Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Save American workers. Make sure they don't lose purchasing power. Let's make sure that those at the bottom end of the employment spectrum are saved. That is the message.

I presume the minimum wage bill will be on the floor next week. Perhaps you are going to want to extend unemployment insurance next week. Perhaps you are going to really want to do something that will save the workers and give them the purchasing power they had in 1968.

The chairman said it well: We go from creating 29ers to 39ers. This bill will allow you to work 10 more hours without health care. Isn't that wonderful? I am sure every American worker is saying: Thank God the Republicans are going to have me work 10 more hours before I can get health insurance. Aren't you generous?

The American worker needs help, not to be misled by a rhetoric which pretends to do something for them but leaves them stuck, not just for 5 years, but for 10, 15, 20 years, as those at the top of the ring get better and better off--and we are among most of those 10 percent.

Mr. Speaker, we are now in the first days of the new Congress, with an opportunity to turn the page and write a new chapter of bipartisanship and cooperation. We are not doing it today.

It is unfortunate that the Republican majority has instead chosen to replay the highlight reel from the last Congress by bringing back to the floor a piece of partisan legislation that would undermine the Affordable Care Act and cause approximately 1 million Americans to lose their employer-sponsored insurance coverage. Not something that Mr. Young says may happen or is extrapolated to happen, but there is no doubt that this would happen--1 million people.

Well, so what? This bill is a solution without a problem.

As of this time, without being timed, I really miss my magic minute; I want to tell you that, Mr. Speaker.

Since the Affordable Care Act became law, 10.8 million new jobs have been created in the private sector, and it has not led to a shift to part-time work. That is what the statistics tell us.

You want to save the worker, but under your economic policies in the last decade, we had the worst loss of jobs in this country in my lifetime. In fact, part-time workers, as a share of all workers in our economy, have fallen--have fallen--have decreased, are less since the enactment of the health care reform bill.

Unfortunately, this bill's sponsors have chosen to ignore these facts because they don't support their argument. Their legislation would allow employers to deny health care reach to those working even as many, as I have said, as 39 hours.

That means the slightest reduction in hours could be used to deny employees the coverage they ought to be earning through their work, so the rest of us do not have to pay their bill.

As a result, up to half a million Americans would become uninsured, and this bill would increase the deficit by $53 billion.

There is not enough time to really explain all the nuances of the adverse consequences of this bill. I ask my colleagues: let's have a decent and honest debate, let's have an honest debate and honest discussion so that, yes, Mr. Young, we can protect those workers that we all should be able to protect, and then I will expect that to be accompanied with a minimum wage bill and the unemployment insurance extension.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding. I appreciate her work. I also appreciate the work of Mr. Neugebauer for bringing this bill to the floor.

This bill could have been--should have been, as Mr. Capuano said-- passed a long time ago with an overwhelming vote. I brought this up on regular conferences and colloquies that I had with Mr. Cantor and more recently with Mr. McCarthy, but it is always timely to do the right thing. Today, we are doing the right thing, and I rise in strong support of the passage of this bill.

Reauthorizing the Terrorism Risk Program Reauthorization Act will provide much-needed certainty to businesses and insurers, certainty that will help our economy and prevent harm to job creation. I believe Congress has the responsibility to reauthorize the TRIA program, and I encourage all of my colleagues to join me in voting to do so today.

This program expired at the end of 2014, and Congress must take action on TRIA without delay. I would reiterate that this program as incorporated in this piece of legislation has had well over 250 votes for at least the last year and a half, but it is never too late to do the right thing. The longer Congress waits, the worse the effects will be on our economy and job creation.

I want to thank Ranking Member Waters. I want to thank Ranking Member Velazquez for her work on this as well and, as I said, the leadership on the majority side that finally got us to a point where we could make an agreement last year.

We passed a bill last year. I regret that the Senate didn't pass it, but I applaud the majority's bringing it to the floor as one of the first pieces of business that we do. All sides deserve, therefore, credit for their efforts to help restore certainty to businesses and protect against the slowdown in job growth that would result from not reauthorizing TRIA.

So, today we do the right thing; we do it in a bipartisan fashion. Let's hope we can continue to do this.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Unfortunately, I don't have time to respond to many of the representations that Mr. Sessions made with reference to our economy, but we can all agree that our most important responsibilities as Members of Congress is to grow this economy, create the kinds of jobs that Americans need so that they can succeed and support themselves and their families.

I want to speak about a couple of things in this rules package. Traditionally, Democrats will vote against and Republicans will vote for because traditionally this is a partisan vote. I urge the Rules Committee chairman to adopt a couple of changes which I thought would make this rules package a better one.

First, I ask the House to move to ban discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender employees. We provide in our rules that you cannot discriminate against people based upon race, nationality, gender, and other arbitrary distinctions. We should have added this as we have in so many of our laws. Currently there are no protections for a congressional staffer fired or refused promotion simply for LGBT status. I regret that the Rules Committee was unprepared to offer such a protection to our employees.

Secondly, since Republicans assumed the majority in 2011, Delegates from the District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands as well as the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico have been denied the opportunity to vote in the Committee of the Whole. They can vote in committees, and the Committee of the Whole is of course a committee of the House. It is not a final arbiter.

When I was majority leader, I offered that amendment in the rules. It passed. My Republican friends took it to court, and the court said that it was sustainable and sustained it. This effectively, unfortunately, denies representation to nearly 5 million Americans, Americans, one of whom is on the Republican side of the aisle from American Samoa. So this is a bipartisan concern that I have. Unfortunately, this rules package put forward by the Republican majority does not include either change.

In addition, this rules package does not live up to the responsible governing the American people expect and deserve from Congress. Mr. Sessions spent a long time talking about scoring, static scoring versus dynamic scoring.

Dynamic scoring I would suggest to the American people is a gamble. It is a gamble that your projection is correct. If your projection is not correct, as it has so often been, then you end up putting the deficit even higher because you bet on the come.

The more conservative policy, I would suggest, would be to get the money first and then decide how you are going to apply it. Don't gamble on the fact that you are going to get the money, which is what dynamic scoring is. The gentleman admitted--he did not argue--that cutting taxes always paid for themselves. In fact, Alan Greenspan said exactly that in the last decade.

What it means is the Republicans will be able to hide the true cost of tax cuts behind a debunked mantra that tax cuts pay for themselves. They do not. This provision will allow them to explode the deficit as they did the last time they were in charge.

The last time the budget was balanced was not under the Bush administration when you had a Republican Congress, a Republican Senate, and a Republican President. It was when Bill Clinton was President of the United States. For 4 years we had a balanced budget.

It also threatens to politicize the Congressional Budget Office, which has maintained its role as impartial and nonpartisan arbiter on budget scoring for four decades, which makes us be honest, which is what the American public expects. Rely on the figures that are not political figures but are independent analytical figures on which we can rely.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this rules package. It can be a better package; it should be. And if it is defeated, we can adopt a better, more fair package.

Mr. Speaker, we are at the start of a new Congress, and we have an opportunity to right two wrongs in the rules of this House.

I wrote to the Chairman of the Rules last month asking that two changes be made in today's rules package.

First, I asked that the House move to ban discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender employees.

Currently, there are no protections for a Congressional staffer fired or refused a promotion simply for LGBT status.

Second, since Republicans assumed the majority in 2011, delegates from the District of Columbia, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands, as well as the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico, have been denied the opportunity to vote in the Committee of the Whole House.

This effectively denies representation to nearly 5 million Americans.

Unfortunately, this rules package, put forward by the Republican majority, does not include either change.

In addition, this rules package does not live up to the responsible governing the American people expect and deserve from their Congress.

First, it includes something called ``Dynamic Scoring.''

What it means is that Republicans will be able to hide the true cost of tax cuts behind a debunked mantra that ``tax cuts pay for themselves.''

They do not--and this provision will allow them to explode the deficit, as they did the last time they were in charge.

It also threatens to politicize the Congressional Budget Office, which has maintained its role as impartial and nonpartisan arbiter on budget scoring for four decades.

The rules package also extends the Benghazi select committee, placing conspiracy theories above fact.

At least three committees--two led by Republicans--exhaustively investigated the Benghazi tragedy.

Everything has been reviewed; a million dollars in taxpayer money last year were wasted.

And, furthermore, these rules would limit the ability of Congress to reallocate resources between Social Security trust funds, making it more difficult to prevent automatic cuts to Social Security disability insurance.

We can do better--and should do better--in this House for the 114th Congress.

I urge my colleagues to reject this rules package, and I call on Chairman Sessions and his Republican colleagues to work in a bipartisan way with Democrats to enact rules that enhance the work of this House, protect LGBT employees, include all of the voices in our democracy, and set guidelines that facilitate greater cooperation, not more partisan gridlock.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I thank her for her leadership on the Rules Committee. I thank Mr. Cole for his remarks.

Madam Speaker, I want to rise and support Mr. Cole. This is not the way to do it. It is what he said. The good news is we have time to not do it this way. We have time to return to the Rules Committee, pass out a rule which strikes these two provisions and pass the bill. In my opinion, if that is done, then an overwhelming number of Democrats will vote to support the bill. It will go to the Senate, and I predict without any doubt that the Senate will pass that bill.

It is clear that there is disagreement on both sides of the aisle about this bill, but it is also clear there could be a significant bipartisan majority to do what is a basic responsibility of this Congress to do, and that is fund government.

Now, very frankly, neither side did its job. We did seven-twelfths of our job, and the Senate did zero-twelfths of their job, and we can point fingers at one another which would not be very useful. What would be useful is if we give to the American people and to our economy the confidence that we can act together in a bipartisan way to pass legislation. I tell my friend, Mr. Cole, for whom I have great respect, Madam Speaker, that we can do that.

The two provisions which he has heard discussed are of great concern to my side of the aisle, there are things of great concern to his side of the aisle, and in the next 2 years, we are going to have to work together to try to accommodate, in hopefully a bipartisan fashion, having the majority in this body do reasonable things.

The gentleman is a member of the Appropriations Committee. I had the honor of serving on the Appropriations Committee for 23 years before I became the leader. The fact is that that committee has a responsibility that must be accomplished, and that is fund government enterprises, fund the dollars that we, through programs that this Congress and previous Congresses have adopted, fund those objectives we think are important for this country.

I would urge my friend, Mr. Cole, who I think is a very responsible Member of this body, to urge his side because we have agreement we think on 99.9 percent of this. These two provisions are very small provisions, but I will tell my friend they put this bill at risk.

I would urge him, therefore, to urge his side to strike these two provisions, and I will tell him in return that I am confident that the overwhelming majority of my side of the aisle will join with I think the overwhelming majority of his side of the aisle and pass this legislation which is so important.

Will the gentleman yield?

Madam Speaker, I was simply going to observe to my friend from Oklahoma that that puts an awfully heavy burden on the presiding officer.

Mr. Speaker and Members, ever since the conference report was reported out, Leader Pelosi and I have told everyone how objectionable the two provisions that have been discussed are on our side of the aisle. We think they should not be in an appropriations bill. We think that they should be considered on their merits or demerits. Unfortunately, they are in the bill.

I rise in support of the bill, notwithstanding my vigorous objection to these two provisions. I rise because I, frankly, think that pursuing CRs, continuing resolutions, on a continuing basis is harmful to our economy, harmful to the growth in jobs, harmful to our national security.

I regret that the Homeland Security bill has not been included for a year as well. We undermine national security by that limitation. But, nevertheless, in a world of alternatives, I have concluded that it is better for us to pass this CR/Omnibus, as it is euphemistically referred to, than it is to defeat it.

So I urge my Members to vote for this CR/Omnibus tonight.

Mr. Speaker, we have one more vote. That will be the last time that the gentleman from Michigan, John Dingell, votes in this House after 59 years. He is a great servant of our country.

I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Ohio, Speaker Boehner.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank two of the finest legislators in California's history for their contributions to our nation and to this body over the past forty years.

Henry Waxman and George Miller were both elected in the post- Watergate Democratic

wave election of 1974--one from Southern California, the other from Northern California. They have served together through many legislative battles that have shaped the modern history of our country, and they have each chaired committees during times of momentous change and achievement. It has been my privilege to call both of them my friends, and it will be my disappointment to see both of them leave this House when they retire at the close of the 113th Congress.

Henry Waxman has spent his four decades in Congress as a tireless fighter for clean air and water, a stronger economy that creates opportunities for all Americans, and a strong U.S.-Israel relationship. He worked hard to raise awareness about the dangers of tobacco and worked across the aisle to help lower the cost of drugs used to treat those with rare diseases. Henry wrote major legislation on food safety to inform consumers about the nutritional value of what they eat and to keep chemical pesticides out of the fruits and vegetables we feed our children.

He and George Miller both helped lead the effort to pass the Affordable Care Act and expand access to affordable health insurance to more Americans.

George has served as Chairman of both the Natural Resources Committee and the Education and Labor Committee--now called Education and Workforce. On the first, he oversaw the passage of legislation that created new national parks, like Joshua Tree and Death Valley, and he worked to protect wildlife across the country and around the world. On the Education and Workforce Committee, of which he is still the Ranking Member, George helped write legislation to reform and expand student loans, was instrumental in crafting the new G.I. Bill to send Iraq and Afghanistan veterans to college, and worked to pass the College Cost Reduction Act to make higher education more affordable for all Americans. He and I worked together in 2009 to enact statutory PAY-GO rules to ensure that Congress must pay for what it buys--rules George pioneered in the early 1980's when he wrote the first PAY-GO legislation.

Both George and Henry will leave big shoes to fill in the next Congress, and I look forward to working with the Democratic Members their constituents chose to succeed them in order to carry forward the work they have been engaged in for forty years. I join with a grateful nation and a grateful House in thanking them both for their many years of distinguished service to Congress, to the people of California, and to the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my deep concern about the ongoing situation in South Sudan. Next Monday we will mark the 1-year anniversary of the outbreak of civil conflict in that young country, which gained its independence in 2011.

Since that conflict began, as many as 2 million people have been displaced, while 1.5 million people are without secure access to food. 50,000 civilians are estimated to have been killed as a result of the fighting between the rival factions.

Alarmingly, Mr. Speaker, both sides have been stockpiling weapons and are expected to launch fresh attacks once the rainy season ends.

The international community, with strong American leadership, must encourage a peaceful resolution before further bloodshed occurs.

I want to commend the United Nations Mission in South Sudan peacekeepers for their hard work bringing aid to those in need, and I thank Secretary Kerry for his efforts to achieve a political settlement.

I traveled to Juba in 2007. As a matter of fact, the former chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the gentlewoman from Florida, was with me. I saw a nation full of promise and hope for the future on the cusp of its independence. That bright future of possibilities for the people of South Sudan ought not to be dimmed by violence, instability, and enmity.

As Americans, we must exert our diplomatic arsenal to bring an end to the fighting and restore that promise of a peaceful and hopeful future for South Sudan.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for taking this Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, when this new House convenes on January 6, it will be the first in 59 years not to include the distinguished dean of this House, Mr. John Dingell of Michigan.

We will still have a Dingell from Michigan. It will be his wife, Debbie, whom so many of us in this House have come to know and admire. I have worked with Debbie every year that I have been in the Congress. She won the election to succeed John, and surely we will continue to have him in our midst as a congressional spouse. But he will be very, very sorely missed among the Members of this body, all of whom he welcomed to the House over the course of his service as the longest- serving Member in the history of the Congress.

A lot of people like to point to John's tenure in the House and note that when he came to Congress, Americans had Dwight Eisenhower as President, Brooklyn had a champion Dodgers baseball team, and Elvis Presley had his first gold record.

But what I will point out is what Americans did not have. They did not have Medicare. Seniors were unprotected from the rising costs of health care in their golden years until John Dingell became their champion and introduced legislation that was the precursor to Medicare. And he presided over this House when it passed Medicare in 1965.

Americans did not have the Civil Rights Act or the Voting Rights Act. When John Dingell took his first oath of office as a Member of this House, millions of African Americans across the South could not vote for Representatives in this House. Just 4 months after taking office, he bravely challenged the Eisenhower administration's leadership on civil rights.

He rose in this Chamber with great audacity to demand that the President protect those who were being denied their most fundamental rights as Americans. It almost cost him his seat. But all of us who know John understand why he was willing to risk everything for a cause that was just.

Americans did not have the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, or the Safe Drinking Water Act, nor did they have the Endangered Species Act or the National Environmental Policy Act. John realized before many of his contemporaries that if Congress did not act to protect our environment, future generations would inherit a Nation spoiled by pollution and neglect, so he became a crusader for conservation.

And the American people did not have SCHIP or the Affordable Care Act--SCHIP being children's health insurance. John Dingell fought his entire life in public office to make affordable quality health care accessible to all who need it.

In between his work to pass Medicare in 1965 and the enactment of health care reform in 2010, John Dingell successfully pushed for incremental progress that made the Affordable Care Act possible. And when Leader Pelosi struck the gavel to signify the passage of that law, it was the same gavel that was used by John when he announced the passage of the Medicare Act nearly 50 years before.

I was proud to nominate John for the Presidential Medal of Freedom, our Nation's highest civilian honor, and to be on hand last month as President Obama presented that Medal of Freedom to him at the White House.

Let no one mistake John's legacy as one of simply longevity. Had he served nine terms and not 29, we would surely be here on this floor to praise him as a man of vision, of principle, of courage and achievement, and of a deep love for this country, its people, and for this institution.

I have had the privilege of serving with John in this House for 33 years. Throughout that time, he has been a dear friend from whom I have learned much and with whom I shared many memorable experiences on and off this floor.

John Dingell, my colleagues, has been and is a man of conviction, he has embodied civility, and he has worked in a bipartisan fashion. His example is one that if we follow, it would benefit the country and the House.

As chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, John was instrumental in supporting a strong auto industry and jobs for America and measures to promote manufacturing here in this country.

Americans remember with gratitude his determined effort as chairman to root out waste, fraud, and abuse across the government and save the taxpayers while improving how the government works.

Seventy-three years ago this week, a young John Dingell, Jr., then a House page, sat in this Chamber, in which his father, John, Sr., served, while President Roosevelt delivered his famous speech asking for a declaration of war as a result of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on that Day of Infamy.

Four years later, while serving in the United States Army, Second Lieutenant John Dingell was preparing to invade Japan when the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki brought the war to an end and quite possibly saving his life. We are all grateful for that, that Providence spared him, so he could come to the people's House and do the people's work for 59 years.

We will miss him dearly. I will miss him. I take comfort in knowing that he will still be here among us as a private citizen, as the husband of the new Member from Michigan's 12th District, and as an elder statesman for our country who I hope will always be ready to share the wisdom of his experience with those who will continue his work in this House.

John Dingell has been a great American, a citizen who loved his country and served it well. God bless you, John Dingell, and thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the majority leader, for the purpose of inquiring of the schedule for the week to come.

I thank the gentleman for his information.

I note in his comments, with respect to next Thursday, that we do not expect to meet on Friday, which I understand, but it does not specifically reference that that will be the end of the session of this Congress and, therefore, conclude the 113th Congress.

Is the expectation, Mr. Leader, that, in fact, Thursday will be the adjournment date for the 113th Congress?

I yield to my friend.

As the gentleman has just announced, therefore, we have 4 days left to go in this session, three of which will be voting days. I know that we have a number of things yet to come, one of which, of course, is the funding of the government.

I know there have been a lot of discussions about what form that bill will take: whether it will be an omnibus; whether it will be a CR, a continuing resolution; whether it will be a combination of those two. There is concern on our side of the aisle.

Mr. Price, who is the ranking member on the Homeland Security Committee, is very concerned that some of the security needs of the country will be put, if not at risk, then in doubt if there is a short- term funding of that part of the one-twelfth of the appropriations bills.

Does the gentleman know whether or not we are going to have an omnibus, which will cover all 12 of the appropriations bills and departments, or whether or not it may be a combination of some shorter- term funding and longer-term funding?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for his information.

I have had a brief discussion with the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), with whom I have served for, I guess, about two decades while I was on the Appropriations Committee. While you and I have had conversations--I won't disclose the substance of those conversations--I believe strongly that an omnibus will give greater stability and confidence to those who carry out the programs that the Congress has set forth.

So we are very hopeful that we can reach an agreement both on--we have already reached agreement, as you know, on funding levels in the Ryan-Murray budget agreement that related to last year's fiscal year and this year's fiscal year, fiscal year 2015. So we have agreed-upon numbers.

The only thing we need now agree on, I think, specifically, is riders. Those are legislative provisions in the appropriations bills. I know that we are having a lot of discussions about those, and I know we have negotiations about those. In those negotiations, Mr. Leader, I would urge you, as the majority leader of your party, to do what you can to provide for full-year funding for the entire government because I think that will give confidence to people.

With respect to Homeland Security, it will put us in a better security position--less doubt, more ability to plan, more ability to respond effectively. So I would hope that the leader could lend his very, very substantial influence and intellect and judgment to that process, which I think will be good for the country.

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for being pleased that I continue to give advice, and encouraged by that, I will continue to do so.

One of the gentleman's colleagues that I know is very close to the Speaker, Senator Burr from North Carolina, said: ``Shutting down the entire government over something never did make sense to the American people, still doesn't and won't in the future.''

I know that you are committed and the Speaker is committed to not shutting down the government. I share that view with you and want to work towards that end. But there are those who do; and to the extent, therefore, that we get the government fully funded through September 30, we will not have that confrontation. I suggest, with all due respect to the leader, that if we delay a portion of that funding requirement, we are just going to have that fight 60 days from now or 90 days from now or however long this is put off when we have already agreed upon the numbers that those agencies will be funded at. But I understand what the gentleman says.

There are two other issues that I think are very, very important, one of which is TRIA. You referenced TRIA in your comments. We are very hopeful that we will follow the Senate in terms of a bipartisan engagement on this issue.

As you know, Mr. Leader, the Senate passed the TRIA bill, which extended the Federal reinsurance program for 7 years by a 93-4 vote. It was not close. There was an overwhelmingly bipartisan judgment that extending this would be good for business, good for insurers, good for contractors, good for jobs, and good for our economy to give, again, confidence that there would be the insurance available so that people could undertake construction projects either in urban, suburban, or rural areas.

I would hope very much that we could bring a bill to the floor next week, Mr. Leader, that extends for no less than 2 years--I would pull that out of it because it is less than, because I know you have the chairman of the Financial Services Committee who does not want to do the 5 years or 7 years. But the way we are going to give confidence to people in this economy is to give them some ability for long-term thinking.

If TRIA ends, there are going to be many, many projects that will not be undertaken in the private sector--forget about the public sector-- which I know the gentleman from California wants to see, additional economic activity in the private sector.

As you know, 45 House Republicans have written to Speaker Boehner, and in that they said: ``We respectfully urge you to schedule action on a multiyear extension.'' That would be at least 2 years. ``Businesses with terrorism coverage are being told that

their coverage will end if Congress fails to act, causing the sort of uncertainty that hurts economic growth.''

Those are 45 of your Members, your colleagues, our colleagues who have made the observation. I think, therefore, for all the reasons they articulated, they are right. I have said that just now.

They also indicate, Mr. Leader, that there are at least, therefore, in this Congress, over 230 votes to pass a TRIA extension with a 5-year window. I say that because every Democrat will vote for a long-term TRIA extension. Forty-five of your Members have written a letter clearly indicating they support that. That gets you well over 230 votes. I think a majority of your party would vote for that as well. So I think we would probably get closer to 300 votes. But I would hope that we would do that because I think that is in the best interest of our country.

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for his comment.

Very frankly, I am convinced that the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey)--Mrs. Lowey being the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee; Mr. Rogers being the Republican chair--could agree today and could bring a bill to the floor on Tuesday that would get overwhelming support.

The gentleman knows that in accommodating some in your caucus either for legislative additions to the appropriation bill for which you need a waiver--as you know having served on the Appropriations Committee, legislating on appropriation bills is not consistent with the rules, and therefore you need a waiver to accomplish that--and the, what we hear, unwillingness to fund the Homeland Security agency, which, as the gentleman from South Carolina, Senator Graham, said just the other day was a bad idea and would undermine national security because of the duties of the Homeland Security Department, what the leader on our side of the aisle, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), was saying is that we cannot commit to something that, A, we don't know what is happening fully, that hasn't been decided yet, but, secondly, that is inconsistent with the agreement that we have on a bipartisan basis with the Ryan-Murray funding caps and that we think Mr. Rogers and Mrs. Lowey have agreed upon and can report out a bill that will be one that we can support fully. That, I think, is what the leader is saying. I agree with her on that.

I am, therefore, hopeful that the bill will be in a fashion that will reflect, A, the Ryan-Murray agreement on numbers, and, B, not have in it ``poison pills,'' as we refer to them, that will make it difficult, if not impossible, for us to support. Both of us want to keep the government open. That is the responsibility of the appropriations bills. Other extraneous legislative actions that may want to be taken which would put that at risk I would hope would not be taken; and that was, I think, what the leader was saying.

If the gentleman has nothing further, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Camp for his courage. I am not going to thank him for this bill, however, but I am going to vote for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, American families and businesses deserve certainty from their tax system--confidence, stability. I am glad we are able to move forward on this legislation rather than pursue a plan to make certain tax preferences permanent while ballooning our debt.

While I am supporting this tax extender package, Mr. Speaker, I do so with two very serious reservations. First, it adds the cost of extending this preference to our deficit. It is good, however, that we did not make unpaid-for extensions on a permanent basis, as the ranking member has just discussed.

Second, this is a very short-term fix when Congress needs to work toward a long-term solution. I join the ranking member in congratulating Mr. Camp for bringing that forward--well, at least he put it on the table. It didn't come forward.

We ought to make the research and experimentation tax credit permanent, but we need to pay for it. While this legislation allows teachers to deduct their out-of-pocket expenses, it does not give them the certainty that they will be able to do so in 2015 or beyond. To that extent, they are in the same position as everybody else covered by this bill will be.

Neither does this bill provide appropriate tax support for renewable energy, biofuels, and energy efficiency--sadly, the failure to extend this for at least 2 years may result in the loss of up to 30,000 jobs-- nor, Mr. Speaker, does it provide long-term clarity on long-term bonus depreciation or small business expensing, all of which would give greater confidence to the growth of jobs.

This all speaks to a larger challenge that Congress has an opportunity to address in the new year; instead of this annual ritual of extending individual credits and deductions, we ought to engage in meaningful, comprehensive, and pro-growth tax reform that provides greater certainty across our economy to businesses and individuals alike.

We all know that doing so will not be easy. It will involve difficult choices on both sides of the aisle.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate you. You had the courage to put forward a bill earlier this year that made tough decisions in order to show a path to lower rates and a simpler Code without adding to the deficit, but that path wasn't the path taken by the majority in this Congress.

Instead, the House voted on bill after bill after bill to cut taxes recklessly without any plan to stabilize the debt, invest in our future priorities, and create jobs in a meaningful way.

This package we will be voting on today is the least we can do. It isn't what I hoped for, and it isn't what I hoped I would stand in this well and urge my colleagues to support at the beginning of the 113th Congress, but it is better than many of the cynical alternatives that we have heard about.

I want to congratulate the ranking member and, frankly, the President of the United States for saying ``no'' to an irresponsible package.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

While I support this measure, I do so believing that America deserves better, wants better, hopes to get better. That is what each and every one of us was sent here to deliver: responsible policy for our country. This is not that policy. It is, however, as I said, better than the alternative in that it would at least give those in 2014 who have operated on the expectation of getting the credit the assurance that they will get it.

My hope, Mr. Speaker, is that, come next December, we won't be here again considering another tax extender bill to keep the economy from collapsing. It is my hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Republican majority and the Democratic minority can work together to effect responsible, fiscally sound tax reform which will help grow our economy and give the business community and our people the confidence they need to have to grow our economy and to participate effectively in making America better.

Mr. Speaker, again, in closing, I want to congratulate Mr. Camp, because I think he did bring forth a bill that could have engendered that responsible debate that we needed, a fiscally sound proposal making tough tradeoffs that we ought to have the courage to make. He had that courage, and I congratulate him for it.

Mr. Speaker, today, Democrats and Republicans from both the House and Senate came together to dedicate a bust of former Czech President Vaclav Havel that will be displayed prominently in the U.S. Capitol building.

President Havel was both a playwright and a freedom fighter. His literary works artfully undermined the totalitarian Communist system under which Czechs languished from 1948-1989, and he co-founded the Charter 77 Movement that called out the Communist regime for human rights violations as well as the Committee for the Defense of the Unjustly Prosecuted, which supported dissidents. He was among the leaders of the Velvet Revolution twenty-five years ago this month, which ended Communist rule and finally opened the door to democracy and freedom of expression.

To his credit, President Havel navigated the difficult process of fostering a democratic political culture in the Czech Republic's new institutions of government while instilling hope for the future in a people whose yearnings and optimism had been suppressed for a generation. In office, he oversaw the first free and fair elections in over four decades and worked to build friendly ties with nations that had been shunned by the Communist bloc. When he retired in 2003, the Czech Republic had developed a vibrant democracy, had joined NATO, and was on the cusp of entering the European Union.

Vaclav Havel died in 2011, but his legacy continues to inspire freedom fighters and democratic activists throughout the world. In an op-ed in the Washington Post earlier this week, Carl Gershman, President of the National Endowment for Democracy, wrote about Havel's affection for the United States and the values it embodies: ``When he addressed a joint session of Congress just three months after the revolution, Havel spoke with deep feeling about his country's indebtedness to the United States, including for President Woodrow Wilson's great support for the founding of Czechoslovakia in 1918, U.S. sacrifice and leadership in three wars--two hot and one cold--to save freedom in Europe, and the American founding documents that `inspire us to be citizens.' '' President Havel's advocacy on behalf of dissidents and freedom fighters

around the world created a forceful, universalist legacy.

President Havel once wrote: ``The real test of a man is not how well he plays the role he has invented for himself, but how well he plays the role that destiny has assigned to him.'' Vaclav Havel passed that test in sharp contrast to another leader who today is failing it miserably.

Russian President Vladimir Putin came into office in 2000 with an opportunity and an obligation to help the people of his nation transition from the ills of Soviet Communism and foreign aggression to real democracy and peaceful coexistence with other nations. Sadly, over the past fourteen years he has sabotaged Russia's democratic transition by suppressing dissent, fostering a cult of personality, and pursuing violent and aggressive actions against Russia's neighbors.

This has been on full display over the past year in Ukraine, where one year ago courageous protesters gathered in Kiev's Maidan Square to reject Putin's attempts to pull their country closer into Russia's orbit and away from greater democracy and economic opportunity. The Maidan protests and the regime's violent response to them ushered in a new beginning for Ukrainian democracy, with free and fair elections held earlier this year. Unwilling to accept the decision the Ukrainian people have made about the future they want for their own nation, Putin's Russia has violated Ukraine's sovereignty by illegally annexing Crimea as well as sending troops and equipment across the border into southeastern Ukraine, much as it has done in the nation of Georgia.

Vladimir Putin could have used his leadership of Russia to meet the challenge history presented to him and his nation after the fall of Communism. Instead, he seeks to reverse the course of history through his desire to re-create an autocratic and expansionist Russian empire. Putin might have played the role destiny assigned him, but instead he crafted a character that will surely be remembered as one of the chief antagonists of our age--not only for the democratic world but for the Russian people who yearn to be part of it.

The world needs more leaders, philosophers, activists, and humble agents of positive change like Vaclav Havel, and not those like Vladimir Putin who subvert democracy and upend regional peace and security. I hope my colleagues will join me in paying tribute to President Havel and remembering his extraordinary contributions to his nation, to Europe, and to the world.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, Congressman Paulsen, who represents the district that Bill Frenzel represented.

I came here, Mr. Speaker, in 1981. Bill Frenzel was a Member of Congress at that point in time, and as Congressman Paulsen pointed out, we served together for the following 10 years. But as he also pointed out, we continued to work thereafter because of joint interests that we had.

I think Congressman Nolan caught the essence of Bill Frenzel very well, and I would associate myself with his remarks. But I would also add that the American people want us to work together. What I have said since the election is, look, all 435 of us share two things in common: one, we are all Americans; two, our people all sent us here to make America better. Those two things we share in common. And we share the expectations of the American people that we will do that which we can agree on together and not allow that on which we do not agree to undermine our ability to work on that on which we do agree. Bill Frenzel got that message. Bill Frenzel lived that kind of life. Bill Frenzel was that kind of Member of Congress.

Bill Frenzel could be pretty sharp. I don't mean bright, I mean sharp-tongued, if he thought if you were you were going off, as Congressman Nolan said, in the wrong direction. I am happy to say that I was never the object of that, but Bill Frenzel wanted you to be candid, be straightforward, be intellectually honest and not play games. He was prepared and, in fact, did the same.

Bill Frenzel in his private life working with Brookings continued his public life's commitment to rational, responsible government. As Congressman Paulsen pointed out, I am a very big advocate of fixing our debt, fixing it in many ways through the kind of policies that Bill Frenzel recommended, policies which say to both sides, look, we both have interests; we have got to accommodate those interests, but we have got to accommodate a bottom line. Be real, in other words.

Mr. Speaker, Bill Frenzel was a Republican, I am a Democrat, but we were first Americans. I felt it a great honor to learn from Bill Frenzel, to respect his intellect and his insights, and to respect the quality of his service and his willingness to work with others to do what the American people expect all of us to do: make their country better.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with Mr. Paulsen to honor an American who served his country well, an American of whom we can all be proud, of which his family clearly is proud, and rightfully so. But his colleagues were proud of him on both sides of the aisle.

I want to say to his wife, Ruth, we send our sympathies, but we share with you that pride in Bill Frenzel's contribution to his country, to this institution, and to each of us.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a friend and former member of the House who passed away on Monday.

Bill Frenzel served the people of Minnesota's Third District for twenty years.

Bill was a Republican.

I am a Democrat.

That difference did not stand in the way of the respect I had for him or our friendship as colleagues in this House.

Though we did not agree on every issue, Bill and I found common ground on our shared concern for fiscal sustainability and the necessity of compromise to achieve bipartisan progress.

As a Korean War veteran, a businessman, and a legislator, Bill exemplified the highest American values of service to community and country.

In the years following his retirement from the House, where he had served as ranking member on the Budget Committee, he continued his service by remaining a powerful voice for bipartisan budget solutions and a more sustainable fiscal future at the Brookings Institution.

He also served as a co-chair of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

We need more people in Washington like Bill who believe strongly in the importance of bipartisan compromise when it comes to our budget and making the tough choices necessary to afford the investments we need to make in a more competitive economic future and greater opportunities for our people.

I join in offering condolences to his wife Ruth and their three daughters--Deborah, Pamela, and Melissa--their grandchildren, and the entire extended Frenzel family.

May Bill's memory inspire greater bipartisan cooperation in this House in the months and years ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the majority leader, Mr. McCarthy, for the purpose of inquiring of the schedule for the week to come.

I want to, first, congratulate the majority leader on his reelection. I want to congratulate him on the expansion of his majority--not something that I was seeking, but it is the reality. I know that all of us look forward to moving forward and to, hopefully, having a degree of cooperation that will respond to what, clearly, the American people want, and that is the two sides to be working together to make their country better and more successful.

And so I want to congratulate the majority leader, and at this point in time I will yield to the gentleman for the purpose of telling us what the schedule is for the week to come.

I thank the majority leader for that information, and we will expect to be considering those pieces of legislation.

The majority leader has not mentioned, of course, four bills that I know the majority leader is focused on and are very important.

Are we still, Mr. Majority Leader, expecting to end this session of the Congress on the 11th of December?

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I thank the gentleman for that observation.

Let me say, Mr. Majority Leader, I know there has been discussion on your side and my side of the aisle. I know Mrs. Lowey is working with Mr. Rogers to effect an omnibus appropriations bill.

As we all know, not a single appropriations bill has been adopted. We are operating under a continuing resolution. That is not giving the stability that we need to give to the agencies to know what resources they have to accomplish the objectives we expect.

Can the gentleman tell me whether or not his expectation is we will proceed with an omnibus out of the Appropriations Committee before December 11?

It is not on the schedule for next week. My presumption it would be, therefore, hopefully on the schedule for the first week in December when we get back so that we can send it to the Senate to be adopted.

I yield to my friend.

Is it the expectation of the Majority Leader that we would be considering an omnibus so that we would do the 12 appropriations bills in a single bill?

I yield to my friend.

Well, I would say, on our side, we agree with Mr. Rogers and Senator McConnell, who did indicate early on that an omnibus would be the preferable alternative.

The problem, as the gentleman well knows, with the CR, it gives a very limited ability of agencies, particularly the Department of Defense, at a critical time, to plan as they would like. General Dempsey and General Odierno and others have mentioned that, so I am hopeful that we will be able to work together to accomplish that objective.

There are three others. There is no mention of a tax extenders bill. As the gentleman knows, the Senate is addressing that.

Does the gentleman have any idea, again, given the fact that we have essentially 3 weeks left to go and a few days, and cooperation is going to be essential if we get our work done, where we are going on tax extenders?

I yield to my friend.

Given that intention, can the Majority Leader tell us whether or not there is an inclination--the Senate, as you know, had a different approach. They did a limited extension, not permanent extensions, and they dealt with all of the extenders, and they had a 2- year extension, as you know.

Whether or not we are looking at doing something temporarily while we prepare for what I think both sides think are necessary, and that is a major tax reform bill at some point in time in the spring or the summer, can the gentleman tell me whether there is that component of the consideration of the tax extenders legislation?

I yield to my friend.

I would thank the gentleman and urge him that we get to agreement pretty soon because if we are going to give some certainty to the business community, as well as individuals, we need to act on that, and we have some approximately maybe 10 days, if we count 3 days for each one of the weeks that is remaining, 10 days in order to accomplish that through the House and the Senate. So it is necessary, I suggest respectfully to the Majority Leader, that we come to agreement on that fairly soon if we are going to have the ability to pass and send to the President that legislation.

Thirdly, the third of the items, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, which Mr. Hensarling just wrote an op-ed about. I know that the committee has acted or is contemplating action on that.

Can the gentleman tell me whether or not TRIA--and I know there has been some discussion about including it in the omnibus. I don't know whether that is rumor or fact that it is being considered. But can the gentleman tell me where we are on the Terrorism Risk Insurance?

As the gentleman knows, it passed 93-4 in the United States Senate, so it was not a partisan bill in the Senate, overwhelming support for it, and I would hope that we could move it through the House in a similar bipartisan, overwhelming fashion.

I yield to my friend.

The Senate bill, of course, is 7 years, as the gentleman knows, and that gives a certain degree of certainty to the lenders and borrowers and those who do business with both lenders and borrowers and in the construction industry.

I am hopeful that we could come to an agreement that is longer term so we could give more confidence. I think that would be in the best interest and, very frankly, I think would enjoy bipartisan significant support in this House, Mr. Majority Leader.

Lastly, the National Defense Act, authorization bill, which has passed this House, as you know, is pending in the Senate. Does the gentleman have any knowledge as to where that stands now and what possibilities there are to assure its adoption prior to the 11th of December?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman.

Given that expectation of moving on it, does the gentleman expect or know whether or not we will deal with the ``train and equip'' authorization within the framework of the National Defense Authorization Act, or perhaps the omnibus or some other piece of legislation?

I yield to my friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, last week we lost a dear friend and a distinguished former Member of this House.

Lane Evans ably served the people of Illinois's 17th District for 24 years. He had been a public interest lawyer and a Marine veteran when he took office in 1983, and he got right to work fighting for his constituents by standing up for workers' rights, pushing for better care and benefits for those who had served in uniform, and advocating for greater opportunities for middle class families.

Lane was known as a champion of constituent services, helping northwestern Illinoisans get the help they needed from federal agencies and ensuring that casework was processed quickly and effectively. And America's veterans will always remember him for his work on behalf of those suffering from exposure to Agent Orange and those disfigured by land mines. When the Rock Island Arsenal faced cuts and closure 10 years ago, he fought with tenacity and determination to keep it open and save jobs across his district.

Lane was a self-described populist, someone who always put his fight for the common men and women of America first. He always kept faith with those he served, even after receiving the difficult diagnosis of Parkinson's disease in 1995. While his Parkinson's grew worse, Lane only grew more determined to achieve a better future for his constituents and his country. All of us who served with him were awed by his strength in body and in character as he faced that challenge with grace and resolve.

I join with the many whose lives he touched and made better throughout Illinois and across the country in paying tribute to Lane Evans and his legacy. I want to thank Representative Cheri Bustos for organizing this special order in Lane's memory and for carrying his work forward in Illinois's 17th District.

The people of Illinois and the United States--and the Members of this House--will not forget Lane Evans, his work, and his unwavering commitment to serving the country and community he so loved.