Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 26th Annual World AIDS Day, which also marks the beginning of AIDS Awareness Month. This year's theme is ``Focus, Partner, Achieve: An AIDS-free Generation,'' which embodies the core strategy for reversing the AIDS epidemic domestically and internationally.

Since its establishment by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 1988, World AIDS Day

has served as a call to action and a living memorial to all those whose lives have been lost to the disease across the globe. According to WHO, an estimated 39 million people have died since the first cases were reported in 1981 and 1.5 million people died of AIDS-related causes in 2013.

In the United States, more than 1.2 million people are currently living with HIV, with almost one in seven (14 percent) unaware of their infection. We also know that the burden of HIV infection continues to fall greatest on men who have sex with men (MSM), African Americans, Hispanics/Latinos, and young people, who account for the majority of the approximately 50,000 new HIV infections each year.

Furthermore, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report that only 25 percent of Americans living with HIV are virally suppressed and successfully making it through the HIV care continuum. This means that about 825,000 people living with HIV are not receiving the full benefits of treatment, and may be unknowingly passing the virus on to others.

Treatment remains the most promising tool we have to creating an AIDS-free generation. Because of continued advancements in antiretroviral drugs and efforts to link individuals to care, more people living with HIV are able to manage the disease and lead active, productive lives. If we can increase the number of individuals living with HIV who are on treatment, then we can achieve global AIDS control. One year ago, S. 1545, the PEPFAR Stewardship and Oversight Act of 2013, was signed into law and stands as a symbol of our nation's enduring commitment to ending AIDS worldwide.

At the 2014 International AIDS Conference (AIDS 2014) in Melbourne, Australia, AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) and other civil society organizations introduced the ``20x20 Campaign,'' which aims to have 20 million people on antiretroviral therapy by 2020. In addition, UNAIDS proposed the ``90-90-90'' treatment goals, which are to have 90 percent of people infected with HIV know their status, 90 percent of people infected with HIV on treatment, and 90 percent of those on treatment with an undetectable viral load all by 2020.

Ultimately, however, the future is in our hands. We know how to stop the transmission of HIV and help people living with AIDS stay as healthy as possible. It starts with raising public awareness, knowing your status, and challenging the stigma that prevents so many within our communities from accessing the care they need.

Finally, I would also like to take this opportunity to remember the dozens of scientists, researchers, and activists who perished when Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was shot down over eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014. They were en route to AIDS 2014. Among them was world- renowned scientist Dr. Joep Lange, his partner Jacqueline van Tongeren, and WHO spokesman Glenn Thomas. Theirs was truly a tragic loss for the global AIDS response.

Mr. Speaker, as we look to the start of the 114th Congress, it is imperative that we remain committed to continuing the fight against HIV/AIDS, and address the ongoing effects of sequestration on HIV care in the United States. I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing World AIDS Day and AIDS Awareness Month, as well as supporting vital HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment, and care programs, including the Ryan White Program and Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a Resolution Congratulating Congresswomen Frederica S. Wilson and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen on their induction into the Miami-Dade County Public Schools Hall of Fame.

I am also pleased to be joined by Representatives Frankel, Diaz- Balart, Clawson, Deutch, Garcia, Wasserman Schultz, Murphy and Rooney of the South Florida delegation in celebrating Congresswomen Frederica S. Wilson and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen on receiving this honor. Both Representative Wilson and Ros-Lehtinen are products of the Miami-Dade County Public School System and are a testament to the quality of MDCPS. I invite you to join me in congratulating Congresswomen Frederica S. Wilson and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen on their myriad accomplishments and their induction into the MDCPS Hall of Fame.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to recognize the brave protestors in Hong Kong who, starting in September of this year, engaged in, and continue to engage in, peaceful protests against Mainland China's recent moves to undermine the implementation of universal suffrage for Hong Kong's upcoming 2017 elections.

As Aristotle made plain in the Politics, ``liberty and equality. . . . will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost.'' It is the hope of realizing this foundational principle that has brought tens of thousands of protesters to the streets of Hong Kong.

As Americans, we champion Aristotle's view that liberty and equality are more fully achieved when the many, instead of the few, have a voice in how they are governed. We support this view with foundational principles such as freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and transparency in government. These are ideals that we must not turn away from even when, as is the case with China, we know we will have meaningful economic and foreign policy contact with countries that make it more difficult for people to fully realize these ideals. People around the world yearn for freedom, and where they do so peacefully and with bravery, like our friends in Hong Kong, we ought to stand with them in solidarity as they seek those democratic ideals that we champion at home and abroad.

I, along with many of my colleagues, have a long history of supporting human rights, democracy and the rule of law around the world. The protesters occupying the streets of Hong Kong have sustained repeated acts of violence in the face of their peaceful protests as they act to join us in the march toward a more

humane and democratic world that is governed by the rule of law. I welcome them to this cause and wish them a safe and peaceful journey.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a Resolution Congratulating and Honoring Kailash Satyarthi, Recipient of the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize.

I am also pleased to be joined by Representatives McGovern, Brown, Wilson, Meeks, Rangel, Cohen, Scott, and Gabbard in honoring 2014 Nobel Peace Prize recipient Kailash Satyarthi for his tireless efforts to combat child labor, forced servitude and human trafficking. In his 34 years as a children's rights advocate and social activist, Mr. Satyarthi has saved over 80,000 children from forced labor, has vigorously worked to call international attention to the scourge of same by spearheading global initiatives, and has been instrumental in launching local programs to teach trades to Indian youth and rescue girls sold into abusive forced marriages. His contributions to the protection of children's rights and the promotion of peace are deserving of recognition.

I welcome my colleagues in the House to join me in honoring and congratulating Kailash Satyarthi on receiving the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize by becoming a co-sponsor of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a Resolution Congratulating and Honoring Malala Yousafzai, Recipient of the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize.

I am also pleased to be joined by Representatives McGovern, Brown, Wilson, Meeks, Rangel, Cohen, Scott, Gabbard, Frankel, Lowenthal, Wasserman Schultz, Clawson, and Castor in honoring 2014 Nobel Peace Prize recipient Malala Yousafzai for her outstanding contributions to global education equality. As the youngest Nobel laureate in history, Ms. Yousafzai has distinguished herself as a courageous and tireless activist for gender equality in education despite being met with great adversity. After surviving an assassination attempt by Taliban gunmen she has emerged as a leading advocate for gender equality in education in a time when approximately 13 million school age girls in her home country of Pakistan remain deprived of an education and where girls'

schools continue to be targeted by militants. Her strength, determination and accomplishments are deserving of recognition.

I welcome my colleagues in the House to join me in honoring and congratulating Malala Yousafzai on receiving the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize by becoming a co-sponsor of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Major Sarai Martin on the occasion of his retirement after 22 years of service in the United States Army.

Major Martin's distinguished military career began as a Private at Fort Benning, Georgia when he was only 17 years old. He served assignments throughout the United States and abroad as an enlisted Soldier, Non-Commissioned Officer and Commissioned Officer as well as enduring deployments to both Bosnia and Iraq.

Throughout his career, Major Martin continued to improve himself and rise through the ranks. After earning a college degree, Major Martin was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant. He served in positions as varied as Company Commander for an Ordinance Company, a Military Transition Team advisor in Iraq, and eventually rose to become the Mobilization Chief in the Logistics Division of the National Guard Bureau's G4 department.

We owe Major Martin a debt of gratitude for his selfless devotion and years of service to our nation. It is my true honor and privilege to recognize Major Sarai Martin for his distinguished career, and I offer him my best wishes for continued good health and success in the years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize Taiwan's 103rd National Day on October 10, 2014. This event marks the anniversary of the 1911 uprising that led to the establishment of the Republic of China.

As my colleagues know, the U.S.-Taiwan relationship is a warm one, cemented by our shared commitments to democracy and free enterprise. This stands in contrast to Taiwan's unique political status in the international community, which too often leaves it shut out of the world's deliberations. All across the globe today, we see new and emerging threats of rare complexity, the solutions to which would benefit greatly from Taiwan's participation at the negotiating table.

I ask that my colleagues join me in redoubling our efforts to secure meaningful participation, wherever possible, for Taiwan in the work of international and multilateral organizations. As we work toward that end, I once again join my colleagues in wishing our Taiwanese friends all the best as they commemorate this momentous day.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a decorated World War II veteran, Mr. Arthur Nagler, who lives in my Congressional district, and to point out a serious flaw in the ability of veterans to obtain medals they deserve for the service they gave to our country.

Arthur served our country in some of the fiercest battles of World War II. After his arrival in France following the Normandy invasion, he was a medic with the 170th General Hospital where he saved the lives of many of his fellow soldiers. In recognition of his service, he was awarded several medals, including the Legion of Honor by the Republic of France.

I am so very proud of Arthur, as we all should be. I want to highlight a point of supreme irony in his case, however. During one battle, as Mr. Nagler worked in his hospital tent saving the lives of wounded soldiers, an enemy bomb landed nearby, seriously wounding him from shrapnel and knocking him unconscious.

Because of the critical need for doctors, Mr. Nagler was revived, his wounds were ``stitched up,'' as he puts it, and he was sent on with his fellow medics to continue saving other soldiers' lives. Unfortunately, any records of his wounds apparently do not exist. He concedes that, in the confusion, the records of his injuries may not have been recorded or the records may have been lost as the hospital was hurriedly moved to the next battlefield. However, there is a distinct possibility that a record was made of his injury and it was destroyed in the great fire that swept through a section of the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis in 1973. The fire destroyed nearly 50 years worth of records of those who served our nation in uniform from 1912-1959.

That is why I rise today, Mr. Speaker. In my 21 years in Congress, I have been contacted many times by veterans seeking not just medals, but the records they need to prove their eligibility for disability benefits and pensions. I do not fault the army, as they must work with what records they have to give veterans everything they deserve. Still, after sacrificing so much for our nation and its freedoms, I feel there must be some way to correct this situation. After 60 years of trying, Arthur Nagler has given up hope of ever getting the Purple Heart that he rightly deserves. Everyone should consider the supreme irony of a man who spent World War II saving the lives of other wounded American soldiers, is then wounded himself, and has not been awarded a Purple Heart.

I respectfully ask that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle work together to fix this absurd situation, not just for Arthur Nagler, but for all veterans in similar situations. Let us give these brave men and women the respect they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Mrs. Jean H. Harper, who sadly passed away on August 28, 2014. ``Granny,'' as Jean was affectionately called by loved ones, community members, and those in her church family, lived a life of service and selflessness.

Born in Avondale, North Carolina, on January 14, 1921, she was the fifth child of David and Alda Sims Hart's twelve children. Shortly after, her family relocated to Washington, DC, where she resided for the rest of her life.

Jean worked as a dietitian at Freedman's Hospital (the forerunner of Howard University Hospital) for 32 years. While working at the hospital, she met the love of her life, James ``Jimmy'' Harper, who she soon married before the birth of her sole child, her daughter Barbara Jean. In 1954, the family moved to their eventual life-home on Taylor Street NW., She remained a devoted servant of her community and missionary within her church, working actively up until her passing in the Pastor's Aide Ministry of the Trinity A.M.E. Zion Church.

However, Jean was most devoted to her family. She could always be found with Barbara, her grandchildren, great grandson, and other members of her extended family and close friends. She enjoyed traveling, cooking and socializing, but was renowned for being a problem solver for all who came into contact with her.

I had the privilege to know ``Granny'' through her daughter Barbara, a former staff member of my office. I was always delighted to check in with her over a birthday call or simply reminiscing about the old days. She was a comforting soul and devoted woman of God, who had time for anyone that needed her. While ``Granny'' is no longer with us, her spirit and loving memory will always live on.

In memory of her mother, Barbara recited a poem by Calan Booth at Jean's funeral entitled, ``Mother,'' which I include, as it resonated with me deeply:

Without you Mother,

I would not be here,

for the start of my life

came from you Mother dear.

When I was a child

you sacrificed for me,

and shaped what I would be.

Now the years have gone

and I'm not always there,

but I know you still worry,

about my welfare

I can never pay for

all you've had to do,

but I can say Mother,

I still love you

Mr. Speaker, Jean ``Granny'' Harper was a dear friend, and a wonderful human being. I am so truly saddened by her passing. She will be dearly missed.

Mr. Speaker, I support my colleague Frederica Wilson in the effort she has undertaken to #bringbackourgirls, addressing the horrors of Boko Haram having extracted these girls from their lives. We also, in addition to that responsibility, have an exacting responsibility with reference to ongoing circumstances that the President addressed last Wednesday evening. On August 14, nearly a month ago, I wrote to the President asking him to be mindful of a letter that I sent to Speaker Boehner. I include both my letter to President Obama and to Speaker Boehner for the Record. I said the following in my letter to Speaker Boehner:

I respectfully call upon you to bring Congress back into

session so that we may meet our constitutional responsibility

to address the ongoing crisis in Iraq. As you know, the

situation there is becoming increasingly more complex and

continues to defy easy resolution.

There is no doubt that the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria

(ISIS) will continue to terrorize the people of Iraq, leading

to an increase in the tens of thousands of Iraqi Christians,

Yazidi and other refugees who have been driven from their

homes. However, we in Congress have a responsibility to make

sure that America is not dragged into another ongoing

military endeavor in Iraq. Although the current airstrikes

may have stopped ISIS momentarily, we still have a

responsibility under Article I powers to delineate and impose

a timeframe for these efforts as we move forward.

The situation in Iraq on a political, humanitarian and

military level is increasingly dire, and we may very well

have a duty to meet these difficulties with force along with

any number of other strategic responses, but we certainly

have a duty to meet as a body at the earliest possible date

to discuss these issues and act accordingly under the United

States Constitution and the War Power Resolution.

I thank you for your time end consideration of my request

and ask for a prompt response.

My letter to the President stated the following:

August 14, 2014.

Hon. Barack H. Obama,

President of the United States,

The White House, Washington, DC.

Dear President Obama: I write to inform you that I sent the

attached letter to Speaker Boehner today, calling on him to

bring the U.S. House of Representatives back into session so

that we may address the crisis in Iraq.

The situation in Iraq on a political, humanitarian and

military level is increasingly dire, and we may very well

have a duty to meet these difficulties with force along with

any number of other strategic responses, but we certainly

have a duty to meet as a body at the earliest possible date

to discuss these issues and act accordingly under the United

States Constitution and the War Power Resolution.

I certainly appreciate your timely attention to the complex

and difficult situation unfolding in Iraq, and want you to

know that I am eager to facilitate a resolution to the

current crisis by making sure the Legislative and Executive

branches of our government work in unison to achieve an

acceptable outcome for the American and Iraqi people.

I thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Alcee L. Hastings,

Member of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I support my colleague and good friend, Frederica Wilson, in her effort that she has undertaken to #bringbackourgirls, addressing the horror of Boko Haram having extracted these girls from their lives, but we also, in addition to that responsibility, have an exacting responsibility with reference to ongoing circumstances that the President will address tonight.

On August 14, nearly a month ago, I wrote to the President asking him to be mindful of a letter that I include in my remarks to Speaker Boehner. What I wrote to Speaker Boehner was:

I respectfully call upon you to bring Congress back into

session, so that we can meet our constitutional

responsibility to address the ongoing crisis in Iraq. As you

know, the situation there is becoming increasingly more

complex and continues to defy easy resolution.

There is no doubt that the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria,

ISIS, will continue to terrorize the people of Iraq, leading

to an increase in tens of thousands of Iraqi Christian,

Yazidi, and other refugees who have been driven from their

homes.

We must ask Congress: exercise our constitutional responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Doris Krasick Goldberg Queen, on the occasion of her 100th birthday, which will be celebrated on September 28, 2014. She is a long-time constituent whose family I have known for more than 20 years.

Doris was born on September 28, 1914 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In 1939, she married Lewis Goldberg and together they were the proprietors of a longstanding Philadelphia neighborhood grocery store and butcher shop called ``Lew's Thrifty Market.'' They had two children, Arlene Sockel (spouse Richard) and Robert Goldberg (spouse Hedy), four grandchildren, Bonnie Sockel-Stone (spouse Elliot, son of former United States Senator Richard Stone), Iris Sockel Mitrakos (spouse Steve), Lewis Goldberg (spouse Morgan) and Ellen Goldberg, and six great-grandchildren (Lily, Elizabeth, Jason, Stella, Ivy and Oliver).

Following the passing of her husband Lewis in 1971, Doris married widower Jesse Queen in 1973. Together they retired to Lauderdale Lakes, Florida, where they shared many vibrant years together, enjoying the company of family and friends. Jesse passed away in 1992, but Doris remains active and engaged in her current home of Tamarac, Florida.

It gives me great pride to honor Doris on the occasion of her 100th birthday. I wish her all the very best for many years to come.

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

I thank my friend, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate.

We are back here, and this is our first legislation after a lengthy recess, and the fact of the matter is that, after next week, we will be on yet another lengthy recess headed into the November 4 election.

When we began this session, the 113th Congress, the Speaker of the House commented--and I won't bother to quote him, I will just summarize briefly what he said--that this would be the most open legislative period that we have seen.

Ironically, today, dealing with these two pieces of legislation in this particular rule, we are seeing one portion of it structured, and for the 74th time--count them, 74 times--we are dealing with a closed rule.

What that means, America, is that your Representatives here in the House of Representatives, on the subject of legislation dealing with House Resolution 644, having released Taliban prisoners in exchange for Sergeant Bergdahl, your Representatives will not be able to amend that legislation, and the general debate period will be the only time that a limited number of Members, in 1 hour, will have an opportunity to speak to the issue.

I think that is wrong, as I think that most of the closed rules previous to this 74th have been wrong. Let me hasten to add, when Democrats were in the majority--and I remember being here in 1993 and hearing on the radio that Democrats were doing closed rules, I had not come to Congress, I didn't understand that dynamic, and Democrats did closed rules as well.

I don't think that is right. I think this body should operate openly. Even if it takes time for us to have Members who choose to come down and debate legislation, I think they should have that opportunity.

Madam Speaker, there is a lot that we could be doing this September. Americans need good-paying jobs. The working poor who are making the minimum wage deserve to make a living wage. We have recently seen demonstrations in 100 cities where people working at $7.35 or $8 an hour are demonstrating, saying, ``Give me a chance.''

While the economy may be, as my good friend from Utah says, in a Carter-like malaise, Wall Street is in a mushroom boom, and somehow or other, the rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer, and the middle class is slipping into the lower class.

Something is wrong with that picture, and we can do better as a society. I defy anybody to tell me that if you are a mother or father and you have one child and you work 8 hours a week at $7.35 an hour anywhere in the United States of America, how do you provide adequate child care, how do you provide the necessary food for your child, and how do you provide the necessary medical services?

I don't believe that anybody believes that that can be done with such a limited amount of resources for a family.

Americans who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own-- companies moving all over the world to avoid paying taxes in the United States of America--I believe that those people need help keeping food on the table.

We find students in our country, young people that work here on Capitol Hill, and their brothers and sisters who are graduating from elite institutions, online institutions, for-profit institutions, and State universities throughout this country are faced with crushing debt that keeps them from entering the housing market, keeps them from starting a family, or opening a small business.

I know everybody agrees that women deserve equal pay for equal work, but are we doing any of those things here? No. We are discussing a waterways issue that isn't going to go anywhere fast, and everybody here knows that.

We are discussing the condemnation of the President's administration about a measure that I believe most of us would have done pretty much the same thing, about whether or not there was going to be a 30-day notice to the House of Representatives.

No, we are not dealing with the family situations that exist in this country as it pertains to poverty, we are not dealing at all with equal pay for equal work for women, while the resolution, I repeat, condemns President Obama's administration for action to ensure the safe return of an American soldier, Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl; yet I know my friends on the other side of the aisle celebrate Sergeant Bergdahl's return because this resolution even says it right there in the text.

Here is the quote:

Now, therefore, be it resolved that the House of

Representatives expresses relief that Sergeant Bergdahl has

returned safely to the United States.

I have been taught and all of us here believe, when our military is in harm's way, we have had for years--and more recently, we have made ourselves gender perfect, but for years, we say we leave no man behind, we leave no soldier behind.

I have been on missions with Republicans and Democrats in this particular body in places far away from here, in Korea, where we were looking for the remains of American soldiers to bring them home.

Now, I don't know Bowe Bergdahl, and I certainly don't know his family, but as a citizen of this country, I do know this: five old men in Guantanamo that were exchanged--and yes, indeed, they were former members of organizations that would do us harm, but they are not likely to return to the battlefield at their age.

If so, then old people like me need to be in the war, and probably, we wouldn't have so many in the first place. Are their minds going to be utilized? That may very well be the case, but I don't think all five of them put together were worth as much as one American soldier, Bowe Bergdahl.

Toward that end, I defy anybody to tell me that the Bergdahl family and those of us who believe that we should leave no soldier behind are not pleased. We send our soldiers into harm's way under the American flag, we assure them that they will not be left behind, and President Obama and Defense Secretary Hagel made good on that promise.

Now, I am sorry that you object to how we secured the safe return of one of our soldiers, but you don't get to have it both ways. Instead of bringing bills to the floor that would help our students, that would help those struggling to find jobs, that would help women get the pay they deserve, or help small business owners, we get this resolution which allows that you can have it both ways. We are glad he is home, but we are not glad about how you brought him here.

Let me say, hurriedly, too that I think President Obama should have given the 30 days' notice. I for one know that this matter in the intelligence community was debated previously, but I don't think anybody believes that we should have left young Mr. Bergdahl behind, and what would we be doing if we were standing here talking about he died in captivity and we had that slight window of opportunity to bring him home.

Madam Speaker, the plan for the next 2 weeks is to stoke up the base. These are message measures. That is all they are. It is just saying something so you can go home to your base and argue: Look what we did. We condemned the Obama administration. We repealed health care 52 times.

You aren't passing laws and you aren't doing anything in a cooperative way, institutionally, to allow both sides to have input to measures that are needed in this country in order for us to go forward.

Thursday we will pass a continuing resolution and then we will hear a whole lot of sound and fury signifying exactly nothing but nonsense.

Welcome back, my friends, to Congress.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I am glad to know that I am personality enough to be recognized.

I understand the passion of my young friend. I also understand an awful lot about the waterways in Georgia and Florida and other areas of the United States of America, and I appreciate his concern.

The message bill that I get from these measures allows that, when we know something is not going to pass the United States Senate and reach a President's desk, then what we are doing in the final analysis is just addressing measures so that we can go to the electorate and claim that we did something when, in fact, we did not. And it is just that simple.

Many of the measures that we have dealt with over the course of the 113th Congress have been just that--measures that were designed to reach the base of the party. And that is a prerogative, but it is not good legislating, and I will stand by that throughout the remainder of this debate and any others that I participate in.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly), my good friend.

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I would advise my colleague from Utah that I have no additional speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, does my friend have additional speakers?

With that, I am prepared to close, and the only one he has to hear from is I, so we will speak to each other right about now.

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

Madam Speaker, I would have thought--and I was at home over the past month--that when we came back here that we would be most immediately discussing matters pertaining to Iraq and the threat from ISIL and Ukraine and the ongoing matters.

I guess I could twist myself into understanding how the particular measure in dealing with the release of prisoners from Guantanamo in exchange for the life of Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl could have some relationship to terrorism at large, but this morning, while I normally do not look at television in the early hours, as I am not a fan of listening to the talking heads, I have to come here and listen to their heads talk.

Toward that end, I did hear this morning the Speaker of the House of Representatives in his daily briefing on the subject of ISIL. All of us anticipate tomorrow that President Obama will speak to the issue and will give us greater clarity as needed, with reference to the administration's approach to dealing with this particular subject.

I raise it for the reason that I may not get an opportunity to speak further on the floor today or the subject may not be at hand in the continuing resolution, although it may be, since funding is going to be an issue.

I was distressed to hear when the Speaker was asked--you could not hear the queries from four media representatives, but in each instance, his statement was that they were waiting for a strategy from the administration. I don't think we need to wait for a strategy from the administration.

What I get a little bit tired of is hearing people say that the administration needs a strategy--and they do--without having a strategy of their own. It would be similar to health care. We went through all of that business in trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and we didn't have a measure come forward from my friends in the majority offering what their plan is.

It is easy enough for us here on the House of Representatives' floor and in our respective offices in air-conditioned conditions to talk about very complicated matters around the world and then talk about somebody else's needing a strategy when, in fact, we don't have one. The Speaker said it--and I heard it eight times--that the President needed to have a strategy, but he refused to say that he has a strategy.

We have a responsibility. Senator Kaine, I, and several others did request that we be called back into session, so that we could discuss this particular matter and give forth the necessary dialogue for authorization to be followed.

Madam Speaker, we are here for 2 weeks, essentially, to finish a continuing resolution. The rest of the time, we will spend dealing with--and I repeat--messaging bills that won't go anywhere. That is what I mean when I say a messaging bill: you know it isn't going to pass, and when you know it isn't going to pass, all you are doing, whether you consider it significant or not, is offering up a message for your base. You are entitled, but let's not kid anybody about what we are doing.

We need to stop calling this Congress the least productive ever because that implies that the Congress did something, in some kind of way or another, but not enough.

In reality, this Congress--and this House specifically--far from being unproductive, has actively been destructive and obstructive and detrimental to the interests of hardworking Americans, repeatedly trying to undo the fixes to our broken health care system, quite frankly, and offering none; defunding programs that help Americans who have fallen on hard times, not even passing measures to extend unemployment insurance; refusing to move on immigration reform and then casting aspersions when all of us know that our immigration system is broken.

Yet we here in the House of Representatives in this instance--not in the Senate, which did pass a bipartisan measure--will not even put an immigration measure on the floor. No matter who said that they would do something when, I am saying that all you have to do is put it on the floor, and I promise you that we could pass immigration reform.

Yet we refuse to address climate change, and all of the naysayers--I spoke to a group that produced energy, along with one of my Republican colleagues and one of my Democratic colleagues, during the break. During that period of time, I said, ``Do you know something? Something is happening here. You can call it science, or you can call it anything you want, but something is happening here.''

Madam Speaker, the gentlewoman was not here earlier, and I am in closing, but I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), if there is something she wishes to add.

Continuing, Madam Speaker, my friends in the majority shut the government down. I didn't think that was helpful. The matter of not dealing with immigration reform and climate change, I don't think, makes our country better. Their attempts to mold a conservative utopia can never work outside the pages of novels.

This is a House whose leadership judges success not by how it has improved the lives of families in this country, but how successful it was to thwart the President of the United States. This is a body that would rather be trapped in gridlock than to go about the business of the country.

So we will live through these next 2 weeks, and then we will return to our districts. What will we tell our constituents that we accomplished in the House of Representatives in the 113th Congress? We will tell them that we condemned the President for refusing to leave an American prisoner of war behind.

How far are we going to follow an extreme fringe minority down this path into poverty? We have got 2 weeks. Once again, House Republicans are proving that they would rather put partisan politics and petty intrigue first and discredit the President than to govern responsibly and address the many challenges facing our Nation.

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

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

Madam Speaker, how is it that we can find it within our capabilities to fund billions of dollars of deficit spending on unpaid-for tax extenders one week, but we can't muster the humanity to fund adequate legal representation for refugee children the next? The President's request included a modest $24.5 million to fund the Department of Justice's programs to provide legal assistance to these children, their guardians, and law enforcement advisors in Central America, yet none of this was included in the legislation. Instead, Republicans focus only on punitive measures that will hasten the misery of these children.

Madam Speaker, I am interested to know why Republicans are comfortable spending untold amounts of American taxpayer's money on a frivolous lawsuit, but will provide absolutely no money on legal assistance for a child who, after traversing some of the most dangerous terrain our world has to offer, must now navigate our immigration system without the benefit of counsel. Make no mistake, these children are refugees.

If Republicans are so concerned about the plight of these children and making sure that we find a humanitarian solution, why have they stripped away all of the human rights conditions and certification requirements on the Guatemalan and Honduran militaries allowing them to use the $40 million allocated to help with repatriation efforts? We're going to throw these children who have fled for their lives from horrific conditions right back to the same wolves who caused them to flee in the first place, and then pay to ensure they are stuck there.

Madam Speaker, rather than focus on sending these children back as quickly as we can, maybe we should take a page from the history books, and find it in our hearts to help them find safety and a new life here in the United States. In 70 years, we should be able to look back proudly on that accomplishment, and not have to shamefully admit that the United States could have done more.

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

(Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule. The legislation consists of a package of five bills previously reported by the Ways and Means Committee, which would add an estimated $16 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years.

Like every Member of this body, I strongly support charitable giving. I tout the fact in the Rules Committee frequently that I am proud of the fact that I work directly with three food pantries--one that I am extremely proud of that works with grandmothers and grandfathers who are taking care of their children's children and who find great needs. I might add that that

particular charity has seen a diminution, a diminishing, of charitable giving. I might add additionally to that, when I look across the board in my community, I find that charitable giving is down, and I think that is commensurate with the kind of economy that we are in.

I applaud Americans who donate what they can to the causes they care about. I would go as far as to say that I support many of the measures that are in this bill. However, in its present form, I cannot support it. The Republican majority has divided what used to be a complete extenders package into smaller parts, some of which will be debated here today and some of which, I predict, will never reach the floor for debate, certainly not a vote. My friends have managed to make a traditionally nonpartisan and noncontroversial issue both partisan and controversial. The provisions we are debating are not paid for and, yet, are made permanent.

I am afraid that this bill is part and parcel in a pattern of what I perceive as reckless, irresponsible behavior on the part of the majority. Republican inconsistency on fiscal responsibility and the deficit is stunning. Whenever we are considering a bill they like, they are happy to ignore the deficit and waive all of the rules that enforce fiscal discipline; but whenever Republicans don't like a proposal, they hide behind budget rules to block it. On the one hand, they have blocked or delayed everything from extending unemployment insurance, to an SGR doc fix, to emergency hurricane relief, demanding that they are fully offset. Yet, when it comes to tax credits, they waive their own budgeting rules, as they are doing here, and run up the deficit as they are doing here. This bill alone will add an additional $16 billion to the deficit over 10 years. These are the people who continuously decry the fact that we have deficits, and these are the people who continue to say that they are spendthrifts in the sense that they are taking care of the budget. That is just the beginning.

Today, the Ways and Means Committee has reported 12 unpaid-for tax extenders at a cost of $614 billion over 10 years. The House has passed five at a cost of $518 billion over 10 years. I might add this is budget hocus-pocus. It was referred to as ``voodoo economics'' at another point in time. For example, you take something like we did with the highway trust bill earlier, and you pay for it. You spend the money in 6 months, and then you pay for it over a 10-year period of time, which substantially mitigates against what their intent is rather than to do what is needed, and that is a highway infrastructure bill that will give our Nation reassurance with reference to construction measures and make sure our bridges are not falling down and that our roads are safe to drive on.

Look at the bill that we were dealing with last week. My friends threw away another $287 billion, or at least they proposed to. Much of this stuff isn't going anywhere, but they proposed to throw away another $287 billion on an extenders package just like this one. Let me repeat: $287 billion. Now we are going to add another $16 billion to that number. It is as if we are looking for new ways to be dysfunctional.

Instead of creating a stable economy, they are picking and choosing their favorite provisions and are extending them piece by piece. Rather than reforming our Tax Code, they are making it up as they go along. Assuredly, all of us have great respect for our colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have that awesome responsibility of finding the ways and the means to fund this government, and I for one--and I am sure I speak for many--have great respect for Dave Camp, the chairman of that committee.

At the beginning of this session, Chairman Camp proposed tax reform. I might have agreed or disagreed with an awful lot of it, but inside his own Conference, he could not get people who would support meaningful tax reform. Instead, now, in refutation to much of what he had put forward by denying some of these 60-plus extensions--he had said that many of them should not be in the measure--they come and cherry-pick and get the ones that they want and put them here rather than reform this Tax Code.

Is there anybody in this country, in this Congress, in the House, or in the Senate who believes that the Tax Code is fair and simple for everybody--business and/or Americans? No. They are making it up as they go along--a tax extender here, a tax extender there, something I like here, and I don't like that over there.

Let me tell you what we should be doing. We should be passing bills that create jobs in this country.

We should be repairing our infrastructure, and all of us know this.

When I came to Congress in 1992, then-President Bill Clinton identified--and we agreed--that there were 14,000 bridges in America that were in need of repair, but now, what we find is that there are substantially more bridges, and some have fallen down in that period of time, and yet, we are piecemealing the transportation issue, kicking the can down the road.

I commented in the Rules Committee some time back, this kicking the can down the road concept, if it were an Olympic sport, then Congress would not only get gold and bronze and silver, they would also get aluminum because they are real good at kicking the can.

We should be passing bills that tackle comprehensive immigration reform. Is there anybody, including all of the don't come here people that are out there shouting at children--in many instances--and mothers and people who don't speak our language, that have undertaken the most unreasonable, for any of us, journey to try to get to a better life for themselves--and people standing there, shouting at them, rather than collecting ourselves as a sensible country--of immigrants, I might add--and allow, among other things that we try to do, not just comprehensive immigration reform, indeed, we should do border security.

We have to have clarity, not only for those who may seek to come here, but for all of us. We need clarity as it pertains to immigration.

Will they put it on the floor just for a vote? No. It will not happen, and yet, we will see this piecemeal, and we will see this back and forth some time next week.

The President proposes $3.7 billion. Someone on the other side said that is too much money. The President says we need more judges and more lawyers, and we need lawyers on both sides I maintain, and yet, we find ourselves in the position of not being able to do anything and not doing it hurriedly enough.

We have this crisis on our border, which doesn't even come close to rivaling the many issues that are developing in the world, from Ukraine to Israel to Yemen, back across the board to Syria, and countless other places, our relationships are in jeopardy, and all of it is placed at the hands, if you let these people tell it, of Barack Obama.

Many of the issues that are developing developed over periods of time, and they largely did so because this Congress does not have the courage to stand up and do the things that are vitally necessary for all of America, Republican and Democrat, conservative and liberal. The needs are great, and we are doing very little of anything at all.

We have 10 more days until we go on recess to campaign, and when we do go on recess to campaign, that will be for the whole month of August. Then we will come back here a few weeks in September, and we will be gone the whole month of October.

What in the world would stop us then from having the time and the necessity to sit down together in a bipartisan way and come up with what is needed for immigration reform in this country?

We have 3.3 million people--after the expiration of the unemployment insurance measures in this country in the month of December, we now number 3.3 million people out of work, in the cold, and that has cost the economy more than $10 billion.

Of those 3.3 million people, I remind my friends who stand up here with their patriotic notions that they espouse, and I believe they believe in our troops. We are fond of saying that around here.

I believe they believe that we should be secure, as do I, with reference to our military, but 300,000 of those people that are unemployed are veterans, not to mention all of the problems at the veterans hospitals that we need to attend to, rather than finger- pointing

and trying to find measures to beat each other down, rather than try to lift America up.

House Republicans have found time to sue President Obama for doing his job, but we haven't found time to pass these important bills.

I said humorously, before I began to hear it often, that if President Obama is going to be sued by the Speaker for doing something, then I want to participate in the lawsuit against the Speaker for doing nothing.

We can try to appease the most extreme end of the Republican Party, but we can't pass the laws that address the challenges facing Americans all across this Nation, and for this dereliction of duty, maybe somebody should consider when we are talking about a lawsuit--what I said humorously--really considering suing this institution and its Speaker for not doing those things that are a few that I have identified.

In yesterday's hearing in the Rules Committee, I ended my remarks-- and we had outstanding witnesses, experts in this area, ranging from Elizabeth Foley, from Florida International University; to Jonathan Turley, from George Washington University; Simon Lazarus, from the Constitutional group; and Walter Dellinger--all of them--at least three of them being extremely experienced in the subject matter and each of them addressing the subject of standing, as I did, in asking them questions at different times.

Most of us know that this lawsuit is not likely to go anywhere, and at some point, all of the witnesses agreed that there are challenges ahead with reference to this lawsuit, and all of them knew and know that there is absolutely no precedent for this action, none.

There is a case, McClure v. Carter, that has some similarities, but even that one did not cross the threshold that is needed. I did end my comments by saying that I was being partisan, and I will end this portion of my comments by saying I am being partisan.

These are the people that for the 52 years, nearly, that I am a lawyer, that have argued against frivolous lawsuits. If there was ever a frivolous lawsuit, then the one that is proposed to be filed by the Speaker of this House gives frivolous new meaning. It is indeed just that.

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

Mr. Speaker, on this matter, the administration, as it is wont to do, filed administration policy. We refer to them in our committees and around the House as a SAP.

What the administration said is the following:

The administration supports measures that enhance

nonprofits, philanthropic organizations, and faith-based and

other community organizations in their many roles, including

as a safety net for those most in need, an economic engine

for job creation, a tool for environmental conservation that

encourages land protections for current and future

generations, and an incubator of innovation to foster

solutions to some of the Nation's toughest challenges. The

President's budget includes a number of proposals that would

enhance and simplify charitable giving incentives for many

individuals.

I am going to come back to this, but before we go forward, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule that would give Members a second opportunity this week to consider reversing the damage done by the recent Hobby Lobby Supreme Court decision.

No employer should have the right to limit the health choices of its employees, male or female. It is pure discrimination when 99 percent of women in this country have used some form of birth control during their lifetime, but to now have to literally go through unreasonable measures to simply secure the fundamental health care they need.

To discuss our proposal, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Bera), a good friend who serves on the Foreign Affairs Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), my classmate and good friend.

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

I am a proud cosponsor of the measure that was just spoken to, and I am very pleased that my colleague came here to speak on it.

Rather than read the entirety of the Statement of Administration Policy at this time, I will submit that statement for the Record.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 4719--America Gives More Act of 2014

(Rep. Reed, R-New York, and 9 cosponsors, July 17, 2014)

The Administration supports measures that enhance non-

profits, philanthropic organizations, and faith-based and

other community organizations in their many roles, including

as a safety net for those most in need, an economic engine

for job creation, a tool for environmental conservation that

encourages land protections for current and future

generations, and an incubator of innovation to foster

solutions to some of the Nation's toughest challenges. The

President's Budget includes a number of proposals that would

enhance and simplify charitable giving incentives for many

individuals.

However, the Administration strongly opposes House passage

of H.R. 4719, which would permanently extend three current

provisions that offer enhanced tax breaks for certain

donations and add another two similar provisions without

offsetting the cost. If this same, unprecedented approach of

making certain traditional tax extenders permanent without

offsets were followed for the other traditional tax

extenders, it would add $500 billion or more to deficits over

the next ten years, wiping out most of the deficit reduction

achieved through the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2013.

Just two months ago, House Republicans themselves passed a

budget resolution that required offsetting any tax extenders

that were made permanent with other revenue measures.

As with other similar proposals, Republicans are imposing a

double standard by adding to the deficit to continue and

create tax breaks that primarily benefit higher-income

individuals, while insisting on offsetting the proposed

extension of emergency unemployment benefits and the

discretionary funding increases for defense and non-defense

priorities such as research and development in the Bipartisan

Budget Act of 2013. House Republicans also are making clear

their priorities by rushing to make these tax cuts permanent

without offsets even as the House Republican budget

resolution calls for raising taxes on 26 million working

families and students by letting important improvements to

the Earned Income Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit, and education

tax credits expire.

The Administration wants to work with Congress to make

progress on measures that strengthen America's social sector.

However, H.R. 4719 represents the wrong approach.

If the President were presented with H.R. 4719, his senior

advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

Now, there is something else we need to discuss about this rule. Once again, we are debating a closed rule.

When I came to Congress, I was listening on the radio. I didn't know very much about rules. And a part of why Democrats in the majority lost, in my opinion, was the harangue that was going on on the radio about closed rules.

Well, I came here, and I wound up on the Rules Committee, and now I know a little bit about closed rules. I also know that we have set an all-time record in the history of the United States Congress, for now, in this particular rule that is before the House of Representatives, the 65th time this session, we are going to have a closed rule. What that means, America, is that your Representative on either side will not have an opportunity to offer an amendment to this measure with reference to tax extenders. This is the most closed rules that this Congress has considered ever, and I expect we are not finished yet and that the number of closed rules will continue to grow.

We started the 113th session with a pledge of transparency and openness from the Speaker of the House, but that has fallen by the wayside, and it has done so in historic proportion. Enough already. The majority should do the responsible thing and bring up bills that actually matter, bills that will address the many challenges facing this country, challenges, as I have pointed out before, about our crumbling infrastructure and, most importantly, creating jobs, even as it pertains to immigration reform.

Everyone who looks at that measure that says, if we had clear immigration policy, whether it was dealing with H-1B visas, whether it was dealing with farmworkers, whatever the measure, that it would increase our revenue in this country and enhance our overall economic circumstances.

Mr. 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.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' to defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on this 65th closed rule, and 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.