Spending Cuts to Expired and Unnecessary Programs Act

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

I rise in strong opposition to this Republican rescission package.

Mr. Speaker, President Trump and congressional Republicans are trying to take deconstructing government to a new level. They are proposing to take $15 billion in Federal funds away from the citizenry and investment in our economy budgeted for the Children's Health Insurance Program, medical innovation, advanced manufacturing, infrastructure projects, and the list goes on.

Why?

They are doing so to pay for a tiny fraction of their $1.5 trillion tax cut for the rich. This is just another example of their irresponsible governance.

What is on the chopping block?

With this rescission package, the majority would cut the balances in the Children's Health Insurance Program by $7 billion, simply send them back to the Treasury. They would cut funding when we should be investing in critical services for children and families.

They would cut funding that helps workers who have lost their jobs due to trade access health insurance.

They would cut funding for AmeriCorps and prevent more people from serving vulnerable populations in their communities.

They would cut funding for critical healthcare infrastructure projects.

Just a few months ago, we used these funds to replace the Biosafety Level 4 laboratory at the Centers for Disease Control. This lab is necessary for handling the most highly pathogenic organisms, such as Ebola, other hemorrhagic fevers, and smallpox. This is a critical piece of public health infrastructure. Why do Republicans want to cut its source of funding?

They would cut funding for programs that rural America depends on, rural housing programs, rural water programs. For example, it would rescind $15 million from the Value Added Producer Grant Program, a vital lifeline for small businesses in rural America.

Well, I want to remind Americans that the President and his House allies are betraying the promise they made to the American people, Mr. Speaker.

In March, we agreed to historic and urgently needed funding for our families. The omnibus funding bill for 2018 made important investments in health, education, and job programs. It made critical investments that boost the middle class.

It was not easy. We worked hard to come to an overwhelmingly bipartisan agreement that benefits the people of this country. And now, months later, the Trump administration and House Republicans are violating the spirit of that agreement. It is not a serious way to govern.

This is money for our children, not for the President to claw back to placate fervent conservatives who maintain their drumbeat on Twitter and TV.

And what do Republicans get for breaking their word, going back on their promises and taking from children?

Well, according to the Congressional Budget Office, Mr. Speaker, the actual impact of this rescission package would amount to $1 billion over 10 years. That is less than 1 percent of the Republicans' $1.5 trillion tax scam for the rich. In fact, it is one one-hundredth of a percent.

If Republicans are so worried about spending, why not rescind the money from the tax giveaway to corporations that are using it to buy back stock? They are not raising wages.

Well, they appear to be beholden to the lobbyists and the insiders who have profited so exorbitantly from that gift. And according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 83 percent of the tax scam benefits will go to the top 1 percent.

And those big boosts to paychecks? They have not materialized.

You look at Walmart. They spent $20 billion on stock buybacks for their shareholders; yet, according to the Roosevelt Institute, had Walmart instead dedicated that money to workers, they could have raised wages to more than $16 an hour. They did not.

Mr. Speaker, budgets, spending, appropriations, and rescissions reflect our values, and it is clearer than ever that President Trump, Speaker Ryan, and the Republicans in the Congress value corporations and the wealthy, not people who work for a living or those who are the most vulnerable. They rig the rules for the rich and rob from the poor to pay for it.

Congress must reject President Trump's proposal and put forth policies that work for the middle class and families and for those who are most vulnerable, not balance the budget on their backs.

The American people would be far better served if Congressional Republicans joined with Democrats to fund critical investments in education, healthcare, infrastructure, and protecting our retirement programs.

When teachers are protesting across the country for fair pay, Republicans want to go backwards. When Americans are stuck in jobs that do not pay enough to live on, Republicans want to go backwards. When 40 percent of households cannot afford the basics of a modern, middle class lifestyle, Republicans want to go backwards.

Mr. Speaker, it is unconscionable, and the American people deserve better.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

But the gentleman hasn't told us that the money they take from CHIP is not going into programs for children. It is going back to the Treasury, so we will take a look at cuts to Head Start, maternal child health programs, childhood immunization, newborn screening, child lead poisoning prevention, and many others. Tell the whole story.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), the ranking member of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. RYAN of OHIO. Mr. Speaker, we have 50-some percent of the people in this country who can't withstand a $500 emergency.

Our pension system is collapsing. Our financial aid system is collapsing.

We have got to make a decision to reinvest back in this country. And the Republican leadership here is disinvesting in the United States. We are seeing it with the stock buybacks, we are seeing it with the tax cut, and now we are seeing it with the rescissions package.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who is the Democratic whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), who is the ranking member of the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan), who is a member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters of opposition from First Focus Campaign for Children, the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, Committee for Education Funding, National Housing Conference, Service Employees International Union, faith organizations, and other national organizations.

First Focus Campaign for Children,

Washington, DC, June 7, 2018.

Dear Representative: I am writing on behalf of First Focus

Campaign for Children, a bipartisan national organization

dedicated to improving the health and well-being of our

nation's children, to express our strong opposition to H.R.

3, the so-called ``Spending Cuts to Expired and Unnecessary

Programs Act.''

Unfortunately, the proposed rescission of $15 billion in

spending authority included in H.R. 3 targets children in

about half of all the cuts. Moreover, of all the thousands of

programs in hundreds of departments and agencies across the

federal government, the Children's Health Insurance Program

(CHIP), which just went through a nearly two-year

reauthorization process that was finally passed more than

four months past its expiration date, is targeted for more

than $7 billion of the proposed cuts.

Over the two-decade history of CHIP, it has--in tandem with

Medicaid and private health insurance--cut the uninsured rate

for children by more than two-thirds. During this recent

reauthorization process, a nationwide poll conducted by the

Kaiser Family Foundation found that 88 percent of Americans

felt that Congress should make the extension of CHIP funding

a top priority. The program has always had strong bipartisan

support, as it did this year.

CHIP is financed as a block grant, which means that its

funding is arbitrarily capped and fails to adjust to changes

in unforeseen or unanticipated need, such as economic

recessions, epidemics, changes in funding to the program to

improve access to care, or natural disasters. Consequently,

in the early years of CHIP, the program faced some difficult

moments whereby some states imposed waiting lists and

enrollment freezes when federal funding failed to meet the

needs of children. Those indefinite waiting lists and

enrollment freezes were imposed without regard to disability

or need, including children with cancer, cystic fibrosis,

severe asthma, and other life-threatening or severe

conditions.

In recognition of the fact that waiting periods and

enrollment freezes were threatening the lives and well-being

of children, Congress revamped CHIP's financing in a number

of ways, including the creation of CHIP's Child Enrollment

Contingency Fund in 2009. The CHIP contingency fund is set at

20 percent of overall CHIP spending and acts as a critically

important backstop that protects against unforeseen or

unanticipated federal funding shortfalls that threaten the

health of children.

During the lengthy two-year most recent bipartisan

reauthorization of CHIP that culminated in a six-year

extension and a subsequent addition of four more years for a

total of 10 years, there was no discussion or debate about

changing the CHIP Child Enrollment Contingency Fund, as it

has worked to protect the health of children. And yet, the

Administration is now proposing and Congress is considering

H.R. 3, which would slash the CHIP contingency fund by $1.9

billion, or nearly 80 percent, and undermine its very

purpose.

In making this proposal that targets CHIP for the bulk of

its proposed cuts, the Administration argues that the

contingency fund ``will likely not be spent'' and points to

the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) score that the cut

doesn't save any money as confirmation that it probably won't

be harmful to children. And yet, during the lengthy CHIP

reauthorization process, the Administration never proposed

slashing the Child Enrollment Contingency Fund from 20

percent of the allotments to just 3-4 percent, as the

rescission would do.

Even worse, the proposed rescission of the contingency fund

fundamentally fails to understand the very purpose of a

contingency that, by definition, is ``a future event or

circumstance that is possible but cannot be predicted with

certainty.'' Neither the Administration nor CBO can guarantee

that there will not be an economic recession, a health

epidemic like Zika, or a natural disaster, which are all more

likely during the forthcoming summer months. In fact, CBO

doesn't ``score'' such events for that very reason.

As a result, the proposed rescission or raid of the CHIP

contingency fund by $1.9 billion, or 80 percent, undermines

the very reason for the fund, which is to protect the health

coverage of children against unanticipated or unforeseen

circumstances, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, or even

Hawaii's currently unanticipated erupting volcano.

Another critically important point to make is that the

proposed rescission to the CHIP Child Enrollment Contingency

Fund would not save money. The contingency fund is set at 20

percent of the overall CHIP allotment each year, so any money

raided from the fund this year is automatically restored in

the following year. In other words, over a two-year period,

this proposed rescission would not save a single penny

because any money raided from the contingency fund this year

would be restored in the following year.

Consequently, the only effect of the proposed $1.9 billion

rescission the CHIP contingency fund would be to needlessly

put the health and well-being of our nation's children at

risk. In other words, H.R. 3 unnecessarily gambles with the

health of our children under the guise that there probably

won't be unanticipated or unforeseen events that might cause

a state or states to need to tap into the contingency fund.

It is also important to point out that the CHIP extensions,

including the CHIP contingency fund, that were passed just a

few months ago were fully paid for. In fact, according to

CBO, the CHIP reauthorization saved billions of dollars.

Therefore, CHIP should not be the target of a rescission

package, and yet, it shockingly accounts for 46 percent or

almost half of all the proposed reductions in H.R. 3.

For these reasons, we stand with more than 500 other

national, state, and local organizations from across the

country that wrote a letter to Congress in opposition to the

CHIP cuts proposed in H.R. 3. As the letter reads, ``The nine

million children and families who depend on CHIP have already

faced months of uncertainty, when its funding expired before

Congress took long-overdue action to extend CHIP funding for

ten years. After breathing a short sigh of relief, however,

the long-term stability and protection these families fought

to ensure is once again in jeopardy. Our organizations urge

you to protect children and families, and to reject any

proposed cuts to the Children's Health Insurance Program.''

Sincerely,

Bruce Lesley,

President.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), the chair of the Democratic Caucus.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Republicans want to talk about spending. Let's talk about the Republican tax cut. It was rigged for the rich. It gave 83 percent of the tax cuts to the wealthiest 1 percent. They raised taxes on 86 million middle class families. It cost $1.5 trillion.

We have a staggering national debt. They want to reduce that deficit. Well, then why don't they go ahead and rescind the money from the tax giveaways to the corporations? The corporations are just using it to buy back stocks and not to raise any wages.

What we ought to be doing is reinvesting: create jobs; help children and families, not millionaires and billionaires.

If they wanted to do something about the CHIP program, they would have made it permanent or they would take that money and reinvest it in programs that have to do with children, not send it back to the treasury. What they ought to do is to find those resources from their rich donors and others and put them back into where they belong, to the American people.

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following letters in opposition to H.R. 3:

May 22, 2018.

Dear Representative: The undersigned 151 national

organizations strongly urge you to reject the $15.3 billion

rescissions package proposed by the Trump Administration as

well as other rescissions messages that may be subsequently

offered. These cuts would violate the agreement enacted in

the Bipartisan Budget Act, by eliminating funds that make

fairer levels of domestic appropriations possible, so that

unmet needs in public health, education, job training,

housing, and other essential areas may be addressed.

The Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) is targeted

for nearly half the cuts in the rescissions package. Nearly

$2 billion of the rescinded funds could reduce CHIP's

capacity to respond if enrollment unexpectedly rises, as in

the aftermath of a disaster, large layoffs due to plant

closures, or an overall economic slowdown. Congress just

enacted a long-overdue 10-year reauthorization of CHIP; it

should not undermine that bipartisan agreement either by

tampering with CHIP in this package. Another $5 billion would

renege on the two-year Bipartisan Budget Act agreement, which

in part counted on the availability of unspent CHIP funds to

pay for needed increases in other services of importance to

children and families.

The rescissions package also includes an $800 million cut

to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation, a program

which according to the Congressional Budget Office will save

$3 for every $1 spent between 2017 and 2026. It makes no

sense to end such a cost-effective investment. Nor does it

make sense to describe this package of cuts as putting ``. .

. our Nation on a sustainable fiscal path'' when the recently

enacted tax cuts, mainly for the wealthy and corporations,

impose a $2 trillion cost.

Congress made important progress in the FY 2018 Omnibus

appropriations bill because its bipartisan agreement allowed

for increases in child care, opioid treatment, and other

services. Congress should now turn its attention to building

on this progress in FY 2019. Reneging on the hard-won

bipartisan agreement now will make further gains extremely

difficult. With the limited number of legislative days before

you, please do not be distracted by undoing past progress.

We cannot emphasize enough that basic needs programs have

lost ground after years of reductions, making it extremely

important that you do not undermine the agreement to start to

reverse these downward trends. Adult and youth job training

has been cut nearly 15 percent since FY 2010, adjusted for

inflation. If we are serious about helping people to get good

jobs, we must undo these cuts. Many other services need

rebuilding, such as home heating and cooling assistance (cut

nearly 38 percent since FY 2010), juvenile justice programs

(cut more than 40 percent), maternal and child health

programs (cut 14 percent), and special education funding (cut

between 7-11 percent since FY 2010). In an analysis of more

than 180 human needs programs, the Coalition on Human Needs

found that nearly 70 percent are still at lower levels than

in FY 2010.

Please reject this rescissions package, and turn instead to

your real responsibility: to provide adequate resource to

address the unmet needs for education and training, child

care, housing, health care, and other essential services.

Sincerely,

Action on Smoking and Health; ADAP Advocacy Association;

Advance CTE; African American Health Alliance; AFSCME; AIDS

United; Allied Progress; American Association of People with

Disabilities; American Association on Health and Disability;

American Federation of Teachers; Americans for Democratic

Action (ADA); Asian Americans Advancing Justice--AAJC;

Association of American Veterinary Medical Colleges;

Association of Farmworker Opportunity Programs; Autism

Society of America; Autistic Self Advocacy Network; Bend the

Arc Jewish Action CAEAR Coalition; Campaign for Youth

Justice; Center for Community Change Action; Center for

Employment Opportunities (CEO).

Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP); Center for

Popular Democracy Action; Center for Public Representation;

Ceres Policy Research; Child Care Aware of America; Child

Welfare League of America; Children's Defense Fund;

Children's Leadership Council; Children's Advocacy Institute;

Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation; Coalition for Health

Funding; Coalition for Juvenile Justice; Coalition on Human

Needs; Community Access National Network (CANN); Congregation

of Our Lady of Charity of the Good Shepherd, US Provinces;

Council on Social Work Education; Disciples Center for Public

Witness; Dominican Sisters Conference; Dominican Sisters of

Peace; Ecumenical Poverty Initiative.

Equal Rights Advocates; Evangelical Lutheran Church in

America; Every Child Matters; Faith in Public Life; Families

USA; Family Focused Treatment Association Food & Water Watch;

Food Research & Action Center (FRAC); Forum for Youth

Investment; Friends Committee on National Legislation;

Friends of the Earth--US Girls Inc.; Grounded Solutions

Network; Health Care for America Now; Healthy Teen Network

HEAR US Inc.; Hispanic Federation; HIV Medicine Association;

Holy Spirit Missionary Sisters, USA-JPIC Housing Works, Inc.;

International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, and

Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW; Justice in

Aging; Lakeshore Foundation; Leadership Conference of Women

Religious.

League of Women Voters of the United States; LIFT; Main

Street Alliance; Mom2Mom Global; MomsRising; NAACP; NARAL

Pro-Choice America; National Action Network; National

Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd; National

Alliance of HUD Tenants; National Association of Councils on

Developmental Disabilities; National Association of Counsel

for Children; National Association of Regional Councils;

National Association of Social Workers; National Association

of State Head Injury Administrators; National Association for

Bilingual Education; National Black Justice Coalition;

National Coalition for the Homeless; National Coalition of

STD Directors; National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its

low income clients).

National Council of Jewish Women; National Crittenton;

National Disability Institute; National Domestic Workers

Alliance; National Education Association; National Employment

Law Project; National Employment Lawyers Association;

National Housing Trust; National Indian Education

Association; National Juvenile Justice Network; National Low

Income Housing Coalition; National Network for Youth;

National Network to End Domestic Violence; National

Organization for Women; National Urban League; National WIC

Association; National Women's Health Network; National

Women's Law Center; New Progressive Alliance; North American

Passionists, JPIC; People Demanding Action; People For the

American Way.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America; Poligon Education

Fund; Provincial Council Clerics of St. Viator (Viatorians);

Public Advocacy for Kids; Public Citizen; Rachel Carson

Council; Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities Coalition;

Raising Women's Voices for the Health Care We Need; RESULTS;

Ryan White Medical Providers Coalition; Safer Foundation;

School Social Work Association of America; Service Employees

International Union; Sinsinawa Dominicans; Sisters of Charity

of Nazareth Western Province Leadership; Sisters of Charity

of the Blessed Virgin Mary; Sisters of Mercy South Central

Community; SocioEnergetics Foundation; Somerset Development

Company; SparkAction; StoptheDrugWar.org; Strategies for

Youth, Inc.

Students or Sensible Drug Policy; The Arc of the United

States; The Children's Partnership; The John Leary

Organization; The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human

Rights; The United Methodist Church--General Board of Church

and Society; Transporation Learning Center; Treatment Action

Group; Tuberous Sclerosis Alliance; UnidosUS; United Church

of Christ; United Methodist Women; Voices for Progress; W.

Haywood Burns Institute; WildWest Institute; Woodhull Freedom

Foundation; Woodstock Institute; Workplace Fairness; Young

Invincibles; Youth Service America; YWCA USA; ZERO TO THREE.

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

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, no votes are expected in the House. On Tuesday, the House will meet at noon for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes of the week are expected no later than 3 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a number of suspensions next week, a complete list of which will be announced by close of business tomorrow.

Next week is National Police Week, so several bills will focus on supporting the work done each day by our men and women in law enforcement. That includes H.R. 5698, the Protect and Serve Act, sponsored by Representative John Rutherford. This bill would make inflicting or attempting to inflict serious bodily harm on any police officer a crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

The House will also consider H.R. 2, the Agriculture and Nutrition Act, sponsored by Representative Mike Conaway.

Ronald Reagan said, ``American farmers are the backbone of our country,'' and both myself and the data would agree.

Food and ag industries drive more than 43 million jobs, over a quarter of all American jobs, and U.S. farm exports generate more than $300 billion in economic activity.

This important bill will reauthorize farm and nutrition assistance programs for 5 years, while making reforms to modernize key programs and better support rural America.

Since my friend often asks about items beyond the week to come, I would like to make this a bonus colloquy for him, and preview several items that are possible during this work period.

This includes H.R. 5674, the VA MISSION Act of 2018, sponsored by Representative Phil Roe. This bill would fundamentally transform the VA and the way American veterans receive care for the better.

I want to applaud Chairman Roe for his hard work on this legislation, which recently passed his committee on a bipartisan vote of 20-2.

Next, H.R. 3, the Spending Cuts to Expired and Unnecessary Programs Act. At $15.4 billion, the bill represents the largest single rescissions request in history.

More importantly, this bill allows Congress to give our Federal budget a much needed spring cleaning to the benefit of hardworking taxpayers.

Third, H.R. 5515, the National Defense Authorization Act, sponsored by Representative Mac Thornberry. This bill supports the historic investments we have made to rebuild America's

military and ensures our brave men and women have the resources they need to keep us safe.

Finally, the House may take further action on Dodd-Frank reform, including potential action on the community bank regulatory relief bill passed by the U.S. Senate.

I look forward to both Chambers taking additional policy actions in this space in the coming weeks as we continue to improve access to capital for American families and businesses.

As soon as our schedule is finalized, I will be sure to inform all Members.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman has asked before and as we have worked time and time again, the committee is working on a budget, and as they get through, we will bring it to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

Even though I gave him a bonus colloquy beyond the week in front of us, that does not mean if I don't mention something, that that item would not come forward. So as the Budget Committee works, I will keep the gentleman apprised of where they are and when the timing is for us to bring it to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for those many questions.

I have got good news for the gentleman. If his concern is the contingency fund for the Children's Health Insurance Program, no need to fear. In the life of the entire program, the most that has ever been used, accumulated completely, is $300 million; that is why we set aside $500 million.

Go beyond the long history of it. CBO tells us they don't expect any of it to be used, but we want an insurance, just as we wanted this program to survive; that is why it got extended more than 10 years.

Mr. Speaker, I don't have to remind my friend he voted against that. But we care about the Children's Health Insurance Program; we care about the taxpayers.

The good news is, in this rescission program, none of that money can be spent. And if you are concerned about it and worried about maybe you would make that vote, Mr. Speaker, the leader of the other side, she voted to take that same amount from CHIP in the omnibus to spend somewhere else, because you can't use the money, and we have already extended it 10 years, and no child is going to be harmed by this. CBO says it, all the way through, and we keep the contingency fund there.

But you won't rescind the money that you now have the authority to even spend on the program to give back to the taxpayers? That is what is interesting to me because I listened to you closely, and we have had this discussion before about rescissions. It was just in our last colloquy.

I remember when we talked about rescissions because that used to be common practice. President Bill Clinton did it 111 times. President Ronald Reagan did it 214 times. And both Presidents, Mr. Speaker, had Congresses that were from other parties some time during their administration.

So when you and I talked about it, because you had voted for rescissions before, I wanted to make sure I got your input before ever talking to the administration because I would like to have your help on this. I think the American taxpayers would like to have everybody's help on this.

So I asked you in that colloquy, I was hoping that you would support this bill from our last one because you said, in our last colloquy: ``I wouldn't irrationally oppose a rescission which said we've had money laying in an account that has not been spent for 1, 2, or 3 years. We shouldn't just have it sitting in that account.''

Because in our colloquy, Mr. Speaker, the concern on the other side from my friend was we were going to break a trust; that we were going to take money from that omnibus that he felt a lot of people negotiated in, but, unfortunately, that trust he couldn't vote for.

You even interrupted me to say you believe that rescinding those funds was a reasonable thing to do. I agree that it is a reasonable thing to do.

So this administration, I think, may have listened to our colloquy, Mr. Speaker, because if you look at this rescission package, the largest one ever done, common practice from President Ford up until Bill Clinton, you asked for funding that has sat for the last 1, 2, or 3 years. But even in this one, we identified programs that have sat there for 7 years.

There has not been a loan in a program since 2011, and there is more than $4 billion sitting there. Taking you at your word, you would jump at this. I should have asked you to cosponsor it.

Now, I hope all Members will put the politics aside and be able to support this because this is really what the taxpayer is looking for. This is really what this House has a history of doing.

I know you have brought up a few other issues in there, and I know, when you talk about the Children's Health Insurance Program, the CBO has said that ``rescinding the unobligated balances would . . . not affect outlays, or the number of individuals with insurance coverage.''

There are so many times I hear CBO quoted here, so I hope we would quote it here as well. In other words, this will have no effect on the CHIP program.

Mr. Speaker, as I noted earlier, in the omnibus, those who voted for it, and the leader on the other side did, it did the exact same thing with a higher number. So it was unobligated then and okay to do it. I am just not sure why it wouldn't be now if you send it back to the taxpayers.

Now, I do want to, also, Mr. Speaker, know because we have worked on this CHIP program for quite some time. Now, the Republicans passed the longest and most generous CHIP extension in the program's history.

Now, for the record, my friend did vote against it, not once, not twice, but three times in this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to quote an AP article from Andy Taylor, because you just can't make this stuff up.

``Just weeks ago, Democrats supported almost $7 billion in cuts to the Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP, eager to grab easy budget savings to finance new spending at the Department of Health and Human Services. But some Democrats howled over the Trump proposal anyway.''

Let me get this straight. Is it okay to rescind the CHIP program, Mr. Speaker, when Nancy Pelosi wants to spend more? But when President Trump wants to save the taxpayers money, with no effect on the CHIP program at all, is that what Armageddon is?

Now, I don't want to play politics, and I know you have mentioned a lot, and you did mention the tax bill, and you did mention April. There was more good news in America. It wasn't just that unemployment is at 3.9 percent. You know the last time--the whole time I have been elected in Congress----

Yes, 18 years ago. Do you know that the claims for unemployment are at the lowest point it has been in more than four decades? That is more than 40 years.

Do you know, just in the last year, 2 million more people have jobs? Did you realize the millions of people who actually got bonuses; or just in one company, 1.2 million Americans have a longer maternity leave?

And did you see the revenue into America's Government last month? It was the largest surplus in the history. The most revenue coming in.

So all of those colloquies we had of the fear of this tax bill, the one that allowed Americans to keep more of what they earned, the one that we promised would create more jobs, the one that would bring more prosperity, facts don't lie. America is in a very good place, and I am thankful that we had that debate.

Now, I know, Mr. Speaker, the others on the other side, there wasn't one of them who could agree with us. But I think today they can agree with the numbers of what it says and what it means; that we know for any American who has a child that is 18 years old and ready to go away to college, they don't have the fear that they are going to have to come back and live with their

parents. They are going to enter one of the strongest economies to find a job, of course, in their lifetime, but maybe almost in one of the best times we have seen in ours.

So, yes, I am excited about this. I am also excited about the idea of bringing a tradition back that saves the taxpayers money, one that, Mr. Speaker, my friend has voted for before, one that protects the CHIP program by setting aside, on a contingency basis, more than what has ever been asked for in the history of it, $500 million when only $300 million it has, and even though they say not one dollar would be spared. So we have the reserve there for it.

I am excited that the administration listened to our colloquy, took my friend's wisdom and advice that he would look at any accounts that sat there 1, 2, and even 7 years that was unobligated, to be able to save the taxpayer money. And I look forward to when that is on the floor so that we can vote on it together and show the American public that we are serious about saving taxpayers money.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman realize that there are 2 million more people in the workforce in less than a year?

Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman understand that more than 5 million people got a bonus that, Mr. Speaker, some people on the other side thought was crumbs?

Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman understand that the 3.9 percent unemployment rate, many Americans have not seen that in almost two decades?

Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman understand that we just watched last night our President at Andrews Air Force Base bring back three Americans that were held in prison in North Korea, and for the first time since that conflict has gone on there is an opportunity to end that war?

So, yes, I think some of our best days are right now; but with the potential of what we have not only with our tax bill, but, if we get our farm bill moving where we help individuals to get into that workforce, because that unemployment is so low, I do believe the best days are in front of us.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, I remember what the gentleman said. The gentleman is very concerned about the trust that we would have because of the months that went into the omnibus, that we would break this trust, even though those who negotiated, still some did not vote for it. But in that omnibus, because defense had been cut more than 20 percent, because when I wake up this morning and I see rockets flying from Syria into Israel, when we watch the world become unsafe, it is not 20 percent safer. We made an investment into military.

The gentleman does not want any cuts to go into that process, but my question to the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, is there any cut in the rescission the gentleman supports, because I took him at his word.

I said to the administration: I just had a great conversation in a colloquy that the gentleman on the other side said of course he would look at anything that was 1, 2, 3, or further years that was unobligated.

That is the only thing that is in the rescission. The easiest way not to save taxpayers money is to find something that is not in the bill that you just really need.

The gentleman laid out in a colloquy what he wanted in a rescission. It did not deal with the omnibus because the gentleman is worried about the trust. The gentleman said he would look at anything from 1, 2, 3, or further. That is the only thing in here.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my friend: Is there anything in the rescission bill that he could support by giving the taxpayers more money back?

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman has any idea, because I know he has served on the Appropriations Committee, please offer up, like any Member can, what he would cut or what he wants to find as savings. I will look in any department anywhere to find a savings.

Now, Mr. Speaker, can the gentleman show me where in the CHIP program--because, one, you cannot use these funds; two, the contingency base is more than what has ever been used in the history of it--show me where the Children's Health Insurance Program, because no one is saying it. No one can show that it is. Please point it out to us.

You do not have the authority to spend this money. We put a contingency fund, set aside, and looked at the history of the program. The most that was ever used was $300 million, so we keep $500 million in reserve.

If the gentleman could explain to me why, then, for those who voted for the omnibus on your side of the aisle, would you make a larger, same amount, and the argument then to take that money in the omnibus but not now, why is it different?

Why is it different when the taxpayers will save money into an account you cannot spend, you don't have the legal authority to, and it is just sitting there, and it goes to the criteria of what you laid out, 1, 2, 3, or 4?

The great thing about a rescission, this doesn't have to be the only one. So if you want to work with us and you find areas that you want to find savings to the taxpayers, I will make myself available to have those meetings.

Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes, because if you listened to what I said earlier, it went to HHS.

But this is the point: Then the gentleman is acknowledging that you could not use that money for the CHIP program, so it is still sitting there. You do not have the authority for it. It is exactly what you said to me in a colloquy, just our last, that you will look at any account that is sitting there 1, 2, 3, all the way to 7 years.

Mr. Speaker, I don't understand the argument, if no child could be harmed, if the Republicans put it for 10 years, the longest it has ever been, you can't use the money, and we leave a contingency fund there.

If the gentleman wants to find a reason to get to ``no,'' I understand that. But I am of the belief I want to find a way to save money, and I don't know what points the gentleman tries to bring up and say it is political. No.

The whole time I have been in this House, I have always held to the belief: It doesn't matter; we can find in any program waste. But this rescission program is about money that is sitting in accounts that you laid out that you said you would be more than willing to look at, and that is what we have done, and I hope you would be able to keep your word and vote for it.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. Did the gentleman yield to me? On what point?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I will answer any question he has or any other reason why he finds a way you can't save taxpayers money, but let me answer your questions.

Since we don't touch FY18 funds, it does not affect FY19 baseline.

Secondly, I said earlier, the gentleman is a Member of this Congress. Rescissions do not have to be a one-time offer. If you have any ability or any ideas, I am more than willing to work with you. I am more than willing to work in the future not just on that line, but others as well.

That is great. Will the gentleman offer an amendment to the bill?

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman used Congressman Tom Cole's name, saying that he would say something. Congressman Tom Cole is a cosponsor of the rescission bill.

He is an appropriator, just as Congresswoman Kay Granger, Congressman Tom Graves. They are all on the Appropriations Committee, and they are all cosponsors of this bill because they want to continue to look to ways that you can save taxpayers money.

I know we have gone around and around here. The question really ends to a philosophy. Can we find a place that we can save the taxpayers money, or can we only find the time that we will take that money when you can't spend it and spend it someplace else? I believe we could take money that you cannot spend and give it back to the taxpayer.

The gentleman brings up other areas. My door is open. I don't want this to be the only rescission. I look for any department, any area in government that we could find savings that are left over, that are sitting there. Or let's make it more accountable. Let's find savings in the current process as well. I am all for that.

But the one thing, Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to is voting ``no.'' That is the easiest thing to do on this floor. I can always find a reason why I am against a bill because something else was not in it.

What is in this bill today is what my friend said in the last colloquy. His argument against having a rescission package was all based upon the omnibus. So he laid this out. Then we meet that criteria, and then he is going to lay another reason out.

You cannot point to anywhere, CBO or any other place, where it states that the CHIP program is harmed. I am sure he was concerned about that, Mr. Speaker, when he voted against it three times, when he extended for 10 years.

This isn't about CHIP. It has nothing to do with it, because the CBO says it is all protected. We put a contingency

fund in there greater than what was ever used in the history of the program.

Mr. Speaker, what the real story here is: Can you take money and give it back to the taxpayers and save money, or do you always have to spend more in Washington? I think when the bill comes to the floor, the American people will get that answer.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The gentleman just said nickel-and-dime programs. This will be the largest rescission in the history of this country. It is not nickels and dimes. It is the taxpayers' money. If it is nickels and dimes to the taxpayers, I want to save those, just the same. But this is billions.

The gentleman tries to make an argument that doesn't hold. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman argues that CHIP could be in jeopardy. The CBO says that is not true. The press writes that it is not true. I cannot find anywhere that this program would be harmed.

I listened to my friend on the other side explain why he voted against CHIP three times. His explanation is because he said there was a promise on the other side for some other bill to come to the floor. I can take him at his word, but my only question back to him would be: Then why does he vote for any bill? Shouldn't he vote ``no'' on every bill that is on the floor then, if that is the protest?

I don't understand why he would take it out on the Children's Health Insurance Program. I don't understand why, when we had the opportunity and we were able to achieve it, he voted ``no'' to get the longest extension in a decade.

Mr. Speaker, I know the American public will see through what is politics and what is policy and what is opportunity. Yes, we did pass a tax bill and, unfortunately, it was just one side that voted for it.

Yes, our unemployment is the lowest it has been in more than 18 years. Our unemployment claims are the lowest they have been in 44 years. Two million more people are now in the workforce.

If you go back, 9, 10 years, the participation rate in America was over 65 percent. Unfortunately, just a few years ago, it got all the way down to 62.7, the lowest it has been since 1978. But the good news is, it is on its way back up.

The good news is, Mr. Speaker, millions of Americans got bonuses where they could fix their car, maybe buy that new washing machine. The better news is, Mr. Speaker, that the revenues into government are even higher--part of what the argument was on passing the tax bill.

Mr. Speaker, it was even an excitement to watch President Trump sitting at Andrews Air Force Base watching three Americans get off an airplane that have been in prison in North Korea, released on the hopes that the war and the battle of North Korea against South Korea can end, and that the President has announced that he has a location and time for that meeting.

Yes, the world looks brighter. But there are still places around the world that are not safe. And, yes, we did make an investment into the military that I am very proud of. I actually voted for that bill. People will say a lot of people negotiated. Some that negotiated didn't vote for it in the end.

So, Mr. Speaker, I try to listen to the other side and I take what they say very seriously. When I heard in our last colloquy that a rescission bill had to be made on those funds that have sat there for 1, 2, 3, and even 7 years, that is what we did. And I look forward to working on further bills in any department that anyone in this body would like to work on.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy) for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the information and for the bonus of a little longer-term view of what we might be considering on the floor of the House.

One of the things I didn't hear on that, and perhaps I asked the majority leader about this before, is whether the majority is expecting to offer on the floor or consider a budget resolution this year.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, although it was not on this list, I wonder if we might expect a budget resolution to be offered at some point in time in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Of course, April 15 is the day set forth. Many times we did not meet April 15. Clearly, last year we didn't meet April 15 by many, many months, but I appreciate the gentleman's answers.

Let me say that I will be joining Sunday night at the National Law Enforcement Memorial here in Washington, D.C., the ceremony to honor those who have given their life in service to our country as law enforcement officers. We ought to pause not just next week, but every week, to recognize the extraordinary service given to us by what I call our domestic defenders, both our police and firefighter personnel, and emergency medical response teams.

It is appropriate that we say thank you. They obviously have a very, very tough job. They get a lot of flack from time to time, but without them, we could not maintain the system of order that we have in this country that allows democracy to proceed. So I want all of us to join, not just next week, but next week particularly, to recognize. We will have, of course, a ceremony on the west front of the Capitol.

We just had a ceremony the other day, which the Capitol Police conducted, remembering the loss of life that we experienced here in this Capitol to Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson in defending the Capitol and those who reside therein and who visit this Capitol.

Mr. Speaker, on the farm bill and on rescissions, the farm bill, as I understand it, again, I think pursuant to what the Speaker said after we passed the tax bill in which we gave 83 percent of $1.5 trillion to the wealthiest in America, the farm bill is now trying to fill that $1.8 trillion hole that was constructed by the tax bill by reducing benefits to those most in need in this country.

I would not so much ask a question of the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, but simply to observe that I would hope we would not try to fill that very, very deep hole that we have dug by passing that tax bill by taking it from those who are most in need.

I notice that, as well as the farm bill, the rescission bill was referred to by the leader as coming to the floor as well, and that seeks to cut a very substantial amount from the contingency fund for child health insurance.

The majority leader will make the point, well, that is money that is not necessarily expected to be spent. In fact, he wrote to CBO asking them a question. The CBO said they didn't think any children would be dropped off because if the contingency is not realized, no children will be dropped off. If, however, the contingency is, and there are no contingency funds available to do that, then, in fact, children will be at risk, unless we pass additional legislation.

I think it is unfortunate the majority is pursuing a policy now, both on the farm bill and on the rescission bill, that seeks to undermine the safety and security of those who are nutritionally underserved in this country.

It is amazing, in the richest country on the face of the Earth, we have people--one out of five children is going, Mr. Speaker, to bed at night hungry. We ought to be moving in the other direction.

This bill has, historically, been a very bipartisan bill. Mr. Lucas and Mr. Peterson, in the last reauthorization, brought a bipartisan bill to the floor. Very frankly, it was turned into a partisan bill on the floor, Mr. Speaker, when an amendment was offered and voted on by much of the leadership on the majority side, which would have cut $40 billion from food stamps for those who are hungry Americans among us.

This is less than that, but I understand that the Heritage Action, Club for Growth, and Americans for Prosperity are opposed to the bill because it is not a deep enough cut, either in farm programs or in nutritional programs.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, that we hope that these will not be policies that we will pursue as a House of Representatives, or as a Congress, and, very frankly, we think the farm bill has little chance of passing the Senate. I would say zero, but that perhaps is a little bit too strong, but certainly little--so that we will be spinning our wheels to send an ideological message to constituencies, I suppose, that want to undercut the ability to ensure that people have food that are hungry in our country.

As to the rescission bill that the majority leader mentioned, Mr. Speaker, rescissions are pretty common. Rescissions are common and mostly done by the Congress of the United States, and we do it annually. In almost every appropriation bill that we pass, or omnibus that we pass, not so much CRs, but they have been present in CRs as well, that we have rescissions.

The Congress has also gotten, as the majority leader will point out, rescission requests from the executive department. Largely, those have been not agreed to by the Congress. Only in one instance has one President had even a majority of his requests acceded to, and that was President Clinton.

But the fact of the matter is, for the most part, rescissions have been pursued by the Congress of the United States, appropriately so, doing its job. And, of course, President Bush asked for no rescissions. President Reagan asked for a lot of rescissions, but President Bush asked for no rescissions--I refer to the second President Bush--nor did President Obama, notwithstanding when the Republicans were largely in charge of the Congress of the United States. And we exercised our judgment and did, in fact, do rescissions in the appropriations process.

Now, we have not had a budget. It is the middle of May. It is a month after the budget was to come forward. Our side does not see a budget moving, but perhaps the majority leader is correct, the committee is considering that, and that would be another place where the Congress could take initiatives and a decision to rescind various amounts of spending.

Last week, Mr. Speaker, I said if there was spending that was neither necessary nor had been authorized over long periods of time, then I would have no objection, personally, to that rescission, and would think that we could initiate that action. But I would hope that, in both of these instances, we would not take actions which would adversely affect those who are challenged in America, either because of health reasons or nutritional reasons.

I would secondly say, and lastly--the majority leader, I am sure, wants to make some comments--60 percent of the budget that we passed, which our Republican friends apparently think

was too much, was defense. Not a single red cent is included in the President's rescission from the defense side of the budget, only the nondefense discretionary funding, the people part of the budget.

Now, I am a strong supporter of national security, Mr. Speaker, and I have been for the 37 years that I have been in this House. But I do not delude myself that every bit of money that has been appropriated-- trillions of dollars over the last 4, 5, or 6 years--has either been spent or is not subject to, perhaps, the Congress saying, well, we put that money on the table but it hasn't been spent.

But apparently the President can't find a single red cent for that, but he can find places where we can undermine research for innovation, Children's Health Insurance Program.

I understand the leader is going to say that CBO says not a single child will be dropped. That may be true; but if we drop the contingency fund, which has been available and has been used year after year, either directly for health insurance or for related programs for children, then we will be at risk of hurting people whom I don't think anybody in this body wants to hurt. So I would hope that, before those bills are brought to the floor, we would keep those matters in consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California.

2000, as I recall, when Mr. Clinton was President.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. He mentioned a number of facts.

Economically, I think all of us can be happy that unemployment is down. The gentleman then mentioned that there are less unemployment requests being made.

Is the gentleman aware that, in 2016, we created 400,000 more jobs than we created in 2017? Is the gentleman aware of that fact? That is a fact.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I presume the answer is the gentleman did not know that there were 400,000 more jobs created in 2016 than were created in 2017. I didn't get the answer to that question, Mr. Speaker.

Let me ask, however, if the gentleman is convinced that there is not a single nickel that can be rescinded from the Defense Department budgets over the last 10 years, trillions of dollars of money, and that only the nondefense side of the budget is subject to rescissions, Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman of the opinion that there are no sums available from the defense budget to try to fill the $1.8 trillion hole created by the tax bill?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, of course the answer to that question is yes.

Mr. Speaker, as I have explained to the majority leader, the Congress has rescinded billions of dollars through the years, and I have voted for rescissions that have been sent down by Presidents of the United States and there may well be rescissions that are sent down that I could support.

I do not intend to support rescissions, Mr. Speaker, that I view as undermining children's health. I know what the majority leader says: nobody is going to be hurt.

Now, interestingly enough, in that answer, he does not answer my question except we all want a strong defense. Nobody on this floor has longer supported Israel's right to be safe and defended than I have.

The issue is I asked the majority leader this does not include a single red cent of rescissions from the trillions of dollars to the Defense Department, not because I want to undermine the Defense Department any more than he says he wants to undermine children's health, but this is not about rescissions, per se. What it is about is the flack that the majority party is getting, that the President is getting from the Club for Growth, from Heritage Action, from Americans for Prosperity, saying: Your budget was too big. The omnibus was too big. We don't like it. Show some fiscal discipline.

So in an effort to show fiscal discipline, who do they go after? The Children's Health Insurance Program.

He can say it all he wants, but he well knows, and the appropriators will tell him, Mr. Speaker, that that money has been used on an ongoing basis by the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Subcommittee and by the Appropriations Committee to backfill in places where there were clearly shortages on services to children and families.

The gentleman may want to say whether or not he believes--because outlays are not affected, he says--that, in fact, this rescission will lower the nondefense discretionary baseline in 2019. That is what I think the real purpose is, Mr. Speaker, and that is why the majority leader has not answered the question about whether there is a single cent to save the taxpayer money--we all want to save the taxpayer money--out of the Defense Department side of the budget or whether that is simply sacrosanct and not worthy of oversight by the Congress or by the President.

That was my question. It was not answered, and I regret that.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly will yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, is the majority leader aware of the fact, when he says that the rescission was cut or the CHIP was cut, is the gentleman aware of where that money went when it was cut, or--I would say it in a different way--reprogrammed to other items in the omnibus or in the Labor-Health bill in previous appropriations? Is the gentleman aware of the difference between the cut and the reprogramming of money for a different objective related to the appropriation that was included?

I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has not answered either one of my questions, A, whether there was a single red cent available in the Defense Department for rescission, because that money has been laying there 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 years. Is there a single red cent there? B, he did not answer the question whether or not this rescission will adversely impact the discretionary baseline for the 2019 budget.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I did yield to the gentleman about the single red cent, because all of this deals on the nondefense side of the budget, which is, by the way, the smallest part of the budget.

The gentleman keeps saying we need to make sure we do these cuts. He wasn't as concerned, apparently, about balancing our budget when he cut $1.8 trillion, $1.5 trillion--$1.8 trillion when you include the interest. I know they say it is going to pay for itself. I have been here a long time. They have said that before. It never has paid for itself.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman will not answer those two questions: Is there not a single red cent in the Defense budget; are they looking at the Defense budget to see whether or not we put money on the table that is either no longer necessary or has not been used for a significant period of time--that seems to be his rationale--or, secondly, whether or not it is going to have an adverse effect on the budget deal that was reached in terms of where the nondefense discretionary spending base will be for the 2019 budget.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Is the gentleman aware that there are $95 billion of unobligated funds in the Department of Defense?

I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the majority leader--he wants to do these rescissions. Congress usually does these. They do them in the appropriations process, and that is fine. Presidents have also done that.

My question to him was: If you want to see rescissions, and--as he has quoted me over, and over, and over again--funds that are not necessary, not needed, not going to be spent, obviously, we will consider rescissions for those.

However, what I have asked the gentleman is, you make the assessment. Very frankly, the first time we make a rescission suggestion on defense, he will stand up, or others on his side will stand up, and say: See, they are against defense.

I am strongly for our national security, and I always have been. But I think it is perverse in the farm bill to look at people who need nutritional help. This CHIP program, if there is $500 million as he claims, and he is probably accurate--I don't want to assess the gentleman's saying something inaccurate--but clearly, these funds have been used for other issues almost annually by the Appropriations Committee. Mr. Cole would say that. Mrs. Lowey would say that.

I would expect, Mr. Speaker, for both the President and the majority to propose where those $95 billion in unobligated funds might also add to his desire to make sure that taxpayers get some money back that is not being used.

I yield to my friend and then we will conclude.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has mentioned numerous times that I voted against some of the bills that were offered on this floor, and he is right. He tries to make it as if I voted against the CHIP program. He knows that is not an honest representation, Mr. Speaker, any more than the chairman of the Armed Services Committee voting against one of those bills with me being against defense.

I was against it, frankly, because the Speaker and the majority leader made a representation in September that we are going to solve a problem we have yet to solve. And I am sorry about that. I think it is wrong not to have solved it, and we were told we were going to have a solution to it.

But the fact of the matter is, what I am saying is, the Republicans talked and talked mightily about deficit reduction and giving money back to the taxpayer. But if you break their bank, the money is going to be taken from our children.

And so they passed a massive, $1.5 trillion tax bill, massive, and then they come here with nickel-and-dime programs and say they are going to give money back to the taxpayer.

I am for giving money back to the taxpayer. I am not for doing it by creating additional debt for their children and their grandchildren. I think that is not only an intellectually bankrupt policy, but an immoral policy. But we are not going to resolve it today. I understand that.

I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, this administration will have the largest deficit increase of any administration in history. They haven't been here very long, so that is a prediction I make, and I am absolutely positive I am correct.

They are now trying to bring that down, as I have said, by going after investments on the domestic side of the budget, both in the farm bill and in the rescission package. There are clearly rescissions that are justified and that the Appropriations Committee and administrations have made on a regular basis. When administrations have made them, almost invariably, the majority of the rescissions requested by the administrations--Democrat or Republican--have been rejected by the Congress of the United States.

But I am hopeful, as the majority leader says, that we can reach bipartisan agreement on rescissions that, in fact, make sense. I would also hope we could reach some bipartisan agreement on solving issues that confront this country.

The farm bill is a perfect example where it historically has been a bipartisan bill, Mr. Speaker. It is a partisan bill this year, as they made it the last time when Chairman Lucas reported out a bipartisan bill and pleaded with his party not to make it a partisan bill. They made it a partisan bill and, of course, it failed in the Senate. It wasn't even brought up in the Senate. The Senate did its own bill.

So I would hope that the words of the majority leader about wanting to work in a bipartisan fashion will be realized with respect to all of these issues, including rescissions. And I would hope that we could perhaps have some rational policies to try to stem the extraordinary deficits that will inevitably be caused, as they have been in the past, by a tax cut bill that gave 83 percent of its benefits to the wealthiest in our Nation.

Without further ado, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 923 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Torres), 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 yield myself such time as I may consume.

House Resolution 923 provides for the consideration of two important bills related to Federal spending of taxpayer dollars.

The first, H.R. 5895, the combined appropriations bill, containing three individual fiscal year 2019 Energy and Water, Legislative Branch, and Military Construction and Veterans Affairs bills, provides the annual funding for these Federal departments.

The second bill, H.R. 3, the Spending Cuts to Expired and Unnecessary Programs Act, is a critical bill to honor the House Republicans' commitment to eliminating wasteful Federal spending.

The resolution before us this afternoon provides for a structured rule for H.R. 5895. Yesterday, the House passed the first rule pertaining to this bill, providing for 1 hour of general debate on the measure. Today's rule makes in order 40 amendments offered by both Democrats and Republicans.

House Resolution 923 also provides a closed rule for H.R. 3, the rescissions package, but does execute Leader McCarthy's amendment which incorporates President Trump's revised and updated spending proposal.

One hour of debate time for H.R. 3 is provided, divided and controlled equally by the majority leader and the minority leader or their respective designees.

Finally, the rule provides the minority the customary motion to recommit on both pieces of legislation under consideration.

H.R. 5895, the Energy and Water, Legislative Branch, and Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act of 2019, funds a net total of $144 billion in base discretionary spending, $33 billion for defense, and $112 billion for nondefense purposes. The totals reflect the amount specified in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018.

Division A of the appropriations package funds the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act at nearly $45 billion,

providing for national security and energy and water infrastructure investments.

The bill would increase Federal investments in nuclear security by $600 million above fiscal year 2018, then totaling more than $15 billion.

As President Trump has repeatedly stated, our Nation must modernize its aging nuclear forces. They are the centerpiece of our deterrent strategy, and we cannot allow them to degrade to a point where they become functionally useless.

To prevent this outcome, nuclear weapons activities, especially Navy nuclear reactors, all continue to receive funding. Congress must not leave the United States unprepared while our adversaries continue to advance their own nuclear weapons programs.

Division A also improves the security of our energy infrastructure. Most Americans take for granted the ability to easily access electricity, but that convenience is tenuous. The electric grid is massive, it is complex, and it is vulnerable to cyber and physical attacks. These threats have become increasingly likely as more operations go online or are connected to a network which is not secure.

This bill appropriates $117 million to ensure that our energy infrastructure operators have the resources they need to develop these defenses.

Additionally, the bill supports the completion of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, helping to ease the risk and burden of storing nuclear waste in temporary storage sites across the country.

In 2007, the Energy Independence and Security Act gave the Department of Energy authority to regulate incandescent light bulbs through the law's excessive energy efficiency standards, effectively killing free market competition.

Therefore, I submitted an amendment that would prohibit the use of Federal funds to carry out these onerous enforcement standards. This amendment has been included in the Energy and Water Development appropriations bill every fiscal year since 2011, and I look forward to continued consumer choice in this market.

Division A includes the United States Army Corps of Engineers. In Texas' 26th Congressional District that I represent, the Army Corps has been instrumental in ensuring the thorough maintenance, repair, and safety of Lake Lewisville Dam, which sustained damage due to heavy rains in the north Texas area in 2015.

This is just one example of the important work the Army Corps performs throughout the United States, and the bill increases funding of the agency to more than $7 billion for fiscal year 2019.

The bill also repeals the massive overreach of Federal authority known as the waters of the United States rule, promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency and the United States Army Corps of Engineers. This rule changed the definition of navigable waters subject to Federal regulation under the Clean Water Act, placing significant costs on property owners.

Last, the bill prohibits the use of nuclear nonproliferation projects in Russia without certain notifications from the Secretary of Energy.

Division B appropriates $3.8 billion for the legislative branch. This encompasses the House of Representatives and joint operations with the Senate.

The House of Representatives is funded at $1.2 billion, which is $25 million below the President's budget request. Funding also supports Capitol security and police forces, services for visitors, and Capitol operations and maintenance.

The Capitol Police are funded at $456 million, an increase of $30 million above fiscal year 2018. Last year, we learned just how vital the Capitol Police are when they responded to and stopped a shooter who opened fire at a congressional baseball game practice.

The bravery and skill demonstrated by those agents are what allows Members of Congress, our staff, our support personnel, and visitors to go to work or visit the Capitol complex every day without fear. They deserve our full support.

The Office of Compliance is appropriated over $5 million for employee and Member workplace rights training. This funding will also support a dispute resolution process that is fair and accessible for all.

The bill also includes almost $580 million for the Government Accountability Office so that it may continue its vital work of oversight and reporting on how Federal programs are using taxpayer dollars.

Two important things that the bill does not fund are a cost-of-living increase for Members of Congress and allowances for former Speakers of the House.

Division C of the appropriations package provides over $96 billion in discretionary funding for Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, an increase of more than $4 billion over fiscal year 2018.

Nearly all of the increase in funding goes toward supporting the efforts and the services of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Robust funding for Veterans Affairs will ensure that those who have served our country have access to quality services.

This bill includes a total of $194 billion in discretionary and mandatory funding for Veterans Affairs, which is $9 billion more than fiscal year 2018.

Importantly, this bill provides more than $71 billion for Veterans Affairs medical care and more than $1 billion in funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs to deploy a new electronic health records system that aligns with the Department of Defense.

Mr. Speaker, this is something that we have been promised since 2006. This will allow our veterans an easier transition into the Veterans Affairs system than they experience today.

The bill also includes funding for reducing the disability claims backlog so that veterans will receive more timely compensation.

Yesterday, the VA MISSION Act was signed into law. American veterans deserve the best possible care, and this bill gives the Department of Veterans Affairs the resources to work towards providing that care for the 7 million patients who are expected to receive Veterans Affairs treatment in fiscal year 2019.

Additionally, this bill funds construction, operation, and maintenance of housing for our troops and medical and education facilities at over $10 billion.

This is the first step toward funding the government and its essential programs for fiscal year 2019. This year, Congress will do its job to ensure smart, efficient, and appropriate use of taxpayer dollars.

H.R. 3, the second bill contained in today's rule, is the rescissions package to cut stagnant and unused prior-year Federal funding.

President Trump submitted and recently revised a proposal to rescind approximately $14.5 billion of budget authority, affecting 15 Federal departments and agencies. These include unobligated balances from the Department of Energy's Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program and the Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program; the Department of Housing and Urban Development's capital fund; the Department of Justice's Assets Forfeiture Fund; the Department of State's Complex Crisis Fund; and unnecessary funding for the Millennium Challenge Corporation, among other things.

President Trump recently revised his request to withdraw the proposed rescission of emergency Ebola funds as well as supplemental appropriations for Superstorm Sandy recovery and to decrease proposed rescissions to Housing and Urban Development's capital fund and Treasury's capital management fund.

Two provisions related to the Children's Health Insurance Program should be noted.

The first rescinds over $5 billion that was included in the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 that supplements the fiscal year 2017 allotments to States. This was in addition to the annual Children's Health Insurance Program appropriation to reimburse States for Children's Health Insurance Program expenses. The remaining funds are no longer needed.

The second provision rescinds almost $2 billion made available to the Children's Health Insurance Program contingency fund, which is used to provide payments to States that have funding shortfalls. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services currently does

not expect any State to need a payment from the contingency fund during the current fiscal year.

It is important that the American people understand that these Children's Health Insurance Program rescissions will have no impact on the current Children's Health Insurance Program.

Early this year, Republicans passed and signed into law the longest and most generous extension to the Children's Health Insurance Program in its 20-year history. When House Democrats were presented this opportunity, they voted against it not once but twice.

Mr. Speaker, when Federal funds are no longer needed in an agency or have not been obligated, Congress should do the right thing and use these taxpayer dollars to reduce the deficit.

I support passage of the rule to allow debate on these important priorities. I urge Members to support today's rule and both underlying bills.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, February 9 of this year, the House of Representatives passed the most generous extension of the Children's Health Insurance Program since its inception in 1996. The gentlewoman from California voted against that extension.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs), a valuable member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that as of June 7 of this year, Republicans in the 115th Congress have provided consideration for over 1,200 amendments on the House floor.

Mr. Speaker, during the entirety of the 111th Congress, when Speaker Pelosi was Speaker, the Democrats allowed less than 1,000 amendments to be considered on the floor. Their majority blocked nearly 3,000 amendments that year in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

I would like to recognize that on February 9 of this year, the most generous extension of the Children's Health Insurance Program--for 10 years' time--was passed by the House and eventually signed into law. The gentleman from Massachusetts fought against that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the gentleman's service to our country. I would point out that I worked as a physician in a VA facility in the 1970s, and I am well aware of the good work that the doctors and nurses in VA facilities provide.

I would like to point out that, in the Statement of Administration Policy, the administration expected the MISSION Act to be in place by the beginning of fiscal year 2018. Do remember that this was one of the promises that then-candidate Trump promised to the Nation, that he would make the funding of the veterans programs a priority, and I believe he has done that.

Continuing to quote from the administration: ``The delay in enacting the MISSION Act's new community care program increases the requirements to continue the VA's current traditional community care program by an additional $1.6 billion in fiscal year 2019.''

Here is the important point: ``The administration looks forward to working with Congress to secure this funding within the existing nondefense discretionary cap.''

I think it is fair to say there is more to come.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I will point out that one of the things that the Military Construction and VA appropriation does fund is the improvements to the VA Electronic Health Record. This is something that has been sought by this Congress and previous administrations going back to 2006. I am happy to say that in this appropriations bill it is being taken care of.

Three administrations is too long for that to happen. I am grateful for the focus that the administration put on this problem, and I am grateful that they have finally gotten it solved.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, as of June 7, 2018, Republicans in the 115th Congress have provided for consideration of over 1,200 amendments on the House floor. Over 570 of those amendments have been proposed by Democrats, 480 proposed by Republicans, and 190 were bipartisan. That is 46 percent Democratic amendments, 39 percent Republican amendments, and 16 percent were bipartisan.

By contrast, during the entire 111th Congress, that was the last Congress where Speaker Pelosi was the Speaker of the House, Democrats were in the majority. During the entire 111th Congress, Speaker Pelosi allowed less than 1,000 amendments to be considered on the House floor, and, in fact, the Democratic majority blocked 3,000 amendments, with roughly 2,400 during, actually, the first session, the first year of that Congress.

These numbers include measures where the summaries of amendments submitted are publicly available, but at that time, due to the lack of the majority's transparency, the number is likely much higher that were blocked.

Now, look, Chairman Sessions of the Rules Committee has made it a point

to ensure that every single Member has the opportunity to submit their amendments and come to the Committee on Rules and share their thoughts and concerns. And as the gentlewoman knows well, there is no clock in the Rules Committee. Any Member can come and spend as much time with us as they wish.

Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of two important pieces of legislation: H.R. 5895, the Energy and Water, Legislative Branch, and Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act of 2019, and H.R. 3, the Spending Cuts to Expired and Unnecessary Programs Act. Both are responsible measures that take seriously our responsibility to be vigilant stewards of the Federal taxpayers' dollars.

I want to thank the President for his leadership in eliminating unused and unnecessary funding from past years, a responsible approach that until this President has been underutilized. I urge my colleagues today to support the rules and the two underlying pieces of 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, and I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, this rule makes 39 amendments in order to the appropriations bill we have been considering this week.

Unfortunately, this appropriations package is made up of three individual appropriations bills. Also, in what is a surprise to us in the minority, this rule also includes a surprising $15 billion in rescissions--cuts--to programs our communities depend on.

Why aren't we given the opportunity to bring up these bills individually? Considering that nearly 200 amendments were offered to this package while many of us were working in our districts, it is obvious to me that these bills would have benefited from a longer debate.

This rule makes in order 39 amendments to the underlying package, which includes H.R. 5895, the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2019; H.R. 5894, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act of 2019; and H.R. 5786, the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2019.

However, 59 additional amendments will not be given an opportunity to be heard, including bipartisan amendments like the Cicilline-Poliquin amendment to prohibit oil drilling on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf or the Foster-Hultgren amendment to increase funding for the Department of Energy's Office of Science or the Issa-Roybal-Allard amendment to support programs that improve veteran access to care at qualified health centers. Don't these distinguished Members of this body deserve to have their amendments discussed, debated, and voted on?

This rule also makes in order H.R. 3, the GOP rescission package. Mr. Speaker, this bill has not received a single hearing--not one. This was a last-minute addition which gave no time for amendments to be considered.

The closed rule, which is how the rescissions package comes to the floor, pushes this Congress further into the record books as the most closed Congress in history.

Before I speak more on that, I do want to take a brief moment to highlight the bipartisan manner in which the appropriators acted in crafting the Military Construction and Legislative Branch bills. This is proof that, when this body wants to, we can work together and produce legislation that results in broad, bipartisan consensus.

The Military Construction and Veterans Affairs bill provides a $4.17 billion increase to the servicemembers we represent--specifically, a $3.9 billion increase to the Department of Veterans Affairs.

The Legislative Branch bill takes more steps we should have taken a long time ago and provides additional resources for training and to help with complaints on sexual harassment and violations of employee rights. None of us here are immune to harassers, but at least this bill moves us forward in addressing the bad behaviors of those who walk among us.

This rule makes in order amendments to the Energy and Water appropriations bill. However, this bill does not follow the same bipartisan path. Instead, this bill is full of poison pill riders that will ultimately make our time here a total waste, as those poison pill riders mean that the Senate will ignore this package as it is written.

Incredibly, when most Americans are asking Congress to make commonsense improvements to our Nation's gun laws, this bill goes in the opposite direction. That is right. This Congress is finally acting on guns--in a cowardly way, by expanding where guns can be brought onto Federal lands, ignoring the cries and the calls from our children--our children who are being murdered in their classrooms, our constituents who are being murdered in movie theaters, our constituents who are being murdered in concert halls in Las Vegas, Nevada, where people go to get married, where people go to have fun, and, yes, they make babies sometimes in Vegas too. But yet we are ignoring their calls for help.

It is amazing that we can go on months without meaningful reforms on gun violence and now we take up a giant spending package that forces Members to vote on yet another expansion of gun access. What are we trying to do?

Again, a cowardice act to expand the use of weapons in our Federal lands. For what? So we can go into the dens of bears and kill them--the momma bears and the baby bears--while they are sleeping?

That is what we are doing in this Congress.

Perhaps that wouldn't be such a problem if we had a single open rule on the House floor that would allow the House to work its will on this or any other issue Members have with portions of this legislation.

Finally, this rule makes in order H.R. 3, President Trump's and the GOP's rescissions bill. As I mentioned before, this bill saw no hearings. Zero.

But perhaps just as troubling was Ranking Member Lowey's remarks in our Rules Committee hearing last night about how the minority wasn't even consulted prior to this bill coming to the floor, ignoring the thousands of constituents that we represent. So, not only has this bill skipped the normal appropriations process, Democrats have not been given an opportunity to add the voice of their constituents.

Make no mistake, this is a highly partisan bill which does not reflect the House's will. Instead, this is what our constituents hate the most: a Congress that is most dysfunctional.

This bill makes significant cuts to programs that create jobs, grow our economy, and provide healthcare to millions of children in a transparent attempt to appear fiscally conservative after passing a tax bill that added $1.9 trillion to the deficit and gave most of its benefit to the wealthiest among us.

If we want to rescind something to balance the deficit, how about we start with the $1 trillion budget-busting tax bill that was passed for the wealthy. That irresponsible law is now the cause of Medicare and Social Security going bankrupt decades earlier.

This bill is a political gimmick to hide the Republican majority's gross mismanagement of our Nation's long-term fiscal health. While the GOP tax giveaway benefited the wealthiest among us, almost half of the cuts in this rescissions package are to the Children's Health Insurance Program. Let me say that again, Mr. Speaker: the Children's Health Insurance Program.

We have $7 billion eliminated from CHIP. That is right. They didn't blink an eye at a $2 trillion giveaway to the wealthy, but yet they are squeezing fractional savings from funds intended for children's health insurance.

But that isn't the end of it. So that corporations and millionaires can have a tax break, the House majority has decided to make a collection of cuts that will impact every community: Cuts to economic development; cuts to the Forest Service while the West of America is burning; cuts to Indian housing programs, cuts to foreign assistance; cuts to transportation while our infrastructure is crumbling; cuts to public housing while the growing number of Americans grow homeless; cuts to conservation; and cuts to advanced technology vehicle loans.

What is it that you want to do? Do you want to take us back to the time of Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble?

I know that my Republican colleagues will say that they aren't cuts because the funding can't be used, but no Federal agencies were asked if they needed a waiver to utilize this funding where they need it the most. I doubt that my colleagues will say they couldn't use this in their communities.

Well, let me put these cuts in the voice of the Great Gazoo: those cuts are dumb and dumber cuts.

Mr. Speaker, that is why I must strongly oppose this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot continue to allow the rewriting of history. The majority has blocked over 2,000 amendments, and it is only June.

Mr. Speaker, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act would shortchange our veterans by subjecting funding for their healthcare programs to onerous budget restraints. This would force funding for veterans healthcare to compete with other important veterans programs.

Therefore, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to include Representative Lamb's legislation, H.R. 5805, to fix the VA Choice budget shortfall and Representative Carter's amendment to MILCON-VA which includes more funds for vital veteran healthcare initiatives.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Lamb) to discuss our proposal.

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 yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.

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

I have no doubt of the importance of the legislation this rule makes in order. However, I struggle to believe that this is the most important work we could be doing today.

Instead, perhaps we can fix the broken immigration laws that President Trump has cited as his reason for separating families and children on our Nation's border. Fear and intimidation are no way to make policy. The Trump administration has picked the cruelest way to punish those who are fleeing violence.

The result is broken families and lost children. Since October, more than 700 children have been inhumanely separated from their parents. More than 100 of these children are less than 4 years old.

Using family separation as a scare tactic to prevent families from coming to this country will never work, and it is in the same cruel mindset as using rape as a weapon of war. These families come here looking for one thing: shelter. Punishing a mother by separating her from her child is not only immoral; it is inhumane. It goes against the fundamental human right of the family unit.

Separating them from their parents is simply anti-American. However, for some reason, President Trump has repeatedly said that he is bound by the law to rip these families apart.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, what is the law requiring the separation of parents and children at the border?

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the reason the Speaker can't answer is that the law simply doesn't exist. However, this is the United States Congress. We make the laws. But unfortunately, this isn't what we are doing here. No. Instead, we are taking up a bill to put more guns on public lands and cut funding for energy efficiency research. For this reason and many other concerns I have with the number of amendments which were not made in order, I must oppose this rule.

This Congress is now the most closed Congress in history. It is forcing its Members to vote on bills which haven't been given a real debate. It is clear the majority is attempting to rewrite history.

Mr. Speaker, Canada did not burn the White House. The American people know better. None of the work we do today will undo their deficit- busting bill, nor will it reunite the families the administration has destroyed.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question and the rule, 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.