Making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2018, and for other purposes.

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

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

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 647.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We disagreed about how to protect them.

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

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

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

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is on the list today?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Time Table of the Budget Process

Title III of the Congressional Budget Act establishes a

specific timetable for the congressional budget process.

On or Before, Action to be completed:

First Monday in February, President submits his budget;

February 15, Congressional Budget Office submits report to

Budget Committees; Not later than 6 weeks after the President

submits the budget, Committees

submit views and estimates to Budget Committees. (Frequently,

the House Budget Committee sets own date based on Legislative

Calendar); April 1, Senate Budget Committee reports

concurrent resolution on the budget; April 15, Congress

completes action on the concurrent resolution on the budget.

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

appropriation bills may be considered in House; June 10,

House Appropriations Committee reports last annual

appropriation bill; June 15, Congress completes action on

reconciliation legislation. (If required by the budget

resolution); June 30, House completes action on annual

appropriation bills; October 1, Fiscal year begins.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in consideration of H.J. Res. 123.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 647, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 123) making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2018, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

I rise today to present H.J. Res. 123, a continuing resolution that maintains funding for Federal Government operations and prevents a shutdown.

Current funding legislation expires tomorrow, Friday, December 8. Congress must act now to prevent a government shutdown and preserve vital Federal programs that Americans rely on. This action is critical to our Nation's stability, our national security, our economic health, and the well-being of the American people.

This simple, clean extension of funding provides fiscal year 2018 funding for government programs through December 22, an additional 2 weeks, and will allow time for leadership to reach a deal on overall topline spending levels for the 2018 fiscal year.

I would note that the executive branch supports adoption of this continuing resolution. Yesterday's Statement of Administration Policy says: ``This legislation funds the Federal Government at current spending levels without unnecessary extraneous provisions.''

It concludes that his advisers would recommend that the President sign the bill into law.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the December 6 Statement of Administration Policy regarding H.J. Res. 123.

Statement of Administration Policy

h.j. res. 123--further continuing appropriations act, 2018--rep.

frelinghuysen, r-nj

The Administration supports House passage of H.J. Res. 123,

the Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2018.

This legislation funds the Federal Government at current

spending levels without unnecessary extraneous provisions

through December 22, 2017, while the Congress continues to

work on a longer-term funding agreement. The legislation also

includes language to ensure that States and Territories have

adequate funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program

(CHIP) through December.

The Administration believes that funding for national

security, including for our military, to secure the Southern

Border, and to enhance missile defense capabilities, must be

prioritized in a long-term funding agreement, and will

continue working with the Congress to achieve that goal.

If H.J. Res. 123 was presented to the President in its

current form, his advisors would recommend that he sign the

bill into law.

Mr. Speaker, the House has completed our appropriations work over 80 days ago, passing all 12 bills before the end of the last fiscal year for the first time in nearly a decade. This included critical, important funding for national defense and other important matters.

Unfortunately, the Appropriations Committee cannot proceed without an agreement with the Senate on overall funding levels. The reality is that we are running into a deadline this week, and this resolution is our best and only option at this time.

Once a broader budget agreement has been reached, which I hope will be soon, the committee will continue its work to complete final negotiations with the Senate on all 12 of the regular appropriations bills that will fully fund the Federal Government through September of next year.

Our committee is also moving quickly to act on a third emergency supplemental funding bill to help our communities across the Nation recover from recent major disasters.

In the meantime, Congress must do its job and pass the continuing resolution and then another one into the new year to keep the government open and ensure that all important Federal services are available to all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this necessary and responsible legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), my colleague, and the distinguished chairman of the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger), the chairwoman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), the chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent), the chairman of the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), chairman of the Health Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer).

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this responsible, necessary legislation. Let's keep the Federal Government open for business to serve our constituents across the Nation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. President, first, I applaud the Senator from Alaska. He makes us all want to be there.

Mr. President, let me speak for a moment in my role as vice chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee about the continuing resolution that the distinguished majority leader has just mentioned.

The current spending caps set in place by law will not responsibly fund the government or alleviate the consequences of sequestration on both our domestic priorities and our military readiness.

Since March 1, along with many others, I have constantly repeated that we must reach a bipartisan budget deal that is based on parity, free of poison pill riders, not waste taxpayer dollars on a useless border wall, which we will never be reimbursed for by Mexico. But with the current continuing resolution expiring tomorrow, we are running out of time to reach an agreement.

The continuing resolution before us today will allow us more time to reach a bipartisan agreement and keep the government's lights on during negotiations. I will join with the distinguished majority leader in voting for this, but the key to successful negotiation during that time is parity. Sequestration has had devastating consequences on our country that are going to impact a generation, but we have to raise the caps on both sides of the ledger--defense and nondefense.

Anywhere you go, the vast majority of Americans will agree that it is not an academic exercise. The decisions we make here today have real impacts on people's lives.

There is no question that sequestration has hurt our military readiness, but it has also hurt our Nation's economy, and it has led to a decline in critical government services on which millions of Americans depend.

Our veterans have been shortchanged. An average of 558,000 veterans fail to get a healthcare appointment during the 30-day standard. The average wait time for the VA to process a benefit appeal is over 3 years.

Our infrastructure is crumbling. America, this great Nation, now gets a D-plus rating from the American Society of Civil Engineers. This means that the roads, the bridges, the dams, the drinking water, the public parks, and the schools we all use and depend on have a near- failing grade.

Education programs have suffered. The purchasing power of the maximum Pell Grant now covers only 29 percent of the average price for college.

Our elderly citizens are getting shortchanged. More than 1 million Social Security benefits appeals are backlogged an average of 605 days. An estimated 10,000 people die each year before their appeals are completed.

I could go on and on.

If we raise the caps for defense programs but do not also raise the caps to properly fund our nondefense priorities, we will still shortchange our men and women in uniform. If we don't invest in our Nation's economy and educate our youth, the military will not have the expertise, qualified soldiers, or advanced research that it needs to be the best in the world. If we don't invest in diplomacy, our world will become less safe and we will be less safe. As our Secretary of Defense said: If you are not going to invest in diplomacy, you better buy me more bullets. And we would fail to provide the level of care for our veterans that they deserve.

I have talked with both Republicans and Democrats. I am confident we can reach an agreement that addresses our country's needs and responsibly funds our government.

As we in the Congress work on it, it is discouraging that the President has cast doubt on these negotiations. He has even invited a ``good [government] shutdown.'' His party is in charge, so I don't know why he would say that. Even more discouraging is a recent Washington Post story that said the President has told his confidants that a government shutdown would be good for him politically.

Well, there are 325 million Americans who are going to be affected by a government shutdown. It is irresponsible. It is no way to govern. In all my years in the Senate, with Republican and Democratic Presidents alike, never have I heard such damaging rhetoric come from either a Republican or Democratic President of the United States.

The last Republican shutdown in 2013 dealt a devastating blow to the Nation's economic growth. It amounted to an estimated $1.5 billion lost for each day of the 16 days of the shutdown. Federal workers were furloughed through no fault of their own for a combined total of 6.6 million days, stalling important research and grinding our government to a halt.

I know the Republicans are in charge of the House, the Senate, and the White House. If there is a Republican shutdown this fiscal year, it is because they want one. I have talked to a lot of Republicans and Democrats, whom I respect and work with every day, who hope the 2-week continuing resolution before us is an indication we will not go down that path. I hope these Republicans will work with Democrats to produce a responsible, bipartisan budget deal that meets the needs of our Nation.

We have squandered enough time. I stand ready, as I have been since March, when we negotiated a budget agreement that kept us from having a shutdown last time. I will work with the Republican leadership, as I did then, to secure the funding agreements we need to complete our appropriations

work for this fiscal year. This 2-week continuing resolution will give us that chance.

I urge my Democratic colleagues to join with the Republican leader and vote aye.

Mr. President, how much time is remaining before the vote?

And how much time is there on the other side?

So we will not vote unless time is yielded back.

I believe there are no other speakers.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back on both the Republican and Democratic sides.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, every week I have been coming down to the floor to talk a little bit about my great State, about the wonders of its natural landscape--a land that everybody should see for themselves--and we talk about special people. I know the Presiding Officer looks at this as one of the favorite times in his long week. We talk about the people who have made a difference in Alaska, our Alaskan of the Week. It is one of the best things I get to do here as Alaska's Senator because I get to talk about Alaska's beauty; the people who make my State so special; the kind, generous people full of rugged determination, full of patriotism, full of drive, full of life.

Living in the North in some of the most difficult terrain and extreme conditions of the world breeds competition in the best ways possible. It also sparks creativity all across the State. When creativity meets competition, great things can happen.

You saw great things happen on the basketball court late last month when University of Alaska Anchorage's women's basketball team, who are our Alaskans of the Week, won the championship at the Great Alaska Shootout in Anchorage, the seminal sports event of the year that for four decades has corresponded with Thanksgiving weekend.

Let me talk for a few minutes about the Great Alaska Shootout. In the late 1970s, a coach from the University of Alaska Anchorage's basketball team had a vision to put the fledgeling UAA basketball program on the map. How

would he do that? He would create a preseason college basketball tournament, and he would make sure that participation in any tournament outside the contiguous lower 48 States didn't count against the limits for how many games a team was allowed to play. And so was born the Great Alaska Shootout.

For the past 40 years, tens of thousands of Alaskans from all over the State--and I would say Americans from all over the country--many who had never been to a professional game or even a college game, traveled to Anchorage to watch some of the best basketball in the country. In Anchorage, people opened their homes to the teams from the lower 48 to enjoy a home-cooked Thanksgiving dinner.

The teams and the players who came to Alaska over the last 40 years are legion--Patrick Ewing, Glenn Robinson, Sam Perkins, Ray Allen, Dwayne Wade, and Alaska's own Trajan Langdon, just to name a few. All the great college basketball coaches at one time or another came to our State--Coach K, Jim Valvano, Bobby Knight, Denny Crum, Roy Williams, Tom Izzo, Pat Summitt, and so many others. As one reporter put it, ``It was an annual Thanksgiving week staple for ESPN and it made Anchorage the center of the college basketball world for one bright, shining week.''

Time and again, the UAA Seawolves--both the men and women's teams-- Division 2 programs, who were up against some of the biggest Division 1 powerhouses in the country, showed the world what basketball in Alaska looked like, and it looked strong.

The Great Alaska Shootout was a gift to the world, to America, and to all of Alaska. Times have changed, and so have college basketball tournaments. More choices are available. Other States have begun to compete with Alaska. So this past Thanksgiving, sadly, was the Shootout's last tournament. But, again, UAA's basketball teams made us proud. All told, the men's teams won 39 games in 40 Shootouts. This past Thanksgiving Day, the UAA women, which has become a Division 2 powerhouse under the leadership of Coach Ryan McCarthy, claimed the women's championship in the final Shootout, beating the Division 1 University of Tulsa Golden Hurricanes 59 to 52 in a thriller. It was their seventh title in tournament history.

Everyone involved--the businesses that sponsored the Shootout over the years, the many avid fans who haven't missed a game, and all those who played in the Great Alaska Shootout over four decades--is deserving of recognition. But at this year's final Great Alaska Shootout, the UAA women's team showed us all the true meaning of grit and determination.

So here is to the Seawolves, our Alaskans of the Week. Here is to the history of the Great Alaska Shootout. It is a great day to be a Seawolf. Thanks for all the great games, the great memories, and a truly great Alaskan and American basketball tournament.

I yield the floor.