Floor Statements

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

I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill.

I am acutely aware of the devastating impact that asbestos exposure has had on working men and women in this country because I represent an area with several shipyards. In the last few decades, in my district alone, several thousand local shipyard workers have developed asbestosis, lung cancer, and mesothelioma from asbestos exposure that occurred between the 1940s and the 1970s. Hundreds of these workers have already died, and asbestos deaths and disabilities are continuing due to the long latency period associated with the illness.

Now, I believe that we cannot consider legislation affecting victims of asbestos exposure without remembering exactly who caused the problem. Court findings show that companies made willful and malicious decisions to expose their employees to asbestos. There are several examples:

In one case in 1986, after hearing both sides, the New Jersey Supreme Court declared:

It is, indeed, appalling to us that the company had so much

information on the hazards of asbestos workers as early as

the mid-1930s and that it not only failed to use that

information to protect the workers, but more egregiously, it

also attempted to withhold this information from the public;

A few years earlier, the Superior Court, Appellate Division of New Jersey held in the same case:

The jury here was justified in concluding that both

defendants, fully appreciating the nature, extent, and

gravity of the risk, nevertheless made a conscious and cold-

blooded business decision, in utter and flagrant disregard to

the rights of others, to take no protective or remedial

action;

In 1999, the Florida Supreme Court found:

The clear and convincing evidence in this case revealed

that, for more than 30 years, the company concealed what it

knew about the dangers of asbestos. In fact, the company's

conduct was even worse than concealment; it also included

intentional and knowing misrepresentations concerning the

dangers of its asbestos-containing product.

That is who we are talking about, and those are the types of companies that will benefit from this legislation.

Now, any suggestion that people are getting paid more than once is absolutely absurd. The fact of the matter is, because of the bankruptcies, most of them are not getting anywhere close to what they actually would have been awarded, and the bill before us does not help those victims. It actually hurts them.

The bill is nothing but a scheme to delay the proceedings and to allow the victims to get even less than they get now. Because of the delay, many of the victims will die before they get to court. This helps the guilty corporations that have inflicted this harm on innocent victims because, if the plaintiffs die before they get to court, their pain and suffering damages are extinguished. If you can delay cases enough so that the plaintiffs will die before they get to trial, the corporations will not only get to delay their payments, but when they finally have to pay, they will have to pay much less.

These people are the ones who made those conscious and cold-blooded business decisions. They are the ones who will benefit from the bill at the expense of the innocent, hardworking victims. Regrettably, many of those victims are our veterans because they were working on Navy ships.

For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to oppose the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a legacy of faith in Virginia's Third Congressional District. This year, First Baptist Church of Hampton is celebrating its 150th anniversary, and I would like to take a moment to reflect on the history of this esteemed institution and its contributions to the greater Hampton Roads community.

The history of many African American churches in existence today developed from a small band of worshippers who sat in the ``designated section'' of a white church. In this respect, First Baptist Church of Hampton is no exception and was borne out of worshippers at the Hampton Baptist Church located a short distance away from the present church site. With Reverend Zechariah Evans as its first pastor, First Baptist Church of Hampton came into its own and built its own building to house services.

The Church continued to grow and prosper, but in September 1944, a catastrophic fire destroyed the church building. Members of the community and sister churches rallied to support First Baptist Church. With generous support from the Hampton Baptist Church and other supporters in the community, the sanctuary was restored and the facility was improved and expanded.

Over the years the Church grew in its capacity, its membership, and its mission. Community outreach became an integral part of the work of the Church. The accomplishments of First Baptist Church of Hampton are far too many to list, but among them are the founding of the People's Building and Loan Association under Reverend Richard Spiller and the organization of the Big Brothers of America in Hampton under the leadership of Reverend Seymour J. Gaines.

On July 6, 2006, First Baptist Church officially elected Reverend Dr. Richard W. Wills, Sr. as its tenth and current pastor and he has continued to lead the church in its strong tradition, dedicated to fellowship and social action.

Over the years, the First Baptist community has continued to grow and flourish. The church now offers programs to increase healthy living through its Health Ministry program, hosts voter registration drives, provides housing for the homeless through ``A Night's Welcome,'' and remains steadfast in providing for the least of these, through its efforts in meal service and food distribution.

On Saturday, October 26th, I was honored to join Reverend Wills and everyone at First Baptist for their anniversary celebration banquet, which featured Reverend Al Sharpton and many other luminaries from across the Commonwealth of Virginia and across the country. President Barack Obama also provided a celebratory letter commemorating the church's rich history and its 150th anniversary. The banquet was truly an event to remember and offered a chance for the celebration, reflection, and hope that such a monumental anniversary invokes.

As First Baptist Church of Hampton continues to celebrate this historic milestone, the church can truly remember its past, celebrate its present, and focus on its future as ``[a] place on the harbor where haven meets heaven.'' I would like to congratulate Reverend Wills and all of the members of First Baptist Church of Hampton on the occasion of its 150th Anniversary. I wish them many more years of dedicated service to the community.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2374, the so-called Retail Investor Protection Act. H.R. 2374 delays the Department of Labor's rulemaking process that would protect investors from unscrupulous investment scams.

Now, in past generations, pension plans were what were called ``defined benefit plans'' in which there were defined benefits. You would look at the number of years, your last salary, and the multiple, and you could calculate what your pension would be. But more and more we are seeing defined contribution plans in which the employer just makes a contribution, and the final benefit would be whatever happens to the money over the years with the investment advice that you would be given. The trend has had a profound impact on ultimate retirement benefits and security.

Two people investing the same amount--for example, $100 a month over 30 years--could see very different retirement savings over that same period of time based on the investments they chose. Those investment choices could be the difference between a savings at the end of $100,000 or as much as $500,000 depending on which strategies were used. Now, most employees are not sophisticated investors, and therefore they need advice on what investment strategies should be used. How much should be in stocks? how much in bonds? how much in mutual funds, and which mutual funds? They seek advice.

The rule that the Department of Labor introduced in 2010 and will most likely reintroduce this fall simply requires that an investment adviser provide advice as a fiduciary responsibility to the investor, consistent, therefore, with the best interest of the investor, not with what would ultimately be most profitable to the adviser. That is, he has a duty to give primary consideration to the investor, not to his own profit. There are a lot of different products. A lot of mutual funds have extremely high fees when comparable funds--even better funds--have lower fees. Often the adviser will push products that are totally inappropriate for the investor, which is compromising the investor's retirement security in the long run but which is maximizing the profits for the adviser.

The bill we are considering today will allow investments to be sold which are laden with conflicts of interest and would immunize advisers who give self-serving, unscrupulous advice from any liability. There is an apparent belief that investment advice that is self-serving and full of conflicts of interest is better than no investment advice at all. That is absolutely absurd. There is nothing wrong with those selling investment products to be required to give primary consideration to the investors they are purporting to advise.

Mr. Speaker, the bill that we are considering today would delay the rulemaking that would take the necessary steps to protect employees and retirees who are currently being taken advantage of by investment advisers who are giving this unscrupulous advice.

Millions of Americans look to financial advisers for advice. There is nothing wrong with requiring them to have a fiduciary responsibility to those they are advising. It is about time that we make sure the investors are getting the good advice that they deserve. Therefore, we should defeat this bill.

I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding, and I join in your remarks for praising Congressman Major Owens, because he, as you pointed out, led the Congressional Black Caucus budget for many years. He showed how you can be fiscally responsible and still address the critical needs of our Nation with a particular emphasis on the least of these and the need to invest in education. So I appreciate your comments.

Mr. Speaker, as the conferees begin to negotiate a budget agreement to fund the Federal Government for the remainder of fiscal year 2014, they should look at the Congressional Black Caucus budget. The CBC budget makes tough choices, but not at the expense of our most vulnerable communities.

The CBC budget cancels the economically disastrous sequester. It protects and enhances Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, TANF, and other vital safety net programs that protect millions of families from poverty. It also reduces our Nation's budget deficit by approximately $2.8 trillion over the next decade.

Mr. Speaker, most of the ideas that have been presented over the past to either cancel the sequester or reduce the deficit almost always involve proposals that cut Social Security and Medicare. These ideas have included changing the way the Social Security benefits are calculated, the so-called chained CPI that cuts the cost of living increases or raises the age of eligibility for Medicare from 65 to 67. These are cuts in those programs.

The CBC budget shows how you can be fiscally responsible without attacking those critical programs that people have paid for during their working years. The CBC budget is able to pay for the cancellation of the sequester and reduce the budget deficit without harmful cuts to Social Security and Medicare. It calls for revenue enhancements totaling $2.7 trillion over the next decade.

Our budget outlines how the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee can reach this number by highlighting several options that total $4.2 trillion that could be used to reach the $2.7 trillion revenue target. Some of these options include $1.1 trillion by limiting the deductibility of corporate interest payments.

Now, when corporations want to raise money, they can sell stocks or they can sell bonds. If they sell stocks, they make a profit and pay dividends to their stockholders, but they pay tax on the income before they pay the dividends. With corporate debt financing, with bonds, when you pay the interest on the bonds, that is tax deductible.

Why should there be a tax preference for debt financing instead of equity financing? If it was the same and you deny the deductibility of corporate debt interest payments, you could raise $1.2 trillion over 10 years.

You could close special tax breaks and corporate loopholes by limiting deductions for upper-income individuals, closing some of the corporate loopholes, like the gas and oil advantages that they enjoy.

You can raise almost $1 trillion, over $800 billion, by taxing capital gains and dividends as ordinary income. Traditionally, 30, 40, 50 years ago, they were taxed at, actually, above ordinary income for dividends. If you tax them just the same, $880 billion could be achieved.

A surcharge, 5.4 percent surcharge on income over $1 million gets you almost a half a trillion dollars.

A trading speculation tax.

You could also limit the Bush-era tax cuts to that portion of your income,

cancel those tax cuts on that portion of your income over $250,000. Only a privileged few make more than $250,000, so that $200 billion could be achieved without being disadvantageous to very many individuals.

Almost another $135 billion can be raised by returning the estate tax exemption to what it was in 2009. You could raise over $300 billion if you reduce it to what the rate was when President Clinton left office.

These are just some of the ideas, and we have listed them specifically, showing over $4 trillion of possibilities for only $2.7 trillion to make our budget add up.

Now, that is a lot of money, but it is in stark contrast to the budget that we actually passed in this House, because that budget calls for closing a gap of $4 trillion. Unspecified, I don't know how in the world they are going to close a $4 trillion deficit because they would have to raise $4 trillion in taxes, or if they are not raising any taxes, spending cuts in the area, in discretionary spending in the area of one-third across the board. Now, we are having trouble dealing with a sequester of about a 10 percent cut across the board. You can imagine how unlikely it would be to achieve one-third across-the-board cuts.

So this budget is real. They are real numbers. The revenue enhancements provided in the CBC budget would allow Congress to totally cancel the sequester, actually pass a jobs bill totaling about half a trillion dollars, which would end the recession by putting millions of Americans back to work, and provide billions more for long-term investments in our economy through education, job training, health care, and advanced science and research.

As I said earlier, these reforms contained in the CBC budget would reduce the deficit by about approximately $2.8 trillion over the next decade when compared to the CBO's baseline. This would put our Nation on a strong and sustainable fiscal path, all without jeopardizing programs that support our seniors and programs that educate our next generation of leaders in business, science, and technology.

The CBC budget would be a wise starting point for the House and Senate conferees, much better than the budget that we passed, because there is that $4 trillion gap that is unexplained. These numbers add up.

It is an imperative that the Congress pass a budget that expands economic opportunity, invests in the American people, and reduces the deficit. The CBC budget presents a concrete plan, in stark contrast to the budget that we passed in the House, because it is backed up by actual numbers; and it adds up, and it shows how we can reduce the deficit while not being forced to make further cuts to vital programs that support our Nation's safety net.

Most importantly, the CBC budget presents a clear path both to economic and fiscal prosperity for our Nation.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a legacy of faith in Virginia's Third Congressional District. This year, First Baptist Church of Hampton is celebrating its 150th anniversary, and I would like to take a moment to reflect on the history of this esteemed institution and its contributions to the greater Hampton Roads community.

The history of many African American churches in existence today developed from a small band of worshippers who sat in the ``designated section'' of a white church. In this respect, First Baptist Church of Hampton is no exception and was borne out of worshippers at the Hampton Baptist Church located a short distance away from the present church site. With Reverend Zechariah Evans as its first pastor, First Baptist Church of Hampton came into its own and built its own building to house services.

The Church continued to grow and prosper, but in September 1944, a catastrophic fire destroyed the church building. Members of the community and sister churches rallied to support First Baptist Church. With generous support from the Hampton Baptist Church and other supporters in the community, the sanctuary was restored and the facility was improved and expanded.

Over the years the Church grew in its capacity, its membership, and its mission. Community outreach became an integral part of the work of the Church. The accomplishments of First Baptist Church of Hampton are far too many to list, but among them are the founding of the People's Building and Loan Association under Reverend Richard Spiller and the organization of the Big Brothers of America in Hampton under the leadership of Reverend Seymour J. Gaines.

On July 6, 2006, First Baptist Church officially elected Reverend Dr. Richard W. Willis, Sr. as its tenth and current pastor and he has continued to lead the church in its strong tradition, dedicated to fellowship and social action.

Over the years, the First Baptist community has continued to grow and flourish. The church now offers programs to increase healthy living through its Health Ministry program, hosts voter registration drives, provides housing for the homeless through ``A Night's Welcome,'' and remains steadfast in providing for the least of these, through its efforts in meal service and food distribution.

As First Baptist Church of Hampton gathers to celebrate this historic milestone, the church can truly remember its past, celebrate its present, and focus on its future as ``[a] place on the harbor where haven meets heaven.'' I would like to congratulate Reverend Willis and all of the members of First Baptist Church of Hampton on the occasion of its 150th Anniversary. I wish them many more years of dedicated service to the community.

I thank the gentleman from New York and the gentleman from Nevada for organizing this Special Order, and the gentlelady from Ohio for her leadership in the Black Caucus, and the other Members who are participating tonight.

Mr. Speaker, our economy has been improving very slowly over the last few years, and we need to do everything we can to make sure that we create as many jobs as possible.

Thursday, the United States faces a crisis, and that is whether we will pay our debts or whether we will, for the first time in our history, default on our debts. The debate on the debt ceiling really isn't much of a debate because every credible economist has already concluded that failure to adjust the debt ceiling will cause serious adverse consequences to the domestic economy, and even the global economy. That conclusion really ought to end the debate.

For those who want a little more information, you only have to look back a couple of years. The Republicans made a credible threat on the debt ceiling, and the S&P, just based on the credible threat--although we raised it in time--downgraded the creditworthiness of the United States for the first time in history.

So we really don't know exactly what would happen. We know none of it is going to be good, but we would be looking at possible increases in interest rates, lost jobs, stock market collapse and people's pensions at stake, government checks like Social Security and veterans benefits, and doctors not being paid under Medicare. All are adverse consequences for failing to adjust the debt ceiling.

My Republican colleagues have threatened to use this crisis as an opportunity to gain legislative advantage to pass legislation that they can't pass through the normal process. Unfortunately for them, the Nation Magazine published their wish list. It starts, of course, with undermining ObamaCare, but then it goes on to entitlement reform, better known as cutting Social Security and Medicare; Keystone pipeline; corporate tax cuts; sabotage EPA clean air regulations; offshore drilling. It goes on and on. They published the list.

But the full faith and credit of the United States should not be a bargaining chip held hostage unless some legislative ransom is paid.

Suppose the Democrats played the same game and put on the table immigration reform, gay rights, a jobs bill, or gun safety, and we are going to shut down the government or mess with the debt ceiling unless we get our way on that legislation. How dysfunctional a government would we have then?

In the past, there have been debt ceilings; and people have referred to the fact that in the past, there have been negotiations over the debt ceiling. But those are different negotiations. Those are negotiations on the debt ceiling in the context of, Of course we are going to adjust the debt ceiling. And then you put things on the bill. So if you can get your amendment on the bill, you know you are in good shape because that bill is going to pass. You will get over the line.

It has never been in the context of, If I don't get my way, we will explode the economy--until 2 years ago when the Republicans pulled a stunt and the S&P downgraded our credit rating. About 45 times since the 1980s we have increased the debt ceiling. It has always been in the context of, Of course, the debt ceiling will be increased.

This isn't like a credit card where you increase your credit limit so that you can spend more. We have already spent it. We have passed the spending bills. We have already spent the money. The question is whether we are going to pay the bills; and if you are going to discuss fiscal responsibility, it ought to be at a time when you are deciding whether to spend the money, not after you spend it and then decide whether you are going to pay the bills that you have already incurred.

We are discussing this debt ceiling while the government is shut down. And shut down for what reason? It started off on ObamaCare. Many Republican Senators have already said that this wasn't going to happen, and it wasn't a good idea to shut down the government over ObamaCare. Apparently, they have pretty much given on that and some have said, Well, we have shut down the government; we have got to get something.

The problem with giving something for shutting down the government is that there is apparently a fundamental concept in psychology of positive reinforcement. If you reward somebody for doing something, they will probably do it again. If they get a reward for shutting down the government, this will become part and parcel of the legislative process that if you can't get a bill passed, you will shut down the government until you get it passed.

Several Republican legislators have praised the fact that we passed some piecemeal bills to reopen government one little agency at a time. It looks to me like every morning they read the newspaper and find out the latest disaster caused by their shutdown and then some things like servicemen not getting death benefits, the World War II Memorial, cancer patients not being treated at the National Institutes of Health, Head Start.

Every morning, they read the tragic effects of their shutdown and then run to the House to address the disaster of the day and try to get some 30-second sound bite to cover up the fact all they are doing is cleaning up part of the mess that they already caused.

Passage of these little piecemeal bills only serves to elongate the shutdown. We need to reopen the government and put an end to all this; and while some of us are working hard to produce jobs, this shutdown is costing hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the Republicans have criticized Democrats for not negotiating. I just want to remind everybody we are talking about the budget. The Democrats started with one number, the Republicans with another number. The Democrats didn't come halfway or two-thirds of the way. They just agreed to the Republican number on a short-term basis so we can continue to negotiate without shutting down the government.

So we need to reopen all of the government and stop losing jobs. Let's pay our debts, and then we can get to the real serious negotiations on the budget.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and look forward to reopening government, paying our bills, and then getting into the tough negotiations.

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, the Chair has ruled that these unanimous consent requests cannot be entertained because they have not been pre-cleared. It is obvious the Democratic leadership supports these motions, and I wonder if it would be in order for the Republicans here and now to pre-clear these unanimous consent requests so that we can vote to reopen government?

Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, apparently the Chair cannot do it. Is it in order for me to ask the Republicans to pre-clear the unanimous consent request?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to anybody on the Republican side at this time under my parliamentary inquiry to pre- clear.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House bring up the Senate amendment to H.J. Res. 59, to open up the government and go to conference on the budget so that we can end the Republican shutdown. Let the Record reflect that the Republicans have had an opportunity to pre-clear one of these unanimous consent requests.

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, several unanimous consent requests have been offered and have been ruled out of order because they have not been pre-cleared by bipartisan leadership. It is my understanding that they have, in fact, been pre-cleared by the Democratic side.

Would it be in order to ask the Republicans if they would pre-clear the unanimous consent requests so that we can vote up or down on a clean CR?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Centennial Celebration of I.C. Norcom High School, located in Portsmouth, Virginia. This weekend, members of the I.C. Norcom High School Alumni Association, Inc. are gathering for a parade and banquet celebration honoring their alma mater's 100th anniversary.

I.C. Norcom High School was founded as the High Street School in 1913 as the first high school for black students in Portsmouth. The school was originally located in the True Reformers Building at 915 High Street and graduated its first class of just nine students in June 1915. After the end of World War I, the school was relocated to a facility at the corner of Chestnut and South Street and again in 1920 to the corner of Chestnut and Clifford Street. In 1937, the school relocated to a larger building nearby, sharing the facility with George Peabody Elementary School. Sixteen years later in 1953, a new facility was built at the cost of 2 million dollars on Turnpike Road, to honor the legacy of its first supervising principal, Israel Charles Norcom. In 1998, the school relocated to its present location, a new, state-of- the-art facility located at 1801 London Boulevard.

The school carries the name of the pioneer educator Israel Charles (``I.C.'') Norcom, who was born in Edenton, North Carolina on September 21, 1856. Norcom attended Yale Preparatory School in Connecticut, graduated from Andover Preparatory School in Massachusetts, and studied at both Yale and Harvard Universities. He also took courses at Howard University, Hampton Institute (now Hampton University) and the University of Virginia. Norcom taught for several years in Bedford County, Virginia before relocating to Portsmouth in the 1880s. Norcom served as a teacher and supervising principal until his death in 1916. Norcom was described as a pioneer educator, civic leader, churchman, businessman, fraternalist, guidance counselor and an outstanding citizen. It has been said that Norcom guided with unmatched intelligence, wisdom and greatly expanded the educational opportunities for young African Americans in Portsmouth.

Norcom's successors have faithfully carried on his tradition. William E. Riddick served as principal of the High Street School until 1942. William E. Waters followed Mr. Riddick as principal from 1942 to 1966. Mr. Waters built on Norcom's educational methods and tailored the school's operations to meet the special needs of its students. Waters was so proud of I.C. Norcom High School that he often claimed that it was the best high school in the South. Albert T. Edwards succeeded Waters as principal in 1966 for 14 years. By then the school's total enrollment exceeded 1,900 students for a facility built to only accommodate 1,400 students. Since Edwards' retirement, many more have committed themselves to enhancing the educational opportunities of I.C. Norcom's students. These principals include Mr. Eugene Blair, Mr. Lindell Wallace, Mr. Vernon Randall, Dr. DeWayne F. Jeter, Jr., Mr. Walter Taylor, Jr., Mr. Timothy E. Johnson (acting) and Ms. Lynn F. Briley. It was under the tenure of Ms. Briley that I.C. Norcom's basketball team won both the 2010 and 2011 AAA Virginia state championship--something I remember fondly having personally attended many of those games. Today, Dr. Rosalynn Sanderlin serves as principal of I.C. Norcom High School and continues the tradition of excellence set by her predecessors.

The world has changed dramatically since I.C. Norcom High School's founding in 1913. But one thing has not, and that is the commitment of the faculty and staff to ensuring that every student that enters the doors of I.C. Norcom has every opportunity to succeed, graduate and go onto college or into the workforce. I commend the Mighty Greyhounds on their Centennial Celebration and 100 years of educating the young men and women of Portsmouth. They have so much to be proud of and so much to celebrate.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Nevada for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, it is time to end this shutdown. The absurdity of it begins with the fact that we are now going to pay people for not working. We need to bring them back to work to provide the services and do the work that they are being paid to do.

Mr. Speaker, this shutdown is really not based on reality. Some have said, some apparently believe, if they just stay the course and keep the government shut down, they will be able to repeal or substantially undermine ObamaCare. That's not going to happen, and so we are not based in reality.

Now they are blaming Democrats for not negotiating, but there's nothing to negotiate. We are talking about the budget. The Republicans came in with one number; the Democrats had a higher number. The Senate decided not to negotiate but, rather, accept the Republican number, so we're in agreement. There's nothing to negotiate.

Now, in the 1990s when they had a disagreement on the budget, there were profound differences on spending levels and tax and revenue levels. They couldn't agree on the budget. But we, at this point, at least for a short-term, 6-week continuing resolution, to keep the government open for at least 6 more weeks while we can negotiate, we have already agreed on the number.

Now, the problem we're in right now is we just cannot reward people who have a tantrum and say we voted 40 times to repeal ObamaCare and we haven't done it, so we're just going to shut the government down. You cannot reward that behavior because it will become an expectation that every time it's the end of the fiscal year and you need a continuing resolution or the debt ceiling, there will be an expectation of reward. No, this is not the end of the process. This is just the beginning. We are just talking about a 6-week continuing resolution. Two weeks from now, we'll have the debt ceiling. Four weeks after that, we'll be at the end of the 6-week period if we can reopen the government. They will be asking for things.

Now, the fact is, the problem that we have, as stated in a recent article in Nation magazine, they revealed the strategy of the Republicans. They made a list of the kinds of things they will be looking for in the continuing resolution, the debt ceiling, every time there's an opportunity to shut down the government, and here's the list:

They want to undermine ObamaCare, Keystone pipeline, offshore drilling, corporate tax cuts, business-oriented tort reform, sabotage Social Security and Medicare, undermine clean air EPA regulations, cut back on consumer protections, and end net neutrality on the Internet.

Now, I suppose that after they've gotten their list, they'll say: We'll be reasonable. We'll negotiate. We will only take half of the things that we don't have the votes to pass. We'll just take half.

No. If you get to the point where there is an expectation of reward, then we will be in that. Suppose Democrats had thrown in maybe gun safety, marriage equality, immigration reform, and a jobs bill, and we're sitting up here trying to do the budget and have to do all of that and all of those and think we're ever going to come to a resolution. We have to have a clean CR so we can reopen the government without all those complications.

Back to ObamaCare, which seems to be provoking this problem. The fact is our health care system was in trouble. The rates were skyrocketing year after year after year. The problems with our health care system were not caused by ObamaCare; ObamaCare is trying to cure the problems.

We had a gentleman earlier today who said people have looked at the rates and some are paying a little more, some are paying a little less, and some about the same. If that's the case, that is a miracle, because after the last 50 years, rates have been skyrocketing and going up much faster than inflation. If they had been anywhere close to even, that would have been a lot less than it would have been had we not had ObamaCare.

Now we have the situation where it's affordable, it treats those with preexisting conditions, people under 26 can stay on their parents' policies, insurance reforms, preventive care provided

without copays and deductibles, the doughnut hole. It goes on and on. This is a good deal. It will be better than before.

Another gentleman earlier today said just eliminate the individual mandate. The individual mandate is in every policy because if you're going to cover preexisting conditions, you cannot allow people to wait until they get sick before they buy insurance. If that's the case, everybody will wait until they get sick to buy insurance. Everybody with insurance would be sick, and the average rates would go through the roof. If you look at what happened in New York and the rates there, you can reasonably estimate that if you provided that exemption, the cost of insurance would double on the spot. We can't have that. So we need to just proceed.

If you want to improve ObamaCare, let's talk about improving it. In the meanwhile, it is not going to be repealed. It's not going to be undermined. This idea that you can keep the government open piecemeal by funding one agency at a time is absolutely absurd. Passing those bills would only serve one purpose, and that is to perpetuate and extend the shutdown.

The fact is that they don't have the votes to repeal ObamaCare. They don't even have the votes to keep the government shut. If they called a vote, we'd reopen the government. We just want an up-or-down vote on reopening government. We've had several procedural votes so far where we could have reopened the government. At least have an up-or-down vote on reopening government. And as the gentlelady from New York pointed out, there are enough Republicans who are on public record saying they would vote ``yes'' to give a clear indication that more than a majority of the House would be voting in favor.

I want to thank the gentleman from Nevada for bringing us together. ObamaCare is a very important advance in health care. It will cure all of the problems they're talking about. We don't need to reward anyone for shutting down the government or threatening the debt ceiling or shutting down the government in 4 weeks. We need to just reopen the government, and then we can have intelligent discussions about what to do about the budget.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

This should be ruled germane because we have to look to see where we are in the process.

If the point of order had not been raised, the next order of business would have been the motion to recommit, which would open up all of government.

He has made the point of order, and the Speaker has indicated the previous rulings have been to sustain the point of order. And if the normal course takes place, the next motion will be to appeal the ruling of the Chair. If that motion were to prevail, if we were to sustain the appeal of the Chair--not table it, but sustain it--we would in effect make the motion to recommit in order and we can finally get an up-or- down vote on keeping the government open.

So I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that the ruling would be that we would forego all of that and just let us have an up-or-down vote on keeping the government open without having to overrule the ruling of the Chair.

Madam Speaker, I wish to speak on the point of order.

Madam Speaker, on the point of order, it would be my view that you could clarify the legislative process by ruling against the point of order.

If the point of order had not been raised, the next order of business would be an up-or-down vote on keeping the entire government open. A sustaining of the point of order would mean that if we do what we've done in the last few bills, there would be a challenge to your ruling. If that challenge were to be sustained, then we could get that up-or- down vote because overruling the Chair would mean that we could get an up-or-down vote.

So you should rule against the point of order to clarify all this. We can get a clear, up-or-down vote on keeping the government open, but on the other hand, Madam Speaker, the vote on keeping the government open will be on the motion to table.

Madam Speaker, may I be further heard for just 15 seconds?

Madam Speaker, if you rule against the point of order, we can have an up-or-down vote. Otherwise, the up-or-down vote will essentially be on the motion to table. We should vote against the motion to table.

Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago today, this body unanimously passed PREA, the Prison Rape Elimination Act, which my colleague from Virginia, Frank Wolf, and I sponsored.

PREA is designed to end sexual violence in our Nation's prisons. One focus of PREA is on reducing assaults on children in our criminal justice system. Youthful inmates are more likely than their adult counterparts to be victimized by prison staff and adult inmates. Under PREA, no youth under 18 years of age can be placed in a housing unit where contact with adult inmates may occur.

Furthermore, children in adult jails and prison are often placed in solitary confinement for their own protection, which turns out to be detrimental to their mental health. Due to this type of confinement and exposure to abuse, youth have the highest rates of suicide amongst all inmates. PREA urges agencies to avoid subjecting children to solitary confinement.

Mr. Speaker, I call on the Department of Justice to redouble its efforts to ensure that every State implements PREA to protect all inmates from sexual violence. The type of sexual violence that has plagued our prisons and jails is cruel and unusual punishment and should not be part of an inmate's prison term.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and underlying bill because it takes food and nutrition from working families and veterans and seniors and children and the disabled and many others in need.