Affordable Care Act.

So if we defeat the previous question today--and I hope everybody will vote ``no'' on it--it will give us a chance to do something that cries out to be done.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up legislation to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. The American people are calling for an economy that works for everyone, not just for those at the top.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' to defeat the previous question, vote ``no'' on the underlying bill, and yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

It is, indeed, beautiful. It snows all the time, though, and we have had about enough.

Madam Speaker, as the previous speakers have said, on April 2, 1986, the Reid family of Brockport, New York, gave birth to a son named Nicholas. For 26 years, Nicholas lived a life of honor and duty; and though he was

taken from this Earth far too soon, his was a life that should be remembered throughout our time.

Just 2 years out of high school, Nicholas signed up for the United States Army while we were in the midst of two wars. Surely knowing that he would see the dangers of battle but proudly volunteering to serve his country, Nicholas was assigned to the 53rd Ordnance Company of the 3rd Ordnance Battalion based at Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington State.

Nicholas served two tours of duty on the battlefields of Afghanistan and faced some of the most dangerous situations ever encountered by the United States Army as an explosive ordnance disposal specialist, the most dangerous job there was. In his frontline role, Nicholas repeatedly risked his life for the safety of his fellow soldiers and civilians alike.

It was in this role that Nicholas suffered fatal injuries when an improvised explosive device detonated in Sperwan village, Afghanistan, on December 9, 2012. Seventeen days later, the town of Brockport honored Nicholas' heroic life when his body returned home. ``We are here to make sure he receives the welcome home that he deserves,'' said one community member who stood in the cold winter wind and under gray skies to welcome Staff Sergeant Nicholas J. Reid home.

Today, I rise to make permanent the debt of gratitude our Nation owes to Staff Sergeant Reid and to his parents, Ken and Dorothy. With this legislation, the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 14 Main Street in Brockport, New York, will be permanently designated as the Staff Sergeant Nicholas J. Reid Post Office Building.

A recipient of the Bronze Star and Purple Heart, among countless other medals of service, we can never fully repay Nicholas or his family for their service to our country; but with this gesture, we can ensure that future generations will know of the incredible life that Staff Sergeant Reid lived, of his honor, his sacrifice, and pride in serving his hometown of Brockport and the country that he defended. It is with immeasurable gratitude that I offer this legislation today and remember Staff Sergeant Nicholas J. Reid.

Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court will soon hear oral arguments in the case commonly referred to as Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius. The outcome of this case will determine whether or not a for-profit company has the right to limit a female employee's access to health care under the guise of religious freedom.

Already the Supreme Court has wrongly declared that corporations have a right to ``freedom of speech,'' as determined in the case of Citizens United. In just a few short years, this ruling has led to a flood of undisclosed money into our elections and corrupted our political system. Corporations' latest attempts to secure the constitutionally- protected rights of citizens is equally as dangerous.

Only a living, breathing woman should have the right to decide how and when she wants to have a family. Regardless of her decision, that choice belongs to her and not to the corporation for which she works.

Millions of women depend upon birth control pills for reasons beyond preventing unintended pregnancies, including a 13-year-old girl in my district, who would rather be in her classroom learning but who spends lots of time in a doctor's office trying to control uncontrollable bleeding. Yet, through no fault of her own, she finds herself at her doctor's office often, and then just recently had to have a blood transfusion.

This young woman relies upon birth control medication to control her bleeding, a medication that her family can only afford because her mother's access to contraceptive care is not violated by her employer.

If the Supreme Court once again interprets our Federal law to grant citizen freedoms to a corporation, it will directly threaten the rights of this young girl and millions of women around the country. We cannot allow that to happen.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this is just not an ordinary day, this is a very important thing that is happening here, particularly for those of you who watch Congress a lot and want to know what it is we are about. This is a very special occasion here. As you can see by this poster on my right, we are celebrating a double golden anniversary. Today, the majority is holding the 50th vote to repeal or to otherwise undermine the Affordable Care Act under the 50th closed rule.

Now, to people who don't understand what a closed rule is, that means this rule is coming to the floor to debate these bills, and it will not allow them to be amended. That is not exactly an open Congress in a great democracy.

The majority has defied all expectations in reaching those milestones today, and as one often does when celebrating a colleague's 50th birthday or acknowledging a friend's 50th wedding anniversary, I want to take a moment to reflect on all that the majority has done to achieve this great honor.

Indeed, many Americans, including myself, were doubtful we would ever see the majority hold their 50th vote to repeal a good health care law that is already benefiting more than 9 million Americans because, why would Congress want to take health care away from people?

I remember back in 2012, when CBS News reported that the majority had spent 80 legislative hours--costing approximately $48 million--to hold 33 votes to repeal the ACA. That is just the amount of money spent on floor time and committee time. They had held 33 votes at that time to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Given the incredible waste of time and taxpayer money, I was hopeful that the 33rd vote might be the last. But the majority has persevered, and continued to ignore the Nation's pressing priorities to make it to today's 50th vote.

Of course, getting this far wouldn't have been possible without the help of a closed legislative process--a process that has allowed the majority to pursue a 50th vote without pause.

Last year, the majority presided over the most closed session in history, and repeatedly passed closed rules that shut out the voices of the nearly 200 duly elected Members of Congress who sit on my side of the aisle. Now today, the majority is presenting their 50th closed rule in order to hold a 50th go-nowhere vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

It is truly amazing that the majority has managed to hold the same vote 50 times while so many Americans and so much of the world cries out for help. As we know, there are global crises from Ukraine to Afghanistan. At home, there are millions still looking for work; millions more are working for a minimum wage upon which they cannot survive.

In fact, just this week the number of Americans whose emergency unemployment insurance has expired will surpass 2 million individuals, including almost 200,000 veterans. We could have averted the crisis weeks ago, and we have tried numerous times to do that, but the majority has repeatedly said ``no.'' Indeed, some of our colleagues have said it would be immoral to help out those who have no money coming into their home.

Meanwhile, the Center for American Progress released a report today that found that raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour would reduce Federal spending on food stamps by $4.6 billion a year. Despite a similar estimate from the Congressional Budget Office declaring that raising the minimum wage

would lift 900,000 people out of poverty, the majority refuses to join my Democratic colleagues and me to give America a raise.

Mr. Speaker, there are dozens, if not hundreds of bills that deserve our consideration, but today's attempt to repeal a good health care law is not one of them. In fact, I have a list of 50 votes that we could be taking today instead of another vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act--everything from rebuilding our crumbling bridges and roads to creating American manufacturing jobs.

Of particular importance is a bill that I authored called the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act that will address the immediate crisis of antibiotic-resistant diseases and help to save lives. Despite the urgent need to protect public health, we have been unable to even get a hearing on this important legislation.

The majority's refusal to take action on any of these pressing issues is truly an achievement, not one to be proud of. I hope I have made it clear that we cannot celebrate that achievement.

Mr. Speaker, it is my sincere hope that the milestone the majority is reaching today will be the end of the line for their tired political game. We have far too many issues that need our attention, and it is well past time that we got to work. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on today's rule and the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

50 Things the House Could be Doing Instead of Undermining the

Affordable Care Act

1. Comprehensive Immigration Reform

2. Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of

2013 (H.R. 3546)

3. Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013 (H.R. 1010)

4. Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act of

2013 (H.R. 1150)

5. Paycheck Fairness Act (H.R. 377)

6. Make It in America Manufacturing Act of 2013 (H.R. 375)

7. Advancing Innovative Manufacturing Act of 2013 (H.R.

1421)

8. American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act of 2013 (H.R.

2447)

9. Economy, Energy and Environment Initiative to Support

Sustainable Manufacturing (E3) Act (H.R. 2873)

10. Multimodal Opportunities Via Enhanced Freight Act of

2013 or the ``MOVE Freight Act of 2013'' (H.R. 974)

11. American Textile Technology Innovation and Research for

Exportation (ATTIRE) Act (H.R. 937)

12. Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing and Export

Assistance Act of 2013 (H.R. 400)

13. Put America Back to Work Now Act (H.R. 535)

14. Build America Bonds Act of 2013 (H.R. 789)

15. The Customs Training Enhancement Act (H.R. 1322)

16. American Export Promotion Act of 2013 (H.R.1420)

17. Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act (H.R. 1276)

18. Global Free Internet Act of 2013 (H.R. 889)

19. New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans

Solutions (NAT GAS) Act (H.R. 1364)

20. Invest in American Jobs Act of 2013 (H.R. 949)

21. Enforcing Orders and Reducing Customs Evasion (ENFORCE)

Act (H.R. 1440)

22. Export Promotion Reform Act (H.R. 1409)

23. Bridge to Jobs Act (H.R. 1419)

24. Reducing Waste and Increasing Efficiency in Trade Act

(H.R. 3004)

25. Research and Development Tax Credit Extension Act of

2013 (H.R. 905)

26. The Bring Jobs Home Act of 2013 (H.R. 851)

27. Patriot Corporations of America Act of 2013 (H.R. 929)

28. Market Based Manufacturing Incentives Act of 2013 (H.R.

615)

29. Advanced Vehicle Technology Act of 2013 (H.R. 1027)

30. American Jobs Matter Act (H.R. 1332)

31. Small Business Start-up Savings Accounts (H.R. 1323)

32. Securing Energy Critical Elements and American Jobs Act

of 2013 (H.R.1022)

33. Resource Assessment of Rare Earths (RARE) Act of 2013

(H.R. 981)

34. Congressional Made in America Promise Act (H.R. 194)

35. Security in Energy and Manufacturing (SEAM) Act (H.R.

1424)

36. SelectUSA Authorization Act of 2013 (H.R. 1413)

37. Partnering with American Manufacturers for Efficiency

and Competitiveness Act (H.R. 1418)

38. The Innovative Technologies Investment Incentives Act

(H.R.1415)

39. Cooperative Research and Development Fund Authorization

Act of 2013 (H.R. 1711)

40. Advanced Composites Development Act of 2013 (H.R. 2034)

41. All-American Flag Act (H.R. 2355)

42. GREEN Act of 2013 (H.R. 2863)

43. Workforce Investment Act (H.R. 798)

44. American Manufacturing Efficiency & Retraining

Investment Collaboration (AMERICA Works) Act (H.R. 497)

45. Strengthening Employment Clusters to Organize Regional

Success (SECTORS) Act (H.R. 919)

46. Job Skills for America's Students Act of 2013 (H.R.

1271)

47. National Fab Lab Network Act (H.R.1289)

48. Workforce Development Tax Credit Act of 2013 (H.R.

1324)

49. Job Opportunities Between our Shores (JOBS) Act (H.R.

1436)

50. Broadband Adoption Act of 2013 (H.R. 1685)

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes and yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, just a few weeks ago it appeared as though the crises that had come to define this Congress maybe were coming to an end. In a rare show of bipartisanship, Democrats in the Senate and Republicans in the House passed a budget compromise that set the spending levels for the next 2 years. As was clear at the time of its passage, the bipartisan budget agreement authorized spending well beyond the current debt limit. Despite that fact, 166 members of the majority voted to authorize the spending and to increase the Nation's debt. At that time, a member of the majority declared that passing the legislation would be the responsible thing to do, and, indeed, it was.

Now, today, we are going to find out whether that moment of responsibility

was an aberration or a sign of things to come. The majority has a simple choice today. We understand they don't have the votes to pass this. And the Democrats, as they have been on so many other things we have tried to get to the floor, are more than willing to do our part for our country because that, Mr. Speaker, is why we were elected to come here.

The majority has a choice today: act responsibly and pay the country's bills which they voted for, some of them, or trigger another economic panic by threatening default.

For decades, up till about 2011, which was just held up as a landmark here, no matter which party was in charge, Congress always raised the debt ceiling without hesitation or pause. In the years that I have been here, there was never any notion of having to pay a ransom to get the side that you were not on to do what its duty called for. But in recent years, the majority doubts the seriousness of this responsibility and dared the global financial system to punish them for their malfeasance.

Although we need no reminder, in 2011, the majority of this Chamber demanded ransom in exchange for an increase in the debt ceiling. The self-inflicted wound that followed sparked the most volatile week for the financial markets since 2008, when we had the financial crisis, and resulted in the credit rating agency Standard & Poor's downgrading our Nation's credit rating for the first time in history. And for what? Some notion that they didn't have to meet their responsibility.

In the years since, the majority has continued to play this dangerous game of political hostage taking that hurts our economy, and even caused a 16-day government shutdown. And that shutdown, Mr. Speaker, let me remind the people of America, took $24 billion out of our economy for absolutely nothing.

Even when it has been clear that there is only one way out of a self- inflicted crisis such as the government shutdown, the majority pursued an approach that can be summarized as ``only when we have tied ourselves in legislative knots, only when we have thrown the economy into turmoil, only after we have frightened employers from hiring and given global investors pause, we will do the right thing,'' as we are doing today.

This irresponsible approach has particularly drawn the ire of the American people and dragged the approval ratings of the House of Representatives to historic lows. Today I urge the majority to follow the lead of the Democrat leadership, my colleagues, and me and do the right things first instead of last.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on today's rule--and that, by itself, is wonderful for me to do; it feels good--and the underlying legislation so that we can honor the commitments this Congress has made and protect the full faith and credit of the United States. We are charged to do no less.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

As I have said, the question before us today is a simple one: Are we going to pay the country's bills or will the United States become a deadbeat nation? This is not a question of increasing our Nation's spending. That question was answered when 166 Members of the majority voted to spend beyond the Nation's debt ceiling by passing the bipartisan budget agreement just a few weeks ago.

Today is simply a matter of paying our bills when they come due, as real Americans do, and we should follow suit. So when this is coming due, we hope after today, we will be able to pay ours.

For our part, my Democratic colleagues and I are ready to do the right thing--and have been for some time--by increasing our Nation's debt ceiling and protecting the full faith and credit of the United States of America. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on today's rule and the underlying legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will attach extraneous material to this part of my speech since we only have 30 minutes on two legislative matters.

Madam Speaker, at a time when millions are struggling to find work, the majority has decided that their top priority, one of the first 10 bills of the session that they number, is to continue the decades-long assault on a woman's constitutionally protected right to choose.

Before I go any further, let me be clear: this bill is a hoax. Federal taxpayer dollars are not spent on abortion. This has been true for more than three decades. Under the Hyde amendment, the use of Federal dollars to pay for abortions is flatly prohibited except in the case of rape or incest or when the life of the mother is in danger.

Thus, despite what the majority may claim, H.R. 7 is not a solution to a problem but a poorly, thinly veiled attempt to chip away at ObamaCare and women's reproductive rights, another battle in the war against women.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 7 is a reflection of a majority out of touch with the American people and struggling to understand fundamental truths about reproductive health. And we really mean struggle.

This extreme legislation was originally sponsored by a man, originated from a subcommittee composed of 13 men, and was passed out of the Judiciary Committee with the votes of 21 Republican men. This has been the problem for a long time--men in blue suits and red ties determining what women can and should do when it comes to their own health.

One such Republican man has declared that ``wife is to voluntarily submit'' to her husband in a book that he recently wrote. Another has declared, and this is a new one, this is not the one from the last election, ``the incidents of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low.'' In other words, Madam Speaker, the men who are making these decisions simply don't know what they are talking about.

Meanwhile, a Republican man on the Judiciary Committee recently said that today's legislation is good for reducing the unemployment numbers because:

Having new children brought into the world is not harmful

to job creation. It very much promotes job creation for care

and services and so on that need to be provided for a lot of

people to raise children.

Unfortunately, the hypocrisy of that statement is it comes from a majority that staunchly opposes increasing any funding for pre-K education or paid sick leave for working parents, and the same majority cutting nutritional benefits for the working poor under the farm bill that we will consider tomorrow. Such a hypocritical and mean-spirited agenda reminds me of another quote from former Congressman Barney Frank who once famously said that

the anti-choice legislators ``believe that life begins at conception but ends at birth.'' In other words, once it is born, they don't want to have anything to do with it. In looking at the majority's legislative priorities, it is almost impossible to disagree.

Madam Speaker, a new poll shows that 64 percent of Americans agree that ``decisions on abortion should be made by a woman and her doctor.'' The government should never have gotten into the business of being between the woman and her doctor, or anyone else she wants to consult. Only 24 percent say ``government has a right and obligation to pass restrictions on abortion.'' Perhaps that is why the majority is passing H.R. 7 on the same day as the State of the Union, because we know it is not going anywhere. We know that the Senate will not take this up; and if by some strange set of events it should pass the Senate, which it won't, the President would never sign it.

But anyway, we bring it up on the same day of the State of the Union, rushing it through Congress to make some kind of point to some people somewhere before they leave on a weekend retreat and making one rule to consider two drastically different bills even though we would have had plenty of time to have had two rules here.

Included under today's rule is the conference report on the farm bill, a major piece of legislation that impacts all aspects of the economy. Surely it deserves a full and open debate before its final passage.

Instead, the majority is proposing another closed and House rule- breaking process because we have not had time to read it. This will also be their 100th closed rule since taking control in 2011, and allowing just an hour of general debate for each bill and 15 minutes basically on the rule on our side of the House.

If one wonders at the lack of productivity from this Congress, just look at the closed and partisan legislative process pursued by the majority and you will quickly understand.

Madam Speaker, with all of the major issues facing our country, attacking women's health care shows just how extreme--and extremely out of touch--the Washington Republicans are because the Republicans at home don't feel that way.

We should be passing legislation to create jobs, to grow our economy and to level the playing field for working women, not taking the country backwards with bills that attack women's rights.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on today's rule and the underlying legislation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, for more than three decades, the so-called Hyde Amendment has flatly banned the use of Federal dollars to pay for abortions except in cases of rape or incest or when the life of the mother is endangered. In part, the Hyde Amendment reads, ``None of the funds appropriated in this Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated in this Act, shall be expended for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion.''

Despite the Majority's claims to the contrary, today's legislation goes far beyond the definitive language of the Hyde Amendment in an attempt to restrict a woman's reproductive health options under private insurance plans and her ability to spend private dollars on a constitutionally protected right to reproductive health care.

At the heart of this legislative attack is the extremely broad and vague language included in today's bill that redefines the definition of ``federal funding.'' Under this legislation, the definition of Federal funding would be expanded to include the benefit of a tax expenditure. While this terminology may seem complex, its consequences are quite simple.

If this bill becomes law, a woman purchasing health insurance that includes abortion coverage will be denied a premium tax credit that helps make coverage affordable in the first place. Facing such a circumstance, she would be financially incentivized to buy a cheaper health insurance plan that does not include abortion services. As more women give up health insurance plans with abortion coverage, health insurance companies will stop offering such plans. Very quickly, it will become both prohibitively expensive and difficult to purchase abortion coverage in a health insurance plan.

In so doing, this bill takes particular aim at the reproductive rights of poor women. Women who are struggling to get by rely almost exclusively upon insurance premium subsidies to reduce the cost of health care while more affluent women can often access additional benefits such as Flexible Spending Accounts to reduce their health care costs. While insurance premium subsidies are eliminated under today's bill Flexible Spending Accounts are left untouched.

We should not be restricting either of these tax benefits that serve America's women, but it is particularly immoral for the Majority to be targeting the most vulnerable women among us.

Sadly, targeting the reproductive health care of poor women is nothing new for the Republican Party. As far back as the 1970's Henry Hyde infamously stated ``I would certainly like to prevent, if I could legally, anybody having an abortion: a rich woman, a middle class woman, or a poor woman. Unfortunately, the only vehicle available is the [Medicaid] bill,'' he continued--which as we know only affects low- income women and families.

In addition to taking a tax benefit away from those struggling to get by, today's bill would raise taxes on small businesses in another attempt to make force small businesses to drop insurance coverage. Under this legislation, small businesses that offer health insurance plans that include abortion coverage would be ineligible for the Small Business Tax Credit. Currently, 87 percent of all employer-sponsored insurance plans include coverage for abortion, and the Small Business Tax Credit can be worth 35-50% of the cost of a small business' premiums. Taking away this tax credit would be a major tax INCREASE on small businesses for simply keeping the same insurance coverage that they already have.

In short, today's legislation is an attempt to rewrite our Nation's laws so that it is financially impossible for a woman to access a private health insurance plan that provides abortion coverage. And it is yet another attack on women's rights from a Majority that seems to be struggling to understand the most fundamental aspects of an issue important to America's women.

Indeed, when it comes to the issue of reproductive rights, one member of the Majority has declared that ``the incidence of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low.'' Another member of the Majority has declared that today's legislation is good for reducing unemployment, because ``having new children brought into the world is not harmful to job creation. It very much promotes job creation for all the care and services and so on that need to be provided by a lot of people to raise children.''

Quotes such as these make it clear how such extreme--and extremely misguided--legislation has made it to the floor today. They also remind us why it is so important that the Majority allows an open and transparent legislative process so that such dangerous legislation never sees the light of day.

Unfortunately, it is under a closed legislative process that variations of this legislation have been introduced and pushed through the House of Representatives in recent years. Repeatedly, the Majority has written similar legislation and included provisions that attempted to redefine rape. The Majority, who just weeks ago decried the role of the IRS in Obamacare, has even introduced a variation of this legislation that empowered the IRS to audit any woman who has had an abortion. This in no way should be the responsibility of the IRS and any attempt to impose the IRS in a woman's medical decisions is nothing but an attack on her constitutionally protected rights.

Once again, it is under a closed legislative process--and an abandonment of regular order--that we find ourselves here today considering yet another misguided attempt to restrict women's rights.

In fact, while today's legislation bears the same name, it is not the same bill that was reported out of the Judiciary Committee earlier this month.

Instead, it is an original Rules Committee print that was first made available less than a week ago and includes significant legislative changes, such as the addition of text from two bills that have never received any committee debate, review or mark-up.

Furthermore, the Majority is asking that we consider this new bill under another closed rule. If we do, it will be the 100th closed rule for a Majority that just concluded the most closed session in history.

Madam Speaker, it comes as little surprise that bad legislative process has produced another bad bill.

Over and over again, the Majority has shown no interest in opening up the legislative process and coming to the table to work on commonsense legislation with members from the other side of the aisle. My Democratic colleagues and I believe that we should be voting on bills to create jobs, grow our economy and level the playing field for working women--but we will never be able to do so until the Majority allows us to truly participate in the legislative process.

Finally, I would be remiss if I failed to mention the farm bill conference report that is also brought to the floor by this resolution. Having only received the 900-plus page bill last night Members have had little chance to read the bill. In fact, as my friend Mr. McGovern has noted, even conferees who supposedly negotiated this deal were not given a chance to read it!

But the one policy I know is included in the conference report is a massive, $8.6 billion cut in SNAP, formerly known as ``food stamps.'' Families receiving SNAP benefits already saw a cut in their monthly food budgets of approximately $30 less than three months ago. For some families, this will mean an additional cut of up to $90--a devastating blow for a low-income household.

In closing, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on today's rule, so that we can get to work on real solutions for the American people and put an end to the Majority's dangerous attacks on a woman's constitutionally protected right to choose, as well as their disregard for the plight of the poor and those searching for work.

Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Michigan, Congressman Kildee.

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts, Congresswoman Clark.

(Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts, Congresswoman Tsongas.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from California, Congressman Takano.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from New Mexico, Congresswoman Lujan Grisham.

(Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Georgia, Congressman Johnson.

Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Connecticut, Congresswoman Esty.

Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Texas, Congressman Al Green.

(Mr. AL GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California, Congresswoman Lee.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Rhode Island, Congressman Cicilline.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Texas, Congresswoman Jackson Lee.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Maryland, Congressman Van Hollen.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from New York, Congressman Eliot Engel.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Florida, Congressman Alcee Hastings.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule and give the House a vote on a bill, written by Mr. Van Hollen and Mr. Levin, to extend emergency unemployment benefits paid for with savings from the farm bill that, it seems, this House will pass today.

To discuss his bill, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford).

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

Madam 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 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, let me give myself just a half a second to say that, again, we hear how important it is until a child is born, but if it is unemployed later, it is not going to get to eat as long as we have this majority.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. Esty).

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), who was not able to testify before those 12 men.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

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

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Brownley.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Madam Speaker, from renewing unemployment insurance for more than 1.6 million Americans to growing our economy and rebuilding our middle class, there is an urgent need for Congress to pass legislation that will help the American people. So I urge my colleagues to reject today's rule so that we can finally get to work, I hope, on real solutions to the problems that face our Nation, not wasting more time with another attack on women's constitutionally protected reproductive rights.

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to give the House a vote on the bill written by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) to extend emergency unemployment benefits, paid for with the savings from the farm bill that, it seems, this House will pass today or tomorrow.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, the only thing I really need to say, other than the absolute requirements here, is that we have had a great demonstration in this rule debate on what is going on here.

H.R. 7, written by men, discussed before a subcommittee of 12 men and then voted on by the main committee, composed mostly of men, who carried the debate, was brought here today; and yet, with the exception of the manager of the bill, not a single woman on the other side came to speak on this bill.

On our side, we had diversity. We had women. We had men getting up and talking about actually complying with the Constitution. And on the other side, we had, once again, men telling women what they are allowed to do.

We are so far past that. When we finally got the right to vote, we said, Let's put all this behind us, certainly in the House of Representatives, the people's House. Can't you understand the difference here in the people's House, that the people represent the diversity of the faces of America, and all the men over there who seem to have devoted their lives to making sure that women do what they expect them to do and what they are told to do and trying to pass laws to require that. I think it was one of the most telling debates that I have ever seen, and I hope that it will not go unnoticed by the American people.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote Nos. 22 and 23. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 22 and ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 23.

Personal Explanation

Mr. Speaker, the majority has passed so few bills into law that it is on pace to become the least-productive Congress in history. And, frankly, I think they are a little bit proud of that. The inability to govern is directly related to the closed legislative process the majority has pursued with vigor over the course of the last year.

At the beginning of the second session of the 113th Congress, the majority has practically shuttered the doors of every committee, save for the Rules Committee. It is a rare day when a bill proceeds through regular order from a committee of jurisdiction to the Rules Committee and down to the House floor. In fact, during the first session of the 113th Congress, major legislation repeatedly originated in the Rules Committee and was rushed to the House floor for an up-or-down vote.

Furthermore, during the first congressional session, the majority relied upon closed rules to shut out the minority and diminish the chance of any compromise. Under a closed rule, no amendments are allowed on the House floor. That cuts out, Mr. Speaker, more than half of the people in the United States of America who voted for Democrats.

During 2013, the majority set new records by approving 19 closed rules in a single week and an unprecedented 11 closed rules in a single day. Even those with no interest in, or knowledge of, the legislative process can understand the impact that such a closed process has on our ability to govern.

Every Member of this Chamber was sent here with a simple duty--to represent our constituents to the best of our ability. But, by closing down the legislative process, the majority is preventing 200 duly elected Members of Congress from being able to do just that. Collectively, we members of the minority represent more than 142 million Americans. Each one of us is entrusted to work on their behalf. How can we do that when the majority takes away our ability to participate in marking up legislation, amending bills, and having a full and open debate?

The Rules Committee has the unique and powerful ability to open up the legislative process and get Congress working again. In our committee, we can amend bills, improve legislation, and set the terms of debate so every Member of the House can participate in the legislative process. That is why I am so dismayed and somewhat disgusted at the proposed rule the Rules Committee has carried to the floor today.

Before us is a single resolution for three bills. Under this resolution, two of those bills are considered under closed rules, which are not amendable, not discussable, and one is considered under a structured rule. And that one came up 2 days ago. It has had no committee action whatsoever.

The bill being considered under a structured rule tries to revoke virtually all regulatory powers from the EPA, the agency that protects our health, our rivers, our air, and our land.

At the same time, one of the bills being considered under a closed rule adds layers of red tape to the Department of Health and Human Services and demands that health care navigators provide everything but their blood type and family history to Congress on an almost daily basis. It is simply designed to slow up the work of signing up Americans for the health care that they want and deserve.

It is very clear this bill is not a serious attempt to serve the American people but is a tactic to keep health care navigators from doing their work. Instead of moving forward with these go-nowhere bills, we should be extending unemployment insurance to the millions of Americans struggling to find work. And without unemployment insurance, the economy is suffering every single day.

Just before we left for Christmas, the last day we were here, to end the debate on the rule of the budget, we had a vote that we could have done to extend the unemployment during the rules debate on the floor. That was under the previous question. The vote failed despite the fact that every Democrat and a Republican voted for it.

By the way, this bill was paid for. It was already taken care of by excess payments that we pay in agriculture subsidies. It was an extension for 3 months, but that was not good enough. So today, you are going to have another chance to do just that, to extend the unemployment insurance, and I strongly urge my colleagues to do it.

If my colleagues will join me in voting ``no'' on the previous question, a 3-month extension of unemployment benefits will come to the floor for an immediate vote. This is the same bipartisan bill that is moving forward in the Senate, and it deserves the same consideration here in the House.

Today, more than 1.3 million Americans and their families have lost access to unemployment insurance. Soon, it will be over 2 million and, by probably the end of March or May, 5 million. For so many, it is their only source of income and the only way they can pay their heating bills and buy food during these cold winter days.

We have to stand up for the millions of Americans struggling to get by through no fault of their own, because, you remember, in order to be eligible for unemployment insurance, you have to prove that you are looking for work. So I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question when it comes up so we can have an immediate vote to extend unemployment insurance and finally do something in this House and through this Rules Committee that will benefit Americans and make our constituents know that we count for something.

Mr. Speaker, The Majority has passed so few bills into law that it is on pace to become the least productive Congress in history. This inability to govern is directly related to the closed legislative process that the Majority has pursued with vigor over the course of the last year.

At the beginning of the 2nd Session of the 113th Congress, the Majority has practically shuttered the doors of every committee, save for the Rules Committee. It is a rare day when a bill proceeds through regular order--from a committee of jurisdiction to the Rules Committee and down to the House Floor. In fact, during the first session of the 113th Congress, major legislation repeatedly originated in the Rules Committee and was rushed to the House Floor for an up or down vote.

Furthermore, during the first Congressional session, the Majority relied upon closed rules to shut out the Minority and diminish the chance for compromise.

Under a closed rule, no amendments are allowed on the House Floor. During 2013, the Majority set new records by approving 19 closed rules in a single week and an unprecedented 11 closed rules in a single day!

Even those with no interest in, or knowledge of, the legislative process can understand the impact that such a closed process has on our ability to govern.

Every member of this chamber was sent here with a simple duty: to represent our constituents to the best of our ability.

Yet by closing down the legislative process, the Majority is preventing 200 duly elected Members of Congress from doing just that.

Collectively, we members of the Minority represent more than 142 million Americans. Each one of us has been entrusted to work on their behalf. How can we do that when the Majority takes away our ability to participate in marking up legislation, amending bills and having a full and open debate?

The Rules Committee has the unique and powerful ability to open up the legislative process and get Congress working again. In our committee we can amend bills, improve legislation, and set the terms of debate so that every Member of the House can participate in the legislative process.

That is why I am so dismayed at the proposed rule that the Majority in the Rules Committee has carried to the Floor today. Before us is a single resolution for three bills. Under this resolution, two bills will be considered

under closed rules and one will be considered under a structured rule.

The bill being considered under a structured rule tries to revoke virtually all regulatory powers from the EPA--the agency that protects our health, our rivers and our land.

At the same time, one of the bills being considered under a closed rule adds layers of red tape to the Department of Health and Human Services, and demands that healthcare navigators provide everything but their blood type and family history to Congress on an almost daily basis.

It is clear that this bill is not a serious attempt to serve the American people, but a tactic to keep healthcare navigators from providing millions of Americans with access to healthcare.

Instead of moving forward with these go-nowhere bills, we should be extending unemployment insurance to millions of Americans who are still struggling to find work.

Just before we left for Christmas, we had a vote on extending unemployment during a rules debate on the floor. That vote failed, despite the fact that every Democrat voted for it. As a result, more than 1.3 million Americans lost unemployment insurance on December 28th.

Today, we will give this chamber another chance to extend unemployment insurance--and I strongly urge my colleagues in doing just that.

If my colleagues will join me in voting ``no'' on the previous question, a 3-month extension of unemployment benefits will come to the floor for an immediate vote. This is the same bipartisan bill that is moving forward in the Senate, and it deserves the same consideration here in the House.

Right now, more than 1.3 million Americans have lost access to unemployment insurance in the last few weeks. For many, it is their only source of income and the only way they can pay their heating bills and stay warm during these cold winter days.

We must stand up for the millions of Americans who are struggling to get by in these tough economic times. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we have an immediate vote to extend unemployment insurance and finally provide for the millions of Americans in need.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the legislation before us today gives us a chance to begin to mitigate the worst effects of sequestration; but it is not enough, as my colleague has stated.

Our Nation can--and should--dare to once again dream big. We are a Nation that built one of the largest interstate highway systems in the world, which is presently crumbling; launched the Internet; pioneered the creation of GPS; and created the largest middle class on Earth through a fair and balanced Tax Code that asked everyone, including the wealthiest among us and the biggest corporations, to pay their fair share. We are home to public institutions like the National Institutes of Health, which have helped to find the cures for countless diseases and conditions and saved millions of lives.

Great achievements like these are only behind us if we so choose. I strongly believe that we can rebuild our crumbling runways, our roads and rails, restore our middle class, and invest in the breakthroughs that will once again make us the envy of the world. But in order to do so, we have to make responsible fiscal choices that are a reflection of our values. That means restoring smart and targeted funding to programs and agencies that drive our country forward, asking the most fortunate among us to pay their fair share--not more than that, but their fair share--and protecting the programs that serve hardworking Americans at times when they need help the most.

To that end, it is shameful that the legislation before us does not extend unemployment benefits for the 1.3 million Americans who are scheduled to lose them within a matter of weeks--3 days after Christmas, actually.

In the United States of America, we believe in providing a hand up, not a kick while you are down. Unemployment insurance is that hand up.

Studies have shown that unemployment insurance allows jobseekers to purchase necessities such as groceries and gas without accruing further debt. In so doing, it helps to increase economic activity while easing the financial burden of unemployed Americans and making it easier, not harder, for them--as we are--to find a new job.

That is why my Democratic colleagues, Representative Levin, Representative Van Hollen, and Representative Barbara Lee, introduced an amendment in the Rules Committee last night to extend the unemployment insurance for an additional 3 months.

This bill was paid for. I want to make that perfectly clear. It would not have cost an extra dime.

Inexcusably, the majority rejected my colleagues' amendment, despite inserting language to fix Medicare payments to doctors over the coming year, which is certainly important. Fixing the Medicare payments to doctors is a worthy and important goal, but it is certainly troubling-- and should be to all of us--that we are unwilling at the same time to ignore the needs of the unemployed.

The majority's refusal to extend a helping hand to jobless Americans stands in stark contrast to the defense of tax loopholes for big corporations and powerful special interests. For far too long, our Nation has allowed wealthy individuals and powerful corporations to hide billions of dollars in offshore bank accounts and create tax loopholes instead of paying their fair share.

Indeed, some corporations in America pay no taxes at all. It is unfortunate that not a single one of the loopholes is addressed in the bill that is before us today to help us reduce the national debt.

Despite these shortcomings, today's legislation does take an important first step toward easing the painful budget cuts contained in sequestration. It has been an unmitigated disaster that has hurt our economy and our country, and there is an urgent need to avert the next round of budget cuts that are scheduled to take effect. And I am grateful for that.

In a study conducted earlier this year by the Association of American Universities, 81 percent of the respondents declared that sequestration cuts had immediate and detrimental effects on research activities. Seventy percent of the respondents cited delays in research projects, and 58 percent of respondents stated that sequestration led to reductions in staff, students, and fellows through attrition and layoffs.

A recent study showed that sequestration and other budget cuts have resulted in an actual Institutes of Health budget far too low to support our biomedical research community.

In addition to that point, Mr. Speaker, let me say that during the government shutdown, which cost the economy $24 billion and was useless, of the five Nobel laureates employed by the United States of America, only one was declared essential.

Four Nobel laureates were said to be nonessential. That blows the mind, doesn't it?

These types of drastic budget cuts have profound impacts on our country. Reduced funding means that new discoveries and breakthroughs are delayed--or never realized--and that our public health knowledge is stunted for years to come.

As a microbiologist, I can tell you that you cannot simply turn research off and on like a faucet, but that is exactly what we do when we arbitrarily slash the budgets with no regard for the consequences of our cuts.

That is why today's legislation is an important step forward for our country. We must end the self-inflicted wound that is sequestration and get back to investing in our own well-being and the future of America. By restoring funding across our government, we will help to jump-start our economy and get back to work on the cutting-edge research and on infrastructure that will benefit the Nation in years to come.

In closing, today's bill is an important step forward, but our work is not done until we add an extension of unemployment insurance to this legislative package. We will give you an opportunity to do that at the end of the

rule. In so doing, we can ensure a brighter, more prosperous future for every American this holiday season.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, to discuss our previous question amendment, which will allow every one of us to vote ``yes'' or ``no'' on whether we are going to allow 1.3 million Americans to keep their unemployment benefits for 3 months, which is absolutely paid for and which does not add a nickel to the deficit.

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

I am sorry, Mr. Levin. All time has been allocated.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, and I congratulate him for his hard work.

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen). This is very important.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), my colleague, who is the ranking member of the Committee on Small Business.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democrat leader, on this important issue.

I have to yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Woodall, if you believe anything at all that you have just said, I understand what is going on here.

First, blame everything in the world on ObamaCare.

I will not.

To try to give people health insurance is somehow a crime in the House of Representatives, but the people we are talking about on unemployment have exhausted their unemployment. It will not be there, Mr. Woodall. They can lose their housing. They can lose their food. They may even be dispossessed out into the street. There is a meanness that is going on that is absolutely astonishing to me.

May I please have my time. I didn't get to speak because he took it.

I would like to, Mr. Speaker, and I started out that way.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), the Energy and Commerce Environment Subcommittee ranking member, who I hope can finish my thought.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a member of the Committee on the Budget and author of the amendment we are trying to get here.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), a member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire if my colleague has further speakers? If not, I am prepared to close.

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

Today's proposal is a step in the right direction, but we must improve this bill before we vote on final passage.

What have we learned here today? We have learned first that during the budget negotiations that it was determined that the doc fix, as we call it--doctors' payments--and unemployment insurance would not be in the scope of what they were doing and we would do that separately. Then, unbeknownst to us on our side, after agreeing to that, only the doc fix, as we call it, was put back into this bill. It was supposed to be separate, it was a part of the rule, and it would be voted on automatically when we vote for this rule today.

The only thing left out was unemployment extension, and I think we know why. We heard from our colleague that he thinks there is plenty of money out there. They are not going to go without a thing. That is totally untrue. It would be a tragedy of gigantic proportions if this House turned down the extension of unemployment benefits because some Members believe it is not going to happen. It is going to happen, and it is not because we didn't try in the Rules Committee to try to explain it.

There is no justification in the world for turning down a 3-month extension in the dead of winter that is paid for, that adds not a penny to anything. And there was no bipartisanship in the Rules Committee on this last night. We did our very best, but we were outnumbered considerably, 9-4.

Nonetheless, we think it is important enough today to give every Member of this House a second chance, and we are going to ask everybody who wants to make sure the people in their districts who are unemployed, through no fault of their own--there has been sort of a prevailing thought that we have heard from time to time that if we don't extend unemployment insurance, we will teach them a lesson; we will teach them not to have a job. They will find out right away that is not the way to live, despite the fact, as was pointed out, 20,000 people applied for 600 jobs. That gives you some idea of what that is like. Some people have come before committees here with stacks of resumes that they have sent out as high as 2 feet with rejection notices that they have gotten. They are not there.

We are going to give another chance on the previous question. I want everybody on both sides of the aisle who believes they cannot go home-- and we did have a resolution here not to go home until our work is finished--but that we will take care of our fellow Americans in need, which we hope is temporary, which again depends very much on what we do in the future. We will give you a chance if we vote ``no'' on the previous question to this rule. Then I will be allowed to bring up the amendment that was turned down last night to extend it for 3 months. Imagine, 3 months all paid for again.

So it is really appalling to me that we can fix anything here, but we can literally let children, veterans, people who are unable to work, the disabled, and the people who have lost their jobs, that we can say to them that it doesn't matter here in the House of Representatives if you are hungry, if you are cold, if you are going to lose the place that you live, if your sustenance is taken away from you. We don't care. Maybe some church somewhere, some temple, some synagogue will take care of you.

If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to allow the House to extend unemployment insurance for 1.3 million Americans.

I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and vote ``no'' on the previous question.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, during the early morning hours of December 24, 2012, the town of West Webster, New York, suffered a horrible tragedy as a troubled individual set his sister on fire, along with her house, and then lay in wait until the firefighters arrived. He shot and killed two firemen and wounded two more.

In the days and weeks that followed, the town of West Webster, the city of Rochester, and our entire region responded with an outpouring of support for the families whose lives had been irrevocably changed because of the attack.

Donations poured into the nonprofit, volunteer West Webster Fire Department in hopes that they would reach the families whose loved ones had been killed. Unfortunately, the fire department was in no position to deal with the complex legalities of delivering these donations to the intended families. As a result, the majority of that money has still not been able to reach the families.

For almost a year now, I have worked with the people of West Webster, particularly West Webster Fire Chief Ken Smith, to finally deliver the charitable donations. And thanks to the generous efforts of Chairman Camp and our allies in the Senate, we will finally be able to help these families today.

The assistance of Chairman Camp and his staff, in particular, has been vital to resolving this issue once and for all. His commitment over the recent months to helping West Webster firefighters and their loved ones is a testament to his dedication to public service.

Today's vote is terribly important to the recipients. There are no words that can heal the wounds that were suffered by Ted Scardino and Joe Hofstetter, and nothing we can do will ever bring back Mike ``Chip'' Chipparini and Tomasz Kaczowka. But passing today's legislation can help to lessen their burden, hopefully to ease their pain, and to prove that even in our darkest hours, our country will be there to support our public servants, their families, and communities in need.

Mr. Speaker, it is my esteemed honor to recognize the ten-year anniversary of the non-profit organization, Water for South Sudan, and commend this Rochester-based organization for its tireless efforts in the fight against contaminated water use in the South Sudan region. I also want to recognize and congratulate the founder of Water for South Sudan, Salva Dut, and his staff for drilling 177 wells in the South Sudan since October 2003. It is an honor to represent the district in which Water for South Sudan was founded.

Water for South Sudan has exhibited immense devotion to the Sudanese population over its ten-year history, and has served 400,000 people to date. Not only does Water for South Sudan provide clean water to the world's youngest nation, the organization also works to alleviate poverty and rebuild communities in one of the most economically depressed nations in the world.

Following a devastating twenty-year civil war, the South Sudanese were left without clean water and protection from deadly diseases, including malaria. With child mortality rates, poverty, and starvation at extreme highs, and educational levels and social and gender equality at extreme lows, there was a need for global action to help the South Sudanese people recover. When many only saw hopelessness in South Sudan, Salva Dut saw promise and stepped in to help lead his nation forward.

At the young age of 11, Salva Dut was forced to leave his family and flee South Sudan in an effort to escape the outbreak of violence and destruction resulting from the civil war. Facing rapidly spreading diseases, hunger, and the threat of attack, Dut's strength led himself and others away from imminent danger. During this time Dut showed admirable leadership by helping 1,500 ``Lost Boys'' like himself reach a United Nations-regulated camp. After more than half a decade living there, he was finally able, along with 3,800 other Lost Boys, to come to America. Dut settled in the welcoming community of Rochester, NY and established the roots that would become Water for South Sudan.

After being separated for 16 years, Dut was able to finally reconnect with his father in South Sudan in 2002. During that trip, he witnessed the devastating effects of parasite and disease-ridden water, as it took hold of his ill father. Dut then decided that he would dedicate his life to bringing clean water to the South Sudan region. This young man, who came to the United States with very little education and a language barrier, went on to become a college student, an American citizen, and the founder of one of the most respected charity organizations to date.

I am very proud of Water for South Sudan, its founder Salva Dut, his dedicated staff, and the supportive residents of the 25th Congressional district. Instead of walking away, Salva Dut and Water for South Sudan have marched forward, meeting the dire need for sustainable and safe water for the South Sudanese.

I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating, honoring, and thanking Water for South Sudan for its work. I am honored to represent an organization that inspires change on a global level.

Mr. Speaker, in 2010, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that some school districts had unknowingly hired sex offenders due to inconsistent state laws that do not require comprehensive background checks for all adults who have contact with children in schools. In other cases, the GAO found that districts knowingly passed a potential predator to another school district by allowing the offender to resign instead of reporting him. Significant differences in the ways schools screen prospective employees lead to gaps in student protection. A child's safety should not depend on where that child resides.

The 2010 GAO report investigated a number of cases across the country, including one in my home state of New York. In this case, a public school employed a maintenance worker for five months until the results of a criminal history check conducted after he had already reported to work revealed that he had been convicted of raping a 21- year-old woman at knifepoint behind a school.

In 1982, the offender had been sentenced to 12 to 25 years in prison and classified as a level 3 sex offender, meaning that the offender is at high risk for repeat offenses and is a threat to public safety. In 2008, the school hired him ``conditionally,'' meaning he was allowed to report to work prior to the completion of a state criminal history check. School officials told GAO investigators they do not always perform these checks prior to employment because they considered the process both cost and time prohibitive.

The school fired the offender in November 2008 when the state criminal history check was completed; within two years he was incarcerated for failure to comply with sex offender registration requirements. The Protecting Students from Sexual and Violent Predators Act would have prevented this potentially disastrous hiring from ever taking place thanks to its prohibition of hiring or retaining anyone who has been convicted of certain violent crimes, including crimes against children, crimes involving rape or sexual assault and child pornography.

In many of the cases GAO investigated, previously convicted sex offenders working in schools eventually used their access to children in school to once again commit crimes against children. Although the New York maintenance worker was terminated after five months and did not abuse children in the school during that time, there is no acceptable amount of time for our children to be exposed to such horrific risk.

Children have the right to a safe school environment where they can learn and thrive. There is so much more that this body must do to ensure this right--most importantly the enactment of legislation to prevent gun violence--but passage of the Protecting Students from Sexual and Violent Predators Act is a necessary step towards securing students' safety in school.

I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation.

Reserving the right to object, Madam Speaker, I wanted to advise my colleagues that we support this request on this side of the aisle.

With that, I withdraw my reservation.