Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, during rollcall votes No. 5, on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 455, and No. 6, on adoption of H. Res. 455, I was unavoidably detained and unable to cast my votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on these two votes.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying legislation, the bipartisan Budget Act of 2013.

I had the privilege of sitting as one of the budget conferees, and it was an interesting process but a productive one. This is the first time in a long time we have had a genuine compromise in this body and, frankly, between this body and the administration and between this body and the other Chamber.

I particularly want to praise Chairman Ryan and Chairman Murray, who worked together in good faith and who worked together well, neither one of whom violated their core principles but both of whom came together and did some pretty extraordinary things in what is a modest bill.

First of all, they actually added to the deficit reduction over the window. Literally, we will have a somewhat smaller deficit and debt because of what they did than if we keep the current situation.

Secondly, they did something we all know needs to be done in that they dealt a little bit with mandatory spending, and they redistributed those savings over to the discretionary side of the budget. It was because they were able to do that that we are probably going to be able to protect our military from what would have been really devastating cuts under the sequester. That is a pretty amazing achievement.

The achievement, to me, that is the most impressive of all is that they managed to find a compromise that will restore regular order. We all know, if this legislation passes, the appropriators from the Senate and the appropriators from the House will be working over the holidays. They will probably come back and have an omnibus or some series of minibuses, but we will actually have had a somewhat normal appropriations process. Even more importantly, because they have set a top line number for fiscal year 2015, we can have regular order work in this Chamber all year next year, and we will be spared the prospect of a government shutdown in January or again in October.

Those are exceptional achievements. I wish there would have been more and would have been different. I know I would have written it differently. I know my friend would have, and I know my friends on the other side would have; but we ought to take a step back and thank Chairman Ryan and thank Chairman Murray for what they did to restore the institution as much as what they did to try and work on the budget. They did it the right way. They did it together, and it is an example we ought to follow.

So I urge the passage of this rule and the support and passage of the underlying legislation.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by praising my friend Gregg Harper and my friend Peter Welch, who come to this floor with a very worthy purpose, and that is to redirect government funding toward something that is not particularly important toward something that is very important--medical research for children.

The question when you have a worthy goal is always: How do you pay for it? Where will you actually get the resources?

For many years, I have brought to this floor legislation that would eliminate public funding for political party

conventions and Presidential campaigns. I could go into debate ad infinitum. The President has never used any public funding--didn't feel the need for it--in either of his two campaigns. Neither did Mr. Romney. On the political conventions, both political parties this year actually did take the money.

I can tell you as a former chief of staff on the Republican National Committee who put on the convention in 2000, they do not need it. They absolutely do not need it. They can raise all the money they need from private sources, just as their nominees raised money from private sources.

That bill has actually passed this House on multiple occasions with a bipartisan vote. I was prepared to do that again and I got a call from Leader Cantor. He said: Tom, I know you have been working on this problem for a long time. I know you are concerned about it. What if we redirected that money towards something that is a better purpose, a better use of public dollars? And he mentioned Gregg's bill. I couldn't agree with him more.

So for those of you that are looking for something sinister or trying to link this to something it is not connected to, like the sequester, it is simply a modest step in the right direction. It takes money that we know is wasted and puts it to good use.

For those of you that say it can't pass the other body, the other body in the last Congress on amendment voted 95-5 to take away public funding of political conventions. We still have a disagreement on Presidential campaigns. But funding political conventions really is more important than directing this money to a more worthy purpose? We are not even trying to take it out of the Federal budget. I just think that kind of logic defies imagination.

This is a good-faith effort to do something that ought to bring us together instead of pull us apart. It is a modest step. I would be the first to admit that. But let's take the modest step in the right direction, take public dollars that we are now wasting on political conventions, give them to researchers, and let them do their work. That is just simply a better use of the public purse in a time of limited means.

So I urge support for my friends' bill, H.R. 2019, Mr. Harper and Mr. Welch. I want to thank Leader Cantor. This was his idea of bringing two ideas together. I think it is a good one. I hope this House embraces it in a bipartisan fashion.

I want to thank my friend, the chairman of Energy and Commerce, for his effort to bring this forward and advance it.

Everylife Foundation

for Rare Disease,

Novato, CA, June 10, 2013.

Hon. Gregg Harper,

House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Harper: The EveryLife Foundation for Rare

Diseases is dedicated to accelerating biotech innovation for

rare disease treatments through science-driven public policy.

We are writing to support the Kids First Research Act of

2013 (H.R. 2019). This bipartisan bill would eliminate

taxpayer financing of presidential campaigns and party

conventions and reprogram those savings to provide for a 10-

year pediatric research initiative through the Common Fund

administered by the National Institutes of Health.

During these trying fiscal times, we are pleased to see

efforts that would increase funds for pediatric research.

Unfortunately, pediatric rare diseases and cancer is terribly

underfunded and largely overlooked by drug companies and

research institutions. Public funding is essential to help

spur the development of treatments for these children.

We are pleased to express our strong support for H.R. 2019,

and believe this legislation will help to bring increased

funding and awareness to pediatric medical research. We look

forward to working with you and your staff to ensure this

bill is enacted into law.

Sincerely,

Emil D. Kakkis, M.D., Ph.D.,

President.

Mr. Speaker, on December 3, 2013, I was unavoidably detained and was not present for Rollcall vote Number 617, (H.R. 1204 The Aviation Security Stakeholder Participation Act of 2013). Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

I thank my friend, the chairman, for yielding me the time and for her gracious remarks.

Mr. Speaker, Native Americans have fought against, with, and for the United States more than any other group of people in the history of our country, and it is still true today. Native Americans enlist in the American military at a higher rate than any other race or ethnicity in the United States. That sense of protecting one's place and one's land, which is such an integral part of Native American history, is deep and alive and has benefited this country.

As my friend the chairman mentioned, most Americans are certainly aware of the distinguished role of the Navajo code talkers in the Second World War. What many of them are not aware of, though, is how many others served not only in that war, but as far back as the First World War.

This ceremony will recognize 33 tribes whose members are considered DOD code talkers. Ten of those tribes are from my home State of Oklahoma, and three of them--the Choctaws, Comanches, and Kiowas-- reside in my district. It is a privilege for me, as a Native American, to support this resolution and urge its adoption.

It is right that we recognize the contribution of these Americans-- the first Americans--who were so often discriminated against at the time in which they contributed to the defense of our country and, in some cases in the First World War, still did not have the rights of other American citizens. Most Native Americans did not actually achieve the right to vote until 1924. So the fact that they were willing to go and lay their life on the line to assist this country, I think, speaks volumes about their patriotism and their commitment.

So I thank my friends for bringing the resolution to the floor. I look forward to voting in support of it, and I urge its adoption by the House.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Madam Speaker, like every Republican in this Chamber, until 10 days ago, every day I served in the House of Representatives I served with Bill Young.

It has been noted here that he was a lion and a legend. At the time I was fortunate enough to come to this Chamber in 2003, he was probably at the zenith of his influence. He was chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, and he was the confidant of the President, our military leaders, and leaders around the world at a time when the United States was at war.

No one cared more about the defense of the United States of America than Bill Young, and no one cared and did more for the people who actually bear the burden, the men and women that wear the uniform of this country--past, present, and future--than Chairman Young.

He was also a role model for many of us, a mentor, and a friend. He was somebody who would reach out and help you, take care of you, look after you, and give you the wisdom and advice that only he, with all his years of experience, can give. I remember on one occasion, not too long ago, when the chairman was obviously ill in the last several years of his life and still very active chairing our committee, a pretty busy man, a man dealing with his own problems; and I had tornados that hit my town in Moore, Oklahoma. Two days after those tornados hit, Bill Young was on the phone to tell me that I would be getting a telephone call from representatives of a New York investment bank called Cantor Fitzgerald, which had suffered grievous damage during 9/11, where they had lost 650 of their 950 employees at the World Trade Center. That company made a commitment that it would look after all of its people and all of their families and would reconstitute itself, and it did. Then they built on that commitment and said, We are going to help other people that are in tragedy by devoting all of our revenues earned on 9/ 11 of every year--not just profits, everything we earn--to help people in need. They have kept that commitment.

Bill Young had forged a relationship with them because of all they had done to help men and women in uniform and the victims of disaster. He said they will be calling you and they want to help. They did. They helped literally hundreds of families with millions of dollars' worth of personal and directed relief. That probably never would have happened if Bill and Beverly Young had not reached out to me at that point, and I and the people in my community will be forever grateful to them.

So we have lost arguably, I think, the greatest Republican Member of this body in the last two generations. We have not seen his like before, and it will be a long time again before we see anyone that rivals his compassion, his character, his civility, his decency, and his absolute devotion and commitment to our country and to the men and women who defend it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I can agree with parts of what my friends have said, and parts I frankly can't agree with. I have worked in a bipartisan manner across the aisle and with the White House on Native American issues ever since I have gotten here, no matter who was on the other side of the aisle or who was in the White House. And I have to tell you, when you question the commitment of our side on Native American affairs, you clearly haven't looked at the record.

Because of this chairman, Indian health expense is up 29 percent in 3 years. Each year for the last 3 years, we have raised above what the administration requested in Native American spending, and that is a fact. And we did it, by the way, working in a bipartisan manner. I want to give my friend, Mr. Moran, and my friend, Betty McCollum, a lot of credit for those achievements, and I want to give our predecessor, Norm Dicks, who operated the same way, a lot of credit for that. This is a good-faith effort to do exactly what my friends suggest--make sure that critical programs in Indian Country are funded right now. I will continue to work in a bipartisan manner with my friends on these and other issues, but to suggest that they are being used as a pawn, no, for the first time they are just not being forgotten about because that is what tends to happen around here; and that has happened under Democrats and Republicans.

So with that, I would urge the adoption and support. I want to thank my friend for being the leader in this House on funding Native American programs. He has done more than anybody in this country to improve the quality and the level of Federal services on that. He ought to be given the credit that he deserves. I want to thank my friend, Mr. Moran, for working with him every step of the way to accomplish those things. I saw them do it when their roles were reversed when he was the chairman and he was the ranking member. It is not an effort to divide. It is an effort, actually, to put something out that has united us in a bipartisan sense and to make sure that the first Americans aren't the last Americans anybody around here thinks about.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 371 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentlelady from Rochester, New York (Ms. Slaughter), 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, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for the consideration of 10 different joint resolutions, all of which demonstrate House Republicans' continuing commitment to reopen necessary portions of our government.

The rule is a closed rule, which provides for 40 minutes of debate between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations for each joint resolution. Additionally, the rule provides for 40 minutes of debate between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform for H.R. 3223, the Federal Employee Retroactive Pay Fairness Act. The rule also provides for a motion to recommit for each bill or joint resolution.

Additionally, the rule extends same-day authority for resolutions reported by the Rules Committee through the legislative day of October 21, 2013, thus continuing to allow the House the flexibility to continue to address the government shutdown. Finally, the rule permits the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules until October 20.

Here we are again, Mr. Speaker--day four of a government shutdown. Unfortunately for the American people, not much has changed. The Senate is still recalcitrant, unwilling to consider legislation that would reopen parts of the government. I do want to add an exception, though, and thank our friends in the upper Chamber for actually agreeing with us to exempt our military from these cuts, both civilian and uniform. The Senate, however, is still unwilling to go to conference to discuss the very serious fiscal issues facing this country. The Senate is also unwilling to consider any of the five pieces of legislation the House passed in the last 2 days, which will reopen parts of our government. Even so, House Republicans continue to bring legislation to the floor to meet the needs of American citizens.

Today's rule will allow for the consideration of resolutions that reopen the Bureau of Indian Education, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Indian Health Service, the WIC program, the National Weather Center, FEMA, our intelligence agencies, Impact Aid, Head Start--and the list goes on and on.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, this rule makes clear our commitment to the 800,000 Federal workers currently furloughed that they will, indeed, be paid. It is not their fault that Washington is dysfunctional in that Congress can't agree on the size and scope of government. Yet they are caught in the crossfire, wondering if they will be able to afford their mortgages and pay their utility bills. Mr. Speaker, that simply isn't fair. H.R. 3223, of which I am a proud cosponsor, would codify what we have done in every previous government shutdown: pay our Federal employees from the date on which the government shut down.

I particularly want to compliment in a bipartisan fashion our friends Mr. Moran and Mr. Wolf, who worked together on this measure, who brought it forward and gathered many dozens of cosponsors from both sides of the aisle. Quite frankly, I think their example of bipartisanship and working together is something that we could all learn from.

Mr. Speaker, Democrats and Republicans alike agree that that's the responsible thing to do. House Republicans are working to deal with the real-world problems of our constituents. Republicans are working to reopen the government. However, we lack a willing partner in the Senate and in the President. Every time we have attempted to negotiate with them, they have told us to accept their plan. They have even rebuffed our attempts to go to conference. Therefore, House Republicans have been left with little choice except that of passing a number of smaller bills to see if the Senate would be willing to accept those. Again, I remark on one occasion, with respect to the military, that they

did, indeed, accept one, so I would urge them to do that with the others.

I urge support for the rule and the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to address a couple of points that my good friend raises; but before I do, I want to agree with her in that I think we all think the government ought to be open. I, actually, don't think there is much division about that, and folks have actually tried to do that. On our side of the aisle, every single piece of legislation we've brought to the floor during this period has either kept the government open in whole or in part, and I suspect we will continue to try and do that. So it's not the aim of either side here to shut down the government.

In terms of the Affordable Health Care Act, I certainly don't support it--I voted against it, and voted multiple times to repeal it and delay it--but I'll agree with my good friend on that, too, in the sense that there are times when we have actually worked together on both sides of the aisle to change it. My friends like to quite often mention there have been 41 or 42 efforts to repeal, delay, defund the bill; but they usually forget to add--and, quite frankly, some people on our side of the aisle forget to add--that seven of those have actually succeeded, that is, a Democratic Senate and a Democratic President agreed with them.

The proposals that we have on the table now in terms of the Affordable Health Care Act are immanently sensible and overwhelmingly popular. To put it quite simply, we just don't think that political appointees and elected officials ought to be treated differently

than other Americans. Now, we can get into a big fight about health care; but the reality is, right now, under the law, Members of Congress and their staffs can bring subsidies with them onto the exchange. No other American can do that. We can do this either way as far as I'm concerned. I could leave them back as Federal employees, and they could be treated like every other Federal employee--that's the acceptable solution to me at least--or we could allow other Americans to bring subsidies onto the exchange just like Members of Congress; but the underlying principle is that we ought to treat them all the same. Washington political appointees shouldn't be treated differently than the average American.

The second thing is, I think, very simple. We're not talking about delaying all of ObamaCare; but if we are going to allow big businesses to wait a year before they implement what they're required to do--if we are going to allow 1,100 organizations and many labor unions to do it-- why shouldn't we allow the average American, at his choice, to delay it as well?

They don't want to delay. They can go onto the exchanges. The subsidies are still there. The tax programs are still there. Why shouldn't the average American have the same privilege that we've bestowed on Big Business, Big Labor, and countless organizations? That's what we're talking about.

To my friend's point here--and I suspect this is true of the debt ceiling a little bit further down the road--the Democratic approach is very simple: do everything I want, and then I'm willing to negotiate. We would like to sit down and talk now and see if we could find some common ground. We've got negotiators, conferees--the technical title-- available to sit down and find common ground. We're not asking for something that is unreasonable, in my view. We're certainly not proposing something that is outside the scope of the type of things we've been able to agree on before.

The President, I want to add, is taking the same approach that the Senate has taken with regard to the continuing resolution with the debt ceiling. He has just simply said we have to raise it unilaterally. That's not a particularly popular vote, probably on either side of the aisle. It's certainly not on my side of the aisle.

I'm willing to work with the President on the debt ceiling. I did it in 2011. And I want to note for the record, that is something he never did when he was a Member of the United States Senate. He didn't vote to raise the debt ceiling when he had the opportunity to do it. Instead, he engaged in a lecture about debt. It probably was a lecture that was needed. Regardless, he did not do for George Bush what he's asking us to do for him.

I'm willing to do that. I'm willing to work with him on the debt ceiling. If you voted for the Ryan budget, you envisioned the debt ceiling as being something that has to be raised while you deal with the underlying deficit. I do want to do something or be in a negotiation with the President about what to do on that deficit. I don't think that's an unreasonable position.

I think the real central issue in this is not the Affordable Care Act, not the debt ceiling, and, frankly, not even the government shutdown, as serious as that is. The real issue is whether my friends and the President of the United States will simply come to the table to negotiate. Will they put a counterproposal out there, or is it simply going to be: We insist in getting our way, in full, all the time? I don't think that's an acceptable way to arrive at common ground, and I don't think it's likely to succeed.

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

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

Just a quick point. My friend is always quite eloquent, and I know, frankly, very passionate and very well-meaning and very expert when he talks about nutrition programs, where he spent a great deal of time.

For the record, it's worth noting that we have increased nutrition programs broadly by 400 percent since George Bush became President. We doubled them, roughly, when Bush was President. Doubled them again since President Obama has been in office. What the Republican program is talking about is a 5 percent cut after a 400 percent increase based on reforms. I think it's maybe not quite so dire.

Again, I recognize my friend's good work in this area and hope that we have an opportunity to get to conference, have that discussion. I suspect the bill, if it comes back, may be closer to his liking than the bill that went out.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Reclaiming my time, the rolls have been going up in a period we're supposed to be recovering. I think we have some genuine problems in this program in terms of reform. Again, that's the initial proposal. It's not out of bounds considering a 400 percent increase to have a 5 percent cutback. We'll wait and see what comes out of the conference committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), my good friend and fellow member of the Rules Committee.

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend from the great State of Florida (Mr. Mica).

I yield my friend from Florida an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Kentucky, the Honorable Hal Rogers, the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

Certainly.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, we schedule a conference, we go to conference, and we try to negotiate our differences.

If the gentleman will yield, no, Mr. Chairman, I do not. I would just highly recommend to my friends we do, since it seems to be a good way to resolve our differences.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have some good news I want to announce here just shortly.

But I want to note, for the record, my friends quite often make the point that they don't like a piecemeal approach. The reality is, if you look at actions, sometimes they do. They like it until they don't.

I would point out we had, of course, H.R. 3210 here, which funded the military, by our good friend from Colorado (Mr. Coffman). I think, in a very bipartisan way, we voted overwhelmingly on both sides to fund the military and most of the contracting and civilian employees.

There is a little disagreement with the administration about that right now, but that's half the discretionary budget taken care of in a ``piecemeal approach.''

Today the administration just announced, and I commend them for doing it, and I commend my friend because she announced she was going to be supportive of this too, and I think we all are. It was very evident in the Rules Committee, H.R. 3223, the Federal Employee Retroactive Pay Fairness Act.

The administration's just announced that they're going to support that legislation. The President looks forward to signing it, and that's a bipartisan agreement between both sides and, frankly, a product of the work of our mutual good friends, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), who found common ground and, in a piecemeal approach, moved us closer to a solution.

So I think that's maybe not the greatest news in the world, but on a day where there's not as much good as we would all like, some good news. And I would hope my friends would look at the individual pieces of legislation that are coming, where we mostly agree, and accept those.

We don't have to agree on everything, as the point's been made by several, to agree on some things. Those are areas that we do agree. And if we can fund our military in this fashion, and if we can make sure that our Federal employees are not going to lose any pay, retroactively, certainly, one step at a time, we can walk in the right direction and turn back on critical parts of our government. I hope that's what we're moving toward, Mr. Speaker.

So my friend knows, I'm quite prepared to close whenever she wishes to close.

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

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

I want to thank my good friend from New York. She's always a terrific, frankly, counterpoint and debater, and we agree on some things. We both agree that the government shutdown's not a good thing.

Frankly, there's a strong bipartisan agreement. It's not something that either side wished to achieve, and it's something we ought to be working together, step by step, to try and undo; and, frankly, we've made a little bit of progress.

Again, the idea that it never works to work piecemeal, it certainly did with respect to the United States military, civilian defense force, and contractors. That's exactly what we did.

We passed something out of here; and the Senate, which said it wasn't going to agree to anything, magically did.

Now we're going to, hopefully, eventually pass H.R. 3223 out of here to guarantee back pay. I think most people on both sides of the aisle will support that. The President's indicated he'll sign it, which suggests to me that the Senate will probably take it up and move on it. So, voila.

Once again, just working through the process, we've found something that we can agree on. The differences here should not be so great that they can't be bridged.

Just to remind everyone of the history, we have placed multiple offers concerning the Affordable Care Act before the Senate. The last offer seems to me something that we ought to be able to agree on, or certainly be willing to sit down and discuss. It only has two points, and it's basically a question of fairness.

Why should Members of Congress and high appointees in the executive branch and our staffs go into the exchange and be able to bring subsidies with us, when no other American can do that?

It's just not fair.

Now, we could amend the law and let everybody come into the exchanges with subsidies. That would be fair. Or we could say, you know, really, Members of Congress and their staff are at a fundamental level employees of the Federal Government and they ought to be in that, and that would be fair. But let's treat everybody the same.

More fundamentally, currently, the President has unilaterally decided to exempt 1,100-plus organizations. He's unilaterally, in a questionable measure, constitutionally, decided to suspend parts of the law for a year and exempt Big Business.

We think, gosh, if you're going to do that, shouldn't every single American have the right to decide whether or not they want to participate in this for just 1 year until everybody is actually operating under the same system?

That too is a question of fairness. Give every individual American the same relief from a mandate that you're giving Big Business and Big Labor. It just seems to me commonsensical.

It doesn't mean you have to stop the exchanges.

You don't have to undo the program. Just treat everybody the same. Be fair. That's the Republican proposal in front of the Senate right now, and, frankly, I think they probably don't want to discuss it because it's a hard one to say ``no'' to because it's fundamentally fair. And that's all we've asked, is that the Senate, which has rejected it, at least come to conference and talk about it.

The real issue here beyond the questions of policy is whether the Senate is going to be allowed to dictate unilaterally what the House does. Is it just going to say, no, you've to do it our way? We're not going to negotiate. We're not going to go to conference. We're not going to deal with you. You have to do it our way. That's not the way the system was set up.

My friend, Chairman Rogers, pointed that out quite succinctly. We've got a way to handle this. It's called go to conference, argue, and work out the differences. And I suspect we're going to see the same thing a little bit down the road from the President, who's told us and told the Speaker this week, I'm not going to negotiate with you on raising the debt ceiling in the United States. You just have to do it unilaterally. You have to put the country further into debt without any discussion of what we can do to change the trajectory of that debt.

Now, that's a remarkable change from where he was in August of 2011. A remarkable change. He was in a very different place and position and was willing to sit down and talk. I don't know why he would change that now.

So I think we should do something in this bill to build on this piecemeal approach. We should pass these different measures. We agree these parts of government ought to be open; and we should continue to work through, conference with our friends in the Senate and ultimately in negotiation with the President of the United States on the debt ceiling.

And so I urge the adoption of this rule.

In closing, I'd like to, again, say that one of the basic functions of Congress is to fund government. This rule would allow 10 or more pieces of that government to open again to provide for crucial services that they provide. I would urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to modify House Resolution 371 with the correction placed at the desk.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 8 o'clock and 40 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, October 4, 2013, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Joint Resolution 59 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Rochester (Ms. Slaughter), 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, yesterday the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of H.J. Res. 59, the Continuing Appropriations Resolution for Fiscal Year 2014.

The rule is a closed rule and provides for the consideration of a short-term continuing resolution, keeping the government funded until December 15, 2013. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided between the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee of Appropriations.

Additionally, the rule incorporates an amendment by Representative Scalise, which fully defunds ObamaCare and also ensures that the government prioritizes interest and principal payments on our national debt and Social Security payments in the event that the debt limit is reached. The rule also provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Finally, the rule permits the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules from September 26 to September 29.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my friend, Chairman Rogers, for bringing a bill to avoid a government shutdown to the Rules Committee. Within the Republican Conference, we've had a very spirited debate on this issue; however, it's led us to a good product.

There are a number of things I like about this bill. First, it extends the funding for operations of all programs until December 15, allowing the Appropriations Committee the needed time to finish its work on the 12 full-year spending bills.

Second, this continuing resolution adheres to the post-sequester caps of the Budget Control Act, maintaining our commitment to reduce the deficit.

Third, this bill fully defunds ObamaCare.

Mr. Speaker, it seems the closer that we get to the implementation of the Affordable Health Care Act, the more unpopular it becomes.

Already, the President has agreed with Congress to make major changes to this legislation on seven different occasions. Additionally, he's delayed major provisions like the employer mandate unilaterally another seven times.

If business is chafing under these mandates and in need of a delay, then surely the American people should be given the same relief. The continuing resolution provides them that relief.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, this legislation provides certainty to our creditors that they will get paid. Some of my friends on the other side have called this the ``Pay China First Act''; however, nearly 70 percent of our debt is owed domestically. This legislation would provide for the prioritization of U.S. bondholders and people on Social Security at the front of the line to be paid if the government hits its borrowing limit.

Mr. Speaker, this is the responsible thing to do. Some have said that this is just brinksmanship and an attempt by Republicans to lead to a government shutdown. That could not be further from the truth. The Appropriations Committee has brought this bill to the floor explicitly to avoid the threat of a shutdown.

It's a good bill, and I urge the support of the rule and the underlying legislation.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As usual, my friend makes a skillful and thoughtful case in defense of the Affordable Care Act. The problem is that the jury is the American people. They're still not convinced. They haven't been convinced for 4 years.

Repeatedly, poll after poll after poll has shown this to be an extraordinarily unpopular piece of legislation. In fact, I'd suggest my friends probably lost their majority in their pursuit of this legislation. It was their continued defense of it that may well have cost them the opportunity to regain that majority when the President was reelected.

If you look at the evidence, it's not only unpopular as we approach the implementation date, but more of the people that supported it are asking either for delay or for it to be overturned altogether. We had a lot of labor unions recently march down to the White House and request the President--these are people that helped pass the bill--to please fix it, change it, delay it, do something--it's going to hurt our members and their families.

The President himself acknowledged this bill isn't working very well. We're going to have to delay it for a year for all sorts of businesses.

We've been told repeatedly that this was some day going to become popular. But I would suggest the experience of not weeks, not months, but years has taught us that it's never going to be popular with the American people.

My good friend also talked a little bit about the sequester. I think that's worth visiting again because we probably have some common ground there. I would suggest that we ought to get rid of the sequester. But let's remember how it got here and what it was designed to do.

Sequester is in law because of the President of the United States. He's the one who proposed it. He's the one who advocated for it. He's the one who signed it into law. We all agree it's not a very artfully drawn piece of legislation, but the President insisted on it.

We twice in this House acted to provide opportunities to get rid of sequester. Neither time did our friends on the other side pick up those opportunities, either in this Chamber, the Senate, nor the President of the United States.

We are more than willing to renegotiate sequester. We are not willing to give up the savings. We would like to spread those cuts and savings over the entire budget. And we think we can work through the problems without surrendering the savings unilaterally or raising taxes, another thing which we don't think is the appropriate way to deal with this particular piece of legislation.

My friend talked about food stamps, which are not directly relevant for our debate, but it's worth thinking for a minute that, under President Bush, the amount of money we spent on food stamps doubled. And under President Obama it has doubled again. In other words, 100 percent and another 100 percent.

All our bill is suggesting is perhaps 5 percent of that massive increase. At a time when unemployment is coming down and the economy is supposedly on the mend, we could, through reforms, reclaim and save. That's all this is.

Finally, there was some discussion of the Senate and what it will and won't do. I learned a long time ago not to try to predict what the Senate of the United States is going to do. Some of my colleagues, frankly, on our side of the aisle have been asking for an opportunity to express their opinion on ObamaCare and have an opportunity to get in the fight. I think they ought to have that opportunity. Frankly, I suspect there are some Democratic senators who may be on the ballot for the first time since voting for ObamaCare that might want to reconsider their positions and if not defund, perhaps delay.

But in any event, our job here is to do what the American people sent us here to do. That's, number one, to fund the government, which this bill certainly does. And, number two, in the case of the majority, to repeal, reform, delay, or somehow postpone ObamaCare. That's what we're doing.

We'll send this over to the Senate. We'll see what our colleagues can do over there. They've got some remarkable tools that we don't have. They have things like cloture. It doesn't exist on our side of the aisle. They have things like the filibuster. It doesn't exist over here.

Again, the political situation suggests they may be able to find allies. Regardless, they certainly deserve the opportunity to have the fight and debate and discussion that they requested. I think this House is acting wisely and well in giving that chance.

Once they've made their decision--and we're not here to express the will of the Senate, and they're certainly not there to express the will of the House--they'll send something back. At that time I have no doubt that we'll pick it up and react to it and try to respond in an appropriate fashion.

But nothing is going to begin until we pass something out of this House. That's what we're trying to do today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

I want to assure my good friend we have no intention and no desire to shut down the government. Absolutely not. If that was our aim, we wouldn't be bringing a bill to the floor whose main purpose is to keep government funding open.

We want to take the 75-day window, roughly, and sit down and negotiate with our friends and make sure--particularly my friend and our chairman, Mr. Rogers, have an opportunity to work through the appropriations process. So that is not our intention.

As for the President's concern about sequester, again I will just remark that this was his idea. This was his proposal. He signed it into law. He is not an innocent bystander in this process. So if he would like to sit down and redo it, we are more than happy to do that; but he's not going to dictate the outcome from the White House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my fellow member of the Rules Committee, my classmate, the distinguished physician from the great State of Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my great friend, the chairman of the Rules Committee, the distinguished Member from the great State of Texas (Mr. Sessions).

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

I know that Bob Woodward is a widely read author. I can look at the book sales that he racks up and know that there's a lot of people in this town that read what he has to say. But evidently my friends on the other side have never read what he had to say.

Let's be clear: sequester was the President's idea and proposal. Now, where I agree with the President is that I think we need to save money in the Federal budget. Sequester was supposed to be a trigger to force that negotiation.

Unfortunately, for whatever reason, I was not a member of the supercommittee; but I think all of them worked hard and in good faith, and I cast no aspersion, but they didn't get there. So sequester, the President's recommended method, happened.

We would still like to sit down with the President and our friends on the other side and renegotiate where those cuts occur. Sequester is about $85 billion on an annual basis in a $3.5 trillion budget that is roughly $700 billion out of balance as it is. So the idea that we can't find 2.5 percent if we negotiated over the entire budget I think is probably, frankly, not a very sustainable proposition. We could do that without some of the distortions we are going through now. We would be more than happy to do that with my friends on the other side, and certainly with the President of the United States.

No, I will hold my time, but I will yield in a moment.

But let's be clear whose idea this was and who has not put a solution on the table. I could go ad nauseam into cuts that did not have to occur in the Defense Department that have occurred because the administration insisted on them, but that's for another time and another debate.

I agree with my friend that this is a time to come to a deal. That's what we are trying to do, actually, in this rule and in the underlying legislation: set aside a 75-day window to sit down and let the appropriators and those above them come to an agreement, and let's get out of this cycle--I agree with my friend--of short-term fixes and deals and let's move back to what I know my friend wants to do, and that's to establish regular order.

But to do that, we have to start the process; we have to begin now. Let's pass this resolution. It reflects the will of the majority. Let's move it to the Senate and let's see what the Senate is prepared to do. They will send us something back. Then, hopefully, at the end of that process, a CR will be arrived at.

My friend alluded to the fact that people want to shut down the government. That's the last thing we want to do. I thank my friend for accurately putting my position out there on both government shutdown and on default. I've made it abundantly clear I think those are bad ideas. I thought they were bad ideas.

By the way, Tom Coburn quotes me in his book in 1995 telling him not to do it. I was his political consultant back then. So I have never thought this was an appropriate tactic in government. I don't think we need to do it now.

But let's do that, and at the same time let's give the Senate an opportunity to vote up or down, whatever they want to do, on ObamaCare. We've gotten to do it multiple times. They seem to be anxious to have the opportunity. I think they should. But they will send us back a product, and I'm sure we will respond.

With that, I yield to my friend if he had a point he wanted to make.

In reclaiming my time, it's certainly true that we've had multiple proposals to try and limit spending. We walked in with a $1.4 trillion

deficit, so we thought maybe we ought to try and bring it down a little bit. Is it the exact form of this sequester? Absolutely not. No Republican ever came up with a sequester and had 50 percent of the cuts coming out of defense. So, in that sense, I don't think you can equate that.

Regardless, let's not argue over history here for a minute; although, again, just for the record, I, too, have had Bob Woodward in my office, and I actually had him sign 60 of those books, which I gave to my colleagues, because I thought it was such an interesting look, and the players and the process are still the same.

The bottom line: let's pass this legislation. It's going to move out of the House. Let's let the Senate act. Then let's see what they send back to us, and let's act in turn.

I yield just quickly to the gentleman from Maryland because I'm running low on time, and I do have other speakers.

I certainly wouldn't agree if it yields the cuts, but I think the structure of it is inappropriate, and it's flawed.

We ought to repeal it and get savings across the entire budget. I think that's what we should do.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have, from time to time, wondered about where the business community is on this issue, so I would like to insert for the Record a letter from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which notes, as ``the world's largest business federation representing the interests of more than 3 million businesses . . . '' it favors the passage of H.J. Res. 59, the Continuing Appropriations Resolution for 2014, to ensure the uninterrupted funding of the Federal Government into the next fiscal year and to defund ObamaCare.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Chamber of Commerce of the

United States of America,

Washington, D.C., September 18, 2013.

To The Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The

U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business

federation representing the interests of more than three

million businesses and organizations of all sizes, sectors,

and regions, as well as state and local chambers and industry

associations, and dedicated to promoting, protecting and

defending America's free enterprise system, urges the House

of Representatives to pass H.J. Res. 59, the ``Continuing

Appropriations Resolution, 2014,'' to ensure the

uninterrupted funding of the federal government into the next

fiscal year at spending levels consistent with P.L. 112-25,

the Budget Control Act of 2011.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce fully recognizes the

importance of restraining federal spending, both

discretionary spending and mandatory spending, to reduce

federal budget deficits, contain the growth of federal debt,

and thereby re-establish fiscal discipline in the near-term

and for the long haul. However, as the Department of Labor's

recent lackluster jobs report reminds us, the U.S. economy

continues to underperform, reinforcing the need for the

federal government to preserve its normal operations pending

a successful outcome of broader budgetary reforms. It is not

in the best interest of the U.S. business community or the

American people to risk even a brief government shutdown that

might trigger disruptive consequences or raise new policy

uncertainties washing over the U.S. economy.

Likewise, the U.S. Chamber respectfully urges the House of

Representatives to raise the debt ceiling in a timely manner

and thus eliminate any question of threat to the full faith

and credit of the United States government. Treasury

Secretary Jacob Lew has indicated the Treasury may exhaust

its borrowing capacity and cash management tools as early as

mid-October.

The nation faces many serious fiscal issues on which the

Congress and the President have thus far yet to reach

agreement. These issues include correcting the unaffordable

path of entitlement spending to stabilize federal finances

and the need for fundamental tax reform to strengthen the

American economy. These issues also include the need to

correct the many grave deficiencies in the Affordable Care

Act. The Chamber believes each of these and related issues

demand immediate attention. The Chamber also asks the

Congress to work to clear the individual spending bills so

that the improvements and changes reflected in this year's

work may be signed into law.

It is readily apparent none of these important issues are

ripe for resolution. We therefore urge the House to act

promptly to pass a Continuing Resolution to fund the

government and to raise the debt ceiling, and then to return

to work on these other vital issues.

Sincerely,

R. Bruce Josten.

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

I am prepared to close whenever my colleague would like to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I don't want to put you under any pressure, but we're counting on you.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to thank my good friend, the gentlelady. It's always great to have the opportunity to come down here and

exchange views with her. I want to make a couple of points in closing.

First, remember, we did bring down legislation--and passed it out of this House--to deal with sequester twice. The Democrats in the Senate didn't pick it up, and the President didn't pick it up.

To my friend Mr. Van Hollen, frankly, your legislation hasn't made it out of committee. You've got to get it out of committee before it comes to the floor, and so far, as persuasive as you are, you've not been that persuasive. Frankly, I don't think it would work on the floor.

If I finish my remarks, I certainly will yield to the gentleman.

My friends on the other side have repeatedly said we want to shut down the government. That's the last thing we want to do. This bill actually keeps the government open. It's not about shutting down the government; it's about keeping it open so we can negotiate and arrive at a larger deal.

We intend to send this to the Senate with the defunding of ObamaCare, something the majority of this House feels strongly about, and then we're going to wait and see what the Senate sends back to us. My guess is at the end of the day--as you never know what's going to happen over there, maybe I won't make a guess. We'll just wait and see what comes back. But I certainly want to give some of my friends over there the opportunity to carry on this fight.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Reclaiming my time, after you turned us down twice, we just think you guys are an awfully hard sell. The Senate is also a difficult sell on this. So let's move and do this CR and sit down in the next 75 days. I think we have an opportunity, frankly, to come to a very large deal where we can deal with sequester, we can deal with the long-term deficit that we know is a huge problem for us, and we can move forward, I hope, in a bipartisan manner. This is our opportunity to do it. Let's pass this rule, pass this bill, and get to work.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize my good friend and fellow Sooner, Mr. Robert ``Bobby'' Bramlett, as he nears the end of his term as the 108th chairman of the nation's largest insurance association, the Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America, also known as the Big ``I''. He was installed as chairman of the Big ``I'' last September in Atlanta where I was personally present for the ceremony, and over the past year he has done an amazing job of piloting the association as the top agent in the nation.

Bobby has spent his career in the family insurance business, starting with The Bramlett Agency in 1975. He has since purchased the agency, which was founded in 1948, from his parents, Jim and Janie Bramlett, and has served as its president and CEO since 1983.

He is a graduate of St. John's Military Academy, Delafield, Wis., and earned his Bachelor of Business Administration degree from the University of Oklahoma in 1974. He bleeds OU crimson, and is a fixture in Norman on football game days.

Bobby married Nanette Potts in 1973. Together they have strongly supported their community of Ardmore, the state of Oklahoma, small businesses, and the insurance industry by serving in many capacities. He is past president of the Independent Insurance Agents of Oklahoma (IIAO) and past Big ``I'' director from Oklahoma. In 2008, Bobby received the association's highest government affairs award, ``The Sydney 0. Smith National Legislative Award.'' He also was given IIAO's highest award, ``The Eagle of Excellence Award,'' in 2009. Also an avid golfer, he has been heavily involved in the Trusted Choice

Big ``I'' National Championship golf tournament which is one of the pre-eminent junior golf events in the country.

In his community, Bobby serves as a First National Bank and Trust Company director, trustee of The Glen Foundation, and trustee of St. John's Northwestern Military Academy.

Bobby and Nanette are the proud parents of son, Jake, who is an agent in the agency; daughter-in-law, Jennifer; and grandson, Bryce. They reside in Ardmore, Oklahoma.

The state of Oklahoma is proud of Bobby Bramlett and wishes him well following his successful year as chairman of the Big ``I.''

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 322 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 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, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of H.R. 367, the REINS Act; H.R. 2009, the Keep the IRS Off Your Health Care Act; and H.R. 2879, the Stop Government Abuse Act.

The rule provides a structured rule for consideration of the REINS Act, allowing debate time for 12 of 23 amendments submitted. In addition, the rule incorporates a technical correction to the bill from Chairman Sessions. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.

Additionally, the rule provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 2009, the Keep the IRS Off Your Health Care Act, and provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Furthermore, the rule provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 2879, the Stop Government Abuse Act, and provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides floor management tools to be used during the August recess.

Mr. Speaker, America's job creators have struggled against strong headwinds to recover. In fact, since President Obama took office, 131 new major regulations, costing at least $70 billion, have been added to America's regulatory system.

Under current law, Congress only has the power to disapprove regulations put forward by the executive branch. H.R. 367 flips that presumption on its head. Any major regulation estimated to cost over $100 million would need to be approved by Congress and must be given an ``up-or-down'' vote within 70 legislative days.

In his State of the Union address, President Obama said:

To reduce barriers to growth and investment, when we find

rules that put an unnecessary burden on businesses, we will

fix them.

H.R. 367 does just that. It allows Congress to decide whether major rules place unnecessary burdens on job creators.

The second bill covered by this rule, Mr. Speaker, would prohibit the Treasury Department, including the IRS, from implementing or enforcing any provision of ObamaCare. In the last few months, the American people have learned that the IRS has targeted and intimidated Americans exercising their First Amendment rights. Given the recent scandal and the massive amount of sensitive information the IRS is required to collect under ObamaCare, it's completely inappropriate for the IRS to be given this responsibility.

A recent poll showed that 53 percent of Americans want ObamaCare repealed entirely. Mr. Speaker, health care decisions should be made by a patient and his or her doctor, not Washington bureaucrats.

The final bill covered by this rule, H.R. 2879, was extensively debated on the floor yesterday. In fact, it combined three bills, all aimed at limiting government and returning that power back to the people. This bill accomplishes three major objectives:

First, it caps bonuses for Federal employees at a maximum 5 percent of their salary through the end of fiscal year 2015. With Federal officials furloughing employees due to sequestration, the government should not, at the same time, be handing out millions of dollars in bonuses to other employees;

Second, this bill allows for senior Federal officials under investigation for serious misconduct to be put on unpaid leave. Under current law, agencies have little recourse but to put officials on paid leave, where they can collect a paycheck for months or even years while the investigation occurs;

Finally, this bill allows for citizens to record their meetings and telephone exchanges with Federal regulatory officials. In my home State of Oklahoma, along with 37 other States, this is already the case. However, 12 States require all parties involved in the conversation to consent to recording. This bill would allow individuals in all 50 States to record their conversations when meeting with Federal officials acting in their official capacity.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 367, H.R. 2009, and H.R. 2879 all express the views of my constituents. They're increasingly concerned and opposed to an intrusive and expansive government that seeks to tell them what they can and cannot do. These bills seek to stem the tide of crushing regulation and rein in an overbearing Federal bureaucracy.

I urge support for the rule and the underlying bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I want to quickly respond, if I may, to a couple of points my good friend made.

First, I want to begin by agreeing with her because, quite frankly, as I've stated publicly on many occasions, I don't believe a government shutdown is a good idea either. I think that's not a responsible political tactic. And while my good friend has been concerned that some people in my party have advocated that, I would also express a similar concern, quoting press reports that some advisors to the President have recommended that, should we send a so-called ``continuing resolution'' that funded the government that did not repeal sequester, he should veto it and that would shut down the government.

So I think there's been a little bit of irresponsible discussion about shutting down the government--which, with my friend, I agree, is never a good idea--that's come from both sides of the aisle.

In terms of her observations about sequestration, as an appropriator, again, we probably find some common ground here. I would like to see us also get rid of sequestration, but I'd like to do it by redistributing the cuts to the nondiscretionary side of the budget where I think they belong. We need to keep the savings--that's why the deficit is coming down--but there are certainly smarter and better ways to do that. And if the President is willing to do that, I suspect he would find a willing negotiating partner on our side of the aisle.

In fact, though, many of my friends advocate what is effectively a third tax increase this year. We had a tax increase with the so-called ``fiscal cliff.'' When all the Bush tax cuts ended, the President used that to raise taxes. We have a tax increase this year associated with his health care plan kicking in that's major. And now my friends on the other side of the aisle want a third tax increase to keep the government open and operating. We think we can spend money better and smarter, and that we ought to continue to reduce spending, not increase the burdens on the American people.

Finally, I want to talk to my friend, who discussed ObamaCare, and she's absolutely right; we certainly would like to repeal it, and we certainly have tried to make that point repeatedly. Frankly, her disagreement is not with us so much as it is with the American people. This is an extraordinarily unpopular law. No poll has ever shown that more people like it than dislike it; quite the opposite. People would like to see it repealed. It's simply not a very good idea. Frankly, we're seeing signs of that right now. The President himself, in a signature piece of legislation, had to ask that the business mandates actually be pushed back by a

year. We would like to help him in that, and we'd like to do it for individuals as well, but that suggests this was certainly a bill not ready for prime time.

A former Presidential candidate--I very seldom quote Howard Dean in agreement, but he had an interesting piece in The Wall Street Journal this week on why the central cost-control mechanism of ObamaCare--the Independent Payment Advisory Board--simply wouldn't work. Now, that's not us; that's criticism from somebody that probably supports a national health care plan of some kind.

Finally--and I think this does get overlooked in a debate, and I want to end my comments on a point of agreement, because while we have voted repeatedly to repeal, there have actually been times that we have, on both sides of the aisle, agreed--and agreed with the President--about changing this bill.

In the last couple of years, we have actually passed seven pieces of legislation when we were in the majority--they obviously had to go through a Democratic Senate and to the President's desk--that changed or modified ObamaCare--and saved, by the way, about $62 billion. My friends, after ramming that legislation through, looked at the so- called 1040s that were going to be attached to every $600 purchase and said, you know, you guys are right, that's a really bad idea. The President thought so too. And we got rid of it.

We also got rid of the assisted living portion of it, the so-called ``CLASS Act'' that was just financially unsustainable. Why? Secretary Sebelius looked at it and said, you know, this really isn't going to work. And I'll bet you sooner or later we'll get a medical device tax elimination down here on this floor--people on both sides know it's nuts to be taxing people's wheelchairs and oxygen cans because they're sick and use that to fund health care, and I'll bet you we can probably find common agreement on that.

So, while we would like to repeal, we certainly are willing to work when we find common areas and continue to try and improve a very flawed product.

With that, I'd like to yield such time as he may consume to my good friend and fellow Rules Committee member from Florida (Mr. Nugent).

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

My friend--and he is my friend--I think is really one of the great speakers of this Chamber. I mean that with all sincerity.

But this isn't the Senate. We don't have unlimited debate over here, so he's kind of stretching it a little bit, but it's always worth listening to.

I will certainly yield to my friend.

And I want to say, my friend, the gentleman, exercised it to the extreme, but he's always worth listening to.

I want to underscore a point my good friend made, because I do agree with you very much about government shutdown. I don't think that's a responsible tactic. I've seen it advocated from time to time from people on both sides of the aisle. We've had reports of it from advisors to the President. I certainly wouldn't suggest the President would agree with that. But I hope we don't get there, and I will pledge to work with my friend to make sure that we do not.

I also think, though, that we ought to recognize that we have worked together on some occasions. My friend and I worked together on the fiscal cliff, we worked together on violence against women, we worked together on Sandy, we worked together, actually, on the CR in March. So there are times when we can come together.

We are working together now. I suspect the President will soon sign the Student Loan Act, an act that was originated on our side--problems were on the Senate side--and passed. Eventually, they came around and saw the same thing the way the President and we saw it on this side of the aisle.

We did. I appreciate that, and we found common ground. I hope we can again.

But also when we're lectured a little bit on rules--and, look, we both wear

these hats occasionally--I will remind my friends, when they were in the majority, the rules under which they brought a massive health care bill to this floor with almost no debate, a massive stimulus, billions of dollars, with essentially no debate and no consideration, the Dodd- Frank rule.

So whatever sins have been committed on our side of the aisle, I would suggest this is one where you need to look at the log in your own eye in terms of the size and scope of that legislation and the rules that accompany them.

I will yield to the gentleman on that.

Reclaiming my time, I seriously doubt that you have never said we wouldn't do this. I've heard the same thing when we talk about debt ceiling where we know the rules get reversed from time to time.

So I think this legislation--and I think it's very significant legislation--but I don't think it ranks with either of the three examples that I gave in which this body was not given the opportunity. Frankly, I think the Republican majority is here today largely because that's the way the House was operated the way the last time my friends had an opportunity to do that.

But regardless of that, I appreciate my friend's remarks as always. I always enjoy the exchange, and 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.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we did have a referendum on ObamaCare. Do you know what we got? We got a split decision because, while the American people certainly reelected the President, they also reelected a Republican House. That's a hard thing to achieve in what my friends would regard as a great Presidential victory. We had 435 different referendums about this. So the American people, for whatever reason, either wanted the debate to continue or certainly didn't want to leave the President, as they did in 2009 and 2010, with essentially total control over the legislative branch. They didn't like what they saw then, and I don't think they would like what they would see if that were to happen.

As for our friends in the Senate, letting them decide what the agenda is going to be in the House, I think, is, quite frankly, a mistake. They don't get a lot done over there. Every now and then, though, they'll surprise you.

I remember hearing these same arguments about the Student Loan Act in that, gosh, what we were planning and proposing, even though it was relatively close to what the President proposed, was never going to happen. In fact, if you'll remember at one point and if I recall correctly, I think the President, himself, issued a veto threat against the legislation. So, had we followed our friend's advice, everybody's student loans in America would be skyrocketing right now.

Every now and then, you just have to go out and fight for the things that you believe in; and, amazingly, sometimes the United States Senate will come around, and, occasionally, the President of the United States will change his mind or at least will decide this was close enough to be good enough.

So I would suggest we just continue to get up every day as we all do, to work as best we can for the things that we believe in, and at the end of the day--believe me--the American people will make a judgment, and we'll see what happens.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to a number of points my friends have made about the issue of sequester. I simply want to remind them whose idea it was. If they have any doubt, they should read the Bob Woodward book, ``The Price of Politics,'' or follow the lively correspondence that came after the book was published.

The reality is that the idea of sequester was the President's proposal. He proposed it; he advocated for it; he signed it into law. Now we hear from our friends, gosh, the Republicans won't undo it or we didn't really mean that it would actually ever happen.

We've had this discussion before. The simple truth is that we are willing to renegotiate where the cuts come from. We actually agree with our friends on that. What they're not willing to do is to actually reduce spending. That's essentially what the debate is about.

This is the method that the President recommended, signed and advocated for. If he wants to undo it--something, by the way, this House twice in the last term did, but our friends in the Senate never picked it up, and the President never came up with a counteroffer, so we're sort of still waiting over here--and if the President would like to redistribute the cuts, I have no doubt the Speaker would like to talk to him. But the idea that we're just going to simply undo it and lose all the savings, I think, is also unlikely to occur.

So let's sit down. We all know there are better ways to do this. We're willing to do that on our side, but we are not willing to raise taxes, and we are not willing to lose savings.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

I do not have any more speakers, and I'm prepared to close whenever my friend is.

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

In closing, I want to begin by reminding my friends whose idea sequester was. It was the President of the United States.

The President likes to take some credit--and in some ways he deserves some--for our budget deficit coming down. Frankly, after four trillion- dollar deficits in a row, a Republican Congress came into office and that deficit is now moving down. It's about half of what it was. We've worked with the President to actually achieve something he said he wanted to, which is lower the deficit. He likes to take credit for it.

Second, I'd like to also remind my friends, Mr. Speaker, in closing, that I think these bills really are good bills. They provide important checks on the expanding power of the executive branch. How many times have all of us gone home and been regaled with tales of bureaucrats that are simply out of control or rules that make no sense or have an enormous economic impact? It happens all the time. That needs to change.

Senator Daniel Webster described the Federal Government as ``made by the people, made by the people, and answerable to the people.'' I would suggest we've forgotten the last of these three phases, ``answerable to the people.'' That's what these bills are about, trying to make the Federal Government more responsive and more answerable to the people. The underlying bills recognize just that and restore the power of governance to elected officials, not to unaccountable Washington bureaucrats.

I would urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, when the Committee on Rules filed its report (H. Rept. 113-187) to accompany House Resolution 322 the Committee was unaware that the waiver of all points of order against consideration of H.R. 2879 included:

A waiver of clause 9(a)(2) of rule XXI , prohibiting consideration of a bill or joint resolution not reported by a committee, unless the chair of each committee of initial referral has caused a list of congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, and limited tariff benefits in the bill or a statement that the proposition contains no congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits to be printed in the Congressional Record prior to its consideration. The required statement from the chair of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the primary committee of jurisdiction, was printed in the Congressional Record dated July 31, 2013. However, the required statement from the chair of the Committee on the Judiciary, which also received an additional referral, was submitted for printing on August 1, 2013. Both statements provide that H.R. 2879 does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits.

A waiver of clause 11 of rule XXI, prohibiting the consideration of a bill or joint resolution which has not been reported by a committee until the third calendar day (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, or legal holidays except when the House is in session on such a day) on which such measure has been available to Members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner. While the text of the bill is substantially identical to the three bills previously debated in the House on July 31, 2013, H.R. 2879 was not introduced until later that day.

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

Mr. Speaker, on July 30, 2013, I was unavoidably detained and was not present for rollcall vote No. 424. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 40 minutes p.m.), consistent with the fourth clause in section 5 of article I of the Constitution, and notwithstanding section 132 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, August 1, 2013, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.