Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life of Maurice Hinchey. He was an extraordinary friend who had the courage to take on all of the tough issues.

We served 4 years together in the New York State Assembly and 20 years together in Congress. I watched him do what he did best: defend the constituents and the land that he represented.

He is remembered as an environmental hero for his promotion of renewable energy and for sounding the alarm on the risks of hydraulic fracturing. Maurice did more to support the natural resources of the Catskill Mountains and Hudson Valley than anyone else.

From his efforts to clean up the Hudson River to the establishment of the Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area, his legacy will endure.

To the millions of visitors who enjoy the Catskill Mountains or explore the Hudson Valley, you have a champion to thank. His name was Maurice Hinchey.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2810, the Fiscal Year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act, takes important steps towards strengthening our national security and supporting our troops.

The conference report authorizes a total of $692 billion in discretionary budget authority, $26 billion more than the administration requested.

I am pleased that it raises military pay by 2.4 percent, an increase from the President's request of 2.1 percent.

It also strengthens our efforts to counter Russia's campaign to undermine our democracy by fully funding cybersecurity and cyberspace operations at $8 billion and it drops harmful restrictions on funding the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty extension between the United States and Russia. This treaty continues a bipartisan tradition that began under President Reagan, verifiably reducing both countries' nuclear arsenals.

Mr. Speaker, there is one glaring problem with this measure, and that is that the Budget Control Act imposes a $549 billion cap on defense spending for fiscal year 2018. This bill blows past that by more than $143 billion. Unless the Senate, the House, and the President come to an agreement on lifting or modifying the budget caps, there is no way that these spending levels can become law. So far, that agreement is not in the offing and it is past time for a bipartisan compromise on realistic spending levels for defense and nondefense spending alike.

While I am glad to see this pay increase for our troops, this legislation does not exist in a vacuum. Later this week, the Republicans plan to bring to the floor a disastrous tax bill that would force military families and veterans to finance tax cuts for corporations and the superwealthy. The bill repeals tax credits that help veterans find employment. It makes education more expensive for veterans and undermines the GI Bill. It makes it more expensive for military families to sell their homes. It eliminates tax relief for veterans suffering from chronic illnesses.

Veterans Day was just a few days ago, Mr. Speaker, and it is no way for the majority to thank them for their service.

Also before us today is H.R. 2874, which is known as the 21st Century Flood Reform Act. Now, everybody in this Chamber recognizes the National Flood Insurance Program is badly in debt, to the tune of $25 billion. The hurricanes this year, together with the flooding across Louisiana last year, have stretched the program beyond its breaking point.

Unfortunately, this package will cause more harm than good for the communities already struggling to rebuild. It will make flood insurance more expensive for families by increasing premiums.

It also exempts businesses from the requirement to purchase flood insurance even though the vast majority of policyholders with this insurance only purchase it because they are required to by law. This change would take effect beginning in January 2019.

The Independent Community Bankers and a number of other groups oppose this provision. As businesses pull out of the insurance market and the number of participating dwindles, responsible businesses that stay in the market will be forced to bear the burden of greatly increased premiums. I think these are shortsighted changes that will be felt all across the insurance market.

Additionally, the legislation doesn't do enough to update the often out-of-date flood insurance rate maps being used in communities across the country and in my district. Accurate flood insurance maps prepared with the most recent mapping technologies would help constituents in all of our districts better prepare and protect themselves against flooding. Some current maps are so outdated that the maps don't reflect changing landscapes and critical flood mitigation improvements. This bill simply falls short in helping homeowners who want to do the right thing based off the best available information.

We are in the wake of some of the worst hurricanes our Nation has ever experienced, and more of them. We are seeing how vital, affordable, and readily available flood insurance is to so many communities. It is unconscionable that the majority is moving forward with this partisan package of bills, unlikely to ever pass the Senate, because this will only further delay the extension of the program with 1 month left before it expires.

As the majority lurches from crisis to crisis and fritters away precious legislative time with this partisan approach, we will likely find ourselves right back here doing this over again in December.

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

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 3440, the Dream Act. This bipartisan, bicameral legislation would help thousands of young people who are Americans in every way except on paper.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from New York an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, let me yield myself 30 seconds because I was very impressed, yesterday, with Mr. Graves and the thoughtful work that he had done. I am sorry his amendments were not made in order, but I appreciate very much his homework on this bill, and I agree with him.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

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

Mr. Speaker, the National Defense Authorization Act isn't perfect. Most notably, it blows past the caps implemented under the Budget Control Act. But there are areas of common ground in this bill, including a pay raise for our military and investments to fill the genuine readiness gaps in our Armed Forces.

I want to point out that they are the result of something that is all too often nonexistent under the majority, and that is regular order. I agree with what my colleague said, to see a bill under regular order is a downright joy. I hope we do more of it.

A hearing and a markup were held for this bill and colleagues from both sides of the aisle were consulted. That is how the Chamber was designed to function, but, today, it hardly functions like that at all.

It is a shame that we don't also see the majority put this model to use for other major legislation like healthcare and tax reform, which we will be rushing through to get to tomorrow.

This is a process that we didn't see for the other measure before us today, which is H.R. 2874. No hearing was ever held on the package in its entirety. It was changed right up until it was considered by the Rules Committee earlier this week in an effort not to get Democrat support, but to get enough support from Members of the majority so that it could pass on a party-line vote.

That is what we see under this leadership: no hearings and rarely any markups.

Legislation to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which would impact one-sixth of our economy, was passed without so much as a score from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office outlining its impacts and its costs.

This Congress has broken the record for the use of closed rules, which prevents any amendments from being offered by either side on the House floor. It is now the most closed Congress ever.

In fact, one of the rules before us right now is closed. We are even likely to consider the majority's bipartisan tax plan this week-- actually, tomorrow--which would increase the deficit by $1.5 trillion, yet under another closed rule and without scoring.

The United States Congress has been called the greatest deliberative body in the world. I think it is time the majority change course and actually allow the great debates about the issues that we face. The legislation we consider would certainly be better for it.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, the rule, and the bill; and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the Securities Act of 1933, which, obviously, was put into effect after the Depression or while it was going on, governs current law regarding the sale and purchase of securities like stocks, bonds, or options. The intent behind this law is to require that investors receive necessary information about the securities and to prevent fraud when they are sold.

To achieve this, the Securities and Exchange Commission currently prohibits the sale or delivery of securities that have not been registered with the agency, with some limited exemptions. Today, these exceptions are usually limited to those transactions made with sophisticated investors who understand the associated risks.

H.R. 2201 would weaken the Securities Act unnecessarily by adding an entirely new exemption for certain issuers while removing important disclosure requirements.

Let me say that again: while removing important disclosure requirements, in other words, to know what you are buying.

It would leave investors vulnerable to fraud by allowing companies to sell unregistered securities without the important guardrails that apply to these transactions today. It is part of the majority's agenda that prioritizes deregulation above all else.

Through the Congressional Review Act and many other bills, the majority has been relentlessly attacking safeguards that protect consumers--risking our health, our safety, and our finances. This is all in order to make it easier for corporations to engage in questionable business practices.

Who loses in the giveaway to big corporations and bad actors? The American people do.

Mr. Speaker, I have always believed that a bad process leads to a bad product. This week has put the majority in the history books for all the wrong reasons.

Closed rules completely block Members from offering amendments on the House floor, and just yesterday, with the 49th closed rule of the year, this majority broke the record for becoming the most closed session of Congress in history. That is a long time.

Let me repeat that. This session of the 115th Congress is the most closed session ever. In fact, our present Speaker has not had an open rule.

This is not some arcane matter. More than 1,300 amendments have been blocked this year through the restrictive rules. It has prevented action on matters that touch nearly every sector of society.

This week we saw another mass shooting in a church. Families gathered together in a small Texas town, and a man with a gun came in and killed 26 of them and wounded 20 more. One family lost eight of its cherished members. Those killed in that attack equal 7 percent of the small town's entire population.

Now, this Congress could work together and actually stop these tragic murders because this is the place where we can do that, but under the majority, we can't even get a vote on any measure that would do anything about it.

If you care about whether we send troops to war in Afghanistan and Syria--if you care--then closed rules matter.

If you care about protecting whistleblowers or reducing government spending, then closed rules matter.

If you care about whether we build the President's offensive border wall with Mexico or strengthen ethics in the executive branch, then closed rules matter.

If you care about protecting the nearly 800,000 young DREAMers nationwide, then closed rules definitely matter.

The majority has used restrictive closed and structured rules to prevent debate and votes on these and many, many other important matters from ever happening here on the House floor.

Each of us has been elected to do our job representing our constituents by amending legislation on this floor, but because of the closed process, we are being prevented from doing our jobs.

Bills routinely come before the Rules Committee that haven't even been fully considered by the relevant committees. Such a bill is before us today.

When Speaker Ryan took the gavel 2 years ago, he said: ``Only a fully functioning House can really, truly do the people's business.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, we are not doing the peoples business. We are unable to do the job we were sent here to do. We are unable to take action on the things our constituents care about most.

It is no wonder that this Congress is the most unpopular Congress in recent memory. It is past time that we return to regular order and start tackling the major issues that we face.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 3440, the Dream Act. This bipartisan, bicameral legislation would help thousands of young people who are Americans in every way, except on paper.

Democrats have tried numerous times to protect DREAMers. We voted over and over to try and bring the Dream Act, and we have offered amendments, only to be blocked by this record-breaking closed Congress. There is bipartisan agreement that something must be done to help these young people. Let's do it today.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Aguilar) to discuss our proposal.

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

Mr. Speaker, unnecessary, partisan bills like this one take up valuable floor time when we could be considering important legislation to extend expired programs like Perkins loans, which help low-income students finance their education, or to address gun violence. The American people are frightened of an agenda that prioritizes deregulation and corporations above all else.

Democrats have been pushing for votes on the House floor on amendments that would actually address the

major problems we are facing today. That includes everything from climate change and our military's role abroad to protecting the DACA recipients and addressing the gun violence epidemic that is tearing communities apart. But we have been blocked at every turn.

The majority has gone to unprecedented lengths to prevent any kind of real debate from happening. We have proof of that because they have used closed and structured rules to block more than 1,300 amendments so far this year. So far, this session is the most closed session of Congress since Congress began.

It is no wonder that just 13 percent of the public approves of Congress under this leadership. That is according to the latest figures from Gallup. The bill before us just continues that dangerous and unpopular agenda.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the Independent Payment Advisory Board was created, in fact, by the Affordable Care Act, as we have heard. It will be a 15- member panel composed of Presidentially appointed and Senate-confirmed experts charged with developing proposals to prevent Medicare costs from getting too high. It is about fiscal prudence.

The majority and its allies, however, spread many mistruths about the board. It has even been called a death panel, if you remember that. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. Its recommendations may not increase cost-sharing premiums or taxes, or reduce benefits. They have no way to do that.

Not a single soul has been nominated to the board. It is not yet instituted as an entity. Today, in the absence of an appointed board, the Secretary of Health and Human Services is directed to submit recommendations to Congress if a trigger is met.

The independent Medicare actuaries predict that this board will not be triggered until at least 2021, 4 years from now.

Mr. Speaker, I think we have to ask: Why are we spending time today, with everything facing us, addressing a problem that could exist 4 years from now? Is the majority so desperate to undermine the Affordable Care Act that they are repealing a panel whose sole purpose is keeping Medicare costs in line?

According to Gallup, 55 percent of the public approves of the healthcare law. They want to see it strengthened, not eviscerated.

In contrast, under the majority's leadership, Congress has an approval rating of just 13 percent.

Should 13 percent be telling 55 percent what they need to do?

Instead, since the majority has so far been unable to repeal it, they are going to undermine it brick by brick. The President is even sabotaging the Affordable Care Act administratively, slashing the budget to publicize the law by 90 percent, and cutting the open enrollment period in half.

In the interest of public service, let me say that the enrollment period started yesterday and continues to December 15. Please go and take care of your health insurance.

What the White House has done is make a direct attempt to cause chaos to weaken signups under the open enrollment period that began this week.

The Kaiser Family Foundation estimated that, as a result of the Affordable Care Act, Medicare growth has been historically low. The growth in healthcare prices is at its lowest level in 50 years. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected that Medicare growth rates will remain beneath this panel's targets until 2021, hence the reason for not doing a panel for 4 more years.

It is really too bad that this Congress and the majority insist on sabotaging

the Affordable Care Act, chipping away at its benefits. We should be strengthening it. Remember that every President since Theodore Roosevelt just about has tried to do a healthcare bill like the one that we have today. Perhaps just because Barack Obama did it that there is so much problem with it in the majority.

There is a bipartisan Senate bill crafted by Senator Alexander and Senator Patty Murray that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found last week would save money, stabilize the insurance marketplace, and reduce the debt by $3.8 billion. That is all without anyone losing their insurance.

Why won't we take up that bill?

We never get an answer for that question.

What is it about trying to take healthcare away from poor people or that we won't put a bill on the floor that has all the advantages and savings that we know and that is totally bipartisan? Is it because the majority knows it will pass?

Our Nation has urgent problems. Our infrastructure is crumbling, education costs skyrocket so high so fast that it is unattainable to many students. We desperately need to stabilize our health insurance markets by passing the compromise by Senators Alexander and Murray. That is what we should be doing here today.

There are Members on both sides of the aisle who want to see improvements to the board, but that is not what the bill does. It terminates it altogether. It is the wrong approach at definitely the wrong time.

Regardless of what you think about this board, we should be able to agree that this Congress has more important things to do than address a problem that might not exist for 4 years, if at all.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am very troubled by this. I don't want to insult my learned colleagues, but it plainly says in the legislation that IPAB cannot ration healthcare, cannot raise taxes or increase deductibles and copayments. Under the current law, section 1899A, 42 U.S.C. clearly states: ``The proposal shall not include any recommendation to ration healthcare; raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums; increase the cost sharing, including deductibles, coinsurance, and copayments; or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria.''

I regret I have to do that, because it is a direct contradiction of what my good friends on the other side have told the country and what I assume that they believe.

Mr. Speaker, Russia interfered with our 2016 election. That much is clear from special counsel Mueller's investigation, which led to indictments against two Trump campaign aides. The legitimacy of our electoral system is at stake, and it is time the Republican-controlled Congress sets aside the partisan politics and treats this threat with the gravity it deserves.

If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Swalwell and Representative Cummings' bill, which would create a bipartisan commission to investigate the Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, one of the worst political stories I have heard in my lifetime is what we just talked about, the ``death panel,'' what it is going to do, even though it is prohibited by the written law to do the things that it has been accused of being able to do. Most of that, PolitiFact talked about the death panel part of it and said that that was the 2009 lie of the year. But here we are, 8 years later, and we keep hearing mistruths about the panel and its intent. The board is about keeping Medicare growth in line, nothing more, nothing less.

So let's be honest about what the bill really is about: attacking the Affordable Care Act. Regardless of what you think about the Independent Payment Advisory Board, the Nation has immediate problems today that deserve our attention, from healthcare to education, to infrastructure.

We should not be taking this valuable House time talking about a board that may or may not come into existence 4 years from now. That is not what we need to deal with today. So I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question and the rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, 33 days ago, funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program, which 9 million children rely on for their healthcare and well-being, expired after the program was allowed to lapse. States crafted budgets, assuming Federal CHIP funding would arrive on time as it has always done, and they are now scrambling to develop a patchwork solution to keep the program alive.

Six States and the District of Columbia have warned they will run out of funding by December, next month. Thirteen States say they will soon have to tell enrollees they could lose coverage without immediate congressional action. Utah officials have even considered sending letters to enrollees as early as this week letting them know the program is being forced to wind down.

The Kaiser Family Foundation has found that 32 States are expected to run out of funding by March if Congress fails to act. I am glad we are here today with a bill to reauthorize CHIP and other public health programs, but they are woefully inadequate.

This bill is paid for by eviscerating funding from one of the most important parts, again, of the Affordable

Care Act that helps to keep people well: the Prevention Fund. This fund focuses on children's health, expanding access to lifesaving vaccines and reducing the risk of lead poisoning, among many other things.

This is a particularly heartless cut when you consider that many residents of Flint, Michigan, still can't get a clean glass of water from the faucet or bathe in uncontaminated water 3 years after the water crisis began. Children there in Flint will be forced to live for the rest of their lives with impacts ranging from neurodevelopmental damage and behavioral changes to hypertension and anemia, damage caused by a government that failed to act.

If it fails to adequately fund Medicaid for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands as they continue to try to rebuild following the devastating recent hurricanes, that would be a compounding of the tragedy. This bill fails to waive the requirement that both of those islands match Federal investment before they can access any of the Medicaid funding, and we don't deal with that at all, even for CHIP.

Seventy percent of Puerto Rico doesn't even have power 6 weeks after Hurricane Maria hit. I am proud to say that a lot of New York utility workers are down there now, and I am sure we will see results soon. Residents of Puerto Rico are washing clothes and bathing in contaminated streams and rivers, and drinking it as well. A million people there still don't have any running water. They don't have the ability to put up millions of dollars, either, to match these funds because they are struggling to survive. We don't address that. These are American citizens, and we have an obligation to help them.

These reauthorizations are a chance to really work together and deliver, but we are worried about this opportunity because there is no indication that this bill could pass the Senate with the cuts that it has made to the Affordable Care Act. I am referring, of course, to the ones that relate to preventive care. That would be a major tragedy.

As I have already said, so many States are right at the edge of not being able to fund the program at all. Other States are ready to tell both community health services and CHIP that they are no longer providing for them.

This partisan approach will only delay the extension of the programs even further. I consider that a major dereliction of our duties.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), a distinguished member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), who is the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas.

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

Madam Speaker, in May, the Republican majority recklessly passed their healthcare repeal bill without any analysis at all from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, finding out a month later that it would have taken insurance away from 23 million people.

I fear the majority is going to make the same dangerous mistake with their tax bill. The New York Times reported that some sections of the bill released today are placeholders that will ``allow Republican leaders to work out the details of a new set of revenue-raisers that would be inserted in the bill before the full House votes on it''--in other words, they will be a surprise.

After the Ways and Means Committee marks up the bill, they will rewrite the bill in a back room and jam it through the House. It is beyond irresponsible to vote on a bill of this magnitude without knowing how it will impact hardworking Americans.

We employ dozens of well-qualified, nonpartisan expert economists and public policy analysts with advanced degrees in the Congressional Budget Office precisely for moments like this, and it appears the majority is again, this year, prepared to move so fast that no Member will have the benefit of their nonpartisan advice.

So if we can defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will prevent this massive tax cut bill from coming to the House floor unless nonpartisan analysis from the experts at the Congressional Budget Office has been available for at least 2 days.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

Madam Speaker, we don't have time to spare playing games here with the CHIP program. It is on life support in many States, with officials scrambling to try to keep it alive. This is a program, you have heard before, that 9 million children rely on.

And 2,800 community health centers are at risk of closing their doors if we do not reauthorize the community health centers. That would leave millions of people without healthcare, cost more than 50,000 jobs, and already the centers nationwide have been forced to consider cutting services following the majority's failure to reauthorize the program before it expired on September 30.

Everybody knows that these centers do remarkable work. They deliver quality care at lower cost. More than 330,000 veterans relied on them for healthcare last year alone. They could be reauthorized under a clean bill in seconds. Instead, the majority is putting them at risk through this partisan bill, which seems unlikely to pass the Senate, and we will then be nowhere.

If you want to know why only 13 percent of the public approves of Congress under the leadership, just look at the bill before us today. Republican leaders have turned even the most bipartisan programs into endeavors that seem unlikely to become law.

They have disallowed the Democratic Party to have any substitute with any other ideas that they did not have before so that we can, as Ms. DeLauro mentioned, have an honest debate. We see that time after time in the Rules Committee, the inability for our side to even get amendments passed. But not to allow a substitute bill of this magnitude is, I think, really a dereliction of duty. It speaks volumes about the inability to get things done.

And lastly, Madam Speaker, I want to recognize George Agurkis. He is sitting here with me. George has been on the Rules Committee staff for 9\1/2\ years. He is leaving us at the end of the week to take a wonderful new job and new project. He is a Pennsylvania neighbor we always could count on. He is a lot of fun. We are going to miss that and his aunt, Rose, who works in the cloakroom. And we know that she gives the best birthday parties in the world, and we don't know what we are going to do. We hope that George will come back and celebrate those with us and Rose will once again delight us with every kind of sweet thing in the world.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Patricia and Peter Gores of Mumford, New York. They recently donated a more than 100-year- old clock which had been a centerpiece in the Gores' family home for more than 40 years. The clock was manufactured in New York State by the Self-Winding Clock Company, built with casing made from Quarter Sawn Oak, and remains in good working condition to this day. This clock was formerly located in Rochester, New York, at the Claude Bragdon train station where it served as the New York Central Railroad's Master Clock to ensure a consistent time among the clocks around the station. The donation of this clock will allow it to be proudly displayed in Rochester's new train station.

The Claude Bragdon station opened its doors in 1914 and was a paragon of design. This station was where our community bid farewell to local soldiers as they were sent to serve our nation. It was a gathering place for suffragettes organizing for the right to vote. It was also where our community welcomed dignitaries, including Presidents. This clock represents that era and the importance rail travel has played in our nation's history.

While the Claude Bragdon station is no longer standing, Rochester opened the doors to its brand new train station this fall which borrows heavily from the design of the old station. The new state-of-the-art, ADA compliant station will dramatically improve service for the more than 130,000 passengers that utilize passenger rail in Upstate New York. Whether you're a student traveling to Rochester to attend one of the great colleges or universities or an entrepreneur visiting the city for the first time, this Master Clock will stand as a reminder of Rochester's proud history.

On behalf of the Rochester community, I want to thank Patricia and Peter Gores for their generous donation and commitment to returning the Master Clock to its former home.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a remarkable achievement--the 125th anniversary of Boulter Industrial Contractors located in Webster, New York. Founded in 1892 by Thomas Boulter, the company started by delivering coal and ice by horse drawn wagons and is now Western New York's premier mover of heavy machinery for manufacturing and infrastructure projects. Even though decades have passed since those starting days, the company still displays their original wagons in remarkable condition as a reminder of how far they have come.

The growth of Boulter Industrial Contractors as a family-run business is a true success story in American entrepreneurship. Under the leadership of President and CEO William S. Boulter, a fifth-generation member of the Boulter family, and their hard-working employees the company is proudly carrying on Thomas Boulter's legacy. Congress should never lose sight of companies like this. That's why a flag that has flown over the U.S. Capitol flies over Boulter today. I congratulate the Boulter family and its employees, several of which are veterans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Edgar Ballestas, an extraordinary local photographer and winner of my 2017 cover photo challenge. Edgar's image of the sun setting over the Rochester skyline is remarkable, and a testament to our city's great beauty.

Edgar is an English as a Second Language (ESOL) teacher for our local school district; and in his free time captures images throughout Rochester and Monroe County. His work often highlights our region's proudest attractions--the Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge, the Upper Falls in Letchworth State Park and much, much more. His pictures have even been hung in galleries like Image City Photography in Rochester.

We should never lose sight of the districts and the constituents we fight for every day. Edgar's photograph is a tribute and a reminder of why I come to Congress and work so hard for Rochester and Monroe County. I congratulate Edgar on his work and his achievement and thank him for his tremendous submission.

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

Mr. Speaker, 44 years ago, the Supreme Court issued its landmark Roe v. Wade decision. It reaffirmed the constitutionally protected right of every woman to safe and legal healthcare, including the right to choose.

When life puts a woman in even the toughest of circumstances, the highest court in the land said the decision that she makes should be hers, free from any interference from the government.

Roe v. Wade is a firewall that women rely on, but with every passing year and every new session of Congress, politicians have tried to chip away at it brick by brick, hoping it will crumble away.

Most politicians are not medical professionals. We shouldn't be meddling in healthcare decisions that should be made between a woman, her doctor, her family, and anyone else that she chooses to include. The American people are tired of politicians who are not doctors, often playing one on television with this medical decision.

This is the only medical procedure that Congress has made an attempt to regulate, the only one, and it says quite plainly: We can't trust women to make a decision; we have to do it for them. The majority tries to direct this over and over again.

The medical professionals whom we should be listening to all oppose this ban. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists call it a part of a legislative agenda that is ``not based on sound science'' and that ``attempt to prescribe how physicians should care for their patients.''

That certainly speaks it loudly.

The American Medical Association said that it ``strongly condemns any interference by the government or other third parties that causes a physician to compromise his or her medical judgment as to what information or treatment is in the best interest of the patient.''

Conservative political groups have also been pushing the bill to try to use it to run up the score in the next election. Why do they do it? Well, the main sponsor of this bill has admitted--and I hope everybody hears this; this is a Congressman from Arizona who sponsors this bill, who admitted the abortion bans are, in his words, good politics--``it will cost some people the election, but it will cost more Democrats the election than it will Republicans. I am convinced that in very few districts in America someone will lose because they voted'' for this ban. ``And if that is the case, maybe they need a different district anyway,'' whatever that means.

That makes it as plain as day, as far as I am concerned, as to why, year after year, for 40 years, we have been confronted with this.

It is abhorrent to me, and it should be to everyone here, that matters of personal conscience are being reduced to who is up and who is down in the polls.

This bill is dangerous, and it is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court established in Roe v. Wade, and reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, that a woman has the unequivocal right to choose abortion care. This is the Constitution of the United States that we all justly revere.

Meanwhile, every Federal court that has reached a decision on bans like this in States has blocked it every time. This includes rulings striking down bans in States like Arizona, Idaho, Arkansas, North Dakota.

Mr. Speaker, this bill before us is nothing more than the latest attempt by the majority to pass off political posturing as proven science.

Now, after birth, strangely, this body exhibits scarce attention to the well-being of the child, and that is proven by the fact that you cut back on food stamps; Women, Infants, and Children care; daycare; Head Start; one after the other, the same group that couldn't find it in their hearts last Friday to extend the Children's Health Insurance Program before it expired, along with community health services, which again helps children. More than 9 million children in America get their health insurance through the program that expired.

The majority did absolutely nothing after 20 children, 6-year-olds and 7-year-olds, were shot and killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, 5 years ago. And funding, as I said, for both food stamps and the school lunch program is routinely cut.

I don't know anything else to call that but pure hypocrisy: We love it until it is born, and then it is somebody else's problem.

A 3-year-old girl in my district was recently killed by the adults she believed were supposed to take care of her. They abused her so violently that she was bruised from head to toe and was internally hurt. There were adults around, but not a single one helped her.

The Child Protective Services of Monroe County got two reports about abuse and neglect, but the agency was too overworked and stretched too thin to act in time, which is another hypocrisy: We are not going to fund those programs enough so that little children would live. Three years old, and nobody lifted a finger to help this child. They did nothing to save her life.

This is just some of the reality that children face today. All too often, this Congress does absolutely nothing to address it. To truly care about children is to care for them long after they are born.

Now, we have taken up this bill before, and it was a one-house bill, never able to pass the Senate, and I sincerely hope this bill sees that same fate.

When the American people went to the ballot box, they were electing politicians, not somebody to meddle around with their medical needs. It is simply appalling. Just remind yourself that the only procedure that we deal with is the fact of a woman's right to choose, which is protected by the Constitution of the United States. Enough already.

Mr. Speaker, the majority acts like a group of elected physicians. It has some. They are quiet. It is shameful.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mr. Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schneider).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what my colleague is saying, but there is no scientific evidence or proof that an unborn fetus feels the pain. That is one of the reasons we are not discussing it over here.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ruiz), a doctor.

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

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

If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 3440, the Dream Act, which deals with children as well. This bipartisan, bicameral legislation would help thousands of young people, children, who are Americans in every way except on paper.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Soto), to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the majority keeps trying to take the women's personal decision and put it in someone else's hands. Over the years, they have tried to allow bosses to make the healthcare decisions for their employees. They pushed a bill that would allow women to die if an emergency room employee coming to her aid had a ``conscientious objection'' to performing an abortion that would save her life.

Today, they are trying to pass an abortion ban that would put up even more obstacles and prevent women from receiving safe and legal abortion, which is protected by the Constitution.

The bill before us today strikes at the heart of Roe v. Wade. Opponents of the Supreme Court decision have been clear and outspoken that that is precisely their goal. The ban on abortions after 20 weeks does not contain reasonable exceptions for victims of rape and incest. The legislation flies in the face of what the American people--women and men--want us to be doing.

The majority must have quickly forgotten the national Women's March that took place in January. Millions of persons across the country and around the globe marched in the largest day of protest in our Nation's history. More than half a million people took to the streets right here in the Nation's Capital. They sent a message to the majority to respect their rights, including their right to choose.

If people sometimes ask women why we are still marching and calling and writing about the four decades after the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision, which it has since upheld, it is because of bills like this. We constantly have to refight the battles our mothers and grandmothers won for us. This legislation, again, is proof of that.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question to the rule and the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, extending the Federal Aviation Administration's authority is traditionally something that gets bipartisan support. That hasn't been the case this time, as we saw on Monday when a prior version of this bill failed on suspension. It contained several extraneous provisions, but it didn't include some of the most important priorities that we face.

September 30 is nearly upon us. That is the deadline to reauthorize programs that the American people depend on. That includes things like the Perkins student loan program, which helps low-income students to finance their education.

There are 500,000 students across the country, including nearly 50,000 from New York, relying on it right now, but the Perkins Loan Program isn't anywhere in this bill.

The bill also does nothing to extend the Children's Health Insurance Program created in 1997 with broad bipartisan support. More than 9 million children get their health insurance through this program. Without continued Federal funding, States are going to begin running out of money to take care of some of the most vulnerable kids, and they can't wait until the end of the year for us to act.

Community health centers have also been left out of the bill, and they have told us that they will have problems from day one. If we don't extend their funding, an estimated 9 million people would lose access to healthcare.

These are essential bipartisan programs, Mr. Speaker, and what does it say about the majority's leadership if they are not extended by the deadline? It does not bode well for our ability to fund the government later this year, to raise the debt ceiling, extend the Flood Insurance Program, or reauthorize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

This bill is an incredibly important one. No one in this Chamber or anywhere that I know of in the world wants the FAA program stopped and their employees furloughed or airport projects brought to a halt. We should work together and get it right.

This package, however, has not been negotiated on a bipartisan basis. It didn't go through regular order. Committees have been shut out of the process, and Democrats, who represent half the population in the United States, didn't get a say.

We are all glad to see provisions included here to provide some tax relief for victims of the recent hurricanes. With regular order and a more open process, this could be a more comprehensive package of extenders that provide more tax relief for victims to recover and to rebuild. After all, the Democrats did suggest 21 bipartisan tax provisions which were included in previous relief legislation after previous disasters.

But none of those, except five, I think, are included in this bill. That is a shame.

We have said it before. This is, I think, the 44th closed rule this session, and that is just about all the bills we have done. This bill could either have been bipartisan extending the FAA authorization, or a comprehensive package of extenders that provided the tax relief necessary for hurricane victims to recover and rebuild. The bill before us is neither. I doubt many of us have had time to review the changes that were made last night.

I have often said that a bad process leads to a bad product, and, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that is what we see with this bill. Another opportunity for bipartisanship has been turned into another political fight.

I, regretfully, reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 3440, the Dream Act. This bipartisan, bicameral legislation would help thousands of young people who are Americans in every way except on paper.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez).

Mr. Speaker, I think the previous speaker made a very important statement, that we should treat all Americans alike.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Barragan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to my friend.

I appreciate the information that the gentleman just gave us. We have been told the community health service will be in trouble from day one.

Mr. Speaker, I inquire of the gentleman whether he has the same kind of information about them?

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate that because millions of people use the community health services, and the children, we cannot let them go unattended.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to the previous speaker that my understanding is the fallback provision on flood insurance came to the Federal Government because the private insurers didn't want to do it.

If we can get them to take it over, I think everybody would be relieved.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Torres).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gallego).

I thank the chairman for giving me that answer, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this is our 44th closed rule for this session of Congress which prevents Members from offering amendments to the floor. This has put this Congress well on its way to becoming the most closed Congress in modern history. Democrats have been routinely unable to do the job we were elected to do and amend bills to represent the concerns of the people of the United States which we are both privileged and obligated to serve.

Despite his promises, Speaker Ryan has shown a complete disregard for regular order since assuming the gavel. Bills routinely come before the Rules Committee that haven't even been considered by the relevant committees. The majority even moved a healthcare repeal bill through this Chamber earlier this year without a score from the nonpartisan experts at the Congressional Budget Office.

This measure would impact one-sixth of our Nation's economy and tens of millions of people if it became law.

This is no way to run the people's House. The public expects more, and it is high time that we heed those calls.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to acknowledge all the communities facing the impacts of Hurricane Harvey and Hurricane Irma. There are also two other hurricanes, Jose and Katia, gaining strength right now in the Atlantic.

This is the first time since 2010 that there have been three active hurricanes at one time in the Atlantic basin. Our rising waters and warming seas are contributing to the historic storms we are seeing now.

We also can't forget the falling permafrost in Alaska. It was called permafrost, obviously, because it was going to be permanent. Scientists estimate this could drive up the Earth's temperature by as much as 1.7 degrees Fahrenheit. If this isn't enough to make clear the perils of climate change, I don't know what it will take.

Mr. Speaker, I am relieved that a bipartisan compromise has been reached on some of the most important and urgent matters that we face. The bill includes a short-term extension of the debt ceiling, a continuing resolution to fund the government, and provides the first installment of aid to those communities impacted by Hurricane Harvey.

I was glad to see this deal pass the Senate overwhelmingly on Thursday by a vote of 80-17. It is a testament to what we can do when we work together even during these especially partisan times.

The agreement may have been a surprise, but it was a welcome one. We can now step back from the cliff, get to work on the many other priorities we face this month, including passing the Dream Act and reauthorizing the FAA, which is critical; the Children's Health Insurance Program, also critical; and the Perkins Loan program. Many low-income students in college depend on Perkins to get a good education.

So this compromise will get us through to December 8, and that means we will find ourselves back here in the same situation a few months from now. I hope that once again we can put the country before ideology and prevent the self-inflicted wound that would come from playing chicken with our economy.

Today's bipartisan spirit is something our country can use a lot more of.

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

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 3440, the Dream Act. This bipartisan, bicameral legislation would help thousands of young people who are Americans in every way except on paper.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Kihuen) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my colleague if he has further speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First, I want to say that I appreciate the Members from Texas who have made it so clear what they are personally going through, and their constituents. Surely, every one of us in this room understands that we are called upon to do the greater good today, and we will certainly rise to that occasion.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to say something I wish I got the chance to say more often, and that is that I do support the underlying bill that we are considering today with all my heart. I know it has been a busy week, but our constituents and the people, our fellow Americans, are suffering and afraid.

One thing I noticed about the children in Texas in the boats going to the shelters and every place, their stoicism. I didn't see a single one of them shed a tear. In fact, I am a little worried about that. Little people whose lives were absolutely uprooted and who had to go to a strange place, leaving everything that they had behind--think about that.

We are obligated here, those of us who serve in this House, to meet the need that we know exists today and will for some time to come. So let's end with a strong, bipartisan vote on this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman from Georgia, my good friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, what is happening with the appropriations bills is unprecedented. After passing four appropriations bills earlier this year, we are now considering the remaining eight appropriations bills this week in 2 days. That means that we are debating the funding for roughly two-thirds of discretionary Federal spending bills in just over 4 days.

Has any Member here really had the time to read all 1,035 pages of these eight bills? Better yet, has anyone had time to read nearly all the thousand amendments and determine what the impact of each one would be?

This is the appropriations process we are talking about; the process that used to take us days and weeks and was perfectly open so that all Members of the House were able to propose amendments on the floor. These are the bills that fund programs that impact the life of every American every single day.

But we are not giving them any serious consideration they deserve, and the minority has been virtually, literally, I would say, shut out of the process altogether.

When the majority took control of Congress and the White House, they promised regular order. They have not only broken that promise, they have shattered it and stomped on it. Speaker Ryan is the only speaker in the history of tracking statistics to never have had a truly open rule.

An open rule would allow any Member to offer an amendment that complies with the standing rules of the House and the Budget Act. Not a single one. A bad process, I believe, will lead to a bad product, and these bills are no exception. They are full of provisions that would do real harm to millions of Americans.

Inside these bills, the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, passed in the wake of the biggest recession since the Great Depression, would be tattered. The biggest banks still in control of the people who got us in trouble in the first place would be allowed to run roughshod over the economy again, paving the way for another Great Recession or worse.

Try as we could to find out what would be the substitute for Dodd- Frank to prevent them from doing that again, there is no answer they would be able to do it. Under Dodd-Frank, we have had a record-setting streak of more than 80 consecutive months of private sector job growth. Mr. Speaker, this growth didn't come despite this law; it came because of it.

There is also language here that would ramp up the majority's assault on women's health; provisions that would zero out funding for Title X, the Nation's only Federal program devoted to family planning. More than 4 million women depend on it for access to contraception.

The bills would also eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood, which serves 2.5 million women and men every year. It is relied on not just for contraception, but for services like breast cancer screenings, wellness visits, and STI testing.

The bills would be truly destructive if they ever became law. They don't appear to have the necessary votes to pass the Senate, since there are not 60 Senators willing to vote for this legislation, and that would make one wonder why are we even going through this charade, because we have only 9 legislative days left in the month of September. During those 9 days, we need to raise the debt ceiling to pay the bills we have already incurred, to fund the government for the following year, to reauthorize the Children's Health Insurance Program; the Perkins Loan Program, which many low-income students rely on for their college education; and, very importantly, the Federal Aviation Administration. All of those expire on September 30.

We also need to address the National Flood Insurance Program, which, on its current course, faces a shortfall of more than $25 billion. And that will expire at the end of this month. We all know the horror of going through Hurricane Harvey, and now Irma, and with two more, as I understand it, starting their aim at us in the Atlantic.

If we are going to do all of this, we have to get back to the orderly and thoughtful process. Congress can't wait for a disaster to always be at its doorstep before acting. We need to abandon legislation by chaos or emergency, which we often do for something that we could have done by scheduling.

Two-thirds of the discretionary spending bills considered in a single week is absurd and irresponsible, and I would doubt has ever taken place before in the House of Representatives. It is time we took control of the House and got back to regular order, which we talk about all the time, but hardly anybody remembers. We hope for a better day, and we hope for it soon.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Rosen).

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 3440, the Dream Act, this bipartisan, bicameral legislation. We have thousands of young people who are Americans in every way except on paper.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Carbajal) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a distinguished member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from California an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

I am really very fond of my colleague over there, and I appreciate his wonderful sunshine attitude.

The fact is we have never seen anything like what we are going through now. Twice, in just the last few months, one amendment by Ms. Lee, to finally get an AUMF so that we could authorize the wars that seem to be going on forever in the name of the United States of America was voted on in committee, passed in committee, and should have been in the bill. Lo and behold, it disappeared. I don't think we ever did anything like that to my knowledge, and if we did, shame on us.

In this very bill today, there was, again, an amendment presented in committee for the DACA people to be able to get jobs while they are waiting with the Federal Government. I am paraphrasing that because I never saw it, but that is my understanding of what that did. Once again, it was presented at the committee, voted, passed, and should have been in this bill. But before it got to Rules, just like Ms. Lee's amendment, it just disappeared.

How can you run the Government of the United States by saying that the people do their will through us? We are not sitting here to represent ourselves and do what we want to do and take one from column A and one from column B. We follow rules. That is what we are supposed to do. We have to answer for that.

I want the people of the United States to know that what we are talking about here today is probably not going anywhere. As far as we know, it will not get past the Senate. Now, some miracle may happen. Who knows? Or maybe the whole thing will disappear--I don't know--with no explanation, by the way.

But we haven't really done anything here yet except what I would call a crazy amalgamation of what the rules of the House wouldn't even come close to allowing us to do. Any body, any Congress, any House of Representatives, any legislature anywhere can do what they have to do to get their budget ready if they throw it all in one mix and let one committee, the Appropriations Committee, do it. The other committees had no right to talk about it.

As I pointed out, again, the majority has really cut out the minority completely. Do you think we knew before it got to Rules that those two amendments that I talked about that were terribly important had disappeared? We didn't know that until it was given to us.

Many times what we get at Rules are emergency meetings, which means one thing: no committee action. We have decided we would like to do this one this week, so let's call it an emergency.

Enough. Enough already. This is the premier legislative body in the world. The hopes, the dreams, and the aspirations of all Americans lie in this House. We do or we do not do what is in the best interests of the people who sent us here. I promise you it is not in the best interests to cut out all of the population of the United States--about half, almost half. In fact, I believe numerically we got more votes than the other side--just cut us out of the process.

I have already talked about no open rules. If you can't have an open rule whereby you can talk about amendments, there is nothing else for you to do. We are out of it because Democrats get very few amendments. I don't think the Rules Committee people get hardly any at all, and then we beg for some of the best ones we would like to be made into order--never happens.

We are pretty discouraged. As a matter of fact, we were talking about maybe we should stage a coup, but I know that is illegal and would not work in the United States of America. So it was kind of a fleeting thought brought about by pure frustration.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Scott had a wonderful amendment. He is the ranking member on the Education and the Workforce Committee and is known throughout the United States for the

work that he does, as is Barbara Lee, who is probably more well known than almost any other Member of this House. To be treated that way, to have to go back to her district and say, ``Well, we tried to do these amendments''--enough already.

We can do it the right way. We used to. When I got here, it was entirely different. The bipartisanship was strong. We all liked each other. It was a pretty wonderful thing.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), whose amendments should have been allowed.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are really getting somewhere here. What my colleague failed to say is, as far as I know and I imagine as far as he knows, that no committee has ever sent a bill to the Rules Committee completely taking away amendments that had passed in that committee and were legitimately a part of that bill.

In just the last, let's say, 2 or 3 months, two amendments legitimately passed by Democratic members in the proper committee disappeared between that committee and the Rules Committee. If that is not a violation of rules, I don't know how in the world you would ever describe it.

Sure, we had a lot of open rules--I mentioned Paul Ryan has never had one--which gave everybody an opportunity to do an amendment, all 435 us, if we chose to, but we don't. When you talk about something coming to us from a committee, large bills sometimes don't come to us from committees, but oftentimes they are written somewhere--we are not sure where--but they come to us in an emergency procedure because they have to get to the floor that week.

I am not just talking about improving. I am talking about following the rules of procedure laid down by history, by circumstance, and by geniuses. I am talking about not appropriating those in ways that say: We just don't want that amendment on the list. Pretend it never happened. Throw it in the garbage and maybe nobody will remember it.

We remember. We think that some amendments are a few things that would really move the country forward, and we don't have a chance to get them put in place simply because we are the minority. That is absolutely wrong. It is undemocratic. It is hurtful to the institution and hurtful to America.

We can do better. You and I should pledge right now to work on that. I am game if you are.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Reclaiming my time, I don't want to see that anymore. It is an embarrassment when I have to even get up to do my half of the rule and talk about what awful things have happened to us. There are more things that I need to talk about than that.

I think we should cut out the games and the cuteness and all the rest of it and do our job.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Richmond).

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

These bills don't have the support they need to pass the Senate. It takes 60 votes to even bring them to the floor. That means that this entire exercise this week has been an exercise in futility. All the while, the clock is ticking and Congress has so much to do, as I have elaborated several times this afternoon, over the next 9 legislative days.

If this process has been good for anything, it is revealing just how broken the legislative process has become under the majority's rule.

Legislation regularly comes to the House floor without any committee consideration. It just goes to rules. The majority even rammed through a healthcare repeal bill not long ago--I am sure everybody remembers that--that would impact one-sixth of our entire economy without first-- what we need to do again in regular order--getting a score from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

They are very important. They tell us what cost and what impact it would have on the budget and on the country. So that means we had no idea of the impact of that bill on our markets or what it would cost when voting for it.

The minority is routinely shut out of the process, often unable to get so much as a vote on an amendment on the House floor. When Speaker Ryan assumed the gavel, he promised to return to regular order and an open process. We have been waiting a mighty long time. Every time we offered an amendment to the bill before us in the Rules Committee, we asked that the rule be open; again, giving all Members a chance to affect that bill. Unanimously, we are voted against and we lose all those votes 9-4. That means that both sides will not be able to affect that bill and it means that regular order is as far away as it ever was.

Here we are, less than a month away from the end of the fiscal year, and we haven't passed a budget resolution through the House. We were supposed to have a budget through the House, the Senate, and the conference--the conference is necessary to reconcile the House and Senate bills--by April 15.

We blew through the debt limit in March and still have not dealt with that. We have yet to have a single open rule in the Rules Committee under the Speaker's leadership. Believe me, I am sure that an awful lot of Members of this House have something to say about what is going on.

It is no wonder that, according to the latest figures from Gallup, 79 percent of the public disapproves of how Congress is doing its job. No wonder.

CBS News highlighted that it costs the taxpayers an estimated $24 million a week to operate the House of Representatives. They know that they are not getting their money's worth.

They needed 60 votes to repeal and replace healthcare, when there was no replacement in sight. I am not sure how to describe that as a legislative proposal, but what it sounds like to me is a hoax. We are going to fool you that we have really got a replacement here.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, the rule, and the bill. I hope that my good colleague, Mr. Woodall, and I can help fix this place to do a little better.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

The Rules Committee did not get together. The majority of the Rules Committee got together. We had no action in that game whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, just to speak on accuracy: don't say the Rules Committee got together and went over those. Say the Rules Committee majority got together and went over those. You know, that is all I ask.

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

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