Providing for consideration of the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 244) to encourage effective, voluntary investments to recruit, employ, and retain men and women who have served in the United States military with annual Federal awards to employers recognizing such efforts, and for other purposes.

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

I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate the rule for consideration of the Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2017. As you know, this $1 trillion omnibus will provide discretionary funding for most of the Federal Government for the remaining 5 months of fiscal year 2017.

Before moving to the specifics of the legislation, we need to get a few things straight. It bears repeating that the appropriations measures contained in this bill should have been passed months ago. While I am glad that we have arrived at this compromise, and the words of my good friend from Oklahoma, I certainly support with regard to the extraordinary work of the chairman and the ranking member, and their respective staffs, as well as all the appropriators, generally, and their staffs, they have done a good job with reference to the measure, as far as compromise is concerned.

But the fact remains that the bill is 7 months late. The House Committee on Appropriations is already hard at work for fiscal year 2018, and yet this body is still trying to fund programs for the current fiscal year. The root cause of this disarray does not lie with the Appropriations Committee but with the majority's leadership, or lack thereof, in this Congress and in the White House.

I also need to level another critique at my friends across the aisle who have time and again brought us to the brink of a government shutdown. We needed months of negotiations and three continuing resolutions to keep the government funded. Much of the time, poison pill riders gummed up the works. Among other things, the majority continuously tries to strip funding from women's healthcare organizations, slash environmental protections, and end protections for Federal employees through the appropriations process.

Well, here we are, Mr. Speaker, 7 months later, with a bill that does none of these things. Yet we do it again and again, lurching from manufactured crisis to manufactured crisis. I said yesterday or the day before in the Rules Committee that we will be back here with a stopgap measure and repeat this same crisis routine that we have done for many of the years that I have had the privilege of serving in this body. Mr. Speaker, maybe next time we will skip the grandstanding and start off with a commonsense measure from the get-go.

This brings me to the bill itself. The measure includes $1.07 trillion in base discretionary budget authority, including $551 billion in base defense spending, $518.5 billion in base nondefense spending, $62.1 billion in overseas contingency operations defense spending, and $16.5 billion in overseas contingency operations nondefense spending. More than 160 partisan toxic riders were floated but kept out of the legislation.

Despite Donald John Trump's insistence on draconian cuts, the omnibus includes $1.2 billion in additional nondefense budget authority. It provides funding to alleviate Puerto Rico's emergency budget shortfall and their underfunded Medicaid program. It increases funding for the National Institutes of Health by $2 billion. It provides $1.1 billion in disaster assistance for regions affected by storms and flooding in 2015 and 2016, and it includes $900 million in humanitarian assistance to alleviate international famine.

Toward that end, with reference to famine in the world, we are witnessing a rising number of countries that are experiencing famine. Without identifying them all, it is estimated that some 20 million people in the world are at risk of dying from starvation. In this country, too many people are in a position of being hungry during the course of a day. In the land of plenty, we can do better.

In this vein, I was pleased to see the inclusion of language that will positively impact the district that I serve and every other district that faces the threat of natural disasters. Toward that end, my good friend from Oklahoma is absolutely correct. In the compromise measure, there are some things that will impact all of our districts, and that is, in my judgment, as it should be.

Additionally, I am one of few Members around here who continuously argues that Members should have earmark responsibilities so that they can be held accountable for things that are vital in their districts rather than allowing the bureaucracy to dominate that sphere.

The language clarifies a provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act, codifying the Department of Labor's views on lifting the work restrictions on insurance claims adjusters responding to disasters. When a natural disaster strikes, like a hurricane or a wildfire, insurance adjusters are there to help those affected piece their lives back together and get back on their feet. By ensuring that adjusters can quickly and readily respond to disasters, this codification helps them complete their important work.

I did say in the Rules Committee, and I have said for 20 years here, that this Congress needs a disaster relief committee that is constituted of all of the chairs of the committees of jurisdiction. It is not complicated. It is something that is done in other countries so that when these disasters occur--be they fire, flood, hurricane, tornado, or any disaster--we can respond more quickly than we do now, rather than allowing for the residual remains of the kinds of disasters that we experience in this country.

Just this past weekend, at least 16 lives were lost and many people were injured in tornadic activity in the States of Alabama, Mississippi, and Arkansas and floods in Missouri, and we need to respond to those.

Additionally, something else that I want to say that I consider to be important are the responsibilities of FEMA. While I believe they do an extraordinary job with what they are allowed to work with, I don't know what it takes to get across to people that FEMA can only react when there are a certain number of people that have lost their homes. Please know this: when 1 person loses their home to a natural disaster, it is just as important as if 1,000 or 100,000 lost their home; and we,

this Congress, need to be able to respond to that 1 the same way we do to 1,000.

Furthermore, I was glad to see that the bill includes year-round Pell grants to provide 1 million students in this country with an additional average award of $1,650, and it permanently extends health insurance benefits for retired mineworkers.

I might add that that has been and will continue to be a bipartisan effort to provide for the health of those mineworkers. Hopefully, in spite of all the talk coming out of the White House, we may, one day, find a way to help those that have lost their jobs because of the industrial changes transition to good jobs.

But what is included in this bill is just as important as what is not. In his first major budget negotiation, Donald John Trump made many demands that were defeated. He requested $30 billion in additional defense spending and $3 billion to fund construction of a U.S.-Mexico border wall and is around crowing that there is money in this bill to do something about the wall, and there is not.

The President wanted policy riders to restrict sanctuary cities from receiving Federal grants. He wanted to defund Planned Parenthood and undermine health care. As I have already said, there were 160 riders that were floated here in this measure but are not included.

Rather than governing responsibly, Donald John Trump and the House Freedom Caucus have spent a good deal of time and energy pushing partisan interests, from repealing health care to gutting the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and successful programs like community development block grants. All of these programs are fully funded in this measure.

As the President gets cozy with authoritarian strongmen around the world and revisits the history of the Civil War--and for your information, Donald Trump, it was slavery that caused the war--Congress has stepped up and asserted itself, and I am glad.

I have said repeatedly that the legislative branch has given too much authority not to this President but to the one before him, the one before him, and the one before that one. We have continuously ceded our authority. So it is understood by virtue of this action and, I hope, future action that the legislature is an equal branch of our government, and we need to act like it.

Funding the government is one of the most important responsibilities Congress has. There are, undeniably, differences in policy priorities between Members in this body, Democrats and Republicans, and differences between Democrats and differences between Republicans in this body, but holding the Federal budget hostage is not the way to work through these problems. This measure is a responsible compromise that serves the interests of the American public, and that is what we came here to do.

My good friend from Oklahoma, last night in the Rules Committee, said that the people that win in this measure are the American people, and I agree with him. That is why I was even dismayed and, quite frankly, disturbed at the irresponsible comment that Donald John Trump tweeted yesterday morning that what this country needs is ``a good shutdown'' in September.

I made it a point, when we were in the Rules Committee, to ask the fine young gentleman that works with me to learn the context because I just can't believe that this man comes out and says that this institution needs to have ``a good shutdown.''

Donald John Trump, there is no such thing as a good shutdown.

The President champions a government shutdown not only to his but to his party's peril. The hardworking and working poor Americans are at peril with that kind of undertaking. He does so to the peril of our men and women fighting overseas, to the peril of working families and their health care, to education, and to safe, clean, and secure communities.

Donald John Trump may think he can run the country on Twitter while daydreaming of taxpayer-funded jaunts to his private golf club, but he needs to wise up. We don't need a good shutdown. We need a good leader. If he continues and isn't prepared to get serious, then he needs to get out of the way.

As my colleague Congressman McGovern said yesterday, rather than a shutdown, the President ought to shut his mouth. I will put it another way from the vernacular: zip his lip, put that Twitter off somewhere on the side and let birds tweet while he talks sensibly to the American people.

Maybe the President thinks that if the government shuts down people suddenly don't need to pay taxes and that national parks become free. Maybe he thinks that if the government shuts down--if we have a good government shutdown--every regulation suddenly stops and corporations are free to run wild without complying to clean water or clean air standards.

I don't know what he is thinking. I don't think anybody else around here knows what he is thinking. I am not even certain he knows what he is thinking. And to be honest, I would be afraid to see what is going on in his head.

But here is what I do know. According to the financial ratings agency Standard & Poor's, the 2013 government shutdown cost the United States--the American people--$24 billion. According to a report from the Council of Economic Advisers, it sidetracked the creation of as many as 120,000 jobs.

I hope you are listening, Donald John Trump, because these aren't alternative facts.

The furloughs amounted to more than 5.5 million days' worth of Federal employment lost spread across dozens of agencies. Businesses that relied on tourism lost out on more than a half-billion dollars. The Small Business Administration couldn't process some 700 applications for $140 million in small businesses loans.

According to the U.S. Travel Association, the 16-day shutdown cost $152 million per day in lost travel spending. According to CNBC, 2 weeks into the latest shutdown, the Internal Revenue Service reported a backlog of 1.2 million verification requests that could not be processed.

Mr. Speaker, we don't need a good government shutdown. We don't need a shutdown at all. We just got through a 7-month negotiation to keep the government open.

Naturally, the media picked up on the fact that Donald John Trump got virtually none of his priorities. When the report started to air, he threw a political temper tantrum and took to Twitter to undermine the compromise.

I will be honest at this point: it is nothing new, so it shouldn't surprise anyone; nor should the backlash that ensued or his sudden change of heart. In just a few hours, Donald John Trump went from condemning the deal and whining about the rules of the Senate to hailing it as a great compromise. I must have missed that chapter in his ``The Art of the Deal.''

So let's leave it at this: we need to do more, not less, to strengthen our communities and help working families. I urge President Donald John Trump to move past the campaign rhetoric and get serious.

I hope you are listening, sir, because you can put that in a tweet.

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

Mr. Speaker, would you be kind enough to advise how much time remains?

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

Mr. Speaker, news flash here for those that might have been trying to make plans for leaving here tomorrow morning: it appears that House Republicans are intent on trying to bring TrumpCare back to life.

The Republican healthcare bill was bad the first time, bad the second time, and its latest iteration is even worse. In addition to kicking 24 million people off their health coverage, gutting Medicaid in order to give a trillion-dollar tax cut--mostly to the richest Americans--and dismantling the requirement to provide the essential health benefits, the latest proposal completely guts protections for people with preexisting conditions and imposes an unlimited age tax on older Americans.

Now we see in the press that the Republican leadership is trying to cut yet another backroom deal on expensive, high-risk pools to try and muster enough votes to pass this monstrosity.

Mr. Speaker, this bill has not gone through regular order from the start. There have been no hearings. There is no CBO score. We are reading in the press that even more changes are on the horizon.

I wish I could start reading in the press or looking at television and just have people that have the responsibility and leadership to inform those of us that are in the minority just what the plan really constitutes and when it will be put forward. Every single Member in this institution should be as outraged as I am, regardless of party. This is a bill that will affect every American.

Therefore, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule that would change the rules of the House to prevent any healthcare-related legislation from being considered if it does not have a CBO cost estimate; or if it would deny health coverage or require higher premiums due to preexisting conditions; impose lifetime limits on health coverage; prevent individuals under age 26 from being covered under their parents' plans; reduce the number of people receiving health care under the Affordable Care Act; increase costs to seniors by reopening the doughnut hole and raising prescription drug costs; require people to pay for preventive services, including cancer screening; reduce Medicare solvency or change the Medicare guarantee; or reduce Federal taxes on the 1 percent of the population with the highest incomes or increase taxes on the 80 percent of hardworking Americans earning moderate to low income.

Every American deserves affordable, high-quality health care. This amendment would ensure that the Republican bill can't sacrifice that goal in favor of giving tax cuts to the wealthy.

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 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, to discuss the proposal.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), my friend.

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

The President has said that Americans would win so much, they would be tired of winning. I think for once he and I may be in agreement.

Today's measure advances medical research, protects coal miners, fights back against the opioid epidemic and international disasters, and protects funding for science, education, and health care. It should not have taken us 7 months to get here. But I hope this measure will give the Appropriations Committee a springboard for fiscal year 2018.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 305 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of two very important measures. First, the resolution provides for consideration of Senate amendments to H.R. 244, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017.

The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee. In addition, the resolution provides for consideration of the FY 2017 Intelligence Authorization Act as an amendment to the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, the appropriations package in front of us is the first successful bicameral, bipartisan negotiation of the Trump administration. It has broad bipartisan support in both Houses of Congress. All Members can feel good about the work of the Appropriations Committee, especially our chairman, Mr. Frelinghuysen of New Jersey, and our Ranking Member, Mrs. Lowey of New York. In the House, the work must continue today but, hopefully, will be concluded today.

The package in front of us not only keeps the government open and operating through the end of the fiscal year, but it also represents a successful completion of key member priorities on both sides of the aisle.

This bill provides for a $25.7 billion increase in defense spending, notably including an additional $7.3 billion for Department of Defense readiness and training, as well as the largest pay raise our troops have received in 6 years. These funds will help us enhance our military readiness and marks an end to the erosion of our national military strength.

Importantly, we accomplished this without a dollar-for-dollar increase in nondefense discretionary spending, a practice which was imposed upon us by the previous administration. That practice threatened to drive our national deficit even higher. I am pleased that we broke that connection, for we should never operate under such a formula in the future.

This measure also provides for an increase of $1.5 billion in funding for border security. $772 million is available for key administration priorities like border security technology enhancements and infrastructure improvements. It also increases funding for Customs and Border Patrol to improve operational effectiveness. And, I note, the President has wide authority and latitude to deploy these dollars where

they should do the most good. This is the largest increase in border security funding in almost a decade.

Domestically, this bill funds hundreds, if not thousands, of Member priorities. We reached a bipartisan agreement on opioid funding, redirecting over $500 million to combat this epidemic affecting every district in the Nation. We funded health care for miners, a key priority for many of our Members.

We secured the second consecutive $2 billion increase for the National Institutes of Health, the Nation's lead biomedical research organization and a key driver of the hope of treating new diseases, saving countless lives, and, incidentally, driving down healthcare costs.

We also secured an increase for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which will help enhance our readiness to combat pandemics and respond to public health crises.

We increased funding for GEAR UP and TRIO, two essential programs that help first-generation college students actually go to college, and increased funding for Head Start by $90 million. Every Member of this House has a victory someplace in this bill, and this was done, Mr. Speaker, by cutting spending in other less essential areas and making tough choices.

In the Labor-H provisions of this bill, for instance, we actually spend $2.8 billion less than President Obama requested, and $1 billion less than we actually spent last year.

Finally, and most importantly, this bill is the product of a successful bipartisan, bicameral negotiation. This shows all of us that we have the ability for the President, the Republicans in the House and the Senate, and the Democrats in the House and the Senate to sit down and work together on important issues. I am heartened by this success, and I believe it suggests our ability to work together in the future on other crucially important pieces of legislation like tax reform and infrastructure improvements.

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

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

To respond to a few of my friend's points, Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by agreeing with my friend, actually.

As he knows, I agree with his point that this should have been done many months ago, and could have been done, in my view, many months ago. We should have done this in December. I don't think we did the country or ourselves or the President any favors by delaying that. So my friend is right about that decision, and I hope we all learn a lesson from it.

I also agree with my friend that, because we delayed, the 2018 appropriations process will be extremely difficult and truncated. It will make work harder. We may find ourselves back here in a number of months asking for

some brief extension as we continue to work through our problems. I hope not, but my friend's observation on that point I agree with.

I want to disagree with my friend pretty strongly about his observation about the 160 riders that we decided in the negotiation not to press, and I want to explain why we decided not to press them.

Frankly, we don't need to press them anymore. Almost 160 of those were designed to limit or reverse rulings of the last administration-- either rules or executive decisions. Well, Mr. Trump is now the President of the United States and he is going to have the ability to do almost all of those things on his own. He doesn't need legislative instruction from us. He will certainly get support as he works through that list with the executive branch, which he runs.

I also want to add, just to clarify, it is important to note that there is nothing in this bill that funds Planned Parenthood in any way, shape, or form. As a matter of fact, there is a family planning title and grants are awarded out of that title by the Department of Health and Human Services.

Sometimes in the past, Planned Parenthood has received money in those grants. Now there is new management at the Department of Health and Human Services, so we will see how this goes. This Congress has never appropriated money directly to Planned Parenthood and, frankly, I suspect never will.

Finally, in defense of the President, I want to point out that we are adding billions of dollars to defense of this country, which is desperately needed because, frankly, his predecessor had allowed it to erode. That is because of the President's leadership.

We are making the most substantial investments in border security in a decade. That is because of the President's leadership.

Finally, we have broken this terrible one-for-one formula that the last administration imposed on us. In other words, to defend the United States of America, we had to spend more money domestically, whether we needed to or not, whether we could afford it or not. If it weren't for President Trump, that formula would still be in existence and we would be frittering away money in places where we don't need it and denying support to our troops and our forces in the field when they desperately need it. I am very grateful to the President for making that possible. Again, with his leadership, it could not have occurred.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne), my good friend, a fellow Rules Committee member, and also a distinguished member of the House Armed Services Committee.

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

Before I go to my next speaker, I want to take a moment to respond to my friends.

Mr. Speaker, I actually came here to debate the appropriations bill, which is a great bipartisan compromise, but I am always happy to engage in the healthcare debate as well, if that is what my friends choose to do. I am happy to do it because I remember the conditions under which ObamaCare was passed.

I remember the promises that we would save $2,500 a family--not true.

I remember, if you liked your plan, you could keep it--not true.

I remember, if you liked your doctor, you could keep that individual--not true.

This was sold, frankly, on a tissue of fabrications and some predictions that were outlandishly false.

Those people who say this is a good system, come to my State. We are down to a single provider--one. That provider, by the way, I always say thank God for them, because they are losing money. We are down to one. Our rates are going up 69 percent.

So anybody who thinks this is a successful system should go look at it. If it were successful, my friends would probably still be in the majority instead of the minority. It has not been successful. The American people have, in election after election, rendered a verdict that this particular system is not meeting their needs, and it badly needs to be overhauled and changed, if not rooted out completely.

Frankly, again, as, I think, through the President's actions and what my colleagues in the leadership of my party are doing, I am very glad they are working overtime right now to try and make sure that we have something better for the American people than my friends delivered on the other side of the aisle when they had the opportunity to do so. It is not working.

I hope very much we have to cancel travel plans so the next day or two we can actually vote on this. I would be ecstatic to do that. So, again, I would be happy to debate that. When the time comes, we will. But I look forward to engaging in that debate because I am absolutely convinced we can do a lot better for the American people than we

did when ObamaCare was passed, and we can implement something a lot better for the American people than we did when it was rolled out. And we certainly can avoid some of the catastrophic consequences.

As for my friend's concerns about preexisting conditions, frankly, they are not going to be reversed, but I happen to live in a State where I trust my Governor and my legislature to make smart decisions. Frankly, I trust them a lot more than I do anybody in Washington, D.C., to understand what is going on in my State. I suspect most people in here actually trust their Governors and their legislature to be more in touch with the needs of their people than anybody in Washington, D.C., happens to be, so I am happy to see a devolution of decisionmaking from Washington to other parts of the country. As I read the Constitution, we call that federalism. It has worked very well for the American people for almost 240 years.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the Fourth District of Michigan (Mr. Moolenaar), my good friend in his second term, but a new member of the Committee on Appropriations. I am very glad to have him on my Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent), my very good friend and my fellow member of the Committee on Appropriations and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies.

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

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

I want to thank my good friend. It is always a pleasure, honestly, to engage in debate with him because it is going to be spirited, but it is going to be civil. So I thank my friend for that.

And, frankly, when my friend points out that he and President Trump are actually on the same side for once, I think the second coming may not be very far. So we are all in a pretty good mood here.

But I do want to echo a couple of points that my friend made, and made, as always, with great skill. There is a lot in this bill that brings us together. This was a product of genuine compromise. We have Republicans in the House and Democrats in the House, Republicans in the Senate and Democrats in the Senate, and, obviously, the administration. It is really a five-corner negotiation.

I think we ought to step back a little bit and reflect that, in the course of that, while all those parties began with very different positions, and some verbal fisticuffs, as well, they actually moved closer together over the course of discussion. And that has effectively meant that we are going to have the first bipartisan, bicameral negotiation in this administration that has been successful.

I would hope it becomes a model for some of the things that lie in front of us, things like infrastructure, and like tax reform. I recognize we won't always agree. But, to me, this agreement shows that we can work towards agreements, if we will sit in good faith and compromise with one another.

I think the President, frankly, did a lot of good things from his point of view here. I think the additional money for our men and women in uniform, the raise in pay for those we have asked so much from, and who have never let us down, is something he can be proud of.

I think the additional money on the border, where we know we have a security problem, we may debate the best way to address that. That is fair enough. But that is an achievement that he deserves credit for.

And I think, frankly, breaking this artificial linkage of domestic spending and security spending was something that is really important. Sometimes we will actually need more domestically than, perhaps, we need in defense. But we are going to have to look at those things logically, not create artificial formulas. I actually fear sometimes my side might do that in reverse by demanding cuts in exchange for military spending when those cuts are, in themselves, not wise.

Finally, I look at things where we find a lot of common purpose here. My friend, Mr. Dent, mentioned a number of those. Things like more money for the National Institutes of Health and the Center for Disease Control. Believe me, pandemics and bioterrorists don't care if you are Republican or Democrat, or Liberal or Conservative. We have to maintain this effort. It is extraordinarily important.

I think, again, and my friends pointed out, we worked together to provide additional funds for early childhood, to provide additional money through programs like GEAR UP and TRIO, to help those who have never had an opportunity to go to college and succeed. And, frankly, things like the year-round Pell grant, that, again, as speakers from both sides of the aisle pointed out, are going to help students actually succeed and help them wrestle with the financial burden. So there is a lot in here to be proud of.

Now, our vote on the rule is always a partisan exercise, so I recognize that. But I am very proud that, after that vote, we will have substantial numbers of Members from both sides of the aisle voting together on something they worked on together and achieved. It will be sent over to the Senate, and I think we will see the same result there, and eventually to the desk of the President of the United States, and I think he can sign it with a great deal of pride and a recognition that: hey, occasionally, bipartisanship and negotiation actually work.

With that, again, I want to thank my very good friend for the debate. And I want to point out in closing that this is so much better than a continuing resolution. This is real governance at work. This is us working together, exercising oversight, and appropriately funding, and compromises on occasion, important functions for the American people.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 305, I

call up the bill (H.R. 244) to encourage effective, voluntary investments to recruit, employ, and retain men and women who have served in the United States military with annual Federal awards to employers recognizing such efforts, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendments thereto, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on further consideration of H.R. 244 and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.

I rise today to present the House amendment to H.R. 244, a bill that will provide funding for the Federal Government for the rest of the year 2017.

This bill reflects shared values, which will help make our Nation stronger, safer, and more prosperous. It fulfills our constitutional duty to fund important services the American people rely on every day, and it does this in a responsible way, making the best use of every single taxpayer dollar, ensuring more reliability and predictability than a government operating under a continuing resolution. In short, it moves our Nation forward in the right direction.

The bill includes full-year funding for the remaining 11 annual appropriations bills for defense, infrastructure, health, and safety programs through the end of the fiscal year on September 30, as well as critical emergency and defense and border security funding requested by the President.

In total, it provides $1.63 trillion in base and overseas contingency operations funding. These levels meet the caps provided by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015.

This bill makes the smart decisions investing funding where it is needed most: rebuilding our military, securing our borders, and bolstering economic growth, getting people back to work.

First and foremost and most importantly, this bill prioritizes funding for national defense, restoring the strength and capacity of our Armed Forces. Overall defense funding is increased by $25 billion above fiscal year 2016 levels.

This funding will help ensure our military has proper training, the best weapons and equipment needed to defeat ISIS, battle radical extremism around the world, and support our allies in the critical regions around the world against threats from Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and other sources. To rebuild our end strength, this bill includes $1.6 billion for an additional 36,000 troops above the previous administration's request.

Most importantly, this bill supports our men and women in uniform-- all volunteers--and provides them with a 2.1 percent pay raise, the largest in 6 years, and it takes care of their families.

To help secure our borders and protect our homeland, the bill provides Customs and Border Protection with a total of $12.2 billion, nearly a billion increase over fiscal year 2016. In fact, this is the largest increase to border security technologies and infrastructure in a decade, a downpayment on stronger, more effective systems and barriers.

Funding is also prioritized to tackle gang and drug crime, combat terrorism, and support law enforcement. Vital agencies like the FBI, the U.S. Marshals, the DEA, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement all receive funding boosts.

Other domestic funding is directed to proven, effective programs that improve the health and safety of all Americans. This includes increases for the National Institutes of Health and the CDC.

Significantly, we have increased funding to battle the opioid abuse epidemic by $781 million from last year. This funding will provide treatment, education and enforcement, and help the unacceptably high numbers of communities that have been devastated by this crisis.

Lastly, this legislation funds important national priorities like critical infrastructure and essential disaster relief, and supports our local communities, including renewing the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program and giving choice in the District to parents.

This bill should also be noted for what it doesn't do. Our legislation cuts, freezes, and eliminates funding for dozens of programs that have been wasteful, ineffective, or just plain unnecessary. For example, we cut funding at the EPA by $81 million and reined in its regulatory program to prevent overreach.

We froze IRS's funding at current levels and directed funds to improve services to taxpayers. And to ensure that each and every tax dollar is well spent, the bill implements strong oversight and accountability at every level of government.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support this bill, as it reflects the needs of the American people and our common values. We are investing in the security and success of our Nation, and, for that, this bill deserves solid bipartisan support.

Mr. Speaker, there are many people to thank for their help in bringing this bill to the floor today. First and foremost, I want to thank my colleagues in the House. Each and every Member contributed to this effort, and, as a result, it is a better bill.

I especially want to thank my committee chairmen. They are stewards of these bills, and I appreciate all the hard work they have done to get us here today with their committee members.

I would also like to thank my counterpart, ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Mrs. Lowey, for her dedication to bringing this bill to the floor today, as well as our colleagues in the Senate for their partnership.

Lastly, I must thank the hardworking staff of the House Appropriations Committee. They have put in months of nonstop work to bring this bill before the House today. We wouldn't be here without the leadership of the full committee staff, led by Nancy Fox and Jim Kulikowski on the majority side, and Shalanda Young and Chris Bigelow on the minority side.

In the front office, we have, also working hard, Stephen Sepp, Shannon O'Keefe, Carol Murphy, Jennifer Hing, Marta Hernandez, Tammy Hughes, Rachel Kahler, David Roth, and Brad Allen. I thank all of you.

I also want to thank our hardworking clerks and their Democratic counterparts. All deserve our gratitude. The clerks: Tom O'Brien, John Martens, Jennifer Miller, Donna Shahbaz, Dena Baron, Valerie Baldwin, Dave LesStrang, Susan Ross, Liz Dawson, Maureen Holohan, Craig Higgins, and Doug Disrud.

Lastly, I want to thank Katie Hazlett, my chief of staff, and my personal staff.

I yield myself an additional 1 minute.

Our subcommittees, as well as the minority staff, have worked night and day to get these fiscal year 2017 bills behind us and to get ahead and move ahead to the 2018 process. I appreciate all of them and their hard work.

Before I close, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge one special member of the committee staff, Dale Oak, who retires this week. Dale has dedicated over 20 years to the committee and even more to the government. He tacked one extra week on to that total, sticking around to help us complete this bill. This commitment is true to form for him, and we are immensely grateful for it.

Dale, we thank you for your years of service, and we wish you the best of luck in the future.

Mr. Speaker, it is now 7 months into the 2017 fiscal year. We must complete our work today. It is time to look ahead and begin work on the 2018 priorities. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), my predecessor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger), who is the distinguished chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), the Speaker of the House.

(Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson), chairman of the Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt), chairman of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson), the chair of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 10 seconds to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), chair of the Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Yoder), chairman of the Subcommittee on Legislative Branch of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Puerto Rico (Miss Gonzalez-Colon).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I thank the gentlewoman and my ranking counterpart, Mrs. Lowey, for that kindness, and may I associate with her our remarks, pay tribute to her leadership, the wonderful work of the staff that she has behind her and that I have behind me. I think the debate and the comments have been positive today.

The men and women of the greatest military in the world, the United States Armed Forces, are waiting for our support today with the passage of this package, this appropriations bill. Please don't let them down. Please support this bill, which provides for our national and economic security and takes us out from a very damaging and restrictive continuing resolution.

Today is a vote to keep the government open and get back to our appropriations process, which is our responsibility under the Constitution, the power of the purse. Let's take it and use it wisely.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank our distinguished ranking member for her recognition and her leadership on this legislation that we have the opportunity to vote on. So I thank Ranking Member Nita Lowey.

I thank the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, Chairman Frelinghuysen, for his leadership as well. And I commend his staff, Nancy Fox, and others for their hard work on this; and to Ranking Member Lowey, Shalanda Young, Chris Bigelow, my own staff Richard Meltzer, and House and Senate staff members for getting us to this very important place.

The omnibus reflects significant progress defeating some dangerous riders, which I think are dangerous, and securing key victories.

Here is the thing: I spent many years in the Appropriations Committee. And I know, left to your own devices, the Appropriations Committee can find your common ground. You appreciate each other, you grant each other your positions on issues, and you understand the art of negotiating in a successful way.

There were some items that were suggested other than from the committee. From the White House, for example, a border wall, deportation force, things like that, 160 poison pills, which were ranging from undermining a woman's right to choose to dismantling Dodd- Frank, et cetera. But you all worked together to balance the equities and come up with a bill that will have, I believe, broad support in the Congress, certainly bipartisan support in the Congress.

But just not to speak about what we didn't like about the bill, there are some very positive aspects of it that I want to recognize--some nondefense increases in spending, which will save lives and create jobs.

Coal miners' health. We were so proud to secure more than $1 billion to deliver permanent health benefits to thousands of coal miners and their families who stood to lose their health benefits this month. God bless them for their advocacy. It was so important to our discussion.

Opioid epidemic. An additional $600 million for fighting the opioid epidemic.

Protecting EPA. There was going to be a huge cut, and now just a 1 percent cut in the EPA. We see that as a success.

Year-round Pell grants. So important.

Science funding. The omnibus increases funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy, the Department of Energy Office of Science, and ARPA-E, all initiatives that some wanted to cut but were happy had survived that interest in cutting.

Our colleague, Congresswoman Velazquez, has led us on the Puerto Rico issue. The omnibus includes vital funds to stabilize Puerto Rico's underfunded Medicaid program, which threatened so many of our fellow Americans in Puerto Rico.

Democrats are very happy and give credit to, in a bipartisan way, led by Congresswoman Barbara Lee, securing nearly $1 billion in humanitarian assistance to alleviate famine resulting from more drought and displacement in Africa and the Middle East, saving countless lives around the world. Left without assistance, maybe 1.5 million children would die of malnutrition in the next 6 months in Africa.

And then it takes us to biomedical research. I served with Mrs. Lowey and others on the Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee for many years. And the National Institutes of Health is this place that has the Biblical power to cure. It has scientific opportunity. And where there is scientific opportunity, we want to place additional resources. Lives depend on it.

So in stark contrast to the skinny budget that came out earlier, this legislation increases funding for the National Institutes of Health by $2 billion. And I want to say on that, as we relish that $2 billion and what it could mean to the good health of the American people, we have to protect our investments.

As we invest in new treatments and cures, we must also ensure that all Americans have access to them. That is why it is curious to me that on the same day that we vote on this omnibus bill and increase funding for the National Institutes of Health, increase funding for our veterans, and all the rest of that, Republicans are working furiously to advance TrumpCare's devastating impact on America's health care. No matter what anybody says to you about activities they are having today to tweak one piece of the bill, it will still be a bill that has higher costs, forcing families to pay higher premiums and deductibles and out- of-pocket costs. This will block some people from access to the lifesaving cures that we are investing in the National Institutes of Health to create.

Less coverage will take coverage from 24 million hardworking Americans.

Higher costs.

Fewer people covered.

Veterans tax. TrumpCare will deny tax credits for health care to 7 million military veterans.

TrumpCare destroys protections for preexisting conditions. So many of the investments at the National Institutes of Health that we are talking about are to find cures and to find preventions. But when we are trying to find cures, that means that the people we are trying to cure have a preexisting medical condition. This would destroy the guarantee protection for a preexisting medical condition and gut the essential health benefits in the Affordable Care Act.

There is a crushing age tax. If you are 50 to 64, you will pay five times higher than others pay for health care.

It undermines our investments in Medicare.

So I mention this because I have always thought, when I sat on that committee year in and year out, day in and day out, hour on hour, listening to the challenges facing America's families for illnesses that they were suffering, a diagnosis that they were frightened by, that what they wanted us to do was to invest in a cure, but that meant access to that cure.

So they are trying to say: Well, we are going to help with high-risk pools, and that is going to neutralize everything I said about higher costs, lower coverage, et cetera. But the conservative Mercatus Center said: ``The amendment at hand focuses on high-risk pools, but the $8 billion amount is a pittance.''

And said: ``Spread over 5 years, it's a fifth of a pittance.''

That was Robert Graboyes, a healthcare expert at the conservative Mercatus Center.

Karen Pollitz, a healthcare expert at the Kaiser Family Foundation, said that the additional $8 billion would likely not be enough to make the high-risk pools workable. She said that would be enough money to cover costs for only 1 percent of the individual market.

So, again, let us protect the investment that we are making. Let us elevate it with pride and say $2 billion for the National Institutes of Health.

But what does that mean to you, the average American, if you can't have access to that in a way that is affordable?

Again, 51 years ago, Dr. King said, and I say again, because I say this all of the time: ``Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health is the most shocking and the most inhuman because it often results in physical death.''

So, again, this appropriations bill is a way for us to help meet the needs of the American people. This Appropriations Committee did an excellent job in resolving differences and putting forth a balance of equities as we go forward.

But let us not give with one hand and take away with the other as we, in the same 24-hour period, say: Aren't we wonderful. $2 billion for medical research.

Under the Republican's healthcare plan, it will most likely benefit the privileged few at the expense of America's working families.

That is not what we are supposed to be doing here. That is what we are taking pride in. What we are taking pride in is of the great possibilities, but let's make those possibilities available.

And I say that as one who served for many years on the Appropriations Committee, one whose goal in life was to sit on the Labor-HHS Subcommittee and to increase the funding of the National Institutes of Health, but to do it for the purpose of all Americans having access.

Having said that, getting back to this omnibus bill, again, I am very proud of the work of Nita Lowey, of the ranking members of the subcommittees, and of the staff who worked so hard. I am especially proud of the work, also, of our distinguished chairman, Mr. Frelinghuysen. I join him in recognizing the work of his subcommittee chairs on all of this. It is a product to be proud of. I thank Mr. Frelinghuysen and Mrs. Lowey.

I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about Senate Amendment to H.R. 244, ``Making Consolidated Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2017.''

The legislation before us is an imperfect vehicle for appropriations for FY 2017, but this Omnibus Appropriations package contains new funding for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2017 for federal agencies under the eleven remaining Appropriations subcommittees.

The Omnibus Budget Agreement appropriates $1.070 trillion in base discretionary budget authority, allocating $551 billion for defense and $519 billion for nondefense in line with the Budget Control Act's statutory discretionary spending caps, as well as $93.5 billion in additional funding designated for Overseas Contingency Operations(OCO).

Mr. Speaker, this budget agreement is far from perfect, but it is a positive step since it ensures that funding for appropriated entitlements will continue at a rate maintaining program levels under current law and prevents congressional Republicans from shutting down the government again and manufacturing a crisis that only harms our economy, destroys jobs, and weakens our middle class.

The government shutdown of 2013, which was manufactured by the Republican majority lasted 16 days and cost taxpayers $24 billion.

The enormous harm and disruption of the lives of federal employees and the people they serve, however, was irreparable.

As I stated, Mr. Speaker, this Omnibus Budget Agreement is a product of goodwill and realism, and averts a shutdown of government operations and the disruption a shutdown causes to the lives of millions of Americans who depend upon federal programs to do their jobs, educate their kids, care for their parents, and contribute to their communities.

Our constituents look to the Congress and the President to make responsible choices and decisions to keep the nation safe, the economy prosperous, and to make necessary and prudent investments in education, healthcare and research, transportation and infrastructure, economic development, science, the arts and humanities, and the environment.

This is, after all, just another way of saying that the American people expect their leaders in Washington be guided by the Constitution's Preamble and pursue policies and provide the resources that will:

``establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty.''

The funding priorities that have been floated by the Trump Administration fail this essential test of leadership because they are irresponsible, impracticable, unrealistic, and, in many respects, insensitive or indifferent to the deleterious impact they will have on the lives of real people living in the real world.

They do not command majority support in the Congress or of the public and have been rejected in this budget.

Instead, in a stinging defeat for the Trump, the Omnibus Budget Agreement does not fund the immoral and unwise border wall or create a cruel new deportation force.

Also eliminated are more than 160 Republican poison pill riders, ranging from undermining a woman's right to reproductive health to dismantling Dodd-Frank's vital Wall Street consumer protections.

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased that we succeeded in securing Democratic policy priorities and funding increases for critical nondefense items.

This will save lives and create jobs.

Mr. Speaker, let me identify some of the important policy and funding priorities included in this budget agreement:

Fully funds community development block grants and low income housing programs in urban and rural communities.

$2 billion for Medical Research: the budget rejects President Trump's dangerous plans to steal billions from lifesaving medical research;

$221 million overall for Community Oriented Policing (COPS) and $137 million for the COPS hiring program;

$1 billion for Coal Miners' Health: Democrats secured funding to deliver permanent health benefits for the thousands of coal miners and their families who stood to lose their health benefits this month;

$600 million to combat and respond to the Opioid Epidemic;

Provides level funding for the Environmental Protection Agency despite Republicans' hopes to gut it;

Year-Round Pell Grants: Democrats insisted on, and won an increase of $105 in the maximum Pell Grant award and succeeded in restoring access to year-round Pell Grants which will make a huge difference in the lives of hard-working students;

Science Funding: the omnibus budget increases funding for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the Department of Energy Office of Science and ARPA-E, all initiatives President Trump wanted cut;

Puerto Rico's Medicaid: the omnibus budget includes vital funds to stabilize Puerto Rico's underfunded Medicaid program, which threatened so many of our fellow Americans in Puerto Rico;

$1 billion for Emergency Famine Relief to alleviate famine resulting from war, drought and displacement in Africa and the Middle East, saving countless lives around the world;

Mr. Speaker, I support the omnibus budget agreement before us because it achieves the following goals and objectives that I laid out last week:

``To establish justice'' and ``To promote the general welfare'':

1. Funding for the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division and the Department of Education Office of Civil Rights so that they have funds needed to enforce laws protecting civil rights, voting rights, and prosecuting hate crimes.

2. Fully funds community development block grants and low income housing programs in urban and rural communities.

3. Fully funds the Legal Services Corporation so that working and low-income persons who lack an army of lobbyists to represent them in Washington will at least have the assistance of counsel to defend their legal rights in courts of law.

4. Fully funds programs providing food assistance to housebound seniors, such as Meals on Wheels.

5. Fully funds programs that provide students from low and moderate- income families access to affordable access to higher education and provides students with special needs the support needed to receive the free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE) guaranteed by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA Act).

6. Funds before and after school programs and other student enrichment programs that help students succeed.

7. Fully funds programs that make federal housing safer through energy efficient healing and cooling systems.

8. Preserves tax credit programs that help revitalize low income communities.

9. Fully funds the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Energy programs developing the next generation of clean energy and transportation technologies.

``Provide for the common defense'':

1. Provides robust funding for the Department of State and USAID to advance national security interests in places like Iraq and Afghanistan and to end violent conflicts in trouble spots which could threaten the security interests of the United States.

2. Provides adequate funding for United Nations peacekeeping missions throughout the world and distribution of food aid to people in developing and famine stricken countries, such as South Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, and Nigeria.

``To ensure domestic tranquility'':

1. Fully funds cost-sharing reduction subsidies, or CSRs, to compensate insurers for reducing deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums for low-income customers on the Affordable Care Act exchanges.

2. Protects the adequacy, solvency, and integrity of the Medicare and Medicaid programs, which provide health sustaining support for 70 million Americans.

3. Fully funds the National Institutes of Health research programs so that patient access to lifesaving treatments is not delayed.

4. Does not convert funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention into block grants which would hindering the nation's ability to respond swiftly and effectively to public health crises like Ebola, Zika, and HIV/AIDS.

Mr. Speaker, working together the House and Senate has reached an agreement on an appropriate budget framework that invests in the American people, preserves our national security, and keeps faith with the values that have served our nation well and made the United States the leading nation on earth.