Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, this is a shame. It is a shame that we find ourselves in this position all because Senate Democrats think they can hold the Federal Government hostage until they get their way on immigration issues. There is no way around it.

That is exactly what is happening here. A majority in the House and a majority in the Senate have voted to prevent this shutdown and keep the government open.

Point of Order

Mr. Speaker, where was I before my poster of Senator Schumer was ruled in order? Oh, yes, government shutdowns have devastating implications on so many different areas, especially when it comes to our Nation's military.

All Active-Duty military personnel will come to work, but they cannot be paid. Critical maintenance operations and training that are not directly related to ongoing military operations are forced to stop, all because of the Schumer shutdown.

Mr. Speaker, the government funding bill in question also includes 6 years of funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program, known as ALL Kids in Alabama, but Minority Leader Pelosi recently said that the efforts to fund the government and fund CHIP are like a bowl of doggy- doo. I can assure the minority leader that funding for ALL Kids in Alabama isn't doggy-doo to the over 150,000 children in my State who receive insurance through the program.

Mr. Speaker, I have a message to my colleagues in the Senate: Enough is enough.

Stop with these political stunts that put our military at risk. Stop with the reckless antics that create uncertainty for families across the country. Stop playing to the resistance base.

Stop with the games, and let's get our Federal Government back open for business.

Enough is enough.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage adoption of this rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my great frustration with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for their reckless behavior that is threatening the safety and security of the American people.

Let me explain. Some Members of the House and Senate are holding funding for the Federal Government, including funding for our Nation's military, hostage in an effort to advance their immigration agenda.

I understand that immigration is a very important issue. I have many priorities in the immigration debate myself, like increased border security. But I understand that there will come a time and a place to debate immigration issues. That time is not now, and that place is not on a bill dealing with funding our military and other essential functions of government.

Mr. Speaker, this is what the American people hate about Congress. Instead of simply doing one of our most basic jobs, funding the government, we are having an unrelated debate about an immigration issue.

Let's be clear about what is going on here. Congressional Democrats are using our military men and women as pawns in a political game. They think they can use funding for the military as leverage to get their way on a very complex immigration issue. I think that is not only wrong. I think it is irresponsible and it has very grave consequences.

I want to strongly reject the notion that this is a Republican problem. The House passed a bill back in September, over 4 months ago, to fund the military and the entire Federal Government. That bill has been stuck in the Senate, where 60 votes are necessary to pass the bill. There are only 51 Republican Senators, so that means it will be necessary to have bipartisan support to get any bill across the finish line. I vehemently reject this is an issue just facing congressional Republicans. Frankly, that is a lie.

So why am I so passionate about this issue? Because our Nation's military is facing a serious readiness crisis, and we as the Congress are making things worse. We have the smallest Army since before World War II, the smallest Navy since before World War I, and the smallest and oldest Air Force we have ever had.

General Daniel Allyn, vice chief of staff for the Army, put it best when he said the budgetary problems have ``left the Army outranged, outgunned, and outdated. As a result, the Army risks falling behind countries like Russia and China.''

There are similarly alarming quotes from the other services as well. Our military needs and demands funding certainty in order to make purchases and perform long-overdue maintenance.

Every time we pass a continuing resolution and kick the can down the road, that hurts our military. It hurts the very men and women we send into battle each day. It makes their job harder, and, frankly, it puts lives at risk.

We have seen fatal accidents aboard the USS Fitzgerald and USS McCain caused by insufficient time to train sailors and maintain ships. We have also seen fatal aviation accidents in the Marine Corps as their equipment ages and their training is limited.

The average age of Air Force aircraft is 27 years, and only 5 of 58 Army combat brigades are ``ready to fight tonight.''

Continuing resolutions also hurt our taxpayers. In fact, the Secretary of the Navy recently said that the lack of funding certainty has cost the Navy between $4 billion and $5 billion. It makes it costlier to buy military equipment, and that added cost is ultimately passed on to the taxpayer.

The threats we face today are so great. From China to Russia, to Iran, to North Korea, to terrorist groups around the globe, we haven't seen this serious a threat environment since World War II.

What makes this issue even more frustrating is that both the House and the Senate, in an overwhelmingly bipartisan manner, have passed a defense authorization bill showing our clear support for funding our military at $700 billion. The bill passed with 356 votes in the House and on a unanimous voice vote in the Senate, yet we find ourselves at a deadlock and our government on the verge of a shutdown because congressional Democrats want to advance their immigration agenda.

Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. I know my colleagues may not like our President; I know my colleagues may not agree with me on immigration; I know my colleagues have different priorities than I do; but for goodness' sake, can we not at least agree that we

should adequately fund our troops and the Nation's military? Can we not at least agree that we shouldn't be playing political games with our military men and women? We can save the political theater for another day.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1532, the Poarch Band of Creek Indians Land Reaffirmation Act, is a commonsense, bipartisan bill that will provide much-needed certainty to an Indian Tribe in my district.

The Poarch Creek Indians are a valued and trusted part of our community in southwest Alabama. Their economic impact in Escambia County, Alabama, speaks for itself. From their help with funding for community projects to their business enterprises that employ thousands of Alabamians, the Poarch help make life better for so many people in our area.

This legislation is necessary due to the legal uncertainty caused by the Supreme Court decision in Carcieri v. Salazar. This decision has unnecessarily created legal ambiguity about whether the Poarch Creek land is actually in trust or not.

To be clear: this legislation would not have any change over the way the Poarch Band or their land are currently being treated in Alabama. In fact, this legislation simply provides legal certainty to help prevent future challenges regarding the status of the Tribe's land.

I am pleased we were able to attract bipartisan support for the legislation, including a unanimous vote out of the Natural Resources Committee last year. I also want to extend my gratitude to Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and the committee staff for their commitment to Indian issues and their work on this legislation.

Ultimately, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this commonsense, straightforward legislation to give much-needed legal certainty to the Poarch Band of Creek Indians.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to my colleagues from the other side of the aisle talk about the 1 percent, the people at the top of America.

Let me tell you who benefits from the status quo of our Tax Code. It is the 1 percent. They can afford the lawyers, the accountants, and the lobbyists to get them all these special tax treatments that the rest of us don't get. If you want to do something about the 1 percent, fix the current Tax Code.

Instead, what our friends on the other side of the aisle keep doing is defending the present Tax Code, because if you don't pass this bill, we have the present Tax Code. We have the status quo, and the rest of us don't see the benefits from the present Tax Code. The rest of us need a break.

Now, I asked the chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, when he was before the Rules Committee the other night, three questions that I think are relevant to everybody in America.

The first thing I asked him was: Will the average individual taxpayer in my district get a tax cut? He said: Absolutely. And he pulled out a sheet of paper. He said: In fact, in your district, Congressman, the average family of four is going to get a tax break of over $2,100 a year.

I know in some places in America, $2,100 a year extra in people's pockets doesn't sound like a lot of money, but in south Alabama, an extra $2,100 in the pockets of hardworking parents who are trying to raise two kids, that is a lot of money. So that is a good thing that is coming out of this bill.

I asked him: Will it be easier for those individuals to fill out their tax returns? He said: Absolutely. By making the changes we made in here and taking out some of these special tax breaks, we made it easier for everybody to fill out their tax return.

Then I asked a third question. I just heard the gentlewoman from New York talk about how this benefits big corporations. I don't have big corporations in my district in south Alabama. I have got mainly small businesses. Let me tell you about one.

It is called Fast Time Convenience Store. Now, we call those in Alabama filling stations, because you go there and you put gas in your car. In the morning, you go get a cup of coffee, you get one of their breakfast biscuits, and you see a lot of people in there getting ready to go to work. You go in there at lunchtime. You have also got something called Fred's Kickin' Chicken. You go in there and get a good thing of fried chicken and a soft drink, and he has got some barbecue in a little trailer across the way. That is the sort of businesses I have got in my district.

I think those businesses are darn important. The owner of that business asked me the other day when I was in there: I don't care about the big boys.

Are you going to do something that helps me, that helps businesses like me?

So I asked the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee: Are we going to be helping those small businesses?

Absolutely. They are going to see historic tax cuts, particularly if they are one of these passthroughs; historic tax cuts. Yes, their tax returns will be simpler to fill out.

So when I think about it from the standpoint of south Alabama--and I daresay my district is not that much different from most every other district that is being represented here--I see a threefer. Individuals get a substantial tax cut, more money in their pocket. Individuals will have an easier time filling out their returns. These small businesses that are the backbone of America are getting a real break.

Now, I know that our friends on the other side of the aisle think that the government needs to be more involved in the lives of ordinary Americans. But in order for the government to do that, the government has to have money. The government doesn't produce anything and it doesn't provide a single service, so they don't sell anything.

So how does the government get money?

It takes money. A tax is a taking. It takes money from people in the private sector.

We on this side of the aisle don't think the government should be so involved in people's lives in America, and we don't think we should be taking so much money from them through taxes. So we have come up with this bill that gives sort of tax breaks to ordinary people and small businesses, and we believe that that benefits America in two ways:

Number one, giving people more control over their money is a good thing in and of itself.

Number two, we are absolutely convinced--and dozens and dozens of economists have told us--that this is a major shot in the arm for the American economy.

This is also a jobs bill because this is going to pump up the American economy and get our economy growing at a much faster rate. When we do that, we not only create more jobs, but we create a sort of lift in our economy when we start seeing real wage growth. What we have been missing out there is real wage growth.

Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 45 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, December 21, 2017, at 9 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding and his continued leadership.

We are on the cusp of something truly historic that will make life better for millions of people across the United States. By reforming the Tax Code, we will be able to put more money in people's pockets and create a fair and simpler tax system.

Under the current Tax Code, well-off individuals and big businesses can higher lobbyists and lawyers to help them find loopholes and special interest giveaways, all at the expense of working Americans.

With our plan, the Tax Code will be simplified, loopholes will be closed, and the playing field will be leveled.

I want to make one thing clear: if you are looking for a tax plan that benefits the elite, the well connected, and the 1 percent, then you need to look at the current Tax Code.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are going to great lengths to defend the current Tax Code that truly benefits the top 1 percent. For example, the Democratic leader has called the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ``the end of the world.'' So, apparently, giving the hardworking people in this country a tax cut is, to her, ``Armageddon.''

Let's stop with all the doomsday political rhetoric, cut to the chase, and say what this bill really does:

It cuts taxes on hardworking Americans and allows them to keep more money in their pockets;

It supports American families by increasing the child tax credit and doubling the standard deduction;

It grows the American economy by making the corporate Tax Code actually competitive with other industrialized countries;

It benefits Main Street businesses in Alabama and across the country with a new 20 percent tax deduction for passthrough income;

It will lead to greater economic growth, higher wages, and more jobs, which is exactly what the American people sent President Trump and the Republican Congress to Washington to do.

So let's save the political hyperbole for another day. Let's pass the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and let's give the American people a real Christmas present and put more money in their pockets.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate National Miners Day.

National Miners Day is recognized on December 6 each year, and I want to express my deep appreciation to the hundreds of thousands of men and women who work in our Nation's quarries, dredge operations, and other mine facilities to help build and power our Nation.

These workers do a great deal to extract the materials found in every home, building, road, bridge, and public works project.

U.S. domestic production and use of stone, sand, and gravel, or aggregates, amounted to 2.5 million tons of crushed stone, valued at $25 billion. The U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration has reported that, throughout its 40 facilities, almost 3,000 people in my home State of Alabama owe their jobs to aggregates mining.

While performing this critical function, workers in the aggregates sector have helped make workplaces the safest they have ever been. In fact, 2016 marked the 16th consecutive year in which the industry reduced its injury rate from the year-earlier level. The rate stood at the record low level of just 1.95 injuries per 200,000 hours worked.

I applaud the safe practices of the aggregates industry and the hardworking men and women who are helping to continue this positive trend.

As chairman of the House Workforce Protections Subcommittee, I look forward to continuing to work with the Labor Department's Mine Safety and Health Administration to advance smart regulation and preventive enforcement that can help keep the workplace safe.

Honoring the Life of Dr. Laurel Blackwell

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember the life of Dr. Laurel Blackwell. Laurel recently passed away after fighting cancer and other medical issues.

Laurel was raised at her childhood farm home in Monticello, Iowa. She obtained an associate's degree from Cottey College in Missouri and a bachelor's degree from the University of Northern Iowa. She later earned her doctorate in administration of higher education from the University of Alabama.

After an early career in K-12 education, she started working in Alabama's community college system. She rose from serving as a tutor to becoming the director of adult education at Wallace Community College in Dothan, Alabama, and the director of workforce development at Southern Union Community College in Opelika, Alabama. Ultimately, she would become the president of Chattahoochee Valley Community College in Phenix City, Alabama.

During my time as chancellor of Alabama's community college system, I grew to know Laurel as a very professional and dependable colleague. I appreciated her honest and direct approach to the issues we faced together.

During her career, she held numerous roles in professional and civic organizations. She was recognized with a Girl

Scout Woman of Achievement award and as the city of Dothan's first ever Community Leader of the Year.

Even though she retired from education, she never stopped working to make the world a better place. She launched Communities of Transformation, a program through the United Methodist Church focused on bringing together people from every segment of society to elevate families.

Suffice it to say, Laurel had a positive impact on so many lives throughout her time on this Earth. Whether it was helping a student at her community college reach their full potential or giving hope to a struggling family, so many people owe their success to Laurel Blackwell.

So, on behalf of Alabama's First Congressional District, I want to share my deepest condolences to Laurel's husband, Fred, and their four children. I hope they can all take comfort in knowing that Laurel will live on in the lives of the countless individuals she touched. She will be sorely missed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize twenty mining companies awarded the National Mining Association's (NMA) Sentinels of Safety award, the oldest occupational safety and health award in our nation. Presented annually, the award recognizes mines that have worked the most employee hours in a year without experiencing an injury.

In addition to the Sentinels award, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health recognized three mining companies that ``have made an extraordinary effort to apply technology or improve processes in innovative ways, above and beyond mandatory requirements, to improve mine worker safety and health.''

The Sentinels award was created in 1925 by a mining engineer, then- Secretary of Commerce and future President Herbert Hoover, who desired to ``stimulate greater interest in safety among the nation's mineral extractive industries and to encourage the development of more effective accident prevention programs by according national recognition to operations achieving outstanding safety records.''

The U.S. mining industry continues to make great strides in safety performance. Last year, 85 percent of the more than 11,000 mines in our country operated without a single injury. This year's Sentinels award winners are the top twenty operations among the 3,500 mines operating without a single injury.

The National Mining Association continues to be a leader in mine safety and health.

Our miners are indeed a precious national resource serving as the front-end of the supply chain for the energy, minerals and materials that are indispensable to our standard of living and prosperity. We should be thankful for what they provide our great country and proud of them for being both more productive and safer than ever before.

The following are the 2016 NMA Sentinels of Safety and NIOSH technology award winners: Freedom Mine--The Coteau Properties Co, Barrick Cortez--Barrick Cortez, Inc., South Arturo Mine--Barrick Goldstrike Mines, Inc., Barrick Cortez Underground--Barrick Cortez, Bull Mountains Mine No. 1--Signal Peak Energy, LLC, Briggs Plant-- Fordyce Holdings, Inc., Murphy Plant--Fordyce Holdings, Inc., Ceredo Dock--Kanawha River Terminals, LLC, Cargill Deicing Technology, Cleveland--Cargill, Inc., St. Genevieve Facility--Tower Rock Stone Co., Portage Aggregate & Supply LLC, Curtin Gap Quarry--Hanson Aggregates Pennsylvania LLC, Siderite Mine--Sidco Minerals Inc., Coon Cedar Grove Mine--Marfork Coal Co., LLC, Buick Mine/Mill--The Doe Run Co., Decker's Creek Limestone Co--Decker's Creek Limestone Co., Kinross Gold, Freeport-McMoRan, Peabody.

On behalf of Alabama's First Congressional and the entire House, I applaud this year's winners and look forward to continuing to advocate for the health and safety of our miners throughout my time in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, those of us in Washington are really good at talking in big general statements that don't mean much to the average American. I want to tell you what the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will actually do for the families I represent back in southwest Alabama.

According to data from the IRS, almost three-fourths of the tax filers in my district claimed the standard deduction instead of itemizing. Well, under our plan, the standard deduction will be doubled.

Just consider the medium family of four in southwest Alabama. That family earns a little over $77,000 a year. If that family takes the standard deduction, as most do, they will see a tax cut of $1,739 a year. That comes out to almost an extra $150 a month.

Now, that may not sound like real money in Washington, but for families in Bay Minette or Citronelle or Monroeville, that is important. That is extra money for a car payment. That is additional savings for a child's college. That is money to help pay for home repairs. That is real money.

When you add in the fact that we are fixing our corporate and business Tax Code to make it fairer and simpler, then we can truly make America boom again. President Trump has called it the ``middle class miracle.''

By making our Tax Code more competitive, we can unleash our full economic potential, bring jobs back to America, raise wages, and ultimately get more money in the pockets of working Americans. Mr. Speaker, this is exactly what President Trump promised and what the American people sent him and us to Washington to do.

Now, my colleagues on the other side like to say this bill helps the 1 percent, and they vehemently defend the current Tax Code.

You know who benefits from the current Tax Code? The 1 percent-- people who can hire lawyers and lobbyists to help them get a special tax break, people who can spend thousands of dollars a year on specialty accountants. If you want to help the 1 percent, then keep the current complicated and confusing Tax Code that only helps the elite and well connected. We can do better than that.

We can pass the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, we can put more money in people's pockets, and we can unlock America's full economic potential.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 616 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 616 provides for consideration of H.R. 2874, the 21st Century Flood Reform Act, and the conference report to accompany H.R. 2810, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018.

H.R. 2874, the 21st Century Flood Reform Act, reauthorizes the National Flood Insurance Program for 5 years, introduces great private market competition, and provides additional reforms to benefit policyholders and taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, the Office of Management and Budget has said that the National Flood Insurance Program, or NFIP, is not fiscally sustainable in its current form. The 21st Century Flood Reform Act helps transition it to a more sustainable program.

Importantly, the bill will help foster a robust product market for flood insurance, which allows private insurers to compete, in turn, driving down the price of policies while creating greater consumer choice. This is a win for policyholders and taxpayers alike.

Representing Alabama's Gulf Coast, it is important to me and my constituents that they have access to affordable flood insurance through the National Flood Insurance Program or a private insurer.

I appreciate the inclusion of provisions in the 21st Century Flood Reform Act to protect current policyholders while making the program sustainable.

I also appreciate Chairman Hensarling's willingness to work with Members whose constituents, such as mine, rely very heavily upon the NFIP to address concerns we raised about the initial version of the bill that passed out of committee.

All in all, this bill is a positive step toward reauthorizing our Nation's flood insurance program, which is currently set to expire on December 8. We must take action to ensure coastal homeowners and others in flood-prone areas have access to affordable insurance.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to get a long-term reauthorization across the finish line and signed into law by President Trump.

House Resolution 616 also allows for consideration of the final version of the National Defense Authorization Act that was conferenced between the House and the Senate, reconciling the differences between two different versions.

Mr. Speaker, before I go into the substance of the bill, I would like to take a minute to commend the open and regular order process that has taken place from start to finish.

As a member of both the Armed Services Committee and the Rules Committee, I have followed this bill throughout the legislative process and think we should all be proud of the regular order and the fact that a wide range of members played a role in crafting the final product.

I applaud Chairman Thornberry, Ranking Member Smith, and the entire Armed Services Committee staff for their dedication to an open process. I also appreciate the countless hours they have poured into this conference report.

Just as a quick reminder, we considered 275 amendments during the House Armed Services Committee back in June, and another 210 amendments when the NDAA was considered by the full House in July. In total, 485 amendments have been considered in the House, and, just as important, there was a clear bipartisan split between the number of majority and minority amendments.

The conference committee continued this bipartisan and collaborative process under the leadership of four chairmen and ranking members. Once again, this year's NDAA is truly a bipartisan and bicameral bill that provides the best for our military and national security.

Mr. Speaker, this NDAA follows through on our promise to our servicemen and -women and our constitutional duty to provide for the common defense of the United States of America.

The FY18 NDAA conference report authorizes a 10 percent increase in total military spending, reminiscent of the Reagan era defense buildup. The bill authorizes $626 billion for base budget requirements, $66 billion for overseas contingency operations, and $8 billion for other defense activities.

That adds up for a total national defense top line of $700 billion.

I am incredibly proud to support a top-line number high enough to begin reversing the readiness crisis that has endangered the lives of our servicemembers and made it harder to defend our country.

Over the past 8 years, and under sequestration, our military has suffered. We have planes that can't fly, ships that can't sail, and soldiers who can't deploy, all while the number of threats around the world keep rising.

I want to acknowledge that this top-line number is significantly higher than the Budget Control Act cap for defense. I look forward to continued dialogue with the Appropriations Committee to raise this cap that has crippled necessary defense spending in recent years.

Every day we operate under a continuing resolution or the BCA caps is another day we are failing our men and women in uniform. The FY18 NDAA fulfills the authorization side of the equation, and I am hopeful the appropriations side will follow.

The FY18 NDAA increases the size of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Army Guard and Reserve, Naval and Air Reserve, and Air Guard to repair and restore readiness.

The bill also authorizes construction of 13 new Navy ships, including three littoral combat ships, as we work to grow toward a 355-ship fleet.

In a well-deserved benefit for our troops, the NDAA provides for a 2.4 percent pay increase for servicemembers, which is the amount our troops are entitled to under current law.

Another small but important provision in this bill eliminates the so- called widow's tax, which requires surviving spouses of servicemembers killed in action to forfeit the survivor benefit pension annuity. The financial burden of this tax is something our military families should not bear.

The bill also continues to advance Chairman Thornberry's priority of reforming and strengthening the military's acquisition process to make it more effective and efficient.

Importantly, the legislation takes into account the Trump administration's $6 billion budget amendment to authorize more funding for missile defense threats against North Korea, Navy ship repairs, and more troops in Afghanistan.

Our men and women in uniform all over the world are on a mission to protect and defend the freedoms we hold dear. The way I see it, our mission in Congress is to give these brave men and women the resources they need to succeed. The FY18 NDAA does exactly that and is another step in a multiyear process of restoring our military strength to further protect our national security. Ultimately, this bill is about keeping the American people safe and secure.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 616 and both of the underlying bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), the sponsor of H.R. 2874.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).

Mr. Speaker, I just would point out to the gentleman that the Democrats have highlighted the number of amendments not made in order during the first session of the 115th Congress; however, in the 111th Congress, their majority blocked nearly 3,000 amendments, with roughly 2,400 of those occurring in the first session. So, far be it from the case that Republicans have blocked an inordinate number of amendments. We blocked far less amendments than our Democratic colleagues did when they were in control of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney), who is my fellow colleague on the Rules Committee and the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from Wyoming an additional 30 seconds

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross), a very happy Auburn Tigers fan.

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

Mr. Speaker, I represent a coastal area of Alabama, and flood insurance is extremely important to many of my constituents. It is very important to me to fulfill my job on their behalf to make sure that we have a Flood Insurance Program that is there for many years to come. But we know that it is actuarially insolvent. So we have to make changes in the program.

As the gentleman from Oregon said, change is hard and reforms are hard.

But the gentleman from Florida and, before him, the gentleman from Wisconsin, the sponsor of the bill, made very good points. The reforms we are making in this bill for the Flood Insurance Program will allow it to be successful for years to come and also protect the taxpayers of America. I think we have a responsibility to do that.

The other bill under this rule, the conference report on the National Defense Authorization Act, represents a very important inflection point.

We are now moving to repair the damage we have done to our military these last several years. This is a 10 percent increase for our military so that we can help them rebuild their readiness and the equipment they need to defend us with this ever-increasing matrix of threats, not the least of which is North Korea. We put even more money in this authorization to defend against a missile attack from North Korea.

We are at the beginning of something historic here with this bill, and that is rebuilding the United States military, much like it was done 30-plus years ago when President Reagan was in office.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support House Resolution 616 and the underlying bills.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember the life and contributions of Judge Robert Lee Byrd, Jr.

Judge Byrd was born in Birmingham in 1932. He received his bachelor's degree from Vanderbilt University in 1954, before attending the University of Alabama School of Law.

He was in private practice in Mobile for over 20 years and was later appointed circuit judge in Mobile County. Judge Byrd was a dedicated member of the Mobile community. During my time as an attorney in Mobile, I had the privilege of practicing in his court where he conducted himself with immense dignity and professionalism. Judge Byrd recently passed away, but his impact will live on.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Alabama's First Congressional District, I want to share my deepest sympathies with his wife, Mary, and his three daughters. Judge Byrd will never be forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 607 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 607 provides for consideration of H.R. 3043, the Hydropower Policy Modernization Act of 2017, and H.R. 3441, the Save Local Business Act.

H.R. 3043 would modernize Federal regulatory permitting processes for the licensing of hydropower projects. Specifically, the bill would designate the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, as the lead agency for these projects.

I am a proud supporter of an all-of-the-above energy strategy that allows for not only American energy independence, but for American energy dominance.

Hydropower should be a part of that strategy. In the Pacific Northwest especially, hydropower is a clean and reliable energy source that is particularly abundant. There is remarkable potential for the hydropower industry in this region and around the United States.

In 2015, hydropower accounted for approximately 6 percent of total U.S. electricity generation and 46 percent of electricity generation from renewable sources. However, less than 3 percent of dams in the U.S. produce electricity. That shows just how great the potential is here.

Through this legislation, we can help ease regulatory burdens and streamline the permitting process by naming FERC as the lead agency for coordinating all Federal authorizations. This will result in balanced and more timely decisionmaking and reduce the current duplicative oversight regime.

So how does this benefit the average American?

Well, having a reliable power source is essential to the world today.

Even more, this legislation also has the potential to lower energy costs and create good-paying jobs. By doing so, we can help Americans put away and keep more of their hard-earned money.

Currently, the hydropower industry employs a workforce of approximately 143,000 people, and that number would certainly rise under this legislation as we unlock our full potential.

Now, some of my colleagues have expressed concerns that this legislation could hurt the environment, so I want to address that.

First, hydropower is an entirely clean source of renewable energy. Increasing hydropower production actually helps protect the environment and promote better public health.

Second, the legislation makes clear that these permitting reforms should have no effect on this Clean Water Act, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Rivers and Harbors Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act. Those laws and their protections will remain in place.

This is simply about promoting a reliable power source, lowering energy costs, creating jobs, and unlocking the full potential of an all-of-the-above energy strategy.

Mr. Speaker, I will also note that this rule will provide for consideration of four amendments to H.R. 3043, including one minority and one bipartisan amendment.

The other bill covered by the rule is H.R. 3441, the Save Local Business Act. As the sponsor of this legislation, I am thrilled to see this body taking action to protect millions of jobs and provide clarity to America's workers.

Jesus said that no man can serve two masters, and there is real wisdom behind what He said as there is wisdom behind everything He said. His teachings are important every day, but that basic principle seems particularly important in the context of this legislation.

For decades, there was a commonsense legal test that determined when two or more separate businesses could be considered joint employers and held jointly responsible for the same group of employees. Employers had to share direct and immediate control over essential terms and conditions of employment. As a former labor and employment attorney who practiced in this area for decades, I can assure you this was the standard that everyone knew and appreciated.

Well, in 2015, the activist National Labor Relations Board issued a ruling

in Browning-Ferris Industries that upended this cornerstone of Federal labor law and created a vague and totally unworkable new joint employer policy.

Making matters even worse and more complicated, Federal agencies then incorporated the new standard in their regulatory agenda. Under this new standard, two independent businesses could be considered joint employers if they make a business agreement that ``indirectly'' or ``potentially'' impacts their employees. Under some of these standards, you can actually be reserved power.

Just think about the uncertainty and ambiguity this standard could cause. It is hard enough for people to even agree on what exactly those terms mean. Imagine how confusing it is for Main Street businesses to understand and follow that.

This is not some abstract issue. In fact, I have been hearing and talking with job creators and workers in my district about this for years. I have sat around the restaurant tables and heard real stories and concerns.

Bob Omainsky, the owner of Wintzell's Oyster House in my home district, had this to say about the confusion caused by the new joint- employer standard: ``If we hire an outside landscaping company to keep our lawns lush, I could be considered a joint employer if I show the landscapers where to mow. Or, if I contract a food supplier for certain ingredients, I could become part of a lawsuit if one of their workers complains about overtime pay. The uncertainty is nothing more than governmental overreach that is crippling eateries like Wintzell's and discouraging growth throughout the restaurant industry.''

This story and example is not unique to my district. These stories exist all over the country from Seattle, Washington, to Miami, Florida; and we heard a whole bunch of them in the hearings that we held in committee. This is why this bill has earned support from both sides of the aisle. This is not a partisan issue, but instead this is about protecting jobs and providing clarity to workers.

Workers shouldn't have to wonder who their employer is. They deserve better than a vague and confusing rule that the American Action Forum found threatens 1.7 million jobs. Even the Progressive Policy Institute issued a statement saying the expanded standard ``may do more harm than good.''

I also want to make one thing perfectly clear: this legislation does not remove a single worker protection. All worker protections provided by the National Labor Relations Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Equal Pay Act remain unchanged and are still available.

I also want to dispel the myth that this legislation is some departure from the norm. In fact, this legislation simply restores the agreed-upon legal standard that existed for decades.

The reality is that the new standard has created so much confusion and ambiguity that no one really knows what the law is. There are at least nine different legal tests nationwide to determine joint employer status under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and there are more to come.

This patchwork of standards creates regulatory uncertainty, especially for job creators doing businesses in multiple States. Ultimately, this legislation is about providing clarity to workers and job creators. It is about protecting the rights of workers and ensuring employers have clarity on their responsibilities to their employees, and it is about preserving the small businesses that are the backbone of our local communities.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 607 and the underlying bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely proud of the work that the Rules Committee has done this year and of the leadership in this Congress and how we have handled legislation.

Unlike our Democratic colleagues who would shut the doors and refuse to accept late amendments from Members, the chairman of our committee has made it a point to ensure every single Member has the opportunity to submit their amendments and come to the committee to share their thoughts and concerns.

Under this model of transparency and openness, the committee has spent countless hours listening and considering Member testimony. In fact, we have welcomed over 330 Members to testify, this Congress alone, before the Rules Committee. We have made in order 864 amendments, including 403 from Democrats, 341 from Republicans, and 120 bipartisan amendments.

Unfortunately, our friends across the aisle have become more interested in derailing legislation than actually improving legislation. For example, Democrats politicized an open appropriations process by offering poison pill amendments meant to kill legislation they had no intention of supporting, regardless of the outcome.

These tactics have fundamentally changed the way we do business. Instead of offering thoughtful ideas intended to shape a measure, their dilatory tactics are for one purpose and one purpose only: to score political points.

The Rules Committee will not let these political games get in the way of fulfilling the promises we made to the American people who elected this majority. That is why the chairman of our committee has made it a priority to listen to all Members. I would ask all of you who come to the Rules Committee to watch our committee listening to all Members.

We are also committed to moving the majority's progrowth agenda forward. As a result of our efforts, we have had a record of success in this House. To date, we have passed almost 400 bills out of the House.

This further underscores that the House is here to work, we are here to serve, and we are here to get results. But the proof is in the facts. John Adams said: ``Facts are stubborn things.''

As of November 7 of this year, in just the first session of this Congress, we have provided for the consideration of 864 amendments on the House floor. Under Speaker Pelosi, during the entirety of the 111th Congress, both sessions, she had only made in order 778. You tell me who has an open House and who had a closed House.

There is no shame on this side at all. There is great pride in the work we are doing for the American people, and we are not going to let anyone get in the way of our making sure that we fulfill the promises we made.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, when I was giving the statistics earlier, I left one very important one out. I can't believe I forgot this.

Of the almost 400 bills we passed in this House this year, 80 percent of them have been bipartisan. So this record production of bills we have had in the House this year has benefited both sides of the aisle as we have

worked together to come up with commonsense policies for the American people.

I am very proud of that work and that progress we have made in this House. The gentleman from Minnesota acted as if this bill, the Save Local Business Act, is something to benefit big companies, but let me tell you who I, and virtually all of us who are supporting this bill, have heard from: small businesses in our districts that are begging us to pass this bill.

I have had dozens of meetings in my own district. I know of hundreds of meetings that have been held across the country between Members of this House on both sides of the aisle and small businesses in their districts that say: Please pass this bill.

This isn't for the big businesses in America. This is for the small, Main Street businesses in our communities and for the people who work there.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman), one of the newest Members of the House who has already made a distinguished mark here.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased and very proud of the bipartisanship that we have had in this House this year to pass all these bills. Let me note just two very substantive bills, one last week and one today.

Last week, we passed a bill that got rid of this IPAB group that is going to take money, is proposed to take money out of Medicare. It was cosponsored by 45 Democrats, and dozens and dozens of Democrats voted for it on the floor last week. Today, this Save Local Business Act is bipartisan in its sponsorship and, I predict, on the vote of the floor today.

Now, how important is that? Let me read to you just a few of the organizations that support this bill: the American Hotel and Lodging Association, the Asian American Hotel Owners Association, Associated Builders and Contractors, Associated General Contractors, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, the Coalition to Save Local Businesses, The Latino Coalition, National Association of Home Builders, National Association of Manufacturers, National Council of Chain Restaurants, National Retail Federation, U.S. Travel Association, the Capital Research Center, Generation Opportunity, Heritage Action for America, Hispanic Leadership Fund, the Independent Women's Institute for Liberty, the James Madison Institute, the National Taxpayers Union, the Tea Party Nation, Food Marketing Institute, National Franchisee Association, National Apartment Association, Retail Industry Leaders Association, and the Workplace Fairness Institute, and I could have dozens and dozens more.

The truth of the matter is, these are very important bills that we bring before this floor, and most of them are bipartisan. The ones we have today are bipartisan bills.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to you that this House has a lot to be proud of, of the great work we have done this year, and I am most proud of the fact that, in most of those cases, we have been working together.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, when we adopt this rule later on this afternoon, when we adopt my bill, let me tell you who is going to be happy. Tens and tens of thousands of small businesses and hundreds of thousands of their employees across America, that is who is going to be happy.

And you know what, we are not here to make ourselves happy. We are here to make the people who sent us here and expect us to do their business, we are here to make them happy, and we are going to make them happy today, as we have done over and over again this year, by passing legislation that works for them, not for us.

So there may be some unhappiness in the room because we haven't made every little amendment in order for this floor, but we have made the amendments that matter to the American people, and, more importantly, we passed legislation that matters to the American people, and I am very proud of that, and the American people, indeed, are happy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, this has been a very open process. At the beginning, you recognized me for an hour and I gave, as is customary, half of my time to the other side so that they could present their side.

In our committee, the Rules Committee, we let anyone who wants to come--any Member who wants to come and basically say whatever they want to say for as long as they want to say it. We don't really have any rules in the Rules Committee because we want to have it so open, we want to give everybody such an opportunity, that we let everybody come and say whatever they want. Then we take it all into account and we make some amendments in order and some not.

Because we have done our job so well this year, we have had so many bills in the House--and the House has passed them all--that this House is just about a record-breaking House in terms of what we are passing. Yes, our friends over in the Senate haven't passed a lot of them. I don't think the American people like that. I think the American people want the Senate to get to work like the House has been at work.

This is important work, and we are here to do it and not play games. The bills that are under this rule are very important bills.

I have heard a lot about climate change. The gentleman may suggest that people on our side of the aisle don't understand science. I am not a scientist, but I do understand climate change. I do understand from the people who are worried about it, and a lot of people are legitimately worried about it. The only thing you can do about that is to have alternative sources of energy.

Hydroenergy is one of those sources. You don't release any carbon molecules in the air when you generate electricity using water. So one of the bills addresses that.

The other bill--my bill--the Save the Local Business Act, is a very important bill, a bipartisan bill. There are bipartisan sponsors on this bill. As I said earlier, there are tens of thousands of businesses around America and hundreds of thousands of employees of those businesses that are aching for us to pass this bill.

So far from being small things that don't matter--by the way, saying nice things about teachers isn't a small thing. I think it is a big thing. These are important pieces of legislation, and I am proud of the work that this House has done to make sure that we consider them and pass them.

Mr. Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 607 and the underlying bills.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership on this issue and for her continued leadership of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, today is a big day. Today is an opportunity for this House to stand up for our Nation's workers and to protect the small local businesses, which form the backbone of the American economy. Today is about restoring decades-old labor law. Ultimately, today is about giving clarity to workers and job creators all across our country.

I have heard from our friends across the aisle that somehow someone can be an employee without there being an employer. I call that the immaculately conceived employee. There is no such thing under the law, nor has there ever been.

This bill does not change the definition of employer. It simply takes the definition of joint employer back to the way it was a few years ago.

It is a shame that we are even having to have this bill. But the activist National Labor Relations Board in 2015 issued a decision that fundamentally upended labor law as we knew it. This change didn't come through the democratically elected Congress, but, instead, from a panel of unelected bureaucrats.

The NLRB's decision and the resulting regulatory agenda have caused deep uncertainty among job creators. For workers, they are left to wonder who their boss really is. That is an incredibly confusing situation to be in.

Under the new joint employer standard, what does it mean to have ``indirect'' or ``potential'' control over an employee?

I have practiced labor and employment law for decades and I do not know what that means, so I can only imagine the confusion Main Street businesses are facing due to this standard.

Currently, there are at least nine different legal tests nationwide to determine joint employer status under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and more to come. This patchwork of standards creates regulatory uncertainty, especially for job creators doing businesses in multiple States.

So, despite what some on the other side want to believe, this is not an abstract issue. I have visited numerous local businesses in my district, and they are very worried about this scheme. I have heard from workers who want to remain an employee of a locally owned business with an owner who knows them, instead of becoming just another employee in some large corporation.

Clearly, I am not the only one who heard these concerns. This legislation is cosponsored by 123 of my colleagues, including Members from both sides of the aisle. This is a bipartisan issue because it isn't about politics. Instead, it is about saving jobs and supporting locally owned businesses.

Let me make something crystal clear: this bill does not remove a single protection for today's workforce. Despite the scare tactics being used by big labor bosses and their trial lawyer friends, the same important protections exist under this legislation, and any irresponsible employer can be held accountable.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to take the side of our locally owned businesses, to take the side of our small business job creators, and to take the side of American workers.

Let's end the confusion and let's pass the Save Local Business Act.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding, and I rise to extend my support for this rule and the underlying legislation.

This legislation funds critical, bipartisan health programs that help keep our communities healthy.

Mr. Speaker, I have long been a strong supporter of CHIP because I have seen it in action back in my home State of Alabama. I served on the Alabama State School Board back when Alabama implemented our CHIP program, known as ALL Kids. ALL Kids was the first CHIP program in the country, and it has made a real difference. In fact, the uninsurance rate for children in Alabama has gone from 20 percent pre-CHIP to 2.4 percent today.

For 83,000 Alabama children under 19, the program offers low-cost, comprehensive healthcare coverage that includes regular checkups, immunizations, sick child doctor visits, prescriptions, vision care, dental care, and much more.

CHIP has always been a bipartisan program, and I hope this reauthorization will earn bipartisan support for the children of America.

This legislation also reauthorizes the community health centers fund. I am a huge champion of community health centers because, again, I have seen them work in Alabama from the Mostellar Medical Center in Bayou La Batre to Franklin Primary Health in Mobile to Southwest Alabama Health Services in McIntosh. These centers are vitally important to so many Americans, but especially to low-income families and those in rural areas.

One in 13 people nationwide rely on a health center for their healthcare needs, and this reauthorization is necessary to ensure those individuals continue to receive access to medical care.

This legislation also includes many other healthcare provisions to meet other priorities. Among these provisions, I am pleased the legislation continues Medicaid disproportionate share hospital payments, or DSH payments, as they are commonly known.

DSH provides funding to hospitals that treat a large number of indigent patients. DSH is absolutely critical to the life of Alabama's hospitals, and failure to renew these important payments could result in numerous hospital closures in our State.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to get behind this legislation and ensure it gets across the finish line. We should not let petty political arguments keep us from ensuring that children have access to affordable health insurance, keeping the doors open at community health centers, or allowing Alabama's hospitals to continue serving communities in need.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Margaret ``Peggi'' Hanrahan for her years of service to the people of Alabama and the United States.

On October 27, 2017, Peggi will retire from her current position as Confidential Assistant to Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Prior to this role, Peggi served as Executive Assistant to Mr. Sessions during his twenty-year career in the United States Senate. Peggi oversaw all administrative and front office staff and was essentially involved in every function of the office.

Peggi has a very unique background, including a period of time working in the oil and gas industry, time as co-owner of a professional party planning company, and work in a law office. These experiences helped shape her future role in public service.

I have had the honor of working with Peggi in a professional capacity, and I also came to know her personally through my family and our work together with a children's home in Mobile, Alabama. Peggi was the Firm Administrator at Miller, Hamilton, Snider & Odom, and I worked closely with her in my role as managing partner of the firm. Throughout our time together, I always found Peggi to be competent, capable, friendly, dedicated, and knowledgeable.

After being elected to the United States Senate in 1996, Mr. Jeff Sessions hired Peggi to serve on his staff. There is no way to quantify the numerous tasks Peggi has completed, the various roles she has held, or the number of individuals she assisted during her time on Capitol Hill. Whether it was arranging a tour of the United States Capitol or giving career advice to an intern or drafting personal correspondence to an Alabama family, Peggi's impact has been profoundly felt over the last twenty years.

Mr. Speaker, as a sign of Peggi's impressive skillset and track record, Mr. Sessions asked Peggi to continue serving with him once he was confirmed to serve as our nation's 84th Attorney General.

Mr. Sessions had this to say about Peggi and her years of service: ``Peggi has been at the center of everything we have accomplished in public service. She loves America and its ideals, is smart, decisive, loyal, and a total professional. She speaks up for the high principles she believes in, and for two decades has been the key point of contact in our office for thousands of Alabamians and Americans all over the country. She has provided invaluable service to me, the nation, and the so many who she trained and mentored. Though we will miss her marvelous contributions, we wish her all the best as she and Kevin embark on this next adventure.''

So, on behalf of Alabama's First Congressional District and a grateful nation, I want to wish Peggi and her husband, Kevin, all the best upon her retirement. Alabama and our nation are better off today thanks to the service, dedication, and leadership of Peggi Hanrahan.