Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Honorable MP Vian Dakhil on receiving the 2016 Lantos Human Rights Prize. I was very appreciative of the Lantos Foundation for inviting me to participate in today's ceremony conferring the award. For decades, Congressman Tom Lantos championed human rights in the U.S. House of Representatives, and I was very privileged to have served alongside him. Today, the Commission and the Foundation that bear his name continue his vital work, fighting for human dignity for all people.

MP Dakhil first captured the world's attention in August 2014 as she pleaded with the Iraqi parliament to help her people, the Yazidi, besieged on Mount Sinjar. Since then, she has spent the last two and a half years rescuing girls and young women enslaved by the Islamic State, coordinating rescue missions into ISIS territory to bring girls and women out of bondage. Even as she continues to represent her people in the Iraqi parliament, she works tirelessly to support survivors and children orphaned by the genocide. In taking a stand for the Yazidi people, MP Dakhil has embodied the very definition of heroism. Her bravery and moral clarity make her as fitting a recipient of the 2016 Lantos Human Rights Prize as any I can think of.

The Yazidi people have suffered a grave injustice at the hands of the Islamic State. ISIS has kidnapped and indoctrinated young boys into child soldiers. Thousands of men and women have been killed. Among the most savage of their crimes, the Islamic State has kidnapped thousands of Yazidi girls and women to sell on the market, creating a structured system of organized kidnapping, rape, and sexual slavery. The horrific nature of these crimes is beyond condemnation. Today, between 3,000- 4,000 Yazidi women and girls are still held captive by ISIS, the ``bleeding wound of Iraq,'' as MP Dakhil describes.

As we gather here, we must recognize that the international community, the United States included, has in large part failed to act. We continue to fail to exercise our moral leadership to bring aid to those in need, even as crimes against humanity occur on a daily basis.

Just two weeks ago, the world observed International Holocaust Remembrance Day. Many of us have heard the affirmation of ``never again'' in relation to the Holocaust. When I think of the Yazidi people, and the Shabak, the Turkmen, Shias, Sunnis, Christians, the Rohinga, and the Darfuri, I ask myself if the true meaning of this proclamation is, in fact, losing its meaning. Each of us has a responsibility to fight against injustice no matter where we find it in the world.

In Congress, I have introduced H.R. 379, the Justice for Yazidis Act, a proposal that would establish and fund vital programming for the Yazidi people and other religious minorities. My bill establishes a healthcare and psychosocial support program that places an emphasis on providing trauma therapy for children and survivors of sexual slavery, as well as a psychologist, physical therapist, and social worker training program to provide training to psychologists and social workers who speak Kurmanji or the Shengali dialect of Kurmanji. MP Dakhil already works tirelessly to support these types of programs. The United States can, and should, do more to assist in these noble and just efforts.

Congressman Lantos used to say that; ``the veneer of civilization is paper thin. We are its guardians. We can never rest.'' I am proud to honor MP Dakhil as one of the world's guardians

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Washington, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate the rule for consideration of a joint resolution disapproving of a Department of the Interior regulation known as the stream protection rule.

Through this action, my Republican colleagues are now attempting to repeal a thoughtful and thoroughly vetted regulation that reflects current science, technology, and mining practices in order to better protect people and the environment from the negative impacts of mountaintop removal mining. This regulation took 7 years to develop and updates a 30-year-old coal mining regulation.

This regulation is not, as we have seen coming out of the administration of late, some fly-by-night executive order, but rather a serious attempt by serious people to make us a healthier and more environmentally conscious nation.

However, what we see here today is business as usual for the Republican majority--turning a blind eye to science in order to help wealthy polluters at the expense of the public's health and the environment. Just because my friends' unending attempts to normalize such misguided governance have become almost numbing in their effect does not make such attempts any less appalling to those of us who believe in the scientific method and a clean and safe environment.

Indeed, the paucity of care that we see here today in ridding the books of a regulation that hardworking and good people took 7 years to write with, mind you, input from all stakeholders, is starting to look like a variation of a theme when we consider the paucity of care the Republicans in the White House have exhibited over the past 10 days.

As everyone knows, last Friday, President Trump issued an executive order banning Muslims from certain countries from entering the United States and callously shutting down the refugee program. What ensued, and I predict will continue to ensue as we speak here today, was nothing short of chaos. Scores and scores of people were detained for hours, including green card holders, children, the elderly, and even Iraqi translators who had helped the United States during the insurgency.

Equally as horrifying as this Muslim ban that is the antithesis of everything we value as Americans is the ineptitude in which such a sweeping policy was implemented. Relevant agencies were not even consulted. In fact, Homeland Security Secretary Kelly, found out about the executive order on the phone while on a Coast Guard plane heading back to Washington. Secretary Mattis was also left off the list of those consulted. Had he been on it, he would have almost certainly expressed the sentiment he expressed during the campaign, mainly that the Muslim ban would cause great damage and send shock waves through the international community.

Like Ms. Eshoo, who spoke earlier, I am a veteran of the Intelligence Committee as well. We serve there together. I can assure you our experience leads us to know--and anyone that is on the Intelligence Committee knows now--that what we are about to experience is a handout to our enemies and will cause additional shock waves in the international community.

The result of this amateur hour rollout was a Customs and Border Patrol agency that wasn't sure how to even execute the order. From management on down, no one knew what was going on while scores of people were riddled with fear that their realization of a free and fair life here in the United States was lost forever. People with visas and green cards were held for hours. Will someone please tell me what it means to issue a visa to persons if they cannot utilize the visa?

People were denied access to a lawyer even after a Federal Court order stayed the executive action.

Here is a small sampling of the immediate impact of this Muslim ban: A 5-year-old boy, a U.S. citizen, was detained for several hours. 5 years old--a truer threat to our national security we have never faced. An 88-year-old man and his 83-year-old wife, both wheelchair bound and both possessing green cards, were detained for hours. He is legally blind, and she recently suffered a stroke--detained for hours.

A Ph.D. student at Stony Brook University, who has lived in the United States for 12 years, was detained for more than 24 hours. The mother of an Active Duty United States servicemember was detained for more than 30 hours.

Tell me, what danger do these people pose? What security objective is achieved by detaining them?

I argue none.

I have to agree with Senator Rob Portman when he said what was so plainly obvious to see: ``This was an extreme vetting program that wasn't properly vetted.''

As thousands arrived at airports across the country to protest the President's executive order and hundreds of lawyers showed up to volunteer their time to write habeas petitions for those so clearly wrongfully detained, President Trump, living in a world all his own, tweeted the following: ``All is going well with very few problems.''

All is not going well, Mr. President, and there are many problems.

Then he defended the hastily implemented order saying that: ``If the ban were announced with a one week notice, the `bad' would rush into our country during that week. A lot of bad `dudes' out there!''

This is a stunningly ignorant and offensive statement that reveals to the entire world a person with no grasp of even what the refugee program is or how the visa process works.

Immediately preceding this tweet, the President advised everyone to: ``Study the world!''

I encourage him to take his own advice.

Beyond the human toll this foolish and callous policy has inflicted on scores of innocent people, the executive order actually undermines our efforts to defeat terrorism--jeopardizing the very safety the order purports to provide. The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, headed by John McCain, along with Senator Lindsey Graham, underscored this irony, and I quote their joint statement: ``We fear this executive order

will become a self-inflicted wound in the fight against terrorism,'' noting further that President Trump's executive order ``may do more to help terrorist recruitment than improve our security.''

So I find it interesting now that the majority of my Republican colleagues in the House, even the ones that voiced opposition to a Muslim ban during the campaign when then-President-elect Trump first proposed it, including our Speaker of the House, are now deafeningly silent.

Instead, Republicans are using their time today not to respond to this chaos-inducing executive order that so clearly violates core American values, but rather to repeal a rule that was actually properly vetted--vetted for 7 years, using the best science and technology available, and following input from the public and leaders in the industry. I caution my friends, the events of today and how you respond to them will be written in the history books tomorrow.

A question emerges from the fog that is the Trump administration's full frontal attack on our Constitution: What is more important, appeasing a man who is just as likely to tweet insults at you as he is to rush out ill-conceived and horrid executive orders, or protecting our Constitution and the ideals of this great Nation?

The ideals and dedication to the rule of law that have inspired the poor, the tired, and the huddled masses to seek a better and freer life here in the United States. It didn't begin with Muslims. It began with the Founders of this country, and it was followed by countless others, from Irish, Italians, Polish, Hungarians, Vietnamese, and Chinese, all over this world coming to this country to seek the kind of life that many of our ancestors sought over the course of time and some of our ancestors had no choice but to undertake.

The time to act in the name of short-term political expediency is over. It is time to stand up and do what is right. It is time to protect our Constitution. It is time to defend the idea that we can indeed form a more perfect Union. But we cannot do that with the kind of division that is being sold by this administration, and we cannot do that by spending what appears to be the month of February disapproving executive orders that the previous President issued. It seems to me somehow or another in that fog is going to be the kind of confusion and chaos that we just witnessed this weekend.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, both of my colleagues on the other side referred to the rule they seek to disapprove as a midnight rule. Well, I don't know how you take 7 years of midnights that it took to develop this rule and call it a midnight rule--7 years.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), my very good friend and ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

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

Mr. Speaker, President Trump's xenophobic executive order banning Syrian refugees and suspending emigration from certain countries is driven by fear. It demonstrates a callous indifference to human suffering; it ignores the Constitution; and it will not only tarnish our image abroad, but harm our national security. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up my good friend Representative Lofgren's bill to overturn and defund this dangerous executive order.

Let me be abundantly clear for people watching this debate. The question we are about to decide is: Should we even have a vote on undoing Trump's order? A ``no'' vote on the previous question will give us the opportunity to overturn this order. A ``yes'' vote means that the House will do nothing to stop Trump's executive action.

The American people watching this debate should take notice to see how their Representatives vote on this important motion, and they should hold their elected officials accountable. Did your Member of Congress turn a blind eye to Trump's unconstitutional policy by voting ``yes,'' or did your Representative reject this attack on our core American values and vote ``no?''

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 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), my good friend, to discuss this proposal.

Mr. Speaker, would the Chair be so kind as to tell me how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very pleased to yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished minority leader, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 5 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters) for debate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 seconds to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardenas).

Now we are back to unanimous consent. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Brownley) for a unanimous consent request.

Yes, she did.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Am I not permitted to yield a limited amount of time to Members for debate?

In that instance I did. My question and my parliamentary inquiry continuing, Mr. Speaker, is am I permitted to yield a limited amount of time to each Member for the purpose of debate?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 seconds to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Carbajal).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished minority whip and my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schneider).

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 10 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Barragan).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 10 seconds to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Demings), my home girl, for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from the Northern Mariana Islands (Mr. Sablan) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Clarke) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Torres) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my good friend that I serve on the Rules Committee with, for debate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brendan F. Boyle) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ruiz) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Correa) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, with the Members who have come here and asked for unanimous consent and with its being denied by virtue of the gentleman from Washington's not agreeing to the unanimous consent and with the notion in mind that the period for debate is what is to be recognized, my

question is: Do the people who did come here and seek unanimous consent--although it was not accepted--have the opportunity to insert a statement in the Record that signifies their intentions with reference to the matter at hand?

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I inform the gentleman from Washington that I have no further requests for time and I am prepared to close.

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

The majority leader just got through saying all of the things they are getting ready to do to drain the swamp. My feeling about what is happening--and I am speaking for myself--is they may very well drain the swamp, but if you take out the alligators and you put in crocodiles and you put in snakes, you have just made the swamp that much more dangerous to the American people.

Mr. Speaker, the cavalier nature by which my friends across the aisle approach the awesome responsibility of governing is as disturbing as it is disappointing. They all own this now. They are in charge. Although I may understand the emotive desire to turn things on their head, they all would be wise to come to the realization sooner rather than later that their actions affect real people. All they have to do is just see what transpired this past weekend.

The children, the elderly, the students who are waiting in airports across our country who are wishing to flee their oppressors or who are simply returning to their lives here at home are real people. They heard them being identified in the denied unanimous consent requests of my colleagues who came forward here. The children, the elderly, and all of the other folks who have to live in environments that are less clean and that are more likely to make them sick because of their flippant approach here today are real people. To be taken seriously, they must act seriously. Within that context, I would have to surmise that they all would be judged and found wanting.

To truly convey the devastating consequences of what has happened these past few days, I could quote from one of the Founding Fathers about the ideal of freedom from religious persecution; or I could recite for them the inscription on the Statue of Liberty, which has guided and inspired generations of immigrants and refugees as they have come here to seek better lives for themselves and their families; or I could quote from Luke 10:25 wherein Jesus tells the parable of the Good Samaritan. I will not.

Instead, I will leave them with the words of Dr. Amir Heydari, a bariatric surgeon and United States citizen who has lived in the United States for nearly 40 years and who was detained for questioning this past weekend:

``I wanted to live somewhere that celebrated freedom--freedom of speech, freedom of religion, all of these kinds of things. That's what everyone in the world thinks about the USA, and unfortunately, when these types of actions are taken, the image is not the same anymore.''

I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying measure.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my heartfelt thanks to Ambassador

Kairat Umarov for his service and friendship to our country, while serving as Kazakhstan's Ambassador to the United States.

For the past 25 years, Kazakhstan and the United States have developed an enduring relationship built on nuclear nonproliferation and security. This association has evolved to include a strong relationship on trade, economic integration, and the support of democracy. Since its independence, Kazakhstan has been a strategic partner to the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The diplomatic cooperation between our two countries has contributed to the reconstruction of Afghanistan and strengthened security in the Central Asia region--accomplishments that were greatly served by Ambassador Umarov's dedicated work.

Mr. Umarov has served as Ambassador of Kazakhstan to the United States since 2013, and his steady leadership over the past four years has enhanced ties between our two countries. Ambassador Umarov's focus on commercial and technological cooperation has solidified Kazakhstan's path as a future trade hub for the entire New Silk Road region. His significant contributions to the upcoming EXPO 2017 event will prove to be essential to its success. Ambassador Umarov's time in Washington has shown him to be a gracious and gifted diplomat, and although I am sad to see him leave, I am confident that he will remain a true champion for the people of Kazakhstan as he assumes his new duties on behalf of his country at the United Nations.

Mr. Speaker, I once again want to thank Ambassador Umarov for his hard work and friendship as Kazakhstan's Ambassador to the United States, and I wish him the best of luck on all his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Rollie Massimino, who is currently the head coach of the Keiser University Basketball Team in West Palm Beach, Florida. Serious fans of the sport of basketball know the history of this great sportsman. Mr. Massimino began his head coaching career at SUNY Stony Brook in 1969, and after nearly 50 years, recently compiled his 800th victory.

His other head coaching positions have included stints at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas and Cleveland State University. Mr. Massimino came to national attention as head coach of the Villanova Wildcats from 1980-1992. He is most famous for leading the Wildcats to their unforgettable upset of the top-seeded Georgetown Hoyas in the 1985 NCAA title game.

All who have known Mr. Massimino have been impressed by the sincerity and determination that he imparts to all the young men who have looked up to him throughout the years. Not a person who seeks the limelight, he is a truly great sportsman who has always been known for concentrating on winning and playing the game clean.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Massimino's current Keiser team is 15 and 2 and riding a 12 game winning streak. His continual success is not surprising to American basketball fans, who admire him for his expertise and talent. I am very pleased that Mr. Rollie Massimino is presently guiding a team in my Congressional district to such distinction. He is a hero to many and a fine citizen, worthy of acclaim from us all.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Justice for Yazidis Act, legislation that will expand mental health, physical therapy, and other health services to religious minority groups that have suffered the greatest persecution under the Islamic State (IS). These programs, though modest, are greatly needed and will help victims of genocide begin the long process of healing. In addition, this legislation establishes a P2 Processing system for Iraqi and Syrian religious minority groups, allowing these groups and individuals to apply directly to the United States for refugee status without compromising the rigorous vetting standards already in place.

The crimes committed by IS are horrifying and brutal. Countless articles have been published detailing the unimaginable abuse that groups like the Yazidis have endured. Apart from the mass killings, the beheadings and torture, IS created a system of organized kidnapping, rape, forced marriage, and sexual slavery primarily targeted against girls from religious and ethnic minority groups. It's not hidden: they sell captives in the open, like cattle at market, where militants come and go as they please to select slaves as young as nine years old. Once sold, girls and women are traded among fighters for months at a time. Fighters believe they are entitled--and obligated--to enslave, rape, and forcibly convert these girls. They even published a pamphlet in December 2014 on how to treat female slaves.

Thousands of women remain enslaved. For those who have escaped or been rescued, the road to recovery in war-torn Syria and Iraq is daunting. The United States, through the Department of State and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has provided services and goods for these groups, but the need continues to grow on a daily basis.

Human Rights Watch recently documented the severity of the need for trained trauma specialists, explaining that ``doctors need to be better trained in examining women who have been victims of sexual assault . . . otherwise, the exams could be harmful and humiliating for women and girls, and make them feel like they have no control over their bodies-- which is what they felt when they were abducted by ISIS.'' By dedicating specific resources dedicated to providing access to trauma- informed counseling, the United States can play a significant role in rehabilitating these traumatized and often suicidal survivors of IS.

Mr. Speaker, I hope this body will expeditiously pass this measure. Doing so will reaffirm America's commitment to those around the world suffering from great injustice.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill recognizing persons of African descent and to support a resolution authored by my colleague Representative Hank Johnson to commemorate the start of the International Decade for People of African Descent.

As our country fights to realize justice for Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, Aiyana Jones, John Warner, Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, and many others, we must not forget the names--Stephen Lawrence, Oury Jalloh, Mark Duggan, Zyed Benna, Bouna Traore and many others who are victims of similar injustices in Europe and elsewhere around the world.

The International Decade provides an opportunity to join efforts with countries across the globe to, over the next decade, develop and implement national strategies honoring the vast contributions of people of African Descent, and to combat continuing issues of prejudice and discrimination such as those currently gripping our nation. To aid these efforts, I am proud to support Representative Johnson's resolution commemorating the International Decade.

I have also introduced the African Descent Affairs Act. The Act to improve the situation of people of African descent around the world, by establishing a Global Office of African Descent Affairs within the U.S. State Department that would implement strategies for people of African descent; create a ``President Obama Fund'' to support anti- discrimination and empowerment efforts by African descent led civil society organizations; and require that the Annual State Department Human Rights Reports include a section on discrimination faced by people of African descent. U.S. foreign policy strategies such as these have improved the situation of vulnerable groups internationally. Furthermore, it would greatly assist in responding to the increasing levels of prejudice and discrimination faced by people of African descent around the globe.

Mr. Speaker, the International Decade reaffirms the importance of inclusion, as well as full and equal participation of people of African descent around the world in all aspects of political, economic, social, and cultural life. I encourage my colleagues to join me in recognizing and celebrating the collective history and achievements made by people of African descent on the occasion of the launch of the International Decade by supporting this important resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a resolution designating August 6th as National Voting Rights Day.

On August 6, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law. The Act not only outlawed discriminatory voting practices and exponentially expanded the level of African American voter registration and participation, but also vastly increased the number of African American and other minority elected officials. For nearly five decades the Voting Rights Act has served as our nation's most important safeguard against racial discrimination in our electoral system. As we prepare to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of its passage, establishing a day recognizing its magnitude will pay homage to this transformative law, which remains one of the most effective pieces of civil rights legislation ever enacted, and will serve as a critical reminder of the importance of continued efforts to ensure that all Americans are able to fully participate in our electoral process.

I am pleased be joined by 36 of my colleagues in introducing this resolution. They include: Representatives: Mark Takai (D-HI), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), John Garamendi (D-CA), Gregory Meeks (D-NY), Derek Kilmer (D-WA), Charles Rangel (D-NY), Betty McCollum (D-MN), Peter Welch (D-VT), Ted Deutch (D-FL), Terri Sewell (D-AL), Robert Brady (D-PA), Frederica Wilson (D-FL), Sanford Bishop, Jr. (D-GA), Patrick Murphy (D-FL), Maxine Waters (D-CA), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), Cheri Bustos (D-IL), Juan Vargas (D-CA), Judy Chu (D-CA), Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), Gwen Moore (D-WI), Andre Carson (D-IN), Joyce Beatty (D- OH), Mike Honda (D-CA), Louise Slaughter (D-NY), Adam Smith (D-WA), Al Green (D-TX), Bobby Scott (D-VA), Corrine Brown (D-FL), Elijah Cummings (D-MD), Marcia Fudge (D-OH), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Earl Blumenauer (D- OR), John Yarmuth (D-KY) and Kathy Castor (D-FL).

Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate Black History Month, I urge my colleagues to co-sponsor this resolution, so that we may all properly recognize the significance of the Voting Rights Act by designating August 6th as National Voting Rights Day.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, you are not permitted to sing in the House of Representatives, and I shall not do that; but I will take this opportunity to do as my colleagues in the Rules Committee did yesterday, a little bit in advance of my friend's birthday. Today is the birthday of my friend, Mr. Woodall. And as one who has had many more birthdays than he, I hope he has as many birthdays as me and many, many more. Happy birthday to you, Rob.

As my friends are already aware, the President has already said that he is going to veto this measure. We introduced last night the statement of the administration with reference thereto. That means that the likelihood that this bill will become law is highly improbable at best. I wish I was standing here under different circumstances. I wish that the House were about to vote on something it knows that the President will sign into law. I wish we were working on something that would actually help our economic recovery instead of hamstringing it.

I listened to my friend very attentively when he pointed out that the marketplace will dictate three different circumstances. One that he did not allude to that I will is that the marketplace will dictate where the oil, once refined if the Keystone pipeline is approved, the marketplace will dictate out there in that neverland where we don't participate, where the oil will go. Therefore, I want to make it very clear that I do not believe that it means that there will be cheaper prices in the United States of America.

I am standing here because House leadership would rather pass purely symbolic measures than work with the President. And I recognize that, as my friend has pointed out, that a long time has passed with reference to this measure. I did a little added research to determine what would Enbridge and the other companies up in Canada do in case there was no Keystone pipeline. In addition to rail, they also have plans to send oil east and west and plans to send it north. And, I might add, for all that same period of time, the resistance inside Canada, based on a number of circumstances having to do with the Beluga whale, all of the way back to farmers, having to do with environmentalists, the same as in our country, the same arguments, whether East, West, or North in Canada, have been going on while our debate has been going on here with reference to the Keystone pipeline.

The 113th Congress is going to be remembered, and I believe everyone now understands, as the least productive Congress ever. That is the one that we just came out of. However, it seems that the current Congress is going to take its best shot at accomplishing even less if we stay on the course that we are on. Virtually every bill that has come before the Rules Committee the House already passed in the 113th Congress. Most have no more hope of becoming law now than the last time around. We have yet to see one really new idea from the Republican leadership of this body, which has shown zero interest in actually doing its job, in my opinion.

How many more times are we going to have to vote to repeal so-called ObamaCare, a program that now unquestionably is improving the lives of some hardworking Americans. Instead, we are voting on bills handpicked for

their ability to demonstrate the Republicans' message of the week, regardless of chance of enactment, regardless of whether it is a good idea, regardless of whether it is something that will help everyday Americans. And because these bills are handpicked for specific purposes, most have come to the floor under a closed rule, which means that Members cannot change the measure in any way, not even to make it better and not even with bipartisan solutions.

A good example is so far this body has voted on 15 rules during this 114th Congress, of which 8 of those 15 have been closed. The closed rules we will pass this week will be numbers 9, 10, and 11. Listen, my friends, on this same measure last week and before, the United States Senate, operating under regular order that is now majority-led by Republicans, considered on this very same measure 18 amendments, six that were approved, and some of them that were offered were bipartisan.

Among the reasons I believe that the Senate majority leader determined that he would operate differently than the previous majority leader is so as to give his membership, smaller than ours, of course, an opportunity to participate in the process. All the more reason, I believe, that we should have open rules. We have new Members, too, as do they. We have Members that have ideas that may be bipartisan with reference to support and opposition to the Keystone pipeline. But no, we continue to operate under closed rules.

Do you know how many rules were closed at this same point in the last Congress? The most closed rules ever, six. The gavel might as well be a brick wall.

Furthermore, much of the legislation this Congress has voted on has evaded regular order, escaping the review, hearings, and markups that ensure appropriate deliberation and consideration. Those of us on the Rules Committee have a wonderful opportunity. We are becoming sort of like the place of first resort for legislation. It isn't coming from hearings. The American public doesn't get an opportunity to see the various committees. It just comes up to the Rules Committee and we massage it back and forth about what our views are, but it does not come under regular order.

Just like the original version of this bill, the House is considering the Senate version of this bill without a hearing or a markup.

These are not just academic procedural disagreements. It matters because Members are not able to represent their constituents. It matters because good ideas are being deliberately kept hidden.

I have been here a long time. I have seen some pretty great Congresses under Republican and Democratic control, and I have seen some pretty lousy ones.

But the last few years, this body has been like a hamster on a wheel, spinning and spinning, but never getting anywhere. You don't have to look farther than a couple of amendments the Senate made to this bill to see my friends spinning their wheels.

Climate change is real. Because a few Senators decided to get cute in parsing a few words, it is in the bill. We are going to vote on it. And then what?

Just yesterday, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced that the United States Department of Agriculture is making more than $280 million available for rural agricultural producers and small business owners to apply for resources to purchase and install renewable energy systems or make energy efficiency improvements.

Once more, those funds were made available in the 2014 farm bill, which shows what Congress can accomplish when we work together. I might add, because farmers in this country have experienced a 37 percent reduction--and I, along with others, represent many of those rural areas--I am delighted that we were able to do that in the farm bill, and I am pleased that Secretary Vilsack made his announcement.

The Senate also included an amendment that finds that Congress should--as opposed to shall--require oil companies to pay an excise tax to fund oil spill cleanups.

While I appreciate this expression, the amendment effectively does nothing to mandate contributions to the oil liability trust fund. I would invite my colleagues on the other side to explain that. Tell us why it is that these oil companies should not be required to contribute in a mandatory manner to the oil liability trust fund. Instead, what is happening is we create the illusion that oil companies will actually be accountable in the event of a spill.

Alternatively, simply closing the tax loophole that allows oil and gas companies to deduct the cost of cleaning up oil spills would discourage oil spills and save hardworking American taxpayers an average of $1.3 billion per year.

The American people were led to believe that changing control of the Senate would lead to an end of this gridlock. But sadly, this has not been the case.

My friends are not going to be able to, like the hamster, spin their wheels continuously. Even the hamster gets tired. And sooner or later, when that hamster gets tired of the nonsense of spinning going nowhere, he either gets off or he falls off.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, would you be kind enough to tell both of us the remaining amount of time on both sides.

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

Here we are, only 17 days before the Republican Homeland Security shutdown and with just 6 legislative days left until the Department of Homeland Security shuts down on February 28, closing down many of the crucial Department of Homeland Security operations that have kept our country safe from terrorist attacks.

If we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up a clean version of the Department of Homeland Security funding bill. With such serious consequences, it is time to put politics aside in order to strengthen our homeland and protect American families.

To discuss our proposal, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), my good friend, the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

I yield the gentlewoman another 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, my colleague just said to me, as my friend was looking at the Associated Press' fact check, that it would seem that the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security would know a little bit more about what he is doing than would a reporter. I would hope that that is the case.

I am very pleased to yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard), my classmate and good friend.

Madam Speaker, I would also take the opportunity to encourage the previous speaker to read Jefferson's Manual because some of the things he talked about on rules are not, at least, my understanding. So I accept his expertise on certain matters, but his ideas about what we can do in the minority strike me as strange.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Veasey).

Madam Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining?

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I would also advise my friend from Georgia that I have no further speakers. I don't know whether my friend from Georgia does or not.

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

I earlier asked several questions. I believe Mr. Cramer addressed one of them. I have yet another that I did not ask, and I am not asking him to respond.

I might add, I think those of us here in the body--and I said this to him when he was in the Rules Committee--I do believe Mr. Cramer from North Dakota really does have a comprehensive understanding of this matter.

While I disagreed with him about many matters, I do believe that he points out something that we need to pay attention to, in that there are already, without Keystone, a lot of pipelines in the United States of America, and in the period of time of this recent debate, there have been a lot of pipelines that have had spills and have caused major damage. Without getting into them, three of them have really been substantial. Shutoff valves become important.

We haven't discussed many of the things regarding the technology that has improved over time, but I keep hearing my colleagues talk about this being a jobs measure. Indisputably, if there were to be a pipeline built, there would be jobs.

I agree with my friends on the other side that most, if not all, construction jobs are temporary jobs, and there are those in labor unions who are very supportive of this matter for the reason that it would create jobs.

But I have in mind something that many of us have advocated for years. The greatest reminder occurred the night before last right here close to us, in Maryland, when a piece of concrete from a big, old bridge fell off and, fortunately, when I saw the lady on television, her car was damaged and she was frightened out of her wits. But she is alive and was unharmed. That is concrete off of a bridge.

There are thousands of bridges in this country, and all of us know that we could be about the business of dealing with our infrastructure, which would create a whole lot of jobs and not leave us to these ideological debates.

I might add, if we approve this matter, in order for people to litigate, they have to come here to the Federal Circuit in the District of Columbia. That does not make sense to me, and it precludes those who would want to bring actions from being able to do so. This legislation allows that as the only vehicle.

I might add, the litigation isn't concluded yet in many of the places where there may continue to be concerns--in South Dakota, where Mr. Cramer is close to--Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Texas, and certainly in Nebraska.

In the midst of trying to combat all of the problems that we have here in this country, attaching conditions and ultimatums to fundamental legislation is not the way to go about addressing the policy that was earlier raised and that I will raise in the previous question with reference to immigration.

If my friends really want to debate immigration issues, they should work with us and the President to reach a comprehensive and bipartisan consensus. Perpetuating the Department of Homeland Security stalemate is as dangerous to our country's security as it is corrosive to our democratic process.

Please, let's stop the pointless politicking. Let's end these games of chicken with our national security. Pass a clean DHS funding bill, and let's get back to the business of the American people.

I didn't know that this was in the drawer in front of me. It kind of looks like a hamster. The wheel just keeps on spinning. But my little friend here is still with us and has, in many respects, like my friends, stopped, by virtue of his being inanimate, his spinning. And that is what the Republicans need to do: stop spinning like the hamster on the wheel and get on with the business of the United States of America.

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

Madam Speaker I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

General Leave

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

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reintroduce the Lena Horne Recognition Act of 2015, which would award the Congressional Gold Medal to the late, renowned singer, actress, and Civil Rights icon, Ms. Lena Mary Calhoun Horne.

As an African American woman born in the 1917, Ms. Horne, who passed away in 2010, was truly a woman of firsts, having pioneered the way for many men and women of color through her work in Jazz, film, and the Civil Rights movement. She began her career in the chorus line at Harlem's famed Cotton Club before moving on to record dozens of musical tracks and playing roles in movies and musicals.

As a young woman, Lena drew much fame from her beauty and talent, yet found many roadblocks in her personal success due to the hyper- racialized nature of show business at the time. However, this adversity would not limit her, and presented a platform for her increasing support of and action in the Civil Rights movement.

The first to do so, Lena signed a long term contract with Metro- Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) and embarked on a career in Hollywood, as her celebrity had been noticed by many, despite the color of her skin. She was also the first African American woman to be nominated for a Tony Award. However, again, she found road blocks in her professional life, due to state-law restrictions in on-screen interracial relationships as well as the need to have her roles edited out for Jim Crow abiding viewers. Blacklisted during the period of McCarthyism in the 1950s, Ms. Horne still recorded what would become the best-selling album by a female singer in RCA Victor's history in 1957.

From music and film, Lena had built a substantial fan base, and by the 1960s, at the peak of the Civil Rights movement, she became a staple on Television. She had become so renowned in popular culture despite her race that she appeared on shows such as the Dean Martin Show and Ed Sullivan Show. In 1970, Horne co-starred with well known actor, Harry Belafonte, on a show for ABC donning their names--``Harry and Lena.'' She would go on to play herself on The Muppet Show, Sesame Street, and Sanford and Son. In 1981, Lena then received two Grammy awards and a special Tony award for her cast recording of her Broadway show, Lena Horne: The Lady and Her Music. In 1989, she received a Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award.

Amongst her many awards, Ms. Horne was the recipient of the Kennedy Center honor for lifetime contribution to the arts in 1984. She received two stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame--for her work in both motion pictures and recording--in addition to a footprint on the International Civil Rights Walk of Fame at the Martin Luther King, Jr. National Historic Site. Lena always fought back when opportunities presented themselves.

For example, during World War II, Lena had been slated to perform for segregated troops of U.S. servicemen. She was appalled to find that African American servicemen had been seated behind German prisoners of war, and refused to partake unless she could sing before an integrated group. As a compromise, Lena left the stage and sang directly in front of her African American counterparts, with the German prisoners of war to her rear.

Lena notably remained committed to bettering lives of the underserved and underrepresented for the entirety of her life. An active participant in the movement, Lena met President John F. Kennedy shortly before his assassination, marched in the March on Washington, and ultimately performed and spoke on behalf of the NAACP, SNCC, and National Council of Negro Women. Also notable is the work that she engaged in with Former First Lady, Eleanor Roosevelt to pass anti- lynching laws. Lena was awarded the Spingarn Medal from the NAACP in 1983.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me in support of honoring Lena Horne posthumously with a Congressional Gold Medal, for her outstanding contributions to American culture and the Civil Rights Movement. A beautiful person inside-out, Lena willed her talent, intelligence, and fame to fight against discrimination, traversing her career on a road filled with pot holes full of racial bias and degradation. Lena represents the very best of American ideals and signifies the true purpose of the American Dream.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reintroduce the Lena Horne Recognition Act of 2015, which would award the Congressional Gold Medal to the late, renowned singer, actress, and Civil Rights icon, Ms. Lena Mary Calhoun Horne.

As an African American woman born in 1917, Ms. Horne, who passed away in 2010, was truly a woman of firsts, having pioneered the way for many men and women of color through her work in Jazz, film, and the Civil Rights movement. She began her career in the chorus line at Harlem's famed Cotton Club before moving on to record dozens of musical tracks and playing roles in movies and musicals.

As a young woman, Lena drew much fame from her beauty and talent, yet found many roadblocks in her personal success due to the hyper- racialized nature of show business at the time. However, this adversity would not limit her, and presented a platform for her increasing support of and action in the Civil Rights movement.

The first to do so, Lena signed a long term contract with Metro- Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) and embarked on a career in Hollywood, as her celebrity had been noticed by many, despite the color of her skin. She was also the first African American woman to be nominated for a Tony Award. However, again, she found road blocks in her professional life, due to state-law restrictions in on-screen interracial relationships as well as the need to have her roles edited out for Jim Crow abiding viewers. Blacklisted during the period of McCarthyism in the 1950s, Ms. Horne still recorded what would become the best-selling album by a female singer in RCA Victor's history in 1957.

From music and film, Lena had built a substantial fan base, and by the 1960s, at the peak of the Civil Rights movement, she became a staple on television. She had become so renowned in popular culture despite her race that she appeared on shows such as the Dean Martin Show and Ed Sullivan Show. In 1970, Horne co-starred with well known actor, Harry Belafonte, on a show for ABC donning their names--``Harry and Lena.'' She would go on to play herself on The Muppet Show, Sesame Street, and Sanford and Son. In 1981, Lena then received two Grammy awards and a special Tony award for her cast recording of her Broadway show, Lena Horne: The Lady and Her Music. In 1989, she received a Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award.

Amongst her many awards, Ms. Horne was the recipient of the Kennedy Center honor for lifetime contribution to the arts in 1984. She received two stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame--for her work in both motion pictures and recording--in addition to a footprint on the International Civil Rights Walk of Fame at the Martin Luther King, Jr. National Historic Site. Lena always fought back when opportunities presented themselves.

For example, during World War II, Lena had been slated to perform for segregated troops of U.S. servicemen. She was appalled to find that African American servicemen had been seated behind German prisoners of war, and refused to partake unless she could sing before an integrated group. As a compromise, Lena left the stage and sang directly in front of her African American counterparts, with the German prisoners of war to her rear.

Lena notably remained committed to bettering lives of the underserved and underrepresented for the entirety of her life. An active participant in the movement, Lena met President John F. Kennedy shortly before his assassination, marched in the March on Washington, and ultimately performed and spoke on behalf of the NAACP, SNCC, and National Council of Negro Women. Also notable is the work that she engaged in with former First Lady, Eleanor Roosevelt to pass anti- lynching laws. Lena was awarded the Spingarn Medal from the NAACP in 1983.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me in support of honoring Lena Horne posthumously with a Congressional Gold Medal, for her outstanding contributions to American culture and the Civil Rights Movement. A beautiful person inside and out, Lena willed her talent, intelligence, and fame to fight against discrimination, traversing her career on a road filled with potholes full of racial bias and degradation. Lena represents the very best of American ideals and signifies the true purpose of the American Dream.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, my good friend, for yielding to me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill.

The enduring reputation of the 113th Congress will be as the least productive ever. The previous House was also the most closed ever as it pertains to rules, passing more closed rules than any other Congress. Despite controlling both Chambers of the 114th Congress, my friends across the aisle have picked up the dysfunction right where they left off in trying to jam through another piece of legislation regardless of its merits and without giving the House a chance to review it through regular order. It must be understood that there are a significant number of new Members here who didn't have an opportunity, as I did and as the chairman did, to vote on this measure in the previous Congress.

Dysfunction reigns supreme, but don't just take my word for it. Last week, my friend from Pennsylvania, Congressman Dent, offered a summary of the 114th Congress' accomplishments so far:

Week one, we had a Speaker election that did not go as well

as a lot of us would have liked. Week two, we got into a big

fight over deporting children, something that a lot of us

didn't want to have a discussion about. Week three, we are

now talking about rape and incest and reportable rapes and

incest for minors . . . I just can't wait for week four.

That was from my colleague Mr. Dent.

Here we are in week four, in my view, wasting time and taxpayer money in debating a solution for a problem that does not exist.

Since the Department of Energy completed its economic impact study, export applications are receiving a decision within about 2 months. In fact, four LNG export projects have already won all of the necessary Federal permits from the Energy Department and from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, with the first project scheduled to come online this year. Therefore, despite H.R. 351's clever name, the only uncertainty regarding the bill is why the House is considering it at all.

This bill originated in the last Congress when we were told that it would help Ukraine shake its energy dependence from Russia. Let me repeat that.

This bill originated in the last Congress when we were told that it would help Ukraine shake its energy dependence from Russia. I would like for some of my colleagues on the other side to tell me how Ukraine will be able to benefit from this legislation in light of what I believe the fact to be, and that is that they are not prepared to receive liquefied natural gas from us. In my view, since most of this takes place in the spot neverland of oil and gas sales, I don't believe, when completed, that this gas will reach Ukraine.

Do you know where the highest prices for all liquefied natural gas are both now and, apparently, in the near future? Asia. This gas is going to Asia, not to Ukraine and not to Eastern Europe. I heard some discussion yesterday evening about Hungary, and I dispute whether or not any of it will go there as well.

Furthermore, what was true then remains true now: even when the United States finally becomes capable of exporting liquefied natural gas, Ukraine does not have, as I have pointed out, the capability to receive it. I hope you will understand my uncertainty as to why this bill is on the floor.

H.R. 351 will not make gas prices cheaper here either. LNG is already cheap. In fact, this bill is more likely to increase our natural gas prices, since we are going to be sending more gas overseas, and it will be hardworking Americans paying the cost.

It is not like there are a whole lot of projects waiting to be approved either. With natural gas futures and crude oil prices well below the levels where natural gas is competitive, companies are putting LNG export and development projects on hold, leaving only more uncertainty as to why we are considering this bill today.

This bill is also incredibly misguided. We cannot solve our energy problems with fossil fuels. It requires a certain kind of arrogance to deny an overwhelming scientific consensus regarding climate change. Importing or exporting more fossil fuels, more drilling, more fracking, more pipelines, it doesn't matter; fossil fuels are a dead end, full stop.

A serious renewable energy plan is the only way to ensure energy independence. Clean energy is the only way we can be sure that we don't leave a devastated planet for our children.

This Congress is starting just like the last one, Mr. Speaker. The American people deserve better.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I reiterate that I would hope that some of the speakers from the other side would answer the question as to whether or not this liquefied natural gas is going to reach Eastern Europe. I dispute that.

Just sort of as an aside, I know no one will say anything regarding same, but the fact of the matter is that, for years, the discussion was the price of regular gasoline. Now that it is nearing $2 and we are the world's biggest producer of natural gas and moving pretty well, I might add--and I am glad to see--along the clean energy line, I just am curious whether President Obama gets any credit at all for any of these changes because those who argued that gasoline would be at $6 and $7--I even saw one at $8 a gallon--I am just curious, since that didn't occur, what the thought is.

I recognize we are here on another subject, but I would hope that we would get an answer regarding the LNG and Ukraine especially.

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

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

You know, I don't want to in any way disparage the lovefest of my friends from Texas. I recognize that everything is big in Texas.

Also, as a child, I even learned the songs of Texas, ``The Yellow Rose of Texas,'' ``Deep in the Heart of Texas,'' a whole of bunch of them which I hold dear from my childhood.

I would like to have the gentleman who was called upon as a foreign affairs expert--because he serves on the Foreign Affairs Committee--to know, then, that I guess I too am a foreign affairs expert since I served on that committee for 8 years, served on the Intelligence Committee for 8 years. All of the countries that the gentleman mentioned, I have been to.

I assuredly never got an answer from the chairman or anyone else regarding whether or not Ukraine--and it is not ``the Ukraine''; it is ``Ukraine''--didn't get an answer as to whether they were prepared to receive liquefied natural gas.

I also know that we are mindful of the sanctions on Russia and how it is impacting them.

I didn't only just go to Ukraine. In their first election after the Orange Revolution, I was the lead election monitor for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

I don't come to this dance without having some understanding, and I would urge that I still didn't get--although my friend, the chairman, seemed to suggest that the President is deserving of something that he earns, my belief is that the President has allowed for more gas leases than I would have had him do.

I would urge that just off the press, embargoed until noon today, is a press release from the United States Department of the Interior, which receives a lot of negative comment from my colleagues regarding regulations. ``Interior Department Announces Draft Strategy for Offshore Oil and Gas Leasing.'' The draft proposal program includes 14 potential lease sales in eight planning areas--10 sales in the Gulf of Mexico, three off the coast of Alaska, and one in a portion of the mid- and south Atlantic.

Now, let me make it very clear. That might make a whole lot of people happy. It does not make me happy because they are discussing leases in the Gulf of Mexico where, I believe, there is substantial infrastructure from areas like Louisiana and Texas in the western portion of the gulf. I guess we just ignore things like the BP oil spill, and we ignore the potential for those kinds of disasters.

So I can't disagree very much with the chairman regarding much of his statistics, but I want the administration and my friend from Texas, the chairman, to know that, as I have said repeatedly, I will be the last person standing in this House of Representatives opposed to offshore drilling in my State of Florida no matter the views that others have. I believe there is enough wind from our respective oceans to double the amount of energy that we have, and, yes, my friend, there are aircraft that are powered without fossil fuel.

We were originally scheduled this week to also consider a border security bill, but that bill was scuttled yesterday amidst a number of things.

My friends, the Republicans, are pretty lucky. As bad as the snowstorm is, particularly for the New England area of our country, many of our colleagues could not get back here yesterday and probably won't be able to get back here today as well. The reason I say they are lucky is they can hide--by pulling the border bill--under the fact that there was a snowstorm and people couldn't get in here, and that is legitimate, in my view.

The other part of the concern--and we will see about it next week and the week after--is that many conservatives in the Republican Party are jumping ship on the border bill, and that was out there as well. Just like last week, just like last Congress, there is a rift in the majority, leaving it unable to even pass legislation that all of its Members can agree on.

Unfortunately, we have real problems in this country that my friends are going to have to address. So I look forward to my friends' plan to repair our crumbling roads and bridges in this country, and I can't wait to see how this body will combat the national security threat of climate change, in spite of all of your denials.

I hope that my friends intend to ensure that women receive equal pay for equal work, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to make sure that many of the reforms in our tax structure allow for those persons who are ultrawealthy to pay their fair proportion of what they earn and to reform our Tax Code so that middle-income Americans can benefit and poor Americans can rise to the middle class.

With America's workers' wages stagnant for so long, including our own here in the House of Representatives, we are entering the seventh year without any increase in wages. And those of us who are poorer Members of Congress have experienced the kinds of difficulties of just being here in Washington and the cost for being here. I am seeking no sympathies. It is just a fact.

So with those wages stagnant for so long, I look forward to hearing from my colleagues on how they plan to raise the minimum wage in this country. Because until my friends can address their dysfunction and inability to lead, I am afraid our country is in for 2 more years of uncertainty.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate that most Presidents get a lot of credit on their watch and a lot of negative when things go wrong. For once, our gas prices are down, and my friends can't even bring themselves to say that this President deserves some credit. I do. I see it. He deserves some credit.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Defend Israel by Defunding Palestinian Foreign Aid Act of 2015.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' application to join the International Criminal Court (ICC) is an affront to all of those who have engaged for years in efforts to accomplish a peaceful resolution to the decades long Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Palestinian Authority's anticipated war crimes complaint against Israel will, in no uncertain terms, severely hinder future comprehensive peace talks in a time when the advancement of a two-state solution that ensures enduring peace has never been more important.

For more than half a century, Israel has been America's most reliable strategic partner in the Middle East. It is essential that we remain supportive of Israel's absolute right to defend itself and protect its citizens. We cannot stand by while the Palestinian Authority, engaged in a unity government with Hamas, makes frivolous and damaging claims against Israel Defense Forces soldiers and Israeli citizens residing in settlements in the disputed West Bank. Congress must halt the $400 million American dollars sent annually to the Palestinian Authority until it withdraws its counterproductive request to join the International Criminal Court and returns to the negotiating table with Israel.

I urge my colleagues in the House to join me in calling for the defunding of Palestinian foreign aid by becoming a co-sponsor of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill recognizing persons of African descent on the occasion of the December 10, 2014 launch of the International Decade for People of African Descent.

As our country fights to realize justice for Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, Aiyana Jones, John Warner, Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, and many others, we must not forget the names--Stephen Lawrence, Oury Jalloh, Mark Duggan, Zyed Benna, Bouna Traore, and many others--who are victims of similar injustices in Europe and elsewhere in the world.

The International Decade provides an opportunity to join efforts with countries around the globe to, over the next 10 years, develop and implement national strategies honoring the vast contributions of people of African Descent and to combat continuing issues of prejudice and discrimination such as those currently gripping our nation.

To aid these efforts, I have introduced the African Descent Affairs Act. The Act seeks to improve the situation of people of African descent around the world by establishing within our State Department a Global Office of African Descent Affairs to establish global foreign policy and assistance strategies for people of African descent. Furthermore, it creates a ``President Obama Fund'' to support anti- discrimination and empowerment efforts by African descent-led civil society organizations, and requires annual State Department human rights reports to include a section on discrimination faced by people of African descent. U.S. foreign policy strategies such as these have improved the situation of vulnerable groups internationally and would greatly assist in responding to increasing levels of prejudice and discrimination faced by people of African descent around the globe.

The International Decade reaffirms the importance of inclusion and the full and equal participation of people of African descent around the world in all aspects of political, economic, social, and cultural life. I encourage my colleagues to join me in recognizing and celebrating the collective history and achievements made by people of African descent on the occasion of the launch of the Decade by supporting the African Descent Affairs Act.

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

I thank the gentleman, my good friend from Texas (Mr. Sessions), the chairman of the Rules Committee for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, S. 2244 reauthorizes, through December 31, 2020, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, also known as TRIA.

This much-needed reauthorization ensures that the program will continue to protect our Nation's taxpayers in the event of severe loss from an act of terror, while providing the security and stability necessary for our Nation's businesses to grow and invest.

TRIA was a direct response by the Federal Government to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the resulting disruptions from that act of terrorism to coverage under commercial policies in the marketplace.

Since 2002, it has provided companies with affordable access to terrorism insurance coverage, while serving as a backstop for insurers against the most severe terrorism-related losses.

Currently, in order to receive payment for claims, insurance companies must pay a deductible equivalent to 20 percent of the previous year's direct earned premium for covered commercial lines.

Furthermore, the insured loss must be at least $100 million before the Federal Government will cover 85 percent of each company's losses up to $100 billion, with the other 15 percent of losses the obligation of insurers.

In addition to extending TRIA by 6 years, S. 2244 also makes a number of important changes to the program. Gradually, as Mr. Sessions explained, it will increase the program's threshold from $100 million to $200 million as well as slightly increase the amount the government recoups from private insurers up to 140 percent. Moreover, this legislation decreases the government's share of losses from 85 to 80 percent.

I am pleased to share that the final measure before us today does not include a contentious provision that would have bifurcated TRIA based on the type of terrorist attack, essentially treating nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological attacks differently than conventional attacks. The reauthorization of TRIA is broadly supported by members of the business community and by many of my colleagues in Congress on both sides of the aisle.

However, while we can agree that TRIA is both necessary and must be reauthorized, S. 2244 also includes an unrelated provision that changes the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. In particular, it exempts manufacturers, energy companies, and agricultural firms, known as end users, from having to put up collateral when they are trading derivatives.

With less than 2 legislative days left before funding for the Federal Government expires, I am troubled by the addition of this extraneous, nongermane derivative end user margin provision, which is a disappointing setback to the progress made during the last few weeks of bipartisan negotiations, and it risks the entire bill's defeat over in the other body.

These last-minute changes to Dodd-Frank were not previously agreed to, as they were included without informing Democrats after an agreement was reached on Monday night. After months of negotiations, my friends, the House Republicans, then announced an emergency Rules Committee meeting with only 2\1/2\-hours' notice.

Almost 3,000 lives were lost and an estimated $40 billion in insured losses sustained in the absolutely horrible attacks of 9/11. TRIA helped our Nation rebuild and recover, and it continues to protect the American people today. Such an important program deserves better than the partisan sleight of hand represented by the last-minute addition.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), who is the ranking member of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time, although I certainly don't intend to use that much time.

But I do wish to point out, Mr. Speaker, since there has been discussion regarding the changes that are extraneous to the base bill-- more specifically, the changes with reference to Dodd-Frank--and other changes that the Senate included in the measure that has now come to the House: my understanding is, and I stand to be corrected, that the changes that were made in the Senate were not measures having to do with Dodd-Frank. It appears that that is where the provisions are likely to come into play in that my friends on the other side included the Dodd-Frank language after the negotiations had been put forward.

The fact of the matter is, it does appear that several Members of the other body have indicated that they are opposed to it. I don't believe that means that they are opposed to TRIA, but I do believe it means that they are opposed to changes in Dodd-Frank.

TRIA has been a widely successful program that has created jobs, fostered certainty in the marketplace, and protected U.S. economic security, all at no cost to the taxpayer. Reauthorization, in my judgment, is essential to current and future commercial development in communities all across this country and to our Nation's long-term economic prosperity.

I don't believe my Republican colleagues really want to play chicken with this vital national and economic security program in order to strong-arm the process on an unrelated financial services provision.

You know, Mr. Speaker and friends, when the 113th Congress began, it began with the distinguished Speaker of the House enunciating, among other things, that we would have an open and transparent process.

This is the 83rd closed rule that my friends on the other side have brought to this body. It rivals any in the history of this country, and I have been in the majority and in the minority as a member of the Rules Committee and have seen Members of my party advocate and pass closed rules.

When I came to the body in 1992, I had very little understanding about the process, and I recall very vividly when I went home for the first time--the Democrats were in the majority--and all of the talk on the radio shows that I would appear on was, Your party is passing closed rules. I am not so sure that generally the public is mindful of this inside process, but the essence of it allows that Members who are not on

the relevant committees or Members who did not have their amendments made in order before the Rules Committee are precluded under closed rules from having an opportunity to put forward their ideas which might benefit the legislation or, if they feel like the legislation is deserving of burdening it, might very well do that as well.

But I will close by saying that I never thought that we would have 83 closed rules.

I am privileged to be able to serve in the 114th Congress, and my great hope is that we get past this particular method of cutting off other Members in this body from having full participation in the world's greatest deliberative body.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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