Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise as a cosponsor of H.R. 938, the U.S.-Israel Strategic Partnership Act. I want to thank Representatives Ros-Lehtinen and Deutch for their work on this important and broadly bipartisan bill.

H.R. 938 will help strengthen the strategic partnership the U.S. shares with Israel in addition to helping Israel better meet the new security challenges it faces in the region. By enhancing cooperation between the U.S. and

Israel in such areas as intelligence, trade and energy, H.R. 938 continues our commitment to helping Israel maintain its qualitative military edge while creating opportunities for U.S. companies and educational institutions to benefit from the deepening academic and commercial ties that will arise as a result of the bill.

H.R. 938 also addresses homeland security priorities shared by our two countries by encouraging our cooperation against cyber threats and by advocating for the participation of Israel in the Visa Waiver Program--when it has fully met the requirements of membership. Permitting Israel to join the Visa Waiver Program should help reduce paperwork and make travel easier for citizens of both our countries. Membership in the program carries with it the obligation of full reciprocity. To that end, as the process moves forward, the State Department must work with Israel to ensure that all Americans are treated fairly in the program without any discrimination based on ethnicity, religion or race.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4118, the 50th vote to undermine the Affordable Care Act.

First, let me say, I'm concerned that many Marylanders, including my constituents, are struggling to sign up for health insurance through the state-based Marketplace due to technical issues. With open enrollment coming to a close at the end of the month, I urge the Administration, state governments, and insurance carriers to come together to assist applicants in getting eligibility determinations and enrolling in coverage as soon as possible. I appreciated the guidance provided by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) last week that would allow consumers the possibility of qualifying retroactive health insurance, tax credits and cost-sharing assistance. It's critical that CMS clarify that those individuals who take retroactive coverage will be protected from any undue penalties for the months prior to the effective date of retroactive coverage.

The bill on the floor today is not about helping Marylanders or any other Americans, but rather about dismantling the Affordable Care Act and putting health insurance further out of reach for them. I want to be clear: the requirement that individuals take responsibility for ensuring they have adequate health insurance coverage was an idea espoused by the Heritage Foundation in the late 1980s. It was carefully crafted and includes exemptions for individuals facing hardships and those who can't afford insurance. Delaying the provision for everyone for a year, according to the Congressional Budget Office, would increase the number of uninsured by one million this year and two million in 2015, and lead to higher premiums. It's obvious that delaying the provision will undermine the protections and reforms that have taken effect and will introduce more instability into market.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the House leadership to put an end to these Affordable Care Act repeal votes. We want to work with you to identify parts of the law that can be improved and develop serious solutions. Unfortunately, today's bill is not one of them. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3826, which would short-circuit an ongoing process to engage stakeholders and develop reasonable, effective controls on carbon pollution from power plants.

This pollution poses a serious threat to public health. According to the American Public Health Association, about half of the U.S. population lives in areas where air pollution is linked to illness, including asthma, heart attacks, lung cancer, and stroke. Moreover, an overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that carbon pollution is linked to climate change, causing sea-level rise and more extreme weather events across the globe. That is why the Supreme Court has confirmed that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority under the Clean Air Act to address carbon pollution and safeguard our health and natural resources.

Power plants are the largest source of carbon pollution in the United States, but their carbon emissions are completely unregulated. Currently, the Environmental Protection Agency is engaged with stakeholders to develop a rule for emissions for new power plants, and they plan to address existing power plants as well. These rules would use available technologies for carbon capture and sequestration.

Today's legislation would halt that process. It leaves pollution controls on new power plants to the discretion of the plants themselves, which are unlikely to take action unless an industry-wide standard is in place. And it effectively repeals the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to limit carbon pollution from existing power plants.

By preventing any limitation on the largest source of carbon pollution in the United States, this bill recklessly endangers public health and the environment. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, as the ranking member of the House Budget Committee and someone who supported the original Biggert-Waters flood insurance reauthorization, I am keenly aware of the need for reform in this area. The federal flood insurance program is $24 billion in debt, and its below-market rates encourage development in environmentally sensitive and flood prone areas.

Having said that, it has also become abundantly clear that the transition to market-based rates under the original Biggert-Waters bill has been unduly onerous for many homeowners, and the pace of that transition is in need of adjustment.

Today's bipartisan compromise attempts to provide that adjustment in the form of greater predictability around rate increases for covered properties, paid for with a surcharge on all policyholders. While there were certainly other ways to address this issue, and I could have supported more reform than appears in this particular bill, I will vote for tonight's compromise in order to move this program forward.

Mr. Speaker, I am writing to recognize Nellie Longsworth of Maryland. As Founding President of Preservation Action, Ms. Longsworth was at the forefront of America's preservation movement, working tirelessly to protect historic places from destruction.

In 1974, historic preservationists came together to create Preservation Action in order to preserve our historic assets and make historic preservation a national priority. From the historic rehabilitation tax credit to historic preservation funding, Ms. Longsworth and Preservation Action built and deployed a grassroots constituency empowered with information and training to advance these worthy goals.

Mr. Speaker, Nellie Longsworth's career is the embodiment of the purposes underlying the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, which read in part:

The spirit and direction of the Nation are founded upon and

reflected in its historic heritage;

The historical and cultural foundations of the Nation

should be preserved as a living part of our community life

and development in order to give a sense of orientation to

the American people;

The preservation of this irreplaceable heritage is in the

public interest so that its vital legacy of cultural,

educational, aesthetic, inspirational, economic, and energy

benefits will be maintained and enriched for future

generations of Americans.

All Americans who care about our nation's cultural resources are indebted to, and inspired by, Nellie Longsworth. As we observe

National Historic Preservation Advocacy Week, preservationists from across the nation will honor Nellie Longsworth for her extraordinary legacy.

I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Nellie Longsworth as a Pioneer in Preservation.

Mr. Chair, H.R. 3193 is a clear attempt to undermine the independence and effectiveness of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. As such, I oppose passage of this legislation.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was created by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Bill in response to widespread market abuses that helped precipitate the financial crisis and is the first ever independent watchdog charged with the sole task of protecting the financial lives of America's families. Since its inception, the CFPB has handled nearly 270,000 consumer complaints and secured more than $3 billion in relief for almost 10 million consumers through enforcement actions against bad actors who were violating the law. It has established important oversight for industries ranging from payday lenders to debt collectors to credit reporting agencies. And it has generally received high marks from industry leaders and consumer advocates alike for the openness and evenhandedness of its operations. Not surprisingly, the Senate confirmed the CFPB's first director Richard Cordray by a bipartisan vote of 66-34 in the summer of last year.

Rather than building on this track record of success, H.R. 3193 would weaken the CFPB by bureaucratizing its structure, placing additional constraints on its operations, slashing its funding and subjecting that funding to the political pressures of the annual appropriations process. If the majority really believed the annual appropriations process was necessary to ensure the proper oversight of our federal banking regulators, this legislation would be recommending similar treatment for the Federal Reserve, or the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. It doesn't--which tells you all you need to know about the consistency of the conviction underlying this bill.

In my judgment, the CFPB is succeeding at its job of protecting consumers in a fair and transparent marketplace. Accordingly, I urge a no vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague. I have listened all afternoon as my Republican colleagues have held forth about the importance of the First Amendment. No one is debating that. That is not what this bill is about, despite your best efforts to suggest it is.

What this bill is about is letting organizations spend millions of dollars of secret money, secret money, to try to buy elections to serve their special interests. That is what this bill is about.

Now, our Republican colleagues have talked repeatedly about the Treasury

inspector general's report. I don't know if they have read the report, but one of the recommendations was for the IRS to revise its regulations and guidelines to clarify this particular area.

I would have hoped that all of us would want the IRS out of the business of determining whether or not a 501(c)(4) is primarily involved in political activity or primarily involved in social welfare activity.

I don't want them under the nose of every organization trying to figure it out, and that is why the IRS is trying to reform this area of the law.

So why isn't that what our Republican colleagues want?

Because this isn't about allowing those groups to exercise free speech. It is allowing those organizations to be used to channel secret money without disclosing those expenditures to the voters. That is what this is all about, because you can spend as much money as you want on political advocacy and campaigns. All you have to do is organize as a 527, which is another organization under the Tax Code which, by the way, is also tax exempt.

So why isn't that good enough?

You can say as much as you want, spend millions of dollars. I will tell you why. Because under 527's, people are spending all that money to influence elections, they have to disclose. They have to tell voters who they are spending millions of dollars to try and influence those votes.

That is not good enough for our Republican colleagues. They want to preserve this messy situation because it allows all that secret money to flow into these campaigns.

We believe voters have a right to know who is trying to spend millions of dollars to influence these votes, and by the way, eight of the nine Justices on the Supreme Court in Citizens United, a case which I had lots of problems with lots of parts of it, but eight of the nine Justices agree with us that transparency is important.

Here is what Justice Kennedy said. These transparency laws ``impose no ceiling on campaign-related activities'' and ``do not prevent anyone from speaking,'' but they have ``a governmental interest in providing the electorate with information about the sources of election-related spending.''

Eight out of nine Supreme Court Justices agree with what every poll shows, that the American people overwhelmingly want transparency in our elections. Because why? Transparency brings accountability.

I think every American has an interest in knowing who is spending millions of dollars to try and get them elected to Congress, to serve particular special interests.

So, Mr. Speaker, for goodness sakes, this isn't about the First Amendment. Everyone is in favor of the First Amendment. This is about allowing secret money in campaigns, and we should not allow that. It is against the public interest.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am opposed.

Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee.

If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended, and as the motion indicated, it addresses secret money in elections. I am trying to make sure we end that secret money. It also deals with the issue of extending unemployment insurance, which my colleague from Michigan (Mr. Levin) will discuss in a minute.

But I want to focus on this issue of secret money because this resolution, what we are asking our Republican colleagues to join us on, is to vote on a very simple statement: to say that nothing in this act shall limit, restrict, or prohibit the Secretary of the Treasury from issuing regulations requiring the disclosure of secret political donors.

Our Republican colleagues all afternoon have said this is about the First Amendment. This is about protecting the right of people to express their views.

That is not what their bill is about. Everyone is in favor of people being able to express their views. As I indicated earlier, you can form what is known as a 527 organization; and whether you are an individual or an organization in that form, you can spend millions of dollars to try to influence the outcome of elections.

What we are saying is the voters have a right to know who is bankrolling these campaign efforts. What we have seen over the last couple of years is a huge increase, an explosion of money being spent by outside groups to try to influence the outcome of elections to try to elect Members of Congress to support whatever interests those groups may support.

This motion, what we are proposing, would still allow all this money to be spent. But--and here is the key--most of that money is now flowing through 501(c)(4) organizations because some groups have been abusing those organizations to allow them to use them as secret conduits, conduits to allow them to secretly fund campaigns.

All we are saying is let's not take away the right and ability of the Treasury Department to adopt regulations to make sure we don't allow that secret money because I thought most of us agreed in transparency, and I thought most of us agreed in accountability.

And I know that eight of the nine Supreme Court Justices, even in a controversial case, support transparency and disclosure. They say that is good for democracy. And you know what? Every poll shows that the American people overwhelmingly agree. So let's vote for disclosure and vote for this motion.

With that, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3964, a bill that undermines long-standing local, state, and Federal agreements on the California water supply and creates a dangerous precedent for similar Congressional overreach in other states.

As the Governor of California said, this bill ``falsely suggests the promise of water relief when that is simply not possible given the scarcity of water supplies.'' Instead, it picks winners and losers, prioritizing some interests above others and disrupting years of collaboration to balance water needs.

The President has directed his Administration to work with California and local jurisdictions to provide information, flexibility in federal law, and emergency grant assistance to respond to the drought. Congress should not act unilaterally to preempt the efforts the State has already undertaken to respond to this disaster.

Mr. Chairman, our nation's public lands have always required balanced management for a variety of uses for the American people. And while I am pleased to see a public lands bill on the Floor of this House that acknowledges uses beyond oil and gas drilling, I regret that it once again fails to meet the balance necessary to responsibly manage our lands for generations to come.

I don't think there is any disagreement in the House over the importance of outdoor recreation on public lands. More than 75 percent of federal lands are open to hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting. However, in order to ensure that these areas are available for the future, all uses must be balanced with conservation. And today's bill would override critical environmental protections while depriving hunters and fisherman from offering input on land use decisions.

The bill also replaces the only federal advisory committee with a voice for the hunting community with a new council, removing representation from hunting outreach and education groups and sportsmen and sportswomen at-large in favor of representatives from the firearms, ranching, and agriculture industries. Finally, it would allow for guns at certain Army Corps facilities, without exemption for public safety or national security concerns.

I have joined with Mr. Holt and members of the House Sustainable Energy and Environment Caucus to offer an amendment to this bill to clarify that the Secretary of Interior has the authority to plan for a changing climate, which poses a real threat to outdoor recreation through sea level rise, drought, and wildfire. It will also lead to changes in hunting seasons, migratory patterns, and invasive species populations. While we should be taking action here in Congress to address climate change and its impacts on recreational hunting and fishing, this amendment ensures that we don't limit the Secretary's ability to plan for these developments. I urge my colleagues to support it.

While there are parts of this bill that would get unanimous support from the House, it contains deeply flawed provisions that jeopardize the condition of public lands. I urge my colleagues to reject it and work on a consensus bill that guarantees recreational opportunities for generations of American sportsmen and women.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute the career of a distinguished servant of Congress in the field of foreign affairs, defense and trade. Later this month, Edward Bruner, Ph.D., will retire from the Congressional Research Service after 23 years of outstanding service to the legislative branch.

Dr. Bruner joined CRS in 1991 after a 27-year career in the United States Army that was highlighted by service in Vietnam, teaching Geography at the United States Military Academy at West Point, and command of an armor battalion at Ft. Knox, Kentucky. From 1991-94, he was a specialist in national defense at CRS, where he advised on such topics as Army transformation and modernization, peacekeeping operations, and the appropriate size of the U.S. military. In 1994, in recognition of his leadership abilities, he was asked to head the Defense Policy and Arms Control Section of the Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division, where he supervised the day-to-day research activities of a team of senior CRS analysts and specialists. In 2004, he was asked to assume a greater leadership role and was named Deputy Assistant Director of the Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division, where he has served for the past ten years.

Dr. Bruner's tenure at CRS has been marked by his unparalleled dedication to the U.S. Congress and the men and women of CRS' Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade Division. Whether as a national defense specialist, Section Head, or, ultimately, as Deputy Assistant Director, Dr. Bruner's high professional standards ensured that Congress received timely and authoritative policy analysis of the highest order. When he assumed a leadership role at CRS, he focused his efforts on helping to build a world-class team of managers, analysts, and support staff designed to support the rapidly evolving needs of Congress. No matter how demanding his day-to-day schedule, he always found time to be a mentor, counselor and friend to others, whether it was to CRS staff, new congressional staffers, or newly-elected Members of Congress. His ability to frame policy issues and organize research efforts for complex and multi-faceted policy challenges, combined with his deft personal touch, inspired the respect and loyalty of the entire Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division team.

Dr. Edward Bruner leaves behind him not only a distinguished public service career but a legacy of leadership and mentorship that will have a lasting impact on CRS. I ask my colleagues to join me in expressing our deepest gratitude and appreciation to him for his 50 years of service to our nation.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 7, the deceivingly titled ``No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.'' Let's be clear, federal policy--including the Affordable Care Act--already prohibits the use of taxpayer dollars to fund abortions, except in the cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.

The bill on the floor today would dramatically restrict the freedom of women to use their own money to purchase health insurance that covers reproductive health services including abortion. Under the bill, women and families would be denied access to tax credits to purchase any health plan in the health insurance Marketplaces that includes abortion services even if they use their own money to pay for coverage for those services. Additionally, the bill would deny small business owners tax credits if they offer coverage that includes abortion to their employees even though large employers can still offer such tax exempt coverage. Under this bill, millions of American women would be denied access to comprehensive reproductive health care--whether they purchase insurance in the Marketplaces or receive it through their employers.

Madam Speaker, a woman's right to choose her own health care is fundamental and today's bill is a direct attack on that right. This bill was a mistake the first time it was proposed, and it remains a mistake today. I urge my colleagues to reject this assault on women and instead I urge House Republicans to focus on extending unemployment insurance for millions of Americans who are out of work through no fault of their own.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement into the Record in support of extending unemployment insurance for 1.6 million Americans instead of this radical Republican assault on women's health care rights.

I thank my friend.

Madam Speaker, what we are seeing here is an abuse of process. We have one rule governing a bill that is an assault on women's health care rights, combined with the same rule for a 900-page farm bill that was filed at 7:30 last night. I know a lot of people around here claim to be speed readers, but we are supposed to have a vote on the farm bill on Wednesday. Some people may decide to vote for it, and some people may decide to vote against it.

What we are asking, Madam Speaker, is that we should all agree that this

House--Republicans and Democrats alike--should have a chance to vote on a bill that says we will take the savings from cutting back on agriculture subsidies and use those savings to pay for an extension of emergency unemployment insurance for over 1.5 million Americans who lost their jobs through no fault of their own and are out there looking for work every day in an economy where there are still three people looking for every one job. That is what we are asking for, Madam Speaker, with respect to defeating the previous question and letting us have a vote.

Now, the Speaker has said repeatedly over the last couple of weeks that he would be open to extending unemployment insurance if we would find a way to pay for it. We have a way to pay for it. Mr. Levin and I went to the Rules Committee and said, Okay. Let's let the whole House vote today after the farm bill passes, if it does pass on Wednesday, and say, Let's use those savings for this important purpose. They said no. They didn't want this House to have that right. So now each of us-- Republicans and Democrats alike--will have the opportunity to vote to decide whether this body can decide to spend the savings from cutting ag subsidies to help 1.5 million people in their districts and around the country who are struggling right now.

I thank my friend.

By the way, it doesn't just help those struggling families. The Congressional Budget Office says it helps all of us--it helps the small businesses and merchants in our communities--because, if those struggling families can't pay the rent or the mortgage or go out and buy groceries, who does it hurt? It also hurts the local merchants and small businesses.

So, Madam Speaker, for goodness sakes, if people want to vote against the idea of using the savings from cutting the ag subsidies to help 1.3 million Americans--if you want to vote ``no''--go for it, but for goodness sakes, let the people's House have that vote. Let the people's House decide whether we want to help 1.3 million Americans. I hope this will weigh heavily on the conscience of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3362. It's very important for the administration to disclose data on enrollments in coverage through the health care Marketplaces, at the same frequency as it does for Medicare, the Children's Health Insurance Program, and other federal programs. In fact, Monday's monthly report provided extensive national and State-by-State data for December, breaking it down by gender, age, and financial assistance status of new enrollees, as well as the levels of coverage selected. Today's bill is not is not about enhancing data disclosure in the Marketplaces. Rather, its goal appears to be to tie the hands of State and federal agencies with unnecessary, unrealistic requirements, and delay their efforts to enroll people in quality, affordable coverage. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Reverend Elizabeth Carpenter, who ministered to hundreds of families as rector of St. Anne's Episcopal Church in Damascus for more than thirteen years. Sadly, Reverend Carpenter passed away on January 3, 2014.

Born and raised in Mobile, Alabama, Reverend Carpenter graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Duke University in 1963. Her first job was as a parish secretary for St. Peter's Episcopal Church in New York City. She later worked as a computer software designer for John Hancock Mutual and Humble Oil (now Exxon Mobil). At that time, the term ``software designer'' didn't even exist--she was a pioneer in that field.

At the age of 47, Reverend Carpenter heard her call to ministry. She enrolled in Harvard Divinity School, where she received her Master of Divinity degree in 1991. She was ordained a deacon by the Episcopal Church of Dallas that June. On July 22, 1992, Reverend Carpenter was ordained into the priesthood by the Diocese of Massachusetts. She served several parishes in Massachusetts until she was called to be rector of St. Anne's Episcopal Church in Damascus, Maryland in August 1997.

St. Anne's longest-tenured rector, Reverend Carpenter served from 1997 until her retirement in January 2011. During that time, she touched the lives of hundreds of families. She preached some 1,200 times to the people of St. Anne's, performed hundreds of weddings and baptisms, and comforted hundreds of families at funerals and memorial services. Without a doubt, Reverend Carpenter was part of the heart and soul of the St. Anne's community.

Reverend Carpenter brought wisdom and a steady hand to St. Anne's. Under her leadership, a beautiful new sanctuary was constructed and the church's 50th anniversary was celebrated. Her dedication inspired many new families to join the St. Anne's community. Moreover, Reverend Carpenter was well-respected by her colleagues in the Episcopal Diocese of Washington. She preached love and compassion and was an inspiration to her parishioners.

Places of worship play an indispensable role in our communities. Reverend Carpenter helped strengthen Damascus and the surrounding communities through her years of service and dedication to St. Anne's.

I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to the life and deeds of this very special woman and in offering condolences to Reverend Carpenter's family, friends and the entire St. Anne's community. She will be sorely missed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the FY14 Omnibus Appropriations bill. This is not perfect legislation. It falls far short of the funding levels necessary to make vital investments in education, scientific research, and infrastructure that we need to ensure our nation will remain at the cutting edge of the global economic competition. However, it is a significant improvement over the immediate and deep cuts we would have faced under sequestration and allows us to make important choices about our budget priorities.

Today's bill makes vital investments in children and families. While it does not include the President's full early childhood education proposal, it gives a major boost to Head Start and Early Head Start and continues funding for the Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge Grant. It includes enough funding for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children to meet the need in the coming year. However, while it brings funding for K-12 and special education grant programs almost up to pre-sequestration levels, we need a far greater investment in these programs to keep our promise to America's children.

The bill also increases funding for scientific research at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Institutes of Standards and Technology, and the Department of Energy Office of Science. However, while it provides a significant increase for the National Institutes for Health, it does not completely repair the damage done by sequestration and continues to underfund vital research for lifesaving cures. Funding also falls short at the National Science Foundation. These are investments that we must make in the future to remain competitive in the global economy.

The bill also includes full funding for important safety and reliability improvements at WMATA, an essential investment for my constituents and for the federal government, which relies on the system to bring thousands of employees to work every day. It includes $70 million for the Chesapeake Bay Program to restore the health of a resource that is critical to the environment and economy in my home state of Maryland.

However, I am disappointed that the bill continues to fund Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) at a level above the Pentagon's request. My colleague Representative Mick Mulvaney and I worked on a bipartisan basis to remove this excess funding during consideration of the defense budget in the House and in the final FY14 Defense Authorization bill. At a time when we are stretching every dollar to meet our nation's needs, we should not create a slush fund for unrequested defense spending.

I also continue to oppose the inclusion of many unnecessary policy riders, such as those related to the District of Columbia and Guantanamo, that are regularly added to appropriations bills.

Today's legislation includes security assistance for Egypt. While Egypt and the United States maintain a longstanding partnership, the Egyptian government must work towards a peaceful democratic transition. I encourage the President to condition the release of aid on progress toward an inclusive, democratic government that strengthens human rights and the rule of law.

Finally, today's bill includes a much-needed and much-deserved one percent cost-of-living increase for the 230,000 wage grade federal employees--an issue I've raised as necessary to ensure fairness among public servants. It also includes a provision contained in legislation I introduced with my colleague Representative Mike Thompson, H.R. 3808, that exempts medically retired personnel and survivor benefit plan annuitants from the temporarily reduced cost-of-living-adjustment provisions of the recently-passed budget agreement.

Mr. Speaker, no legislation is perfect, particularly one of this magnitude. However, this bill represents an important compromise that will move us forward, provide more certainty, and prevent another costly, unnecessary government shutdown. I urge my colleagues to support it.