Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Speaker should immediately request a conference and appoint conferees to complete work on a fiscal year 2014 budget resolution with the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 243 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 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, I rise today in support of the rule and the two underlying bills.

House Resolution 243 provides for an open rule for consideration of H.R. 2216, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2014, and H.R. 2217, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2014.

This rule provides ample opportunities for Members from both the minority and majority to participate in the debate, and it does not limit the number of amendments that may be considered, so long as the amendments comply with the rules of the House.

My colleagues from both sides of the aisle agree that these appropriation acts for fiscal year 2014 are the products of an open, collaborative, and bipartisan process.

They provide critical funding for military construction, housing, schools, and medical facilities for our servicemembers and their families, important veteran programs, the protection and security of our airports, seaports and national border, and disaster relief efforts. They also reduce duplication, improve oversight, encourage efficiency, and increase coordination of services.

Mr. Speaker, these bills address nonpartisan issues that affect every one of us. The seamless operation of these agencies and programs and projects will benefit all Americans.

Let me first address H.R. 2216, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2014.

This fiscally sound bill funds programs that are necessary to keep our promises to our veterans and to train, equip, house, and support the brave men and women in uniform, as well as their families.

This bill provides over $73 billion in discretionary funding, which is $1.4 billion above the enacted fiscal year 2013 level. It continues to provide advanced funding that was approved in fiscal year 2013 for veteran medical care and funds programs to reduce the staggering backlog which severely delayed the process of veteran benefits claims. This advance funding will ensure that our veterans have full access to medical care regardless of where we stand in the annual appropriation process.

H.R. 2216 funds military construction projects, including family housing, military medical facilities, and Department of Defense education facilities. It also funds critical VA medical services and provides for a unified electronic health record system to integrate Department of Defense and Veterans Affairs health records.

Currently, our veterans must physically present a hard copy of their DOD health records at their VA appointments, and physicians are unable to look up the patient's medical history if a patient does not have their records with them. This bill addresses this frustrating and inefficient process and will begin to replace an archaic paper record system with an electronic system that will ensure our veterans will be efficiently served and receive the care they need and deserve.

Next, I'd like to talk about and highlight a few of the important provisions in H.R. 2217, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2014. This bill is essential to protect the security of our national borders and the safety and well-being of all Americans.

This bill provides $38 billion in discretionary funding for the Department of Homeland Security, which includes funding for 21,370 Border Patrol agents and nearly 22,800 Customs and Border Protection officers--the largest totals in history. It also directs U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to train agents to identify and assist victims of human trafficking and directs ICE to increase spending on human trafficking and smuggling investigations.

H.R. 2217 also provides funding for FEMA to ensure our Nation is prepared to provide disaster relief and funds the Coast Guard.

Finally, I'd like to reiterate that these bills strengthen our national security and continue the well-being of our brave servicemembers, their families, and other veterans. They also recognize that our growing debt threatens the stability and safety of our Nation, and for this reason these bills make recommendations to reduce bureaucratic inefficiencies, duplication, and overhead.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. The Appropriations Committee has worked hard to provide us with two fiscally responsible appropriation bills that will meet the housing construction and medical needs of our military and provide support to their families. They will keep our promises to America's veterans, and they will enhance our national security.

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind everyone that we're talking about a rule here. And this rule, different from those that were proposed in the Congresses before I got here, in the 111th Congress, is an open rule. It allows for amendments. If there are those who do not like what's in these bills, they can do everything that they need to do in an amendment and get 218 votes and pass it, and it'll change. If this bill needs perfecting, either one of these bills need perfecting, they can be perfected.

I believe that is as close to regular order as we can get. If we can come down to this floor, offer an amendment, get an opportunity to debate that amendment, have our say, hopefully get the votes to pass it, change the bill, that's the way this process should work.

This rule provides for that. It provides for two very well-thought- out appropriation bills, which may have flaws. But if there are flaws, whether you're a Republican or Democrat, come on down. Once we pass this rule, we'll be taking those bills up one at a time. And any amendment, as long as it's within the germaneness rules of this House, can be offered. We would welcome that. I think both sides would welcome that.

That's why when both of these bills came out of committee, there were glowing reports, both from the minority report and from the majority report. They are well-thought-out bills. They are well-done bills. They are bipartisan. They're done in an open and collaborative way, in an open, real, and regular order process. So for those reasons, I think this is a great rule because it sets forward the opportunity of people on this floor, no matter who they are, from a freshman to a senior Member, from Republican to Democrat, from moderate, liberal, and conservative, no matter who they are, to offer amendments to these bills, both of them. And if they get a majority vote, they can pass them. So I think that to me is an open process. That's also regular order.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I've been in this process a long time, not necessarily here, but in other venues, and what I have found is what's before you is before you, and what comes later may or may not come later.

But I would say this to the gentlelady, that what we have here are two bills that are bipartisan bills, and they have a great deal of input from both sides. They came out of committee with a strong vote, with both Republicans and Democrats.

And so my thought is: here we are. We're here. We're addressing this particular issue. Now, when these other bills come to the floor of the House, before they get here they're going to pass through the Rules Committee, too, these appropriation bills. I will do everything I can to make them open, also, so that anybody that wants to amend them or perfect them has the opportunity.

I believe in an open process. I believe that Members, no matter how long it takes, should have the opportunity to say their piece. And no matter what your philosophy is, no matter what your party is, no matter what your position is, no matter what your rank is, if you're 435th it doesn't really matter, you should have an opportunity to present your case.

And so, these are these two bills. We have talked about the fact that we're

going to have an open process here, and people want to perfect these bills; then great, offer an amendment. When the other appropriation bills come, that'll be the time to talk about them. But when they do, just know this: I'm going to be one that is going to be pressing hard to have open rules for them, also.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Again, I will reiterate the fact that it is what is before us. We cannot get to these two bipartisan, well-thought-out, well-debated, well-collaborated pieces of legislation which deal with some issues that are very, very important without passing a rule to allow us to do that. That's what this rule does. It deals with those two bills. No, those two bills aren't before us, but this rule is the gateway to get to those bills. How are we going to get there? We're going to pass this rule. Once we get there, what are we going to do? We're going to have an open process--one that has been foreign until the Republicans took control of this legislature--foreign, no matter what your standing in this body was.

There were closed bills after closed bills after closed bills after closed bills that came up. Was there an opportunity to amend it, to perfect it, to do anything with it? Absolutely not. But that's not the way it is now. If we pass this rule, we're going to get to a process that allows every Member to come down to this floor and offer an amendment, debate that amendment, and have the possibility of passing that amendment.

So, yes, there are other issues, there are other appropriations, there are other bills that will be coming to this floor at some point in time. And at that time we can debate them. But right now, this is the issue before us. These two very important bills--and very much agreed-on bills--are only going to be taken up on this floor if this rule passes.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to reiterate again the benefits of these two bills that we're going to be debating if we pass this rule. They provide critical funding for military construction, housing, schools, and medical facilities for our servicemembers and their families, as well as important veterans programs. They protect security for our airports, seaports, and national border, as well as disaster relief efforts. They also reduce duplication, improve oversight, encourage efficiency, and increase coordination of services.

If there were one provision in a bill that would push you over the edge of voting for or against something, it would be the idea of getting rid of this old paperwork. I've had someone come and tell me that they had gotten a tetanus shot, I think, about 3 weeks before they got out of the service. Once they got out, they went to the VA and they forgot to take the record with them. So they had no proof. They went to the VA and they said, You're going to have to get a tetanus shot. He says, Wait a minute, I've already gotten one. You don't have that record? No. And if you don't have it with you, we don't know. Because you can tell us you had one 3 months ago, but that doesn't matter.

We need to do it. This one bill gets rid of that process and says we're going to move towards a modern system of electronically transferring these records. There's so many good things in these two bills; it's just pretext for the fact that this rule needs to be approved.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes of my time to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, that last discussion was worth paying the price to come here. But I would like to say this, to bring it back to where we are, and that is:

We have before us a rule. This rule is going to be the gateway--the gateway--to an open process. That open process, when it opens up, is beautiful to behold. We have two bills that will be heard. Both of those bills are going to be able to be amended by any Member that would like to do it. And to me, that is what I have searched for, and I think it's a great thing.

We have the opportunity to come to this floor, agree or disagree, but in the end we will produce a product that was put together by a bipartisan group of members of two different committees of the Appropriations Committee. And it went through the regular process. Bringing it to the floor with an open rule is the regular process. That is why I'm supporting this rule, because the rule gives the gateway to us doing those bills.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit two letters into the Record.

The first letter is from the Budget Committee chairman, Paul Ryan. In his letter, Chairman Ryan asks the Rules Committee to follow standard practice by addressing budget enforcement pending a conference report on the budget resolution. To prevent greater uncertainty and further delays in the appropriations process, House Resolution 243 will include a provision and does include a provision that adopts the House-passed budget resolution, H. Con. Res. 25, as an interim budget enforcement measure until an agreement may be reached with the Senate on the budget resolution for the coming fiscal year.

I would like to read an excerpt from that letter. This is from Chairman Ryan to Chairman Sessions, who is the Rules Committee chairman:

As you know, the budget passed by the House reduces

spending by $4.6 trillion and achieves balance in 2023--all

without raising taxes on the American people. In contrast,

the budget resolution adopted by the Senate raises taxes by

over $900 billion, increases spending by $265 billion and

never balances. While I continue to work with my Senate

counterpart to find common ground, we have not yet been able

to reach agreement.

Let me finish this first.

Another part of that reads:

Until such time as we are able to reach agreement and

consistent with the practice in previous years when the House

and Senate have been delayed in completing action on a budget

resolution, I am asking that the rule include a provision

that adopts the House-passed budget resolution as an interim

budget enforcement measure that will allow the appropriations

process to proceed without further delay.

The second letter is just a response from Representative Sessions, who is the chair of the Rules Committee, acknowledging that the rule would include the requested interim budget enforcement measure.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

I reclaim my time and will not yield any more time after this.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I am not involved in that process. However, I can tell you this: I was a speaker at one point in time in a different body and at a different time in my career. Even if a conference committee has not been formed, there are discussions that go on. Then, eventually, there will be a conference committee, and things work out, but it doesn't necessarily mean that nothing is happening. I think things are happening. I think they are working on solutions. We have to have a solution at some point in time, and that's happening.

This resolution provides for an open rule to allow all Members to offer their ideas and to debate them through regular order. Two underlying bills fund necessary programs that train, equip, house, and support the brave men and women who sacrificially defend our freedoms, and the bills also support their families. Our debt of gratitude to these individuals does not expire when they retire, as the legislation also funds important programs to provide benefits and medical care for our veterans. Additionally, the legislation equips our Coast Guard and supports the individuals who guard our borders, secure our airports and seaports, and who respond to natural disasters.

However, we would be doing a great disservice, Mr. Speaker, to future generations if we were to fail to consider the effect our current spending will have on the future fiscal health and safety our Nation. For that reason, these bills reduce costs, require the coordination of medical care and ensure the efficient operation of those critical programs so that we may continue to support those who protect us.

I encourage my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of this rule and in the passage of the underlying bills.

House of Representatives,

Committee on the Budget,

Washington, DC, May 31, 2013.

Hon. Pete Sessions,

Chairman, Committee on Rules,

The Capitol, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: Yesterday you announced that the

Committee on Rules will meet on June 3 to report a rule to

govern the floor consideration of the first appropriations

bills for fiscal year 2014. I am writing to ask that you

include in that rule a provision providing for the

enforcement of the concurrent resolution on the budget as

passed by the House (H. Con. Res. 25) until such time as the

House adopts a conference report on the budget for fiscal

year 2014.

As you know, the budget passed by the House reduces

spending by $4.6 trillion and achieves balance in 2023--all

without raising taxes on the American people. In contrast,

the budget resolution adopted by the Senate raises taxes by

over $900 billion, increases spending by $265 billion, and

never balances. While I continue to work with my Senate

counterpart to find common ground, we have not yet been able

to reach agreement.

Until such time as we are able to reach agreement and

consistent with the practice in previous years when the House

and Senate have been delayed in completing action on a budget

resolution, I am asking that the rule include a provision

that adopts the House-passed budget resolution as an interim

budget enforcement measure that will allow the appropriations

process to proceed without further delay.

Pursuant to the authority provided in the Congressional

Budget Act of 1974 and in title VI of the House-passed

concurrent resolution on the budget and consistent with

longstanding practice, once the House passes the rule

adopting the House-passed budget resolution, as the Budget

Committee Chairman I intend to file the allocations and

adjustments in the Congressional Record to put in force such

concurrent resolution.

To ensure the Rules Committee and House members have full

transparency on the budget levels that would be enforced,

enclosed are the relevant budget aggregates and committee

allocations that I will file if the House adopts the rule.

The House-passed budget resolution was based on CBO February

budget projections and estimates. The funding levels for

global war on terror (GWOT)/overseas contingency operations

(OCO) and for veterans programs were based on an

extrapolation of the President's budget request from last

year. Because the House acted on the budget resolution before

CBO had completed its updated budget projections and before

the President had submitted his fiscal year 2014 budget

request, the resolution provided authority for the Chairman

to adjust the relevant levels in the resolution to reflect

CBO's updated budget projections and the President's request

for GWOT/OCO and veterans advance appropriations. The

adjustments for CBO's updated baseline will be limited to

changes due to updated technical estimates. Now that we have

CBO's revised baseline projections and the President's budget

request, it is possible to update the levels in the House-

passed budget resolution to reflect this updated information.

Enclosed are tables showing aggregate budget and committee

allocations that will be used for budget enforcement

purposes.

I want to emphasize that this is a request for an interim

measure while the Committee on the Budget continues to work

toward an agreement with the Senate on a budget resolution

for the coming fiscal year. The nation's fiscal problems

cannot be addressed solely through the appropriations process

and the budget remains the critical vehicle for identifying a

solution.

To ensure full transparency as to my intent should this

request be granted, I ask that you include this letter and

the enclosures in the Rules Committee's record of

consideration of the rule. I appreciate your consideration.

If there are any questions, please contact Paul Restuccia,

Chief Counsel of the Committee on the Budget.

Sincerely,

Paul D. Ryan,

Chairman.

Enclosures.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 216 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

House Resolution 216 provides a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 1062. This rule provides for discussion and opportunities for every single Member of the majority and the minority to participate in this debate. We made in order every single germane amendment that was submitted to the Rules Committee on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today is really quite simple. It is a commonsense solution to preventing unnecessary and overly burdensome government regulation, or perhaps an opportunity to understand why the government might be perpetrating a rule that would impact our free enterprise system. It requires the SEC to perform cost- benefit analysis before finalizing any major rule. It also prevents the implementation of the rule if the benefits do not outweigh the costs.

Through this bill, the American taxpayer will be protected from needless regulations that would impede economic growth without providing effective consumer protections. In other words, Mr. Speaker, we're here to ensure that the SEC provides balance with the rules and regulations that are in a major context when it issues these rules on the marketplace.

In January of 2011, President Obama signed an executive order directing all non-independent agencies, such as the Department of Energy, the Department of Education, and others, to abide by the same rules that we're providing for today in H.R. 1062. However, because it is an independent agency, the SEC is not required to follow the President's rules.

The legislation before us today creates parity and opportunity for Congress to work with an agency and other non-independent agencies on a better way for them to promulgate the rules that they do and show a balance in the marketplace, just like the President asked other government agencies to do.

Furthermore, this legislation in no way weakens consumer protections or reduces accountability in the financial services industry. To the contrary, this proposal ensures that regulations issued by the SEC are effective and based on sound policy. Consumers and businesses alike will benefit from a reformed regulatory process.

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend, the gentleman who brings up many good points about jobs, job creation, the ability for this Congress to be able to effectively hear from the American people about the issues and ideas that they're facing, come to resolution in this body, work with our friends in the Senate, and to get legislation to the President of the United States. I think that should be and has been what our goal is about, and it should be our goal also to find common ground.

What's interesting is that this piece of legislation that we're handling now actually went to the banking committee, Financial Services Committee, as an agreement we more or less thought would be a suspension item; in other words, a piece of legislation that there was widespread agreement on that it would be good to put in the rules as one of a group of pieces of legislation, this would be a good idea to have the SEC accept this as part of what they do when they issue a rule.

Now what's happened is it has turned into a larger fight as a result of us wanting to simply make sure that the rules that apply to other Federal agencies also apply to independent agencies. So we thought we were doing the right thing to come and work together, and it's fair, I guess, I assume, to do that, even though we are trying to talk about this rule today.

If we want to talk about the budget and things that are presently being evolved, then we need to listen to our Democratic friends about the budget. They're not happy because we passed in this House an opportunity to have a budget that in the next 10 years would balance, a balanced budget.

The gentleman Paul Ryan, the chairman of the Budget Committee, came up to the Rules Committee and he spoke about how this President, every single year that Barack Obama is President, with the help of former Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats, raised spending, put rules and regulations on the American people that are causing the lowest level of job creation that we've had in over 40 years, a trillion-dollar deficit every single year. And even with this massive tax increase that was a signing bonus for the President that took place in December, we still are going to run a trillion-dollar deficit. So what my friends, the Democrats, said upstairs in the Rules Committee, what they're for is raising spending another trillion dollars and raising taxes another trillion dollars.

Mr. Speaker, I do understand there's widespread disagreement. There's widespread disagreement when our friends that control the Senate, the Democrats, want to do the exact same thing in their body to this country, raising spending another trillion dollars, raising taxes another trillion dollars.

So they make a good point. Why won't we appoint conferees?

Well, Speaker Pelosi, back in 2009, took more than 2 months to do the exact same thing that they want us to do.

What is occurring is that our chairman, Paul Ryan, is working with their chairman on the agreement of how they would go about doing their job of having a conference on the budget because, you see, when you start so far apart, of trying to balance the budget, trying to not put more rules and regulations and taxes on the American people to where they stand a better

chance, not only of taking care of their own families, and providing for their children to go to college and to be able to pay for it, and to take care of their lifetime needs when they retire, that requires a basic sense of simply agreeing with what people are trying to do versus having the government come and provide a government-run health care system, having the government provide student loans, having the government expand government and take care of people endlessly.

And so there's two different visions, one of raising taxes $1 trillion, raising spending $1 trillion, which is what the Democrats want to do, versus trying to balance our budget, work our way out of problems, grow our economy, jobs, job creation and investment. That's what we're trying to do, and that's what Republicans talked about last month.

That's why we came forth with a budget when the Senate hadn't even done a budget, under Democrat leadership, for 4 years.

That's why we are leaders in Washington. Republicans are leaders in the House of Representatives. We maintain the control. We follow the order and listen to the American people of trying to make their lives better, not grow a government that will be out of control, like an Attorney General who, upon taking the oath of office, then decides when he does and when he does not want to make decisions, and whether he recuses himself; or whether you have an IRS that's out of control and in people's lives and making decisions that are politically based.

Mr. Speaker, this is the reason why we need a government that is smaller, more efficient, and does not have time or the inclination to become all things to all people, and to tell the American people what they will do and control our lives. That's why we're here today.

And, Mr. Speaker, I couldn't be happier than to say today we're on the floor trying to talk about what we thought was an idea that would be accepted by every single person in this body as a great idea.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, you know, I think it's very interesting that they're trying to argue that we're trying to get in the way of the SEC. Yet the SEC, in their rules and regulations, have put an impact on small business of $1.75 trillion.

Mr. Speaker, what we're trying to do is apply the same principles and ideas that President Obama had to an agency that spends its life doing rules and regulations. And to say that doing their job correctly, with a balance, is something that we shouldn't require them to do is a silly argument.

That's like saying that Republicans and sequestration--when it was a President Obama idea. It is the President's idea. Sequestration--he's the one that proposed it. We're the ones that simply took him up on his idea. And he signed it into law.

They're arguing with themselves about the things which are good. Once again, the President initiated sequestration. We worked with the President as a back-stop. There we are.

The President issues this same ruling, asking agencies to please make sure they include cost-benefit analysis, but don't apply it later to someone who spends their life doing rules and regulations.

Mr. Speaker, it's an amazing world that we live in. We thought, the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Jeb Hensarling, after testimony in meetings and in feedback thought, the SEC actually agreed with this. We simply put it in as something they ought to be doing on a regular basis.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have right now a gentleman from the committee who has spent time and heard the testimony and understands that this should be a piece of legislation that we all agree with because it's common sense.

I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina, a member of Financial Services, Mr. McHenry.

Mr. Speaker, in order to balance out the time, I'm going to reserve the balance of my time.

You know, Mr. Speaker, what we're trying to do is to put in writing exactly what the gentleman talked about why are they promulgating the rule, what effects would their rule have, and why what they do makes sense and is in a balanced way. That's what we're trying to do here today. It makes sense to me. I wish it made sense to more people in this body.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

We've turned this debate into some really commonsense ideas, and that is, that we ought to have a budget, which is what Republicans have said for years. I have no doubt in my mind that when Chairman Paul Ryan of the House Budget Committee, when he is ready, when he feels like they have worked out an understanding with the chairman----

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

I don't deal with Senator Patty Murray very much, but I bet you she has an opportunity to call Paul Ryan if that's what she wants.

And I have every reason to believe that when Paul Ryan and Patty Murray work out the differences and decide these things, that that can happen.

I would remind the gentleman, I'm not involved in those conversations. I do know that this is part of your job as the ranking member. I respect that, and I would be in favor of it, because I, too, want us to have more of a unified budget, a clear understanding, an opportunity for us to understand what we're trying to do.

Regaining my time, I would say to the gentleman and to this body, I have every reason to believe that there can be opportunities for our two bodies to work together.

My last point: This ``no budget, no pay,'' it worked. It worked, Mr. Speaker. It was the law. The President actually produced a budget.

The House produced a budget. And the Senate produced a budget, which they had not done for 4 years. So for 4 years you didn't hear our friends screaming and yelling about what the Senate should do until a good idea took place, and that is, in essence, ``no work, no budget, no pay.''

Do you know what? We didn't for 4 years either. We did not have a budget for 4 years. It is actually not required by law. We operated as two bodies--us, we in the House, trying to move forward with a budget that we did pass, and the Senate acting like it wasn't important.

I completely agree with the gentleman from Maryland. I think we should do it. That's why Republicans came up with the process of ``no budget, no pay.''

I think we will see very quickly an opportunity for the ideas around this issue to materialize. We'll find out what the differences are, maybe why we haven't done it.

That's not what this bill is about today. I'll have the conversations. I'll be able to speak cogently. And I will tell you that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and, I believe, because I know him well, the gentleman from Maryland should have a chance to keep doing their work because they believe it's part of the process.

So I offer nothing but accolades of the gentleman, the young gentleman, who is the ranking member of the Budget Committee. And he knows that. He knows what kind of a person I am. I would not say it if I didn't believe it.

But I did not come prepared today on this bill because it is not what it is germane about, and I will respond to him. As a Member of House Republican leadership, I will tell you that our Speaker is interested in moving this body through.

The gentleman from Ohio understands how important regular order is, how important doing budgets is, how making sure that the American people have a chance to know what we're doing. I mean, we actually read bills before we pass them, Mr. Speaker.

I reserve the balance of my time.

No, sir.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for asking. I have no additional speakers at this time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be on the floor today as we approach this issue about the Securities and Exchange Commission, the SEC, in that we would simply codify in the law an understanding that they would need to, as they have the task of addressing the large rules and regulations that they have--but not for every rule and regulation--put a cost-benefit analysis in their process. It makes sense.

I find it very amazing that our colleagues have taken this to the level that they have in trying to say that we're doing this to be for big banks and against the American people or consumers. That is a farfetched idea. It is about the rules and regulations that they talk about, just like government agencies would be required to have.

In a larger sense, here is why we are here today. Here is why Republicans are doing what we are doing with the budget, with a jobs bill that was passed by this body, why we are trying to talk about what we would do with sequestration--the President's idea. This House has passed numerous times information, our ideas, giving the President the ideas about how we think sequestration should work, a debt limit. We are faced with another debt limit vote here in our future. Two weeks ago, the House talked about how that should be handled. That bill was completely mischaracterized.

The reason we are here is that, under Barack Obama and Democrats, our country is having a $1 trillion deficit every year, and there is not one year in the future that they can point to in which we would balance our budget even for one year. If you cannot balance your budget, if you cannot control yourself--your spending habits, your insatiable appetite to grow government--then it means that we are on a dangerous trajectory.

Look at this, Mr. Speaker. This is history. This is what lies ahead. This is the demise for our children of America being a great Nation. This is why Republicans are down here. This is our past. This is our future. Republicans are here with ideas about balance, structure, working together--the SEC or other agencies working together--to the benefit of growing jobs, balance, things that make sense, instead of a government that's out of control with an IRS with a political agenda and with the Department of Justice abusing its powers that were invested in the Constitution's and the Bill of Rights' understanding of a balance.

This reminds me of a prior administration, under Richard Nixon, when he used the IRS and the Department of Justice to punish his enemies, people he disagreed with.

Mr. Speaker, we are here on a broad range of ideas, evidently, today. When I woke up, I thought it was just about a balanced rule for the SEC, for them to apply in their rules and regulations a chance to say ``cost-benefit analysis'' so that those to whom they provide regulations would understand and the SEC would understand for their some 175 lawyers and 50 economists who look at the marketplace. Let's balance this out. That's what I thought we were here for. Instead, I have learned today we are here to talk about the budget, that we are here to talk about sequestration, that we are here to talk about a lot of things which all embody themselves in: our country is in trouble.

We are in trouble because the President of the United States is for a bigger activist government, for a health care bill that will cause us to lose 2 million more jobs and will keep small business smaller. It will harm our future. Republicans are here simply with common sense and balance today just to talk about the SEC. I welcome the chance for my colleagues, as they have done today, to come to the floor.

The gentleman, Mr. Van Hollen, is one of my closest friends on the Hill. He is a man who I work with on a regular basis, and I respect him. His ideas related to moving forward on the conference should be answered, and I anticipate they will. I simply came unprepared as to that answer today.

So, Mr. Speaker, as always, I will finish where I started and say Republicans are trying to provide leadership. Our great Speaker, John Boehner, does understand regular order and that it is important to read bills before you pass them.

We believe in coming to the floor and talking about ideas before problems occur. That's what we've been doing. That's what the Rules Committee is about. And the legislation that we have handled since January has been all about trying to work together to let the American people know we get it. We're going to balance what we do with their needs and desires to make sure that this country remains strong and is ready for its future because, Mr. Speaker, I, like you, have children who need our country to be prepared for the future.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, my friend Mr.

Sessions, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, here we go again, another day in the House where we're not focused on jobs, where we're not focused on healing our ailing economy, where we're not focused on the needs of the American people.

Yesterday, for the 37th time in 2\1/2\ years, this House passed a bill overturning the Affordable Care Act. For the 37th time, my Republican friends decided to take up time on this House floor supporting a meaningless, partisan bill to overturn a law that will dramatically improve the health care of millions of Americans and is already helping to lower our deficit. Perhaps one day they will wake up from their Tea Party fever-dream and move on to more important priorities.

Not only have they wasted time debating a bill that won't be considered in the Senate, let alone signed into law, they are willfully ignoring the budget process that they were so stridently defending just a few months ago. It's been 55 days since the Senate passed its budget resolution, yet the Republicans refuse to go to conference to finish their work. This is the same Republican Party that passed a bill that says Members of Congress cannot be paid if we don't produce a budget. Let me repeat: no budget, no pay. Yet the Republicans refuse to finish the budget. All this flip-flopping is giving me whiplash, Mr. Speaker.

And today, we are presented with a bill, along with a whopping three amendments made in order. So much for an open process. Whatever happened to open rules?

So let's take a look at today's bill. It is a bill that would require the Securities and Exchange Commission, the SEC, to conduct even more extensive cost-benefit analyses than it already does when proposing any rule or when issuing interpretive guidance. Who could be against cost- benefit analysis? That seems like a commonsense idea, one that has merit and should be considered by agencies.

Well, Mr. Speaker, here is where the devil is really in the details. The SEC already does cost-benefit analyses on these rulings and regulations. It is already happening. So what's the real purpose of this bill? Is there a problem with the way the SEC is handling these cost-benefit analyses?

Mr. Speaker, this bill is really about putting more burdens on the SEC as they are attempting to fulfill their mandates under Dodd-Frank and do their job to protect investors. This bill places additional burdens on the SEC to meet these new requirements--and I'd like to point out--without providing any additional budget resources.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that this bill will cost the SEC $23 million over 5 years and will require the hiring of 20 additional staff. This is while sequestration is causing the Federal Government to shrink and agencies to furlough staff. In fact, right now sequestration is actually preventing the SEC from hiring any more additional staff, the same additional staff that would be needed to implement this bill if it were ever to become law.

I can only presume that the authors of this bill are attempting to bog the SEC down with additional, unnecessary, and redundant mandates in order to prevent the SEC from doing its job of protecting investors. This bill actually steers the SEC's work toward minimizing costs to big businesses and investment banks. That's what this does. How is that protecting the individual investor?

For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Republican leadership wants to undermine the efforts of this agency to protect the individual investor. We're coming out of a historic recession, the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

A big reason for the recession was the recklessness of investment banks and financial institutions. Millions of Americans lost money they had put into the stock market and entrusted to banks and financial institutions because of these institutions' reckless actions. We're talking about college savings, retirement accounts, and other nest eggs. Yet the Republican leadership would rather take the side of these reckless financial institutions that brought financial and economic ruin to our Nation, our communities, and our families than stand up and fight for the individual investor--the little guy. They'd rather fight for Wall Street than stand up for Main Street.

Mr. Speaker, that's not the right thing to do. We should pass a budget instead; we should pass the Van Hollen sequestration replacement bill; we should pass a jobs bill; but we should not be wasting our time on a bill that will punish individual investors in order to protect big banks.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the underlying bill. I urge my Republican friends to, some time soon, take up some legislation that's going to help put America back to work and get our economy back on the right track.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. Speaker, I'm a little bit confused. The gentleman from Texas says he wants a smaller government, yet the bill that he's proposing here that we discuss on the floor actually will cost the American taxpayers more.

CBO says we need an additional $23 million for this additional bureaucracy that the gentleman has embraced. We're going to need to hire 20 new employees, according to CBO, in order to meet these new requirements.

So if you want a smaller government, here we are expanding government. But they're expanding government in a way that will hurt the little guy and protect Wall Street, which is to be expected.

Just one thing I want to say to make clear to my colleagues, in case anybody's a little bit confused here as well on the issue of the process. The way the process is supposed to work, when it comes to the budget, we pass a budget in the House, the Senate passes a budget in the Senate, then you go to conference and you work out the differences. And guess what? In a conference, you don't get everything you want, and we don't get everything we want, especially when there's a divided government, the way it is right now. Compromise is something that has to take place.

And so I would just take issue with the gentleman when he says that Republicans are leaders. Republicans aren't leaders. Republicans are obstructionists. You're holding everything up.

We're doing meaningless, sound-bite, press-release legislation day in and day out, not helping put one more American back to work, not alleviating any of the difficulties that the middle class is dealing with right now.

My friends are obstructing everything. They're holding things up. They're delaying the economic recovery. It is unconscionable that we are on the floor doing things that are going nowhere and that are helping no one.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services.

Mr. Speaker, talk about bizarre, the notion that a bill comes to the floor, that CBO, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, says is going to cost $20 million, there will be a need for additional employees, and there's nothing in this bill that will cover those costs, and on top of that my friends who, by the way, embraced sequestration, that's your plan, I would say to my colleague from Texas. That's not the President's plan. It was the Members of this House led by the majority here that voted for it.

To everybody who doesn't like it over there, guess what? You're in charge. Fix it. Bring something to the floor and fix it. Mr. Van Hollen has an alternative. You won't even let us bring it to the floor. So don't complain about something that you supported and you voted for and now you don't want to fix.

Just one other thing. I want to make it clear to my colleagues that this isn't about protecting small businesses. This is about protecting Wall Street, big banks, and big financial institutions. I get it, you know. That's nothing new coming from the other side of the aisle. But that's what this is about.

At this point, Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York, the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter.

I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Mr. Speaker, let me just say that I think what's going on here is basically that my Republican friends are trying to expand the bureaucracy and potentially charge the American taxpayers $23 million. But they're not going to provide the money, and so they're just going to bog down an agency that is designed to protect investors and consumers. I think that's the game here. This is about protecting big banks and Wall Street and big financial institutions. It's the same-old, same-old. This is nothing new for those who have been following the agenda of the House Republicans.

So, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to urge that we defeat the previous question. And if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H. Res. 174, Representative Chris Van Hollen's resolution, telling the Speaker to appoint conferees to negotiate a compromise budget agreement with the Senate.

It has been 55 days since the Senate passed a budget. My Republican friends made a big deal about the fact that we shouldn't be paid unless we pass a budget. The House has passed a budget, the Senate has passed a budget, but my Republican friends don't want to go to conference because they don't believe in compromise.

So to discuss the importance of starting the budget negotiations with the Senate, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the ranking member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that this House goes to conference.

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry. Under the rules of the House, would it be possible if the gentleman would yield for that request that we could go to conference?

I think that says it all.

I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

In reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman from Texas how many more speakers he has.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Again, I think what we have just witnessed kind of says it all. My Republican friends really do not have any intention of going to conference. They do not want to compromise. I think they were hoping maybe the Senate wouldn't come up with a budget and that they could have a talking point or a press release, but the Senate did come up with a budget. We have a budget here in the House that I strongly disagree with because I think it ruins our economy, but nonetheless, that's what the majority in this House voted for. We ought to go to conference, and we ought to be able to figure this out.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me just say in closing: another day and another meaningless piece of legislation that is going nowhere. It is a piece of legislation, quite frankly, that is geared toward helping big banks and big financial institutions at the expense of investors and small businesses. This is a bill that, again, I think, may make a nice press release for people who want to do big fundraisers, but at the end of the day, we are not doing anything to help the American people. We still have sequestration in place, there are people being furloughed, there are businesses that are losing contracts, there are people in the public and private sectors who are being laid off as a result of this.

By the way, sequestration is what my Republican friends embraced and voted for. So, when anyone comes to the floor here and says, Oh, we don't really like it, I would remind them that, as much as I hate to admit this, the Republicans are in charge of the House. They can bring a remedy to the floor any time they want to. Mr. Van Hollen has offered on many, many occasions an alternative to get us out of sequestration, but each time he offers it the Republican majority says ``no.'' You don't even have the right to bring it to the floor. You can't even debate it on the floor. That's the answer that we're getting, and it is totally unacceptable.

I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can get Mr. Van Hollen's resolution made in order so that we can go to conference and do something meaningful, and I would also urge a rejection of this bill.

I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I think the American people are getting sick and tired of the majority in this House essentially rooting for this economy's demise so they can gain some political advantage. I think people are getting tired of it. They are hoping that we can come together in the spirit of compromise and get some things done--help put people back to work, help the average working family, help the middle class, help lift those in poverty out of poverty. They're hoping that we're going to do something serious and meaningful so that it will make a difference in their lives. We're not doing that, and it's a grave disappointment, I think, to people all over this country--to Democrats, Republicans, Independents alike.

So, again, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and on the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

I'd also like to thank my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Florida, the former Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, who clearly championed there and here, likewise, regular order.

Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2216 and H.R. 2217, as outlined by my colleague from the other side, two appropriations measures that fund military construction and family housing projects, the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Homeland Security.

Once again, my friends on the other side are using this particular rule as yet another attempt to deem and pass the controversial budget offered by our colleague Paul Ryan.

This is exactly what they did in April of last year when they reneged on their promises in the Budget Control Act and also during consideration of H.R. 5326, the Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations for fiscal year 2013.

My Republican colleagues have been calling for regular order; however, both the House and the Senate each passed a budget this year and regular order would have them go to conference to negotiate a budget for the 113th Congress. But instead of appointing conferees, the Speaker of the House and the House Republican leadership are deeming the Ryan budget passed.

Someone in a graphic that I saw said they're deeming the impossible deem.

I, as one exemplar, should know, having served on the Rules Committee in the majority when we were going forward. We did consider deem and pass, and we learned along the way that that was going to skew the process. Therefore, we retreated from that, and I would urge my friends, the Republicans, to do likewise.

They would rather see, it appears, greater military spending, at the expense of vital programs that millions of Americans rely on, than work with Democrats to replace the sequester and properly fund our Nation's government.

Now, I'm not going through the litany of all the things that the sequester has cut and the problems that it has caused. Most people know that. But the Meals on Wheels program has been the one put forward, and I just think it is plain dumb and crazy to not take care of older people in our society. Never mind all the ideology, all the deficit, all the other hawk talk, who cares when someone that is a grandmother goes to sleep hungry because we didn't do what we should have done and that we passed a foolish sequester that has caused these problems.

As a result, we're working with different budget target levels. In the House, it is $0.966 trillion and approximately $1.07 trillion for the Senate, which both sides agreed upon in the Budget Control Act of 2011.

These differences are important. The reductions imposed by the House 302(b) allocations mean greater cuts for agencies and programs that already face difficult budget decisions due to sequestration. The two funding bills coming before us for consideration this week, along with those for defense and the legislative branch, are the only ones expected to receive an increase over the 2013 post-sequester levels. This means that we'll be forced to sacrifice health care, environment, education, transportation, and other important spending priorities in order to meet the new overall reductions required by the sequester.

Furthermore, the appropriation for Military Construction and Veterans Affairs is the only budget with a 302(b) allocation that is higher than pre-sequestration funding levels, whereas funding for Homeland Security, in my opinion, is unacceptably low in some areas, and the bill is encumbered by very, very troublesome riders, and I would urge the Members of the House to look carefully at those riders.

Consequently, the 302(b) allocation would provide a 22 percent reduction to the pre-sequestration budget for health care, education, and labor programs. In my opinion, that's just plain outrageous.

Republicans are again asking--I'm fond of saying in the Rules Committee that when I was 11 and 12 years old, my favorite radio program that my grandmother would let me listen to on Saturdays was a program called ``Let's Pretend.'' Little did I know 65 years later that I would be in an august body that is also in and of itself sitting around with people pretending that things are happening that are not happening.

Republicans are asking us to pretend that the Ryan budget is law, when in fact it is not. This unilateral action is a formula for conflict, and I predict for you that that's what we'll have. While I appreciate the spirit of bipartisanship, and those gentlemen who came yesterday, Mr. Price and Mr. Bishop, the ranking members, and Judge Carter and his counterpart did an exceptional job, as did John Culberson, in showing this body that there can be bipartisan efforts. They did so, and I would hope that would serve for the rest of appropriations and for this body to take notice that people can work together when they try. And that bipartisanship led to the funding levels contained in both of these bills that we are considering under this rule. It is regrettable that it was not extended to the entire process.

Simply put, the framework within which we are considering these bills--the Ryan budget that House Republicans have deemed as passed--is a nonstarter.

Administration folks said yesterday that unless this bill passes the Congress in the context of an overall budget framework that supports our recovery and enables sufficient investments in education, infrastructure--and a footnote right there: Do we need to be reminded about the bridge that fell in the State of Washington, about the number of bridges in this Nation that are in disrepair and have been in disrepair? When Bill Clinton became President, he advocated that there were 14,000 bridges in need of repair, and he asked for a little bit of money that we should have allocated then. Now we have thousands of bridges in disrepair, and we are going about a process like this ignoring them.

Where do we get the innovation at NIH for the health needs that are coming and the technological needs that are coming? How do we protect national security for our economy to be able to compete in the future?

The President's senior advisers indicated that they would recommend to the President that he veto H.R. 2216 and H.R. 2217, and any other legislation that implements the House deemed budget framework. As I've said time and again, this is no way to run a budget process, and no way to conduct the business of the House of Representatives.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague began by saying that's as close to regular order as we can get. I would tell him, close, but no cigar.

Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my very good friend from New York, Mrs. Lowey, who has been on the Appropriations Committee at times when we didn't deem things and we did, in fact, pass appropriations measures.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Mrs. Lowey, just before you leave, you have just an additional few seconds. Will the gentlelady yield to me?

I just want to say, in addition to the fact that Chris Van Hollen came to the Rules Committee five times, Harry Reid has offered eight times to go to conference and Republicans have blocked it. And I just want that to be understood, because later on we're going to hear somebody stand up here and say it's Democrats that are holding it up, and it's not.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I'm very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), my very good friend, the minority whip of the House of Representatives.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

May I inquire how much time is remaining on both sides.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased and privileged at this time to yield 3 minutes to my friend, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

If we defeat the previous question, we'll offer an amendment to the rule that strikes the provision of the rule that deems the passage of the Ryan budget and will allow the House to consider the resolution calling on Speaker Boehner to proceed to conference on the budget.

It is time for the majority to follow regular House procedure by immediately requesting a conference and appointing conferees to negotiate a fiscal 2014 budget resolution conference agreement with the Senate.

To discuss our proposal, I'm very pleased to yield 5 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my very good friend from California, Ms. Barbara Lee.

Mr. Speaker, I would advise my colleague that I have no further speakers, and I'm prepared to close. So I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I guess I have to ask the question at the beginning that Mr. Van Hollen has persisted in asking, and I as well and others: Why are you afraid to go to conference? I have no idea why you can't do that and follow the regular order.

I agree with my colleague that this bipartisan measure is a very good thing that we are bringing here, but I also agree with other speakers that when we finish doing these two bills--and I predict for my friend that we will not reach a single other measure of appropriations for the reason that if you're going to cut 22 percent from everything else and you're going to hold harmless the things that you and I like, then be assured we are in serious trouble as the appropriations process moves forward.

We have a responsibility to implement a budget framework that supports programs which help Americans provide for their families, to stay in their homes, and remain competitive in the global economy. The Ryan budget picks winners and losers, and we are picking two winners today, and we are going to have 11 losers on down the road.

``Deem and pass'' did not work the last Congress, it didn't work when Democrats thought that they could try it, and it ain't gonna work now. It is long past time that House Republicans work together with Democrats in conference, just as these two committees did, to negotiate a budget and put an end to the devastating sequester.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I'm prepared to yield back the balance of my time after I ask the question one more time: Why are you afraid to go to conference?

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

As to the thoughts of the gentlelady from Ohio, I appreciate her comments and her support for the military.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, it's always great to hear from Mr. Van Hollen. He has been in front of the Rules Committee, I think, a half a dozen times on this particular issue, but that's not the issue we're talking about today. Today, we are talking about a rule to bring forward two bills. One is the appropriations bill for the defense of this country.

I appreciate his comments, but he also forgets to mention that, in the last Congress, this House passed two pieces of legislation to actually do what he was talking about doing. And guess what? It went over to that place where they have rocking chairs--where they do nothing. They didn't discuss it; they didn't debate it; they didn't even send it back to us, because they just didn't have the time to do it in their busy schedule, and I understand that.

I would be glad to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland.

In reclaiming my time, regarding shutting the government down, those are the gentleman's words, not ours. I don't think you've heard that at all from this side. It's not about shutting the government down; it's about passing 12 appropriations bills. That's really what we are supposed to be doing, and we are committed to doing that. We don't want to see a government shutdown, and I think our bringing appropriations bills to this House floor shows, in fact, that that's not the intent and that that's not the desire.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I have none.

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

I do appreciate the comments my friend from Massachusetts has made in a lot of areas, particularly as it relates to the open rule.

I do want to remind him--and I wasn't here in 2010--but the Rules Committee that my good friend sat on made a determination in regards to a structured rule, and that structured rule only allowed for 16 amendments to come to the House floor. That structured rule locked out a lot of folks' ideas in regards to how to better the appropriation bill for the Department of Defense 2011 fiscal year.

I agree with my good friend that this rule is not perfect, but I do want to point out that it does make over 100 amendments in order that are going to be debated here on this floor: an amendment on Syria; an amendment on Egypt; two amendments on the NSA, which are appropriate to have a debate here. And as we talk about authorization, particularly as we look at the NSA, that debate is going to come up in a very robust way because I truly believe that we need to have that.

As it relates to Syria, I have three sons that currently serve in the United States military. The last thing I want to do is see us arm rebels where my sons may have to face those arms at some point in time. I've had sons deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan; and as a Member of this House, there are very few of us that have served in the military in the same way as it relates to having our family members serve in harm's way. So I take it right to heart that we want to make sure that we don't put our sons or daughters in any jeopardy, particularly as it relates to arming those that we have no idea who they are.

I think I've said enough, but my position on arming the Syrian rebels, those that we don't even know who they are or what we're doing in Egypt or what's going on within the NSA as it relates to our civil liberties here in the United States as American citizens, we certainly are going to address those issues as we move forward.

Mr. Speaker, I support this rule, and I encourage my colleagues to do so, as well. As a father of three sons in the military, I'm disappointed that we've gotten to this point where ideological factions have divided this House so deeply that we're forced to put a structured rule in place in order to simply consider a bill that funds our Department of Defense.

Just to note, 2 years ago when we were having this discussion, I got a call from one of my sons who was deployed to Iraq, worried that his troopers were not going to get paid because that's what they were being told, because of actions of this House.

The last thing is that when our sons and daughters go off to fight, the last thing they should have to worry about is how they're going to take care of the car payment or feed their children back here at home. They should have one focus, and that's the fight ahead of them and returning back to their families and loved ones in the best possible condition they can be.

To me it's about as pathetic as it gets when these men and women are putting their lives on the line each day and we're playing politics with our national defense and we can't put differences aside long enough not to even agree to a funding bill, but just to agree that we should debate the funding bill at all.

I wish we could have an open rule on both of these appropriation measures. You know I do. But when it comes to funding the Pentagon and when it comes to funding our military, the issue at hand is too important to leave this subject to the political whims of select Members who could tie up the debate for days and end with irresponsible amendments that might ultimately put this Nation and its citizens at risk. That's why we're here. That's why we've taken the three most hot- button politicized issues and selected specific amendments to address each of these concerns while still making in order every other amendment that would not otherwise be subject to a point of order.

I welcome debate on how we need to change the laws of this land. I'm an active proponent in having it. Millions of Americans, including me, are questioning many of the laws right now, especially when it comes to the use of military force and the powers given to the NSA under the PATRIOT Act. It's clear that those are conversations that must happen in this forum here, but we can't let it derail the basic funding of our troops. That's what it comes down to.

This bill cannot possibly give the issues at hand the justice they deserve. It's an imperfect tool, and with only 10 minutes per debate per amendment, it would cut short the conversations that we have. That is why, although it is a departure from the normal appropriation process, this resolution brings up H.R. 2397 under a structured rule.

That said, the second half of House Resolution 312 is proof that this House is still dedicated to the open process. We fulfill our promise to both our constituents and ourselves by providing an open rule on Transportation and Housing appropriations. It's a reminder to us that the Defense bill is an example

of extraordinary times calling for extraordinary measures. At the end of the day, what's most important is that we fulfill our core mission. As anybody in the military will tell you, sometimes we have to adapt.

It's not perfect, but we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, especially when we're talking about keeping our troops and our citizens safe. For that reason, I'm proud to support the rule, and I encourage all my colleagues to do the same.

When the Committee on Rules filed its report (H. Rept. 113-170) to accompany House Resolution 312 the summary of amendment numbered 43 was inadvertently omitted. The summary of amendments should have included the following:

43. Cole (OK), Kilmer (WA), McCarthy, Kevin (CA), Bishop, Rob (UT), Jones (NC), Loebsack (IA), McCollum (MN), Scott, Austin (GA): Provides that none of the funds appropriated by this Act shall be available to implement a furlough of Department of Defense federal employees who are paid from the Working Capital Fund (WCF) Account, which is a revolving fund and does not receive direct funding from Congressional appropriations to finance its operations. (10 minutes)

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