Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 124) making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2015, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 722 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of H.J. Res. 124, the Continuing Appropriations Resolution for fiscal year 2015. The rule is a structured rule which provides for the consideration of a short-term continuing resolution keeping the government funded until December 11, 2014.

The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for the adoption of a technical amendment by Chairman Rogers and makes in order an amendment by Chairman McKeon. That amendment provides the authority for the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to train and equip appropriately vetted elements of the Syrian opposition and other appropriately vetted Syrian groups or individuals.

For this amendment, the rule provides 6 hours of debate equally divided between Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith. The rule also provides for one motion to recommit.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule corrects a technical error and puts in place the base rules of the House regarding media access to the hearings and meetings of the Benghazi Select Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my friend Chairman Rogers for bringing a bill to avoid a government shutdown to the House. As a member of the Appropriations Committee, it is frustrating that we are forced into acting on a short-term continuing resolution when we spent much of this year, both in committee and on the floor, updating congressional funding priorities for fiscal year 2015.

This House has done its work. I wish I could say the same for the other body. While the Senate has chosen not to pass even one appropriations bill on the floor, this House has passed seven.

While the Senate Appropriations Committee has passed eight of the 12 appropriations bills out of committee, the House Appropriations Committee has approved all but one. If the Senate would work with us, I believe we could pass all of our bills on time.

The CR we are considering today is a clean bill continuing the funding of government operations at last year's levels. It includes only 36 so-called anomalies all within the total level of funding.

These changes are necessary to address current immediate needs like addressing the Ebola crisis, funding programs to counter regional aggression toward Ukraine and other former Soviet Union countries, and funding to ensure appropriate treatment of veterans and continued oversight of the VA.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, this bill extends the Export-Import Bank through June 30, 2015. I know some of my friends will disagree with me; however, I believe the Export-Import Bank provides a vital service. In an era when foreign governments are directly subsidizing industries, our companies are in need of a level playing field. I believe the Export-Import Bank does that.

In my home State of Oklahoma, since 2007, financing provided by the Export-Import Bank has supported over $1.1 billion in sales by U.S. companies that would not have existed otherwise; in addition, the Export-Import Bank has returned over $2.6 billion to the United States Treasury since 2008.

Finally, and most significantly, the McKeon amendment would provide the President with the authority he has requested to train and equip appropriately vetted elements of the Syrian opposition. The amendment ensures congressional oversight by requiring detailed progress reports on a plan, a vetting process, and procedures for monitoring unauthorized end use of provided training and equipment. It would also require the President to report on how this authority fits within a larger regional strategy.

Mr. Speaker, when we look back on what brought us to this point, there are at least three significant failures that we can point to: first, former Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki was given the opportunity to create a multiethnic, multisectarian, inclusive State of Iraq, but, instead, he squandered it; secondly, President Obama didn't insist forcefully enough to keep a residual American presence in Iraq; and, third, Mr. Speaker, when ISIL expanded out of Syria and into Iraq, both Prime Minister al-Maliki and President Obama were slow to respond.

When Ramadi and Fallujah fell to ISIL, their indecisive leadership allowed and encouraged this terrorist organization to assert itself in the Middle East. Mr. Speaker, the salient discussion is not about the past and how we got here but about the future and what we must do now.

I agree with the President that ISIL represents a clear and present danger

that must be dealt with, confronted, and destroyed. I am willing to give the President the authority and the funds needed to accomplish this mission. This amendment gives the President what he has requested while maintaining an appropriate role for Congress, but I do disagree with the President on several important issues.

I don't believe that he has the inherent authority to use military force in Syria, and nothing in this amendment authorizes him to do so.

I believe that going to war on the authorizations that were passed in 2001 and 2002, which dealt with very different times, places, and peoples, is shaky, at best. In fact, Mr. Speaker, a vast majority of my colleagues, including myself, were not even here in Congress when those authorizations were approved.

When we return in November, I hope that we repeal the 2001 and 2002 authorizations and replace them with ones that reflect the views of this Congress not the Congress of the last decade.

Additionally, I disagree with the President's choice of tactics. Regardless of whether he intends to use them or not, I believe the President was far too quick to rule out options and tools that he, in fact, may need later. War is the most unpredictable of all human enterprises. History shows that it is vital for a commander to maintain as much flexibility as possible.

I also do not believe that the authority and resources the President has requested will be nearly enough to achieve the mission he has outlined. It is going to take far more from our country, our allies, and our friends on the ground to destroy ISIL than envisioned in this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I don't believe the President can succeed in the effort to destroy ISIL without bipartisan, popular support, and I hope he will take this opportunity to build on that. We are not Republicans or Democrats in war, but Americans first. The Commander in Chief has asked for our support in the underlying legislation. He should get it.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it is not surprising I am going to disagree with my friend about who has and who hasn't done their job and who has been open and who hasn't been open in terms of how they have operated on the floor.

The reality is this House majority has repeatedly brought appropriations bills to the floor and moved them across the floor. Unfortunately, our counterparts and the Democratic majority in the Senate have not been able to do that for whatever reason. It's a little hard to have an appropriations process when the United States Senate will not bring a single appropriations bill to the floor largely because the majority on that side is evidently afraid of voting on any sort of amendments to an appropriations bill.

Now, if you actually look at the record in terms of who has been open and who hasn't, I remind my friends that the Democrats' 2006 manifesto, ``A New Direction for America,'' states:

Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure

that allows open, full, and fair debate consisting of a full

amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer

its alternatives, including a substitute.

The fact remains that when Democrats took control of the House they did just the opposite. Throughout the 111th Congress, in the final 2 years of Representative Pelosi's time as Speaker, the House never considered a single bill under an open rule. That is the definition of a closed process.

On the contrary, under Republican control, the House has returned to consideration of appropriation bills under an open process, with 22 open rules. This year alone, the House has considered 404 amendments during the appropriations process, 189 of which were offered by our Democratic colleagues. Contrast that to the United States Senate, where that process has not happened at all.

When you compare the record of the Republican majority to the most recent Democratic majority, any fair analysis will show Republicans are running a much more open, transparent House of Representatives.

Let me also, if I may, Mr. Speaker, turn to the issue of the Benghazi Select Committee. I know that has caused considerable concern, I think, largely based on misunderstanding.

Clause 2(g)(1) of rule XI, which applies to all standing committees and the select committees, mandates that the meetings of the select committee be open to the public, including the press, unless there is a vote conducted in open session to close such a meeting. The rule today only ensures that the logistics for media covering the hearing follow the standing rules of the House. There is no change to the rules governing public access to the meetings of the select committee.

Might I, just for the Record, Mr. Speaker, actually read the relevant portion of the rules here--``(7) The provisions of paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(12) of clause 4 of Rule XI shall be considered to be written rules adopted by the select committee as though pursuant to such clause''--essentially applying to the select committee our own rules. That is the only thing that is being done here. It is a technical amendment, certainly no effort to short-circuit the process or make it less transparent.

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

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

First, I want to respectfully, once again, disagree with my friend from New York on the appropriations process. The reality is we have brought bill after bill to this floor. Every Member has had the opportunity to offer any amendment on seven different bills and to vote ``yes'' or ``no'' on their final disposition. The Senate hasn't brought any. And, frankly, at some point the Senate's failure to do its job begins to impact our ability to do ours, because it is very difficult to get time on the floor and use it knowing there is not anything going on on the other side. And that is just the reality of it.

So, if my friends can talk the Senate into beginning to move, I think they would actually find the House, which is already far ahead of them, would continue to work with them and we would actually begin to pass bills. But until the Senate will bring a bill to the floor of any kind for an appropriation, very difficult for us to get our work done over here.

Now I want to address myself, if I may, to my friend and colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern. There is much in what he says that I agree with. Frankly, I think he is correct when he says that we need at some point a full authorization, a full debate, full discussion. He is absolutely right, and I want to commend him for the action he took in his amendment on Iraq in July that we voted on. I was very happy to vote it. So I think, in substance, I find very little to disagree with in what my friend has to say. I do point out a couple of things, though.

First, and I think my friend is aware of it, the Speaker has actually taken the position that we need a full authorization debate and discussion. And I am told that he conveyed that to the President and actually said he thought this institution, our country, which I know is what we care about supremely, and the President himself would be better off under such discussion. That is a viewpoint that I agree with, and I think many Members on both sides of the aisle and with both points of view on the issue also hold that opinion. So this is actually a decision that has been largely made, in a sense, by the President.

We are trying to respond in a short period of time to what the President has asked us to do, and I think that is an important point to remember in this. This is not a fight on this floor between Democrats and Republicans or even for proponents. I think it is, at another level, a difference in perception about what authority the President has, his view versus probably Congress' view on a bipartisan basis.

I think it is a challenge in terms of timing. It is extremely difficult for the leaders of either Chamber to look like they are undercutting the President at a time of danger and when he has come with this request. We have set 6 hours of debate aside for a reason. If you will remember, the President's original request was simply to drop this measure in the continuing resolution and have no vote and no discussion at all. It was actually our side and your side that insisted that it be pulled out and that a vote and discussion occur. When we come back--again, I share my friend's opinion--I would be prepared to do it before the election. I see no particular need in waiting, but I don't get to make that decision.

At the end of the day, we are giving the Commander in Chief what he is asking for. I think we are trying to be both responsible and helpful. We have actually curtailed considerably what the President asked for. We noted specifically that this does not authorize the use of military force in Syria. We have required reviews. I suspect we will be revisiting this issue again--I certainly would hope so--and I look forward to working with my friend to make sure that we do.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my friend.

In reclaiming my time, if I may, I don't presume to speak for the Speaker. I know that we have this vote largely because the Speaker wanted to make sure that we had a vote, and I know the request that he made of the President. Look, I am not condemning the President on this either. I understand all Executives try to tell you they have the authority to do everything they want. Ours do when we have a Republican, and Democrats do.

All I can say is, at the end of the day, I think we have a robust debate, and we have an opportunity to register opinion. But I want to continue to work with my friend and make sure that we have precisely the kind of debate and discussion and vote that his own amendment in July actually envisioned, because I think my friend is correct. I think this is an issue of constitutional propriety, and I think it is an issue, ultimately, of war and peace, and I think we ought to all vote on it. I would be happy if we did it before the election, but I will work with my friend to make sure that we do it as quickly as possible.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), my good friend, a fellow member of the Appropriations Committee and a fellow subcommittee chairman.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

I just wanted to quickly note that I actually agree with a very good deal of what my friend from Texas has to say.

I do want to correct him on one item. The amendment we are talking about is not like the authorizations of 2001 and 2002, mostly because it is very finely tailored to limit the executive branch.

It actually runs out on December 11 or earlier if we actually pass a National Defense Authorization Act and deal with the Syrian issue in that context; so it is very limited in terms of time, very limited in terms of scope. It explicitly states that it does not authorize military action in Syria.

With all due respect, I would suggest that most of my friend's disagreements are with this administration. They are largely disagreements with the President. The Speaker is doing what he can to provide an opportunity for us to debate and express that in the continuing resolution, and I will work with my friend from Texas to make sure that we have a fuller, more robust debate because I think the country deserves that, and I think my friend is right to demand it.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I want to thank my friend from Washington for his kind words. I couldn't agree more with him about the Export-Import Bank. I think it is a very important institution that ought to be reauthorized, and I intend to work with my friend to make sure that happens when the time comes.

I don't think, as a rule, reauthorization in a continuing resolution is a good idea. I think it is much more appropriate, particularly for a matter this controversial and this serious--and, again, I agree with the substance of what my friend says--that we go through a normal committee process and that we come to the floor and have a full debate. I don't think this is the appropriate vehicle for that.

While I look forward to working with my friend on the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, I doubt that it is going to happen in this particular vehicle so, hopefully, in the new Congress, as we make persuasive arguments, as my friend has advanced, we will find that we get the broad bipartisan support we need to do that reauthorization.

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

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

I do want to revisit, in closing, this issue of appropriations and openness, and I want to remind my friends on the other side of some recent history.

In 2010, when my Democratic colleagues controlled the House, they only considered two appropriations bills. At that time, by the way, they also had control of the Senate. I presume it would have been easier for them to have cooperated with a Democratic Senate than for us, but perhaps not because they only got two appropriations bills done the last year they were in the majority.

My colleagues deviated from the longstanding practice of open rules for appropriations bills by making in order only 40 amendments that year. You heard that correctly. Democrats considered two of 12 bills, with only 40 amendments made in order.

This year, Republicans have considered seven of 12 bills, considering 404 amendments, 189 of them which were offered by my Democratic colleagues. I will let the American people decide who has the better record on actually bringing appropriations bills to the floor and opening them up for full consideration by this House.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate all of those who spoke today for the sincerity and the thoughtfulness of the debate. I particularly know that we probably find ourselves on common ground in wanting to make sure the government doesn't shut down, pass a continuing resolution.

It is interesting to me that that was not the subject of a great deal of contention; so I would hope that is something that brings us together. It is something that, certainly, the Speaker wants to accomplish, but the President and the majority leader want to accomplish that as well. Surely, we can find a bipartisan amendment for that.

Obviously, the great issue of the day and this week is going to be this discussion over the Syrian matter, and, again, I want to congratulate my colleagues for the seriousness with which they are approaching this.

I think we have all learned some very hard lessons in the last 13 years, and I am pleased that the amendment that would bring to the floor--an amendment, by the way, the President didn't particularly want.

I would recall for the Record that the President wanted this authorization for active title 10 authority for him to train Syrians to simply be dropped into the continuing resolution. It was the Speaker with the support of the Democratic leadership as well that wanted to make sure that we had a separate vote and discussion on this issue. I think that is a very good thing.

Now, I agree with my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern). I would prefer a much more robust and fuller discussion, and I hope we reach that point. I think that is exactly the course that the Speaker recommended to the President.

He said:

I think the institution that I preside over will be better

served, I think you will be better served, and I think the

country will be better served if we have that debate.

I know the Speaker made every effort to get to that point. Others have a different point of view. I respect the President. Like most Chief Executives, he has had to take some very expansive views of his authority under the Constitution.

I recognize some people, frankly, are concerned about having this vote ahead of an election. Personally, I would prefer to do it ahead of an election, but I don't get to make those decisions, and I think the Speaker has done the best that he can do in reconciling all the conflicting opinions between the Senate, the House, and the executive branch and has managed to bring us at least something that is a serious debate and will be taken seriously by the country; moreover, I am particularly pleased that my chairman, Mr. Sessions, on the Rules Committee made sure that we will have not a cursory debate but 6 hours of debate.

If any Member wants to voice their opinion, 6 hours is an awful lot of time. I suspect they are going to have the opportunity to come down here and do that, and I hope they will.

I think what we are going to see is probably a bipartisan opposition to the amendment and bipartisan support. Frankly, in issues of war and peace, that is probably the better way for us to proceed; so I think it is a challenging situation. I think all concerned are trying to work together and do the right thing and to present clarity.

I just want to go on record once again, personally, as hoping that as soon as possible that we come back--the President asked for broad authority--that we repeal the '01 and '02 resolution, something the President has asked us to do himself before, and work together and present a more precisely defined and limited resolution that gives him the authority to act robustly in the defense of our country, to punish people who commit the barbarous acts that we have seen in recent weeks, and to do the things that are necessary with the full bipartisan support of Congress to secure the security of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, the underlying resolution upholds the primary responsibility the American people have sent us here to do, ensuring the continued funding of the government. While not my first choice, passage of a continuing resolution is better than any of the alternatives; additionally, it provides the President the additional authority he has requested to degrade and destroy ISIL.

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 yield myself such time as I may consume.

I too rise in support of this amendment. As the chairman laid out, there is no question that ISIL is a clear threat to our interests, and they are a threat in two clear ways. Number one, a large number of foreign fighters are going over to Syria and Iraq to support them. Some of those foreign fighters--estimates are somewhere in the 100 range-- have come from the U.S., and thousands have come from Western Europe. Many of those have returned to that home country, and they present a clear threat. As long as ISIS or ISIL is there to threaten us, the fighters that fight with them will become a threat to the rest of us.

But in a broader sense, if ISIL is able to control territory in Iraq and in Syria and have a safe and secure haven, they will, without question, plot and plan attacks against the West. They have already said that is their plan, and that is exactly what happened when al Qaeda had safe haven in Afghanistan. So denying ISIL safe haven is clearly in the United States' interests.

I think a humanitarian aspect of this is also worth stating. As was noted by some earlier speakers on the CR debate, you cannot imagine a more violent and dangerous and just hedonistic group of people. The number of folks that they have brutally murdered in Iraq and Syria solely because they refused to pledge allegiance to ISIS and their twisted view of their religion is staggering. This is a group that must be stopped.

Now, the sad fact is, the United States military cannot stop them on our own. This has to be primarily a local fight. The folks in the region have to take up this battle.

And I believe that they have started to in Iraq, but we need to open a front in Syria. Because the problem is, if ISIS can hold themselves out as an organization that is fighting against Western imperialism, that brings supporters to them. If, on the other hand, they are, as they clearly are, just a group of murderous thugs that are killing more Muslims than anybody has killed in a very long time, then we can build support from the local population, from the Sunni population, to oppose them.

Now, we have already seen some success on this in Iraq. And I think the President was absolutely right to take his time in Iraq and wait for a coalition to work with. If the U.S. had simply come in over the top right off the bat and had started bombing ISIS, we would have been perceived as choosing the Shia side in the Shia-Sunni civil war. And in so doing, we would have strengthened ISIS. By insisting that Prime Minister Maliki be replaced, by insisting that Iraq begin to at least start some sort of power sharing arrangement with the Sunnis, we were able to build a stronger coalition by also building support from the Kurds, a Sunni group. We could then be in support of them fighting ISIS and pushing them out.

Now, the great flaw in this theory is, the border between Iraq and Syria is nonexistent, as far as ISIS is concerned, and they can go back and forth across it.

If we don't have any way to get at them in Syria, it gives them an enormous advantage in continuing to press the fight in Iraq and potentially elsewhere, but the challenge is: How do we open that front? Because we face the same dilemma in Syria that we faced in Iraq.

The dominant issue that started everything in Syria was opposition to the Assad regime, a regime very much worth opposing. As the President and many on the floor here have said, Assad must go. He is an illegitimate leader.

If we were simply to come in and appear to be playing the role of Assad's air force in Syria, again, that would strengthen ISIS. That would drive Sunnis and the anti-regime elements in Syria into their arms.

Mr. Speaker, we need a partner in Syria that we can support that is an alternative to Assad and is an alternative to ISIS. The problem is that right now we don't really have one.

We have a small group of people that we have been supporting in a variety of different ways, but we need that group to grow. We need to have a partner to support if we are ever going to hope to contain ISIS in Syria in Iraq. The only way to do that is to start.

I have heard a number of complaints. People say, ``But, gosh, are there really any moderates out there? Are there enough to make a difference? What if they switch sides?''

There are all kinds of problems, but the bottom line is if you believe that we have to open a front in Syria to stop ISIS--and I don't see how you can believe otherwise--to give them Syria and say, ``We are not going to challenge you there,'' I think makes it impossible to even significantly degrade them and, certainly, to ever defeat them; so we need to open a front.

How do you do that, Mr. Speaker? Well, you can't open a front unless you start the process, and that is what Mr. McKeon's amendment does. It starts the process. It gives the ability to train and equip a force that will be opposed to Assad and opposed to ISIS.

Now, I don't think we should have any illusions, and I know Americans--I would prefer this as well--we would say, Look, we are going to win this war, and we are going to win it in 100 days, and here is what we--this is going to be a long process. This is not something that is going to happen quickly.

It is simply the nature of the conflict in that part of the world that it is going to take time to find the people, train them, and equip them, but, if we do not try, Mr. Speaker, then ISIS is going to sit in Syria unchallenged, continuing to brutally murder civilians of all stripes and continuing to spread their unique ideology of hatred and violence. We have to start somewhere, and I think this amendment gives us the opportunity to start somewhere.

I also want to note that I like the fact that the amendment is only effective until the end of the CR and says that this should be contained in the National Defense Authorization Act. This is an authorizing action, and it should be done in an authorizing bill.

Now, we have got to get started, and we don't have time. Regrettably, the Senate has not acted, so we don't have the NDAA yet, but we will in the next month or two. I think we can then put this language into the NDAA and make it more long term in terms of the authorization; so I appreciate that.

I also feel, as the chairman does, that Congress should do a broader AUMF on the fight against ISIS, on what we are doing in Iraq and Syria. We have launched, I think, well in the hundreds, now, of bombing missions against ISIS. This is something where Congress should act.

Mr. Speaker, the only area of disagreement I have is I keep hearing colleagues say, ``Well, the President ought to ask for it. We are the legislative branch.'' I hear all the time, ``Gosh, the President is overstepping our authorities, always telling us what to do, and he is ignoring the law.''

Why does he have to ask? If this is what we want to do--we are the United States Congress. The legislative branch ought to act.

I think the President is right in saying he is going to do what he believes he has the right to do under article II to protect this country, but Congress should act; so we should act. We shouldn't wait for him to ask. We should put together an AUMF to more broadly authorize this, and that is something that should be appropriately done as well.

In the short term, we need to start a front against ISIS in Syria, and the only way to do that is to build a legitimate local force that can begin that fight. Train and equip is the first step, I believe, and then this process that regrettably will not be quick.

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

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

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

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

The subject of boots on the ground came up, and I think this is a really important point for why this debate has been so divisive. So many people are concerned about this action.

I think what we all want to do is we want to confront the threat that is ISIS, which has been well described. The violence that this group has perpetrated on people in their region and foreigners is unimaginable. Make no mistake about it: if they are allowed to spread, that violence will spread as well.

But there is concern about the U.S. getting again engaged in that part of the world because of Iraq and Afghanistan. A number of my colleagues have raised the issue of: Well, gosh, we put 150,000 U.S. troops into Iraq, we left, and 2 years later it had all fallen apart. We are in Afghanistan, there is still a raging violence of a war going on there. Here we go again, basically. Have we not learned our lessons?

I believe the boots on the ground comment shows in an odd way that we have learned our lesson. We are not going to do a full-scale military commitment to Iraq. Now, I think a lot of people are against ISIS. I think a lot of people mistake that we are not going to do that, not so much because it wouldn't work, but because we just don't want to do that. We don't want to spend the money and risk the lives.

That is not really the case. The reason we are not going to do a full-scale U.S. military commitment is because a lesson that we have learned in the last 12 years is the limitations of the ability of the U.S. military to bend cultures in this part of the world to their will. It doesn't work. That is why we are not going to send in the U.S. military.

Because then you set up a situation where you have a fight between, in the minds of the people in that part of the world, the evil West and Islam. If you set up that dynamic, we cannot win.

Now, that means that we can't do the full-scale military commitment. But what we can do is we can enable partners. I know there is considerable concern about the fact that we spent a lot of money, supposedly enabling partners in Iraq, and when ISIS came rolling across the border of Syria they simply melted away.

Now, two things:

Number one, I would submit to you that they melted away because of what the Maliki government had done to alienate the entire Sunni population. It wasn't that they couldn't fight; it is that they chose not to because they did not want to fight on behalf of what was essentially a sectarian corrupt Shia government. The Sunnis would not fight on behalf of them.

But also I want to point out, we have successfully trained militaries around the world. If you look at the Horn of Africa and the threat that we faced in Somalia, we have trained Ethiopia and Kenya and Uganda.

They have been incredibly effective fighting forces. Across the Red Sea in Yemen, we have trained the Yemenis as they confront al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Not as clearly effective as we have had in the Horn of Africa, but, nonetheless, they have contained the threat.

I was, on a much smaller scale, in the Philippines a number of years back where we trained the Filipino authorities to try to contain various terrorist threats down there.

It has been effective. Just because it wasn't effective in Iraq doesn't mean that it can't be effective to train an indigenous force to effectively fight the fight that we want them to fight. But it can't be just the U.S. military.

Now, the final point on the boots on the ground issue that I think is a bit misleading: we are all searching for that clear-cut way to say: We will do this but we won't do that; we won't go too far, we won't take that step that makes us too big a U.S. military engagement.

The problem is there is no black-and-white line here. There is no way to define that. There is no way to say: Well, okay, if we step across this line then there is no going back. In fact, I have heard the concern raised we are sending in advisers, and, gosh, everybody knows that when you send in advisers the next thing you know you have got 500,000 troops and 70,000 U.S. soldiers dead. That is what happened in Vietnam. That is not what happens every time you send in advisers from the cases that I cited a moment ago. It doesn't have to be that way.

The boots on the ground issue is, I think, effectively simple and straightforward. We have already had boots on the ground, but we are not going to make this a U.S. military-led fight because it cannot be. It would not be successful if it was. This is going to be an effort to train and equip and advise, to build a force that can confront ISIS. Because right now in Syria, it is a choice between Assad and ISIS for too many people. A good number of those people would love to have another option.

Don't read into the fact that some people are joining ISIS the belief that somehow they are absolutely aligned with them. They oppose Assad; ISIS is, in many cases, the only game in town. We need to give them another option: a Sunni-led indigenous force that we train and equip to help begin the process of getting to the point where they can be a legitimate force. It will not be a short process. It just won't. It is going to take time. But ISIS needs to be confronted. This is the first necessary step in doing that. We can't do it without local partners taking the lead. This is a way to get those local partners the capability to get there.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

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

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

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

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

I agree very strongly with Chairman McKeon on one point. You can raise all manner of different questions, but there are no guarantees. If you are trying to figure out how to vote on this and you won't vote in favor until we are guaranteed nothing can go wrong, then save yourself the argument and just vote ``no.'' This is a very dangerous part of the world, and, in any part of the world, something can always go wrong. We cannot guarantee that there will be no bad outcomes.

I think one of the things that has been lost in all this is that train and equip has been equated simply with Iraq and Afghanistan and has been deemed a failure. I really want to point out to people that the U.S. military--and the U.S. Government more broadly--has engaged in many very successful train-and-equip missions.

In fact, this is the way out of Iraq and Afghanistan, the way out of committing over 100,000 U.S. troops to a battle to try to fundamentally change a country. You build partnerships, and those partners in those local areas are the ones that do the fighting and pursue the interests.

In Somalia, we have a very significant problem with al-Shabaab. We have not, I believe, lost a U.S. life in that region. We have trained and equipped Ethiopia, Kenya, and Uganda. They have helped take the fight to al-Shabaab in Somalia in a very successful manner.

We are working with the Yemeni Government right now to help defeat al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula within Yemen. And believe me, the country of Yemen is not a model of anything. It has all manner of different challenges in terms of its governance. And you certainly could have looked at that and said, Wow, we are going to work with those guys?

But we did not want al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula to continue to grow and continue to threaten us, where at least two terror attacks against the U.S. were launched, so we trained and have worked with the Yemen Government in a way that has helped contain AQAP. Train and equip absolutely is a policy that can work, and that is what we are going to try and do in Syria.

So backing up to the policy there, there are several steps to this.

First of all, should we confront ISIS? I mean, that is an initial decision. And I suppose you can decide that it is way across the world. You have got Sunnis fighting Shi'as. You have got Syria. You have got Iran. You have got all manner of different people all mixed up in this. Let's just wash our hands of it and hope it works out.

The problem with that is ISIS has made it clear that they will kill Americans and that they will threaten us. And if they continue to grow and continue to hold territory, they will absolutely plan and plot attacks against the United States. So simply allowing ISIS to go forward doesn't strike me as a good option, which brings us to the second question.

Okay, if you want to try to contain them, how do you do it? And I completely agree with the cautionary notes that have been cited about just sending in the U.S. military to do it. I think the risks there are enormous, and it would not be successful because it would unite all-- not all, but would unite a fair number of Sunnis and radicals against us.

So the option on the table is to train and equip local partners to do the fighting. We have done it successfully with the Kurds. We are making progress now with Iraq now that we have got Maliki out as Prime Minister and we have a new government that at least gives the Sunnis some hope that they will be included in the Iraqi Government.

In Syria, we will have to work with the Free Syria movement. Now, we have already been working with a lot of these folks. We have already been providing humanitarian assistance and some other assistance as well, so it is not like we don't have anybody over there. We do know some folks and we should work with them, because the alternative is allowing Syria to be divided up between Assad and ISIS, and that alternative is unacceptable.

Lastly, I want to say that I fully understand the concerns about mission creep. I fully understand the concerns about open-ended warfare, but this is not what we are talking about.

As the chairman and many others have said, we should have a debate about an AUMF on this floor. This is not an AUMF. This in no way authorizes any U.S. military action against anybody. All it does is it authorizes the Department of Defense to train and equip other forces. Our forces will be hundreds of miles from the battlefield, training and equipping other forces.

So I agree, there is a much larger debate to have if an AUMF is put out on the floor, and we have to think about will this be taken and interpreted way too broadly. We have seen that happen with the 2001 AUMF, for instance. So that will be a worthy debate.

That is not what we are doing here. In fact, this is something that 3 years ago many people suggested that the U.S. Government should do. But we cannot do it unless Congress authorizes the Department of Defense to do it.

So I think this is much more narrow in scope than the broader debate, and the broader debate is one we should have. But here we are talking about a very narrow approach of train and equip that, frankly, can help limit U.S. action.

I have heard some of my colleagues say, well, you know, we understand the bombing. We need to do the bombing because ISIS is a threat and all that. But we don't want to do the train and equip which, to me, is just completely backwards.

If you are concerned about mission creep, if you are concerned about the U.S. getting too involved, then direct military action is certainly a heck of a lot more involvement than training and equipping others in the region to lead the fight.

I think that is an appropriate policy. I applaud the chairman for his work in putting this together.

We do have more work to do. This only authorizes this until the CR runs out, December 11, I believe, so we will have to do this in the National Defense Authorization Act. But I think it is a modest and appropriate step, and whatever criticism you have of all manner

of different mistakes, perceived and actual, that the President may have made before, please don't let that color what is an incredibly important policy decision as we try to decide how to confront a very real threat in ISIS.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

I rise to offer an amendment to House Joint Resolution 124 to provide authority to train and equip appropriately vetted elements of the Syrian opposition in order to defend the Syrian people from attacks by ISIL and to protect the United States and our friends and allies.

ISIL is a clear and present threat to our allies across the Middle East and to the United States. In this time of crisis, the President has asked for this authority because none of the existing Department of Defense train-and equip-programs fit the circumstances. Specifically, the President has requested the authority to train and equip nongovernmental entities fighting in the non-U.S.-led operation in Syria.

There is no doubt that any strategy to defeat ISIL must contain a Syria component. I believe that there are options to defeat ISIL in Syria short of a major U.S.-led combat operation. But the window of opportunity is closing. That is why I am supporting the President's request and have agreed to draft an amendment to the continuing resolution based on a modified version of the administration's initial proposal.

My amendment would allow the Secretary of Defense to provide assistance, including training, equipment, supplies, and the sustainment of the vetted opposition. The provision is intended to authorize activities necessary to facilitate such training and equipping activities, including the appropriate modification of existing facilities and the establishment of expeditionary facilities suitable for such training and accommodation, as well as payment of stipends to trainees.

The President's request did not specify the amount of funding that would be required for this effort and contained few oversight requirements. Therefore, my amendment would strengthen congressional oversight by requiring detailed reports, including progress reports on the plan, the vetting process, and the procedures for monitoring the end use of the training and equipment. It would also require the President to report on how this authority fits within a larger regional strategy.

This amendment does not authorize additional funds. However, it would allow the Department of Defense to submit reprogramming requests to Congress should the President require funds to execute this authority. It also permits the Secretary of Defense to accept foreign contributions.

Lastly, the amendment would state that nothing in this bill be construed to constitute a specific statutory authorization for the introduction of the United States Armed Forces into hostilities. There may be a time when we need to have an AUMF debate, but this is not it. The President has not asked for such an authority.

My amendment is narrowly focused on training and equipping Syrian opposition fighters to counter ISIL. This language was drafted in collaboration with the chairs of the national security committees and shared with the minority. Additionally, the language for this authority has been reviewed by the Department of Defense and the National Security Council.

Lastly, let me emphasize that this train-and-equip authority is a necessary part--but only one part--of what should be a larger strategy. It must be part of a larger effort in Syria, in Iraq, and across the region.

Let's also remember that it will be our men and women in uniform who will be conducting this training. We continue to ask more and more of our military, yet their funding continues to be cut. This is not sustainable and must be addressed.

Again, ISIL is a clear and present threat to the United States and our interests. My amendment is a necessary step to support what should be a larger strategy by the President to defeat ISIL.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), my friend and colleague, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), my friend and colleague, the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to respond to my good friend from California, we have adjoining districts and we agree on many things, we disagree on a few things, but I would like to say that I agree with you. This is something that the Congress should address.

For 20 years--I have been here 22 years--whenever a President has asked for this, we have addressed it. We have not addressed it without having the request from the President.

This is something we had quite a debate a few weeks ago about what previous Presidents have done or not done and what authorities they have and what they don't have, and some of it just has not yet been decided by the Supreme Court. The President says he has the authority. He says he needs this additional authority to help in Syria. That is the question we are addressing here today. I think that we are bound to have this discussion. I know the Speaker wants to have it. Mr. Smith said he wants to have it. I want to have it.

I think one thing that we should really probably consider in all of this, this is not going to be a 1-month or a 2-month or probably even a 1-year or 2-year commitment that we are making here. ISIL is very serious about this, and we are going to be in this fight, as we have seen in the past, for a long time. And it is a new commitment. So I am thinking that, as close as we are to the election, there are going to be a lot of new Members here that are going to be living with this discussion, this debate, this vote, potentially for a long time. And I think those are the people that probably should make that decision in January or as close as they feel comfortable to having that debate.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), my friend and colleague, the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.

I yield the chairman an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), my friend and colleague, the vice chairman of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman), my friend and colleague, the chairman of the Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are many who support this amendment. There are many who feel like it is not enough.

I would like to just relay a couple of instances.

I just returned from the Middle East. I met with leaders of Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Morocco. And one of the things that I think needs to be addressed, and the people--the people--need to understand this: who ISIL is. In about 600 AD, people moved--Arab people--

moved into the area that they called Levant. They controlled that area--it took them about 50 years to conquer it--and they controlled it from about 650 AD to about 1500 AD, when they were defeated by the Ottoman Empire.

That area comprised what we now know as part of Egypt, Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Iran. It was a huge area. ISIL wants to go back to that same area. They want to control that same area. They want to set up a caliphate so that they can then export terrorism around the world, and they are going to be brutal about it. They have great designs. They are willing to do anything it takes to win.

I don't know why it seems like, when the President talks, the first thing he says is, ``No boots on the ground.'' As was just mentioned by the ranking member, there are boots on the ground. We have a force of over a thousand right now in Iraq. As he explained, their army kind of wilted for the reasons that he gave.

I talked to General Petraeus the other day, and he said their army will fight, but there are certain things that they need that only we can provide, and that is what we can provide without entering into the combat, without putting in divisions, without putting in what I guess is the reference to boots on the ground, which is a certain number--and I don't know what that number is--but we are not going to do that. That is not what we are talking about.

Saying we are not going to have boots on the ground is just kind of not being totally truthful with the American people. There are and will continue to be boots on the ground. They will provide training. They will provide leadership. They will provide ISR.

They will provide the intelligence and the things necessary for the Iraqis to be successful in pushing ISIL out of the ground that they have conquered and taken. They will be able to take it back.

What we are talking about is the ability to go in and train Syrian forces so they will be able to take back territory that they have lost in Syria and, by doing so, that will deprive ISIL of having a safe haven so, as they are pushed out of Iraq, they won't be able to go into Syria.

We need to envelop them and end their mission right there. Don't let them get into Lebanon and Jordan and these other countries. Don't let them squeeze out into those countries. We need to stop them now. The leaders in that area told me how big this threat was. They said, ``Don't think the oceans are going to protect you now. They will not.''

We all know that one of the big threats over there is foreign fighters entering into this fight. A lot of them have passports and will be able to enter back into Europe and come to this country and do a lot of serious things that we don't want to see happen. We would rather fight them there than here. That is the purpose of this amendment and the thing that we are talking about right now.

ISIL is a dangerous threat right now, and we need to address them right now. They are going very rapidly. They are very well-funded and well-led. They are fighting as an army, not as a little ragtag terrorist group. We need to address them that way.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), my good friend and a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), my friend and colleague and a member of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne), my friend and colleague and a member of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Gibson), my friend and colleague, a member of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), my friend and colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), my friend and colleague, the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and a member of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. Speaker, at the President's request and in the amendment that we are debating--we got a little bit far afield there-- there is no request for money. The President says he doesn't need any additional moneys to carry this out. All he needs is the authority to go into Saudi Arabia and take their offer of training the Syrians to be able to go home and defend their homeland.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), my friend and colleague and a member of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Utah (Mr. Stewart), my friend and colleague.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross), my friend and colleague.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), my friend and colleague who is a member of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford), my friend and colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the previous gentleman for his comments. He is the ranking member on the Foreign Affairs Committee. He understands this situation very well, and the only thing I would say is the reason we say ISIS/ISIL--I would just say ISIL because they are the same. We need to let the American people know who the enemy is. It is that group, ISIL, and they are the worst of all, in my opinion.

Secondly, the reason we are doing this now is twofold. The President asked for it. We only have one Commander in Chief at a time. I didn't vote for him, but he is our Commander in Chief. He asked for this. We are responding to that request as he asked us as Commander in Chief.

Secondly, and I think this is very important, Saudi Arabia stepped up and said not to keep this secret, but: we overtly will open up our territories and give you training facilities to train these Syrians.

That sends a message to people in that part of the world that this is not the big, bad Satan America against the world. This is moderate Arabs, Kurds, Sunnis, and Shi'a all joining together against terrorism that is out to destroy the world.

I think that opened up this possibility for the President to ask for this, and I am hopeful that we will be able to give him that authority.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry), my friend and colleague, a member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. King), my friend and colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Charles Boustany, my friend and colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McAllister), my friend and colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Fleming, my friend and colleague, a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), my friend and colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger), my friend and colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams), my friend and colleague.

Mr. Speaker, might I inquire how much time we have remaining on both sides?

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

A lot has been said today on both sides of this issue. As I have listened carefully to all of the arguments, it seems to me that the main argument, as I have heard it, against acting on this amendment at this time is that it doesn't go far enough or we don't know for sure if it would be successful.

I have been in this body now for 22 years. I wish that I had the foresight every time we come to this floor to know exactly what is going to happen after we take action, but it seems to me that none of us really has that foresight.

We can think about it, we can project, but we really don't know what is going to happen if we take action. Sometimes, we know what is going to happen if we don't take action. I think that is probably what we ought to be thinking a little bit about today.

There were some comments made about Iraq and Syria. One thing that I think hasn't been mentioned that I think we know is that we left Iraq precipitously. We can talk about blame. We can place it on President Obama.

I could criticize him for a lot of things, but I sure wouldn't want his job, and I think, because we did leave early, we didn't leave any residual force behind. Maliki did some things that we probably all would have changed.

Saddam Hussein, who was a Sunni--Sunnis are the minority in Iraq-- oppressed the Shi'a; so, when Maliki came in, a Shi'a, he oppressed the Sunnis. I think one thing that we do know is that the new Prime Minister, Haider al-Abadi, is really making an effort to reach out to the Sunnis, the Shi'a, and the Kurds to bring a legitimate government that will look out for all of its people.

I think that has given us the opportunity to go into Iraq. The President has put over a thousand of our troops in there, bucked them up, and helped them with the things that they need to be successful in fighting off the terrorists, ISIL, and I think that there are things that they cannot do that we can help them with.

They need intelligence. They need ISR. They need logistics. They need air support. If we provide those things and they see that they are getting good support from their government and that it is not a fight between different sects or different regions and yet they can actually fight together as Iraqis, they will be successful in pushing ISIL back which would be a good thing. They can retake the territory that has been lost.

In the meantime, if we vote for this amendment, we give the President the authority to train Syrians that are thoroughly vetted in Saudi Arabia and then put them back into the fight.

These people are fighting for their homeland. These are people that are fighting for their villages, and they are fighting for their families. Are they perfect? We don't know, but I was talking to one of our retired generals who has been in the fight, and he told me that, sometimes, you have to work with people that are willing to fight the same enemy that you are willing to fight.

In this case, these people that we are looking at are willing to fight ISIL. If they have the help that we can provide, they can be successful, and then the people that we train can go back into the fight in Syria, and we can squeeze ISIL in between Syria and Iraq and keep them from entering into other nations where we do not wish to fight at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), my friend and colleague.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say again that most of the arguments I have heard are, ``Don't do this.'' I haven't heard an alternative.

I think what we need to remember--and we hear it a lot around here-- is let's not make the perfect the enemy of the good. The President, the Commander in Chief, has asked for this authority. Saudi Arabia is willing to work with us on this. We need to develop the coalition. We are working hard to make that happen.

At this time, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the excellent Representative of Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, when James Madison declared the Congress' ``power over the purse'' in the Federalist Papers as the most ``complete and effectual weapon,'' he warned of ``dishonorable stagnation.'' I fear we have achieved that. Rather than doing the hard work of coming up with long-term fiscal solutions for our Nation, we have resorted, once again, to short-term measures.

In the 4 years since Republicans took control of the House, not a single regular appropriations bill has been signed into law; instead, we have had manufactured crises, brinksmanship, fiscal cliffs, near defaults on the national debt, massive omnibus bills, and government shutdowns.

This continuing resolution may avert a national crisis in the short term by funding the government until December 11 of this year, but it is further demonstration the House majority has failed to do their most basic job.

They have been so obsessed with suing the President, investigating the nonexistent scandal in Benghazi, and holding more than 50 votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act that they have not done the routine work of Congress, funding the government. It is clear that under the current House majority our ``power of the purse'' has turned into ``dishonorable stagnation.''

Not only has the House majority found new ways to procrastinate on finding long-term solutions, they insist on passing the most closed rules in a single Congress ever; in fact, just last week, they celebrated the 75th closed rule, which makes this their diamond jubilee. They continue to pass closed rules which stifle debate and impedes the work of this Chamber.

Through this tactic, half of the country's Representatives have been silenced by the House majority. Even though Democrats received over a million more votes than Republicans did in the 2012 election, we are shut out. Our Nation's districts have been so gerrymandered, our representative democracy has been skewed beyond recognition.

I also oppose the inclusion of section 2 in the continuing resolution. That provision, which further excuses the Select Committee on Benghazi from adopting written rules to govern its work, does not belong in a rule for a must-pass funding bill; rather, the Benghazi Select Committee, just like every other committee of the House, should be required to meet, debate, and vote in open session on its basic rules and procedures that will govern its work.

The House majority previously tried to free the Benghazi Select Committee from this responsibility when it passed H. Res. 567 and established the committee last May. Four months later, they have realized on the eve of the select committee's first hearing that H. Res. 567 was not adequate; and so they inserted at the last minute a provision that, rather ironically, now excuses the select committee from the express requirement contained in clause 4 of rule XI for committees to adopt written rules to assure that meetings open to the public may be covered by audiovisual which means ``in conformity with acceptable standards of dignity, propriety, and decorum.''

When H. Res. 567 was brought to the floor for a vote in May, 186 Democrats voted against it. Let me reiterate that what this bill was doing is excusing the Benghazi Select Committee from having written rules like every other committee of the House is required to do. Not a single Republican joined us in voting against what we normally do.

Many of us objected to the creation of the Benghazi Select Committee in the first place as an unnecessary and partisan pursuit. Seven different congressional committees issued nine separate reports that answer the key questions about what went wrong in Benghazi.

Many of us believe that, to the extent any legitimate questions remain, the standing committees of jurisdiction along with Select Committees on Intelligence are fully capable of addressing those and overseeing the implementation of the needed reforms. It is unfortunate that not everyone seems to have the same confidence in the work of their colleagues.

We also objected because H. Res. 567 skews the process by failing to equalize majority and minority representation and resources and by seeking to excuse the select committee from following the basic requirements that apply to other committees of the House.

Basically, that says that we on the minority side have been shut out again. No guarantees and no discussion at all of fairness or openness either in resources, ability to see documents, or to call for witnesses.

I offered an amendment to address many of these concerns, but the effort failed. After much debate about whether even to participate in the select committee's work, Democrat members of the House ultimately agreed to do so in the hope that Republicans would fulfill their promises of a bipartisan, fair, and transparent process.

Just as we were guaranteed an open process at the beginning of the term, we have been had yet once again.

Inserting a last-minute provision in the rule on this must-pass funding bill will allow a select committee to avoid negotiating over or adopting the basic rules and procedures, and it does not honor the promise of openness. It will not win the public's trust. You cannot continually shut out half the Congress.

The Benghazi Select Committee, like every other committee in the House, should be required to meet, debate, and vote in open session on the ground rules that will govern its investigation. What the CR does is fund the government, and the rule for it should not be a means for the House majority to change language governing the highly political Benghazi Select Committee.

Programs and services all over the country cannot continue to run, as we are going to be asking them to do, on a month-to-month basis. They need certainty and reliability, which they clearly aren't getting.

Instead of investing in emerging technologies or medical research, of which we used to be at the forefront, the majority lurches from stopgap to stopgap, and now that strategy has caught up with us. Running the United States Government in 3-month tranches is a true recipe for disaster.

The CR does extend funding for operations of all Federal agencies, programs, and services until December 11

of this year and provides funding at the current annual rate of just over $1 trillion. However, it does include changes to existing law that are needed to prevent catastrophic, irreversible, or detrimental changes to government programs, specifically to address current national or global crises.

Regarding Ukraine, the CR continues the current flexibility with the State Department and USAID to respond to the ongoing crisis in Ukraine. Congress and the United States must continue to support the Ukrainian people in their fight for a free and democratic country. It is with some delight that we welcome Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to our Chamber later this week.

The CR also increases funding to address the disability claims backlog at the Department of Veterans Affairs as well as to investigate claims about medical care. We all agree that when our troops come home they deserve the best medical care, and this increase in funding will help to ensure that we provide just that.

Finally, regarding our involvement in confronting the rising threat to the Islamic State, or ISIL, while I am disappointed in the process that led to the continuing resolution, I do agree the House must debate at least one portion of the President's plan. We as Representatives need to debate if or how we arm rebel forces in Syria as well as other tactics in the broader effort. However, I have deep concerns about the ever-louder drumbeat toward war.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan claimed the lives of 6,640 of our men and women in uniform and critically wounded 50,450--50,450 come home to an already stressed VA system that cannot adequately care for them. The true cost of a war is not just in dollars, but in lives taken and destroyed, and I urge my colleagues to seriously consider the path before us.

Mr. Speaker, with this continuing resolution, we have an opportunity to avoid a short-term crisis, but if we continue to postpone the fundamental work of Congress, the Nation's economy will be at risk.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I know we have had this debate before and this discussion before, blaming everything on the Senate, but the fact is we have not done our job here in the House.

There were several appropriations bills that had committee approval, but none of us ever had the chance to vote for them. They were never brought to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a valued member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds because I can't resist it, although I am so fond of Mr. Cole, but we can't really blame it on the Senate that we have not done our work over here.

The House was able to find the time to vote 55 times to kill the health care bill, which is providing health insurance for 8 million Americans who didn't have it before. For goodness shakes, we could do that once a week, but we couldn't do the appropriations bills.

Now I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule that makes two changes: first, it would strike a special waiver for the Benghazi Select Committee that lets them avoid the transparent and deliberative process of debating and voting on their own written rules for media access, which every other committee has to do; second, we would bring up the bill introduced by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck) to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank for 7 years, bringing certainty and stability to an agency that helps to create jobs in the United States.

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, the majority's insistence on brinkmanship and short-term solutions threatens the Nation's economy, and regular appropriations bills have been replaced with fiscal cliffs, temporary stopgap measures, massive omnibus bills, and government shutdowns.

It is far past time that this Chamber's majority party does the good work of government and works to provide stability to the American people.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' to defeat the previous question. Vote ``no'' on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 722, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 124) making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2015, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 124.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present H.J. Res. 124, a short-term continuing resolution to keep the doors of the Federal Government open after the end of the fiscal year on September 30.

H.J. Res. 124 is a critical measure that ensures that hardworking Americans continue to have access to the government programs and the services they rely on and helps avoid the unnecessary uncertainty and economic harm caused by the threat of a government shutdown.

The bill continues government operations at the current rate of $1.012 trillion into the next fiscal year and lasts

until December 11, 2014. That level is in line with the Ryan-Murray budget agreement that this House approved last year.

My committee sought to draft a responsible, restrained bill that does not include controversial riders and does not seek to change existing Federal policies; however, it does make several very limited adjustments to prevent catastrophic or irreversible damage to critical government programs to address pressing global crises that have surfaced in recent months or to ensure good government.

These are changes I believe all of my colleagues can and should support. These include provisions, Mr. Speaker, that, one, increase funding at the Department of Veterans Affairs to help deal with the disability claims backlog and further investigations into wait-list allegations; two, to boost funding for Ebola research and response; three, to provide some funding flexibility within CBP and ICE to meet border security needs; and, four, to continue a surge in funding for State Department programs that help counter regional aggression against Ukraine and other former Soviet states. Each of these provisions is funded within the total discretionary funding level of $1.012 trillion.

The CR will also extend authority for certain laws currently in place such as the Internet Tax Freedom Act for the duration of the CR and the Export-Import Bank through June 30 of next year.

Later, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee will offer an amendment to this bill to address the President's request for the authority to train and equip Syrian rebels to fight ISIL. This critical amendment will address an issue of great importance to our national security, and attaching it to this continuing resolution will allow its enactment within a swift timeframe.

It does not involve any new or additional funding for these activities. I hope that my colleagues in the House will support the adoption of that amendment.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill, but we cannot address each and every aspect of Federal agency budgets within the scope of a continuing resolution like this one. These line-by-line budget decisions must be made in full-year regular appropriations legislation.

I am very proud, Mr. Speaker, that the House made great strides toward completing this vital work, which is our constitutional duty, by approving 11 out of 12 appropriations bills in committee and seven of them on the floor of the House, all before the August recess, dealing with some 400 amendments to those seven bills on the House floor.

The House made a good faith effort to complete all of these bills, but, unfortunately, the Senate has failed to approve a single appropriations bill which is why we are at this point today in trying to pass a continuing resolution.

It is high time that the Senate leadership allows us to complete critical legislation to fund the entire Federal Government in an up-to- date, line-by-line way in regular order.

This continuing resolution will allow us the time, hopefully, to do just that; however, as we move forward, we cannot and should not continue to fall back on stopgap funding bills like this one.

These lurching short-term bills only postpone the tough budget decisions, heighten our Nation's mistrust of Congress, and cause uncertainty within our Federal agencies and the economy.

At this point, though, the best way to avoid causing serious damage to the country is to pass this continuing resolution. It is our most clear path forward. It allows us the time we need to draft bicameral pieces of legislation that reflect our real and urgent budgetary requirements and utilize our Nation's taxpayer dollars in the most responsible, representative way.

Before I close these remarks, Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the service and hard work of the staff of the committee on both sides of the aisle, but I especially want to acknowledge the service and hard work of the clerk of the Defense Subcommittee, Tom McLemore.

Over his years on this committee he has been an integral member of the staff, no more so than his time as Defense clerk. Sadly, this will be his last bill before he moves on to greener pastures, and we will miss him a great deal. So I want to thank Tom for his service to this committee and to the Nation.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, we have just under 2 weeks left until the end of the fiscal year on September 30, so I ask that the House pass H.J. Res. 124 today without delay. I also urge the Senate to pass this bill and submit it to the President for his signature as soon as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), a member of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee on Appropriations, a very hardworking member.

Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Virginia, who made an excellent presentation.

May I inquire of the time remaining?

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my colleague if she has further requests for time?

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

I think, as has been said here numerous times by people on both sides of the aisle, we regret that we are having to bring a continuing resolution to the floor to continue the government over the end of the fiscal year. But that is because we attempted on the House side, on both sides of the aisle, to pass all 12 of these individual appropriations bills. And we were on our way to passing all of them until the Senate decided they weren't going to take any of them up, and they haven't. So it left us no choice but to ask for a continuing resolution to keep the government's lights on until December 11, by which time, hopefully, we will be able to cobble together an omnibus appropriations bill for all of the government for all of next year.

So that is where we are. We really have no choice. I don't think either side wants to shut down the government. Certainly on this side, we do not. So the necessity is that we pass this bill.

Now, the amendment coming up, on giving the President the authority to establish training bases and equip fighters in Syria, is all important, an amendment that I certainly support and welcome into the appropriations bill.

So, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from New York (Mrs. Lowey) for her hard work on these bills all year long, and all of the staff and all of the members of the committee on both sides of the aisle. We are a committee that abhors continuing resolutions, yet we are faced with no choice but to try to pass one.

So I urge my colleagues to support the continuing resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank and congratulate the chairman and Mr. Smith for their work on this issue.

I rise in support of this amendment. It has become urgent, Mr. Speaker, that we make serious strides against ISIL, and we must act quickly to curb their influence and to fight back against terrorism of the most brutal sort.

Chairman McKeon's amendment which provides the authority to train and equip Syrian rebels to fight ISIL is the right approach, and I support its inclusion on this continuing resolution.

Over the past week, the House has done due diligence to ensure that this amendment language is appropriate, supporting limited yet adequate efforts to degrade and destroy ISIL.

While providing our Commander in Chief with the tools he has requested for the near term, language is also included to prevent an open-ended blank check for these efforts.

This will help ensure that Congress maintains funding authority and oversight over taxpayer dollars and the use of our military forces. Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the remarks of Mr. Smith who just spoke who gave a very eloquent and full explanation of where we are, and I support his statement.

I encourage my colleagues to support this critical amendment and then the underlying resolution today or tomorrow.