Expressing concern and condemnation over the political, economic, social, and humanitarian crisis in Venezuela.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 647 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 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 on House Resolution 647.

Mr. Speaker, I hope you were listening as the Reading Clerk was going through this rule, because there was a lot of meat in this rule today.

Ordinarily, and, in fact, historically, we will do a bill and we will do a rule; we will do a rule and we will do a bill. This rule today makes three bills in order, three important bills in order.

I am proud to be able to carry this rule today. I hope my colleagues will see the merits of it as I do.

The rule provides a structured rule for the debate of two bills out of the Financial Services Committee. One is H.R. 477, Mr. Speaker, the Small Business Mergers, Acquisitions, Sales, and Brokerage Simplification Act of 2017. The second is H.R. 3971, the Community Institution Mortgage Relief Act. The rule also provides for consideration of a continuing resolution, H.J. Res. 123, which provides appropriations through December 22, as final year decisionmaking and negotiating goes on. It also allows the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, CMS, to reallocate existing funds for the CHIP program through December 31, 2017.

Mr. Speaker, I want to start off talking about the Financial Services bills. We will have some members from the Financial Services Committee come down. They can talk about it in details that I cannot.

It was a fascinating hearing that we had in the Rules Committee last night, Mr. Speaker. We had the chairman, Mr.

Hensarling from Texas, and we had the ranking member, Ms. Waters. It was a conversation about how we protect people, how do we serve people better.

Now, the Community Institution Mortgage Relief Act, Mr. Speaker, is the result of small community banks and local credit unions saying: We are having a tough time providing mortgages to our members because the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has created rules designed to protect consumers that are protecting them right out of access to a mortgage at all.

Mr. Speaker, it is a legitimate disagreement that we have here from time to time about how to protect people best, about how to love people best, but it is the right kind of conversation to be having. If we pass this rule today, we will be able to get into debate on that underlying bill.

The debate will not be about should we protect people, because we all agree that we should.

The debate will be about how should we protect those people, an issue on which legitimate, well-intentioned, thoughtful men and women can disagree. I look forward to this body working its will.

The second bill, Mr. Speaker, from the Financial Services Committee, H.R. 477, was introduced by a classmate of mine in that big class of 2011, Mr. Huizenga from Michigan. He has worked this bill through the process one step at a time, trying to build consensus so that, Mr. Speaker, as we were in the Rules Committee last night, the conversation between the chairman and the ranking member was: Hey, if we can make one more amendment in order, one more amendment that Mr. Huizenga and Mr. Sherman had worked out together, if we can make one more round of changes, we believe we can get this through on a big bipartisan majority coming out of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, we don't celebrate those things, we don't talk about those things. The newspaper will be filled with discord coming out of this city tomorrow morning, but I can tell you that it gives me great pride to come on behalf of the Rules Committee today bringing forward these bills, not that are going to change the world overnight, but are going to make a big difference for real people facing real challenges across this country.

It turns out, Mr. Speaker, my experience is if we do a little bit together every day, a little bit today, a little bit tomorrow, a little bit the next day, we wake up a year from now finding out we have done a whole lot together on behalf of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, finally, the continuing resolution. I am not a fan of continuing resolutions, I just want to tell you. I got to talk to you about my enthusiastic, optimistic part of this rule earlier. I am going to lay some tough love on you now, Mr. Speaker. We are not supposed to be in the continuing resolution business. You know with your leadership, the leadership of the gentlewoman from New York, the leadership of the two gentlemen from Michigan here on the floor, this House passed on time, ahead of schedule, the funding bills to fund the priorities of the American people for fiscal year 2018.

Folks said we couldn't get it done, folks said we couldn't do it all. We did, and we did. We sent that to the Senate, Mr. Speaker, before the end of the fiscal year, which was back on September 30. The Senate hasn't been able to take it up yet, Mr. Speaker. The Senate hasn't been able to debate it yet, Mr. Speaker.

I don't know if the Senate is going to get it done in the next 2 weeks, but there are folks in this institution, Mr. Speaker, who say: You know what? We couldn't get it done in the Senate over these last 2 months, so let's just go ahead and pass a continuing resolution for all of fiscal year 2018.

A continuing resolution, for folks who don't follow the appropriations process, means, hey, if it worked well last year, let's just do the same thing next year. Mr. Speaker, that is awful public policy.

We came together debating almost 500 amendments. Having moved every single appropriations bill through the Appropriations Committee, we came together not just in a bipartisan way in the committee, we came together here on the House floor, debated these issues, grappled with these issues, and produced a work product with which the American people can take great pride.

I don't want to give up on that work product, Mr. Speaker. I don't want to settle for the way things have been. I believe that we can do better.

By passing a 2-week continuing resolution today, we ensure that all the features of government continue to operate as the American people expect them to, and we provide another window for the Senate to come together and pass those appropriations bills as we have done here in the House.

I am optimistic about that coming to fruition, Mr. Speaker. I believe that we can get that done together.

Mr. Speaker, we can take up these bipartisan efforts from the Financial Services Committee, we can take up this important effort to continue the funding of the government if we pass this rule today.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I don't disagree with a lot of what my friend from New York had to say when it comes to the facts. I do disagree with the conclusions that are reached there, Mr. Speaker.

We do need to do a better job of working together. Now, sometimes that means Republicans and Democrats, sometimes that means the House and the Senate, sometimes that means the White House and the Congress. We need to hold each other accountable, but we also need to give each other credit for our successes.

The gentlewoman talked about important issues relating to education and improving workforce. We passed together in this institution a continuation of career and technical education funding. We reauthorized that program together, led by G.T. Thompson on my side of the aisle, by Mr. Krishnamoorthi on your side of the aisle, by Chairwoman Foxx on our side of the aisle, by Ranking Member Scott on your side of the aisle. We grappled with that issue together. We did it together, because it was the right thing for the American people, and now it sits in the United States Senate without action.

We came together, and we funded the government. We grappled, line by line, section by section, we did it together, and now it sits in the United States Senate.

Mr. Speaker, what needs to be said, one can describe it as Republican incompetence. One can describe it as Democrat intransigence. But we, as a House, have come together and gotten our work done. The Senate cannot, and why the Senate cannot is because it requires 60 votes to get something done over there under Senate rules. In order to have 60 votes, you have to have Democrat votes.

If the Senate changed its rules tomorrow and made it just a Republican majority institution, they could move all of these bills without delay. Far from being a reflection of incompetence, it is a reflection of a commitment to a bipartisan effort on the Senate side.

We can poke them and poke them and poke them and, just one day, folks might get their wish, and we may make that a completely Republican streamlined process over there. But be careful what you wish for.

We don't have to kick each other in the shins all day long, every day, over here. We have success after success that we have earned together. We should spend more time celebrating those successes, Mr. Speaker. Among those successes is the bill I mentioned earlier, offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga) to talk about the hard work, the effort, and the success that he has been able to accomplish in a bipartisan way.

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

I would be interested sometime, Mr. Speaker, having a team building expert take a look at some of our proceedings here on the House floor and see if they think that the conversations that happen here bring us closer to working together on serious solutions, or push us further away.

I agree with my friend from Michigan; we need to get about the business of the American people. The business of

the American people is not figuring out who to blame, it is figuring out how to fix things. And to continue to perpetuate the inaccurate message that we don't collaborate on those issues is to do our bosses, the American people, a terrible disservice.

On bill after bill to combat the opioid epidemic, we have come together in this institution. We have passed these bills in a collaborative way and sent them to the United States Senate. Bill after bill on human trafficking, we have come together in this institution. We have passed these bills. We have sent those bills to the United States Senate.

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about funding the American Government. I have been in this Congress since 2011. I got to vote, for the very first time, on funding the Centers for Disease Control, which sits right in my back yard in the great State of Georgia.

I got to vote, for the very first time, on funding the National Institutes of Health, which do such amazing research, both for our seniors and for our children. The kind of talent that we have there, Mr. Speaker, boggles the mind. We came together, and we funded those institutions in the annual appropriations bill for the first time ever.

Now, we can spend our time together talking about who hates children and who hates old people, and why it is everybody is an untalented buffoon; or we can recognize that, on issue after issue, we come together and get about the business that our bosses sent us to get about.

I don't think any of us are going to be rewarded by figuring out who to blame. I think we are going to be rewarded by getting it fixed.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney), who has worked, through the Financial Services Committee, again, in a bipartisan way, to deal with local community financial institutions and local home buyers who are getting shut out of the process by an overly burdensome Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

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

Mr. Speaker, I opened with a discussion about how we all care about these American homeowners who are trying to get, oftentimes, into their first home, and how it is that we protect them better.

We disagreed about how to protect them.

Do you do it through the CFPB and Federal regulation? Or do you do it through more local hometown institutions being governed by their neighbors?

We agreed on what the need was, but we disagreed on how to get there.

What is so frustrating to me--I still feel like a relatively new Member of this institution, Mr. Speaker. I guess I am not any longer-- is that we seem to have one standard when we are in the majority and a completely different standard when the other guy takes over the institution. It seems to me that principles should be principles irrespective of who sits in your chair.

The very first big vote I took when I got here in 2011, Mr. Speaker, was to fund the United States Government in February.

Why?

Because when Democrats ran every single facet of government--they controlled the House, they controlled the Senate, and they controlled the White House--they didn't get it done. They couldn't get it done. It is hard to do sometimes, Mr. Speaker.

I will take you back. You weren't in this institution at that time. The year is 2010. The first CR that they passed went from October 1 to December 3, about the same length of time as the one that we passed.

They weren't up to anything nefarious when that happened, Mr. Speaker, and I resent the implication that we have been during that same path. They needed a little extra time and they took it.

When that CR expired, Mr. Speaker, they then went and passed, lo and behold, a 2-week CR--a 2-week CR from December 4 to December 18. They needed a little more time. They passed one for 2 more weeks to get themselves a little more time.

That didn't work out, Mr. Speaker. They still weren't able to get it done in those 2 weeks, so their next CR, Mr. Speaker, went from December 19 to December 21. Three days is what they found to be the right number to extend funding of the Federal Government so they could continue to get their work done, Mr. Speaker.

When that 3-day CR didn't work, they then punted altogether; and when my freshman class came in in 2011, we took over and we funded the government instead.

Mr. Speaker, we can describe what happened when my friends last controlled this institution as an abominable failure, or we can describe it as a frustrating failure but something that happens in this institution. It happened when my friends ran it. It happens when we run it. We need, on behalf of the American people, to get on a better track. Let me stipulate that is true.

But let me ask my friends to stipulate, Mr. Speaker, that for the first time in a long time we are on a better track because we came together in this institution and we got our work done. The Senate hasn't, and I am frustrated by that, but I want to give them a little more time.

For my friend from Michigan who asked the question, ``What difference does 2 weeks make,'' I would ask anyone who has that question to Google ``continuing resolution'' and ``Department of Defense.''

If you think that continuing to fund the government one day at a time with a continuing resolution, or even 12 months of the time during a continuing resolution, if you think that is the definition of success, Google ``continuing resolution'' and ``Department of Defense.''

Every single day that we fail to take up in the United States Senate the large full-year funding appropriations bill, we do a disservice to every single man and woman in uniform.

If we have a choice here today, Mr. Speaker, between doing that disservice to those men and women for 2 weeks or 6 weeks or 8 weeks or 12 months, I choose to.

If you wonder what difference it makes, ask any man or woman in uniform. There is a reason, Mr. Speaker, as hard as the appropriations process is, that you and I took up the defense portion, the Homeland Security portion, the national security portion all the way back in the summer and passed it out of this House before the end of July, because we knew how important it was. We knew how mission critical it was, and we wanted to give the Senate the most time we possibly could.

I am frustrated, too, but let us not describe these failures as partisan failures, as an effort by one side or the other to subvert the process. These are failures. But 2 weeks, Mr. Speaker, is going to be less of a failure for our men and women in uniform than would be 3 weeks, 4 weeks, or 12 months.

I am sorry that we are here, but this is the best circumstance that we can create to allow our Senate time to succeed.

They cannot succeed alone. Republicans cannot succeed there alone. It requires a bipartisan majority to succeed. Let us not pretend this is a partisan problem. This is an American challenge, and I believe we are up for it.

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

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

I thank my friend from New York for helping me to bring the rule today.

Mr. Speaker, I believe in truth in advertising, and of all the things that you heard the Reading Clerk read, when he went through word for word for word from this rule, you heard not one word about taxes today. Why? Because we are not talking about taxes today at all. Because nothing that we are doing today has anything to do with taxes at all. Because of all the successes that we are down here to partner on today, tax is not one of them.

What is on the list today?

Well, in the spirit of truth in advertising, Mr. Speaker, shutdowns aren't on the list either. In fact, the opposite is true. If we pass this rule today, we will fund the government. We will prioritize keeping the doors open.

Mr. Speaker, habits are hard things to break, and we are in two very bad habits in this institution. One is failing to see the merit in what the other side is offering. We have two Financial Services bills today that break that pattern, that see the merit in working together and collaborating together, and we bring two bills to the floor that this entire institution can be proud of.

We have another bad habit of ascribing to the other side's motives that I believe are not worthy of this institution at all. A government shutdown would be one of those things. We are, in good faith, working together--Republicans and Democrats, House and Senate, Congress and White House--to get about the business of the American people, and it is hard. But it is worth doing, and it is worth doing right.

If I have to choose between fast and right, I choose right. We have got a chance today, with the passage of this rule, to bring up two bills that our colleagues, in bipartisan ways, have worked through on the Financial Services Committee that will make a big difference to families and businesses across this Nation.

We have an opportunity today, if we pass this rule, to bring up a continuing resolution that guarantees to every single American that the doors are open, the lights are on, and we continue and have an opportunity for the Senate to move final legislation.

I want my colleagues to support this rule. I want my colleagues to support the underlying bills. But, Mr. Speaker, more than anything, I want my colleagues to take pride in the successes that we have achieved here today.

CHIP funding, Children's Health Insurance funding, is at risk, but not because we haven't succeeded. We have. All we need is one more signature from the Senate.

CDC funding may be at risk, but not because we haven't succeeded. We have. We just need that bill to get across the floor in the Senate.

Our troops are on the cusp of receiving a well-deserved pay raise. Why? Because we came together and we passed it here. We just need it to get across the floor of the Senate.

And there is not one of those items or a dozen more that I could list, Mr. Speaker, that will move across the floor of the Senate in anything but a bipartisan way.

Do you want bipartisanship? If you want cooperation, if you want success, we have our chance today. Vote ``yes'' on this rule, Mr. Speaker. Vote ``yes'' on these underlying bills, and let's get together and get the Senate across the finish line as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I have great fondness for Mr. Woodall. I think he is one of the best, most pleasant persons on the Rules Committee, and it grieves me that I have to, right off the bat here, take issue with him, but I have to take issue with the claim that Republicans completed their appropriation work on time.

I have got a timetable of the budget process that came from the website of the Budget Committee majority, on which my colleague, Mr. Woodall, serves. Let's review the most important deadlines.

First, the President must submit his budget to Congress by the first Monday in February. The truth: this year, the administration released what they called a skinny budget on March 16 and didn't release the full budget until May 23. From our reckoning, that is 4 months late.

Second, the Congress must complete action on the budget by April 15. The truth: this year, Republicans weren't able to get the fiscal year 2018 budget through Congress until October 26, over 6 months late and nearly a month into the new fiscal year.

Now, here is another deadline, again available on the Republican Budget Committee's website. The Appropriations Committee is supposed to complete their work by June 10. The truth: this year, they didn't report out any appropriations bills until after that deadline had passed.

Another deadline: the House is supposed to complete action on annual appropriations bills by June 30. The truth: not only did the Republican majority fail to meet that deadline, they weren't able to pass any of them separately at all. Instead, they lumped four bills together and passed them on July 27 and then passed an Omnibus with all 12 bills together on September 14, leaving 2 weeks only for the House and Senate to work out their differences, but the law said that they should have 3 months to do it.

I wouldn't bring this up except I know Mr. Woodall believes, with all his heart, that what he is saying is right, because we have heard it before.

That leads me to the final deadline that they missed. Fiscal year 2018 began October 1, but here we are more than two months later on December 7. The Republican majority has still failed to fund the government, because they have been too busy working to kill the Affordable Care Act and to give big tax breaks to corporations and billionaires.

On time, Mr. Speaker? Any school child could tell you that you don't get credit for an assignment that is 2 months late.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the timetable of the budget process from the website of the House Budget Committee majority.

Time Table of the Budget Process

Title III of the Congressional Budget Act establishes a

specific timetable for the congressional budget process.

On or Before, Action to be completed:

First Monday in February, President submits his budget;

February 15, Congressional Budget Office submits report to

Budget Committees; Not later than 6 weeks after the President

submits the budget, Committees

submit views and estimates to Budget Committees. (Frequently,

the House Budget Committee sets own date based on Legislative

Calendar); April 1, Senate Budget Committee reports

concurrent resolution on the budget; April 15, Congress

completes action on the concurrent resolution on the budget.

(This is not signed by the President)*; May 15, Annual

appropriation bills may be considered in House; June 10,

House Appropriations Committee reports last annual

appropriation bill; June 15, Congress completes action on

reconciliation legislation. (If required by the budget

resolution); June 30, House completes action on annual

appropriation bills; October 1, Fiscal year begins.

Mr. Speaker, the majority has put before us today a 2- week continuing resolution to fund the government through December 22.

I have heard some in the majority question why anyone would take issue with this approach, but, Mr. Speaker, the question that should be asked is this one: What is the majority actually willing to get done over the next 2 weeks? Because it has now been more than 2 months since some vital national priorities have lapsed under their leadership.

The Children's Health Insurance Program, which provides healthcare to more than 9 million children across this Nation, expired on September 30. So did the community health centers, which serve more than 25 million people. Now, this expiration has put 2,800 centers in danger of closure and 9 million people at risk for losing their access to their healthcare.

The Perkins Loan Program, which many low-income students rely on for their education, was allowed to expire by the majority with no reauthorization in sight, despite broad bipartisan support for a bill to do just that. Unfortunately, the majority has been unwilling even to bring it up for a vote.

Are they now ready to take meaningful action to protect our children, our students, our public health, and our Nation?

Democrats haven't just been fighting to reauthorize programs that expired 2 months ago, we are also trying to address the priorities that we know our Nation will face in the weeks ahead. That includes passing hurricane relief funding to help the families that are still recovering from this horrendous hurricane season; and as all of us are fearful of and sad about, California is burning once again; reauthorizing section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which we depend on, which is due to expire at the end of this month. The FISA court helps to keep our country safe.

Mr. Speaker, if past is prologue, this majority will be missing in action 2 weeks from now, just as they have been for months.

Just consider, for a moment, how they have squandered this year, wasting months on fruitless attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act until persuaded by their constituents that they did not want that done. It remains the law of the land today after the public overwhelmingly demanded the majority stop that crusade.

Now they are trying to pass a tax cut for the wealthy that, if enacted, would represent one of the largest transfers of wealth from working families to the wealthy that our Nation has ever seen.

I want everybody to please pay attention to this, because it is proof positive of what is happening with this majority. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office, under the majority's plan, those making $40,000 to $50,000 would pay an additional $5.3 billion in taxes combined over the next decade. Now, remember, they are going to pay more into the number of $5.3 billion.

At the same time--attention, America--those earning $1 million or more would see a $5.8 billion cut. Have you ever seen anything as cut and dry? They absolutely want to take from the poor to give to the rich--Robin Hood in reverse.

So we are 2 months into the fiscal year, and the majority has been so preoccupied with the special interest agenda, that we haven't passed full year appropriations. This has robbed the Federal agencies and our economy of the certainty that they need.

The majority holds the House, the Senate, and the White House and still can't get anything done. So when Democrats see a continuing resolution for 2 weeks, we don't see a simple extension of the status quo; we see it for what it really is: kicking the can down the road in order to pursue reckless partisan politics, and it comes without any plan to tackle the major issues that face our Nation today.

Let me remind my colleagues how important it has been for both parties to work together, because in this process, both the CR and the tax bill, there are no Democrat fingerprints on any of it. For a lot of this stuff, there has even been no committee action.

Democrats have helped the majority pass every major funding bill since they assumed control in 2011. That is the result of bipartisanship.

This time, the majority decided not to compromise with us to reach a deal. Let's see if they can cobble together the votes to get this proposal over the finish line.

Even if it passes, we will be back here later this month to consider another short-term continuing resolution, and we still have no idea whether this bill, the one we are working on today, could even pass the Senate.

This is no way to run the United States of America. The lives of our countrymen are hanging in the balance.

All we do under this majority is to lurch from one self-inflicted crisis to the next. Our constituents deserve much better than this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentlewoman.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia said they need the Democrats. He must be aware that they only need us when the votes come.

There is not a Democrat fingerprint on that tax bill. We had nothing to say about any of it. And while we begged almost on our hands and knees to be a part of what they are doing, we are not. It always sounds good when we hear it on the floor: Bipartisan. Oh, look, we want to work together.

But then, oftentimes, as you know, Mr. Speaker, bills come to the Rules Committee with no committee action whatsoever and no possible description to be bipartisan.

Mr. Speaker, for years we have endured relentless Republican attacks on the Affordable Care Act, including just last week in the Senate's disastrous tax bill. By repealing the individual mandate, the Senate bill has knocked 13 million people from their health insurance.

I must have asked 20 times when they were doing those 60 times to try to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act: Why do you want to take healthcare away from people?

I have never, to this day, gotten an answer as to why it is they so despise a healthcare bill that is working and has literally insured more Americans than have ever been insured before.

Then suddenly, just on a whim, one party decides--the one that has been fighting to kill it over and over again--that they will come at it piecemeal and just try to render it helpless by taking away the ability to even say it is time to go sign up again.

I am sure they thought they would do grievous harm, but it didn't work that way, and millions of people came out to sign up again because healthcare is one of the most critical needs for any American family.

To make matters worse, the bill also repeals most of the State and local tax deductions, and that is a deduction that helps middle class families in my State of New York.

New York, on average, gives back to the Federal Government of the United States $40 billion; money that we send to Washington and get nothing back for it, the way we are rewarded for that. I think that probably will not be happening anymore since the taxes are going to go up so much higher on the people of my State, unless they do away with what is absolutely one of the most atrocious things I have ever seen them do.

Mr. Speaker, it is evident that the tax bill was not designed to help middle class families put food on their table, but, instead, it gives corporation tax cuts to line the pockets of their shareholders.

I have yet to read or see the Senate tax bill, but I understand there are gifts in there for people who own jet planes. I don't represent any of those.

But taking care, again, of the rich, as demonstrated in the figures that supported my speech a while ago, that just

short of $6 billion, that goes from the poor people who make under $40,000 to the rich people, the same office, the same amount of money, dollar for dollar, and absolutely proves what we are saying.

But you don't need to hear from it me. Don't take my word for it. Republican Congressman Mark Sanford recently said in a moment of great candor: ``From a truth-in-advertising standpoint, it would have been a lot simpler if we just acknowledged reality on this bill, which is it's fundamentally a corporate tax reduction and restructuring bill, period.''

There is no tiny scintilla of reform in this bill. It is simply, as he points out, a way to lower the corporate tax and take care of the extraordinarily wealthy in this country who don't need it.

Mr. Speaker, I wish we could provide health for middle class families, which is what I believe the President of the United States thinks he did. I hear him say all the time that there is nothing in there to benefit him--except, probably, the estate tax, which we understand would save him about $1 billion.

So, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment that will prohibit any legislation being considered on the floor that limits or repeals the State and local tax deduction or repeals the ACA individual mandate.

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, let me take a moment and remind everyone watching of the impacts of the majority's last shutdown in 2013. The impacts on our economy were significant. We lost $24 billion in just those 2 weeks. The impacts on our economy, as I said, were very significant:

Federal loans to small businesses, homeowners, and families were brought to a halt.

Banks and other lenders were unable to access government verification services, which delayed private sector lending to small businesses and individuals alike.

Federal permitting was brought to a standstill, which delayed job- creating projects in the transportation and energy sectors.

Experts have estimated that all told, this 16-day shutdown cost our economy an estimated $24 billion.

So, during this shutdown, again, vital services were put on hold.

At the National Institutes of Health, hundreds of patients were unable to enroll in possibly lifesaving clinical trials.

Federal agencies like the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency were unable to conduct health and safety inspections.

Federal scientific research was also halted, and we lost a lot of scientists in this country because of all that. Five Nobel Prize winning scientists who worked for the Federal Government at the time of the shutdown, four of the five of them were laid off.

This is all according to a report issued by the Office of Management and Budget.

The public knows how devastating another shutdown could be. According to a poll conducted by Morning Consult and Politico released this week, there is bipartisan opposition, with 68 percent of Democrats, 62 percent of Republicans, and 61 percent of Independents all opposing a government shutdown.

I forgot to mention up there about Social Security checks and things for the Veterans Administration. They came to a halt.

So that is what makes this so frustrating. I agree with Mr. Woodall. This is a frustrating part of what we are trying to do here. Every day it seems we get up and we face some kind of new disaster.

We could have crafted a bipartisan bill--we sure could have--that would have removed any question of whether a continuing resolution would pass the House and Senate.

We could have reauthorized the Children's Health Insurance Program, community health centers, Perkins loans, and more months ago, if only the majority were willing to work with Democrats. Instead, bipartisanship is all too often becoming a dirty word under the majority. I sadly say: It is the American people left to pay the price.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this measure.

Let me start by thanking the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Ed Royce of California, for his leadership and for moving a second measure forward today on the crisis in Venezuela.

I also thank Mr. DeSantis for authorizing this resolution, which expresses deep concern about the political, economic, social, and humanitarian crisis in Venezuela.

I again thank Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the gentlewoman from Florida, who is really our leader when it comes to things in the Western Hemisphere.

Let me just say that, when the Venezuelan President, Nicolas Maduro, chose to move forward with a sham constituent assembly election in July, as far as I am concerned, he took the final step in making his country a full-blown dictatorship. The majority of Venezuelans stayed clear of polling stations and chose not to participate in what was yet another effort from that government to distract from the country's real problem, which, as we have been saying, is a humanitarian crisis created by President Maduro and his predecessor, Hugo Chavez, an increasingly dangerous human rights climate.

Just last week, the Venezuelan human rights group, Foro Penal, joined Human Rights Watch in releasing a report documenting abuses in the country that have taken place over the past year. I would like to mention a few statistics from this report that shows you just how repressive the Venezuelan Government has become.

Fifty-four hundred people have been detained in relation to antigovernment protests in early April; 3,900 of them are still subject to arbitrary criminal prosecutions and measures that limit their freedoms. And 757 civilians were prosecuted by military courts in violation of both Venezuelan and international law. Even more alarmingly, 124 Venezuelans were killed and 2,000 injured this year while taking part in antigovernment protests.

The Human Rights Watch report states:

In 53 cases involving at least 232 people, detainees were

subjected to physical and psychological abuse, with the

apparent purpose of either punishing them or forcing them to

incriminate themselves or others. In some of these cases, the

abuses suffered by the detainees clearly constituted torture.

These include electric shocks, severe beatings, being hung in

stress positions, sleep deprivation, asphyxiation, and sexual

abuse, including, in some cases, rape.

In an August report, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights expressed a similar sentiment pointing to ``the existence of a policy to repress political dissent and instill fear in the population to curb demonstrations.''

I think it is important to point out that, year after year, Democrats and Republicans have come to the House floor to call attention to the erosion of democracy in Venezuela. As my colleagues have said, Venezuela should be the leader in South America, the most prosperous country in South America, with huge oil reserves. Instead, it is a basket case because of Maduro and because of Chavez.

For many years, it seemed that the United States was an outlier in raising our voices, while many in the hemisphere remained silent. Fortunately, that has changed. Leaders throughout the Americas have been increasingly willing to stand with the people of Venezuela.

It is hard to find a silver lining for Venezuela in such a dark time, but I do hope, from the strong resolve of our friends in Latin America and around the world in rejecting Venezuela's sham constituent assembly and calling out human rights abuses in the country, they will realize that we care about them, that we know what is going on, and that we are not going to let their repressive government sweep things under the rug.

In November, the European Union put in place a wide range of sanctions on Venezuela, including an arms embargo, visa bans, and asset freezes. Our friends in Canada imposed sanctions on human rights violators in the Maduro government, and, on October 26, Canadian Foreign Minister Freeland hosted the Lima Group of Foreign Ministers in Toronto to seek a hemispheric solution to the crisis in Venezuela.

The OAS, the Organization of American States, has also played a critical role in increasing pressure on the Maduro regime, particularly under the leadership of OAS Secretary General Luis Almagro.

But we cannot rely on the OAS alone. The United Nations, both with the Security Council and through the Office of the Secretary-General, must do much more to bring attention to Venezuela on the world stage and hold its leaders accountable.

And today, the House of Representatives, here in Washington, goes on record again underscoring our commitment to the people of Venezuela and condemning the destructive policies of the Maduro regime. With this measure, we are saying enough is enough.

Mr. Speaker, I again thank Mr. DeSantis for authoring this resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me say that we have spent a lot of time talking about Venezuela on the House floor today. I think that is a good thing. I think it is good that people know what is happening in Venezuela, and I think it is good to know that the tyrants in Venezuela know that we know what is happening in Venezuela.

The eyes of the world are watching Venezuela and its government. President Maduro must make a real commitment to free and fair elections and release all political prisoners.

In particular, I would like to note the detention of American citizen Joshua Holt and to urge his immediate release on humanitarian grounds.

I think it is important for us to raise these issues on the House floor, so I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 259.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in support of this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I authored this bill, the Venezuela Humanitarian Assistance and Defense of Democratic Governance Act, in the House with our chair emeritus of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Ileana Ros- Lehtinen. I want to say that there is no Member of this body who has done more to champion democracy and human rights in Venezuela than the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

I also want to thank her longtime staff director, Eddy Acevedo, who is in his last week on Capitol Hill. Eddy has been such a positive force on Venezuela and the entire Latin American region in support of Ileana's work. He has been a consistent collaborator with my staff, and his work here will be sorely missed.

I also want to say that I appreciate Chairman Royce's steadfast commitment to the Venezuelan people and his support for this legislation.

I also want to thank Senator Cardin for authorizing this measure in the other body. I hope we will be able to work with the Senate, the other body, to get this bill on the President's desk.

Mr. Speaker, with its massive energy resources, Venezuela should be one of the wealthiest countries in the world. Unfortunately, irresponsible policies put in place by President Maduro and his predecessor, Hugo Chavez, brought the country to near economic collapse and created a dangerous humanitarian crisis.

The statistics tell a tragic story. Maternal deaths in the country increased by 66 percent from 2015 to 2016, while infant deaths increased by 30 percent. There were 240,000 confirmed malaria cases in Venezuela in 2016, which is a 76 percent increase over 2015.

A survey carried out by three reputable Venezuelan universities found that nearly three-quarters of Venezuelans lost an average of at least 19 pounds in 2016 as a result of lack of proper nutrition.

Despite massive shortages of food and medicine, President Maduro continues to reject efforts to bring humanitarian assistance into the country. Last summer, Mr. Maduro handed control of the country's food supply over to the Venezuelan military, and while many Venezuelans starve, some of the military brass are making money hand over fist by selling the country's scarce food supplies on the black market. That is like letting the fox into the chicken coop.

In short, President Maduro is running Venezuela into the ground. It is horrific for that country's people, and it is a concern for our own security as this country in our neighborhood becomes less and less stable. So I support targeted sanctions that hold corrupt and abusive Venezuelan officials accountable.

But that must be only a part of our policy. We also must be focused on getting food and medicine to those in most need in the country. This bill calls on the USAID and the State Department to develop a strategy to provide humanitarian assistance to Venezuela while at the same time instructing our Ambassador of the United Nations to work with partners at the U.N. Security Council and throughout the U.N. system to multilaterally address the country's crisis.

This is urgent business, Mr. Speaker. We need to put U.S. aid, the USAID, and the United Nations on a path toward providing much-needed humanitarian assistance to the Venezuelan people. We want to choke off the government. The government is a cancer on the Venezuelan people, but we don't want to hurt the Venezuelan people. That is what the legislation is all about. That is why I wrote it, that is why I authored it, and that is why we agree on a bipartisan basis.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen and myself. It is important legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Sires), my good friend and a valued member of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the ranking member of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), my good friend and a member of the Appropriations Committee.

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

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

In closing, I emphasize again that Venezuela is in crisis and we cannot wait any longer to take action. By passing the Venezuela Humanitarian Assistance and Defense of Democratic Governance Act, we can begin to provide the Venezuelan people with the resources they so desperately need.

But the United States, obviously, cannot do this alone. Sustained leadership is needed to address the humanitarian crisis in Venezuela from the U.N. Secretary General, members of the Security Council, and other international partners.

It is easy to talk about another country in the abstract, but these are human beings who are dying and sick. They are human beings just like us, and it behooves us to make sure that, while we condemn the brutality of the regime that has a stranglehold on that country, we feel only sympathy for the people. That is what this bill tries to address.

So I again urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I want to again commend my partner from Florida, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who has done so much work with me through the years, and our chairman, Ed Royce, whom it has been a real pleasure to work with.

This is another example of important bipartisan legislation that comes out of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I think that we set a dialogue and a blueprint for people coming together and working together. I think that is what the American people want to see.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for the time, and I thank the ranking member for those very sweet words.

Mr. Speaker, I echo what Ranking Member Engel said about my trusted staff director, Eddy Acevedo. This is his last week with us. He starts Monday with the USAID. He has got the whole weekend to party on. He has been my partner in all of these battles in favor of freedom and democracy and against autocratic regimes, which brings us to this bill before us, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in strong support of this bill, H.R. 2658, the Venezuela Humanitarian Assistance and Defense of Democratic Governance Act of 2017. I am proud to be, as the chairman said, the Republican lead on this important legislation.

I have been proud to work side by side with the author of the bill, our ranking member on the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Eliot Engel, in putting this bill together. Eliot has been a leading voice in this legislative body in support of freedom and democracy across the globe, as has our esteemed chairman. But Eliot has really focused in on this hemisphere, especially on Venezuela. I want to thank him for his leadership on this issue.

I also want to thank his trusted adviser sitting two seats away from him on all Western Hemisphere-related items. Eric Jacobstein is my buddy from Haiti. We have enjoyed as much as one can enjoy going to an island nation that needs so much help. The people of Haiti are beautiful, and it has been a joy to travel with Eric and with Eddy. Throughout the years, Eric has worked closely with us and with our office. We work in a bipartisan manner. That is the tone that our esteemed chairman has set for the committee. Eric and Eliot work that way as well. Their knowledge and expertise on this topic has been instrumental to our committee.

The bill before us, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2658, is simple, it is straightforward, and it is important. Maduro, like Chavez before him-- two thugs--has turned Venezuela from a once vibrant and thriving nation into a country on the brink of utter collapse. The results have been disastrous for the people of Venezuela. There is food shortage, there is water shortage, and there is a severe lack of medicine and medical supplies. There is a lack of goods and services everywhere you turn.

The people need to get proper nutrition. They need proper care, but they can't find it. It is a crisis that Maduro and his thugs have denied exists because he is eating very well. The other day he was making a televised public declaration. He opens up the drawer, takes an empanada, and he is stuffing his face. But the people are starving. But recognizing it would mean that Chavismo has utterly failed, so they refuse to recognize this.

So what happens?

The Venezuelan people suffer from severe malnutrition. They are subject to price controls. It is unbelievable the prices of items there. If they can ever get the food, if they can ever get the services they need, then the people can't afford them. They are subject to substandard and unhygienic conditions. This has led to a sharp rise in infant mortality, and really mortality rates across the board in Venezuela have gone up.

In short, the majority of the people in Venezuela are living in misery. What was once the breadbasket of the whole hemisphere, now the people don't have food. They are living in misery. The Maduro regime is not only to blame, but it is ensuring that the humanitarian situation gets even worse. It was Maduro who ordered the supreme court to block a law from the opposition that would have helped facilitate humanitarian aid from NGOs and other international entities. As a result, it is ever so difficult to get the supplies needed to respond to this crisis into Venezuela to the people who so desperately need it. That is why, Mr. Speaker, this bill is so important.

It directs USAID, the institution Eddy will be a partner of in just a few days, and our great Department of State to develop a plan in order to determine if and how the U.S. can possibly help with some of the humanitarian assistance through credible and independent NGOs, or nongovernmental organizations, that are operating in Venezuela or neighboring countries to ensure that this assistance does get to the people who desperately need it.

The bill also directs our Ambassador to the United Nations to use our full voice, full vote, and full influence of the United States to place the humanitarian and political crises in Venezuela on the agenda at the

But on Venezuela, Mr. Speaker, it seems as if we hold a different standard, and that is

unacceptable. For too long, Venezuela has been shielded from criticism and action at the U.N. by its cronies, like the equally corrupt and morally reprehensible Castro regime in Cuba.

This is precisely the kind of situation for which the U.N. was created to respond; yet, to date, the response has been woefully inadequate and shamefully void of substance.

We have got to lead on this effort, and this bill is what we need. There are millions of people suffering in Venezuela. We are in a situation to help.

I would point out to our chairman and the ranking member that we had some excellent news in the minutes that we have been speaking. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved the nomination of our former committee chief of staff, Yleem Poblete, for Assistant Secretary of State for Verification and Compliance. It now goes to the full Senate. I know that she will be with us on these measures that attack atrocious regimes and will help alleviate the humanitarian crisis.