Floor Statements

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

Madam Speaker, I rise as the designee of the Republican leader, and I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), my good friend, for yielding me 30 minutes.

For the third time in 2 days, Madam Speaker, my good friends from the Democratic side of the aisle and I are here to debate part of the Democratic rules package for the House of Representatives. Unlike the first two times, I find myself in agreement with what the Democrats are proposing today.

We are here today on title II of the rules package, which establishes a Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress. While I think improvements can be made to what my friends are proposing, I am pleased to say I think that this proposal is an excellent idea.

I know my good friend also mentioned the last Congress, and I want to take just a second to defend that Congress. Frankly, it was the last Congress that gave us the first tax modernization overhaul and tax reduction in 31 years. It was the last Congress that began the opioid initiative that we worked on in a very bipartisan way. It was the last Congress that did more deregulation than any Congress in American history. It was the last Congress, working with my friends on the other side, that did historic work in human trafficking. It was the last Congress that also did historic work, again, in a very bipartisan way, with my friends on the veterans' issues. Finally, it was the last Congress that began rebuilding the American military after 8 years of neglect. We will see if this Congress has a record that matches that in the next 2 years.

Having said that, as my friend laid out, the proposed select committee would be charged with investigating, studying, and making recommendations for modernizing Congress, including improvements to rules; to procedures, including the schedule and the calendar; to staff recruitment, diversity, and retention; and to technology.

I am especially pleased that this select committee will be equally divided between Democrats and Republicans and that the makeup of the committee will include two members of each part from the Rules Committee, the House Administration Committee, and two freshmen.

Most importantly, the select committee is required to produce a report with their recommendations by a two-thirds supermajority by the end of Congress. Those are all excellent proposals by my friends, and I wholeheartedly endorse them.

Madam Speaker, there is a lot to like in this proposal. I think we can all agree, no matter which party you belong to, that Congress needs to be modernized and its processes improved. I am especially happy that my friends have done so in a way that is bipartisan and, hopefully, will be above politics.

The proposal isn't quite perfect, of course. Personally, I would have preferred to have seen the House take up this responsibility in coordination with our colleagues in the Senate. I am sure the bulk of my conference and probably the bulk of my friend's conference would probably tell you that, if any body in Congress needs improvement, it is undoubtedly the one on the other side of the Capitol rotunda. On that, we can have a bipartisan agreement within this Chamber.

Of course, Congress works best when the House and the Senate work together, and that includes the need to improve processes and modernize Congress as an institution, as a whole. The majority would have done better to have found a way to work with the Senate on developing a joint committee made up of Members from both houses of Congress that would be charged with making improvements to the House, the Senate, and to Congress, as a whole.

That aside, this is certainly a very good and serious proposal, and I look forward, with a great deal of optimism, as the select committee does its work this Congress.

Madam Speaker, I urge support of the measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I echo my friend's comments, to some degree.

First, I thank him personally, and I thank his fellow members on the Democratic Rules Committee, for presenting this proposal. It is a genuinely excellent and bipartisan effort, and it suggests that the language we heard about trying to change the way in which we operate was very sincere and well motivated. It is much appreciated on our side of the aisle.

While we certainly had our differences yesterday, I appreciate the way, frankly, that was handled by both sides. I am pleased that we are ending this on a point of agreement and a bipartisan commitment to actually improve the nature of our institution.

Again, I expect this committee to actually produce really substantive proposals. I don't know yet, obviously, who the members on either side will be, but I know the leadership on both sides takes this very seriously. I think there is a genuine commitment to try to open up the process a little bit to make it, if you will, more Member-friendly, whether you are Members in the majority or the minority, and that is to be commended on the part of my friend.

Again, this is a good start, as my friend Mr. McGovern said, and I look forward to playing my part in participating as we make progress in this direction.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have an additional speaker on the way, I hope, but, right now, I don't have anything additional to add personally.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, my additional speaker has not yet arrived, so I am prepared to close whenever my good friend is.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I again want to advise my friend I am prepared to close whenever she is.

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

In closing, while I normally would stand here and be in opposition to what my good friends, Mr. Hastings, Mr. McGovern and Ms. Lofgren would be proposing, in this case I fully support the measure that they are bringing before us.

The proposed Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress is a serious, well-intentioned proposal to create a bipartisan committee to produce a bipartisan product aimed at improving the way Congress functions now and into the future. And while this idea could have been improved if it incorporated the Senate and insured that both houses were working together on improving the overall institution, it is still, nonetheless, a very worthy endeavor.

I, for one, thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and I think that this is an issue that they could and should support in a bipartisan fashion. Frankly, I want to thank my friends; having been on the losing side of every vote yesterday, it will be nice to be on the winning side today.

So, Madam Speaker, I want to urge a ``yes'' vote on the underlying measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1181 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5

legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us is a very simple one. It provides the House with the maximum flexibility to expeditiously move important legislation before the end of Congress.

The resolution allows the House to suspend the rules to consider bipartisan pieces of legislation, including the Senate-passed criminal justice reform legislation, which we will consider later today. It also allows for the House to quickly consider measures to fund the government. As we are up against a deadline, it is important that we have the ability to quickly ensure that the government does not shut down.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the rule and the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend. I am going to certainly accept the gracious gift that he has offered me. I learned a long time ago, when you win an argument, you shut up and sit down. So I want to applaud my colleagues for their work.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1183 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

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

Mr. Speaker, today the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of the Further Additional Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, the appropriations package in front of us represents the fourth appropriations package to fully fund the government for fiscal year 2019. While the Congress has completed its work with respect to almost 75 percent of total discretionary spending, including, notably, the Department of Defense, Health and Human Services, Education, and Labor, roughly 25 percent of this discretionary spending remains outstanding. Today's bill will provide a short-term continuing resolution to February 8, 2019, to ensure that the entirety of the Federal Government remains open and operating while the Congress continues its work.

I have said on numerous occasions both on this floor and elsewhere that continuing resolutions are not the best way to fund the government, but allowing the government to shut down, even in part, is much costlier and much worse. It is our obligation to our constituents to keep all of the government open and operating to provide needed services to them.

Mr. Speaker, from an appropriations perspective, this year has been remarkably successful. Earlier this year, we sent 5 of the 12 appropriations bills to the President for his signature before the beginning of the fiscal year. That is the best record in 22 years.

With hard work from both sides of the aisle in both Houses of Congress, our earlier efforts represented a return to regular order and to the normal legislative process. For us to drop the ball now, at the end of the year and at the end of this Congress, would negate much of the good work that has already been done this year.

As I have said so often on this floor, the primary obligation of the Congress is to fund the American Government and to keep it open and operating. The American people deserve no less. With this package under consideration today, Congress will do just that with respect to 7 of the 12 main spending bills: Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies; Commerce, Justice, Science, and the Related Agencies; Financial Services and General Government; Homeland Security; Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies; State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs; and, finally, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies.

As my colleagues can see from this list, the group of bills covers a broad array of vital government programs the American people rely upon. It includes key departments like the Department of Homeland Security, the Food and Drug Administration, the Border Patrol, and the State Department.

It covers services like funding roads, operating security checkpoints at airports, passport services, food inspection services, importation and exportation of goods and services, banking services, and thousands of other important government functions.

Perhaps just as importantly, it covers approximately 800,000 employees, about half of whom would need to be furloughed and about half of whom would likely be deemed essential and be required to work without a guarantee of pay.

While continuing resolutions are in no way, shape, or form the best way to do business, the measure before us today will at least ensure that the government remains open and operating and will continue to provide the needed services for our Nation and our constituents. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the coming weeks to complete our work on funding the government for fiscal year 2019.

Importantly, this bill also includes funding for disaster relief and to secure the border. The American people have made their voices heard, and they have told us time and time again that they want additional border security. To that end, this bill appropriates $5 billion for the purpose of securing the border.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill also appropriates $7.8 billion for disaster relief. As we have seen time and again in places like New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, the East Coast after Hurricane Sandy, and my own hometown of Moore, Oklahoma, after devastating tornadoes, disasters require a helping hand. By appropriating these funds we offer our fellow Americans who have been afflicted by disasters the help that they need and require.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the rule and the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a couple of comments before I yield to my friend from Alabama and fellow Rules Committee member for 3 minutes.

Let me just quickly point out that we are really talking about border security here. This clearly isn't simply a wall. Frankly, there is not enough money involved here. This is a matter of providing additional security.

It is important to note the Border Patrol union itself fully supports what the President is trying to do. This is the type of thing they have asked us to provide them so that they can provide us with the security that we tasked them to give to the American people.

The disaster relief is something I think probably both sides should be able to agree on. We know there is a genuine disaster. We have had fires, and we have got hurricane relief. I have a very detailed summary here of all the various items that would be taken care of. I would be more than happy to provide that to my friend. That is something that we should do before we go home. That is something, frankly, Americans have a right to count on.

I remember--and I was with my friends in this endeavor--during the Sandy debate and how desperately we needed aid at that point in time and how severe the reaction was when Congress went home without getting that done and came back in January. I

think the reaction was appropriate. So this disaster relief is extraordinarily important, and I hope that we focus on that in our debate as well.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne), who is a fellow member of the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a couple of comments with regard to the statement my good friend made.

We are actually talking, really, in a sense, not about not $5 billion. We are talking about $3.3 billion. The Senate bill that passed actually added $1.7 billion, which is a tacit admission that physical barriers do make a difference.

We all agree that the amount of money we are talking about here would not build an entire wall. Quite the opposite, it would just provide some physical barriers at points along the border that are weak and need additional security.

My friend says that nobody is interested in this. Frankly, the border security unions are. The Border Patrol has endorsed the President's proposal. The men and women we have tasked to defend our borders tell us this is something that they need. They have gone so far as to say they would support a government shutdown.

I hope we don't have that. I am not for a government shutdown. I never have been for a government shutdown. But this is not an extraordinary amount of money in a bill, frankly, that totals well over $250 billion, when you add up all the spending. And being able to put additional security there is important.

To my friend's point about Puerto Rico, I think that is a good point. I think that is a fair point to make. We should probably go back and take a look at that. I do know that Americans desperately need assistance in a variety of areas, Puerto Rico included. Agriculture help is necessary, as well as help for rebuilding military installations and schools that have been destroyed. Why can't we get that done?

This is a very substantial package. There is actually more money in this bill for disaster relief for American citizens than there is for additional border security. So I think this is an eminently sensible proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I urge its adoption and the adoption of the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Mitchell), my good friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, sometimes, in the heat of debate, it is easy to miss what the real essence of the dispute is.

When I vote for the rule--and I don't expect my friend to vote for the rule; that is always a partisan exercise--but when I vote for the underlying legislation, I will actually be voting to fund the government. If my friends vote ``no,'' they will be voting not to fund the government. So if they are worried about funding the government, all they have to do is vote for this bill, because it funds the government.

The second thing I will be voting for is disaster relief. My friends have said that there are other areas that are worthy of relief. That is probably true. I don't have any quarrel with that. But I wouldn't vote against this disaster relief because it wasn't enough. I would

vote for this and then try to get additional in the time that we have remaining.

Finally, I will be voting for enhanced border security. We all know we have a problem. We all know that our border is not as secure as we would like. There is a debate over wall versus no wall. This really isn't a wall.

The wall would be $25 billion. Our friends have offered $1.7 billion. The President has been the one who has compromised, who has come back with $5 billion. So we are talking about $3.3 billion for various physical barriers at spots that we all agree would almost certainly work, done with the cooperation of our own people at Homeland Security.

Finally, we are talking about not paying border agents. Border agents have told us this is what they need. That is what their union has said. That is what their elected representatives said.

We want to do what the President has proposed. The President isn't shutting down the government. The President is willing to sign legislation that funds all the government. He has asked for disaster relief, something that should not be controversial in this Chamber, in my view, but sometimes is.

Finally, he has asked for an awfully modest amount of money to provide additional security along the border that the Border Patrol itself has asked for. That is really what is at issue.

So when you vote against this legislation, you will be the ones voting to shut down the government, not the President, not my colleagues in this Chamber, not the Senate and whatever they decide to do in their infinite wisdom, but a ``no'' vote on the underlying legislation is a vote to shut down the government.

A ``yes'' vote for the rule, which my friends would differ with, and that is fair enough, but a ``yes'' vote for the underlying legislation is the vote to keep the government open, take care of the disasters that we are faced with, and provide modest additional support for our border agents and Border Patrol.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close whenever my friend is.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend. As always, it is a spirited debate, and I want to be the first to say he is exactly right on a point he made. He did, earlier today, actually help me on this side of the aisle. I was evidently much more persuasive this morning than I have been this afternoon. But my friend is exactly right. On many occasions we have worked together, and I want to thank him for that.

I also want to review just quickly what I see, at least, Mr. Speaker, as the main issues here.

Number one, we all say we agree we want to keep the government funded, and I believe we all do. We don't believe in government shutdowns. We all believe the government ought to be funded. The underlying legislation does exactly that.

I think all of us, on both sides of the aisle, care about Americans who have been hurt in disasters, and we have shown that time and time again. We have struggled on occasion, but we generally get aid to where it is needed; and if we overlook somebody, we try and come back and do that again.

This bill makes a good-faith effort to provide billions of dollars in assistance to Americans who need it through no fault of their own, who have been ravaged by fire, who have been damaged by hurricanes, who face a variety of disasters, not just in the United States, but in the territories as well. If, again, we have overlooked something, we should go back and try and take care of that as well.

Finally, it provides a very modest amount of money. Remember, this package, together, is over $250 billion. The difference between the two sides--unless my friends object to disaster relief, which I doubt they do--to be fair, is really $3.3 billion. That is what the President thinks he needs, an additional expenditure along the border, or $5 billion if you want to characterize it that way. But the difference between the two sides is only $3.3 billion.

That doesn't build a wall. We have been told the President is uncompromising. He is not uncompromising. He has been, for 2 years, talking about an

elaborate border security of $25 billion. This is 5, not 25. This would not build a wall, but this would provide additional security.

We all know there are points along the way where physical barriers matter and make a difference. I think that is what the President is asking for.

My friends worry, and rightly so, about people not getting paid during a government shutdown, which I hope we avoid, quite frankly. But the men and women on the border have asked the President to do this. They support what he is trying to do.

When we send troops into combat, I listen to what they have to say and what they need. So does this Congress, and it tries to provide it.

We put people in a difficult situation along the border, and they tell us these are the sorts of tools they need. The President is trying to respond in this case, and I think we should support him in that effort.

So, Mr. Speaker, I want to encourage all Members to support the rule. Today's bill represents the next step toward fulfilling our primary obligation as Members of Congress to fund the government.

While continuing resolutions are never the best way to fund the government, today's measure will allow us to keep the entire government open and operating and providing needed services for our country and our constituents until February 8 of 2019. This measure will give Congress the time it needs to complete the rest of our work and fully fund the government through the end of fiscal year 2019.

I want to applaud my colleagues for their work.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding, and I certainly want to thank him and Chairman Bishop for their assistance through this whole process.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2606, the Stigler Act Amendments of 2018, and on the Senate amendments to that legislation.

I also speak on behalf of the citizens of the Cherokee Nation, the Chickasaw Nation, the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, and the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, commonly known as the Five Civilized Tribes. This bill only addresses and affects those Tribes and lands of their citizens within the State of Oklahoma. The passage of this legislation is critical to maintaining the inherited land of our Native citizens' ancestors.

This legislation seeks to amend the original Stigler Act of 1947 and remove the one-half degree requirement of Native American blood.

The original Stigler Act provides that, upon probate, if the heirs or devisees of an original allottee from the Five Tribes have passed out of one-half degree of Native blood, the allotment loses its restricted fee status.

This bill ends that practice. It provides the opportunity for the heirs and devisees to take title to the land and allow the parcel to maintain its restricted status.

This legislation will also create parity in Federal law in the treatment of Native American-allotted land by removing minimum blood degree requirements. Currently, these minimum requirements apply only to the citizens of the Five Tribes.

The House has already passed this legislation this Congress by voice vote, and it was passed in the Senate with an amendment by unanimous consent. The Senate amendment provides clarifying technical language, which I fully support.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to once again support and pass H.R. 2606 to remove this outdated and discriminatory law and to preserve what Native-held land is left in Oklahoma's Indian Country.

Mr. Speaker, I want to again thank the chairman for his help in this matter. It partially rights an historic wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a fellow Oklahoman and Native American, Dennis Zotigh, for receiving the Global Citizen Award from the Happy World Foundation.

A Kiowa, San Juan Pueblo, and Santee Dakota Indian, Dennis started learning Native American traditions, songs, and dances from an early age. After receiving a Bachelor's Degree from the University of Oklahoma, he has devoted his life to promoting Native American culture and history throughout the United States and across the world. He has done extensive work with the Oklahoma Historical Society and the Smithsonian Institution, and he has also represented Native Americans at institutions such as the British Museum in London. He has helped directed performances of Native American dances and songs for audiences ranging from viewers of Monday Night Football to the President of the United States.

As a proud Oklahoman and member of the Chickasaw Nation, I have always been passionate about advocating on behalf of Native Americans here in Washington, D.C. Therefore, I am very grateful that there are Oklahomans like Dennis Zotigh who have committed themselves to promoting Native American heritage. He has rightfully earned recognition for his role as a cultural ambassador for Native Americans, and I hope that he continues his great work in the years to come.

I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring Dennis Zotigh and his lifelong work to promote and preserve Native American culture

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of my constituents, Nathan Davis of Norman, Oklahoma, and in support of Children's Cardiomyopathy Awareness Month.

As an infant, Nathan had a virus which caused his heart to develop dilated cardiomyopathy, a life-long and degenerative heart disease that thins the heart muscle. The heart virus also caused Nathan to have a seizure that lasted three days. He survived against the odds but was left with long-term effects of cardiomyopathy and his seizures. Nathan grew up in a town that focused heavily on sports but was never able to play. His seizures caused short-term memory loss, exacerbated by his daily heart medications. These life challenges have also caused Nathan to suffer from mental health illnesses. His daily prayer is that with increased awareness and funding for cardiomyopathy that eventually a cure can be found.

September is Children's Cardiomyopathy Awareness month, which helps to raise the profile and spread information about cardiomyopathy and the effects it can have on children and their families. As in the case of Nathan, cardiomyopathy can lead to life-long difficulties, or, tragically, death. It is a leading cause of sudden cardiac arrest, particularly among young people, and is the leading cause of heart transplants for children over one year of age. Because symptoms are not always obvious, cardiomyopathy can easily remain undetected, with often fatal consequences. The mortality rate for pediatric cardiomyopathy exceeds that of all childhood cancers combined, and yet there is a shocking lack of both awareness and research on this terrible disease.

I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring Nathan Davis and his fight to raise awareness for cardiomyopathy.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1077 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of the conference report to H.R. 6157, the Department of Defense and Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act, 2019, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019, and for an additional resolution, H. Res. 1071. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, the appropriations package in front of us represents the second of what will likely be several appropriations packages to fully fund the government for fiscal year 2019.

This represents the first time in more than 10 years that Congress will send more than one final appropriations bill to the President for signature before the beginning of the fiscal year. In years past, we have relied strongly on omnibus spending bills to fund the government; but now, with the hard work done on both sides of the aisle and in both Houses of Congress, we are returning to regular order and completing spending work through the normal legislative process.

Mr. Speaker, as I have so often said on this floor, the primary obligation of the Congress is to fund the American Government and keep it open and operating. The American people deserve no less. With this package under consideration today, Congress will do just that with respect to 2 of the 12 main spending bills: the Department of Defense and the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies.

In addition, the bill also includes a continuing resolution extending funding for other parts of the government not covered by this bill or the appropriations bill signed by the President last week.

In passing this bill, we will provide crucial funding for services across broad areas of the government and fulfill our promises to the American people: to patients, to communities, to business owners, to the military, and to Americans of all stripes.

The House is already familiar with this bill from when it was passed in June, and this conference version, agreed to with the Senate, has not substantially changed with respect to Defense. However, it now reflects the combined priorities of the Members of both sides of the aisle and in both the House and the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, in the Defense title of the bill, the conference report appropriates a total of $674.4 billion for the Department of Defense, including $606.5 billion in base funding, an increase of $17 billion above fiscal year 2018, and $67.9 billion in overseas contingency operations and global war on terrorism funding. This increase in funding will help begin to right the wrongs committed against our military readiness by several years of chronic underfunding.

This bill provides an authorized 2.6 percent pay increase for our troops, the largest pay raise in 9 years, and it ensures we will be able to increase our Active-Duty number of military personnel by more than 16,000 soldiers.

The bill provides $148 billion for equipment procurement, including 13 new warships, a number that includes two new Virginia-class submarines and three new littoral combat ships. It also adds 93 new F- 35 aircraft, new transport aircraft, new tankers, and over 100 new helicopters.

The bill also provides $96.1 billion for research and development of new defense systems and technologies, and $243.2 billion for training, maintenance, and base operations, funding that is sorely needed to increase our dwindling readiness to confront threats both at home and abroad.

Mr. Speaker, in the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education title, the conference report appropriates $178 billion, a $1 billion increase over fiscal year 2018.

As the conference knows, I am fortunate to chair the Labor, Health and

Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, and I am very pleased with the results of this year's bill. We were able to increase the budget of the National Institutes of Health by $2 billion to $39 billion, thus ensuring that we will be able to direct significant new dollars to medical research, tackling vexing health problems like Alzheimer's disease, cancer, and the opioid crisis.

Indeed, across the entire bill, we are putting more than $6.6 billion into the fight against the opioid crisis. We are putting $7.9 billion into the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to make sure that we will have the resources available to battle emerging public health emergencies and fight infectious disease. We did all of this while also ensuring that popular programs like Meals on Wheels, which provides meals for our vulnerable senior citizens, can continue to be funded at current levels.

In the other areas of the Labor-HHS title, we have provided $12.1 billion for the Department of Labor, including $3.5 billion for job training, $1.7 billion for Job Corps, and $300 million to help veterans transition into the workforce.

We provided $71 billion to the Department of Education. This includes $12.4 billion for IDEA special education grants to States. We also funded TRIO at $1.06 million and GEAR UP at $360 million, both substantial increases.

These programs are near and dear to my heart personally and help first-generation college students succeed.

We increased the maximum Pell grant award to $6,195, and we provided $1.9 billion for career, technical, and adult education programs. We included significant funding for our youngest Americans, including $10.1 billion for Head Start, $5.3 billion for childcare and development block grants, and $250 million for early childhood programs.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill also includes a provision acting as a continuing resolution, extending some portions of government funding out to December 7. This extension, while not ideal, gives the Appropriations Committee and both Houses of Congress time to come to an agreement on legislation funding the remaining areas of our government. Such an extension fulfills our primary obligation as legislators, which is to fund the government and keep it open and operating.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a brief look at what we have accomplished and put these bills in context.

Last week, the President signed into law the first package of three bills for fiscal year 2019, covering Energy and Water, Military Construction and Veteran Affairs, and the Legislative Branch titles. These bills covered just over 11 percent of total discretionary spending.

Today's bill, which covers the Defense and Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education titles, will produce the vast majority of discretionary spending, just short of 65 percent of the total discretionary spending for fiscal year 2019. What is left in the remaining seven titles amounts to just shy of 24 percent of discretionary spending.

We may need to do a short-term continuing resolution for part of the government, but with these bills today, what we will have accomplished is sending over 75 percent of the total discretionary spending to the President for his signature into law before the start of the new fiscal year.

That is an amazing accomplishment, one that has not happened in Congress in over a decade. Indeed, this is the first time in more than 10 years that the Department of Defense will have its full annual funding enacted before the start of the fiscal year. This is the first time in 22 years that the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies will have been funded before the beginning of the fiscal year.

As Chairman Frelinghuysen has said, this is the next step on the return to regular order. Those who would reject this bill because of the presence of a continuing resolution for part of the government are, frankly, throwing the proverbial baby out with the bath water. This bill, Mr. Speaker, is a return to regular order, and we should all be proud of what we have achieved. It also represents a compromise between the two parties in this body and between this body and our counterpart on the other side of the Capitol Rotunda.

Mr. Speaker, today's conference report represents nearly a year of strong work by Congress. I applaud my colleagues for all they have accomplished. This is just the next step, and we will have many things to do before we finish our appropriations work for fiscal year 2019. But for now, I congratulate the House and the Senate for finalizing this package.

I want to take a moment also, since this is the last one of these particular bills that Chairman Frelinghuysen will present, he will have others later, obviously, but he is ending his term, and I want to congratulate our chairman for the outstanding work that he has done, and also that of his strong working partner, Mrs. Lowey of New York, for her outstanding work.

Frankly, since we are dealing with the Labor-H portion, I want to thank my good working partner and friend, Rosa DeLauro, the gentlewoman from Connecticut, for her hard work. I also thank our superb staff, particularly our clerk, Ms. Ross, for her work in ably helping us arrive at a monumental achievement. Again, this is the first time in 22 years that the Labor-H bill has gotten done in full and on time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my good friend, my colleague on the Rules Committee, for her kind words and her acknowledgment of how many accomplishments there are that both parties have worked hard to achieve in this particular legislation. That is why I am confident that once the bill comes to the floor, we will have a substantial majority of my friends on the other side of the aisle voting for it and a substantial majority of my friends from my side of the aisle joining them in that. That is a good thing. America should be exceptionally pleased with that.

I also want to thank the President, because he is a participant in this. While this bill does represent a compromise, the reality is, particularly in the defense area, we essentially gave the President most of the things that he asked for and worked for, and we brought this. So I think he can take considerable pride in the achievements of restoring the military, because that was his suggestion, his proposal, and he worked to that end.

There are also particular initiatives in the Labor-H portion of the bill that the President deserves credit for. My friend cited the apprenticeship program, a great program. That was a Presidential-level proposal. A lot of the training programs are.

It was this President who declared opioids as a national healthcare emergency. I am proud Congress, on both sides of the aisle, have responded. As my friend knows, there was a budget agreement last year between the administration, the Senate, and the House that actually put an emphasis on more money at the NIH, more money for opioids.

I am the first to acknowledge there is good work and good praise here to go all around for everybody. My friends in the House worked very hard. I have always joked with my good friend, the ranking member, that we always start out on different sides, but for four times in a row now, we have come together for the final package and both supported the legislation that authorized Health and Human Services, Labor, Education, and related agencies. Again, that wouldn't be possible without the leadership of the full committee. That wouldn't be possible without friends across the rotunda.

Far be it from me to overpraise the Senate of the United States, but I have to say that they deserve a lot of praise in this instance, because the leadership of Chairman Shelby and Ranking Member Leahy on that side was exceptionally important to us in reaching a resolution and working through some of the knotty issues.

Finally, I want to thank the President of the United States. We make Presidents go first in their budget proposals, largely so then we can pick them apart later and do what Congress should do, and that is to make the final decisions in this area. But we took the President's recommendations very, very seriously.

There are many good things in this bill, both in the military side and the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education side, that began with proposals of the administration.

I mentioned opioids. I mentioned apprenticeship programs. I could go on. I could mention charter schools. There are many, many proposals out of the administration that are incorporated in this.

The reality is, I think this is actually what the American people want to see. All three of the legs of this stool--the House, the Senate, and the executive branch--cooperating together, compromise, found different ways. We did that within our ranks, within this body between Republicans and Democrats. We did that across the rotunda with our colleagues in the Senate. And we certainly did it working with the President of the United States.

It takes all three of us to get it done. The reality is, this has already passed the Senate in, I must add, an overwhelmingly bipartisan manner, 93 to 7, if I recall the vote correctly. That makes a strong statement as to how well our friends on both sides of the aisle in the other Chamber work.

I think we will have a very strong vote when we get to final legislation. That, again, is something that the leadership on both sides, and particularly in the Appropriations Committee, can take a great deal of pride in.

When we send it down to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, if the President of the United States doesn't sign it, it doesn't become law. I believe we will get that signature, and I want to acknowledge how hard the President and his team worked with us to arrive at a solution with our friends in both Chambers.

Mr. Speaker, with praise all around, I am going to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by agreeing with the objective that my friends are laying out but disagreeing with the means by which they are trying to achieve it.

I couldn't agree more that passing the National Violence Against Women Act, or extending it, is the appropriate thing to do. I worked very hard the last time we did the extension.

I actually helped put together a coalition of Republicans that brought down the Republican bill, because we thought the Senate Democratic bill was superior. It extended for the first time opportunities in Indian country for Tribal governments to hold non- Tribal Members accountable for assault.

So this is a cause that is near and dear to my heart. I don't pretend to sit on the authorization committee, which my good friend from Texas does. I am not exactly sure where they are in the process. But as she did say, this is normally bipartisan.

So I look on this as a routine extension while they continue to work through. I think, if we get the legislation to the floor, I have no doubt it will pass in a very strongly bipartisan way.

I will say, if we adopt the strategy my friends recommend, we will, actually, in some ways, hurt the cause that I know she feels so passionately about.

The Labor-H bill actually funds the battered women shelters and the National Domestic Violence Hotline. Those are two important items in here that are actually funded in the bill. If we bring down the bill, we are going to derail the appropriations process for all Defense, for Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies, a lot of these other related programs that are extremely important.

So I have no doubt about the sincerity of my friend's position, but I don't want to, frankly, number one, disrupt funding for very, very important programs that we help, you know, sustain like, again, the National Domestic Violence Hotline and battered women's shelters, and I certainly don't want to defund it for the larger measures here either.

So I think you have to recognize we don't always get everything done on time. I don't think we got VAWA done on time the last time. I know at least it was quite a difficult struggle, but we eventually got there, and we got there with substantial votes from both parties and got it through. I think we will again.

I pledge to work with my friends on the other side of the aisle to achieve that objective. I just don't think, right now, we should derail an $800 billion bill when this bill will actually extend the current legislation and give us the time to finish whatever the differences are, resolve whatever the differences are, if there are any, within the committee and eventually bring it forward.

Again, I think it is a worthy objective. I look forward to working with my friends to achieve it. I just simply don't want to derail this appropriations bill in the course of doing that.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my friend from California. We don't agree on every point here, but we do agree on the underlying legislation. We both, frankly, appreciate the labors of both Democrats and Republicans to come to compromises on an extraordinarily large budget item--65 percent, roughly, of the Federal budget here between Defense, Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies. I share my friend's appreciation and admiration for all that were part of that.

My friend did bring up in her close the concern about two items in a government shutdown. I will remind my friend, it was our friends who tried to shut down the government in the House on the other side of the aisle, and the Democrats in the Senate who actually did shut down the government in 2017. So I always point out both parties have done this. It is never a very good idea. Neither has ever achieved their objectives there, so we are working hard to make sure that doesn't happen. But it wasn't Republicans that shut down the government in 2017. I think it was actually called--well, I won't use the name, but it was actually named after a Democratic Senator. So let's put that aside.

Let's focus. My friend did raise an interesting point on closed rules. And I think, you know, this is something they continue to focus on, and, I think, sometimes lost in this, we ignore the structured rule amendment process that has routinely been used actually by majorities of both sides, to be fair.

If we are going to use that metric for measuring openness, I want to clarify a couple of points for the Record.

Mr. Speaker, 16 of the closed rules cited by the minority were rolling back regulations under the Congressional Review Act, which does not allow for amendments, to ensure that only a majority vote is required in the United States Senate.

Another 12 closed rules were for bills where the minority put out a call for amendments but received no amendments. And if my friends from the other side of the aisle believe that open rules are the only measure of success, it is only fair to clarify for the American people the Democratic majority's record in this regard.

In the 111th Congress, under Speaker Pelosi, the majority had zero open rules. However, as we have already stated in the past, comparing open versus closed rules ignores the structured amendment process. The majority has made it a priority to make in order large numbers of amendments for floor consideration, a majority of those with a Democratic sponsor and/or cosponsor.

In fact, as of September 26, 2018, Republicans in the 115th Congress have provided for consideration of over 1,650 amendments on the House floor: over 750 of those amendments were offered by my friends, the Democrats on the other side of the aisle; over 635 Republican amendments were made in order; and over 280 bipartisan amendments.

So the 114th Congress, the GOP majority has actually allowed over 1,700 amendments to be considered on the House floor, and in the 113th Congress, the Republican majority allowed over 1,500 amendments to be considered on the floor. My friends, the last time they were in the majority, the 111th Congress, offered fewer than 1,000 amendments to be considered.

So there is a case to be made on both sides of these things. I think the majority has tried to move legislation as best they can, but we certainly want the active participation of our friends from the other side, and, quite often, they are very robust in taking advantage of that opportunity. That is a good thing.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to encourage all Members to support the rule. I recognize my friends on the other side probably will not do that, and that is appropriate. The rule debate is normally a partisan divide, and I respect my friend's efforts in that regard.

But I know that many of my friends will support the underlying resolution, and, for that, I express my appreciation, and, frankly, my gratitude for the good hard work that has gone back and forth across partisan aisles. This bill, though, this rule represents the next step toward fulfilling our primary obligation as Members of Congress to fund the government.

For the first time in over 10 years, we will fully fund the Department of Defense before the start of our fiscal year. We will pass a Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies appropriations bill, providing funds for healthcare, schools, medical research, job training, and thousands of other priorities for both parties for the first time in 22 years. And we will enable that the government remains open and operating to provide needed services for our constituents.

So I want to applaud my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their hard work. I want to thank our friends in the United States Senate who have already completed their portion of this. I want to join my friend in urging the President, assuming we pass this legislation, to sign it and sign it before the end of the fiscal year.

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

Mr. Speaker, today marks a victory in the return to regular order on the Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill. I am proud of the hard work that brought this bill to us, and I want to highlight just a few of the many provisions in the Labor, Health and Human Services section of the bill that all Members can be proud of.

First of all, I want to note that, while the Defense portion of the bill is up $18 billion, the Labor-H portion of the bill is actually only up $1 billion. It is no secret that our friends on the other side wanted a $5.5 billion increase. Our friends in the Senate version actually got a $2.2 billion increase. In the end, the Labor-H bill allocation actually only increased by $1 billion. In fact, almost three-quarters of the bill in front of us is dedicated to defense.

The Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education portion of the agreement boosts funding for the National Institutes of Health by $2 billion, continuing our quest to cure diseases like Alzheimer's and cancer, and unlock the secrets of genetic conditions like Down syndrome. We have provided increases to help our Nation prepare for public health emergencies, and included $6.7 billion to fight and, hopefully, end the opioid abuse epidemic, including $1.1 billion of grants to States.

I am also proud to say that the agreement includes $50 million for a new Infectious Disease Rapid Response Reserve Fund. The fund will not only save American lives, it will save money too. By banking resources now that only can be used in the event of a future infectious disease public health emergency, we will provide the Secretary of Health and Human Services with immediate access to the funds to respond to a new outbreak, without waiting months for Congress to pass a costly supplemental bill.

The conference agreement also increases funding for education and training programs, including a $70 million increase for career and technical education, a $60 million increase for TRIO and GEAR UP programs to help more students obtain solid workplace skills and a career of their choosing.

We increased funds for Impact Aid and charter schools, and provided funds for our veterans to integrate back into the workforce.

We invested in TRIO and GEAR UP, and also in early childhood education.

We have increased programs to help people with disabilities live independently, and to fund early intervention and education services for children with disabilities. We have increased school safety and mental health programs, and increased funding for graduate medical education to train more primary healthcare providers.

Finally, the bill continues the existing pro-life riders, including the Hyde and Weldon amendments. We didn't give an inch on pro-life matters in this bill.

This is a good agreement. I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, particularly Chairman Frelinghuysen, and my good friend, Ranking Member Lowey. I also want to acknowledge my working partner and good friend, Rosa DeLauro from Connecticut, and all the Members that participated in the process.

But I particularly want to thank the outstanding staff that made this possible: Susan Ross, Jennifer Cama, Justin Gibbons, Kathryn Salmon, and Karyn Richman and Lori Bias on the majority staff; and minority staff Stephen Steigleder and Robin Juliano for their diligence in bringing this across the finish line for the first time in 22 years.

So I look forward to the floor passage and the President's signature.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank the gentleman from Montana for yielding, and I want to thank him for moving this legislation through his committee and onto the floor.

I rise in support, Mr. Speaker, of H.R. 2606, the Stigler Act Amendments of

2018, and on behalf of the citizens of the Cherokee Nation; my own tribe, the Chickasaw Nation; the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma; the Muscogee Creek Nation; and the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, commonly known as the Five Civilized Tribes.

The bill before us only addresses and affects these Five Tribes and the lands owned by their citizens within the State of Oklahoma. The passage of this legislation is critical to maintaining the inherited land of the citizens of the five aforementioned tribes.

The infamous Dawes Act of 1887 authorized the Federal Government to survey tribal lands and divide them into allotted parcels for individual Native Americans. Title to these allotment parcels was set forth in the Stigler Act of 1947.

The Stigler Act provided that, upon probate, if the heirs and devisees of an original allottee from the Five Tribes had passed out of one-half Native American blood quantum, the allotment loses its restricted fee status.

Restricted land is not subject to State taxation, and Federal law does not dictate a minimum Native American blood degree requirement to any other tribe.

The original Stigler Act itself was an egregious violation of tribal sovereignty and previous agreements between the Five Civilized Tribes and the government. The provisions of the Dawes Act that protected individual Native allottees, frankly, were effectively neutered by the passage of the Stigler Act.

This legislation seeks to amend the original Stigler Act and remove the one-half degree requirement of Native American blood. In doing so, it would provide the opportunity for heirs and devisees to take title to the land and allow the parcel to maintain its restricted status.

This legislation will also create parity in Federal law in the treatment of Native American allotted land by removing the minimum blood degree requirement, which only applies to the citizens of the Five Civilized Tribes.

As Native Americans, we take great pride in our heritage and the land that our ancestors maintained before us. The Stigler Act would allow Natives to pass on their restricted land to future generations who may not meet the one-half degree blood requirement. Many of Oklahoma's citizens have passed out of the one-half blood lineage but remain vested in their Native American heritage and citizens of their respective tribal governments.

This bill will help preserve the rights and legacy of Native American tribes and their inheritance in the State of Oklahoma.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support and pass H.R. 2606 to remove this outdated and discriminatory law and to preserve what Native American land is left in Oklahoma's Indian Country.

Mr. Speaker, again, I want to thank my friend for moving this through the committee. Also, obviously, I want to thank the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Bishop, for his help in this matter.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XXII and by direction of the Committee on Appropriations, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, this is a necessary step to continue to move the fiscal year 2019 appropriations process forward under regular order.

On June 28, the House passed H.R. 6157, the FY 2019 Defense Appropriations bill by a vote of 359-49. The Senate took up that bill and added the Labor-HHS Appropriations bill and has now sent H.R. 6157 back to the House.

With the appointment of these conferees, the House and the Senate may begin to resolve the differences with the goal of passing H.R. 6157 before the end of the fiscal year. As such, I strongly support this motion.

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

The previous question was ordered.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct conferees. As the House and Senate come together to find a path forward on funding the Federal Government, we will, no doubt, be faced with tough choices and fierce disagreements. But we agree that these two bills, funding the Department of Defense and funding the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, are two of the most important bills that we handle and, frankly, the two largest as well. They deserve thorough consideration and fair discussion amongst the conferees.

We are all committed to getting this done and getting this done right. As we are currently doing with our first package of appropriations bills, this conference committee will negotiate fairly and respectfully to reach a final agreement on funding these critical Defense and Labor-HHS programs.

I want to remind the body that, of course, we have done this before. We have begun in different places, and, to my friend's credit, we have worked together, have found common ground three times in a row, and have been able to support the final bill. It certainly would be my hope that we are able to do that again.

So I just want people in the conference committee to feel free to bring up any topics that they think are important, and that we have a free and full discussion, and, hopefully, work ourselves to a resolution.

I urge my colleagues to reject the motion to instruct conferees, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close if my friend is prepared to close.

Correct.

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

I want to begin by thanking my friends. They always bring interesting points to the floor, particularly the ranking member of the full committee, but also my friend Mr. Scott. I just want to assure them that, when we sit down to bargain, we will bargain in good faith, and all these things will--and I think appropriately should be--on the table and open for a fair discussion.

I do point out to the body that, frankly, when we have done this before, we have been able to find common ground and been able to arrive at a final solution that had substantial bipartisan support for the last 3 years. I am confident that we can do that again this year and, frankly, it is very much my hope that we can do it before the end of the fiscal year.

I think that is important that the domestic programs that we fund in the Labor-HHS bill, which my friend, the ranking member of the subcommittee, so ably advances and defends, that we do that without having a continuing resolution, something that interrupts the progress. That is even more important in the area of defense, that we avoid a continuing resolution.

So I think there will be considerable goodwill on both sides and a considerable effort to come together in common ground.

Having said that, I continue to oppose instructions to the committee because the conferees have proven before they can work together to produce a product. It is my hope that we will be able to do that.

So I urge the body to reject the effort to instruct the conferees, and I invite my friends, as I know they will, to sit down in good faith to work with us to arrive at a bill that both sides of the rotunda and both parties can support in substantial numbers.

I look forward to that process with my good friend the ranking member from Connecticut and, obviously, with my good friend the full committee ranking member as well. I have every confidence that, working together in good faith, as we have in the past, we will get to a place that we both can be pleased with, if not perfectly satisfied with.

Mr. Speaker, I urge rejection of the instruction, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 996 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my good friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.

During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of H.R. 6147, the Department of Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2019, which also includes the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act of 2019.

The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking member on the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, the appropriations package in front of us is the third installment of the House's effort to pass all 12 appropriations bills on the floor for fiscal year 2019. We have previously passed appropriations bills covering Energy and Water, Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, Legislative Branch, and Defense.

Today we turn to the work of the Appropriations Committee Subcommittees on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies and Financial Services and General Government.

Once the House finishes its work for the week, we will have passed 6 of the 12 appropriations bills across the floor.

Overall, the package covers $58.65 billion in spending. Of those funds, $35.25 billion are allocated to the Interior bill and $23.4 billion to the Financial Services bill, which is equal to the enacted level for fiscal year 2018 for both of these bills. The package represents many months of work by the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, as I have so often said when discussing appropriations bills, today's package represents the most fundamental duty of Congress, to fund the government and keep it open each year to continue to provide our constituents with the services they need and deserve. But, importantly, this package also fulfills an additional duty of Congress to the American people: its fiscally prudent stewardship of the taxpayers' hard-earned money and to ensure that we appropriately prioritize where and how to spend taxpayer dollars in the most efficient manner.

Mr. Speaker, the Interior and Environment Appropriations bill funds critical programs at the Department of the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other crucial areas. Among the areas of greatest importance, the bill includes $3.9 billion for the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Forest Service to fight wildfires. It includes $500 million for payments in lieu of taxes to help local governments, and it provides $2.6 billion for the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund.

It funds the National Park Service at $3.25 billion, an increase of $53 million over fiscal year 2018. Of great import, not only to my home State of Oklahoma but to Native Americans all across the country, the bill honors our treaties and trust agreements by providing $5.9 billion for the Indian Health Service and $3.1 billion for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian Education.

The bill also fulfills an additional commitment to the American people by including provisions to rein in the runaway regulatory agendas of parts of the Federal Government. It reduces the EPA's regulatory programs by $228 million. It also fully repeals the economically damaging waters of the United States rule and includes various prohibitions preventing the EPA from overregulating agricultural operations and exempting livestock producers from EPA greenhouse gas requirements.

The Financial Services and General Government portion of this bill provides $23.4 billion across several important accounts. It provides $7.7 billion for the operation of the Federal court system. The bill also provides funding to help combat the opioid crisis, including $415 million for the Office of National Drug Control Policy, including $280 million for high-intensity drug trafficking areas and $118 million for other Federal drug control programs.

It encourages responsible spending at the Internal Revenue Service by appropriating $11.6 billion for IRS activities, an increase of $186 million over fiscal year 2018, and continues stringent oversight and protections of taxpayer dollars that have been included in recent years.

The bill provides $1.66 billion for the Securities and Exchange Commission and will help grow the economy by providing $737 million, or full funding, in capital to various Small Business Administration loan programs. Perhaps most importantly, this bill includes provisions that will finally bring the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under congressional oversight.

Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, when the CFPB was created in the original Dodd-Frank Act, the new agency was allowed to operate without congressional oversight because it did not receive appropriations. Consequently, since its inception, unelected bureaucrats at the CFPB have been allowed to operate entirely without congressional supervision. Today's bill will remedy that and will ensure that the CFPB falls under congressional authority, oversight, and supervision once and for all.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill. The package before us represents a fulfillment of our most important responsibility as Members of Congress and provides appropriate funding in two divisions: Interior and Environment, and Financial Services and General Government. I applaud my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for their months of work in making this bill a reality and cheer their efforts on moving forward to completion of the fiscal year 2019 appropriations process.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the rule and the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and then I will turn and yield time to my friend from Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to quickly respond to my friend's concern about the Election Assistance Commission funds.

As I am sure he is aware, that was the last installment last year, this fiscal year, of a $365 billion authorization that was actually done back in 2002. Currently, 39 percent of those funds for this year are still available to the

States. Actually, 19 States have yet to submit any sort of request, and the legislation itself has not been reauthorized. If the authorizing people reauthorize it, I am sure we will revisit this matter.

It also worth noting that anything added will be available only from October 1, and the election is 5 weeks after that. So the idea that we are going to do something in that period of time, I think, is a bit of a red herring.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs), my good friend from the Seventh District.

Mr. Speaker, I am reiterating my earlier announcement that all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only, and I will not yield for any other purpose.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close whenever my friend is.

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

Let me make a couple of comments in response to my friend.

It was the last President, not this President, who told Russian leaders that he would be more flexible after an election.

It was the last President, not this President, who said Russia was not a geopolitical threat and chastised Mitt Romney when he raised it in the campaign.

And it was the last President, not this President, who drew a red line and then refused to enforce it.

If you actually look at the Record, it is this administration and this party that, frankly, has begun to restore America's defenses after years of neglect by the last administration. That is not good news for Russia.

It is this administration that has also encouraged and cajoled some of our allies to increase their defense level up to the levels that they, themselves, had committed to.

It was this President that twice enforced red lines in Syria.

It was this Congress that administered ever-increasing penalties on Russian sanctions.

So I think if you look at the actions, the actions are pretty impressive.

But I want to actually get back to the matter at hand, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to encourage all Members to support the rule. Today's bill represents the next step toward fulfilling our primary obligation as Members of Congress: funding the Government of the United States.

Although not perfect, the bill before us today will lead to the completion of the House's work on two more appropriations bills. We will provide funding for important government activities like fighting forest fires, funding the Indian Health Service, enforcing tax and securities laws, and funding our national parks; and we will ensure that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is no longer allowed to operate without congressional oversight.

While I look forward to completing our work and passing all 12 appropriations bills, this legislation represents an important step along the way to fulfilling that goal. I applaud my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for their work.

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

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 58 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, July 17, 2018, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed recorded votes on rollcalls Nos. 291, 292, and 293 on June 26, 2018. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 291, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 292, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 293.

personal explanation

Mr. Chairman, for more than a decade, we have overused and underinvested in the United States military. This bill marks a welcomed change of direction and a recapitalization of the American military.

I could go through a lot of the weapons systems and missions and programs. I am fortunate enough to represent a district in which all four services are active, both at Fort Sill, where we have Marine artillery and Army artillery and air defense artillery, and Tinker Air Force Base, where we have the Navy E-6 wing as well as the largest air depot in the world. This bill will make a difference for all of those installations.

Much more importantly, what the American people need to understand is, at the end of this process, we will have a larger Army, a larger Navy, a larger Air Force, and a larger Marine Corps. They will be better trained, better equipped, and better able to serve us and, thank goodness, better compensated as well.

Mr. Chair, I want to thank, particularly, Chairwoman Granger and Ranking Member Visclosky. I wish people could have watched this process. I have served under three very capable chairmen on this subcommittee. To watch them work back and forth in such a bipartisan, pragmatic, and thorough way and to interact with professionals in our military and to give every member of that subcommittee an opportunity to participate in a meaningful way was a legislative marvel and probably a minor miracle in the way things go. I think you can see that just by listening to the remarks on both sides of the aisle about our chairman and our ranking member and the process in which they engaged.

Mr. Chair, I want to urge everybody on the floor to vote for this bill. It was arrived at the right way. It is the right thing for the country and the American military. More than that, I am proud of our chairman, I am proud of our ranking member, and I am very proud to have been able to participate in this process.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding.

Originally, I have to say, I was skeptical when the administration raised the idea of rescissions, not because I am against saving money-- I think we need to do a lot more of that around here--but because I thought this might undo the bipartisan agreement that the administration and our leadership had negotiated.

Frankly, this bill does nothing of the kind. And I want to compliment the President and OMB Director Mick Mulvaney, our former colleague, for using a tool that has not been used in 20 years. They did the right thing. They did it in the right way.

This is the largest rescission package ever in the history of Congress. It will save almost $15 billion. But where are those savings coming from? They are coming from funds that we, frankly, didn't use or we overappropriated.

My friends talk a lot about CHIP. The authorization for $5 billion of that money ran out. You can't even legally spend it. Why would you leave it in the account?

Another $2 billion is taken from an account for when States go beyond their spending limits. We have never spent more than $350 million of that money, and we actually left $500 million in the account. Why not reclaim the savings and return them to the Treasury?

You can go on and on.

There was $4.3 billion for the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program that nobody has applied for or has not been used since 2011.

Again, there is example after example. It is a wise thing to reclaim unused money and spending authority and return it to the Treasury of the United States.

I am very proud to cosponsor the legislation. I am very supportive of it and would urge its passage.