Floor Statements

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this omnibus appropriations bill. I think it demonstrates that even though we have a divided government, when we get together, we can sit down, we can set priorities, we can reduce spending and we can meet our constitutional responsibility of funding the Federal Government.

As chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee, I am proud of the work that--along with my ranking member, Mr. Serrano, and the other members of the subcommittee--we have accomplished. We produced a bill that in the end is a lean funding. We provide critical moneys for those high-performance agencies, and we rein in spending on some of the programs that aren't quite as efficient or are downright wasteful.

I think we all remember the IRS scandal where the IRS was singling out individuals and groups of individuals based on their political philosophy, harassing and bullying them. They were wasting money on lavish conferences and videos. Well, we said to the IRS, we are going to reduce your funding until you demonstrate to us that you can spend money in a wise and efficient way. And we said, no more can you spend money to harass individuals or groups of individuals based on their political philosophy. But we do carve out money to provide taxpayer services to provide for moneys to pursue people that cheat on their taxes.

We adequately fund the Federal judiciary, we adequately fund--fully fund--the Small Business Administration loan program. We help small businesses, and we help entrepreneurs because we recognize that about 75 percent of all the new jobs in our country are created by these small businesses.

Finally, we fund regulators like the SEC and the FCC at a lean, mean level. We ask them to do more with less. We ask them to provide adequate regulation and smart regulation, not job-killing and excessive regulation.

At the end of the day, there has been a lot of hard work and a lot of negotiation but, most of all, a great deal of cooperation. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank the Honorable Ambassador of Nepal, Shankar Sharma, on behalf of the Congressional Nepal Caucus for his dedicated service both to his country and to the United States over the past four years.

No doubt due in part to his tireless and committed work for Nepal, the past four years have brought many positive changes to the country and its relations with the United States. Not only has the Congressional Nepal Caucus been established, which will continue to educate Members of Congress on Capitol Hill about Nepal and the benefits of a strong relationship between our two countries, but the Peace Corps has resumed in Nepal after an 8 year hiatus due to a now- resolved conflict. In addition, the Millennium Challenge Corporation has declared Nepal ``threshold program eligible,'' strengthening the dialogue between the two countries and preparing Nepal for a future MCC Compact. And in April of 2011, a Trade and Investment Framework Agreement was signed, which established a framework for trade and resolved outstanding disputes between our nations. Each of these triumphs strengthens our relationship and will continue to help Nepal in their path to development and democracy.

The Congressional Nepal Caucus would also like to acknowledge Ambassador Sharma on his many years of service to Nepal. As Deputy Chairman at the National Planning Commission in Nepal, Chief Advisor in Ministry of Finance, Alternate Governor of Nepal for the International Monetary Fund, and Senior Economist in Institute of South East Asian Studies, Ambassador Sharma has steered Nepal in a viable direction.

I am grateful for the leadership and dedication of Ambassador Sharma; and I thank him for his contribution to strengthen our relationship between Nepal and the United States. He will be missed in Washington, and the Caucus wishes him best of luck in his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to honor the congressional career of my chief of staff, John Ariale. I first met John Ariale 13 years ago, right after I was first elected to Congress; and after that first meeting when I saw his keen intellect, I saw his wry sense of humor, his love of Excel spreadsheets, his laser-like focus on policy, and his zany Italian zeal, I knew that was a combination that I needed to lead my legislative office.

They say that the decision to have someone be your chief of staff is one of the most important decisions you will ever make as a Member of Congress because the chief of staff not only represents your political views, but also represents your personal values. If there is one decision that I have made that I think would be unanimously agreed upon by my constituents as well as my colleagues, it would be the choice to have John be my chief of staff.

John has assembled an outstanding team of individuals. He has led that team of individuals through thick and thin. We have fought and won some very important legislative battles, one of which is a proposal of landmark legislation to forever change for the good the way our Nation deals with individuals with disabilities. It is called the ABLE Act. We haven't crossed the finish line yet, but I am sure we will; and when we do, it will be in large part because of the moral clarity and hard work and dedication of John Ariale.

Winston Churchill once said:

We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what

we give.

Mr. Speaker, John Ariale has given me, he has given this institution, he has given all of the individuals who have had a chance to work with him his heart and his soul. He has given his expertise, his wisdom, and his patience. There is little we can do to repay him for all that other than express to him our extreme gratitude and to wish him well on his next opportunities, his next challenge.

And so I would say to John Ariale, as he leaves as chief of my staff, thank you for a job well done.

God bless and Godspeed.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, let me just simply say, as chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government, my subcommittee has oversight over the SEC and is charged with funding the SEC; and their budget has increased about 200 percent over the last 10 years. That is more than most agencies. That is a lot of money, and a lot of that is caused by all of the rules and regulations that they are asked to pass over and over again. Dodd-Frank is part of that problem.

I think this bill seeks to alleviate that problem by saying, look, we can protect investors. We can have orderly and fair capital markets; but we don't need to go overboard on regulation. Certainly derivatives are complicated financial instruments. They need regulation. But that is what this bill provides. And I would say that the great overwhelming majority are not responsible for the financial crisis.

If we pass this legislation, we can help save those people that use these instruments. We can also help the SEC not have to draft so many unnecessary rules and regulations, and that will save taxpayers as well.

Mr. Speaker, as the Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government, my Subcommittee directly oversees the Securities and Exchange Commission's budget. And since 2001 the SEC's budget has increased by over 200 percent . . . this is a larger increase than almost any other agency in our government.

As the agency tasked with protecting investors and ensuring fair and orderly capital markets, you would think they would carefully coordinate with all agencies involved to ensure much needed certainty and to provide clear guidance to a trillion dollar industry. However, this again is not the case and we are here today to ensure that the SEC and the Department of Labor coordinate and work in a systematic manner to avoid investor confusion, regulatory conflict, and decrease costs for retail investors.

This is why I rise today to put my support for H.R. 2374, the ``Retail Investor Protection Act.''--common sense legislation, requiring the

SEC complete a rulemaking on standards of care governing broker dealers and investment advisers before the Department of Labor finalizes their rule redefining the definition of a person providing investment advice under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Plain and simple, ensuring collaboration between the two agencies that are trying to reach the same goal.

In addition H.R. 2374 requires that before the SEC writes one new rules on expanding fiduciary standards, they need to identify whether investors are being harmed under current standards of care. We all need to remember what's at stake here. American families invest trillions of dollars in IRAs and through mutual funds, stocks, and bonds. The Retail Investor Protection Act will ensure that federal regulators will not lose focus on the impact these rules could have on retail investors and must consider all other options first, before moving forward with broad new regulatory mandates.

The lack of regulatory coordination between these two financial regulators does not provide a cohesive landscape for investors and will be difficult for service providers to follow. These rules affect the lives of many and have profound and far reaching effects on our economy. The SEC itself has acknowledged that the costs of this action could ``ultimately be passed on to retail investors in the form of higher fees or lost access to services and products.

We in Congress have an obligation to amend or fix provisions whose costs outweigh purported benefits. Therefore, as we move forward with the fiscal year 2014 budget in my Appropriations Subcommittee I plan to address with Chairwoman White whether a more thorough economic analysis of these rules are needed to ensure the SEC does not harm families who are investing to build up their retirement or to save for college--the very investors the SEC is supposed to protect. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 2374.

Madam Speaker, before I introduce and call on a couple of my colleagues, I would like to say a brief word about my longtime friend and mentor, C.W. Bill Young. I first met Bill when he was in the Florida Senate. He was the Republican leader in the Florida Senate. He was the minority leader. I think my colleagues might be interested to know that he was the Republican leader, minority leader, not because he gathered all the votes of the other minority members, the Republicans; he was the Republican leader because he was the only Republican in the Florida Senate.

You might say maybe that diminishes that leadership role, and I would say just the reverse is true because Bill Young was such a great leader, such a man of courage and conviction that he would stand up for whatever he believed, even if there was no one there

to stand up with. I think it is because of that conviction, because of that commitment, that we are here tonight to honor his legacy.

I found it interesting that about 25 years later I found myself in the Florida Senate, and I became the first Republican to be elected president of that body, and I got a note from Bill Young. He said, ``We've come a long way.''

Of course when I came to Congress, he was there to help me become a member of the Armed Services Committee because he knew that I cared about the military. He was there to help me become a member of the Appropriations Committee and the Defense Subcommittee which he loved so very much. He taught me and he taught all of us that everyone has value. Everyone has worth, whether it is a private first class or four star general, and he lived and died by the belief that if we are to be the land of the free, it is because we take care of our brave.

So that is the way he lived his life, and we will hear tributes tonight--we heard tributes last Thursday in Largo at his funeral, but I believe that the lasting legacy that Bill Young leaves will be seen for generations to come in the greatness of our military, and in the compassion that we have for those who serve and those who are wounded.

So, Madam Speaker, I simply want to say tonight that America lost a great leader, and I lost a great friend.

Godspeed, Bill Young.

Now I would like to yield to one of my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee, the chairman of the State, Foreign Operations Subcommittee and a member of the Defense Subcommittee which Bill Young chaired, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger).

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter), another member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee.

I now yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), another member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee that Bill Young chaired.

Thank you.

I now yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), another member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent), another member of the Appropriations Committee.

I now yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Posey), one of Mr. Young's colleagues.

Thank you.

Now I yield time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent), another colleague and a member of the Rules Committee.

Thank you, Mr. Nugent.

Our hour is just about over. We could go on for hours, but I think you have all heard tonight that Bill Young was a man that loved his Lord, he loved his wife, he loved his family, he loved his country. You might say it just seems like they don't make them like that any more, but the truth is that they never did.

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

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 373, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 89) making appropriations for the salaries and related expenses of certain Federal employees during a lapse in funding authority for fiscal year 2014, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 89, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

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

Ladies and gentlemen of the House, the legislation that I bring before the House today is very simple. It's very straightforward. It's very clear, very understandable, and, quite frankly, I think it should be noncontroversial; because what this bill does is simply say that the Federal employees who have been working during this shutdown are going to be paid, and they are going to be paid on time.

Now, a lot of people during this shutdown have been coming to work every day. They've worked for countless hours for the citizens of our Nation, and they deserve to be paid. As I said, it's very simple. If you work, you get paid.

For instance, the Capitol Police, they're on the job. They're working every day. You might remember last week, they rushed into harm's way in the line of duty. Now, those Federal employees deserve to take home a paycheck because they're on the job.

There are other Federal workers that are working every day during this shutdown. Some of them are working to make sure that our safety and well-being is in place. Some are working to make sure that the critical needs of our citizens are met. Some are working to make sure that businesses aren't unduly harmed during this shutdown, and some are working to make sure that the Federal Government extends a helping hand to those people that are the most vulnerable and are truly in need.

So what this bill does is simply say, as long as this shutdown is going on, until it ends, the people that come to work every day deserve to be paid. They deserve to be paid on time. Remember, the people who come to work every day, they're just like everybody else. They've got bills to pay. They've got mortgage payments they've got to make. They've got to pay their rent. They've got to make car payments. They've got to pay their utility bills. They've got mouths to feed back home. There is no reason that they should be punished because the Democrats and the Republicans and the White House can't agree how to move forward on funding the Federal Government.

Now, it's the goal of this Congress, as always, to make sure that Federal employees are paid and they're paid on time, and we usually do that by passing appropriations bills, and we do that. We fund the programs, and the salaries are paid on a continuing basis. We usually do that by the end of the fiscal year. It didn't happen this year, and I hope we don't find ourselves in this position ever again. But right now, it's time to come together. This is a logical, commonsense step to take--to make sure the people that go to work every day get paid on time.

We came together on Saturday, this weekend, on a unanimous vote, and said that those Federal employees who have been furloughed would be paid on a retroactive basis. It's my hope that we can come together today on a unanimous vote and say the people that go to work are going to get paid on time.

So I urge my colleagues to adopt this resolution; and with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the distinguished chairman of the full Appropriations Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), an outstanding member of the Appropriations Committee.

I yield the gentleman another minute.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time both sides have remaining?

At this time, Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).

Mr. Speaker, I don't have any further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think anybody in this Chamber wanted to see the government shut down. Nobody wanted to see it down.

As has been pointed out, we passed a continuing resolution, funded the government, sent it to the United States Senate, and they said ``no.'' So we sent another resolution that kept the government open. The Senate said ``no.'' A third time we sent a resolution to the United States Senate to keep the government open. The Senate said ``no.''

Then we said, Why don't we just sit down and talk? Why don't we have a conference committee--one of those committees that we have all the time in this body when the House and the Senate disagree. We call it a conference committee. We appoint a group from the House. They appoint a group from the Senate. We work out the differences. That's the way you resolve conflict. That's the way you move ahead.

So the House appointed eight conferees. We went to a meeting, ready to meet with the Senate. They didn't show up. So we decided they don't really want to have any negotiations about how we continue to fund the Federal Government.

Then we said, If they won't pass a continuing resolution to fund the entire Federal Government, maybe we should just take certain parts of the Federal Government and see if the United States Senate or our friends on the other side would vote in favor of doing that. Of course, everyone has voted to say we ought to keep the government running as it relates to the military--both the defense and civilian employees. So our friends on the other side decided that was a good idea, and they voted for that.

Then we said, Since the District of Columbia is being penalized by our inaction, why don't we pass a bill that says we'll appropriate the money--it's their own money--and let them spend it the way they want to spend it. We had that on a suspension vote, and our friends on the other side didn't want to do that, so they voted ``no.''

Then we had a bill on Saturday that talked about folks that are on furlough, and our friends on the other side said, That's a good idea. We ought to pay them retroactively.

So they've been picking and choosing, picking and choosing, and some of these bills passed. In fact, if you add up all the bills we've passed, there have been 10 bills now that keep the government running in different ways shapes, and forms--that's almost one-third of all the discretionary spending--and we passed all that.

Where are those bills? They're sitting down in the Senate, waiting for the Senate to do something.

So we find ourselves in a situation that we didn't want to be in. We're all frustrated--people are angry--but we'll keep going. We're going to try to get the government running again. We're going to try to keep things open.

But for goodness sake, this bill before us today simply says the folks that are coming to work are doing the things that are important to our Federal Government, and they ought to get paid. If you work, you get paid, and you get paid on time. I think everybody agrees with that.

So let's not penalize them. A lot of people are being penalized because of our inaction, but let's not penalize the people who come to work every day to meet the critical needs of our country. Let's make sure that they get paid. Sooner or later, Mr. Speaker, we'll open this government back up. We've tried to do almost a third of it now. Still, people say no. We'll move ahead.

With that, I simply urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation to make sure that the people who are working get paid on time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 370, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 71) making continuing appropriations of local funds of the District of Columbia for fiscal year 2014, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members

may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 71, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the House, I bring before the House today a continuing resolution that's very limited in scope. It simply allows the District of Columbia to spend their locally raised revenues. That's all it does.

I brought this same resolution before the House yesterday, under the suspension of the rules. The vote was 265-163, a majority, but not the two-thirds majority required by the suspension of the rules. So the bill that is back before us today will require a majority for passage.

Quite frankly, I don't understand why so many of our friends on the other side of the aisle voted ``no'' yesterday, because all it does is allow the District of Columbia to spend their own money. But, be that as it may, that's what happened.

Eleanor Holmes Norton, who represents the District of Columbia, made a very eloquent, very impassioned plea as to why we should pass this continuing resolution. But apparently that didn't convince enough of her Democratic colleagues for it to reach the two-thirds majority. So here we are today.

I think most of the Members recognize that the District of Columbia is unique. It's a unique city among all the cities in our great country. It's called a Federal city. And because of that unique relationship, Congress must appropriate the locally raised funds before they can be spent.

We do that every year, on a routine basis, as part of the Financial Services appropriations bill. We've done that from time to time, and things always seem to work out. But this time, we're back with the same resolution that we had yesterday.

The way it works is simply this: the District of Columbia has passed the 2014 budget. The mayor makes his proposal, the city council receives the proposal, it considers the budget, and this year it has approved the budget. There's an independent chief financial officer that has certified the budget. It's balanced. And there we are.

So now we're faced with a situation, unless Congress appropriates the money, they're not able to spend the money.

I don't think that, after they passed their budget, that just because the United States Congress is arguing back and forth between the House and the Senate as to how we should fund the government, I don't think that should stop the District of Columbia, this unique city, from spending the money that they've raised locally.

For instance, you have people that work for the District of Columbia, like any other city. You have schoolteachers that go to work every day, and they teach kids. You've got policemen that get up every day, that work night shifts, day shifts, to make sure that the streets in the District of Columbia are safe.

You've got firemen that go to work every day. They're there on call in case there's an emergency. Other first responders, they're working every day.

People keep the streets clean. They pick up the garbage. People go to work as librarians, and they do the work to make sure that people have access to reading material.

Now, there's no reason in the world why these people should be furloughed or not paid simply because Congress can't get its act together as to how to fund the Federal Government. That doesn't make any sense.

And if you live in the District of Columbia, you shouldn't have your quality of life degraded because of what goes on in Congress. You ought to have the police and fire protection. You have all the services that other cities have. You ought to have those.

Despite the fact that we tried to get together, the House and the Senate, to figure out a way to keep our government running, to keep it open, we haven't been able to do that. And so we shouldn't penalize the people in the District of Columbia for that.

So this simple resolution takes care of that. It authorizes, it appropriates the money, under the law, that needs to be spent on the local level by the locally raised funds. That's what it does.

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

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

I just find it ironic that the other side always likes to complain that Republicans meddle too much in the affairs of the District of Columbia. And yet yesterday, so many of them voted not to even let the District of Columbia access their own local funds.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I still don't understand why it's so hard for my friends on the other side to vote in favor of allowing the District of Columbia to spend their own locally raised funds.

Back in 1996, as they may recall, there was a shutdown of the government; and there was a standalone provision, pretty much just like this, and it was signed into law by the President of the United States. It was Bill Clinton, a Democrat.

I just don't understand why it's so hard for Democrats to accept that today.

With that, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California, Darrell Issa, the distinguished chairman of the Government Oversight and Reform Committee.

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to how much time is remaining on each side.

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

Mr. Speaker, can I inquire of the gentleman from New York how many speakers he has remaining?

We don't have any additional speakers, so I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

There has been a lot of talk about political games. To watch people parade up and down and make speeches under the guise of a unanimous consent, I am not sure how serious that is. I am not sure how much that complies with the rules of the House. But be that as it may.

You have folks on the other side that say they really believe the District of Columbia ought to be able to spend its own money, but yet they vote ``no'' on the authorization to do that.

We are in the second day of a shutdown in the Federal Government. A lot of people are upset. I am upset, I am disappointed, because it doesn't have to be this way.

On three separate occasions, this House sent to the Senate a continuing resolution that would have kept the government open, kept the government running--three times. Yet three times the Democratic- controlled Senate said no--not once, not twice, but three times.

Then this House sent to the Senate a continuing resolution that also said: let's appoint a conference committee. That is a group of individuals from the House and a group of individuals from the Senate. They would sit down and they would try to resolve these differences to try to keep the government open. Because how are you going to solve a problem unless you sit down--that is what we call a conference committee--and then you try to move forward? But the Senate once again said no.

Now, we all know that we have conference committees from time to time. The gentleman from New York and I--he is the ranking member of the Financial Services Subcommittee of Appropriations. We have jurisdiction over lots of different agencies--the IRS, the Department of Treasury, the Federal Court system, the Supreme Court, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Communications Commission.

We drafted a spending bill this year. I assumed the Senate was working on their own spending bill somewhere, somehow, some way. Usually, when it all ends up there is a conference committee and you try to work out your differences.

For instance, we oversee the IRS. Members might remember the scandal that took place. As we were appropriating money to the IRS, we found out that they had been singling out individuals and groups of individuals based on their political philosophy and they had intimidated them, they bullied them, and it held them up. We thought that was wrong. So when we drafted our appropriations bill we didn't give the IRS all the money they asked for.

But the Senate might have done something different. If that was the case, then we would come together and have a conference committee, and we would talk about that.

That is all we are saying here. Why don't we sit down and have a conference committee about how we are going to fund the Federal Government? That is the way to get started, that is the way to figure out a final way, that is a way to stop this shutdown.

Again, we don't have to be here. It is disappointing. I wish we could move ahead. But at least--at least--let's pass this continuing resolution. Let's say to the District of Columbia we have met our legal responsibility and we have appropriated their own local funds so they can move on with their lives. Let's don't punish the citizens of the District of Columbia, let's don't punish the people that work in the District of Columbia to try to keep the city open, keep it running, keep it safe, keep it clean. Let's pass this resolution and move ahead.

With that, I urge the adoption of this joint resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 71) making continuing appropriations of local funds of the District of Columbia for fiscal year 2014.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on House Joint Resolution 71, District of Columbia Continuing Appropriations Resolution, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, I bring to the floor today a continuing resolution which is narrow in scope and allows the District of Columbia to spend their own funds.

As some of the Members may be aware, some may not be aware, due to the city's unique status as a Federal city, Congress must appropriate their locally raised funds before the city can spend them.

And despite the multiple attempts by the House of Representatives to fund the Federal Government, we're here in day one of a government shutdown. This continuing resolution provides that the District of Columbia, it gives them their funds through December 15, under the same terms and conditions that they have under the spending bill in 2013.

So passing this bill today will allow the Appropriations Committee time to negotiate a full year's funding bill with the Senate.

Now, the District of Columbia has passed their own fiscal year 2014 budget. The Mayor presented a budget to the city council. The city council debated that. The city council approved, and the city's independent chief financial officer certified the budget as balanced.

So, therefore, the District's locally raised funds should not be withheld from them during this current Federal shutdown. This disagreement that the Republicans and the Democrats are having over Federal spending shouldn't stop the District from using its own locally raised funds like any other city in America.

The District is currently using reserve balances to stay open. However, we can't expect the District of Columbia to deplete all of its cash reserves to make up for the Federal Government's inability to pass a Federal budget.

We've got school teachers out there, we've got policemen, we've got firemen, we've got garbage collectors, we've got librarians, we've got all these city employees, and they're paid with D.C. local funds, and they should expect to be paid for their services. The citizens of the District of Columbia, they shouldn't suffer because Congress and the administration can't agree on a budget.

So this continuing resolution fulfills our responsibility under the law to appropriate the District of Columbia their local funds.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'm just surprised to hear my friend say it's okay that the citizens of the District of Columbia suffer just because Congress can't figure out how to fund the government.

With that, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

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

I just want to remind folks that we could have avoided this shutdown if the Senate had passed the first resolution we passed them. That would have avoided a shutdown. If they had passed the second continuing resolution, that would have avoided a shutdown. If they had passed the third continuing resolution we passed to them, that would have avoided the shutdown. If they would agree to sit down and talk, we might even find a way to end this shutdown.

But I just hope everybody remembers that for Republicans, the last thing we want to do is be shut down. We go it. We would like to sit down and talk. But the arrogance of the United States Senate says we can't even talk.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), the distinguished chairman of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

This is a bill that talks about the most unique city in our country, the District of Columbia. It is a Federal city. It is unlike any other city in the USA. Because of that uniqueness, we have to appropriate the local funds that are going to be used.

The gentlewoman from the District has made an impassioned plea--a very clear and reasoned plea--as to why we need to pass this legislation. There are school teachers, there are police officers, there are folks that are picking up the garbage, there are people that work in the libraries, and they are working and they need to be paid for their services.

We shouldn't penalize the people of the District of Columbia because we can't come to some conclusion on our spending bills. We don't have to be here, Mr. Speaker. We have had ample opportunity.

As you know, this House has sent continuing resolutions to the Senate not once, not twice, but three times. Each time the answer was ``no.'' Now we simply ask for a conversation, for a reasoned discussion, about how we can end this shutdown. Once again, the answer is ``no.''

It is disappointing, Mr. Speaker. In fact, I am sure we are all a little bit angry, but we're here. The least we can do is pass this resolution. It fulfills our responsibility under the law. It appropriates to the District of Columbia the funds that they have raised locally. It is the right thing to do, and I urge the adoption.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Thank you for yielding the time, Chairman Rogers, and thank you for your leadership in this very difficult appropriations process.

Madam Speaker, I think everybody agrees that the appropriations process is one of the most important functions of this Congress, if not the most important. While we would all like to be here having finished all the appropriations bills, there just wasn't quite enough time.

So all we're asking today is for the Members to adopt this continuing resolution. It will continue funding the government for the next 3 months at the same level it was funded last year. That will give us the time, as a body, to finish all the appropriations bills--some have passed the subcommittee and the full committee; some have passed this House.

I know that the subcommittee that I chair, Financial Services, we had a number of hearings. Members worked hard to try to set priorities. It passed the subcommittee, it passed the full committee, and is ready to go before the House.

There are some very important things in that bill. I think we've all heard the stories about the IRS and how they singled out individuals and groups based on their political philosophy and then subjected them to intimidation and bullying. We were all outraged. So in our bill, we make a provision to say: We're going to hold you accountable, and we're going to use the power of the purse and ask you to come clean. No more of this. We actually condition some of the funding to the IRS as to whether or not they will put in place the safeguards that have been recommended to make sure they don't continue this kind of outrageous behavior, and also make sure it doesn't happen again.

So I think that we should pass this continuing resolution, fund the government for this short period of time, and put in place the spending bills that set priorities and that make the tough choices that we have to make in these difficult times.

So I urge all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this continuing resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the valiant efforts of Hospital Corpsman Third Class Robert R. Ingram of the United States Navy.

Petty Officer Ingram was awarded the Medal of Honor for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty in Republic of North Vietnam on 28 March 1966.

Petty Officer Ingram accompanied a point platoon as it engaged an outpost of a North Vietnamese battalion. As the fighting moved from a ridge to a rice paddy, the tree line exploded with a hail of bullets from 100 North Vietnamese regulars.

In mere moments, the platoon ranks were decimated. Oblivious to the dangers, Petty Officer Ingram crawled across the bullet-spattered terrain to reach a downed Marine.

Ingram was injured, but he proceeded to collect ammunition from the dead and offered aid to the wounded.

From 4 pm until just prior to sunset, Petty Officer Ingram pushed, pulled, cajoled, and doctored his Marines. Despite pain and the probability of his own death, Petty Officer Ingram's actions, initiative and dedication to duty saved many lives.

In 2001, I was honored to be able to dedicate the Medical clinic at our local Navy base in honor of his courage and unwavering devotion to duty.

In Jacksonville, he continues his work as a nurse and is considered a local hero. I am proud to recognize the bravery and heroism of Petty Officer Ingram.

honoring master sergeant ronald e. rosser

Mr. Speaker, as the Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government, my Subcommittee directly oversees the Internal Revenue Service's budget. And for the past 6 months now I have witnessed an arrogant and absolute abuse of power. Targeting groups based on their names and political beliefs is both chilling and outrageous regardless of their political affiliation. And then

finding out of the flagrant waste of taxpayer dollars on conferences and videos, is just downright disheartening.

Two weeks ago my Subcommittee Marked-up our Fiscal Year 2014 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill in the full Appropriations Committee. In my mark, I include this exact language of H.R. 2769, the ``Stop Playing on Citizen's Cash Act''-- common sense legislation prohibiting conferences until the IRS implement all of the recommendations from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration.

As the agency tasked with processing over 237 million tax returns that result in the collection of $2.5 trillion in taxes and $373 billion in refunds annually you would think they would have safeguards in place that treats all Americans equal and the hard-earned taxpayer dollars they send to Washington spent wisely, effectively and legally. This however, is not the case.

Congress appropriates more than $10 billion in hard-earned taxpayer dollars each year for IRS operations. Before we spend one more dime on the IRS, we need to know how it spends the money it already receives. And, we need to know what safeguards the IRS plans to have in place to make sure the funds are used in a legal and appropriate way.

These conferences and videos were a flagrant waste of taxpayer dollars. And, what is most disconcerting, the money came in part from unused funds from the IRS enforcement budget--at a time when they were asking for even more funding.

Nonetheless, we need to fund this agency so that it can accurately answer questions from individuals and businesses about tax issues, produce tax forms and instructions that promote compliance, process tax returns in a timely manner, and investigate criminals committing tax fraud.

However, we cannot in good conscience provide taxpayer dollars that are used to abuse the rights of American citizens, nor can we provide dollars that are wasted in such a flagrant manner as we have discovered.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlemen from Illinois for bringing forward this common sense legislation to the floor; a step in the right direction of accountability for an agency that receives such a large appropriation of taxpayer dollars.

But I also hope we can bring forward the Fiscal Year 2014 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill to the floor for consideration. It is time to have a serious debate on ways to increase transparency and bring accountability to many agencies that have had a history of wasteful spending.

Just last year we heard of the GSA scandal at their Las Vegas conference. This year we included instructions to make the GSA more transparent by requiring additional reporting, separating administrative funds from programmatic funds, and encouraging the better utilization of their space inventory.

In addition, we make regulators such as the FCC and FTC do more with less. And in order to increase the transparency and accountability of agencies created by Dodd-Frank, the bill makes the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau subject to the appropriations process.

I strongly encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 2769 on the floor today. A voluntary tax system depends on a fair and impartial collection process because, as Chief Justice Marshall said, the power to tax is the power to destroy.

Mr. Chairman, I think most Members of this body know that every year for the past 12 years there has been a golf match between the House Republicans and the House Democrats. It has become known as The First Tee Challenge, because the money that is raised from this event goes to help The First Tee, as they reach nearly hundreds of thousands of young people across this country using the game of golf to talk about honesty, integrity, hard work, and discipline. It is patterned after the Ryder Cup.

This year's competition took place last Monday. After the matches were over, the score was tied--10 points for the Republicans and 10 points for the Democrats. That is the ultimate in bipartisanship.

But the rules of The First Tee Challenge Cup provide, just like the Ryder Cup, that the team that is in possession of the coveted Roll Call Cup, which I have right here in my hand, the team that is in possession of the cup must be defeated for the cup to change hands. So, therefore, the fact that the match was a tie this year, the coveted Roll Call Cup will stay in possession of the Republican team for 1 more year.

I just want to thank all the members of the team for their hard work, their dedication, their fine play, and congratulate The First Tee for all the work that they do. And a special word of thanks to the sponsors, who have raised over $2 million over these years to help support The First Tee.

I would like to yield to my Democratic counterpart, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).

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

Amendment Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

Madam Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 2397, the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, for Fiscal Year 2014 and to recognize the important role played by management companies in the successful operation of the Department of Defense's Defense Personal Property Program, or DP3.

I would like to thank Chairman Young and Ranking Member Visclosky for including report language I submitted to the Subcommittee on Defense regarding the DP3 program. I am proud to note that one of the management companies that helps make this program successful is located in my congressional district.

Both the Chairman and the Ranking Member have long standing commitments to improving the quality of life of military members and their families. Our members of the military are required to make countless moves during their military service. Providing high-quality moves that provide satisfaction to the service member and his/her family is important to morale, well-being and retention.

The Department of Defense also understands the tremendous challenges associated with completing the countless number of defense personal property moves. Because of dissatisfaction and nightmares associated with previous military personal property movement programs, the Department of Defense adopted the Defense Personal Property Program with the goal of achieving efficient, satisfactory, and seamless military moves.

My purpose in speaking today is to note the significant contributions that management companies are making to DP3 by assisting transportation service providers to reduce costs and improve the quality of each military move. While improving these critical moves, DP3 has improved the quality of life enabling higher levels of personnel readiness.

Madam Chair, again, I offer my thanks to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Defense for their inclusion of this important language on the DP3 and for allowing me the opportunity to comment on the important role that management companies play in the success of this program.

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

Mr. Chairman, I remind my colleagues that we have already cut the defense budget pretty drastically, and nuclear weapons exist in today's world. I might not like it, you might not like it, we might wish they didn't exist, but they do exist.

Because nuclear weapons exist in this world, we need to have the ability to defend against them and also deter their use. That is important to our national security.

We do that through what we call the nuclear triad. We have the capability to launch nuclear missiles from silos that are based on land, we have the ability to launch nuclear-capable missiles from airplanes, we also have the ability to launch nuclear-capable missiles from submarines that are somewhere in these vast oceans.

Of those three of the triad, the nuclear submarine, or the submarine with nuclear capability, is the most survivable because you can blow up a silo, you can shoot down an airplane, but it is almost impossible to find a submarine somewhere in the ocean that has this nuclear capability. Because it is the most survivable, then it is the best deterrent, because we know what it can do and our enemies know what it can do.

Right now, we are planning to replace what is called the Ohio-class submarines to continue this capability. This is a capability that has kept us safe for the last 60 years. It is still important to our long- term national security. If we adopt this amendment, we will begin to cripple this capability, and that is bad for our national security.

I would urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Kilmer).

I yield back the balance of my time.