Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the International Day of Radiology, and draw attention to the vital role that diagnostic imaging and radiation therapy serve in the American health care system. The International Day of Radiology is observed annually on November 8-- an important date in medical and world history. On that day in 1895, Professor Wilhelm Conrad Roentgen discovered X-rays, which ultimately led to modern medical imaging and radiation therapy. This year, the 118th anniversary of Roentgen's discovery, will focus on lung imaging, and be commemorated by many groups, including the American College of Radiology (ACR), the Radiological Society of North America and the European Society of Radiology.

Radiologists (physicians with special training in imaging), radiation oncologists (physicians trained to treat cancer with radiation) and the imaging community continue to move medicine forward. Most recently, lung computed tomography (CT) scans were shown by clinical trials to significantly reduce lung cancer deaths among smokers. In response to the positive results generated from these trials, the ACR will issue CT lung cancer screening guidelines and standards. Nationwide, CT screening programs for lung cancer, including teams of health care providers from various medical specialties, will follow. These multidisciplinary screening programs will save tens of thousands of lives each year from the nation's leading cancer killer.

Medical imaging has been shown to help lower many cancer and hospital mortality rates. A 2009 National Bureau of Economic Research (BEA) report found that individuals with greater access to imaging live longer than those with lesser access. Imaging exams also reduce the number of invasive surgeries, unnecessary hospital admissions and lengths of hospital stays, which can lower health care costs.

The U.S. National Academy of Engineering recognized the tremendous contribution of medical imaging when it ranked imaging among the 20 greatest engineering achievements of the 20th century. Most telling, the New England Journal of Medicine named medical imaging one of the top 10 medical advances of the last 1,000 years.

With its incredible impact on patients' health, and significant benefit to the American health care system, I am pleased to recognize the importance of diagnostic imaging and radiation oncology, and call attention to November 8 as the International Day of Radiology.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Brad Williams who will be installed as the 2014 Chairman of the Board for the National Apartment Association on November 8, 2013.

As a native of Dallas, Texas, Mr. Williams is a graduate of the University of Texas with a degree in History, holds a Certificate of Real Estate from Southern Methodist University, and has received the Certified Property Manager designation from the Institute of Real Estate Management. He has over 40 years of experience in property management with Lincoln Property Company and is responsible for management of over 50,000 rental units throughout Texas and the Midwest.

Mr. Williams is the past President of the Apartment Association of Greater Dallas and the Texas Apartment Association. In addition, he has served as the Chairman of the National Apartment Association's Political Action Committee for the last three years and currently serves on the Executive Committee for the National Apartment Association. As Chairman of the Board, Mr. Williams will lead the National Apartment Association towards continued success as America's leading advocate for quality rental housing, serving the interests of rental housing owners, managers, developers and suppliers, and promoting a high level of professionalism in the rental housing industry to better serve the housing needs of the public.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in expressing our heartiest congratulations and best wishes to Mr. Brad Williams as he guides the National Apartment Association this upcoming year as Chairman of the Board.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure have until 5 p.m. on Monday, October 21, 2013, to file a report to accompany H.R. 3080.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time to take from the Speaker's table H.R. 2775, with the Senate amendments thereto, and to consider in the House, without intervention of any point of order, a single motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Appropriations or his designee that the House concur in the Senate amendments; that the Senate amendments and the motion be considered as read; that the motion be debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations; and that the previous question be considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 373 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

House Resolution 373 provides for a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 3273, the Deficit Reduction and Economic Growth Working Group Act of 2013; H.J. Res. 89, the Federal Worker Pay Fairness Act of 2013; and H.J. Res. 90, the Flight Safety Act of 2013.

Mr. Speaker, today this body will consider three important pieces of legislation designed to address the current government shutdown and the looming debt limit. The first of these bills would appropriate the funds necessary to pay essential Federal employees who have been continuing to work during the shutdown. These men and women have earned their paychecks and deserve for us to act on their legislation to ensure that they are paid on time.

Secondly, we will consider legislation to fully fund the FAA in order to ensure that our Nation's commerce and air travel continues uninterrupted and safely. There are many, many workers of the FAA who need to come back to work to ensure the safety and to ensure that millions of American passengers in the air are not put at risk due to a continued government shutdown.

Finally, we will consider legislation to establish a bicameral, bipartisan Working Group on Deficit Reduction and Economic Growth. This working group would consist of 10 Members of the House and 10 Members of the Senate, representing six from the majority and four from the minority of both Chambers. These Members would be appointed no less than one day after the enactment of this legislation, and would each meet on the subsequent calendar day until an agreement is reached on the overall discretionary levels for fiscal year 2014; changes to the discretionary debt limit; and reforms to direct spending programs.

For nearly a month now, Mr. Speaker, House Republicans have asked Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Democrats to sit down and negotiate with House Republicans. Bill after bill from House Republicans and this body have gone to the United States Senate only to be batted down or to be revised and to come back without addressing the significant problems that our country faces today.

So what we are trying to do is to find another avenue, and that is to have the House of Representatives and the United States Senate and their appointees be able to meet together in a working group to resolve these issues. What do I envision? I envision a TV would be in the room. The American people could take part in these discussions and see how much progress can be made between Senate Republicans and Senate Democrats and House Republicans and House Democrats on these important issues, and hold those Members accountable for exactly the same thing that we're trying to do, and that is to get this government back opened up with an agreement about how we are going to fund this government.

So, today, we ask once again if the Senate is willing to join us not only as we work towards ending this government shutdown but on how we are going to address our government's debt and put our Nation back to work on the pathway to prosperity. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, hot off the press this afternoon from Politico, which is not exactly a right-wing newspaper, it says:

Obama calls Boehner. Reiterates he won't negotiate.

So the President evidently today, as reported by Politico, called Mr. Boehner to repeat: I'm not going to negotiate on bills to reopen the government or to raise the debt ceiling. That's what's being reported.

Mr. Speaker, this is, I think, a bad precedent. Where I'm from in Dallas, Texas, leaders lead. Leaders lead by trying to do what's in the best interest of everybody, not running to crisis after crisis after crisis, not negotiating, not agreeing to meet with people, not agreeing to do things to help resolution. Leaders present ideas, opportunities, options. They're the ones that stay at the table, and they're the last ones to leave when everybody else gets frustrated.

I think what's important to note is this President is simply different than every other President we've ever had. What he is doing is giving up not only his legitimate moral authority to lead, but what he's doing is saying, I recognize what could happen if we're unsuccessful. I think, as Speaker Boehner said yesterday, the President's senior adviser said he would sooner see the government go into default than to meet with and negotiate with the Republicans. That is not what leaders should be doing, and I would suggest to you that this President stands on the shoulders of other Presidents for 230-plus years who have given their very best to the benefit of others. They have looked at Republicans, they have looked at Democrats, they've looked at House Members, they've looked at Senate Members, and realized they had to negotiate. That was one of the key things I remember as a young man about Ronald Reagan's negotiating with Tip O'Neill, inviting Tip O'Neill down to the White House, their being good with each other, talking about how they could make progress with each other.

We are evidently past that. This President even has the audacity to call the Speaker and say, I'm not going to negotiate with you. That is not good leadership, and the American people are seeing it.

The House of Representatives, we're not going to get our nose out of joint. We're going to stay at work. It is true that we bring this bill up, and we'll probably be here tomorrow and the next day with new ways to negotiate. Today, we're here on the floor just as we were yesterday, just as we were on Saturday, talking about constructive, creative, bipartisan issues to fund this government and to make sure we can get moving.

The NIH should have been open already. We should have had lots of government agencies as a result of what we are doing, including Head Start. We should have these activities, even if it's one by one, to open up. Today, we're on the floor to say, We ought to pay those government employees who have been working when Tuesday rolls around. They should get paid. We should have people at the FAA come back to work and open that agency back up. That's what House Republicans are doing. We recognize this President will not negotiate, but we're going to offer ourselves up. I think the American people see what House Republicans are attempting to do.

I am very proud of not only what our Speaker is doing but of our majority leader, Eric Cantor, and our whip, Kevin McCarthy. They are attempting to move forward ideas that sustain this body to where we can look people straight in the eye and where we can accomplish things on behalf of the American people.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the gentlewoman from New York, the ranking member of the committee. Just before we came down to the floor, we had a very, very nice committee meeting where she was able to not only articulate that, but was joined by her other colleagues. I did offer words of assurance to them about not only how we need to move forward but also how the committee needed to get slightly better in our time frames, and we're going to attempt to do that.

The gentlewoman recognizes that what we are doing is bringing bills as quickly as we can, including the FAA, opening up the FAA again, and how important that is. So she recognized the importance of what we are attempting to do.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Rice) of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the minority leader for her comments today and thank her for coming to the floor.

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado Springs, Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, the distinguished Dean of the House has spoken. I gather, from his comments, that he would not like to be appointed on the committee, and I'm disappointed. I was rather hopeful that the minority leader would see that he would be exactly the kind of commonsense person that could represent the party, and so I'd hope that the gentleman would reconsider that.

At this time, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Grandfather Community, North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), the vice chairman of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago, we heard from one of the brightest voices of the Republican Party, a member of our Republican leadership, Virginia Foxx.

At this time, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), a member of the Budget Committee and the Rules Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I will tell you that there is a lot of dialogue on the floor today about opening up the government. Yet this body has passed bill after bill after bill--whether it's the intelligence community, whether it's Head Start, whether it's NIH--making sure that we are going through a deliberative process. Repeatedly, you are seeing where our friends on the other side vote ``no,'' and when it gets to the other body, even though it's a passed piece of legislation, the Senate, our friends over there, ignore the bills. I kind of wonder what we're really trying to aim at, whether we're really just trying to score political points or whether we can begin working together. That's what House Republicans are here to do: to set aside our differences, to try and fund these issues, to try and deal with the President.

Earlier in the week, our great young Speaker, John Boehner, went to the White House. He was asked to come to the White House, and really all he was there to be told by the President was: I won't negotiate. I won't negotiate. I won't negotiate. Then, as Mr. Boehner tells the story, he got that message, so he came back to work. Here we are, trying to send ideas out about working together.

The working group intentionally was an open-ended opportunity for Members of Congress--10 on the House side, 10 on the Senate side--to work together with an opportunity, as a working group, to try and overcome this bypass. That's what we're trying to do. I think we're going to be faithful to it. I think we're going to pass this here today, and then we're going to see what the Senate will do again--I'm sure, once again, just another piece of log over in their fireplace for the Senate majority leader to burn down. I am hopeful here today that we have common sense, and I think we will pass this.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I would advise the gentleman, at this time, I do not have any further speakers. I thank the gentleman for asking.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

I appreciate my dear friend, my colleague, from Worcester, Massachusetts. I will describe it to him real fast.

Mr. Speaker, what we're trying to do is open up all the employees that are home at the FAA. That's it. We're going to bring them back to work; pay them; get it done, all the employees at the FAA.

Secondly, we're trying to form a working group. We're trying to work around the process that has gotten bogged up today, with an idea from our Speaker, John Boehner, and our Majority Leader, Eric Cantor, and our whip, Kevin McCarthy, and a couple of people who are in the Republican leadership who are saying let's find another way around the logjam that we've got. So we came up with a good idea and said let's go to a working group. Let's actually get 10 Members of the Senate and 10 Members of the House. Let's meet. Let's meet very quickly. As a matter of fact, the resolution says that, within 1 day, they've got to be selected; within 1 day after that, they have to meet. Let's put them to work. Let's put the Members to work on this on a bipartisan, bicameral basis. That is what this is about. It is really pretty simple.

Mr. Speaker, this is not really rocket science right now. We're engaged in how we put one foot in front of the other, and Republicans have been doing this for 3 weeks. We're meeting at the Rules Committee. We're taking testimony. We are listening to the people who come to the committee.

We have very vigorous, detailed debates where Members, Republicans and Democrats, come to the Rules Committee from the Appropriations Committee. As a matter of fact, we've seen some star witnesses in this House--stars, good people, great ideas--trying to push that we're going to work together. We're going to do this together. We can do this together. Not all the bills were agreed to, but a bunch of them have been on a bipartisan basis.

So you never know when you throw up a good idea whether somebody is going to take you up on it or not. We have had a couple where that has worked; and we, as Republicans, are going to stay after it. We're the ones willing to negotiate.

Now, there was a discussion about us showing up at the World War II Memorial. Yup, sure did. I did that myself, too. The reason we went down there is that there are men and women who served in the military during World War II who, at the last years of their lives, are coming up in what are called Honor Flights, where they come up here and meet together as people who were comrades in arms for the United States of America, who fought the Axis of Evil, the Germans, the Japanese, and others. They wanted to come just about 2 miles from here down to the World War II Memorial, and it was locked. It was bolted up and locked. So a couple of colleagues, my fellow Texans, went down there last week and found out--the park ranger was there. Well, who's allowed to get in? First Amendment protesters. First Amendment protesters are the only ones allowed in--well, and Members of Congress. So these two colleagues of mine took bolt cutters, opened it up, and it has been open ever since.

That's what Republicans are trying to do. We are trying to do that not just for the World War II Memorial; we are trying to do that for this government. We are trying to work on commonsense ideas. We are asking for this House of Representatives to be with us today.

I support this rule. I support the underlying legislation.

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

Objection.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 373, I call up the bill (H.R. 3273) to establish a bicameral working group on deficit reduction and economic growth, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 3273.

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

It has been 1 week since the Federal Government shut down. In that time, House Republicans have passed several appropriations bills designed to provide funding for numerous parts of the government's most important functions. Additionally, we've invited Senate Democrats to join us at the negotiating table to find a commonsense solution to our Nation's fiscal problems.

Unfortunately, no one over these 3 weeks has been able to reach a compromise, and Senate Democrats have simply returned our volley every time without a value-added proposition. So what we are here to do today is to stand up once again and say we believe we are trying to appropriately fund the Federal Government.

As a result, we are here today. House Republicans are going to offer to sit down at the negotiation table with Senate Democrats in an effort to reach the meaningful solutions our constituents expect from us.

H.R. 3273, the Deficit Reduction and Economic Growth Working Group Act of 2013, would establish a bicameral, bipartisan working group consisting of six Members of the majority and four Members of the minority from both the House and the Senate. These 20 Members would be appointed no less than 1 day after enactment of the legislation and would meet each subsequent calendar day to provide recommendations to overall discretionary spending levels for fiscal year 2014, changes to the discretionary debt limit, and reforms to direct spending programs.

Mr. Speaker, being from Texas, I am used to a lot of people trying to work for the good--the common good--of its people. I will tell you that I fully expect that the reason I came to Washington was to work for the good and not for just the people of Texas, but to accept the responsibility. It was important that I come to work for all people in Texas and the American people to make their lives better. I believe that some of those ideas include sitting down, talking, negotiating, finding common ground, leading--not obstructing, not saying ``no,'' not being the

first one to walk out or not agreeing to meet, but, rather, to sit down and be constructive.

That is what we in the House of Representatives are trying to do once again today with a common set of principles. We believe constitutionally, as the House of Representatives, we have the authority and the responsibility to be leaders in the process that will allow the American people to effectively see who is here, who is working, and expect us to get our job done. Unfortunately, it's a rough world, and we're having a tough time, so a new idea today is to gather our colleagues together from each side and see if we can make progress.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican Party hears the gentleman. We are also listening to the American people. The American people are sick and worried about their future. They see a government that spends too much money and listens too little. They tax too much and leave too little for the American people. They are very aware that this Big Government ploy and play by not just this administration, but the prior administration that ran this House of Representatives, placed America in a detrimental position, in a position where we have health care that is a government-run health care plan, that is causing not just uncertainty, but unemployment. Republicans got into this whole mess of the debate with ObamaCare because it got closer and closer and closer to implementation.

Let's look at what this bill tactically does. It tactically puts rules and regulations on business. That means that business arbitrarily will make decisions literally to cut not only the amount of people that they have, but the work hours associated with that. Many unions across the United States are concerned about the loss of the 40-hour workweek because that's the threshold that Democrats have placed the American worker in.

So the Republican Party, in listening not just to business, but workers, made a determination that the closer we got to this implementation, we were going to continue discussing how bad this was for not just business, but for individuals.

Then the President came and unilaterally decided he would let businesses be deferred for a year, but kept the rules and regulations on individuals. That was done over Fourth of July, just in a tweet that went out. They weren't even brave enough to put the full announcement out.

So now the Republicans have focused since the Fourth of July on the unfairness about how individuals will be expected to apply all of these laws directly on them as individuals. See, what the American people understand is, it is almost impossible to fight as an individual against a big government, against the IRS, and it's the IRS who will be making sure that the American people follow this tax law.

That is what the Supreme Court said it is. It is a tax law.

That is where lots of groups around the country continue to speak, not only clearly, but with effectiveness, about how it is unfair for the President to give 1,200 waivers and a waiver to certain people who were included in the bill--business--and now he is going to waive that but put it off on individuals.

These are small business owners. They are men and women who are not just our neighbors. They are men and women who produce the goods and services, who put their name on their businesses, who have their children become teachers and firefighters and members of our military.

They see where this is harming their ability to have health care. It is harming their ability to have the opportunity for their small business to be successful because it is putting them at a disadvantage. Perhaps worst of all, there are lots of businesses who understand that this will cost an incredible amount of money, and that is why businesses will not offer the exact same health care plan that they had previously--UPS, all the way to Delta Air Lines, and lots of other companies.

That is why it is very timely--it is very timely--that Republicans have been doing this all year, but we focused on this directly at the implementation.

We are here for a good reason. We are trying to now change the dynamics with a working group. We are trying to say we believe that some of our colleagues would have a better opportunity to negotiate with some good ideas. Trust me, there are good ideas that float back and forth between Republicans and Democrats all the time. We are trying to say that a successful ``rain dance'' has a lot to do with timing.

That success can be accepting this working group, getting our Members together on a bipartisan basis--House and Senate--immediately within a day or so, and then start working together. Do you know what? Even if they weren't the final answer, what a great opportunity to empower our Members to talk and work together and see if they can make headway.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would thankfully acknowledge the floor of the House of Representatives here for voting on several very, very important items that allow those employees that today might not be at work. We have asked that they come back to work, and it was passed here--those in food and drug security, those in Head Start, those in national emergency disaster recovery, those in the NIH, and those in national parks.

These are an example of the ideas that have come forth from votes on this floor. And soon to come--intelligence, border security, Native Americans, and Alaskan health care, national weather monitoring, nuclear weapons security, and nutrition assistance for women and children.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman for asking. My dear friend, very respectfully, has asked a good question.

As a matter of fact, we would like to move forward with all 150 as quickly as possible. What we would like to do is move through these. We've got them now. They are lined up to go to our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol. But they don't want to do that.

Why would I move forward if they don't want to do that? Why would we move forward if they do not actually really want to open up the government except under their terms?

We believe that they have not addressed the underlying problems:

Number one, what is happening with this thing called ObamaCare, and secondly, with the debt? We are adding debt as we speak. We have gone from $9- to $17 trillion in just a few short years.

We have been working with the President. We have been doing things in the 3 years that Republicans have been back in the majority. We are trying to correct the errors of the past. That is why we are here today.

The gentleman asked a good question: Wouldn't it be a good thing to get through our list of 150? I would say to the gentleman, we have already done some and we will keep doing them.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

As the gentleman knows, there are few people in this House who I have a better relationship than I do with the gentleman from Maryland. With great respect, I listened to him and his words.

I would say back to him there is a little bit more that really comes to us from people who speak about their lives also. I am concerned about people who are not only working for our great government and people who receive services, but we are also trying--without to make a point--we are trying to make changes in the Affordable Care Act, which is also known as ObamaCare.

There are several things about the Affordable Care Act that render that title difficult to understand, because the Affordable Care Act, within a year the Congressional Budget Office said they believed it would be at least twice as expensive as it was originally thought it would be.

Secondly, some 70 percent more people will be in the system because they provided a figure that did not match what they expect now for people to be in it from people who moved off of their worker plans, their insurance plans.

Third, the President stood right here one State of the Union and said there won't be a dime of taxpayer money.

And lastly, the President of the United States said:

And if you like your insurance, I guarantee you, you can

keep it.

But, Mr. Speaker, what has happened since then is this administration was incapable of providing information about how this would work. And even to today, after the announcement was made, people are going onto the Web site and learning more about these exchanges.

The largest cardiology group in America, cardiologists--heart doctors--were not even included or asked to be in the exchange. Not even given a chance to say no, thank you, the largest cardiology group in America.

So now the American people are looking at it and saying, my doctor's not even included, so who is included because my doctor is not, and now I am looking at this plan that is very expensive. Granted, New York City, the State of New York was less because they had a very expensive plan, and it's true in some places it is less. But the best doctors or the doctors that people went to are not even included in those plans now. As an example, as I said, the largest cardiology group, the most experienced cardiologists, the ones you want to go to for Medicare, for Medicaid, and for your health insurance, are not even going to be included in the government plan.

So, Mr. Speaker, this is just one example about the disappointment that the American people have because they were told one thing, and they're going to get something else. Because you're fighting the government, we have to do it in such a public way. If we simply followed the law, and the contract or the express contract did not equal what came out the other end, you could go to court and sue for it. But you can't sue the government over this. So we are litigating this actually, Mr. Speaker, right before your eyes in a very public way, saying that we believe this health care, known as ObamaCare, should not be entered into lightly.

We better understand what we're doing, and we're asking for a lot of changes. Those changes are: we think we ought to delay it; we think we ought to defer it; we think we ought to wait on it. We have, in essence, backed up every single time from our demand, and now we've gotten to a point where we, as Republicans in our discussion through legislation with the Senate, have now gotten to the point where we've said, We are where we're going to be. Now we're going to try and open up the government and we're going to try and make it work. That's the facts of the case, and that's just the way it is.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, there is some truth to this. I and the Speaker and the majority leader and the whip and our conference do not want to have anything that would empower somebody to raise taxes. But we did want to empower that we would allow maybe Mr. Dingell, the Dean of the House, maybe Mr. Van Hollen, maybe Mr. Hastings, to be part of a committee, a working group that would sit down with their colleagues and speak honestly--and maybe Mrs. Lowey--speak honestly about how we get out of this mess that we all have.

And as a working group, as a working group with no dictates but how you've got to do what you're going to do, no timeframe except you have to go meet, and you've got to be successful, and it's going to be about these items. In other words, make ``the big deal'' the big deal. And the big deal right now is spending, debt, and how we do something to get this government back to work. That's what I think the legislation does.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I yield myself the remaining time.

Mr. Speaker, we're here because Republicans want us to move forward with a process that is very important. We've had a number of times that the gentlewoman, the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Mrs. Lowey, we've had the great young chairman from Kentucky, Mr. Rogers, chairman of Appropriations, come up to the committee and talk very clearly about their ideas about moving forward to get things done.

I don't know that they would be the representatives of this body, but I bet they would be and I bet you that they could make real progress, along with, perhaps, Mr. Van Hollen and others who are awesome Members on their side, Members who are committed to getting the work done.

But this is a fight, and it's a fight that goes all the way to our friends in the Senate and all the way to the President. As best I can tell you, just as I started, I will end today. I will say that today's stalemate is the making of the President. This is his making. He places his own political power, I believe, above the Constitution, wanting to dictate policies instead of negotiating them with a duly elected branch of government, and that's the House of Representatives.

I hope that the American people take note of what's happening. The President is different from his predecessors not in terms of greatness, but rather to the degree to which he's willing to sacrifice this Nation's greatness. He's willing to take us to the brink, rather than offering his negotiating skill-set and getting people together. That is what we should be about.

The Speaker of the House has literally instructed us to get a working group together, gather it on a bipartisan basis, and see if we can make progress not with the President, not with the Speaker, not with the Senate Majority Leader, but among Members of this body who we know and who we respect. Let's gather us together, and let's get together, and let's make a difference. That's what we're trying to suggest today. I will tell you that my colleagues that have been here on the floor, including the great minority whip, I believe have the ability to make this success happen if we will work together. That's what I'm for.

I urge my colleagues to support the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's motion.

Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order that the amendment contained in the motion violates clause 7 of rule XVI, commonly referred to as the germaneness rule.

The objective of the bill under consideration is to establish a working group on deficit reduction. The amendment proposes to consider a Senate amendment to a House bill; therefore, the amendment fails the fundamental purpose test of germaneness described on page 547 of House Practice:

If the purpose or objective of an amendment is unrelated to that of the bill to which it is offered, the amendment may be held not germane.

Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, the amendment proposed in the motion is not germane to the bill, and I respectfully request a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the appeal on the table.

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

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my dear friend from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the ranking member of the Rules Committee, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 367, of which we're here for today, provides for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.J. Res. 59, the Continuing Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2014.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the Republican Party that stood up on their behalf.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That would be correct.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 368 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), my friend, the ranking member from the Rules Committee, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 368 directs the House of Representatives to go to conference with the Senate to resolve differences between the two Chambers on how to appropriately fund the Federal Government. Like any other time the House goes to a conference, Mr. Speaker, the minority will have an opportunity to instruct conferees and have their ideas heard.

For nearly 3 weeks, this body, the United States House of Representatives, has made numerous legitimate efforts to find a compromise to avoid a government shutdown. Unfortunately, Senate Majority Leader Reid and Senate Democrats have been unwilling to negotiate and have stonewalled any attempt to find common ground.

No one wants a government shutdown, but Mr. Reid's unwillingness to work with House Republicans to find a solution is what brings us to a point now this evening. I know that we want to get our work done tonight. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I hope we really find a way to avoid that by agreeing to a conference. I think a conference is important. The United States House of Representatives will be on a vote here in a few minutes where we are asking for that. I believe the American people see what we are doing is trying to legislatively resolve the differences that we have.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, our first CR was a clean CR at sequester levels and simply defunding ObamaCare. Our second CR was a clean CR at sequester levels with a 1-year delay of the entire ObamaCare law. The third CR was a clean CR with a 1-year delay of the individual mandate and removal of certain benefits for Members and congressional staff.

I have, during these times, found that some of the wise counsel that I have received in the deliberations that I have had, in the duties and responsibilities as the chairman of the Rules Committee, leaned upon several people. One of them is here, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Hal Rogers.

Hal Rogers has provided me--and I hope I have provided him--some bit of working knowledge of what we were trying to accomplish, a desire to accommodate House and Senate Members to complete more work on appropriations. That is still a part of the goal that we are going to tonight, to go to conference so that we can fund the government and get it done right.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. ROGERS OF Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, thank you for those kind words. It is likewise. I have relied upon the gentleman for advice all through this process as well, and I appreciate his leadership in this body, especially as chairman of the very important Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, the Senate has just rejected the House's third attempt to avoid a government shutdown. This body has voted time and time again to keep the lights on in our government and to stop the train wreck that is ObamaCare. Unfortunately, our colleagues in the Senate have rejected these offers and have refused to come to the table to find a solution.

To be absolutely clear, the House has debated and approved three separate continuing resolutions. These bills do what they are named for--they continue government. We do not want a shutdown, and we have done what we can to avoid it. Given the situation at hand and the late hour, we will now vote to send the CR we just passed and a request for a conference to the Senate.

Our challenges are great, but they are not insurmountable. This conference will provide a venue to discuss the differences between the House and Senate, having productive negotiations, and come to a final agreement that most can support.

In some ways, Mr. Speaker, this is a logical next step. When the House and the Senate are unable to resolve their differences on other pieces of critical legislation, the appropriate action is to appoint a conference. That is the time-honored way of this great body.

I understand that this is not the first or the second or the third choice of many Members here tonight. It is not my first choice either. But I believe this motion can help us move forward and provide at least a gleam of light at the end of this very long tunnel.

I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, we just entertained a piece of legislation that came from the Senate. There is a lot of business that needs to be done. We had the gentleman from Kentucky, Hal Rogers, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, who was here, who spoke very favorably not only about his optimism of being able to work through this with his colleagues, not only the gentlewoman Nita Lowey, his ranking member, but also the working relationship that the Appropriations Committee has with our Senate colleagues.

I think if there is one thing that is a takeaway from tonight, that is that Hal Rogers, a man who has been in this body for a long period of time and who has great wisdom about not only the intricacies and the running of the government but also, I think, a good bit of esprit that comes with it, not just optimism, but his desire to make sure that good things happen, that is what Hal Rogers was on this floor talking to us about.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Lewisville, Texas, Dr. Michael Burgess, a member of the Rules Committee.

At this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New

York, Congressman Reed, a second-term Member and one of the clearest thinkers in our party.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the Republicans came to the floor of the House several weeks ago--we've done it lots of times and have probably had 41 votes on ObamaCare. We've talked about how $716 billion was cut from senior care, Medicare. We think that's a problem. We think that was wrong. We think pushing this off on seniors is the wrong thing to do. We know the cost to employers.

Mr. Speaker, it is my time.

I do appreciate the gentleman because I know what he is going to tell me. He's going to say, Well, we used that money in our budget. In fact, we did, because this was an action that was done 3 years ago, and we are trying to repeal the bill that took $716 billion from seniors. We disagreed with it, but after 3 years, you have to use the money. We promised at that time that we would stay after it.

Look, the gentleman is the one who voted for it. Not one Republican voted to take the money. I know what their dialogue is, and I appreciate the gentleman. He is a very dear friend of mine. I know they're frustrated when we tell the truth about how bad this bill is.

With regard to the cost to employers, Delta Air Lines marched up to the White House in February and said, Hey, guys. Just so you know, you're

going to cost Delta Air Lines over $100 million this year. In the first year, it's going to cost $100 million.

Trust me. They were listening over there. That may be why they said, Whoops, we'll let business off the hook.

They should have done the same thing for everybody. Mr. Speaker, that's part of why we're here--we are here for fairness.

What do Members of Congress hear when they go back home? They hear a lot of things, but here is the one that we hear more than anything. What we hear about is that there have been seven part-time jobs created for every one full-time job in America.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is not what we were promised. We have talked a lot about what Republicans have said and not said and what's right and wrong. What is true is that the President of the United States stood right here and said: not one dime of taxpayer money, and you can keep the insurance that you've got if you want it. That's our promise to the American people.

Mr. Speaker, since ObamaCare has passed, there have been for every seven part-time jobs that were created, only one full-time job. We're becoming a part-time job Nation. Mr. Speaker, you cannot be the greatest Nation in the world as an economic power, you cannot get kids, our young children, to want to go to college for a part-time job. It's just not working well.

That's why the Republican Party is here. That's why we have Members here tonight. That's why we've sent three CRs. That's why we have meeting after meeting after meeting trying to determine how do we best get after this. We didn't stay after the same way. We sent one offer, a second offer, a third offer. We're now asking something very simple: a chance to appoint conferees, get together face to face, talk about the issues and ideas, find room for compromise, and do something better. That's what we're asking for.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ennis, Texas, Congressman Joe Barton, the dean of the Texas Republican delegation.

Mr. Speaker, our Republican Members come from diverse districts all over this country. Men and women get together, we meet, we talk, we have clear voices. We listen to each other about what people are hearing from back home.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Dallas, Texas (Mr.

Hensarling), the chairman of the Financial Services Committee. He is one of the clearest voices in the discussion that we've had. He represents a largely rural district--people who get up and go to work every day, people who have a lot at risk, people who care about this country, men and women who provide for their children, and their children are part of the military. They believe in this country, and they know that America's greatest days need to be in our future. It requires vigilance, and every day you have to stay after it.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Will the gentleman yield?

The House has attempted three times to send something over, and it's come back rejected every time.

Well, the question I have is, Did the Senate pass the bill?

If you put back in the language that we asked for, we will be very pleased to agree to it.

And I thank the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Speaker, you know, our great government, on October 1, was going to be open for health care. Mr. Speaker, all anybody has to do is to go online right now and try to sign up for this after years of our friends in the Obama administration

getting ready. And the site says, I'm sorry, your account cannot be done. The system is unavailable.

So here we are at the great day of October 1, at 12:30. Mandatory funding by the government can't get in the way of that. Right here, system unavailable for the American public. Why am I not surprised?

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), that I have no further requests for time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, tonight is a night that we will remember. The things that will be remembered about this night are that our party has attempted to work with, reach out, and deal with our colleagues in the United States Senate.

We have sent a CR, a clean CR at sequester levels and defunding ObamaCare. It was shipped back to us. A second CR, a clean CR at sequester levels, a 1-year delay of the entire ObamaCare law. A third CR at sequester levels, a 1-year delay, and removal

of certain benefits that we believe is fairness.

But the overriding suggestion that we have made tonight goes back to a little bit over an hour ago with the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

He is asking for the opportunity for us to go to conference to resolve our differences, people working together, people looking at each other. As was suggested by the gentleman, Mr. Barton, yeah, probably a TV would be in the room and the American people would get a chance to weigh and balance both sides also. We think that's important. That's what we're asking for. That's why we're on the floor of the House of Representatives tonight, and this is what we stand for.

We're after fairness. We're after an opportunity to get these ideas and the issues resolved for the American people. So I'm going to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the resolution.

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

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

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

General Leave

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

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

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

does not default on its debt obligations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

I certainly can, and I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

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

I appreciate the gentleman engaging me.

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

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I rise concerning certain provisions of H.R. 3204, legislation addressing human drug compounding and drug supply chain security.

This legislation confirms that Section 503(A), originally passed in 1997, allows the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to enter into memorandums of understanding with the states to address ``the distribution of inordinate amounts of compounded products interstate,'' and to make sure that there are procedures that provide ``for appropriate investigation by a State agency of complaints relating to compounded drug products distributed outside such State.''

It is my understanding that this authority is to be used by the FDA to make sure that systems and procedures are set up so that consumers have available redress for any potential problem with compounded prescriptions that are shipped across state lines. I am aware of concerns that the FDA may use this authority to try to restrict interstate commerce rather than following the letter of the law, which seeks to guarantee ``appropriate investigation'' on complaints and other issues that may arise.

Mr. Speaker, I will continue to monitor the implementation of Section 503(A) in consultation with compounding pharmacies in Texas, and call on the FDA to ensure that these provisions are not used to restrict interstate sales of compounded pharmaceuticals within all applicable laws and regulations.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 366 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the ranking member of the committee and my friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

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

House Resolution 366 provides for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.J. Res. 59, the Continuing Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2014, and a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 3210, the Pay Our Military Act of 2013.

Mr. Speaker, at midnight on Monday, just 2 days from now, the Federal Government will shut down if Congress does not act to provide the necessary appropriations. The legislation before us today will ensure that a shutdown does not happen; and, if adopted, the House amendments would make important steps to ensure that ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act that President Obama and every Democrat voted for, does not have the opportunity to hurt American jobs and drag down our economy.

The first of these three amendments would repeal the medical device tax included in ObamaCare. This medical device tax is also known as what might be the tax that will harm not only the creation of investment but also the products of medical devices, including pacemakers and other medical products that keep America's health care a leading edge. The medical device industry provides our Nation with innovative health care services as well as much-needed jobs for many, many hardworking Americans. ObamaCare's onerous medical device tax-- what we also call the pacemaker tax--is already causing job loss in this industry and negatively impacting innovation of new and other lifesaving devices.

I would like to insert into the Record a letter from a gentleman from Dallas, Texas, Mr. Walt Humann, CEO of OstoeMed, who came to my office over a year ago in June of 2012. He spoke with me about how innovative medical devices clearly help not only Americans, but doctors perform very difficult and leading-edge surgeries. And I will tell you that Mr. Humann spoke very clearly about how this onerous tax would literally tax the production, not the sale, but the production of medical devices to an industry that needs more and more innovation. That clearly explains the damaging effects that this has on American businesses. His letter, Mr. Speaker, clearly outlines how it harms not only his company, but the industry as a whole.

The second amendment would delay all aspects of ObamaCare for 1 year. This proposal is an important step to prevent the costly job-killing regulations contained in President Obama's health care plan from becoming an unfortunate reality. The President has already delayed several pieces of the law; and just as he begins to see how ill- conceived and unworkable his plan is, it's time for us to stop it dead in its tracks. So much for the hundreds of waivers that he has issued; so much for him delaying for his friends in business; so much for him delaying the pieces that he wants to, knowing that the harm will be on individuals all across America. It makes sense to delay the entire law for a year in an effort to protect American families from paying higher health care premiums and having fewer options.

This is important, and the Republican Party is on the floor of the House of Representatives today on behalf of taxpayers and what we believe is about 60 percent of Americans who are opposed to this bill starting to work October 1. So that's why we are here.

Finally, this rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3210, the Pay Our Military Act. This important piece of legislation is designed to ensure that our Nation's men and women in the military continue to receive their paychecks in the event that the Senate does not adopt a responsible CR and forces our government into a shutdown.

Our Nation's military puts their lives on the line, and they have throughout the history of our country. They remain engaged in combat operations as we go to sleep tonight. They are protecting this great Nation, and the services that the men and women of the military provide to the United States of America should be aided and helped, and we should make sure that we do not stop the pay to the men and women

of the United States military. In the event of a government shutdown, this body should take the necessary measures to ensure that our servicemen and -women continue to be compensated for their services.

So, Mr. Speaker, we have finished a Rules Committee meeting upstairs. We spoke about this, the impacts, at the committee hearing that allowed Mrs. Lowey, on behalf of the minority, and Mr. Hal Rogers, our Appropriations Committee chairman, to talk about the important part of what we're trying to do today.

So I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

OsteoMed,

June 5, 2012.

Hon. Pete Sessions,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Sessions: Thank you for taking time to

visit with me last week regarding OsteoMed and my concerns

about the significant ``headwinds'' we face, especially

related to the 2.3% medical device tax that is scheduled for

implementation in 2013. On behalf of OsteoMed's 400

employees, I thank you for your support of H.R. 436, which

would repeal this onerous provision that otherwise will

negatively impact innovation and job creation at a time when

we can least afford it.

As president & CEO of OsteoMed, a dynamic, 20 year old

surgical device manufacturing company based in your district,

I confront the challenges that America's innovators face

every day. In addition to challenges with the FDA and

reimbursement, this 2.3% excise tax--which is on gross sales,

whether or not a business has any profits--will directly

impact our ability to create new jobs, invest in research and

development and effectively compete in the global market.

OsteoMed formed a new subsidiary company a couple of years

ago to develop an innovative spine product that greatly

simplifies spine fusion surgery and improves patient

outcomes. OsteoMed launched this product last year which

quickly grew to almost $5MM in sales in 2011 and currently

employs a number of highly skilled, high paid individuals.

Due to the significant upfront investment and on-going

development costs, this new company is not projected to make

a profit in the near future but is nevertheless subject to

the device tax which will further delay this subsidiary's

success. As a result, OsteoMed has now delayed additional new

product developments and personnel in order to make ``ends

meet'' and achieve the returns initially envisioned when this

company was created.

OsteoMed's core business manufactures surgical implant

systems for use in craniofacial, neurosurgical and small bone

orthopedic (upper and lower extremities) surgeries. These

systems require extensive, specialized instruments that are

typically not sold, but are used to implant the devices that

drive OsteoMed's revenue stream. The device tax will not only

tax gross product revenues, but my understanding is it will

also tax the instruments OsteoMed must invest in and place

into hospitals at no charge thereby further reducing my

company's profit opportunities and forcing expense reductions

in other areas in order to achieve our profit goals.

OsteoMed's products are sold through a variety of sales

channels and will require a new level of administrative

burden in order to track the ``gross'' revenues defined by

this tax. This requirement, along with the recent challenges

imposed by the Physician Payment Sunshine Act, force

additional levels of administration and non value added

expenses that male OsteoMed less competitive and viable.

The market in which OsteoMed competes is in turmoil and has

become increasingly competitive with many new offshore

competitors. As economics and recent government restrictions

have largely removed surgeons from the surgical device

purchase decision process, hospitals are now forcing

increasingly price concessions. Despite increased raw

material and labor costs, OsteoMed has been unable to raise

product prices over the past several years and is now equally

unlikely to simply pass along the device tax to our

customers.

Like any other responsible business, OsteoMed must

carefully manage expenses in order to make profit and

continue to grow and succeed. In order to cover the shortfall

the new device tax will create, OsteoMed has already started

to implement cut backs in its operations including the delay/

cancellation of new product development projects and the

hiring of additional personnel, including biomedical

engineering positions. It should be noted that OsteoMed is

also aggressively re-directing its business focus to

international markets that provide a less cumbersome and

lengthy regulatory pathway with revenue streams that are not

subject to the medical device tax . . . immediately

``saving'' 2.3% in the process. In the past month, OsteoMed

initiated the search for sales managers in China and the

Middle East to supplement recent managers hired in Korea and

Italy. Unfortunately, OsteoMed has already started to

effectively trade U.S. jobs for overseas positions as a

direct result of the medical device tax and other

governmental involvement.

The medical device industry not only provides numerous

highly skilled and attractive jobs across the U.S., but it

also pays its workers on average 40% more than the typical

job. We are a vibrant sector of the economy and one of the

few remaining industries that produces a healthy export of

products. Tragically, this industry has now become the focus

of misguided and short-term government intervention and the

growth and continued prosperity of this proud American

industry now faces great hurdles.

Again, I thank you for your service to our country and

specifically for your support of H.R. 436 to repeal this tax

and to help America's innovators continue to improve patient

care and drive job creation. I look forward to your ability

to visit OsteoMed when you are back in Dallas so you can see

firsthand our great employees and the innovative products

they produce to help people around the world. Please do not

hesitate to contact me to discuss this issue or any other

issues impacting the medical device industry.

Sincerely,

Walter J. Humann,

President & CEO, OsteoMed.

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

I am intrigued by the notion today that Republicans were meeting secretively. In fact, we have had several meetings over the past few days, and probably two or three today, and the nature of that is to make sure that our Members, some 233 Republican Members across this country, that Republican leadership like myself is hearing from them, that we are moving together and talking about the terrible and disastrous effects of ObamaCare and how we're going to work together.

Some of the common things that have been talked about in those meetings, as if we need to remind ourselves--but I will again--in that ObamaCare bill, $716 billion was cut and taken away from senior health care to go directly to ObamaCare. But we've also seen the real effects of ObamaCare, as we know that since ObamaCare has been passed, there have been 7 part-time jobs created for every one new full-time job.

Mr. Speaker, we're here on the floor of the House of Representatives because our country is in trouble. This is a continually difficult time for Americans back home not just to find work, but to keep work.

We find that large companies, these large corporations that are talked about from time to time on this floor, especially by our friends, are moving people off the health care that they're on because it makes sense to do it, but also because of the expense.

We saw just in the last few weeks large companies like UPS and Walgreens move their employees and make very, very difficult decisions. Just like Delta Air Lines had to make a decision. They announced that ObamaCare alone would cost Delta Air Lines over $100 million next year alone.

These are destructive and devastating consequences of ObamaCare. The Republican Party is on the floor because this law is going to start very quickly: October 1 and January 1. People begin signing up October 1.

Of course, what we've seen is the President very clearly over the last few years has given waivers to the people that he chose to give waivers to. He turned around and let business off the hook. But he keeps the law on individuals. He keeps this onerous law on individuals--and it's causing chaos and panic.

It's causing chaos for people like my family and others who have children that they have to take care of that are sometimes disabled. And we are seeing problems because now we're not sure in this mix who will be the doctor. Will that be a doctor we've gone to in the past? Will that be a doctor that one time we may see and another time we may not see?

There is uncertainty. And this uncertainty has been driven to what I believe has become reality. And the reality is, if you look, there is a CBS and New York Times poll showing that a majority of Americans disapprove of ObamaCare. And when a majority of Americans say this to CBS News and The New York Times, I think even our colleagues, the Democrats, should listen.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, for every opportunity that Republicans have to talk about how bad this bill is, there is an equal opportunity for our colleagues to talk about how great it is. But the facts of the case are the American people don't see it yet. The reason why we don't see it is because this President and this administration have given out over 1,200 waivers to people, saying, It's okay for you to not have to come under this law; what you do is okay. But it's not okay for the American people, individuals of this Nation, the men and women who get up and go to work every day.

And let's note, too, that we have a section of this bill that's about paying the military in case we do shut down. I would think that our colleagues on the other side of this building would want to make sure that we pay members of our military. They're important to this country. This body is going to do it.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), a distinguished young gentleman of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, you know, one of the most commonsense classes that we've ever had of new Members of Congress has arrived in Washington. They're in their first year, and they're seeing some amazing things that are happening.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger), one of these new freshman gentlemen.

Mr. Speaker, you know, I would have to beg to differ with the gentlewoman. That's not what this bill is about. Evidently, the gentlewoman has not had time to read the bill. We are not debating shutting down the House. We are debating what is called a continuing resolution, Mr. Speaker. So I would encourage her to please go, and we will help her at the Rules Committee and make sure she understands what the bill is about.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows), a distinguished young man.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Bucks County, Pennsylvania, Congressman Fitzpatrick.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

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

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

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

I will remind my friends that we hear stories after stories about companies dropping their employees from their employee-sponsored health care plans because of the costs and the way the health care bill is written.

I think it is very interesting how--I have great sympathy for individuals who are having problems. They are in the district that I represent from Dallas also--the vast majority of people who are going to be just like them, huge amounts of people, are now being impacted by ObamaCare.

It goes back to an argument that we made years and years ago moving forward: don't impact the people that have health care and insurance; help the people that don't have that. This is a case that is happening all across this country.

The problem is the President played a Robin Hood plan. He went after everybody that has got insurance, he went after everybody that had a job, he went after employers. Rather than us taking care of those that did not--and let's say there were going to be 23 million people that were going to be covered, and I believe that that was the number years ago--23 million people times about $5,000 a contribution so that they could get an insurance plan would be far less destructive on our economy than going after 230 million people and destroying their health care plans.

This comes back to a simple ideology, Mr. Speaker. They want a government-run health care system. That is what they are after--a government-

run health care system, just like they want in other areas of the free economy. That's why they've done so many outward things with not only student loans to the banking industry, health care industry, the energy industry; they have an attack and an assault on employers and the American people.

I have great respect for these individuals that we're talking about. I share their concern and I guarantee you I and my office will help these people and have been helping these people, and we care about them.

But that's not what we fixed. We did a Robin Hood plan to take from everybody else and put everybody in trouble then, including the economy, including jobs, and we are now a part-time American economy.

By the way they wrote the bill, it is not only expensive but it kills jobs. It is just as effective as what their EPA war on coal is. It is an attack and assault on the free enterprise system and free people.

To say that the Republican Party doesn't care about these individuals is simply not true. We would offer a plan, a different way to look at it, and take the 230 million Americans that had something and worry about the others. That is what we have been trying to do all 17 years I've been in Congress.

The biggest divide in this country is on taxes, and it's on health care. Republicans want normal, regular people to be able to have health care. That is what we believe in. That's the difference and the real story behind tonight.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is not I. It will not be I. I am here to help, and the legislation that's on the floor is about a continuing resolution.

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Houston, Texas, Congressman Culberson.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

To advise the gentlewoman, I am through with my speakers, and I will then, as she finishes, offer a close.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to just go through the things that we've talked about that are the attributes of why we are here tonight.

The cost to taxpayers: $716 billion was cut from senior care, Medicare, to fund ObamaCare. That harms our seniors.

Just one example of the cost to employers: Delta Air Lines announced that ObamaCare will cost its company $100 million in increased health care costs over the next year.

Americans are losing their current health care coverage. We read about it, and we know that UPS, Walgreens, and many other employers are losing their health care coverage that they have today.

Fewer hours and fewer full-time jobs. Since ObamaCare was passed, there have been seven part-time jobs for every one full-time job that was added.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a way to move our country forward. The Republican Party is prepared. We believe and can substantiate that a ``yes'' vote is for making sure that we keep this government open-- something that the American people want and need. That's why the Republican Party--233 strong--is here tonight. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 6 o'clock and 59 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, September 27, 2013, at 9 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 351 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. And congratulations to the Clerk for the long reading of the rule.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Worcester, Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my dear friend--

and I spent a lot of time with him yesterday--pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

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

House Resolution 351 provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 687 and H.R. 1526, and provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 3102.

Mr. Speaker, the first of these bills is H.R. 687, the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act. This bill permits a land conveyance which will lead to the development of important copper deposits in Arizona that is estimated to create 3,700 jobs and $60 billion worth of economic opportunity. That is a great reason to be on the floor on behalf of the Republican Party of the United States of America.

We are on the floor today because people in Arizona, on a bipartisan basis, have asked that their elected representatives, on a bipartisan basis, come to the United States Government and ask for swapping lands that will result in 3,700 American jobs--probably about 3,700 jobs in Arizona--and up to $60 billion worth of economic opportunity. What a great reason for Paul Gosar and Doc Hastings, the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, to approach the Rules Committee about getting that bill on the floor today.

We hear over and over and over and over about jobs and job creation for the middle class. Well, let me tell you what, Mr. Speaker, 3,700 jobs for the middle class in Arizona and up to $60 billion worth of economic opportunity are available to Members of Congress today where they can make a decision about what they want to vote on. I would submit to you the Republican Party is for those 3,700 middle class jobs.

The second bill before us today is H.R. 1526, the Restoring Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act. This legislation will improve the health of our Nation's forests by promoting effective forest management while simultaneously strengthening a timber sales revenue-sharing program which is, once again, designed to allow rural communities to benefit from their local natural resources.

I will go back and say it again. The reason why we are on the floor today is that the Republican Party wants local, rural communities to have a part of their cost sharing with the money that would come in to help rural communities to benefit from what sits in their own back yard, their own natural resources, which we as Republicans understand is best admired and best taken care of when local people take care of their own needs. Point two why the Republican Party is on the floor of the House of Representatives today: for local rural communities.

The final bill considered in this rule is H.R. 3102, the Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act. This vital legislation reforms--and I add the word ``reforms'' because it needs reform--reforms our Nation's nutrition programs, saving taxpayers about $40 billion while maintaining critical benefits to helping America's neediest families, seniors, children, and veterans. H.R. 3102 reinforces our country's commitment to those who cannot help themselves while working to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse.

What is the waste, fraud, and abuse? It is many, many people who should not be receiving these needy items--that should be reserved for those who need it the most--people who are able-bodied; and we should not extend those benefits to people who actually can take care of themselves.

So you're going to hear a robust argument today that will take place--it took place for hours yesterday in the Rules Committee as we considered amendments after amendments, ideas after ideas. Each and every person, whether they be Republican or Democrat, were treated with fairness and the opportunity to equally present their ideas with the knowledge that there was a committee, the Rules Committee, on a bipartisan basis, that was available and ready to engage each of those Members on their ideas that are called amendments. That is why we are on the floor of the House of Representatives today.

I urge my colleagues to support the rule--we will talk a little bit more about it--and to support the underlying legislation. And of course we will talk about that more during this hour.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), who serves on the Natural Resources Committee and the Budget

Committee, from Oak Grove, California.

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

I appreciate the gentleman from Minnesota coming down and giving us his thoughts on what we are attempting to do today. The bottom line is that what we are going to do is we are going to make natural and, I believe, reasonable changes to the nutrition program that will help sustain it. Rather than growing and growing and growing and growing the amount of money that's necessary to sustain this, we are going to put it into a perspective where it is available and ready for the neediest of Americans, which is what the food stamp program really is all about.

In fact, we are here to make sure that when our great chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Frank Lucas, goes to a conference with the United States Senate that we give him a full portfolio of the thoughts and ideas about the changes that we would make to the entire agriculture bill. Chairman Lucas is one of the most awesome members of our conference and who, yesterday, spent a number of hours with us, not just to get us to understand what we are trying to do, but why we are trying to do what we are doing. It means that we will arm him with the available content to go to the conference with the Senate to make the farm bill that includes the nutrition program even better and sustainable.

I think the gentleman, Mr. McClintock, said it best, and that is that what we are trying to do is to make sure that the neediest Americans get what they want and need. But it simply and, I believe, carefully says, where you're able-bodied and on food stamps, you have got to be looking for work also. You have to make sure that you're a part of trying to go and better your life, not using the food stamp program as an alternative to the hard work which will help make you and perhaps your family, but certainly your community and your country even stronger. So it becomes an incentive to do exactly that.

Just like what we did in welfare reform in the early nineties where, in welfare reform, jobs became a substitute and really a demand that you needed to go look for a job, millions of people took us up on that and bettered their life, that's what we are trying to do now. There are still jobs available in America. There are still jobs available. They might not be the job that you would want to stay in for the rest of your life, but it means that you need to go and actively participate, because there are those behind, so to speak, the program that are the neediest of most Americans.

I will tell you that I understand some of those people, some of these people that live within the district that I represent in Texas, but I also understand them firsthand in dealing with disabled people and families with disabled children and families with disabled adults. Where a person cannot take care of themselves, we are not putting that at risk at all. Where a person cannot take care of themselves and needs the benefits of the community, in this case a nutrition program, we need to make sure that there is more money that is available to them.

There was a discussion about the average cost not being very much, and I think that's a true statement. We would like to increase the money for more and better food, including fruits and vegetables and other items, in the future, but the only way we can do this is if we are aiming at the people who need it the most.

That's where this great Nation will continue. Not only through their food banks that are available across the country because of local people getting involved, but also the competition that comes from the Federal Government to help work with them to better the lives, the nutrition, of children and seniors and veterans and families that need them the most. That's what this is trying to do to reform that program.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, my party and I do understand that our country has for 5 years gone through very difficult times. Our party and the American people, through various ways, have been asking this administration and the Democratic Party to please allow us to have an opportunity with more jobs being available in the United States of America. The Democratic Party, up to and including the President of the United States, is more interested in an out-of-balance environmental policy that is placing a demand on the consumers to pay double the prices that they did before the President came into office for gasoline and double the prices of food and the availability of jobs.

Just as we are here to talk about, in Arizona, 3,700 new jobs, we've tried to do this with the XL pipeline, which would extend across a number of States. I don't know if some of the faces of hunger were included in those that could be hired as a result of the XL pipeline, but, every day, there are Americans who are losing their jobs and who are losing careers because of the policies of our President, Barack Obama, and the Democrats--elected Members of Congress--who insist on having rules and regulations, up to and including a government-run health care plan, which is diminishing careers and opportunities for people to have health care and full-time jobs.

If it weren't true, someone would say it was just a cruel joke; but the bottom line is that the business community all across America is now changing the rules of employment from 40-hour workweeks to 30 or even 20. This is happening directly as a result of the policies of the people who complain most about the middle class not having jobs. It is perpetrated exactly on a partisan basis--with zero Republicans participating--to have rules, regulations, and a government-run health care system that is unemploying America, only to turn around later to find out: so we've got to spend more money to take care of people who don't have jobs.

Mr. Speaker, there are divides in our country. There are divides between the parties, but, today, the Republican Party is on the floor trying to say that we need to change the law so that local communities that have forests in their backyards can share in the money, that Washington can't have it only--you've got to share with them. We are here to say that we are for a land swap that people in Arizona completely agree with. They sent their elected Representatives here on an elected citizenry basis to come and say: we'd like 3,700 more jobs in Arizona, $60 billion worth of economic activity; and we are here today to say: because we have such expanding roles of people who are hungry in America and who are filing to get food stamps, we need to be able to set a mark, and that mark is: as long as you're looking for a job and you're able-bodied, then we understand, but the neediest of Americans need what we're doing, and that we are not going to give up on.

So the Republican Party is here with an open ear, a strong voice and a kind heart; but what we are saying back is: Mr. President and Democrat Party, you need to help us grow jobs in America. You need to let loose the Keystone pipeline, which has been studied to death for the last 5 or 6 years. You need to be with us today on the 3,700 more jobs in Arizona. You need to be with us today because we're the ones who are talking about jobs in healthy forests, with timber, back home in rural areas because rural people deserve a chance to have a job and to be taken care of, too.

The Republican Party is quite consistent in our behavior--we want jobs; we want job creation; and we put legislation on the floor that accomplishes just that. That's why we're here today. We are a party that cares about people, and we are trying to make life better for the middle class and for all Americans in this country.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman who served in the United States Air Force, from Gainesville, Georgia (Mr. Collins), who serves on the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Judiciary Committee, and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Hood River, Oregon (Mr. Walden), who is the chairman of the Communications and Technology Subcommittee for Energy and Commerce.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I think we should have a standard of at least being honest about what's in the bill. We are not throwing people off who are disabled. It is an able-bodied standard, and the gentlewoman knows that.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Hood River, Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Mr. Speaker, I have a disabled child at home, a Down Syndrome young man. I understand very well about the need for our country to help and provide assistance to disabled people. It is not true, and it's unfair for someone to characterize this bill as taking someone who is disabled off the SNAP rolls.

And I'm sorry that we have Members who evidently have not read the bill and do not understand what we're doing. But that's a fact; and we should not pass along information that, in fact, is not true. I hope that this body would stay away from that very emotional issue because not only is it not fair, but it's not true.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 30 seconds.

I would like to explain, if I can, ``compassionate conservatism.'' It's called 60 straight months of economic growth, 60 straight months of this country growing stronger because people had jobs under a Republican House, under a Republican President, under a Republican Senate. Sixty straight months of economic growth that made our country stronger and better. And that is compassionate conservatism. That's the Republican Party. We're trying to get back to job growth, job creation, and help the middle class of this country.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Once again, the gentleman comes down and evidently is either unwilling or has not read the bill to an understanding where the statement was made about preventing 280,000 children from receiving a free school lunch. Nothing in this bill makes changes to the school lunch program.

The National School Lunch and the School Breakfast Programs automatically qualify students who are enrolled in SNAP for free school meals. The school meals programs are not authorized under this bill nor are eligible for requirements under this committee's jurisdiction.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

I appreciate the gentleman asking. I am down just to the close, and I thank the gentleman for seeking that information.

Mr. Speaker, today we follow the pattern that we did yesterday in talking about the needs of this great Nation, not only men and women who are unemployed, but who also need the benefits of the food stamp program.

And today, the Republican Party, as a result of the work we did in the Rules Committee, is bringing several bills in this rule, two of them talking directly about jobs and job creation.

One, Hood River, Oregon; the gentleman, Greg Walden coming to talk about, please, give us a chance to have jobs. Our people want jobs. They don't want to be on food stamps. They want jobs. A narrow, political, shrill agenda, environmentalist agenda, is the reason why we don't have that--the Democrats and Barack Obama.

Secondly, Arizona. Arizona is asking for 3,700 jobs, $60 billion worth of economic activity right in this bill. They are jobs bills.

We are trying to do the things that the Republican Party talks about; that's the middle class of this country, jobs, and job creation.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule, ``yes'' for jobs, ``yes'' for the underlying legislation, ``yes'' so that we can employ people back at home, rural areas, people who don't have jobs, ``yes'' for the opportunity for the Republican Party to, once again, stand on this floor and say, we believe the legislation that is here is better for America than the policies that we have today, the policies of unemployment, the policies of less than a 40-hour workweek, now to a 30-hour workweek, the policies of taxes and spending.

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

I want to thank the young gentleman from Oklahoma for his service not only to the Rules Committee, but also the Appropriations Committee, that he very aptly serves this honorable body well.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not surprised that we're seeing the hysteria that we are. The people who are screaming the loudest are the people that ensured, through no--trust me, no other reason, other than the things that they voted for, no unintended consequence but to have this country go from a $9 trillion to a $17 trillion deficit in just 5 short years.

They made sure that this country has become unemployed, that we no longer really have careers, that there is not only hundreds of waivers that have been given to the political friends of this President. Uncertainty is all across this great Nation about employment. People who want to sign paychecks want more employees. It is rampant across America of uncertainty and answers that cannot be given about this massive government-run health care plan that is getting ready to face this Nation in just a few short weeks.

That's why the Republican Party is on the floor of the House of Representatives today. That's why we are here to say we are going to make sure this government gets funded.

But the main culprit of uncertainty of hugely rising insurance and health care costs is ObamaCare. It is not an Affordable Care Act. By the way, I think it works about this same way in Moscow as it does in Havana. It is an out-of-control health care system that will diminish America's greatest health care system.

So why we are here today is to join House Republicans, Mr. Speaker, in our efforts to prevent ObamaCare from becoming reality. Since ObamaCare was proposed in the House in 2010, I and my Republican colleagues, not just from north Texas, as you heard here from Dr. Michael Burgess, but people from Oklahoma and all across this country, stood firmly to say that we believe that our fight against a government health care-run system is exactly what the American people want.

My Republican colleagues and I in the House are doing everything we can to stop ObamaCare through voting to repeal it, defund it, and to dismantle it. I am proud of that effort. ObamaCare is bad for jobs. It's bad for jobs all across this country. That means it's bad for our economy and it's bad for our Nation's health care systems.

Doctors all across this country are united, as well as consumers, to say we must do something about it. Up to 60 percent of Americans today are worried about the quality of health care and how they will pay for this expensive product that Democrats have brought to America.

ObamaCare will jeopardize 3.2 million jobs across this country in the franchise industry alone. These are people that before had an opportunity to put food on their table that now are having to struggle to pay for this ObamaCare.

Additionally, hardly a week goes by that we do not hear stories about companies having to force their employees off their employee and off their preferred employer provider insurance. President Obama stood right in front of where you are, Mr. Speaker, just a few years ago, and said that famous, what has turned into a lie: If you have health insurance, you can keep your health insurance. That is not true.

Today, we are learning that this is not just the case with just a few people, but also just, effective yesterday, Walgreen's has announced that they will move 160,000 of their employees off their current coverage.

That is why Republicans are on the floor of the House of Representatives today. We are trying to pass this same message to our colleagues in the other body so that they are able to take the fight so that Americans understand that we not only hear them, but we are willing to do something about it.

I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for yielding me time and I end my speech today by saying this: that Republicans will continue to fight for jobs, better health care, and an opportunity for every single American to have a job to make this country even stronger.