Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Kishan Patel and AJ Kolondra for winning first place with their website entitled ``Freedom Beach: A History of the Fort Lauderdale Beach Wade- Ins'' in the 2014 National History Day Competition.

Kishan and AJ have exemplified a strong commitment to the important history of South Florida. This was clearly displayed through the remarkable website they created.

I lived through the years of segregation and experienced the wade-ins first hand. It is great to see how far we have come through the work that Kishan and AJ have put on display.

I had the pleasure of being interviewed by Kishan and AJ for their project, and am delighted to hear of their success in the competition. They were both able to come to Washington, D.C. as finalists, where they toured the White House and U.S. Capitol.

Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to recognize Kishan and AJ for what they have accomplished. Their hard work and dedication has paid off.

I wish them both much success in their future endeavors.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I join my good friends on the Energy and Water Committee, Representatives Lowey and Kaptur, in applauding the chairman's concerted effort to compose H.R. 4923 in an inclusive manner.

I appreciate the bipartisan nature of the bill and am supportive of many of the provisions contained within it. However, I am not without my concerns. All of these phrases that my friends on the other side of the aisle bandy about--``increase over this,'' ``funding above last year's levels''--sound great, but as always, we need to see what is lurking in the shadows.

For example, H.R. 4923 is completely uninspired when it comes to renewable energy. Its approach, in my view, is a myopic one--one that, if we follow it too far, leaves us trying to play catch-up with our competitors, like the Chinese and many other countries, that have turned their attention to renewable energy. As China continues its now decade-long trend of increasing investment in its renewable energy sector--a footnote here: it invested $56 billion just last year--we take the truly uninspired step of cutting funding for renewable energy by 6.4 percent.

I am aware of the studies that conclude that our Nation will be able to meet 97 percent of its energy needs through domestic production by 2035, and I consider that to be great. This Nation has spent $2.3 trillion on importing foreign oil since 2003. This is a serious national security vulnerability, and I think we can all agree that lessening this dependence is a desirable goal.

I also know that, for many in this day of Twitter and Facebook and Instagram, 2035 seems like a long way off. Those of us in this Chamber do not have the luxury of thinking that way. We have a responsibility to look past 2035, and we have a responsibility to leave our children and grandchildren with an energy portfolio that will keep them in good stead for the years after 2035. We abdicate this responsibility when we underfund research and development in the renewable energy sector. We abdicate this responsibility when we skew applied energy programs at the Department of Energy too heavily toward nuclear energy and fossil fuels. An increased investment in renewable energy makes good economic sense; it makes good environmental sense; and it makes good national security sense. The time to make this investment is now.

We need to be careful even where we see funding increases. Though these funding increases may seem impressive and prudent, we need to be reminded that all that glitters is not gold. They merely mask a continuation of the status quo for my friends from across the

aisle. They would have you believe they are increasing funding for environmental protection while reducing spending on defense, but alas, in my view, this is an illusion. In reality, this bill represents business as usual for the Republican Party--slashing funding for research in renewable resources while doling out more handouts to dirty energy and environmental polluters. It seems like every other week we are voting to drill off our shores, in our parks, or on Federal lands.

To that end, H.R. 4899, the Lowering Gasoline Prices to Fuel an America That Works Act of 2014--we are the greatest naming people in the world here in Congress--is just a greatest hits record, rehashing two measures the House has already voted on, one of which itself was already cobbled together from a number of separate bills. Like all greatest hits albums, it, too, is stuck in the past. Those past attempts rightly died in the Senate, and there is no reason to expect a different result this time around. Yet here we are again, tossing legislation into the void while our country's very real problems fester.

My friends across the aisle have no ideas, evidently, for energy independence and security beyond more drilling. They would rather score political points than propose real solutions. I am sure they will go home to their districts next week for one of the biggest driving weekends of the year. Yesterday, in the Rules Committee, I commented that the oil industry manipulates us. Every year in the summer, prices go up on gasoline, and I just don't think that is coincidental when gas prices historically tend to be high. Yet they are going to point to these votes as evidence that they tried to lower gasoline prices. While it may make for a good feel-good story, that is all it is. Putting more oil out there won't move prices. Domestic production is already at a 25-year high in this country, up 60 percent since 2008. Imports are at 29-year lows.

Despite my friend's claims, onshore oil production from Federal lands has gone up 30 percent since 2008. I can never pass up an opportunity to say that I will continue to resist offshore drilling off the coast of Florida beyond the accommodations that have already been made by this body. Yet gas prices remain unchanged. The U.S. holds only 2 percent of the world's oil reserves. Even tripling current offshore drilling capabilities by the year 2030 would lower gasoline prices only 5 cents per gallon more than if we would continue at the rate we are going; or if we would increase oil production all the way to 50 percent--which is more than drilling in the Arctic, increasing public lands and offshore drilling, and the pipelines would provide--prices would decrease by only 10 percent at most.

Oil is priced on the global market, which is far more complicated than my friends let on. Record demand for fossil fuels in this country and in places like India and China and Singapore and Japan have far more impact on the price of gasoline than anything my friends here hope to do. The liquid natural gas export bill the House passed yesterday shows they understand the nature of the market. They just choose to ignore it whenever it is convenient.

My friends across the aisle have no plans for addressing the demand for the kinds of policies that actually could help reduce energy costs, like increasing our energy efficiency, improving the fuel mileage of our cars, and developing renewable energy resources. I was visited by one of our college presidents, John Kelly, who is new at Florida Atlantic University. He visited with me today, and that university has a new grant dealing with currents, which may very well at some point add to our understanding with reference to renewable energy resources. So it won't be the American people who benefit from more drilling. It will be the bottom lines of the companies that own the wells. Hardworking Americans will be left to bear the risk.

This ``drill everywhere, all the time'' plan isn't a serious energy strategy; it is a cash grab by the fossil fuel industry. It is not a path to energy independence and security; it is a road to environmental and economic collapse. This isn't a game. The threat is real, Mr. Speaker. We haven't enacted any safety or environmental reforms in response to the BP Deepwater Horizon spill. Let me repeat that. We haven't enacted any safety or environmental reforms in response to the BP Deepwater Horizon spill. A footnote here: BP has not paid for all of the damage that they did in that area, and I defy anybody to show me how it is that they did. I ask anybody who is getting ready to eat seafood that comes out of that bay to look at the damage that was done and at the continuing sediment that continues to rise from that area that was polluted.

What happens to all of those Floridians whose livelihoods depend upon our oceans and beaches?

If you want to know, ask the oyster people what happens. Ask the shrimpers who go out into the gulf what their product looks like nowadays, including the deformed product that they are seeing from this awful disaster.

Florida's GDP from its living resources, which includes fishing, hatcheries, aquaculture, seafood processing, and seafood markets, is worth nearly $300 million. Additionally, the State's GDP from ocean- based tourism and recreation is nearly $16.5 billion. On top of that, Florida generates millions of dollars in commercial fishing, including shrimp, mackerel, blue crab, swordfish, and stone crabs, which we are finding are diminishing in numbers. We have 350,000 jobs in tourism and recreation and nearly 120,000 direct jobs in recreational and commercial fishing.

But you can't eat contaminated fish, and who wants to spend one's hard-earned dollars and vacation time lounging on a beach that is covered in tar balls?

When I lifted up on Monday in the US Air plane and looked down at the shore of Florida, I saw what amounts to about a mile-long oil slick. I saw people walking, and I knew that, in a matter of time, they would be walking on tar balls.

How bad does the next spill have to be?

Climate change is not even pending anymore. It is here, and its effects are conspicuous. Downtown Miami, for example, floods whenever it rains, and so does Hollywood, Florida, and areas that I live around. People can't get to work, businesses can't open, and historic droughts have now ravaged the West, and my friends say that there is nothing to concern ourselves about as it pertains to climate change.

The Risky Business report just released by President George W. Bush's former Treasury Secretary--Henry Paulson--and Mayor Bloomberg and Tom Steyer and other former Cabinet officers, lawmakers, corporate leaders, and scientists says climate change could cost the country billions of dollars over the next two decades.

This bill fully ignores the reality of the world we live in, but I do want to say one thing.

In yesterday's Rules Committee, my friend who is managing this rule, Mr. Bishop from Utah, did make to me a compelling argument regarding education in the State of Utah and the fact that, on some of the Federal lands in Utah, if they had an opportunity to do further oil exploration, it could have an impact on Utah's economy. I think that, in many respects, a lot of that is reasonable. I am hopeful that at some point some of his views in that regard will prevail, but I hope, for the most part, that his overall views do not prevail.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), my good friend.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 1426, the Big Oil Welfare Repeal Act of 2013, Representative Tim Bishop's bill, to end the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies given to the largest, most profitable oil companies each year.

To discuss our proposal, I am pleased, at this time, to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I would advise at this time and ask if you would learn from my colleague if he is ready to close. I have no further speakers, and I am prepared at this time to close.

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that these bills just leave us spinning our wheels, while we could be making actual progress in helping hardworking Americans all across this Nation.

It is outrageous that 3 million Americans have lost their emergency unemployment insurance since it expired in December 2013. I might add that we learned yesterday that 300,000 of that 3 million are American veterans.

We have also had, along with the expiration of tax extender provisions that help individuals that have expired, they help families and small businesses invest.

Republicans and Democrats should be working together to move our Nation forward on comprehensive immigration reform, and I might add that I agree with everybody that says that the border needs to be secure, and one good way to do that is to do comprehensive immigration reform and tax reform.

We need to raise the minimum wage in this country, and we need to protect voting rights and secure equal pay.

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, before I will urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' I just want to make it very clear that the measures that we are considering today have already been voted on by the House and did not go further to become law. The likelihood of this measure reaching that same fate is very strong.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question.

Vote ``no'' on the underlying bill, 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.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the medical marijuana provision that came before the House of Representatives for a vote on May 30, 2014--H. AMDT. 748 to H.R. 4460--an amendment to prohibit the use of funds to prevent certain States from implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.

Had I voted on May 30, 2014, I would have voted in favor of H. AMDT 748 to H.R. 4460, which was offered by Rep Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) to the FY 2015 Commerce, Justice, and Science (CSJ) Appropriations bill. The amendment was agreed to by recorded vote: 219-189.

Specifically, the bill is a bipartisan appropriations measure that looks to prohibit the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) from spending funds to arrest state-licensed medical marijuana patients and providers. Many of my colleagues and their constituencies agree that patients who are allowed to purchase and consume medical marijuana in their respective states should not be punished by the federal government.

I believe that we must modernize our federal laws to reflect the updated approaches to medical marijuana use, and allow states to determine the parameters, practices, and effects of legalization. Mr. Speaker, 22 states and the District of Columbia have legalized marijuana for medical use. In my home state of Florida, the majority of voters support the legalization of marijuana for medical use, and I stand behind them.

Mr. Speaker, I support the legalization of marijuana for medical use, and remain committed to protecting citizens nationwide that are the subject to detainment for use despite their medical needs.

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

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

I rise today in opposition to the rule for H.R. 4413, the Customer Protection and End User Relief Act, which reauthorizes through 2018 the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Mr. Speaker, the CFTC plays a critical role in protecting market participants and our Nation's economy from fraud, manipulation, abusive practices, and systemic risk related to derivatives, both futures and swaps, as well as in fostering transparent, open, competitive, and financially sound markets.

However, H.R. 4413 contains several harmful provisions that impede the CFTC's ability to enforce existing derivatives rules and roll back meaningful reforms in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

Specifically, title II of this bill carves out the CFTC from the Administrative Procedure Act process for establishing regulations, which represents the most longstanding and broadly applicable requirements for Federal rulemaking and was written to bring regularity and predictability to agency decisionmaking.

Furthermore, section 203 of the legislation imposes burdensome cost- benefit requirements that likely serve only to prevent, delay, or weaken any rules that implement Dodd-Frank.

Current law already requires the CFTC and other agencies to conduct economic analyses pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Congressional Review Act, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

In addition, the CFTC is also bound by the Commodity Exchange Act to consider the protection of market participants and the public; the efficiency, competitiveness, and financial integrity of futures markets; price discovery; sound risk management practices; and other public interest considerations, under the supervision of the courts.

The redundant cost-benefit requirements contained in H.R. 4413 will not only hamper the appropriate consideration and promulgation of new rules, but expose the CFTC to greater industry litigation.

Finally, H.R. 4413 threatens American taxpayers by deregulating foreign derivatives transactions. Under section 722(d) of Dodd-Frank, the CFTC is authorized to oversee derivatives transactions that ``have a direct and significant connection with activities in, or effect on, commerce of the United States.''

Section 359 of this bill exempts overseas derivatives transactions from regulation, creating a loophole in our system of regulatory oversight that could be gamed by large multinational swaps dealers.

Just 6 years ago, derivatives trading related to the activities of the corporate structure AIG and Lehman Brothers nearly brought down our economy and cost every American household more than $50,000.

I related last night in the Rules Committee that we were there--Ms. Slaughter and I and the chairman, Mr. Sessions--all of us--when Mr. Paulsen and Mr. Bernanke brought to us the notion on three or four paragraphs and two pages that this Nation was about to go bust.

It is clear that derivatives transactions outside of the United States pose real risks to United States financial institutions, yet instead of strengthening the CFTC's ability to effectively regulate derivatives transactions involving the foreign operation of U.S. banks, H.R. 4413 presumes that they will be governed by foreign rules, disregarding whether those foreign rules are adequate or if the trades will import risk back to the United States.

Moreover, this presumption can only be overturned after the CFTC and the Securities and Exchange Commission go to considerable procedural lengths to make a joint determination that a foreign host country's regulations are not broadly equivalent to United States regulations.

The futures and swaps markets are essential to our economy and the way that businesses and investors manage risk, particularly for farmers, hospitals, manufacturers, and certain utilities industries.

While I share my colleagues' concern regarding issues affecting many of

these end users, I believe that this legislation falls short of the goals of comprehensive Wall Street reform and ensuring that derivatives transactions do not contribute to another global economic crisis.

I also said last yesterday, in the Rules Committee, that I predict that if this measure were to become law, we could reasonably expect that we would have the same kind of financial crisis that we did 6 years ago.

Instead of creating new, heavy administrative burdens, we should further empower the CFTC to be able to carry out its responsibilities, including those under Dodd-Frank.

Just last week, House Republicans proposed to dangerously underfund the CFTC at 22 percent below the President's request, with an appropriation that will likely lead to either agencywide closures or employee layoffs. This would make the already underfunded CFTC less effective at protecting consumers, end users, and investors.

Additionally, because this bill retroactively reverses rules that have already gone into effect and many of those that are in the pipeline, it increases uncertainty and costs to businesses and end users that will unnecessarily have the rules of the game changed on them.

I simply don't understand this logic. Reducing the CFTC's ability to effectively oversee these financial activities only increases the likelihood that we will find ourselves in another potentially disastrous situation.

Additionally, I would also like to take this opportunity to point out that several of my colleagues on the Financial Services Committee share these concerns.

It was also pointed out by my colleague that this came out unanimously from the Agriculture Committee. It did in fact do so, but in the Rules Committee, we had the prerogative, if we so chose, to allow the Financial Services Committee to be able to make presentations that I believe--and in a bipartisan way--other Members, particularly those of the Financial Services Committee, believe should be a part of this discussion today. However, this rule cuts them out of the debate.

In fact, H.R. 4413 rehashes several earlier bills that Financial Services Committee members have previously voiced concern over, including H.R. 1256, the Swap Jurisdiction Certainty Act; and H.R. 1003, to improve consideration by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission of the costs and benefits of its regulations and orders.

The administration has also come out in opposition to the bill. We can't continue with more of the same failed partisan practices and effect a different outcome.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the chairman, my good friend, that good intentions don't always manifest themselves in a positive way. I am sure before we had the recession that there were good intentions. My prediction is that, without appropriate regulation, we can reasonably expect that these same kinds of recessive measures might come into play. I recognize my good friend, the chairman, has his script together when it comes to something bipartisan coming out of the Agriculture Committee, but I also know that this is an end run around the Financial Services Committee, which also has germane interests in the particular legislation at hand.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), my very good friend and the ranking member of the Rules Committee.

I yield the gentlelady an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, through you, I would advise my good friend that we have no further speakers and that I am prepared to close at this time if he is.

In closing, what has transpired here is interesting. The Agriculture Committee had finished its product, and then it came yesterday to add provisions that in the final analysis are dealing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Then my friend, the chairman, would argue that it is an agriculture bill. Clearly, it is smack-dab in the lane of Financial Services, and they were excluded. Yes, Ms. Waters did come to the Rules Committee last night, and there is no requirement that she be here now, but what we could have done--we keep saying ``last night,'' but it was late yesterday evening--is to let the Financial Services people participate in this debate--but no. What we have are the two people, the chairman and ranking member, who are given time with reference to this matter, and the Financial Services Committee is shut out of this debate. That is just plain wrong, and I believe most people know that.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4413 creates significant loopholes for derivatives by hamstringing the CFTC, and it undermines comprehensive financial reform.

Six years after the Great Recession, families are still struggling in this

country. As of last week, 3 million Americans have lost their emergency unemployment insurance since it expired in December 2013. I want to repeat that: 3 million Americans have lost their emergency unemployment insurance since it expired in December 2013.

After my friends finish their reconstitution of their leadership this afternoon, I would hope that their new then leadership would come down here and put something on the floor that would allow us at least to have a vote, up or down, as to whether or not people should receive unemployment compensation.

Other things that have expired, along with unemployment compensation that expired in December, are the tax extender provisions, which help individual families and small businesses invest. In the coming months-- real soon--Congress is going to be faced with even more pressing challenges as our Nation's highway trust fund is expected to go 0.0-- bankrupt--and the authorizations for Federal surface transportation projects will also expire. The Export-Import Bank and the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act are set to expire. The House still has eight appropriations bills left to pass, and with each passing day of inaction on these items, we come closer to another economic crisis.

Republicans and Democrats must come together to prevent this from happening as well as to move our Nation forward on comprehensive immigration and tax reform, raising the minimum wage, protecting voter rights, and securing equal pay.

Let me go back through that. Securing equal pay, protecting voter rights.

I am personally tired of the suppression and oppression measures with reference to voting in this country. Why in the world would we want less people to vote than, under the circumstances, people that should be participating in this great democracy of ours?

And yet we have States, including my own, circumventing the process of voting, restoring, if you will, age-old problems having to do with voting rights.

How about raising the minimum wage?

Put something down here on the floor and stand up and vote for it or against it. But don't come in here and have everybody believe that you are moving this country forward.

I predict for you what is going to happen: 28 more days, 27 more days, are going to go through the rest of this process. There is going to be further obstruction from the majority in this particular House of Representatives, and then we will go out and we will have an election, and the American people will speak again to those of us that are in the House of Representatives.

Most of us are likely to be back here, and we will be right back here in what is referred to as a ``lame duck session,'' and we will hold that lame duck session, pass some kind of an omnibus bill, and be off into the sunset for the 2016 election.

Enough already. Stop pretending, and have people know that we are confronted with real problems in this country, and it is this institution that has a responsibility to attend to them.

The reauthorization of CFTC is both important and necessary. However, H.R. 4413 includes provisions that put the safety and the stability of the United States financial system at risk. Therefore, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, Tuesday morning's fatal shooting at Reynolds High School is

the 74th shooting at a school on American soil since a lone gunman's attack on Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut, in December, 2012.

The list of shootings, which includes 13 school shootings in the first 6 weeks of this year, was compiled and is on the Web site of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. Earlier, my colleague, Ted Deutch, recited all 74 of them.

Yesterday and two other times in the last 2 weeks, the House rightly held moments of silence. I and two of my colleagues did not stand, not because of disrespect for those who lost their lives; we abhor the loss of life, and we abhor the House of Representatives taking moments of silence and then returning to business as usual and doing absolutely nothing about gun violence.

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

Mr. Speaker, today, the House will adopt yet another closed rule for these two tax extender measures, which will cross a new Rubicon, a new threshold. We are going to break the record for the most closed rules considered by a Congress ever, and we still have 7 months to go.

The graphic that I am holding illustrates that--that we have the most closed Congress ever, which allows, among other things, that we don't deal with immigration reform, we don't deal with the minimum wage, we don't deal with unemployment insurance, we don't deal with universal gun background checks, we don't deal with dealing with banning assault weapons. This is a closed Congress.

This may sound like inside baseball, but it is much more than just a procedural agreement. I have seen a lot of rules serving nearly 10 years now on the Rules Committee, but this is a new one. This rule limits debate during the appropriations process. It deems passage of a provision to ignore the deficit that this legislation will create, and it sets an all-time record, as I have shown, for closed rules. We managed to do this yesterday and now have it on the floor all in one rule.

Congress has, as I have said, many important issues it needs to take up, including the things I have shown and reiterate now: immigration reform, raising the minimum wage, and extending unemployment insurance.

2.5 million people in this country are without unemployment insurance. If we were to pass it, it would create 200,000 jobs, and we stand around here and talk about creating jobs all the time.

Closed rules prevent the House from working its will on these measures. That is the way it appears that leadership, what is left of it, wants it to be.

My friends do make some Democratic amendments in order at times. Both parties have used closed rules when they have been in control, and that is true. That is the prerogative of the party controlling the House.

But you can read these closed rules like a roadmap of my friends' priorities. In general, the only amendments made in order are those that are expected either to pass or fail along party lines. Over 30 House Republicans and 64 percent of Republican voters polled support immigration reform, but we can't get a vote. Where is the immigration reform bill? Where is the measure that will allow for us to answer many of the problems that this country is confronted with in reference to immigration reform?

This week, as I have indicated, nearly 3 million Americans have lost emergency unemployment insurance since it expired in December, but we can't get a vote here on the House of Representatives' floor.

The Voting Rights Act needs to be reformed in order to protect American voters, but we can't get a vote in the people's House. Leadership uses closed rules to prevent the House from working its will because they are worried about undermining their message, more worried about it than actually legislating.

Today's tax extenders are a perfect example of how these heavy-handed tactics help the chosen few, but leave everyone else without recourse. There are at least 50 other tax extenders that we could have taken into consideration, but no, we choose these six because that is your agenda. Dozens of other provisions that expire at the end of 2017 and several others scheduled to expire at the end of this year have been skipped over in favor of these six extenders favored by businesses that are pretty substantial, and not necessarily the big corporations but many of the large S corporations.

My friends across the aisle have passed up the chance--would you believe this?--to renew the work opportunity tax credit, which helps veterans get back to work, as well as the new markets tax credit, which helps revitalize communities.

How do you do that? They have chosen to ignore renewable energy tax credits and tax credits to help working parents pay for child care. How about that? They have decided there is no reason to extend deductions for teachers' out-of-pocket expenses, qualified tuition, mortgage insurance premiums, or State and local taxes, a deduction that is critical for Floridians and the people that I represent.

These six extenders will be the only extenders that the House votes on because these are the priorities of my friends across the aisle, priorities that may solidify your message, my friends, particularly your message with your base--and evidently you are confused about that particular matter--but you are more interested in them and assuring that you do nothing to help hardworking Americans.

You are going to use the power of the closed rule to ensure that no other provisions get a vote, and you are going to become the most closed Congress ever, disallowing immigration reform, disallowing a minimum wage increase. There are States that are giving a realistic minimum wage increase to people. You tell me, how it is that people live on $7.35 an hour? Many of us have been to food shelters and seen people that are working, many of us have seen people that are living in shelters, working families living in shelters, and we won't even bring a measure here. Are you afraid to just say ``yes'' or ``no'' whether or not Americans ought to have an increase in their minimum wage at the Federal level?

You let 2\1/2\ million people don't have unemployment insurance, can't meet their obligations, and we are not willing to help them, and you tell me that you will increase--you talk all the time about the deficit, so you are going to increase the deficit with some mumbo jumbo about money if it is not in the hands of, and disallow people that we know, if they were to receive unemployment insurance compensation, that they would spend all of that money and that it would, in fact, create jobs, and it would sustain small businesses if we were to do that.

One presenter in the House yesterday, outstanding in his presentation, a friend from the other side, pointed out that he had come from a hardscrabble life and that his father one time had been on unemployment insurance. I said to him, and I believe it to be true, that you just proved my point. And I asked him did his daddy get a job after he was on unemployment insurance. And his answer was, yes, and I knew that is what it would be. Many people who are on unemployment insurance today, if we were to give them a chance, they would get a job. Get a life, Republicans, give people a chance.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

My friend on the other side of the aisle may try to change the subject. Do that if you like. But I ask the gentleman: Is this a new record for closed rules or not? And I answer rhetorically because it is. And I don't deny that Democrats have used closed rules. I said it in my opening remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas, Judge Lloyd Doggett, my good friend.

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

Returning briefly--before I yield to my good friend--to the subject of open and/or closed rules, this is what Speaker Boehner promised right here in this Chamber in his own words:

I offer a commitment: Openness, once a tradition of this institution, but increasingly scarce in recent decades, will be the new standard. You will always have the right to a robust debate in an open process that allows you to represent your constituents, to make your case, offer alternatives and be heard.

It is unfortunate that my friends on the other side of the aisle campaigned telling the country how open and transparent they were going to be, and then when they do the opposite and are called out on it, it is just more excuses.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 4582, the Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act. Mr. Tierney, my good friend, authored that bill to help millions of people lower their student loan debt. The bill would allow borrowers to refinance Federal and private student loans to the lowest rates that are currently available to new borrowers.

To discuss this proposal, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), a distinguished gentleman, my friend and colleague.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would indicate to my friend from Texas that I am prepared to close. I have no further speakers at this time, and so I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, it is not all doom and gloom over here. There are provisions in the agriculture appropriation measure that I support.

I appreciate the report language in support of the United States Department of Agriculture's pollinator programs. I, along with others, have been leaders in bringing the subject to the attention of Congress, something of vital interest to all of this Nation.

I have been teased an awful lot about being the ``bee man'' because I bring up the pollinator issue all the time, but the fact of the matter is, if we don't have bees, we are not going to have food.

I also appreciate the provisions related to citrus greening, which has been devastating to Florida citrus growers, as well as those provisions in this measure that address rural housing.

I represent Belle Glade; South Bay; Canal Point; and Pahokee, Florida; and places where rural housing is really important, but I, along with all of my colleagues--particularly Joe Garcia, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and Mario Diaz-Balart--have raised the issues with reference to citrus greening. The whole south Florida delegation has been involved in that particular area.

I grew up in the citrus area. I saw the early-on stages of greening. If we don't do something about this particular problem--and this farm appropriations does deal with some of it--then we may have no citrus coming from the State of Florida.

There are a limited number of days left on our legislative calendar, and we have many miles to go before we, as a Congress, have delivered on our obligation to help all Americans.

We absolutely have an obligation to businesspeople, but we also have an obligation to help veterans get work; an obligation to ease the burden on teachers who use their own money to support their students-- our students; and an obligation to address forthrightly important issues, including immigration reform and raising the minimum wage and extending unemployment insurance.

We should stop standing around here and thinking that we are doing something when we offer a moment of silence, which is right for victims who have died of gun violence and the grief that is coming through all of those families. You hear them begging for us to do something.

We know that we can't solve all of those problems, but at least we could give them some assurance that we are trying to have universal background checks and that we are willing to ban assault weapons. Why would anybody want an assault weapon, other than a police officer or military person, and why should we permit them to be in their hands?

We won't bring those measures down here to the floor, and we do so at our peril.

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 urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question, vote ``no'' on the underlying bills, and certainly vote ``no'' on this record-setting rule for closed rules, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I share your concerns as you expressed them with reference to the unaccompanied young people coming to our country, and I don't make any quarrel with you, but I would highlight the fact that it is believed by some that many of the places they are coming from--El Salvador, Guatemala, and Central America--the kids are running because of fright.

I remind you that they already have TSP, and we did that quite some time ago for those Central American countries. We did it, rightly, then.

I just offer that for information, and I thank my colleague for yielding.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the Salvation Army of Broward County, Florida. In the coming week, the Salvation Army will launch the Open Door Project, a new homeless shelter in Fort Lauderdale that will focus on helping the chronically homeless.

Our nation is currently faced with a harsh reality. Roughly 2 million Americans face homelessness every year. We have made great progress in reducing the number of Americans without a home, but there is much more to be done. The Open Door Project will be instrumental in helping vulnerable individuals in Broward County find shelter, support, and eventually, a permanent home.

The Salvation Army of Broward County has been serving the South Florida community since 1926, tirelessly working to serve the needs of the less fortunate. The organization offers transitional housing, life- skill training, and a structured support system to help individuals and families escape the cycle of homelessness. With the launch of the Open Door Project, the Salvation Army of Broward

County has again demonstrated its dedication to providing resources for anyone grappling with homelessness in the Fort Lauderdale region.

The Open Door Project is a low demand facility. All they ask of their guests is their name, and do not require more private information. This ensures that individuals suffering from drug and alcohol addiction, mental illness, or those who would otherwise avoid these services can still find a safe place to sleep for the night. By providing homeless individuals with a safe bed and a meal the following morning, the Open Door Project will build a system of trust, in hope that these individuals may be comfortable seeking further help in the future.

Mr. Speaker, as the Co-Founder and Co-Chairman of the Congressional Homelessness Caucus, I believe that ending homelessness must be one of our top priorities as a nation. Allowing men, women, and children to live on the streets is not a standard America should be willing to accept. I am pleased to offer my deepest appreciation and congratulations to the staff and volunteers of the Salvation Army as they continue in their mission to combat homelessness in Fort Lauderdale. I look forward to working with the Open Door Project in the future to advocate for those who so often cannot advocate for themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a resolution to express condolences and support for assistance to the victims of the historic flooding in the Western Balkans, which began on May 13, 2014. The record rainfall caused widespread flooding in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia, and the Republic of Serbia, leading to thousands of landslides, massive destruction, and loss of life.

To date, the flooding has claimed over 40 lives and impacted over 500,000 people across the region, particularly in western Serbia and eastern Bosnia and Herzegovina. The equivalent of three months of rain fell during the course of three days, making this the worst flooding event seen in Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina since recordkeeping began 120 years ago. Tens of thousands across the region remain displaced or homeless and, according to the Red Cross, many lack access to clean water and electricity.

The Bosnian Foreign Ministry has reported that the flooding has rendered 100,000 buildings unusable, and that 500,000 people have evacuated or fled their homes amidst the ongoing state of emergency.

On May 27, 2014, the Government of Serbia declared three days of national mourning, having described the situation in the country as ``catastrophic.'' It estimates that at least 25,000 people have evacuated, particularly in the town and municipality of Obrenovac, and that the flooding has caused over 100,000,000 Euros ($140,000,000) in damage to the Kolubara coal mine that supplies the Kostolac power plant. Efforts continue to protect the

Kostolac power plant and the Nikola Tesla power plant, which provides half of the nation's electricity, from the waters of the over-flooded Sava River.

Furthermore, an estimated 100,000 landmines remaining from the Balkan conflicts of the 1990s have been lost or dislodged due to landslides, causing great concern for public safety.

In response, the United States Government has provided assistance through the Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) to the Serbian Red Cross, as well as from the Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs. Additionally, U.S. Embassy funds have been used to purchase sandbags and other material assistance, with Embassy volunteers dedicating their time to filling hundreds of sandbags in suburbs threatened by Sava River flooding. The United States Government has further provided OFDA assistance to Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as boats, food, and supplies through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and Department of Defense.

Mr. Speaker, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia, and the Republic of Serbia share an increasing commitment to core democratic values, reconciliation, and European integration. The United States expresses deep sympathy to all those affected by the flooding in the Western Balkans for the terrible loss of life and massive destruction, as well as a continued desire to provide essential assistance along with that of other nations and organizations to help their countries recover from this tragedy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Highways Bettering the Economy and Environment Act with my Co-Chairman of the Congressional Pollinator Protection Caucus, Representative Jeff Denham. This bi-partisan bill provides much-needed aid for the birds, bats, bees and butterflies that pollinate our food.

The Highways BEE Act seeks no new monies and involves a limited federal role.

This bill provides for existing authorities and finding sources to incorporate integrated vegetation management practices along America's highways, which includes things like reduced mowing and replacing invasive plant species with native forbs and grasses. This kind of roadside vegetation management provides much-needed habitat for pollinators and other small nesting animals.

The Association of American State Highway and Transportation Officials Vegetation Management Guidelines advances integrated vegetation management principles and recommendations consistent with the objectives of this legislation. A number of states, including Minnesota are already doing this and reporting maintenance cost savings of 20 to 25 percent from reduced mowing alone.

Mr. Speaker, there are around 17 million acres of land where significant reductions in mowing and maintenance can reduce costs for cash-strapped states. The millions of acres of agriculture and wildlife ecosystems adjacent to these roadways will benefit from the increased pollinator habitat resulting from integrated vegetation management practices.

To understand how worried we should be about declining pollinator populations, consider that rising global food prices have been the primary topic of discussion at recent G-20 meetings. This is the first time that agriculture has had the top spot at a meeting and is indicative of how serious the issue is. Food prices have already led to global riots overseas and a declining pollinator population will only make the situation worse. Seventy-five percent of all flowering plant species rely on creatures like birds, bats, bees and butterflies for fertilization. One out of every three bites of food that we eat, as well as $20 billion of products in the United States alone, derive from pollinators.

If we don't solve these problems soon, we won't have any bees. Without bees, we won't have any food. The benefit to cost balance in the case of this bill is an easy choice.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. Gordon A. Merritt on the occasion of his 85th birthday. I am proud to celebrate Dr. Merritt not only for his longevity, but more rightly for the amazing scope of his contributions to the Fort Lauderdale community and our country as a whole.

Dr. Merritt has dedicated his life to the care of his fellow citizens and has served them in numerous capacities. He earned his Doctorate of Dental Surgery in 1957 from Meharry Medical College in Nashville, Tennessee and immediately entered the Air Force where he practiced for four years before returning home to Florida.

Dr. Merritt and his family moved to Fort Lauderdale in 1963, and he has been a pillar in

the community ever since. He opened his clinic in a predominately African American neighborhood, and was one of the first African American medical professionals to provide services to this underserved community.

In addition to his work in the medical field, Dr. Merritt has been a tireless advocate for his community. He is a past Exalted Ruler of the Pride of Fort Lauderdale Elks Lodge #652, as well as a Life Member of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the Urban League, and the Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity. Dr. Merritt has also been a member of the Mount Hernon A.M.E. Church since 1964, where he has served as a Trustee.

None of these great achievements would have been possible without the love and support of Dr. Merritt's wife Rose Legon, who together raised two wonderful children, Dr. Pamela Merritt and Portia Mehaffey. They are also the proud grandparents of four lovely grandchildren, Courtney, Cierra, Darby, and Addison.

Mr. Speaker, to arrive at the great milestone of 85 years is no small thing. I am truly honored to share in this celebration of Dr. Merritt's many accomplishments and contributions. I wish him many more years of happiness and success.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my dear friend Diane Glasser, who currently serves on the City Commission for Tamarac, Florida. I have been lucky to work with Diane for many years to make Florida a better place for all Floridians, but, for over 40 years, I have been even luckier to call Diane a friend. It is a 40-plus year friendship that has meant the world to me, and I thank her for it.

Diane hails from Mill Basin in Brooklyn, New York. She went to high school and college in New York, but then in 1973, we in Florida were lucky enough to entice her down our way--getting to avoid those New York winters probably helped us look like a good place to live too. Diane moved to Florida with her husband who was a 100 percent disabled veteran having served bravely in World War II. Diane's husband, due to the injuries he suffered fighting for his country, was unable to work, but this did not stop him from being a tireless advocate for veterans. I think Diane would agree that her husband's advocacy helped in part in laying the ground work for her future successes as an advocate for the members of our community.

After working in the construction industry for 12 years, Diane was ready for something new. Mr. Speaker, my friend Diane turned her tremendous energy and insight to helping the members of her community by volunteering for her local Democratic Party. Of course, Diane was not going to volunteer here and there. No, instead, Diane, through dedicated effort, went from starting as a volunteer and worked her way to First Vice Chair of the Florida Democratic Party. In addition, she was elected to the Democratic National Convention as a National Committeewoman, and was appointed to the Electoral College.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all Floridians and members of the Democratic Party, I would like to thank Diane for her tireless work in pursuit

of justice for not only all Floridians, but all Americans. She is an inspiration to all of us who strive to make our communities a better place to live.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), my good friend and member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, as its ranking member.

Mr. Speaker, I will yield myself 1 minute before yielding to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. Speaker, last night in the Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) offered an amendment that was supported by all the Democrats on the committee. That amendment would have allowed for membership on the committee to be equally divided between Republicans and Democrats. It would guarantee minority signoff on subpoenas and depositions. It would guarantee equal distribution of money, staffing, and other resources of the committee. It would require the committee to establish written rules, specifically including rules concerning how documents and other information may be obtained, used, or released.

I will offer a caveat there about the intelligence that you are about to get into with the select committee. It would guarantee equal access to evidence and materials of the committee. It provides for transparency of the committee's expenditures and budgeting, and it would ensure that a quorum for taking testimony or receiving evidence includes at least one minority Member.

Finally, it would ensure that the minority has a say in decisions about extended questioning and staff questioning of witnesses. That would produce a bipartisan result that would be credible.

I am very pleased at this time to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), my good friend and a member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

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

I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

While I support research and development incentives and consider encouraging American businesses to research, innovate, build, and make it in America some of Congress' most important

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

Four months ago, my friends on the other side of the aisle allowed emergency unemployment insurance for more than 1.3 million Americans to expire.

During the farm bill negotiations, my friends on the other side of the aisle insisted on cutting $8.6 billion from nutrition assistance programs.

Last week, Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee insisted on removing a $12 million provision that would help foster children who are victims of sex trafficking. I find that ironic because this happens to be Foster Care Month.

They also fought tooth and nail to derail disaster assistance to the victims of Hurricane Sandy, and almost succeeded.

Furthermore, they have triggered a government shutdown and sequestration cuts that have drastically cut nondefense discretionary spending by $294 billion.

And the reason offered for all these austerity measures still hamstringing recovery? Why can't the Republicans pass a bill to create jobs by improving our crumbling infrastructure? Well, deficit reduction, I guess, is the answer.

Yet, this bill, a favorite of Big Business without question, will add $156 billion to the deficit.

Tax policy in general, and then extenders package specifically, is about prioritizing the needs of our country.

Dozens of temporary tax provisions that expired at the end of 2013 and several others scheduled to expire at the end of this year have been skipped over.

They have passed up the chance to renew the work opportunity tax credit, which helps veterans get work, and the new markets tax credit, which helps vitalize communities.

They have chosen to ignore renewable energy tax credits and tax credits to help working parents pay for child care.

They have decided that it is not important to extend deductions for teachers' out-of-pocket expenses, qualified tuition and related expenses, mortgage insurance premiums, and State and local sales tax, a deduction which is critical for our constituents in Florida.

My friends on the other side of the aisle would allow charitable provisions, including the enhanced deduction for contributions of food inventory and provisions allowing for tax-free distributions from retirement accounts for charitable purposes to expire rather than renew them.

This bill today and the other extenders--there were six of them that were marked up by the Ways and Means Committee--are the six extenders favored by Big Business.

That is why these will be the first and will likely be the only of the extenders--and there are 50-plus of them overall--that the House will vote on. That is why these are the measures my friends want to make permanent.

While I agree particularly that the one that is being discussed should be made permanent, they have no problem increasing the deficit, so long as it is a policy that is a priority for them and for Big Business.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), my friend, who is the ranking member of the House Ways and Means Committee.

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), my good friend.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, the American people will be better served if we addressed our broken immigration system, which has become a huge drag on our country's economic growth.

If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 15, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, so the House can finally vote on something that will move this country forward.

To discuss our proposal, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Caardenas).

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

Madam Speaker, I am going to take my good friend's point where I made the statement that we would have an opportunity to finally vote on something worthwhile and take that ``finally'' out and replace it with ``something more worthwhile'' than some of the things that he pointed out that I certainly agree with, in many particulars, were certainly measures that were important to us.

I can't resist adding to Mr. Caardenas' appeal with reference to H.R. 15 and point out that 40 percent of the Fortune 500 companies were founded by an immigrant or a child of an immigrant. Twenty-eight percent of all companies founded in the United States, in just the year 2011, had immigrant founders.

Seventy-six percent of the patents at the top 10 U.S. patent- producing universities had at least one foreign-born inventor. Immigrant-owned businesses generated more than $775 billion in revenue for the economy in 2011.

I could go on and on. I shall not. It is important, I believe, that if not this vehicle, some vehicle become the one that allows us to deal with things like the H-1B visa. For example, when we put the cap on it in the last tranche, we achieved that cap in 5 days.

Availability of H-1B numbers is a growing problem for the U.S. STEM competitiveness again. It is something that we need to deal with, must deal with.

Now, I turn, finally, to the research credit measure that we are dealing with. It is an important provision that should be extended. Since its enactment in mid-1981, as has been pointed out by my colleagues, Congress has extended the provision 15 times and significantly modified it five times.

However, it is not just what we do that matters; it is how we do it that also matters. This will be the 57th closed rule, which means most Members will not even get a chance to make changes to the bill.

This bill violates the revenue floor of the Ryan budget that Republicans passed only 3 weeks ago, meaning the Rules Committee will have to give yet another special waiver.

Republicans have waived their own CutGo rule 15 times since taking over the House. Republicans insist that comprehensive tax reform be deficit neutral, but won't hold these permanent changes to the same standard. In fact, they are using these measures to hide the cost of comprehensive tax reform.

They aren't just moving the goalposts. They are changing the game as it is being played.

Madam Speaker, there is something inconsistent between what my friends say and what they do, and I find that very disturbing. Hiding behind a mantra of austerity only when it is convenient is, in my view, irresponsible and opportunistic, at best.

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.

I am very pleased at this time to yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 66th Anniversary of Israel's Independence. On this day, called Yom Ha'atzmaut, Israel celebrates its founding by Prime Minister David Ben Gurion in 1948. Since then, Israel has stood as a dynamic democracy in the Middle East region with its rich culture, vibrant economy, and commitment to peace.

Yet, independence has come at a great price. This is why, the day before celebrating its independence, Israel observes Yom Hazikaron, Israel's Memorial Day. On Yom Hazikaron, Israel remembers all those who gave their lives defending their families, their communities, and their country. This year, Israel honored the more than 23,000 soldiers killed in the line of duty and another 1,800 civilian victims of terrorism. I have always been deeply moved by the duality of Israel's independence celebration, at once both sorrowful and triumphant, and know of no other country that combines such profound sorrow with such a festive event.

I am proud of the close relationship that has developed between the United States and Israel over the past 66 years. These ties, based on the common bond of democracy, economic vitality, and cultural affinity, remain as strong now under President Barack Obama as when President Harry Truman first recognized the Jewish State. From religious kinships to shared interests, and from military strengths to commercial relations, the friendship between the United States is unbreakable.

However, Israel continues to face serious regional threats, and these concerns are also shared by the United States. One of the largest threats to regional stability and Israel's security today is Iran. Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and support for terrorism pose a grave threat to both Israel and the global community at large. The statements of aggression made by Iran's leaders must be taken seriously, and the international community has a responsibility to act to prevent a nuclear Iran. I have supported numerous sanctions efforts in Congress to cripple Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons, and will continue to do so as long as Iran insists on pursuing its nuclear program.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have visited Israel 15 times as a Member of Congress, and to have called every Israeli Prime Minister from Yitzhak Rabin to Benjamin Netanyahu my friend. The United States must continue to support Israel's right to self-defense, increase its engagement in the region, and work towards finding a fair solution that enables both Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace, security, and prosperity. As Co-Chair of the Democratic Israel Working Group, I remain committed to working with my colleagues in Congress to further strengthen our special relationship with Israel.