Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3219) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2018, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to know where to begin, because this process is so lousy, but I want to rise today in opposition to this rule and the so-called underlying bill, H.R. 3219, the GOP fiscal year 2018 so-called security minibus appropriations bill.

This rule makes in order 72 amendments for debate on the House floor, blocking 100 amendments. It continues the terrible closed process that this Republican majority has used since they took control of the House in 2011.

When Speaker Ryan took the gavel, he promised a fair and open process with regular order where both the majority and the minority would have the opportunity to have their voices heard, and I am happy to provide the full text of that speech to my Republican friends.

I guess we were misinformed, because our collective voices are repeatedly silenced in this Chamber, not just Democrats, but Republicans as well.

Speaker Ryan's broken promise was clearly on display last week when he waited until the dead of night to strip out of the Defense Appropriations bill a provision requiring Congress to debate the issue of the 2001 AUMF. That provision was adopted by the full House Appropriations Committee on a bipartisan basis as an amendment offered by our respected colleague, Representative Barbara Lee. The bipartisan Lee amendment would sunset the outdated 2001 AUMF and give Congress 8 months to enact a new one, ensuring that Congress finally debate and vote on the many wars in which the United States is engaged.

If the Republican leadership doesn't like the lead provision, then the Rules Committee could have made in order an amendment to strike it from the bill. That would have given Members the chance to vote up or down either to keep or remove the provision. That would have been regular order, that would have been fair, that would have been open, but, instead, House Republican leadership took it upon themselves to replace Ms. Lee's provision with alternative language calling upon the administration to produce a report.

Republicans on the Rules Committee defended this action, saying that the Lee amendment legislated on an appropriations bill. The trouble with that logic, Mr. Speaker, is that the language that replaced Ms. Lee's amendment also legislates on an appropriations bill. That is right. House Republicans put in an amendment that violates the same rule.

If this leadership is going to silence Members on flimsy procedural grounds, they probably shouldn't break those same rules on the same day.

Even more shameful, the Republican leadership's continued actions to block every effort and refuse to allow Congress to debate and vote on these wars, I believe, is an insult to the men and women in uniform, who put their lives on the line every day to protect our country, and to their families.

Americans deserve better, and the bipartisan voices calling for action will not be silenced, but this is just one example of regular order being abandoned in order to advance an extreme agenda.

Tomorrow, House Republicans will use another legislative trick, the self-executing rule, to stick taxpayers with a $1.6 billion bill for President Trump's reckless and ineffective border wall with Mexico.

Now, instead of bringing that measure to the floor for an up-or-down vote in an open process where all voices could be heard, the Republican leadership is sticking this provision into the rule so that as soon as the rule is approved, the measure will automatically become part of the bill.

President Trump, as you may recall, promised the American people that he would make Mexico pay for this wall. He repeated it over and over and over again during the campaign. But now, House Republicans want to take $1.6 billion of hard-earned tax dollars from millions of Americans to fund it.

Let me point out, Mr. Speaker, this $1.6 billion is only targeted at 74 miles of the border: two small tracts in Texas and one small tract in California.

And how did this provision on the border wall make its way into this minibus of appropriations bills? It was literally lifted out of the Homeland Security appropriations bill and its few sentences air-dropped into this package.

Where is the rest of the Homeland Security bill, Mr. Speaker? Sitting in limbo, that is where it is.

I guess there weren't any other national security priorities in the Homeland Security Appropriations bill that merited the very special treatment that the 74 miles of this lousy wall seem to be getting. I see that the only priority that matters for my Republican friends when it comes to the security of our Nation is 74 miles of wall costing $1.6 billion.

Mr. Speaker, this is a disgrace. This is just a disgrace.

And then, because it will be part of a self-executing rule, Republicans won't even have to vote on this Republican priority. They will just vote on the rule and, bingo, it is all taken care of. There will be no separate vote on this. You get the funding for the wall, but nothing on record that says you voted to waste $1.6 billion on 74 miles of border wall. Republicans can go home and say they delivered on the wall. I guess they better hope that their constituents don't ask them to show them the vote.

But as I said, Mr. Speaker, this is a disgrace on funding. It is a disgrace on funding priorities, and it is a real disgrace on process. I mean, we should be ashamed of the process in which this bill is being brought to the floor.

I wish I could say that I am surprised by all of this, but the fact is that House Republicans have been doing this kind of thing for quite some time now. This week, you may have read about this: Kellyanne Conway claimed that even if President Trump says something that isn't true, it is not a lie if he believes it.

Well, you can't make this stuff up. Well, I take that back. I guess you can make everything up.

It seems clear that this warped logic has infected this Chamber, with the House Republican leadership employing this same kind of thinking and underhanded methods on a regular basis. They defend a process that is indefensible, plain and simple.

This is a rigged process. Let's be honest. This is a rigged process.

Is this really how we want Congress and this House to conduct the business of the American people? Is this how we will conduct the appropriations process not only now, but in the future: no debate for individual appropriations bills and severely limiting amendments overall? no regular order and a subversion the committee process?

Soon, maybe there will be no amendments on appropriations bills at all. This is a slippery slope, and I urge my Republican colleagues to carefully consider the dangerous road that we are going down.

Americans deserve better from their leaders in Congress, especially when it comes to deciding how the American people's hard-earned tax dollars will be spent. Republicans talk about fiscal responsibility, but what I see here today is another reckless and bloated budget proposal that empties the Treasury vaults for wasteful military spending when we have so many critical priorities here at home that are in desperate need of funding.

Now, apparently, House Republicans have no problem with spending $1.6 billion on President Trump's border wall with Mexico, but when it comes to investing in our own communities here at home, they can't be bothered.

How about investing in our kids' schools? Why aren't we doing more to ensure that our young people have the resources and the support they need to get additional education? Make college more affordable, for example. Wouldn't that be a radical idea?

Republicans love to talk about personal responsibility and the need for Americans to work. Why aren't we investing $1.6 billion more in job training programs and finding ways to increase wages?

We should be making sure that more families have access to good jobs and that no one in America who works full-time has to raise their family in poverty.

President Trump had what feels like countless infrastructure weeks, but we have yet to see Republicans propose any legislation to make good on their promise to finally invest in America's infrastructure and finally fix our Nation's crumbling roads and bridges.

Instead of making any of these policies the top priorities that they should be in this Congress, Republicans are just offering more of the same: empty rhetoric and broken promises.

Now, to be clear, the legislation that we will consider today, H.R. 3219, does fund some important priorities. Our national security must be our number one priority with policies that are both strong and smart. I strongly support our men and women in uniform and believe that Congress should provide our troops everything that they need. Yet Republicans have deliberately created a security bill that raises serious concerns.

Let's recap for a second, Mr. Speaker. The final version of this bill will include $1.6 billion for the President's useless and immoral border wall. It strips out the bipartisan Lee amendment that would have ensured Congress finally grapples with the wars that we are sending our troops to fight instead of continuing to write the White House a series of blank checks. And to top it all off, Mr. Speaker, the four bills contained in H.R. 3219 blow through the Budget Control Act cap on defense spending by $72 billion, threatening a 13 percent sequester cut to all defense accounts.

While obliterating the defense spending cap, House Republicans have proposed reducing nondefense spending to $5 billion below its cap. It is legislative malpractice that Republicans have ignored this reality and have done nothing to work with Democrats to write a new bipartisan budget agreement to raise the Budget Control Act caps for both defense and nondefense spending. Republicans are setting us up for a train wreck, a government shutdown, or worse.

This is not good, Mr. Speaker. This should concern every single Member of this Chamber, both Democrat and Republican. And so I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and finally take a stand against this process, which is rigged and closed and restrictive, and to oppose the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Let me just remind my colleagues here that we are debating the rule, and this is about process.

The gentleman from Oklahoma earlier talked about waivers and that the Lee AUMF language would be subject to a point of order. Well, the language that my Republican friends replaced the Lee amendment with is protected by a waiver of all points of order because it was also legislating on an appropriations bill. As I pointed out last night in the Rules Committee, you made in order amendment No. 19 by Mr. Griffith, which violates section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act, and you provided a waiver for that.

My Republican friends routinely grant waivers in bills that come before the Rules Committee. The problem is that the waivers are only granted for your amendments and never for our amendments, and that is just not fair and that is not right.

So if your policy is going to be we are going to grant no waivers, then it ought to apply not just to Democrats; it ought to apply to Republicans, too. But there is this double standard here, and voices that you disagree with always seem to end up being cut off.

So, Mr. Speaker, I just point that out because this process and the reason why so many of us are angry about this process is it is so blatantly unfair.

The gentleman from Alabama talked about how we all want to commit to upholding the national security of this Nation. I agree with him, but I would say we are not doing our jobs if this floor is not a place where we can have a free-flowing debate, where Members can offer different ideas and be able to have a vote on them. I would just say, with all due respect to my Republican colleagues, you do not have a monopoly on all good ideas.

You know, we have a couple of good ideas, too, and maybe some of your Members agree with that as well.

The other thing we are going to object to is, again, the way my Republican friends self-execute controversial measures like this border wall at $1.6 billion, basically denying an up-or-down vote. Maybe it is to protect your Members in swing districts; I have no idea. Maybe you don't think you have the votes to do it. But if you don't have the votes to do it, it ought not to be in this bill. That is just, to me, a sound way to approach legislating. All the normal rules seem to be thrown out the window here.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms.

McCollum), the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) so he may respond.

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

Mr. Speaker, when Speaker Ryan took the gavel, he promised to have ``a process that is more open, more inclusive, more deliberative, and more participatory.''

My friends like to highlight a number of amendments made in order today as if this is a good process. I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that, rather than taking up one issue at a time, this is a rule for three appropriations bills. I say to my friends, you guys are worse than you used to be.

There are 10 amendments allowed for the Legislative Branch. Last year you made in order 13. We have fewer amendments this year.

For the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs bill, there are 16 amendments. Just a short time ago, in fiscal year 2016, we had a modified open rule. This rule is clearly much worse.

We have the same situation with the Energy and Water bill. We have a structured rule this year, while we had a modified open rule just 2 years ago. The process in the House is getting worse.

For the first time in history, we have a Speaker of the House who has never allowed a truly open rule. Now, we were not perfect, Mr. Speaker, but Speaker Pelosi allowed the Rules Committee to report open rules. Speaker Boehner allowed open rules. Every Speaker in modern history allowed some open rules, but we don't even get modified open rules anymore.

Mr. Speaker, we are seeing an alarming rise in the number of self- executing rules, what Republicans used to call ``deem and pass rules.'' Now, let me explain what that is.

In his book, ``Young Guns: A New Generation of Conservative Leaders,'' our dear Speaker, Mr. Ryan, described the self-execution process. This is on page 98, if you are following along. But he called this process, ``legislative trickery to enact legislation that does not have majority backing.''

Now, sometime today we are going to go back up to the Rules Committee to do a little legislative trickery to fund the President's border wall.

News flash: Mexico is not paying for the wall. The language that the Speaker intends to deem passed without a vote uses good old-fashioned American greenbacks to pay for Trump's wall. The American taxpayers are going to be stuck with this bill for this ridiculous wall.

Mr. Speaker, this process is not good; it is not a better way; it is rotten; and the rule the majority will put on this floor tomorrow will be even worse. We are jamming through these important appropriation bills together, limiting debate, and moving further away from regular order.

We don't need this rule, and we don't need a self-executing rule tomorrow. Now, if we defeat the previous question on this rule, I will offer an amendment to open up this process and consider the Department of Defense, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Energy and Water Appropriation bills each under an open rule.

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 myself such time as I may consume.

Let me just conclude with this, Mr. Speaker: Members have a chance to vote for an open amendment process on these appropriations bills. That is what this PQ vote is about. Republicans will not control this House forever, and I hope that no Member who votes against this open rule amendment today will have the audacity to criticize any future Democratic majorities.

If they do, Mr. Speaker, I assure you, we will remind them of this vote.

To discuss our proposal, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter signed by a number of civil rights groups, education groups, environmental groups, and women's groups in opposition to this minibus.

July 25, 2017.

Re Oppose H.R. 3219 Security Minibus--Vote No on Border wall.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: On behalf of our coalition of almost

90 environmental, faith, immigration, and civil rights

organizations, we are writing to strongly urge you to oppose

funding for the continued construction of a border wall along

the U.S.-Mexico border. The construction of a border wall

serves as a symbol of hostility towards immigrants, and

undermines the civil rights of communities living along our

southern border. It also imposes environmental costs and

natural disaster threats on border communities, especially

indigenous communities, harms native wildlife and wastes tens

of billions in taxpayer dollars.

As the House moves to consider the Fiscal Year 2018

Security Minibus, H.R. 3219, we are profoundly concerned

about the inclusion of $1.6 billion slated for border wall.

In addition to spending billions of taxpayer dollars, adding

funding for the border wall in this legislative package

undermines a fair and transparent legislative process.

Instead of allowing legislators and the public to fully

consider the impacts of funding wall construction, the

Majority is using rushed and underhanded legislative

maneuvers to circumvent the vast and legitimate opposition

that exists for this measure, even within their own party.

Including border wall funding in a Security Minibus is

based on the false premise that our borders are somehow

violent and insecure. This false premise has been used to

justify and advance anti-immigrant, anti-border, pro-

criminalization, and anti-environment legislation that has

negative economic and civil rights impacts on border

communities. The fact is that communities along the border

are some of the safest in the country. According to the FBI's

Uniformed Crime Reports, cities on the border are safer than

cities away from the border. Places like El Paso, Texas have

long topped the lists of safest cities for their low crime

and violence. Additionally, according to the American

Immigration Council, communities with more immigrants are

likely to be safer than places with fewer immigrants.

Border walls are an ineffective tool in curbing

undocumented migration between the United States and nations

south of the border. Rather than deter migration, the current

650-mile barrier along the U.S.-Mexico border has forced

vulnerable migrant populations to pursue more dangerous

routes of travel. The continued construction of a border wall

portrays an attitude of hatred and animosity towards our

neighboring nations. Additionally, construction of this wall

would undermine indigenous border communities, potentially

destroying elements of their history, archeology, and

culture. Border security measures must consider the historic

Tribal lands and families occupying the southern border.

Finally, the current proposal in Fiscal Year 2018 Security

Minibus calls for the construction of 60 miles of levee

border wall in the South Texas Rio Grande Valley; 28 miles

would be levee-border wall, with 2.9 miles slated to be built

in the Santa Ana Wildlife Refuge. This Refuge is home to

diverse wildlife species, ecotourism opportunities, and rich

natural beauty. When levee border walls are constructed, they

negatively impact wildlife migration, pose severe flooding

risks, destroy natural habitats, and lead to potential

increased extinction rates. In order to construct existing

border-walls, dozens of laws protecting our environment,

public health, and sacred natural lands were waived. Our

nation's natural habitats, vibrant wildlife, and healthy

ecosystems are an unacceptable sacrifice to make for

ineffective security measures.

For all of the above reasons, we strongly urge you to vote

NO on the Fiscal Year 2018 Security Minibus, and oppose

funding for border walls, levees, or additional

infrastructure along the southern border of the United

States.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Civil Rights

Mi Familia Vota, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination

Committee, Southeast Asia Resource Action Center (SEARAC),

HONOR PAC, UnidosUS (formerly NCLR), American Civil Liberties

Union, Asian Americans Advancing Justice Atlanta, The City

Project, National Council of Asian Pacific Americans (NCAPA),

League of United Latin American Citizens, EPCF.

Community Groups

Southern Border Communities Coalition, Indivisible, SER

Jobs for Progress National Inc., Junta for Progressive

Action, National Black Justice Coalition.

Education/Higher Education

National Education Association, Hispanic Association of

Colleges and Universities (HACU).

Environmental/Environmental Justice

Earthjustice, Wildlands Network, Sierra Club, International

League of Conservation Photographers, Students for a Just and

Stable Future, Earthworks, Friends of the Earth,

Environmental Protection Information Center, Turtle Island

Restoration Network, Center for Biological Diversity, Jesus

People Against Pollution, Food Empowerment Project.

San Juan Citizens Alliance, Ocean Futures Society,

SustainUS, Natural Resources Defense Council, Southwest

Environmental Center, Conservationist Wilderness Areas

Committee, Defenders of Wildlife, Clean Water Action, West

Berkeley Alliance for Clean Air and Safe Jobs, NextGen

America, La Union Hace La Fuerza, Comite Civico del Valle.

Religious/Faith Organizations

American Friends Service Committee, Frontera de Cristo,

Friends Committee on National Legislation, NETWORK Lobby for

Catholic Social Justice, Ajo Samaritans, Francscian Action

Network, Franciscan Peace Center, American Friends Service

Committee, Reformed Church of Highland Park, Cruzando

Fronteras, Southern Arizona Interfaith, Southside

Presbyterian Church, Church World Service.

School Sisters of Notre Dame, Mennonite Central Committee

U.S. Washington Office, Sisters of Mercy of the Americas--

Institute Justice Team, National Justice for Our Neighbors,

American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), Maryknoll Office

for Global Concerns, Leadership Conference of Women

Religious, Columban Center for Advocacy and Outreach, Latino

Commission on AIDS, Hispanic Health Network.

Human Rights/Women's Rights

National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health,

OneAmerica, Green Valley/Sahuarita Samaritans, Coalicion

Derechos Humanos, National Immigrant Justice Center, No More

Deaths, Architects, Designers, Planners For Social

Responsibility (ADPSR), Lidia' DelPiccolo--Morris, National

Asian Pacific American Women's Forum (NAPAWF), Tucson

Samaritans, People Helping People in

the Border Zone, Friends of Broward Detainees.

Immigrant Rights

Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition,

Detention Watch Network, Immigrant Legal Resource Center, End

Streamline Coalition.

Labor/Workers Rights

Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO (APALA),

Jobs With Justice, Arkansas United Community Coalition.

Latino Civil/Human rights/Latino Labor

Hispanic Federation, Labor Council for Latin American

Advancement, Latinos for a Secure Retirement.

LGBTQ Rights

National Center for Transgender Equality, Equality

California, Entre Hermanos.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter signed by 18 environmental groups opposed to H.R. 3219.

July 26, 2017.

Dear Representative: On behalf of our millions of members,

the undersigned organizations urge you to oppose H.R. 3219,

the so-called Make American Secure Appropriations Act, 2018,

which includes the Defense, Military Construction and

Veterans Affairs, Legislative Branch, and Energy and Water

funding bills. This package includes provisions that are

harmful to water and ocean resources, cuts funding for clean

energy innovation, undermines safe nuclear waste storage, and

attacks border communities. Furthermore, this bill continues

the House Leadership's pattern of adding harmful policy

riders into spending bills in an attempt to avoid regular

order. Lastly, the inclusion of $1.6 billion for the

continued construction of a failed, divisive, and anti-

environmental wall along the southern border of the United

States would be the latest example of inserting harmful,

controversial and even radical policy proposals onto spending

bills, which undermines the legislative process and the

already complex budget process. This bill reflects a set of

values that is not shared by the American people--one of

clean air and clean water, one of equity and prosperity, one

of safety and security.

Border Wall Provisions

The border wall is a powerful symbol of hatred toward

immigrants and undermines the civil rights of communities

along our southern border, and it would increase the

environmental and natural disaster risks to border

communities, harm wildlife, and waste billions of taxpayer

dollars on an ineffective border security tool. The current

proposal would lead to the construction of 60 miles of new

border wall to be built in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas,

including levee-border walls and 2.9 miles built within the

Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge. This refuge is home to

diverse wildlife species, ecotourism opportunities, and rich

natural beauty. When levee-border walls are constructed, they

negatively impact wildlife migration, pose severe flooding

risks, destroy natural habitats, and can increase the risk of

wildlife extinctions occurring. In order to construct

existing border walls, dozens of laws protecting our

environment, public health, and sacred natural lands were

waived. Our nation's natural habitats, vibrant wildlife, and

healthy ecosystems are an unacceptable sacrifice to make for

ineffective security measures.

Water Provisions

The Energy and Water Appropriations division includes

damaging policy riders and report language in contravention

of regular order. Specifically, Sec. 108(a) aims to allow the

Trump administration to disregard countless laws as it

carries out a scheme to undermine clean water safeguards. The

provision would authorize EPA and the Army Corps to repeal

the Clean Water Rule without following basic and longstanding

processes aimed at giving people a voice in their

government's actions. For instance, a repeal could ignore

Clean Water Act and Administrative Procedure Act requirements

to meaningfully consider public comment. It could also

interfere with the courts' ability to review if the

withdrawal is ``arbitrary or capricious.'' This fact reveals

the real motivation for the rider--its proponents want to

shield the Trump administration's repeal of carefully-

developed clean water protections from public scrutiny and

from independent judicial review. Without the Clean Water

Rule, the streams that help supply public drinking water

systems serving one in three Americans will remain at risk.

Additionally, Sec. 107 would exempt certain discharges of

dredged or fill material from Army Corps' permitting under

the Clean Water Act. The Act already exempts these kinds of

activities from such permits, but requires permitting when

the impacts to waterways would be more harmful. This rider

would have the effect of nullifying Congress's direction to

subject those nonexempt discharges to pollution control

officials' review. Another rider would undermine the

restoration of the San Joaquin River, the second longest

river in California. Sec. 203 would prohibit spending any

funds to implement the legal settlement between the United

States, fishing and conservation groups, and Friant water

users regarding the restoration of the river. The settlement

ended 20 years of litigation and continues to be supported by

water users, conservation and fishing groups, and state and

federal governments.

Finally, the bill also includes a provision to halt

implementation of the National Ocean Policy (Sec. 505), an

important planning tool to coordinate the work of dozens of

federal and state agencies with overlapping and sometimes

conflicting responsibilities for addressing ocean

development. These riders, and any further damaging policy

provisions that will be offered, undercut the public process

for determining how to implement the laws that Congress has

passed. They are bad policies that will put American's health

and safety at risk and they have no place on a funding bill.

Energy Provisions

The bill also dramatically cuts federal clean energy

spending, which has consistently proven its worth by

directing RD&D funds that drive job creation, economic growth

and reduce health and environmental costs. The committee bill

cuts funding for the Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy by $1 billion (48% reduction) hurting

important programs that support the development and

deployment of wind energy, solar energy, advanced

manufacturing, sustainable transportation technologies, and

building technologies. Recklessly, the bill eliminates

funding for the Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy

(ARPA-E) and the Title 17 loan guarantee program. Defunding

ARPA-E cripples our ability to commercialize new technologies

that will serve to meet our future clean energy needs.

Furthermore, the Title 17 loan guarantee program has a strong

track record of lowering the risks on deploying projects that

can make cleaner and cheaper energy a reality.

The bill also includes $120 million in a continued attempt

to push the unworkable, long ago rejected proposal to dispose

of nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain, Nevada. It also includes

a rider in Sec. 507 that prevents funds being used to close

the facility. Decades from now others will face the precise

predicament we find ourselves in today if Congress tries to

ram through unworkable nuclear waste solutions contentiously

opposed by States, lacking a sound legal structure of

science-based foundation, and devoid of public understanding

and consent. The current efforts to quickly open Yucca

Mountain and an interim storage facility simply will not

work.

This bill also rejects the sensible plan to cancel the

risky and enormously costly mixed oxide (MOX) program,

intended to dispose of excess plutonium from the U.S. nuclear

weapons program by turning it into nuclear reactor fuel.

Instead this bill mandates that the Department of Energy

waste an additional $340 million on construction of the MOX

fuel fabrication plant. Congress should reject the MOX

program and support an improved approach for disposing of

excess plutonium.

We strongly oppose this minibus package, which would put

our energy future at risk and would harm border communities,

and it includes poison pill riders that will harm our

nation's public health, air, water, lands, and wildlife. We

also urge opposition to any amendments that would harm health

and the environment.

Sincerely,

Alaska Wilderness League, Clean Water Action, Defenders of

Wildlife, Earthjustice, Environment America, Environmental

Protection Information Center, Klamath Forest Alliance,

League of Conservation Voters, Natural Resources Defense

Council, NextGen, Public Citizen, Restore America's

Estuaries, San Juan Citizens Alliance, Save EPA, Sierra Club,

Western Environmental Law Center, Western Watersheds Project,

Wildlands Network.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Coalition on Human Needs against this minibus.

Coalition on Human Needs,

Washington, DC, July 25, 2017.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the Coalition on Human

Needs, I strongly urge you to vote against the package of

military-related appropriations bills expected to come to the

House floor this week. These appropriations bills--including

those for Defense, Military Construction and Veterans'

Affairs, Legislative Branch, and Energy and Water--should not

be taken up until there is a bipartisan agreement to lift the

sequestration caps called for in the Budget Control Act in a

way that provides for increased funding for domestic and

international (non-defense discretionary, or NDD)

appropriations, not just for the military.

As you know, defense appropriations exceed the Budget

Control Act cap for FY 2018 by $72 billion. Without

legislation to raise the caps, sequestration will eliminate

that increase through across-the-board cuts to military

programs. Legislation to lift the caps requires bipartisan

support, and we expect that support will not be forthcoming

without an agreement to raise the caps for non-defense

discretionary spending as well.

The Coalition on Human Needs, which is made up of

organizations representing millions of human service

providers, faith organizations, policy experts, civil rights,

labor, and other advocates concerned with meeting the needs

of low-income and vulnerable people, strongly believes that

our national security depends on a balanced approach that

invests in our domestic needs. Our people gain economic

security from access to education and training, affordable

housing, a reliable and modern infrastructure, and child care

and other work supports. We need public health protections

from epidemics and environmental protections to ensure clean

air and water and to protect against climate disasters.

Stopping the erosion in domestic human needs programs is

necessary for our security and our future. NDD programs apart

from Veterans Affairs will be cut by $22 billion in FY 2018,

5 percent below the previous year and 17 percent below the

level in FY 2010, taking inflation into account. This harsh

cut abandons previous congressional commitments to provide

defense and non-defense programs with equal relief from

sequestration. We urge you to vote against this package of

defense-related bills because they should not be considered

without a comprehensive agreement to lift the caps for all

the programs that contribute to our security.

We also ask you to vote against this package of

appropriations bills because it includes wasteful funding for

the border wall that will not increase our security, and to

oppose extraneous and irresponsible policy riders such as

those restricting opportunities for young people in the

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program to enter the

military or weakening the Congressional Budget Office.

Please vote no on this package of appropriations bills, and

instead make it a top priority to achieve a bipartisan

agreement to lift sequestration caps for non-defense

programs, not solely for the military.

Sincerely yours,

Deborah Weinstein,

Executive Director.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter to my colleagues from AFSCME opposed to this bill.

Mr. Speaker, finally, I include in the Record a letter sent to my colleagues in opposition to this bill from American Federation of Teachers.

American Federation of Teachers,

Washington, DC, July 26, 2017.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.6 million members

of the American Federation of Teachers, I write to express

our strong opposition to the Make America Secure

Appropriations Act, 2018 (H.R. 3219), the fiscal year 2018

appropriations ``minibus'' bill that bundles together the

appropriations bills for defense, energy and water

development, military construction, Veterans Affairs and the

legislative branch. We oppose this bill because it moves in

the wrong direction by failing to lift the sequester caps in

a manner that maintains parity between defense and nondefense

discretionary funding, and by including ideological poison

pill riders.

Our national security is critical, but it requires

investments that help working families seize the

opportunities they need and deserve, and appropriations bills

must invest in critical public services that enable these

opportunities. Sequester caps have unduly restricted these

kinds of foundational investments; without removing arbitrary

caps, crucial investments will suffer. Yet instead of working

toward a bipartisan deal to lift these punitive funding caps

in a way that treats nondefense discretionary funding

equitably, the speaker is moving forward with a minibus

package that promotes a strategy to drastically cut

nondefense programs as a means to increase defense funding.

This must not be an either-or choice: National security

requires strength at home and opportunities for our next

generation, not the elimination of the funding they need to

create those opportunities.

In addition, the well-being of the nation is further

undermined in this bill by the inclusion of ideological

poison pill policy riders. We particularly object to the

inclusion of funding for an ill-conceived and mean-spirited

border wall that is unrelated to any of the four

appropriations bills included in the minibus.

As the defense portion of this bill violates the Budget

Control Act, the increases in funding proposed by this bill

are imaginary. The cuts this bill proposes are not.

I urge you to reject this bill and work to raise the

sequester caps, to allow balanced funding bills--ones that

adequately invest in the health, safety and education of our

nation, and do not include ideological poison pill policy

riders--to move forward. Until this has been accomplished, we

urge you to oppose this bill.

Sincerely,

Randi Weingarten,

President.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say to my good friend from Oklahoma: The Republicans presided over the most closed Congress in history in the last session. In history. And this year you are on your way to beating that record.

The gentleman talks about exceptional speed in which we are moving these appropriations bills to the floor. I am not so much impressed with exceptional speed when it comes to the spending of billions of taxpayer dollars. I want to make sure we get it right. That is why we are asking for an open process.

The gentleman talked about poison pills. Let me go back to the Barbara Lee AUMF amendment. I hardly consider that a poison pill when it was unanimously approved in the Appropriations Committee, and the gentleman even voted for it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

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

I include in the Record a letter from Amnesty International rejecting the border wall funding.

Amnesty International,

Washington, DC, July 26, 2017.

Amnesty International USA Urges House to Reject Southern Border Wall

Funding

Dear Representative: On behalf of Amnesty International USA

and our more than one million members and supporters

nationwide, we strongly urge you to reject any and all

requests included in H.R. 3219 (Department of Defense

Appropriations Act, 2018 AKA Make America Secure

Appropriations Act, 2018) for the funding of a southern

border wall. The construction of such a wall would pose

serious human rights consequences and would violate

international law and standards in two major ways.

First, Congress should not approve funding for a wall that

will cut through tribal land unless the U.S. government first

obtains the free, prior, and informed consent of affected

Nations, as prescribed by Article 19 of the United Nations

(``UN'') Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The

U.S. must consult in good faith with Native American Nations

who would be impacted by the construction of the proposed

wall. The National Congress of American Indians and the

Legislative Council of the Tohono O'odham, the second-largest

tribe in the United States by land holdings, have both passed

resolutions opposing the construction of the wall without

tribal consent. Without the free, prior, and informed consent

of affected Native American Nations, the House cannot approve

border wall funding without violating the UN Declaration on

the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Second, the construction of a border wall risks escalation

of the already serious violations experienced by asylum

seekers seeking to enter the U.S. In order to provide a fair

asylum process, the U.S. must ensure the existence of

sufficiently located, secure, regulated border crossing

points for asylum seekers. This is essential to ensure that

the U.S. government does not violate the principle of non-

refoulement, which is enshrined in the 1951 UN Convention

Relating to the Status of Refugees and binding on States

Party to the 1967 Protocol.

Amnesty International strongly urges you to reject funding

for a southern border wall, in order to uphold U.S.

obligations with respect to Native Americans and arriving

asylum seekers.

Sincerely,

Joanne Lin,

Senior Managing Director, Advocacy

and Government Relations.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter opposing the funding for the wall from the League of United Latin American Citizens.

League of United Latin

American Citizens,

Washington, DC, July 19, 2017.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the League of United

Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the nation's oldest and

largest Latino civil rights organization, I write to oppose

any legislative attempts to keep funding the construction of

a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, the expansion of a Trump

deportation force, and the increase of detention beds in

immigrant incarceration centers.

As the House moves to consider the Fiscal Year 18

Department of Homeland Security Appropriation bill, and other

security related bills, LULAC is deeply concerned about

language that would provide billions for the construction of

a costly and divisive wall along the Southern border, as well

as hundreds of millions to hire a deportation force and

expand immigrant incarceration.

The continued criminalization of immigrants, militarization

of the border, and rush to build a costly, ineffective, and

destructive wall on the U.S.-Mexico border are aims of

radical politicians seeking to advance a xenophobic, anti-

Latino agenda in this Congress. Unfortunately, this

administration has failed to focus on legitimate staffing

concerns at ports of entry, rebuilding port infrastructure,

and protecting the land, water, and environment of the

border. Instead, it is looking to seize the private property

of border residents, destroy the natural habitat and wildlife

in border communities, endanger border water supplies, and

turn immigrant neighbors, families, and children into

criminals who merit incarceration and deportation.

The House of Representatives should not enable these aims

and should oppose any language seeking to advance the radical

right-wing agenda of demonizing border communities and

scapegoating immigrants. LULAC opposes any DHS appropriation

bill, or any other appropriation vehicle, that funds border

walls/levees, the hiring of Trump's deportation force and the

continued expansion immigrant incarceration.

Sincerely,

Roger C. Rocha, Jr.,

LULAC National President.

I include in the Record a fact sheet by the Washington Office on Latin America entitled: ``Key points about the $1.6 billion border wall.''

July 24, 2017.

Please find below a rigorously sourced analysis of the $1.6

billion in funding for a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

The border wall funding is expected to be attached to the

appropriations ``minibus'' in the Rules Committee later this

week.

As a leading research and advocacy organization with years

of field research and experience working on migration and

border security issues, WOLA (the Washington Office on Latin

America) outlines a number of reasons why this proposal will

be costly, ineffective, and divisive.

WOLA believes that these are overwhelming reasons to oppose

President Trump's request for a border wall and to vote

against its inclusion in a bill claiming to fund national

security. Regardless of party, it is clear that $1.6 billion

spent to start building the wall is money wasted.

Please don't hesitate to reach out to me if you have any

questions or would like more information.

Best regards,

Adam Isacson.

[From the Washington Office on Latin America, July 24, 2017]

Key Points about the $1.6 Billion Border Wall

A Costly, Ineffective, and Divisive Border Wall Doesn't Belong in a

``National Security'' Appropriation

The House of Representatives is rushing to the floor four

Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 appropriations bills related to

national security, which will be combined into a so-called

``minibus.'' In addition, the House Republican leadership is

expected to carve out the most controversial part of the

Homeland Security appropriations bill--President Trump's full

request to fund the border wall--and use a procedural

maneuver in the Rules Committee to attach it to this week's

funding bill. Along with money for our military, veterans,

and other defense-related items, the House is expected to

consider $1.6 billion to start building President Trump's

proposed border wall.

The border wall would be costly

The bill would fund the Trump administration's full request

for $1.6 billion to build 60 miles of new border wall and

fortify 14 miles of existing wall. That comes out to $21.2

million per mile. This is more than four times the $4.84

million per mile cost of fencing built since 2011.

At the rate proposed by President Trump, building

additional fencing along the 1,317 border miles that lack it

would cost $28 billion. And that figure doesn't count the

cost of building in more difficult terrain, access roads,

maintenance, or acquiring land in Texas, where almost all

border landholdings are privately held.

Building the wall carries a huge opportunity cost. $1.6

billion could support many more important border security

priorities. These include upgrading and hiring more personnel

for ports of entry, the main vector for illegal drugs. The

ports have $5 billion in unmet infrastructure needs. They

could include more technology so that border-security

agencies have a better idea of what is happening along the

border. This would make continued National Guard deployments

unnecessary. They could include greatly increased investment

in moving costs and bonuses for Border Patrol agents who

agree to relocate from quieter border sectors to busier ones

in need of manpower.

The border wall would be ineffective

The proposed border wall will not stop drug trafficking. To

understand drug trafficking across the U.S.-Mexico border,

it's first necessary to understand the difference

between ``ports of entry''--the 44 official land border

crossings--and the vast spaces between them, where fencing

exists or where Trump's wall would be built. The ports of

entry are where U.S. border authorities seize the majority of

heroin and opioids, methamphetamine, and cocaine. ``The big

issue, really, right now on drugs coming into the United

States is the ports of entry,'' Homeland Security Secretary

John Kelly told a Senate committee in April. Building a wall

would have no effect on smuggling at ports of entry.

Meanwhile, in the rural border areas where the White House

proposes to build, a wall really isn't much of a barrier. It

slows individuals down for the 10 or 15 minutes it takes to

climb over. In a populated area, where authorities can

respond quickly, that 10 or 15 minutes makes a big

difference. But almost all of these areas already have high

fences, because of the hundreds of miles of building that

followed the Secure Fence Act of 2006. In emptier areas,

reducing a border crosser's head start by 10 to 15 minutes is

hardly a deterrent--and in Texas, the Rio Grande already

serves that purpose.

The border wall would be dangerous

More wall-building could have tragic consequences.

Violence, poverty, and family ties ensure that migrants will

continue attempting the risky journey through the border

region's inhospitable wilderness zones. Every year, U.S.

authorities find the remains of hundreds of migrants, dead of

dehydration and exposure in deserts and scrublands. With more

fencing, migrants may attempt the crossing in even more

remote areas, where the probability of death will be even

higher.

The border wall would be divisive

Building a wall sends a toxic message to one of our two

closest neighbors, a country on whose cooperation the United

States' national security and economic prosperity depends.

Mexico is the United States' third-largest trading partner.

Our common border is 1,970 miles long. Mexico collaborates on

efforts to guard against extra-regional terrorists

hypothetically using its territory to enter the United

States. After 12 years of steadily declining migration, more

Mexican citizens leave the United States than enter it each

year. In January, it extradited its most notorious drug lord

to the United States.

It makes no sense to undermine this relationship by

building a permanent barrier along our border with Mexico. It

makes no sense to jeopardize badly needed cooperation by

portraying Mexico as a sinister source of threats that should

foot the bill for the wall (which, the 2018 appropriation

makes clear, it will not have to do). Mexico certainly has

problems, particularly corruption and human rights abuse. But

these are aspects of the relationship the United States must

work on, rather than push Mexico away with an aggressive

construction project.

The border wall should be rejected

WOLA believes that these are overwhelming reasons to oppose

President Trump's request for a border wall and to vote

against its inclusion in a bill claiming to fund national

security. Regardless of party, it is clear that $1.6 billion

spent to start building the wall is money wasted. Let's stop

this now before it becomes even larger, more costly, more

counterproductive, and more divisive.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an NBC News article on how the border wall is being planned to decimate the National Butterfly Center in the wildlife corridor of the lower Rio Grande Valley.

[From NBC News, July 26, 2017]

Border Wall Push Creates Flap in House--And at the National Butterfly

Center

(By Suzanne Gamboa)

Washington.--A national butterfly preserve is the latest

flashpoint in the border wall debate as Democrats accuse the

GOP of rigging the process to slip wall funding into a pack

of House spending bills possibly up for a vote this week.

While there are not specific details on exactly where $1.6

billion proposed for President Trump's border wall will be

spent, an amendment sponsored by Rep. John Carter, R-Texas,

calls for $498 million to go to 28 miles of ``new bollard

levee wall'' in Hidalgo County in Texas' Rio Grande Valley--

home to the National Butterfly Center.

The amendment also calls for $251 million to repair

secondary border fencing in the San Diego area and $38.2

million for planning future border wall construction. Another

$784 million is for 32 miles of ``border bollard fencing'' in

Starr County, Texas, also in the Rio Grande Valley.

The butterfly center's executive director Marianna Trevino

Wright said she found a work crew on the butterfly center's

property last week, and she worried that their efforts might

be related to construction of the proposed border wall. The

workers had chain saws and work trucks and had cut and shred

brush, trees and plants, she said. Trevino Wright said she

found surveyor stakes and ``X'' marks on the property. She

posted photos on the center's web site and Facebook page.

The 100-acre center is part of the wildlife corridor of the

lower Rio Grande Valley, which is a migratory flyway for

birds, butterflies and a host of other wildlife. The center's

property already is bisected by earthen levees. Two thirds of

the property is below the levee, Trevino Wright said.

``The property we have acquired here used to be a

commercial onion farm and we have spent the last 15 years

fundraising for our efforts and growing plants and purchasing

materials to revegetate this area, to plant native, host and

nectar plants and provide breeding and feeding areas to

support wildlife, especially butterflies,'' she said.

``We do have folks who come from around the state, nation,

world for the birds and butterflies and other things we have

here on the property. Sometimes people show up looking for

indigo snakes,'' Trevino Wright said.

In a previously issued statement, the Army Corps of

Engineers denied that its contractors cleared or removed

trees at the center, but acknowledged the crew placed X

markings on the ground for mapping and wooden stakes flagging

proposed locations to bore holes for possible construction.

The agency said its contractor collected two soil samples

from the levee but did so away from the butterfly center.

Neither U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the Army Corps

of Engineers, nor other agencies have outlined plans for the

proposed border wall on the center property.

Still, Trevino Wright and her supporters worry about what

the center called on Facebook the ``government secret

activity on our property.''

There also is angst over the possibility of border wall

construction in another refuge along the Rio Grande--the San

Ana Wildlife Refuge. It is considered the ``crown jewel'' of

wildlife refuges and one of the nation's top birding spots.

The Texas Observer first reported that crews were taking core

samples, setting off a reaction among birders who flock to

the spot that boasts 400 species of birds.

The American Birding Association put out a plea to its

members to write and call their members of Congress asking

that they stop construction of the wall.

Carlos Diaz, a spokesman for Customs and Border Protection,

told NBC News he did not have information on what plans or

hopes there are for putting fencing or a wall on the

butterfly center's property or the Santa Ana Refuge.

In a previously issued news release following a meeting

with Rio Grande Valley mayors last week, Customs and Border

Protection and the Army Corps of Engineers said in a news

release they are conducting research activities in areas

slated for construction of new or replacement border wall,

with $20 million in reprogrammed funds approved by Congress.

Also money provided for fiscal 2017 is being used to

replace pedestrian barriers in San Diego and El Centro,

California; replace vehicle barriers and pedestrian barriers

in El Paso, Texas and install 35 new gates at gaps in border

fencing built already in the Rio Grande Valley, according to

Army Corps of Engineers information provided by Diaz.

In a hearing Monday held by the U.S. House Rules Committee,

Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., pointed out that American

taxpayers are footing the tab for the border wall work, not

Mexico as Trump had promised. That's a point that should be

debated and could be if the border wall funding was given

it's own vote, he said.

``This is a rigged process,'' McGovern said.

With Congress closing in on a summer recess, the House is

trying to push through a batch of four spending bills the GOP

has said are critical for security. But the GOP plan to

include $1.6 million for 74 miles of President Donald Trump's

border ``wall'' means those who oppose the border wall

funding have to vote against the military spending.

Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, who chairs the Rules

Committee, said Monday he made the amendment providing the

border wall money ``self-executing,'' setting up the dilemma

for opponents of the wall funding.

``You are dadgum right I put it in there,'' Sessions said.

``We are going to comply with allowing the president to

have things he wants also,'' he said.

Rep. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., called the move ``sneaky'' and

said House Speaker Paul Ryan and GOP House members were doing

Trump's ``dirty work.''

``They want to make sure Trump can build his wall, but they

also want desperately to avoid a clean up or down vote on the

issue,'' Gallego told reporters in a call Monday.

Ashlee Strong, a spokeswoman for Ryan, said in an email

that House and Senate Republicans' agenda includes a

commitment to increased border security ``and we are

following through on that promise.''

Mr. Speaker, process matters. And I have come to the conclusion, after having served here for some time now, that a lousy process leads to a lousy product and lousy legislation.

I know many of my colleagues were moved, like I was yesterday, when Senator John McCain appeared on the Senate floor and not only engaged in Senate business, but actually gave a very eloquent, passionate speech.

I want to quote Senator McCain from yesterday. He said: ``Let's return to regular order. We've been spinning our wheels on too many important issues because we keep trying to find a way to win without help from across the aisle.

That's an approach that's been employed by both sides, mandating legislation from the top down, without any support from the other side, with all the parliamentary maneuvers that requires.

``We're getting nothing done.''

I agree with Senator McCain, and I believe that a majority in this House, Democrats and Republicans, agree with Senator McCain. But at some point we have to stop saying: ``Well, we will get better. We will get better. It will be better next time. It will be better next time.''

Because what is happening is, it is getting worse each time we bring legislations or appropriations to the floor. We are getting more and more restrictive. We are shutting out more and more voices, not just Democratic voices, but Republican voices as well.

This is a deliberative body. We ought to be able to deliberate a little bit. And both Democrats and Republicans have good ideas. Let us use this opportunity to change things, to go back to the regular order that Senator McCain talked so eloquently about yesterday.

There is an opportunity to do that. It doesn't stop us considering the appropriations bills, but what it says is that we will do so under an open rule. We will go back to the way we all say we want it to be, an open process.

If you like some of these amendments, you vote for them. You make this legislation better. If you don't like the amendments, then you vote against them. I mean, that is the way this body is supposed to operate; none of this underhanded, self-executing of controversial provisions that may not have the support of the majority in this House.

Let's go back to regular order. This is the moment. This is a defining moment.

Democrats and Republicans, if you really mean it when you say you want regular order, then you have to vote for regular order once in a while. You can't keep on making excuses. I think this is the moment that we have on these appropriations bills to send a message to the leadership that we want things done differently here. We want to open things up. I think that is what the majority on both sides really want. But the question is whether or not we all have the guts to vote for an open process. So we have an opportunity to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can bring this legislation up today under an open rule. Let everybody offer their amendments. Let's bring it up. Let's do this today. No more excuses.

If you mean what you say when you say you want regular order, this is the opportunity to vote for it. So please vote ``no'' on the previous question. And I oppose the underlying bill. Maybe I won't if we can fix it through regular order. Maybe we can add a number of amendments, and even I would support some of these amendments.

Let's give it a chance. Let's work in a bipartisan way. Let's go back to the days when we did have open rules on appropriations. This is the opportunity to do it. Vote ``no'' on the previous question.

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. Chairman, I rise today to speak in favor of the bill before us, paying particular attention to the work of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee.

I first want to thank my colleagues, Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member Lowey, for their leadership; and Ranking Member Ryan, who has been a gentleman and a scholar, for working with me to develop this product, a great example of how representatives from opposite sides of the line can work together and create a model bipartisanship to build great legislation for the American people.

Our total recommendation for the fiscal year 2018 Legislative Branch is $3.58 billion. In this bill, we focused on Capitol improvements, better security, more transparency and accountability all in a fiscally responsible manner.

First and foremost, Mr. Chairman, the House continues to lead by example in its frugal operations. With this bill, we will be spending 12 percent below the 2010 levels, showing the American people fiscal discipline starts here in our House operations first.

We also continue the policy of denying pay increases to Members of Congress for the eighth fiscal year in a row. This Republican Congress has tightened its belt since taking the majority, and we have never allowed a pay increase for Members of Congress, and we aren't allowing one today, saving taxpayers over $68 million since 2011.

In light of the recent shooting where Republican Members of Congress were targeted for their beliefs and our colleague and majority whip, Steve Scalise, was seriously wounded, this bill takes new focus on the security related to Congress, and I would like to recognize the United States Capitol Police Special Agents Crystal Griner and David Bailey.

As we all know in this body, the U.S. Capitol Police protect us, our staff, and the more than 9 million visitors we get here each year with bravery, putting their lives on the line each and every day to keep us safe.

Special Agents Griner and Bailey put that heroism on display for the country and the world when they saved numerous Members of Congress from an

attack at practice where some 25 of our colleagues were preparing for the Congressional Baseball Game for Charity. Their courage under fire saved the lives of countless Members of Congress, staff, and innocent bystanders, and both of them were wounded while carrying out their duties.

Steve Scalise, Matt Mika, and Zack Barth, who were also injured that day, and everyone else on that baseball field, are alive today because of those Capitol Police officers, and we continue to wish a speedy recovery to everyone who has been injured.

We, as a Congress, owe it to the Capitol Police to ensure they have the necessary resources to meet their mission in an increasingly polarized climate. And after working with Mr. Ryan, we believe we have appropriately prioritized those needs, taking a comprehensive approach to ensuring the safety and security of not only Members of Congress, but our staff, visitors, and the constituents we serve.

We provide resources and make structural changes that will address security concerns both here at the Capitol and in our home districts, including $29 million in new resources to the Capitol Police for increased security, $5 million to the House Sergeant at Arms for district office security, and support for House Administration's authorization to increase $25,000 per MRA account to address Members' physical security when they are away from the Capitol complex. We also invest new resources in cybersecurity measures to protect attacks on our digital information.

After more than 20 hearings, briefings, and tours of various portions of the Capitol complex since January, we have included $581 million in total for the Architect of the Capitol. We recognize the continuing challenge of preserving and maintaining our infrastructure and prioritizing critical projects in the current fiscal climate.

We have included funding to restore and renovate House office buildings, upgrade the Capitol Power Plant, and several other projects. We fund a Revitalization Fund to finance major repairs and renovations to facilities in the House for future years, and we are planning ahead to try and save costs.

Overall, we provided $648 million for the Library of Congress, with new funding going to IT improvements library-wide, as well as specific copyright modernization initiatives.

In total, we provided $48.5 million for the CBO. Members of this body on both sides of the aisle have their differences in opinion with CBO estimates and how it arrives at those conclusions. In some cases, frankly, the CBO is wrong, but, at the end of the day, it serves an important purpose and needs the appropriate resources to do its job.

We also increased funding for the Government Accountability Office to ensure that they root out fraud, waste, and abuse in government.

Mr. Chair, in crafting this project, Ranking Member Ryan and I sought the thoughtful feedback of Members throughout this committee and this body. There are various initiatives we can all be proud of, initiatives that serve our constituents and produce efficiencies and transparency in the way that Congress operates, including increasing openness and transparency and producing efficiencies by publishing nonconfidential CRS reports online, expanding the Wounded Warrior Project, which helps Members hire veterans. We increased total slots by more than 57 percent.

In conclusion, in all, this bill represents a frugal approach at funding the basic operations of Congress. We do so in a fiscally responsible manner, keeping House budgets historically low and prohibiting pay increases in Congress. We are improving transparency and accountability at the same time.

I would like to thank Ranking Member Ryan and his staff, Anne Sokolov and Adam Berg, as well as my staff, Tim Monahan, Liz Dawson, Jenny Panone, and Joe Eannello, and to all the members of the subcommittee for their work and participation in the process this year.

Mr. Chair, I urge this body support this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for his amendment to add $1 million to the already $545 million that we spend on the Government Accountability Office.

The GAO plays an important role in being a government watchdog. They are the sort of watchdog of what happens in this city. And we are all certainly concerned, whether it is a Democrat or Republican President, that we want a GAO that can do its work and to root out fraud, waste, and abuse, provide economic data for Congress, help us to do our job in holding our government accountable, and help the American people hold our government accountable.

That is why we work on this bill, to keep funding steady for the GAO and to help centralize IG reports to make them ultimately public and online to increase transparency. But we have tight constraints on our budget.

Even so, while we work to fund additional security needs, critical infrastructure projects that need to be funded, and much-needed cybersecurity improvements, reducing the amount of money that goes to MRAs from our colleagues on both sides of the aisle would weaken our ability to represent our constituents, weaken our ability to effectively communicate with our constituents. I don't think that is the gentleman's intent here, but that would be the ultimate result.

We actually have a slight increase in what the GAO can spend in our budget, getting up to $545 million. So there is a slight increase here, and that is at a time in which many budgets are being decreased across Congress. Many of our constituents are tightening their belts and learning how to do more with less in the challenges they face putting food on the table for their families and really working in a family budget. We have to do the same thing here in Congress, Mr. Chairman.

The GAO actually gets slightly more money this year, and they have the ability to continue to carry out their function at $545 million. And I don't believe going to $546 million is going to achieve the significant changes that maybe Mr. Connolly would like to see.

Ultimately, we are not able to accommodate this request, Mr. Chairman. Our Member budgets are already 12 percent below what they were when the Republicans took over the House in 2010.

We are 12 percent below, even with this expenditure, and many Members are concerned that they don't have the resources to provide what they need to for their constituents. So cutting these budgets by $1 million more would only exacerbate those problems.

Mr. Chairman, we would have to oppose this amendment. We want the GAO to remain strong, and that is why we slightly increased their funding, but we can't really rob the MRA budgets to add to that with the many challenges we have and many priorities in this Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I would oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Mrs. Love for her eloquence and leadership on this issue. She has provided a very serious proposal at a time in which, in light of the recent tragedy at a baseball park here in the suburbs of Virginia and what we have seen across the country, there are threats made daily against Members of Congress, both Democratic and Republican. In fact, threats are up this year over what they were all of last year combined.

We know many of these threats are simply just hot air or anger being expressed in an overly vitriolic way. We have all seen it on social media, on Twitter, on Facebook pages, things that are just really shocking and lack the discourse and the civility that we need to solve problems in this country. But it reaches a different level when Members of Congress are put in threatening situations where they or their families legitimately believe that someone may try to harm them. So we must ensure that we do everything we can to protect this institution, that we protect this government, that we protect democracy.

The idea that anyone in this body could be targeted based on their political beliefs, like my friend and our colleague, our majority whip, Steve Scalise, was when he was shot at a baseball practice by somebody who was specifically targeting Republicans for their beliefs, that is sort of new in the world of the shootings that we have seen around the country, that someone would be specifically targeted for their beliefs.

It happened to Republicans now; it could happen to Democrats the next time. So I think we stand unified as a Congress that we must improve the security in order to protect democracy.

We signed up for this, of course, and as my colleague, Mr. Richmond, said, our families didn't. Home security relates to our children, our families, making sure there are cameras or whatever improvements need to be made so that people know that, if someone were to try to attack them at their home, they would be protected.

In this bill, we have addressed security here in Washington, D.C. We have addressed security at our district offices at home. We have even allowed personal security. But what we haven't done is allowed some support for home security.

We have seen, in recent weeks, that the FEC has said you can spend campaign dollars for this, and I think it is a reasonable request that Mrs. Love is making, that others are standing up for, to allow the MRA to be utilized for that.

So I think what the gentlewoman is raising will help with peace of mind. It will help stem real attacks, is limited in its scope, and ultimately protects democracy. Members of Congress should not be intimidated or injured or worse because of what they believe in.

I ask the body to support this legislation, and I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), the ranking member of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, even though I do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I want to thank Mr. Kildee for his leadership in bringing this to this body's attention.

I think the work of our men and women in service defending our Nation is the highest priority for this Congress, and our support for them in services, in healthcare, in helping them find work, in education, in training, all the things they need when they come home, I think we are unified in our support that they should be recognized as the heroes they are when they come back and leave service.

Some of these men and women, in putting themselves in the field of battle have become wounded, and sometimes very severely. They have stood in the field of battle. They have stood up to our enemies. They have protected freedom around the globe and here at home, keeping us and our allies, our children, our families safe, keeping freedom and democracy safe; yet, when they come home, all too often, they don't have everything they need. All too often, they don't feel that the promises this government has made have been kept. So each and every day I think we are working on legislation to improve that.

We have passed bills in recent weeks here to continue and improve veterans' programs, but the House Wounded Warrior Program is a great example of how this Congress is leading by example by creating 2-year fellowships for disabled veterans.

The unemployment rate is higher for these men and women than it is for nonveterans, and disabled veterans in particular, and so this fellowship program provides a valuable job, a valuable experience, an opportunity for these men and women to help serve their country, which is in their DNA. It is who they are.

When they are done serving on the battlefield, they can come serve in our congressional offices, and it provides a great service for us. They provide the opportunity for us to have an expert on not only veterans' issues and military issues, but many issues. They can cover a whole range of things, providing better services for us and our constituents.

In our legislation, the underlying bill, we increased the total number of fellowships to 85 from 54 because there is a waiting list. This is a 57 percent increase over the previous number. And 79 Member offices are on the waiting list right now to participate in this program, so the demand is there.

We certainly know that there are many veterans who would love to serve in this capacity, and so we are excited to support this amendment putting more resources into this program, and we are going to work with the gentleman from Michigan to make sure that we can open up slots in a timely manner to help make sure we get these men and women into the offices so they can serve.

Mr. Chairman, we support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island.

I, too, support the gentleman's efforts here, and, as a supporter of the BABIES Act, last year, H.R. 5147, I am happy to report, because of the language we included with the Architect of the Capitol last year, they presented a plan, which they are going to move forward with, which will install additional baby changing stations around campus, 54 of which will be going into House Office Buildings.

And as a father of two little girls, I have used these changing tables myself in restrooms from time to time, as Mr. Ryan has. I know he has got a young son. And so we know how important these are and how families, when they need to make a change, they need to make a change. They need to have a space to do that.

So we need to be family friendly here in the U.S. Capitol and in our House Office Buildings, and so I thank the gentleman for raising this important issue. It deserves attention. I will be happy to continue to work with the gentleman, as well as the Architect of the Capitol, to ensure that adequate number of changing stations are installed around the Capitol complex for families, for the 9 million visitors that come to this Capitol every year, that many of those have families with young children, that they are able to, as well as the Members of Congress like Mr. Ryan and ourselves and many others who have young children, use these changing stations as well.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my good friend and colleague and co-chair of the Deaf Caucus, Mr. Takano from California, for bringing this amendment, and unfortunately, I cannot support it, Mr. Chairman, and we would ask that the body reject it.

You know, Congress terminated funding for the Office of Technology Assessment in 1995, so some 22 years ago, but it is back from the dead to be here on the floor today to be reestablished.

At one point, funding totaled over $20 million for the Office of Technology Assessment, but Congress did one of the things it has attempted to do in many areas, which is try to consolidate government, make government more efficient, make it do more with less, and so they transferred the functions from the Office of Technology Assessment over to the GAO.

We have heard debate on this floor within the last hour about the value of the GAO and the great work they do and how the GAO is a trustworthy organization and how it is important that we continue to fund them, yet, in this instance, they want to take these responsibilities away from the GAO.

In fact, in fiscal year 2008, a permanent technology assessment function within the GAO was established by a recommendation from the Senate Committee on Appropriations. They allocate at least $2.5 million per year to technology assessment, and they have established the capability to produce technology assessments in many areas.

They have hired scientists, engineers, and other technical specialists to respond to congressional requests. They produce three to four technology assessment reports each year. The GAO uses its technical staff to support other reports for Congress that have technology implications, such as privacy and vulnerability of computer components in cars.

The GAO receives three to four requests per year specifically for technology assessments, and many others have a technology as an aspect.

They have been able to testify on these topics recently on the Zika virus and on transfer of technologies developed with Federal research funds to the marketplace. They provide thorough and balanced analysis of critical technological innovations that affect our society, the environment, and the economy.

And so creating another Federal agency that is going to require additional resources and to have it offset from investment in capital projects, to me, is the wrong direction. I think, in current law, we have more than enough resources heading in this direction. Taxpayers are counting on us to find ways to spend less money, to keep programs efficient, and so the idea that we create a new agency that has been gone for 20 years today and fund it for millions of dollars, to me, is inconsistent with the values we all, I think, espouse about making government more efficient, more effective.

Mr. Chairman, with that, I would oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire's amendment on postcard sizes, primarily because this issue has yet to go through any sort of process. We don't have information on the floor to know how this would affect Member offices. It has not gone through the Franking Commission or come before our committee, so I don't think it is ready for consideration and debate.

Franked mailings of standard postcard size currently only account for roughly 10 percent of the total franked mailings that Members send. This amendment would prohibit Members from sending mass mailings on their own letterhead. They wouldn't be able to send printed newsletters, fliers, letters, or regular or large postcards, among others.

I think it would really have a dramatic impact on the ability of Members of Congress to communicate with their constituents. They wouldn't be able to send them a letter or they wouldn't be able to send them a newsletter.

I certainly am about saving money and about making government more efficient, but this idea, I think, is not ready for prime time. I appreciate my colleague from New Hampshire bringing it forward, but I can't support it at this point, and I would oppose it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Oklahoma (Mr. Russell) for continuing the tradition that he and others, particularly in Oklahoma, for some reason, have focused on cutting out government waste, finding sometimes small things, sometimes big things, and all things in between that we can reduce, cut, or eliminate that saves taxpayers' money.

Mr. Chair, $1 million is big money in States like Kansas and Oklahoma and across the country. It is real dollars to the people who get up and pay their taxes to this country. There are too many million-dollar expenditures that happen in this government that are overlooked and unnecessary because they are not maybe big enough for folks here to take time to pay attention to.

What Mr. Russell is doing today is standing up for fiscal responsibility, for efficiency of government, and for helping the environment. This is wasted printed paper that is unnecessary. I think it is a good government measure that will help modernize and make our government more efficient and effective.

It is consistent with what this House has already done when it passed H.R. 195 earlier, which bars the distribution of the Federal Register to congressional offices and Federal agencies. That is in the Senate being marked up, maybe even today.

This is a smart amendment. It is the kind of thing that we need to keep doing more of to save money for taxpayers.

Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Russell for his work, and I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 473 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of H.R. 3219, the Make America Secure Appropriations Act, 2018. The rule provides for 2 hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, the appropriations package in front of us represents the end product of many months of work by the Appropriations Committee. In this package, we will be considering four appropriations bills: Defense, Energy and Water, Legislative Branch, and Military Construction and Veterans Affairs. Together, the four parts of the bill make up the Make America Secure Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2018.

The legislation ensures that our most important government services will be funded responsibly and appropriately and that we will fulfill our most important responsibilities as legislators: funding the government and keeping it open to serve our constituents.

The bill provides a total of $658.1 billion for defense, an increase of $68.1 billion in discretionary funding above the fiscal year 2017 levels, and an increase of $28.3 billion over the President's request. It also includes $73.9 billion in Overseas Contingency Operations and Global War on Terrorism funding.

These funds will help us enhance our military readiness, and the substantial increase marks an end to the ongoing erosion of our national military strength that occurred during the Obama administration.

Importantly, this bill also provides an increase in funding for veterans. Over the past several years, the House has worked to improve the Department of Veterans Affairs and to ensure that all veterans receive the care and benefits to which they are entitled.

The Department of Veterans Affairs will receive a 5 percent increase in this bill, including $74 billion for the Veterans Health Administration.

The increased funding represents an important step toward fulfilling our promise to improve care, reduce wait times at the VA, and enhance benefits for our Nation's veterans.

The Energy and Water portion of this appropriations bill provides $37.6 billion in funding for fiscal year 2018, a decrease of $209 million from fiscal year 2017.

The bill includes an increase in funding for the National Nuclear Security Administration that includes funds to restart the licensing process for Yucca Mountain, the national disposal repository for spent nuclear fuel. It also provides $6.16 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers, a $10 million increase over fiscal year 2017.

H.R. 3219 also provides $3.58 billion for the Legislative Branch. It does not recommend funding levels for the Senate, as per our longstanding tradition.

The bill includes a significant increase in funding for U.S. Capitol Police and adds additional funds for securing offices in Washington and in congressional districts. Importantly, it continues the freeze on Member pay.

The package before us represents the House fulfilling its primary responsibility: to fund the government. This package funds hundreds, if not thousands, of Member priorities, particularly on the defense side.

I applaud my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for their months of working and making this bill a reality. It shows what the House can do as we move forward toward completion of the fiscal year appropriations process.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the rule and the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume before I go to my first speaker in order to respond to some of my friend's points. I want to begin by talking about the amendment process just very quickly.

It is worth noting 72 amendments are made in order here; 47 of those were actually Democratic amendments. Many of the amendments that my friend referred to that had been submitted to the Rules Committee, at least a third of them, were knocked out because they were simply out of order.

But my friend is correct: it is not an open rule. I do remind him that the first people to eliminate open rules on appropriations bills were not Republicans. It was actually the Democratic majority in 2009 that ended the practice and, for 2 years, allowed almost no amendments on any appropriations bills, and most appropriations bills never came to the floor. So I think my friends bear a considerable amount of responsibility for where we find ourselves today.

I do want to talk a little bit, too, briefly, about my friend's comments about the AUMF, because he has been a good friend and a close ally in an area that we have a similar concern.

I agree with my friend. We need to debate this, and we need to have an AUMF that is more in tune with the times and, frankly, reintroduces congressional power and congressional oversight. I have worked with my friend in the past on that. I am going to continue to work with him on it going forward.

But in the case of the Lee amendment, which, in full disclosure, I supported in the Appropriations Committee, the chairman of the committee of jurisdiction, which is not the Appropriations Committee, made it known that he would lodge a point of order; so, in other words, that would never get to the floor.

In place, we have put something that, frankly, will at least require the administration, on the passage of this bill or the Defense Authorization Act, in which it is also found, to submit a report that justifies where the administration is legally, lays out their strategy, lays out their costs, and gives us a chance to begin a debate.

As a sign of good faith, I am happy to report that the Foreign Relations Committee, which actually does have jurisdiction here, actually had their first hearing on a new AUMF earlier this week. So I think we are trying to get to the same place. My friend may have a different way to get there, but I agree with him, we need to reexamine, redebate, and, I think, reenact a new AUMF. I think we are trying to get there in a step-by-step, logical progression.

Finally, while my friend is concerned about where we will end up in this process and, I think, legitimately so, I also want to point out we have actually managed to come together here the last couple of years and, I suspect, will again.

In fiscal year 2016, we had the same series of events, and yet Congress came to an agreement on full funding that was bipartisan and passed by substantial numbers of both parties participating, a majority in each party. The same thing was true in fiscal year 2017. My hope is that it will be true again in fiscal year 2018.

But this is an important part of the process. We need to go through this. At the end of the day, and I tell this to my friends on the right and the left, we will end up with a bicameral, bipartisan appropriations bill. There is simply no other way to fund the Government of the United States, and we pledge to work toward that.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I go to my next speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to my friends.

First, to my good friend from Massachusetts, and he is very much my good friend, but when I was in the minority, I asked repeatedly, I used to come up to the Rules Committee, as a former member of the Rules Committee, and I always got the warmest, most gracious reception, but I don't think I ever got an amendment approved. You can legislate on appropriations bills if the chairman of the authorizing committee consents to allow you to do it.

I have a great deal of sympathy with my friend's position on Ms. Lee's amendment. I actually supported that amendment in subcommittee, but I recognize that we are not the appropriate committee, and if a different authorizing chairman wanted to do something, he could.

Finally, with all due respect to my friend, we are not the ones that began this process of eliminating open rules on appropriations. My friend's party is. We actually tried to restore it. I regret that we did not succeed in that. This was not something I like doing, but, frankly, it has gotten around here where people are more interested in ``got you'' amendments than real amendments, and that is basically what has happened here. I hope we can revisit that someday and go back to the traditional way of doing this.

Finally, to my good friend from Minnesota, I want to make a pledge to her, and she knows it is sincere: we will work together. I don't think this bill ultimately will be passed without bipartisan cooperation, and I look at the 2015, 2016, and 2017 bills that all did end up as cooperative measures.

Just to refresh my friend's memory, it was back in April that we passed a $1 trillion-plus spending bill for fiscal year 2017 that was extremely bipartisan. A majority of my friends on the other side of the aisle voted for it, the majority of my friends voted for it, and the President of the United States signed it.

This is a long and lengthy process to fund the government, and I suspect, at the end of it, we will come together. That is certainly what I am going to try to do as I work through the process.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs), a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to respond very quickly to my good friend from Oregon. I just remind him this is a long and

winding road. It is a long process. As he said, the Senate may very well move in a different direction.

I tend to focus here on veterans' issues as issues that have largely brought us together. Quite frankly, this bill has a very substantial increase in spending at the VA, and that is something that I know, in committee, garnered wide bipartisan support. Let's wait and see where we go.

I just want to say I think there will be continuing discussion about this, but there is also a concern, always, on something like this that is controversial. We have seen our friends do this before. Sometimes you will put an amendment in but you won't vote for the final bill.

When you are trying to calculate whether you pass something, you can't have amendments that cost you votes, that don't get you votes. I am not suggesting that is my friend's purpose. It is not at all. I know it is not. I know he is very sincere in this. I am saying that could easily be the effect.

All I can tell you is we will continue to work through the bill. I suspect when we get there, at the end of the day, this will be a very bipartisan bill. It will pass with a very bipartisan majority.

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

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

I just want to quickly respond to my friends and remind them that it wasn't Republicans that got rid of open rules on appropriations. It was my friends. So you can't set one standard for yourself, and then say: But you now have to go back to the way it was. We now have to be treated as a minority, in contrast to the way that we treated you.

I am sorry, that is just difficult. We actually tried to do that for a couple of years, and we did come back to open rules. And I would still prefer that, to tell you the truth. I have lost this argument in my own conference.

But if my friends will recall, last year on, I believe, the Energy and

Water Appropriations bill, they slipped an amendment in. It was perfectly legitimate for them to do so. It was an open rule. They got that amendment adopted. They did not vote for the bill, even though the amendment was adopted. We lost a lot of votes, in consequence, because of the amendment.

So there is always that calculus when you put these things together. There is a difference between an amendment that is a substantive amendment, and an amendment that is unrelated and a poison-pill amendment. Our side just decided they weren't going to subject themselves to that any longer. I am not sure that I agree with that decision, but that is the reality of where we are.

There is a second consideration here, too, in terms of limitation that I think is worth noting. We are moving under an expedited situation because we began this process late. I want to take responsibility for that on our side of the aisle.

I think all of the appropriations bills could have and should have been finished for FY17 in December of 2016. Instead, we started to allow the new administration to have input. We pushed that off and did a 4-month continuing resolution. During that period, we did not negotiate back and forth. We finally passed a bill in April. So we are moving with exceptional speed.

I think it is pretty remarkable at this point that all 12 appropriations bills have been reported out of committee, and are preparing to go here. Our leadership made, I think, a smart decision, in that here are four that all relate to a common theme of security for the country. Let's get those done. That is sort of first things first.

Let's come back and deal with the other eight in September. It is my hope that that is what we will do, probably in packages again. But we are trying to move quickly.

It is also finally worth noting that, again, this process, compared to the process my Democratic friends followed, is far more open. There are far more amendments now, even under a structured rule like this, than they allowed when they were in the majority on appropriations bills.

We can go get the numbers and count, but we are at least trying to get back to getting the bills to the floor and having a pretty generous latitude for serious amendments. We will always disagree over which ones are made in order. A lot of Republican amendments weren't made in order either, but 72 amendments on an appropriations bill is a lot of amendments.

Hopefully, this process can get better as we go forward. I want to work with my friends in that regard, but I am still very proud of the product that we are presenting and very proud of the number of amendments that are being allowed.

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

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

I certainly would never expect my friend to vote for the rule. I mean, I don't think I have ever voted for a Democratic rule. I know very few Democrats have ever voted for our rules. I don't think I know any. So that is kind of a normal part of the Chamber.

I want to commend the gentleman for getting that language into the bill. Again, I respect the gentleman's right to not vote for the bill. It is a big bill. There are lots of different things in it.

But I think he makes an important point, indirectly, that there are lots of overlapping things where we do agree inside this bill. My friends are certainly free to vote ``no,'' and I suspect many will.

There are many occasions in a bill like this, particularly related to defense and particularly related to veterans, where the component parts actually have enormous bipartisan support.

That is certainly true in the Veterans Administration. It is certainly true with the gentleman's provision that he has gotten in now successive bills even under Republican Congresses.

I want to commend him for his work in that regard. I agree very much with his intention. My friend from Massachusetts and I may have some differences on this and that process, but that is another person that I agree with in terms of the War Powers Act and in terms of trying to get a new AUMF and reclaim congressional power.

I actually think, strangely enough, even though we disagree on this, that this bill starts us maybe down that road again by requiring the administration to submit a report to justify legally where we are at and why, to tell us the strategy, to lay out the costs.

I commend my friend, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Royce, for holding a hearing on that. I see us moving back in that way toward regular order and, hopefully, toward common ground.

Again, I understand my friend's objections, even when I don't agree with him. But I also thank my friend from California for pointing out that there are parts where we do agree. They are important, and they are incorporated in this bill. Maybe we can make it better in the amendment process.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank, as always, my good friend for a spirited and thoughtful debate. He always makes good points. Frankly, I always find myself more comfortable when we are on the same side--as we occasionally are--than when we are on opposite sides.

My friend has made many valuable contributions to this institution, particularly pushing us relentlessly in the right direction of reclaiming our war-making authority. Having said that, it is always great to call for a new system, a new way, or a return to open rules without admitting you are the ones that abandoned them. We actually tried to restore them. I regret we failed in that, quite frankly, but I will have to say both sides have gotten used to not doing open rules because they don't want to cast tough votes. That is why my friends abandoned the open rule process when they were in the majority in 2009, and, honestly, that is why we abandoned it last year.

I regret that. I will work with my friend probably not today but going forward in trying to reclaim that because I think when we lost it, we diminished the power of every individual Member in Congress. We thought we were protecting them, but the reality is they now can no longer come to the floor as an individual and present their own idea.

But at least in this case there are 72 amendments. The majority of them are from my friend's side of the aisle. I would hope going forward, particularly when we consider the next eight appropriations bills, we will continue to be very generous in that regard.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to encourage all Members to support the rule. H.R. 3219 represents the first step toward fulfilling our primary obligation as Members of Congress: to fund the government.

We should all be proud of what we have accomplished in putting this bill forward.

The bill contains the provisions of four of the bills passed out of the Appropriations Committee representing the work of the Subcommittees on Defense; Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies; Legislative Branch; and Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies.

The bill will significantly increase funding for national defense and ensure that the men and women in the Armed Forces have the tools they need. We also increase funding to our veterans to ensure our fighting men and women will be taken care of long after they leave the service of their country, and we fund key Member priorities in the areas of Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies; and Legislative Branch.

Mr. Speaker, I applaud my colleagues for their hard work.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that would increase funding for the Government Accountability Office, offset by a minor decrease in the funding for the MRA accounts here in the House of Representatives.

I am offering the amendment for three reasons:

First, the bill significantly underfunds the GAO.

Second, the administration is actively thwarting congressional oversight, which we need more of, not less of.

Finally, Congress, which struck an aggressive posture in oversight during the previous administration, seems to have lost its way a bit in its constitutional duty to oversee the activities of this executive branch.

The GAO is a vital resource not only for congressional overseers, but also anyone interested in studying or improving the effectiveness of Federal agencies. The GAO is often referred to as the congressional watchdog. I am sure every Member of Congress has supported or requested a GAO report with the purpose of examining broad and discrete issues of executive branch oversight at some point in their career. It is a vital institution that saves taxpayer dollars.

Every dollar we invest in the GAO, Mr. Chairman, generates a $112 return for the Federal Government and for the taxpayer. This oversight dividend amounted to $63 billion in financial benefits for the Federal Government in fiscal year 2016 alone.

Unfortunately, the bill before us provides $46.2 million less than the budget request for fiscal year 2018. This amendment would simply restore a modest $1 million of it.

I know the lack of sufficient funding for the GAO has been a topic of discussion and debate between the majority and minority on the Appropriations Committee. I would note that the ranking member raised the issue in the ``Additional Views'' section of the committee report.

In the report, Ranking Member Lowey and Representative Tim Ryan, who is with us on the floor, stated it is irresponsible to underfund the GAO, especially when administration officials have reportedly been ordered not to comply with Democratic oversight requests.

Which brings me to my second reason for offering the amendment: the indifferent and at times outright adversarial approach the Trump administration has decided to take to normal routine congressional oversight work. The administration has ignored the seven-member rule, for example, an authority enacted into law in 1928, which delegates authority to any seven members of my committee, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to require any executive branch agency to submit any information requested of it relating to any matter within the jurisdiction of our committee.

The Trump administration released an opinion issued by the Office of Legal Counsel, arguing that agencies and departments could ignore requests for documents and other information from Members of the minority party.

On June 7, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, who certainly knew the benefit of getting information requests in the minority answered, wrote a scathing letter to President Trump urging him to reject the opinion. The opinion stated that only requests from committees or their chairs are constitutionally authorized. Senator Grassley, Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate, called the opinion nonsense.

In his letter to the President, he stated: ``For OLC to fundamentally misunderstand and misstate such a simple fact exposes its shocking lack of professionalism and objectivity.''

He also wrote: ``Oversight brings transparency, and transparency brings accountability. And the opposite is true. Shutting down oversight requests doesn't drain the swamp.''

Those are the words of Chuck Grassley.

As the vice ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, I have witnessed firsthand the committee's volte-face on issues of oversight.

Whereas, during the Obama administration, one would have thought that, like the British Empire, the Sun never set on the jurisdiction of our committee. Now, suddenly, the majority advances a tortured and narrow interpretation of the committee's role as the primary oversight body for the House of Representatives.

If the administration is going to ignore the minority in Congress and the majority is suddenly allergic to congressional oversight, the demands on the GAO are going to grow.

With that greater responsibility should come greater resources. First and foremost, the House should join Senator Grassley and demand that this administration not impede congressional oversight activities.

In the absence of the administration acceding to this request, we have got to send a clear message about the importance to the executive branch of accountability by better funding the GAO.

This amendment will not solve the GAO funding created by this bill, but it would send a message to our colleagues in the Senate about the premium we place on the principle of robust oversight of the executive branch.

Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment which would increase funding for the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and offset that increase with a reduction in funding for the salaries and expenses of the House of Representatives.

I am offering this amendment for three reasons.

First, this bill significantly underfunds GAO.

Second, this administration is actively thwarting congressional oversight.

And finally, Congress, which struck an aggressive posture on oversight during the Obama Administration, seems to have forgotten its Constitutional duty to oversee the activities of the Executive Branch.

GAO is a vital resource for not only Congressional overseers, but also anyone interested in studying or improving the effectiveness of federal agencies and the way in which they carry out their vital missions.

GAO is often referred to as the ``congressional watchdog.''

I am sure nearly every Member of Congress has supported or requested a GAO report with the purpose of examining broad and discrete issues of Executive Branch oversight.

It is a vital institution that helps ensure taxpayer dollars are invested wisely.

Every dollar we invest in GAO generates a $112 return for the federal government. This oversight dividend amounted to $63 billion in financial benefits for the federal government in fiscal year 2016.

Unfortunately, the bill before us provides $46.2 million less than the budget request for FY 2018, which would result in the loss of 200 GAO staff by the end of the coming fiscal year.

I know the lack of sufficient funding for GAO has been a topic of discussion and debate between the Majority and the Minority on the Appropriations Committee.

I would note that the Ranking Member raised this issue in the ``Additional Views'' section of the Committee report for the Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill.

In the report, Ranking Member Lowey and Representative Tim Ryan stated, ``It is irresponsible to underfund the GAO, especially when Administration officials have reportedly been ordered not to comply with Democratic oversight requests.''

Which brings me to my second reason for offering this amendment--the indifferent and, at times, hostile approach the Trump Administration has decided to take to Congressional oversight work.

The administration has ignored the Seven Member Rule, an authority that was enacted into law in 1928 which delegates authority to any seven members of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to require any Executive Branch agency to ``submit any information requested of it relating to any matter within the jurisdiction of the committee.''

The Trump Administration released an opinion issued by the Office of Legal Counsel on May 1, 2017, arguing that agencies and departments could ignore requests for documents and other information from Members of Congress other than Republican Committee Chairmen.

On June 7, 2017, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley wrote a scathing letter to President Trump urging him to reject the opinion issued by Office of Legal Counsel.

The opinion stated that only requests from committees or their chairs are ``constitutionally authorized.''

Senator Grassley called the opinion ``nonsense.''

In his letter to the president he stated, ``For OLC to so fundamentally misunderstand and misstate such a simple fact exposes its shocking lack of professionalism and objectivity. Indeed, OLC appears to have utterly failed to live up to its own standards. You are being ill-served and ill-advised.''

He also wrote, ``Oversight brings transparency, and transparency brings accountability. And, the opposite is true. Shutting down oversight requests doesn't drain the swamp, Mr. President. It floods the swamp.''

And Congress is not blameless here.

As the Vice Ranking Member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, I have witnessed firsthand that Committee's volte- face on issues of oversight.

Whereas, during the Obama Administration one would have thought that like the British Empire the sun never set on the jurisdiction of the Oversight Committee, now the Majority advances a tortured and narrow interpretation of the Committee's role as the primary oversight body for the House of Representatives.

If the Administration is going to ignore the Minority in Congress, and the Majority is suddenly allergic to Congressional oversight, the demands on GAO are only going to grow.

And with that greater responsibility should come greater resources.

First and foremost, the House should join Senator Grassley and demand that this administration not impede Congressional oversight activities.

In the absence of the administration acceding to this demand, we must send a clear message about the importance of Executive Branch accountability by better funding GAO.

This amendment will not solve the GAO funding difficulties created by this bill, but it would send a message to our colleagues in the Senate about the premium we place on the principle of robust oversight of the Executive Branch.

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

Mr. Chair, I have great respect for gentlemen who offered this amendment.

They are my colleagues, and they are my friends.

Mr. Meadows and I work very closely together on the Government Operations Subcommittee. He is my Chairman, and he knows I value his collaboration.

Mr. Griffith is a fellow Virginian, and I have the pleasure of serving on committees with Mr. Jordan (OGR) and Mr. Perry (HFAC).

And that is why it especially pains me to say this.

But this amendment, which uses the disgraceful Holman Rule to eviscerate the Congressional Budget Office's Budget Analysis Division, is so transparent and so cynical it makes me want to weep.

This amendment would punish the Congressional Budget Office for exposing the House Republican repeal of the Affordable Care Act as a cruel bill that would deprive 23 million Americans of healthcare.

CBO is being retaliated against for the earnest work it conducted on the Trump Budget,

which demonstrated that the president's budget misrepresents deficit projections by $2.3 trillion.

This amendment says facts don't matter anymore.

And that is something to mourn.

Mr. Chairman, while I rise to oppose this appropriations package, even though the Legislative Branch division of this package is worthy of our support, I commend Chairman Yoder both for the product and for the way he reached across the aisle to work with me and other members of our committee and the minority in this process.

For all of their hard work, I would also like to thank Liz Dawson, who is on their team; Jenny Panone and Tim Monahan from the Legislative Branch minority staff; Joe Eannello from Chairman Yoder's office; Adam Berg on the minority staff; and Anne Sokolov and Ryan Keating on my team.

This year's Legislative Branch appropriations bill would, among other things, allow us to catch up on some deferred maintenance in our buildings; invest in information technology to modernize the Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, and Copyright Office; and adjust to the new cybersecurity environment faced here in the United States Congress.

I am also pleased to see that this bill provides additional funds for the Sergeant at Arms and the Capitol Police to increase congressional security in the wake of the tragic shooting at our congressional baseball practice several months back.

Our goal is to give them the resources they need to maintain the security on the Capitol campus and increase their coverage of Members and

gatherings of Members that might be targeted. It is the responsibility of the House to look out for our safety and the safety of our constituents and staff, and the funding included in this bill is a step in the right direction.

There are things I hope we can improve on as the bill moves forward. For example, I would like to see more money for personnel at the Library and CRS, not just for information technology; and more for the Government Accountability Office, which is flat-funded in this budget. Because of inflation, GAO will have 200 fewer employees than expected at the end of the year.

GAO's audits and investigations root out waste, fraud, and abuse in government, something that we all agree upon here should be done. With the Trump administration resisting all of this oversight, GAO is more important today than it ever has been.

While I would support the Legislative Branch bill if it came to the floor on its own, unfortunately, we are not considering it on its own.

I oppose tying $1.6 billion of wasted taxpayer money for President Trump's border wall to the Legislative Branch bill. We need bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform, which would include smarter, more effective enforcement of our laws.

A few years ago, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said immigration reform would reduce our deficit by $900 billion and increase real GDP growth by over 3 percent. But simply building a ridiculous wall that faces opposition from both Democrats and Republicans won't do anything for our economy, and it isn't even a cost-effective way to strengthen enforcement.

Besides, we were told repeatedly over the course of the last 18 months that Mexico would pay for the wall. They would ask the President: Who is going to pay for the wall? Mexico is going to pay for the wall.

Why is there a single dime of American taxpayer money for a border wall that President Trump promised Mexico would finance?

I oppose the Republicans' partisan budget strategy. By refusing to work with Democrats on a bipartisan budget deal that raises the Budget Control Act caps, Republicans are seriously risking some combination of sequestration, stopgap funding bills, government shutdown, and a catastrophic default on our national debt.

Nondefense discretionary spending is one-sixth of the Federal budget. Having already cut it to the bone, they are now sawing off the limbs.

The Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bill; the Transportation bill; and the Financial Services bill that funds consumer protections and regulation of big banks will all see big cuts because of the draconian spending caps.

Today's package will squeeze out investments in our infrastructure, jobs programs, early childhood education, scientific research, and all the things that need to be priorities. We are turning our backs on working families across the country who depend on these programs every day.

We all believe in the free market system. We all believe in capitalism. We all want to reward risk-takers and provide a good environment for growth for those men and women who will make the investments to hire the workers. But capitalism is not a perfect system.

It is these programs in this bill that we need to fund to make sure that we grow the entire economy, that we have sustained growth, we invest in education, we invest in research, and we invest in transportation infrastructure, in order for us to grow the economy.

As former Appropriations Chairman David Obey used to say, those programs were about ``knocking the rough edges off of capitalism.'' On this side of the aisle, we believe making those investments is best for the economy. That is what is at stake.

Yes, we must adequately fund defense, veterans programs, and the legislative branch of government. But that can't come at the expense of everything else.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to make it unanimous here. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Utah for offering this amendment and Mr. Richmond for coming here to support it.

Again, everything has been said. This is appropriate. We are in unchartered waters here. We were at the baseball practices. We saw what happened to our colleague.

We go out to events; we can have security. We go to our office; we can have security. You come home, and you can't. So I think this is appropriate.

I want to thank you for taking this issue up on behalf of the body. We have so many Members today that will take opportunities to diminish this body, and you stood up and showed some leadership in enhancing this body. I want to support this amendment, and I thank the chairman for allowing this to happen.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman.

I think the Wounded Warrior Project we have going on here in the House of Representatives is a great project. It is a great opportunity, as you articulated, to get people into the legislative process, both in our district offices and here in Washington, D.C., and I want to voice my support for that.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have been here long enough to recognize that, at times, the majority party will come to some level of disagreement with the Congressional Budget Office. We were here during the healthcare debate, we were here during tax cuts and all kinds of different things that happened in the last 15 years that I have been here.

They are not perfect, and they sometimes annoy us. As I can tell from my good friend on the other side, he is in the annoyance period with the Congressional Budget Office. But this is an essential component to what we do here.

The Congressional Budget Office sincerely attempts to give us the best, most accurate information that they could possibly provide us, and those estimates change over time as circumstances change over time. When you are talking about one-sixth of the entire United States economy, it is going to be difficult to give you entirely accurate information.

But not having this essential service here, I think, would be detrimental to this Congress, detrimental to our ability to even gauge and forecast into the future, and so I oppose this amendment strongly and vigorously.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth) who I know also has a strong opinion on this matter.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is breathtaking in its completely overt vindictiveness. Some Members don't like the calls the refs have made in games. You can have your opposition and your opinion. Here, we are trying to get the referee fired. We cannot function as a group here if we are going to continue to try to demean and criticize this very group that is trying to help us do our job.

As I said a few minutes ago, the Democrats have had a long list of frustrations with the CBO, but did we have the President, the leader of our party, and a significant number of Members of the United States Congress start bad-mouthing the CBO? We did not.

We had our complaints, in all fairness, but we think that this group of professionals is essential to how this body functions.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black), the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, if you are not going to just believe Democrats on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining.

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

Mr. Chair, as the designee of Ranking Member Lowey, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).

Mr. Chairman, let me just say quickly again and reiterate that we are living in a world now where facts are trying to be diminished, science is trying to be diminished, and we rely on these professionals to give us as accurate information as we can possibly obtain at the time from the professionals that are in this office. We rely on this office very much to make the decisions that we make here that have such great importance. While they are not always perfect, I think they always put forth a good product for us.

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

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Let me just say briefly that I support this amendment. Making the Capitol complex and other buildings in the legislative branch more family friendly is an important priority. People come here from all over the country to meet with us, to see the sights, and to witness democracy in action.

If you have traveled far and wide with your family like I have, you know how much of a difference that it would make even for a brief part of your day, like the inevitability of having to change a diaper. This amendment will make it a little bit easier. So this is just a very thoughtful, practical pro-family amendment, and I encourage all of our colleagues to vote ``yes.''