Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 504, as the designee of Mr. Frelinghuysen, I offer amendments en bloc No. 4.

Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), who is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education approved this list of amendments last week, along with myself, and was looking forward to discussing them and others with all of us here today.

Unfortunately, the gentlewoman is not able to be here this week due to the death of her beloved mother, Luisa DeLauro, who passed away over the weekend at the age of 103.

The gentlewoman from Connecticut and I have something in common on this point: neither of us would likely be a Member of this body today were it not for the inspiration and role model of our mothers, both of whom were actively involved in local politics.

Like my own late mother, Helen Cole, who served in the Oklahoma House and Senate and as mayor of our home town of Moore, Oklahoma, Luisa DeLauro served 35 years as a member of the New Haven, Connecticut, Board of Aldermen, the longest tenure in the city's history. She served with six different mayors and dedicated her time to improving the lives of seniors and the working poor.

Her daughter has most certainly followed in her footsteps, bringing her passion, dedication, and tirelessness for these same causes to the Halls of Congress.

We are sorry the gentlewoman cannot be with us today. We know she is honoring her mother and her mother's legacy, and making her mother proud of her work here.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Denham), my good friend.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Costello), my friend.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by saying how much I, frankly, appreciate the gentleman's amendment.

Many programs in this bill, frankly, were eliminated or substantially reduced to stay within the allocation, which, as I know my good friend knows, was $5 billion below the FY 2017 enacted level. Some other programs, including job training programs for youth, were reduced by relatively modest amounts, again, to stay within the allocation. The total amount in the bill for youth job training grants is $832 million, a reduction over last year of just 4.5 percent.

While I support the job training grants and programs in question, I oppose the amendment out of concern that the offset to the Department of Labor's administration account will be too hard to absorb, including the administrative reductions already included in the bill.

I will commit to my friend that we will try to work with him through the process and see if there is some way that we can get these funds restored going forward.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking my friend for the amendment, quite frankly. And while I understand and share many of the gentleman's concerns, most of the accounts that this amendment reduces have already been reduced in the bill. The allocations we are working on required us to find efficiencies and savings wherever possible.

I believe that cutting the administrative accounts in this amendment by another 10 percent would unnecessarily increase the risk of significant disruption of services, and oversight responsibility the agencies in this bill are charged with.

While I oppose the amendment for these reasons, I want to pledge to my friend that I will continue to work with him and others to identify specific areas where additional efficiencies and savings can be realized. And I know my friend also feels strongly about entitlement reform, where the real money is, and I look forward to working with him on that as well.

But in the meantime, Mr. Chairman, I must urge the rejection of the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), my good friend, the distinguished ranking member of the full Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), my good friend.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by saying how much I regret-- I know my friend regrets that our good friend wasn't here to offer her amendment here this evening, and I appreciate my good friend from Wisconsin stepping up and doing that. He is a very valued member of this subcommittee, and one who contributes mightily to its deliberations.

I certainly understand the concern of some with the relatively modest reductions in this bill at labor enforcement agencies at the Department of Labor. It has been the subcommittee's policy for many years to protect workers' health and safety by increasing funding for compliance assistance, and reducing enforcement activities. That is exactly what this bill actually does.

I appreciate that the subcommittee has had to reduce funding for many programs in the bill to work within its allocation. My concern with this amendment is the substantial offset of the department management funds at the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education.

Mr. Chairman, for that reason, I oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's amendment, and I agree that worker safety is one of the

Department of Labor's most important functions. I think, however, we just disagree on the most effective ways the Federal Government can help with that effort. This bill actually increases compliance assistance programs at the OSHA to do just that, so I will oppose the gentleman's amendment which would offset the increases to OSHA enforcement by reducing critical compliance assistance efforts that many of our Members strongly support.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's amendment, and I certainty support the Women's Bureau at the Department of Labor.

Many programs in this bill were eliminated or substantially reduced to stay within our allocation. In contrast, the Women's Bureau was reduced by a relatively modest $1 million. The administration budget request proposed reducing the Women's Bureau by $8.5 million, clearly a reduction the committee did not agree with in the bill.

I understand the importance of many of these programs, and these are some of the difficult decisions that have to be made to fund bipartisan priorities in this bill like increases in funding to the NIH and to TRIO and yet still stay within our allocation. I expect and hope that as the process moves forward and we negotiate a bipartisan funding agreement, we will have further discussions regarding the funding of the Women's Bureau.

Mr. Chairman, I regret having to oppose the gentlewoman's amendment at this time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I do not object to it.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment has no net impact on the funding of the bill, so I do not oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from New York, representing the gentlewoman from New Mexico, raises a very important point.

The amendment offered is for an increase to a workforce training program. Our committee understands the value of this program, which is why we did not accept the administration's budget request which actually terminated the program. We were able to fund it, though, below last year's level.

Our committee received an allocation that was lower than fiscal year 2017, and as I have explained several times before and doubtless will again, we had to make some very tough decisions. I do pledge to work with the gentlewoman as we work toward the fiscal year 2018 final bill. At this time, though, I must oppose the amendment and urge its rejection.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, frankly, there is considerable merit to the amendment the gentlewoman is suggesting.

The amendment offered is for an increase to the workforce training program. Our committee understands the value of this program, which is why we did not accept the administration's budget request, which terminated the program. We were able to fund it, though, below last year's level. However, I will certainly commit to my friend that we will work with her as we go through the process toward the final bill, and hopefully we can find a way to increase this at a later time.

At this time, however, Mr. Chairman, I must oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend for his amendment. I wish I could support it, quite frankly, because I very much support Healthy Start and very much appreciate his support for that program.

As the gentleman knows, again, our subcommittee received an allocation below last year's level. As a result, we did not have the ability to increase funding for some programs, this one included.

The gentleman's amendment offsets the increase with a reduction in the resources for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to carry out his responsibilities. A reduction of this size would hinder the Secretary's ability to administer the program effectively. For this reason, I oppose the amendment.

I want to assure my friend, as we work our way through this process, I am going to try and work with him to see if we can find a way to actually increase those funds, but at this point, we simply don't have them available.

For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have considerable sympathy with my friend's concerns. Frankly, I think he has certainly every right to be concerned about a hospital in his district. I certainly agree with an effort to put additional funding for the opioid epidemic, for pediatric cancer, and for Alzheimer's disease. These are all critical issues facing our country.

Nevertheless, I must oppose the amendment. The bill actually includes $126 million within the CDC for surveillance and prevention of opioid misuse, which continues the large increase provided in fiscal year 2017. The bill also provides a $1.1 billion increase for the National Institutes of Health, which includes a targeted increase of $400 million for research on Alzheimer's disease, as well as increases for each institute center, including the National

Cancer Institute, to support vital research on disease such as pediatric cancer.

Furthermore, the bill also continues to provide funds authorized in the 21st Century Cures Act, including $300 million for the Cancer Moonshot, and $500 million for opioid abuse.

Finally, the reduction of funding at CMS proposed by my friend would weaken the agency's ability to properly manage and administer Medicare and Medicaid. So for that reason, I must oppose my friend's amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan).

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman for working with us on this, and I want to assure that we will work with her. I appreciate her concern for the Community Services Block Grant program. As my good friend from New York knows, that program was actually zeroed out in the administration's budget. We replaced $600 million of $715 million, but it clearly is an important program to many Members on both sides of the aisle, has a superb reputation, and we are going to do everything that we possibly can to build upon that and get back to at least the fiscal year 2017 level.

The gentlewoman's leadership in this is greatly appreciated, and we look forward to working with her as we go forward.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to advise my friend we certainly intend to accept his amendment, and I look forward to working with him as we go forward on the bill. I think there are some other areas where we can increase funding, as well, that would fit with my friend's objective.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's concern. She is a very valuable member of the subcommittee. This is an area in which she not only has considerable passion, but considerable expertise. However, as the gentlewoman also knows, we have an allocation well below last year's level, and we had to make, again, a difficult decision.

Reduction of this magnitude of the Health and Human Services' administrative functions would eliminate the core funding for the Secretary's office completely, and for that reason I would oppose the amendment.

However, I want the gentlewoman and, certainly, our good mutual friend from Connecticut whom she is representing tonight to know that, as we work with our colleagues in the Senate on a bill to reach the President's desk, I intend to work on these issues with her and with my friends on both sides of the aisle to address the concerns that she raised in her remarks.

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

Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee do now rise.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman and want to begin by acknowledging that my very good friend is the recognized expert in this House on all matters related to mental health and has probably done more on behalf of this cause than anybody in this Chamber in very many years. So it is with great reluctance that I opposed this particular amendment, earlier, when we actually accepted.

But the amendment increases funding for programs currently funded at $15 million, the same as last year. As my friend knows, our committee actually received an allocation that was lower than last year, and we had limited resources to provide increases.

But in recognition of the importance of the Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program, my committee maintained funding for the program at its current levels.

I want to assure my friend, I intend to work with him during the process as we negotiate with the Senate. I would expect we probably will have a different allocation. We may be able to revisit this issue, and I would hope that we can, and certainly will, work with my friend.

But at this time, I simply must oppose the amendment so we can stay within our current allocation.

Madam Chair, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Madam Chair, I don't rise to oppose. I just wanted to commend my friend for bringing this issue and highlighting it. We think it is very important.

We wanted to note that we support what he is trying to do. We certainly accept the amendment, and we look forward to working with him through the process to help achieve the objectives that he stated.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's concern for programs that support vulnerable seniors. Frankly, my committee has provided increases for these programs in prior years because, like her, we understand how valuable and important they are to keeping seniors independent in their homes.

As the gentlewoman knows, our subcommittee received an allocation below last year's level, and we were not in a position to provide another year of increases to these programs. The amendment reduces the administration funds available to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. A reduction of this magnitude would significantly hinder the Secretary's ability to administer the agency.

For this reason, Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's concern. He raises, I think, a genuinely important issue.

Our committee understands the value of the Behavioral Health Workforce Education and Training program, which is why we did not accept the administration's budget request which actually canceled the program.

Our committee, as my friend knows, received an allocation that was lower than fiscal year 2017, so we had to make some tough decisions. I want my friend to know we will work with him going forward and see if we can arrive at a solution that he finds more satisfactory in the final bill.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for the amendment and for working with our good friend who couldn't be here tonight to make sure that this issue that I know she cares deeply about and I know my friend cares deeply about is raised.

I tell the gentlewoman that I will continue work with her as we move forward in the appropriations process this year. I hope we can reach an agreement, particularly in this area.

I understand the gentlelady's frustration with finding a large enough offset to accommodate the increase she proposes. However, her amendment would actually reduce resources for the Department of Education by nearly a quarter. I think this would jeopardize the Department's ability to administer the very program she seeks to increase.

So I will reluctantly oppose the amendment at this time. I believe the offset within the Department of Education administrative account is just simply too much.

Again, I want to reiterate to my friend that I look forward to working with her as we go forward and perhaps receiving a different allocation under a House-Senate agreement in the future.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Mr. Chairman, having yielded to people on both sides of the debate, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman, quite sincerely, for his amendment. And again, as I will oft repeat tonight, as the gentleman knows, we had to cut $5 billion from this bill, and we had to make some genuinely tough choices.

In this case, we accepted the President's recommended funding level for magnet schools, and we were also able to increase charter schools, though not by as much as the President requested. Charter schools have demonstrated effectiveness in providing a real choice in quality education for millions of students around the country.

If we have a change in our allocation in conference, I will gladly take another look at the magnet school program to evaluate additional funding there. I think my friend makes a very good case on their behalf; however, at this time, simply because of reasons of allocation, I will oppose the amendment because the offset reduces charter school grants, which I strongly support.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I disagree with my friend about charter schools. Actually, charter schools have provided enormous opportunity for children of every race, every ethnic background. They have been particularly effective, I think, in minority areas, so I reject any suggestion that the decisions we made had anything to do with race or racism or that the charter school movement is involved in that. I just don't think that is the case.

But I do agree in the importance of magnet schools, and if we get a different allocation, we are going to sit down and work with our friends to see

if we can also make some progress in that area. But at this time, I am going to continue to oppose the amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to assure my friend I certainly don't take the amendment as an attack on charter schools any more than I accept the idea that, by funding charter schools, we are involved in promoting racial segregation. That is not what we are trying to do here. We have a genuine debate over the best vehicles to go forward.

I happen to think both these vehicles are good vehicles. I have seen what the charter school movement, frankly, has meant in New Orleans, what it has meant in this city, the opportunities that it has opened to thousands and thousands of students of all racial backgrounds.

And the administration, as my friend knows, has put a particular emphasis here. And while we increase funding, we are not anywhere close to what the administration wanted to do. So I want to reiterate to my friend from Connecticut that we intend to work with him if we have an allocation change where we can find some additional resources, because I think he makes a very good point, and I very much value the contributions that magnet schools also have made to try to improve educational outcomes across the spectrum for our students.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking my friend from Minnesota for the amendment. I am a big fan of career and technical education, and, frankly, along with the State of Ohio, Oklahoma probably has the most robust and strongest career technical education program of any State in the country. It is actually something we fund ourselves, for the most part. I would recommend other people do the same.

I am also, you know, frankly, as my friend knows, dealing with a cut of $5 billion from the bill. In this case, the gentleman seeks to cut TRIO funding to pay for his amendment. In my opinion, it is totally misguided.

Since the TRIO program began, it has produced over 5 million college graduates, and those college graduates were almost exclusively from families where no one had ever had the opportunity to go.

This is a proven successful program. It has helped literally millions of first generations of college students, so I strongly support TRIO and will not support cuts in this program; so I, therefore, oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

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

It has been a good and robust debate, but I don't think it has been a particularly partisan debate. As a matter of fact, I see people on both sides of the aisle that actually have both solutions. My friend, Mr. Scott, may have the best solution of all: let's plus-up both of these programs because they both do a lot of good.

But, in this case, I don't think you make one the enemy of the other. I have seen TRIO programs work, and I have seen how many jobs they produce. We are not serving anywhere close to the population eligible for TRIO. Somewhere less than 10 percent of the eligible students actually take advantage of the program.

Again, my State invests very heavily, probably more heavily than most other States that I would suggest do the same thing Ohio and Oklahoma have done. And these programs which my friend rightly champions, I have seen people actually raise their own taxes so they could have a career or technical institute.

So I think there is merit to both of these approaches. But I do also think 5 million college graduates from people who did not have the chance to go is something this country ought to think about. The statistics tell us each of those graduates in a lifetime earn $1 million more than they would have. I promise you, the Federal Government will get its share of that million dollars.

This is a program that has paid for itself over and over again. Perhaps as we go forward, we can find other ways to help both of these programs capitalize on their potential.

So while I agree with the objective my friend is trying to achieve, I don't agree in achieving it at the expense of TRIO or GEAR UP.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin is a good friend. We serve on the Budget Committee together, and, frankly, I know how sincere his concern about the issues that he lays out is. I know how hard he fought on that committee, and oftentimes we were unlikely allies in a number of places.

So I know this is a passion and a sincere commitment. I remind my friend, he knows I know he would have preferred more, but this bill is $5 billion less than it was last year. He certainly had some success, and success that I agree with, but in this particular case, if I understand the gentleman's amendment correctly, it would basically cut education administration by $43 million, a roughly 10 percent cut across the board in the administrative areas.

Or is it just a 2 percent cut in everything?

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Okay. But substantial reductions, and in programs that have already been cut. So for that reason, I would oppose my friend's additional cuts, but I would hope to work with him going forward in something that I know he knows is a far greater driver of our debt, and that is entitlement reform. That is where the money is.

We end up fighting every year over discretionary accounts that are relatively minor compared to the behemoths of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the other so-called mandatory programs. They are only mandatory because Congress doesn't have the courage to pick up the law and actually deal with them. So I am going to work with my friend in that area because I know he is sincere.

In this case, I feel compelled to oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), a member of the subcommittee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I want to begin by thanking my friend. We are classmates, we are friends, and we have served on the Budget Committee together. So I know the commitment to fiscal responsibility is serious and continuing and real. I particularly want to thank her for her kind words about the work of the committee in recent years because we genuinely have tried to continuously lower the amounts of money.

My friend makes a very good point about the dangers we face in terms of a skyrocketing national debt, but as my friend suggests, we have already cut this more than 1 percent. I am not suggesting there aren't areas that can be cut additionally. There probably are. But as an appropriator, we prefer to look at things individually, one at a time, because there are always areas that could be plussed-up as well.

I don't think anybody here really wants to cut money, even 1 percent, from cancer funding or Alzheimer's research or Pell grants or programs that we think actually help folks have an educational choice, like charter schools, and yet that is always the impact of an across-the- board cut. You cut things that need to be cut, for sure, but you also cut some things that probably shouldn't be.

So we would prefer to continue the approach that my friend has singled out and said that seems to work well, and we will do that, and I know she will be helpful in that.

I also know my friend knows that the real drivers of our debt, frankly, are Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, all entitlement programs, our mandatory spending programs. And that is where folks on both sides of the aisle, I think, need to get very, very serious, and the administration. Because we are never going to get to a balanced budget that I know my friend wants to achieve and I want to achieve until we put 70 percent of all spending, which is the entitlement spending, on the table for serious examination to be dealt with.

I don't oppose the goals of my friend. I just have a different method of trying to achieve them. So far, in the last 3 years, we have been able to do that. We are going to continue to try and do that going forward.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), who is my good friend.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to, again, thank my good friend for, as he always does, raising important issues, and I appreciate his bringing attention to the mental health of children.

The amendment offered--and this is an important point I think many Members in this body don't think about--is actually for a newly authorized program that has not received funding in the past, and our committee actually has a smaller allocation than it had last year. I think most of the public doesn't realize it, and it is sort of helpful, frankly, for my friend to advance this amendment. Just because something moves through an authorizing committee doesn't mean any money comes with it.

Now, in some cases--my friend worked on the Cures bill--they sent money with portions of that on the opioid initiatives, some additional money at NIH, and, of course, every penny of that has moved in. They found a way to fund it. But we can end up in a situation where you just simply pile on authorizations and send us less money and think we will somehow work it out. Sometimes we do. That is why we have been able to steadily increase funding at NIH, steadily increase funding for programs like TRIO and GEAR UP, and steadily increase money for charter schools. There are some areas we have been able to do that, but we can't do it everyplace.

I want to tell my friend that, while I oppose the amendment, I am certainly going to work with him. Actually, I asked him not too long ago to give me the one thing that is the most important thing, and he mentioned the lack of trained and qualified personnel, that we could have a lot of programs, but until we had a bigger pool of people capable of rendering the services, then we simply are going to be moving from program to program. I think that was a very good point, and it is why I accepted my friend's amendment for $10 million to begin to do that. That is another area. I think we have to pick a few pressure points here.

I agree with what my friend is offering here in terms of the need for emphasis. We just simply have to work harder either getting the funds or finding other places to take the funds from.

So while I oppose the amendment, I want to be very clear that I intend to work with my friend going forward.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), who is my good friend.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, once again, I agree with my friend on the basic point, but this, too, is a program that was authorized with no funding.

The things we got funding for in the 21st Century Cures Act, we funded to the penny. Frankly, things we didn't get funding for, we still authorized.

This is one of those cases where, again, the cause is worthy, and we are willing to work with the gentleman--and we will certainly continue to do that--but a lot of these things that my friend just mentioned are from programs that were authorized by non-appropriations committees. We don't create the programs.

That is where my friends, frankly, on the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Ways and Means Committee need to spend some time. They need to spend some time deauthorizing certain programs that continue.

Again, I will work with my friend if our allocation changes or we can find additional savings. But I can't willy-nilly, particularly when we have already cut these administrative programs, partly in the en bloc amendment, to fund some of the very things, including my friend's amendment, that we felt were very worthy. We will look at this.

The other thing that I would hope we could do is work with our friends on the other side of the aisle. I will just tell you, from a conference standpoint, when you go to a conference with a program that has been authorized but not funded, it is extremely difficult to get the other body to join in with you. That is just the reality.

Every decision involves taking something away. It is always easy to call something administration or nonvital. That is what it looks like in the phrase. That may or may not be what it is in the program. So it is just a more difficult exercise than I think most folks understand.

My friend's point is still the right one. One of the reasons I look very carefully at this one is because I see it as a multiplier, in terms of the professional shortage of people that we have that my friend has pointed to.

Mr. Chairman, again, I reluctantly oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark).

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding and for his excellent work in this area.

Yes, we would look forward to that. Frankly, we have pretty regular exchanges with a lot of the committees under our jurisdiction where they have done the hard work of authorizing an investigation. That can be used to guide appropriations.

So I look forward to working with my friend to make sure we can eliminate the type of abuses that he is talking about and redirect funds where they need to go for the care of patients.

I thank my friend for his work and his kind words, and I certainly pledge that I will work with him going forward, as I have in the past.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's amendment, and I know the sincerity of his view on the issue.

This amendment, in my view, mirrors, to some degree, the last administration's regulation on so-called Fair Play and Safe Workplaces, also known as a blacklisting rule, which has recently been withdrawn.

There are existing requirements for reporting and addressing violations of labor laws by Federal contractors. Indeed, hundreds of companies every year are barred from doing business with the Federal Government.

While bad actors certainly should face consequences, I believe blanket prohibitions circumvent proper administrative review under the existing procedures. Agencies already have many requirements related to the award of Federal contracts, and imposing a new across-the-board requirement, in my view, is not the right approach to address this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment, and I urge its rejection.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 500 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, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of H.R. 3354, the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2018, also known as the Make America Secure and Prosperous Appropriations Act of 2018. The rule provides for 2 hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, the appropriations package in front of us is the second installment of the House's effort to pass all 12 appropriations bills on the floor for the first time since 2006. The overall package will consider the remaining eight bills, covering $416.3 billion in total spending. It represents many months of work by the Appropriations Committee.

Today's rule covers four divisions of the bill: the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act; the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act; the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act; and the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.

Together, these four divisions encompass $168.2 billion of discretionary Federal spending. This represents a decrease of $7.8 billion from fiscal year 2017, as Congress seeks to fulfill its obligation to the American people to be fiscally responsible stewards of the taxpayers' hard earned money.

Most importantly, it represents the next step in fulfilling the greatest responsibility we have as legislators: to fund the Federal Government and keep it open each year to provide our constituents the services they deserve while ensuring that we appropriately prioritize where and how to spend taxpayer dollars.

Mr. Speaker, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies division will provide approximately $20 billion in appropriations, a decrease of $870

million from fiscal year 2017. The division will fund critical programs for farmers and ranchers, which is of critical importance to my home State of Oklahoma.

The bill also supports conservative priorities, including language rolling back regulations that harm businesses, industries, farming and ranching operations, and rural and urban communities alike. In particular, the bill includes language allowing schools to get waivers from particularly problematic Obama administration regulations governing school lunches, and prevents the Commodities Futures Trading Commission from imposing harmful de minimis levels of trading activity that would force thousands of end users to comply with onerous regulatory requirements.

The bill also includes language changing the Food and Drug Administration's predicate date rules for premium cigars, e-cigarettes, and vaping products, thereby preventing the FDA from regulating these industries out of existence.

There is much to like in the Agriculture Appropriations division, and I look forward to considering the bill on the floor.

On the security side of the ledger, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations division provides $44.3 billion, an increase of $1.9 billion over fiscal year 2017. Of importance, the bill provides $7 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, an increase of $620 million. These funds will be used to enforce immigration laws and combat illegal immigration, which our constituents have repeatedly told us they oppose.

The bill provides $13.8 billion for Customs and Border Patrol, an increase of $1.6 billion, to ensure the continued security of our border. It also provides $1.6 billion for physical barrier construction on the Southern border, thus fulfilling the first step of one of President Trump's key promises. It provides $10.5 billion for the Coast Guard and supports FEMA's disaster relief fund at $7.3 billion.

As with the earlier security appropriations package the House passed at the end of July, the funds in this division will help ensure America's national security and go a long way towards funding key Member priorities.

The State and Foreign Operations Appropriations division provides $47.4 billion, a decrease of $10 billion from fiscal year 2017. Even with this decrease, the committee has funded key priorities. Security assistance is funded at $8.8 billion, and full funding is provided for battling international organized crime, antiterrorism programs, and combating cybercrime. The bill also fully funds the $3.1 billion Memorandum of Understanding with Israel.

The Appropriations Committee has prioritized programs of importance and de-prioritized programs that are not in the best interests of the United States, such as reducing funding for the U.N. by $939 million, eliminating all funding for UNESCO, and eliminating funding for the Global Climate Change Initiative.

In producing this division, the Appropriations Committee made difficult choices about the Nation's priorities, and made them well, and ensured that taxpayer dollars are going to the most important, critical, and efficient programs.

Finally, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations division provides $56.5 billion, an increase of $1.1 billion over fiscal year 2017. That number does not include $45 billion also authorized to be spent by the highway trust fund for America's highways. Of note, the bill provides $16.6 billion for the Federal Aviation Administration, an increase of $153 million, to maintain and promote air travel and security. This sum includes $1 billion for so-called NextGen for more efficient air traffic control, and $162 million for the contract tower program, a crucial safety net that covers many districts across the country, including facilities like Westheimer Airport in Norman, Oklahoma, as well as towers in Lawton and Ardmore in my own home district.

It provides $38.3 billion in net discretionary funding to Housing and Urban Development. Critically, it sustains Section 8 and Public and Native American housing programs at $27.5 billion. It also includes increases in funding for programs benefiting vulnerable citizens, including $573 million for housing for the elderly, an increase of $70.6 million over fiscal year 2017, and $47 million for housing for Persons with Disabilities, an increase of $800,000 over fiscal year 2017.

In all, T-HUD Appropriations covers important priorities and ensures that our Nation's housing and transportation infrastructure will be adequately funded to meet our needs.

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 four areas: Agriculture; State and Foreign Operations, Homeland Security, and Transportation and Urban Development.

I applaud my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for their months of work in making this bill a reality, and I cheer their efforts on moving forward to the completion of the fiscal year 2018 appropriations process.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the rule and the underlying legislation.

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

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

I want to begin by discussing process with my good friend from Massachusetts, where I think he makes some good points, but I think he fails to recognize the progress that this bill represents.

My good friend knows, because we have the privilege of working together on the Rules Committee, I have thought for many years, frankly, that we needed to get back to regular order. I remind this House the last time we actually operated under it in an appropriations process was in 2006. My friends were actually in the majority when we got rid of open rules on appropriations bills. My friends never brought all 12 appropriations bills to the floor and where they were subject to amendments by various Members.

I would agree with my friend, this is not a perfect process that we have. If I had my way, we would go back to the way we operated in 2006, before the last Democratic majority, actually bring the bills down individually and, frankly, give every Member an open shot at amendment. I think that is the appropriate way to proceed.

Again, my friends thought differently when they were in the majority and never made a move to restore regular order--quite the opposite. We have actually fought to do that. We did have a period of open rules on appropriations bills. We didn't get every bill down here, I regret to say, but we got quite a few of them down. But my friends decided they would engage in poison pill tactics.

I regret, honestly, personally, that my conference gave into that; were more worried about casting tough votes. I think you are sent here to cast tough votes.

So I will make this commitment to my friend. I will continue to work with him and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who would like to return to that process. However, I do recognize this is significant progress toward doing that.

This is the first time, since 2006, that all 12 bills, in one form or another, will reach this floor, and, frankly, every single Member has been free to offer amendments on any portion of those 12 bills that they care to. Now, not all of them were made in order by the Rules Committee, and I would hope we get past that again some day.

But, again, before my friends decry that too much, they need to remember the role they played in actually getting us out of that process.

I also would like to talk just briefly with my friend about his thoughts about DACA, and I am sure we will have a good discussion on that in the course of the day, and, honestly, I think the discussion is helpful.

But I think the President of the United States did the right thing when, number one, he recognized that he does not have the constitutional authority, something even his predecessor wondered about, to actually engage in law and put this issue back in the hands of the Congress. The Congress now has 6 months to deal with it. The Speaker has assured us that we will do that.

I think the appropriate way to proceed is to have the committee of jurisdiction actually hold hearings and move forward, but we will see which way we go. But I think there is a better chance for a long-term solution, as even my friend agrees, if we have a legislative fix to the problem. I think that will involve some give-and-take, but my hope is we will end up at a place where all parties are satisfied. But we will see. That is what the legislative process is all about.

Final point to make, Mr. Speaker, I think we need to recognize that what we are debating on here today, in terms of these four appropriations

bills, and we will have another tranche of appropriations bills down here later, is actually a process.

What we are really doing today is defining the position of the majority party as to where it stands on funding the government. I don't expect my friends to agree with that. There will be elements of these bills that they agree with without a doubt. I don't think they will oppose a lot of things that we do in regard to T-HUD, or in regard to some of these other various programs that we will deal with.

But at the end of the day--and my side needs to recognize this--we are going to end up in a negotiation with the United States Senate and the administration some time probably after the 1st of October, and that negotiation has to be bipartisan.

As my friends know, the other body requires 60 votes, and that would mean there has to be Democratic participation. And quite frankly, the appropriations bills that have moved across the floor here in fiscal year 2015, fiscal year 2016, fiscal year 2017, have all been bipartisan. They have all been the product of negotiations.

At the end of the day--and I remind my friends, in May, a majority of them actually voted in favor of the omnibus spending bill for FY 2017 in the House and in the Senate, as did, by the way, a majority of Republicans in the House and Senate, and President Trump signed it. So we know how this process ends, and we know how to make it work appropriately. This is simply another step in the process.

It is my hope that, at the end of the day, we arrive at a bicameral, bipartisan process that actually funds the government, and we are able to accomplish, in concert with one another, things that we think are important to the American people. I have a great deal of confidence we will get there because that is what we have done the last 3 years. We are actually doing it a little better this year.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not yield.

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. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking the chairman of the full committee, the ranking member of the full committee, certainly the ranking member of the subcommittee, and the staff for the tremendous assistance they provided in putting together this rather large and complex piece of legislation.

It is fair to note for the record that the allocation we received of $156 billion is $5 billion less than we had last year. While our lower allocation this year forced us to make some difficult decisions, I want to remind my colleagues that the cuts we are making today amount to barely 3 percent of what we spent last year and is essentially what we spent in fiscal year 2016.

The bill before us today focuses on key national priorities: investing in biomedical research to find cures for diseases like Alzheimer's and cancer; ensuring our country is fully prepared and able to protect our citizens from disease outbreaks or bioterrorism; continuing to support early childhood education, particularly for those at risk; helping first-generation college students prepare for, access, and complete a postsecondary education; and continuing to support people living with disabilities.

The bill also preserves funds for popular programs like career and technical education, support for Historically Black Colleges and Universities, programs to help Native Americans, the AmeriCorps program, LIHEAP, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

The National Institutes of Health, our Nation's premier biomedical research agency, is funded at $1.1 billion above last year. NIH is working to find cures for Alzheimer's disease, cancer, and develop the next generation of medical treatment through the use of precision medicine techniques.

We need to continue to build upon the $2 billion increase provided in the omnibus last year. I view this proposal as a floor, not a ceiling, for biomedical research funding. I am hopeful that this number can increase as the process moves forward.

Biodefense and preparedness programs, including new funding to prevent a pandemic flu from occurring, are increased across the bill.

We are all aware of the terrible toll prescription drugs and opioid abuse is taking on our Nation. I am proud to say this bill includes another $500 million to continue comprehensive grant programs to enable States, localities, and tribes to develop anti-opioid initiatives focused on prevention, education, and treatment and recovery services.

Head Start receives a $22 million increase in this bill. Preschool programs are continued at $250 million. Childcare programs receive a $4 million increase. Special education programs for students with disabilities are increased by $200 million, which will help local school districts ease the financial burden of providing specialized educational services. TRIO and GEAR UP, which help disadvantaged students prepare for and complete college, receive increases of $60 million and $10 million, respectively, over last year.

The bill also includes $500 million for the Student Support and Academic Enrichment grant program. These funds can be used flexibly by school districts across the country, whether the need is in the area of counseling, computer science instruction, or teacher training and arts programming.

Pell grants are maintained at a maximum of $5,920.

I will also note that this is an initial allocation and the beginning of the congressional funding process. As always, I look forward to working with our counterparts in the Senate and my friends across the aisle to see if there are additional areas where we can cooperate.

Finally, I want to note that the bill protects human life by continuing longstanding prohibitions against Federal tax dollars being used to pay for abortions, including new provisions to ensure that no tax dollars are used for research on human fetal tissue obtained by an abortion.

This bill represents a balanced approach that will benefit every American and maintain the appropriate stewardship of taxpayer dollars that we have been entrusted with as Members of Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), my colleague, for the purpose of a colloquy.

I thank the gentleman for raising this issue. Along with Congressman Woodall and Congresswoman Handel, you have been leaders in this effort. I appreciate what you are doing and will stay in touch as progress is made.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum) for the purpose of a colloquy.

I thank my colleague from Minnesota for speaking about the importance of this program in her district. I agree that Community Services Block Grant provides important services to help people escape poverty. The program has broad bipartisan support.

As the gentlewoman knows, several challenging decisions have to be made to meet overall spending priorities and allocation. I take to heart the concern expressed by the gentlewoman and, as we move forward, I will work to ensure funding for the Community Services Block Grant reflects the priority of our Members.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman), my colleague, for the purpose of a colloquy.

I thank my colleague from South Carolina for raising this important question. I agree that the National Emergency Grant program is an important bipartisan program to train workers and help them find new careers.

Current year funds for the Dislocated Workers National Reserve are increased by $109 million and advance appropriations for fiscal year 2019 are eliminated, for a total of $130 million. Within that total, the National Emergency Grant program is approximately $70 million each year.

It is expected that, after fully funding the National Emergency Grants, the Department of Labor will use additional funds from the Dislocated Workers National Reserve for other authorized purposes, such as technical assistance and grants to help workers dislocated from the coal industry find new employment.

So the short answer to the question is, yes, the National Emergency Grant program is fully funded in this bill.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 48 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, September 6, 2017, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 473 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, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of H.R. 3219, the Make America Secure Appropriations Act, 2018. The rule provides for 2 hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, the appropriations package in front of us represents the end product of many months of work by the Appropriations Committee. In this package, we will be considering four appropriations bills: Defense, Energy and Water, Legislative Branch, and Military Construction and Veterans Affairs. Together, the four parts of the bill make up the Make America Secure Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2018.

The legislation ensures that our most important government services will be funded responsibly and appropriately and that we will fulfill our most important responsibilities as legislators: funding the government and keeping it open to serve our constituents.

The bill provides a total of $658.1 billion for defense, an increase of $68.1 billion in discretionary funding above the fiscal year 2017 levels, and an increase of $28.3 billion over the President's request. It also includes $73.9 billion in Overseas Contingency Operations and Global War on Terrorism funding.

These funds will help us enhance our military readiness, and the substantial increase marks an end to the ongoing erosion of our national military strength that occurred during the Obama administration.

Importantly, this bill also provides an increase in funding for veterans. Over the past several years, the House has worked to improve the Department of Veterans Affairs and to ensure that all veterans receive the care and benefits to which they are entitled.

The Department of Veterans Affairs will receive a 5 percent increase in this bill, including $74 billion for the Veterans Health Administration.

The increased funding represents an important step toward fulfilling our promise to improve care, reduce wait times at the VA, and enhance benefits for our Nation's veterans.

The Energy and Water portion of this appropriations bill provides $37.6 billion in funding for fiscal year 2018, a decrease of $209 million from fiscal year 2017.

The bill includes an increase in funding for the National Nuclear Security Administration that includes funds to restart the licensing process for Yucca Mountain, the national disposal repository for spent nuclear fuel. It also provides $6.16 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers, a $10 million increase over fiscal year 2017.

H.R. 3219 also provides $3.58 billion for the Legislative Branch. It does not recommend funding levels for the Senate, as per our longstanding tradition.

The bill includes a significant increase in funding for U.S. Capitol Police and adds additional funds for securing offices in Washington and in congressional districts. Importantly, it continues the freeze on Member pay.

The package before us represents the House fulfilling its primary responsibility: to fund the government. This package funds hundreds, if not thousands, of Member priorities, particularly on the defense side.

I applaud my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for their months of working and making this bill a reality. It shows what the House can do as we move forward toward completion of the fiscal year appropriations process.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the rule and the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume before I go to my first speaker in order to respond to some of my friend's points. I want to begin by talking about the amendment process just very quickly.

It is worth noting 72 amendments are made in order here; 47 of those were actually Democratic amendments. Many of the amendments that my friend referred to that had been submitted to the Rules Committee, at least a third of them, were knocked out because they were simply out of order.

But my friend is correct: it is not an open rule. I do remind him that the first people to eliminate open rules on appropriations bills were not Republicans. It was actually the Democratic majority in 2009 that ended the practice and, for 2 years, allowed almost no amendments on any appropriations bills, and most appropriations bills never came to the floor. So I think my friends bear a considerable amount of responsibility for where we find ourselves today.

I do want to talk a little bit, too, briefly, about my friend's comments about the AUMF, because he has been a good friend and a close ally in an area that we have a similar concern.

I agree with my friend. We need to debate this, and we need to have an AUMF that is more in tune with the times and, frankly, reintroduces congressional power and congressional oversight. I have worked with my friend in the past on that. I am going to continue to work with him on it going forward.

But in the case of the Lee amendment, which, in full disclosure, I supported in the Appropriations Committee, the chairman of the committee of jurisdiction, which is not the Appropriations Committee, made it known that he would lodge a point of order; so, in other words, that would never get to the floor.

In place, we have put something that, frankly, will at least require the administration, on the passage of this bill or the Defense Authorization Act, in which it is also found, to submit a report that justifies where the administration is legally, lays out their strategy, lays out their costs, and gives us a chance to begin a debate.

As a sign of good faith, I am happy to report that the Foreign Relations Committee, which actually does have jurisdiction here, actually had their first hearing on a new AUMF earlier this week. So I think we are trying to get to the same place. My friend may have a different way to get there, but I agree with him, we need to reexamine, redebate, and, I think, reenact a new AUMF. I think we are trying to get there in a step-by-step, logical progression.

Finally, while my friend is concerned about where we will end up in this process and, I think, legitimately so, I also want to point out we have actually managed to come together here the last couple of years and, I suspect, will again.

In fiscal year 2016, we had the same series of events, and yet Congress came to an agreement on full funding that was bipartisan and passed by substantial numbers of both parties participating, a majority in each party. The same thing was true in fiscal year 2017. My hope is that it will be true again in fiscal year 2018.

But this is an important part of the process. We need to go through this. At the end of the day, and I tell this to my friends on the right and the left, we will end up with a bicameral, bipartisan appropriations bill. There is simply no other way to fund the Government of the United States, and we pledge to work toward that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne), my good friend, a member of the Rules Committee, but also a distinguished member of the House Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, before I go to my next speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to my friends.

First, to my good friend from Massachusetts, and he is very much my good friend, but when I was in the minority, I asked repeatedly, I used to come up to the Rules Committee, as a former member of the Rules Committee, and I always got the warmest, most gracious reception, but I don't think I ever got an amendment approved. You can legislate on appropriations bills if the chairman of the authorizing committee consents to allow you to do it.

I have a great deal of sympathy with my friend's position on Ms. Lee's amendment. I actually supported that amendment in subcommittee, but I recognize that we are not the appropriate committee, and if a different authorizing chairman wanted to do something, he could.

Finally, with all due respect to my friend, we are not the ones that began this process of eliminating open rules on appropriations. My friend's party is. We actually tried to restore it. I regret that we did not succeed in that. This was not something I like doing, but, frankly, it has gotten around here where people are more interested in ``got you'' amendments than real amendments, and that is basically what has happened here. I hope we can revisit that someday and go back to the traditional way of doing this.

Finally, to my good friend from Minnesota, I want to make a pledge to her, and she knows it is sincere: we will work together. I don't think this bill ultimately will be passed without bipartisan cooperation, and I look at the 2015, 2016, and 2017 bills that all did end up as cooperative measures.

Just to refresh my friend's memory, it was back in April that we passed a $1 trillion-plus spending bill for fiscal year 2017 that was extremely bipartisan. A majority of my friends on the other side of the aisle voted for it, the majority of my friends voted for it, and the President of the United States signed it.

This is a long and lengthy process to fund the government, and I suspect, at the end of it, we will come together. That is certainly what I am going to try to do as I work through the process.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs), a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to respond very quickly to my good friend from Oregon. I just remind him this is a long and

winding road. It is a long process. As he said, the Senate may very well move in a different direction.

I tend to focus here on veterans' issues as issues that have largely brought us together. Quite frankly, this bill has a very substantial increase in spending at the VA, and that is something that I know, in committee, garnered wide bipartisan support. Let's wait and see where we go.

I just want to say I think there will be continuing discussion about this, but there is also a concern, always, on something like this that is controversial. We have seen our friends do this before. Sometimes you will put an amendment in but you won't vote for the final bill.

When you are trying to calculate whether you pass something, you can't have amendments that cost you votes, that don't get you votes. I am not suggesting that is my friend's purpose. It is not at all. I know it is not. I know he is very sincere in this. I am saying that could easily be the effect.

All I can tell you is we will continue to work through the bill. I suspect when we get there, at the end of the day, this will be a very bipartisan bill. It will pass with a very bipartisan majority.

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

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

I just want to quickly respond to my friends and remind them that it wasn't Republicans that got rid of open rules on appropriations. It was my friends. So you can't set one standard for yourself, and then say: But you now have to go back to the way it was. We now have to be treated as a minority, in contrast to the way that we treated you.

I am sorry, that is just difficult. We actually tried to do that for a couple of years, and we did come back to open rules. And I would still prefer that, to tell you the truth. I have lost this argument in my own conference.

But if my friends will recall, last year on, I believe, the Energy and

Water Appropriations bill, they slipped an amendment in. It was perfectly legitimate for them to do so. It was an open rule. They got that amendment adopted. They did not vote for the bill, even though the amendment was adopted. We lost a lot of votes, in consequence, because of the amendment.

So there is always that calculus when you put these things together. There is a difference between an amendment that is a substantive amendment, and an amendment that is unrelated and a poison-pill amendment. Our side just decided they weren't going to subject themselves to that any longer. I am not sure that I agree with that decision, but that is the reality of where we are.

There is a second consideration here, too, in terms of limitation that I think is worth noting. We are moving under an expedited situation because we began this process late. I want to take responsibility for that on our side of the aisle.

I think all of the appropriations bills could have and should have been finished for FY17 in December of 2016. Instead, we started to allow the new administration to have input. We pushed that off and did a 4-month continuing resolution. During that period, we did not negotiate back and forth. We finally passed a bill in April. So we are moving with exceptional speed.

I think it is pretty remarkable at this point that all 12 appropriations bills have been reported out of committee, and are preparing to go here. Our leadership made, I think, a smart decision, in that here are four that all relate to a common theme of security for the country. Let's get those done. That is sort of first things first.

Let's come back and deal with the other eight in September. It is my hope that that is what we will do, probably in packages again. But we are trying to move quickly.

It is also finally worth noting that, again, this process, compared to the process my Democratic friends followed, is far more open. There are far more amendments now, even under a structured rule like this, than they allowed when they were in the majority on appropriations bills.

We can go get the numbers and count, but we are at least trying to get back to getting the bills to the floor and having a pretty generous latitude for serious amendments. We will always disagree over which ones are made in order. A lot of Republican amendments weren't made in order either, but 72 amendments on an appropriations bill is a lot of amendments.

Hopefully, this process can get better as we go forward. I want to work with my friends in that regard, but I am still very proud of the product that we are presenting and very proud of the number of amendments that are being allowed.

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

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

I certainly would never expect my friend to vote for the rule. I mean, I don't think I have ever voted for a Democratic rule. I know very few Democrats have ever voted for our rules. I don't think I know any. So that is kind of a normal part of the Chamber.

I want to commend the gentleman for getting that language into the bill. Again, I respect the gentleman's right to not vote for the bill. It is a big bill. There are lots of different things in it.

But I think he makes an important point, indirectly, that there are lots of overlapping things where we do agree inside this bill. My friends are certainly free to vote ``no,'' and I suspect many will.

There are many occasions in a bill like this, particularly related to defense and particularly related to veterans, where the component parts actually have enormous bipartisan support.

That is certainly true in the Veterans Administration. It is certainly true with the gentleman's provision that he has gotten in now successive bills even under Republican Congresses.

I want to commend him for his work in that regard. I agree very much with his intention. My friend from Massachusetts and I may have some differences on this and that process, but that is another person that I agree with in terms of the War Powers Act and in terms of trying to get a new AUMF and reclaim congressional power.

I actually think, strangely enough, even though we disagree on this, that this bill starts us maybe down that road again by requiring the administration to submit a report to justify legally where we are at and why, to tell us the strategy, to lay out the costs.

I commend my friend, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Royce, for holding a hearing on that. I see us moving back in that way toward regular order and, hopefully, toward common ground.

Again, I understand my friend's objections, even when I don't agree with him. But I also thank my friend from California for pointing out that there are parts where we do agree. They are important, and they are incorporated in this bill. Maybe we can make it better in the amendment process.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank, as always, my good friend for a spirited and thoughtful debate. He always makes good points. Frankly, I always find myself more comfortable when we are on the same side--as we occasionally are--than when we are on opposite sides.

My friend has made many valuable contributions to this institution, particularly pushing us relentlessly in the right direction of reclaiming our war-making authority. Having said that, it is always great to call for a new system, a new way, or a return to open rules without admitting you are the ones that abandoned them. We actually tried to restore them. I regret we failed in that, quite frankly, but I will have to say both sides have gotten used to not doing open rules because they don't want to cast tough votes. That is why my friends abandoned the open rule process when they were in the majority in 2009, and, honestly, that is why we abandoned it last year.

I regret that. I will work with my friend probably not today but going forward in trying to reclaim that because I think when we lost it, we diminished the power of every individual Member in Congress. We thought we were protecting them, but the reality is they now can no longer come to the floor as an individual and present their own idea.

But at least in this case there are 72 amendments. The majority of them are from my friend's side of the aisle. I would hope going forward, particularly when we consider the next eight appropriations bills, we will continue to be very generous in that regard.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to encourage all Members to support the rule. H.R. 3219 represents the first step toward fulfilling our primary obligation as Members of Congress: to fund the government.

We should all be proud of what we have accomplished in putting this bill forward.

The bill contains the provisions of four of the bills passed out of the Appropriations Committee representing the work of the Subcommittees on Defense; Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies; Legislative Branch; and Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies.

The bill will significantly increase funding for national defense and ensure that the men and women in the Armed Forces have the tools they need. We also increase funding to our veterans to ensure our fighting men and women will be taken care of long after they leave the service of their country, and we fund key Member priorities in the areas of Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies; and Legislative Branch.

Mr. Speaker, I applaud my colleagues for their hard work.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the instructions in each of the amendments numbered 60, 61, and 66 printed in House Report 115-259 be modified by striking ``the division'' and inserting ``division D''.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 40 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, July 26, 2017, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, since 2001 when we passed the original Authorization for Use of Military Force against al-Qaida and against associated enemies, the nature of the war on terror in which we find ourselves has changed dramatically. We now find ourselves fighting enemies that simply did not exist at the time in areas that nobody in Congress anticipated we would be at war.

This has caused a number of us to have very serious concerns as to whether or not the original Authorization for Use of Military Force is still relevant, and frankly, many of us have concerns that the war- making power of Congress is slipping away from us. Indeed, we find ourselves engaged since that original AUMF in 14 different countries on more than almost 40 different occasions without Congress authorizing the use of force. In our view, a new AUMF is necessary.

However, I also recognize that needs to come through a process. My effort here is to try and set up a process where the administration can participate, we can have an orderly discussion, and the appropriate committees can mark up a new AUMF if Congress, indeed, thinks it does-- and again, I think many of us do.

A new AUMF would provide clear authority for ongoing operations against ISIS and other terrorist groups, and it would fulfill the constitutional responsibility of Congress to authorize the use of force. My amendment directs the President to put forward a strategy, an analysis, and a framework that we can actually debate and take action on.

The underlying bill being considered today provides authorization for training and equipping our military. Just as important is the time to debate and deliberate how that military should be used to defeat our enemies.

Recently, in an appearance before the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Secretary Mattis made an appearance, and I actually asked him would it be helpful to have an AUMF. At that time, he said it absolutely would be helpful.

Our men and women who we have deployed in places, again, that nobody in 2001 thought they would be deployed to, need to know that the Congress of the United States is fully supportive of their deployment.

So this amendment would direct that the President, within 30 days after the passage of the legislation, present to Congress a report that, again, justifies the action, tells us the strategy, lays out the objectives. Within 30 days after that report was received, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense could be called before the relevant committees to actually explain and defend that.

Now, again, in my view, I still think we need a new Authorization for Use of Military Force, but I want to start a process whereby that would begin, and I think this would help us achieve that. If others have an opinion, that is fine too, but I think they would still find the report useful and the testimony invaluable.

Sooner or later, Congress needs to take responsibility. I think with the best will in the world, we have slipped into almost endless warfare in a lot of places that none of us anticipated we would be.

Again, these are not actions that I necessarily question, but I think they have not been authorized, not been debated, not been examined, and, frankly, the American people have been denied that debate. Also, frankly, they have been denied the opportunity to hold their Members responsible.

Remember, that original Authorization for Use of Military Force was 2001. Almost 80 percent of the Members of this body have been elected since that original authorization. I think they ought to listen to the debate, and, frankly, their constituents ought to be able to hold them accountable.

So I would urge adoption of the amendment, Mr. Chairman, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), who is the distinguished chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend both the chairman and the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee for their approach to this problem. It is well known in this body that probably the House Armed Services Committee is the most bipartisan committee that we have. The fact that you have tried in the past and the fact that you are willing to work with us here today is deeply appreciated.

I also thank my friend from Massachusetts, and I want to associate myself with his frustration. He has every right to be frustrated. My friend, the ranking member, is correct. This is a difficult job. It will require bipartisan cooperation and bicameral cooperation.

But isn't that what war is about, to achieve a national consensus?

I think that is exactly what Secretary Mattis was asking for: We will go do any mission that you as the Congress and the administration ask us to do, but give us a clear mission and give us your absolute support in carrying that through.

If we have this debate, there will undoubtedly be dissenting views. That is what democracy is supposed to be about, too. So my friends that would oppose the use of force, for instance, in Afghanistan, that voice ought to be heard and that case ought to be made. Frankly, those of us who are supportive of what we are trying to accomplish against ISIS need to make our case and persuade the majority of this House and of the United States Senate to move forward.

So I take this as the first step on a road. Like my friend, it is a baby step. I would agree with his characterization, but at least it is a step. This couldn't have happened without the cooperation of our leadership in the House and certainly without the help of the chairman and the ranking member of the committee. But, also, it couldn't have happened without the persistence of my friend from Massachusetts. We have worked together, and, believe me, that is unusual. We don't agree on a lot of issues, but we respect one another.

This is also a question of congressional authority. I think it is a profoundly important constitutional issue, and I do believe we have inadvertently--because of the difficulty of the task--allowed war- making power to slip away from us. That needs to stop. We are responsible to the American people. The Constitution is very clear about where war-making power lies.

Frankly, it ought to be difficult to go to war. It ought to demand a lot of cooperation. It ought to be something that we think is worth setting aside our differences, working together, because we are asking men and women to risk their lives. We are putting them in harm's way, and they deserve to know that we are 100 percent supporting them.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to advise my friend that I am prepared to close, although, believe me, I could talk about this a long time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by associating myself very much with the remarks of my good friend from Massachusetts.

Frankly, this is an area where we have found common ground because I think we both deeply revere this institution and, frankly, respect the Constitution of the United States.

When he says that we have shirked our duty, in my view, we have. I think it is absolutely a fair statement to make. I think the gentleman from Washington is also correct that it is hard. This is a very complex, difficult kind of war. It is a new kind of war, its enemies morphing into different forms and different places.

All that is true, but it doesn't excuse us from the obligation to do our job and give those men and women the assurance that they are acting at the direct request and order of the American people in fulfilling the responsibility we have asked them to take.

It doesn't directly relate to this issue, but I felt very much the same way as my friend did at the time about Libya. We stretched the NATO alliances so far to get involved in a country where, in my view, we should have never been involved. More importantly, Libya didn't attack NATO. It really didn't make a lot of sense to use that kind of instrument to justify a war.

I aim this at no particular President, either the last one or current one, but, frankly, Presidents don't like Congress very much to tell them what they have to do. They want to be able to do it. Well, I am sorry; the Constitution is very clear about that.

One of the reasons we have a Constitution is because we didn't want to live under a system where it is a monarchy as opposed to a Presidency. It is part of our duty to keep a check on the extraordinary power that we place in the hands of the Chief Executive of the United States, regardless of who that person is, regardless of what party they represent.

My friend makes a good point when he says sometimes we don't trust one another, or we don't want to give the President too much power. We also

don't want to take too much responsibility ourselves, sometimes. For that, we ought to look in the mirror. We ought to be willing to take that awesome responsibility that the Constitution entrusts us with and make the tough decisions that the American people send us here to make. I actually think going through this process will be very good for this institution.

My friend is correct, it is a baby step, and I share his frustration. But I think the current administration deserves a chance to be heard and to present a justification, not just inherit an ongoing conflict.

I think the committee of jurisdiction, the Foreign Affairs Committee, deserves the opportunity to hear this.

My friend expresses a concern which, quite frankly, I share, that we will have a hearing and not much more. That would not be where I would propose that we end. I would hope and would work with my friend to make sure that is not where we end.

I think at the end of the day, whatever the deliberation is, whatever the recommendation is for a new AUMF, it needs to come to this floor, and it needs to be open for full debate. If we can't muster a majority to approve that, then we shouldn't be fighting in the places we are fighting if we are not willing to actually vote and use that.

So I am going to pledge to continue to work with my friend and urge the administration, assuming this actually gets in the final bill, to take it as an opportunity to establish a very clear set of objectives, a very clear strategy, a very clear estimate of the budgetary cost, and a very clear analysis of the legal framework under which they are operating.

I think they, and we, owe that to the country. We certainly owe it to the men and women that we have asked to go and do difficult things and risk their lives on our behalf. They do it willingly. Again, the Secretary of Defense said this would be helpful. This kind of debate would make a difference.

I, again, thank my friends for their cooperation in this. I thank particularly the chairman and the ranking member for allowing us to use this particular vehicle to express it. I thank the leadership of the House for being willing to grapple with this issue. I thank my friend from Massachusetts for his persistent efforts; and my friend from California, Ms. Lee, who has also worked on this. A lot of people on our side of the aisle feel exactly the same way.

This is a debate about the future of a conflict, but it is also a debate about the appropriate constitutional authority of the Congress of the United States and a willingness by the Members to embrace this.

So it is actually, I think, a good day, even though it is the first step in a long journey.

Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 396 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of a very important measure. The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 2842, Accelerating Individuals into the Workforce Act.

The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2842 is a commonsense proposal to help transition welfare recipients into steady, paying jobs. Moving welfare recipients into work is a central goal of TANF, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. This bipartisan bill would incentivize employers to hire TANF recipients and help subsidize these new employees' salaries for up to a year to allow them to transition into the workforce.

The policy idea behind H.R. 2842 is simple: under this bill, States can establish partnerships with employers to hire recipients of TANF dollars. Through these partnerships, employers would receive a subsidy of up to 50 percent of the wage for a TANF recipient while the other 50 percent would be paid by the employer.

Beneficiaries would have to meet three requirements: they must be a TANF recipient, they must be unemployed, and they must have an income of 20 percent or less of the Federal poverty level. H.R. 2842 will direct our resources to the neediest individuals and families to help them accelerate these welfare recipients back into the workforce.

Mr. Speaker, President Ronald Reagan once noted: ``We should measure welfare's success by how many people leave welfare, not by how many people are added.''

The legislation under consideration in today's rule is a fulfillment of that promise. Under H.R. 2842, State and local governments will be able to better utilize their TANF dollars to help move individuals into paying work and eventually help them transition out of the welfare system altogether.

Helping people get back to work is a great deal for the individuals who will be helped under this program, for the employers, for the economy, and for the American people. This bill is, at its core, about helping unemployed Americans get back to work.

Mr. Speaker, we are a nation filled with hardworking people, and I have seen over and over again how badly many of the unemployed want to return to work. Many, if not most, recipients of TANF are in the program not because they want to be, but because they have been forced to be by circumstance. These unemployed Americans want nothing more than to return to the dignity of the workforce as quickly as they are able to do so. This bill will help remove barriers to employment and will incentivize employers to hire current TANF recipients.

Workers re-entering the workforce is a good thing for society. Not only will workers who receive jobs under this program be taken off of welfare rolls, thus ensuring the continued success of that program, but these new workers will be better able to contribute to better lives for themselves, for their families, and for their communities.

Here in Washington, we too often describe policy solutions as being ``commonsense'' or ``win-win,'' but in this case it is absolutely true. H.R. 2842 is a commonsense solution and is a win-win for everyone involved: the workers, the employers, the community, and the country.

That is why this legislation will receive a substantial bipartisan vote tomorrow. Whatever their differences, Republicans and Democrats alike want to put unemployed people back to work. This bill will actually succeed in doing that.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support of 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 begin by agreeing with my good friend on many of the points that he made. I was particularly struck by the point he made about the low participation rate in the labor force. That has been a problem that has been with us, quite frankly, for, as he pointed out, several decades, and it is one that has gotten worse.

That is attributable in large part to another point that my friend made, effectively the thing around here we call the skills gap. We have literally millions of jobs available in this country, and employers are ready to hire people but they simply don't have the training.

I couldn't agree more with my good friend that on-the-job training is sometimes the best training. You actually acquire the skill that you need to be successful, and the situation of this legislation will actually, again, offset the cost of that to the employer and, by the way, not add any cost to the taxpayer.

That is something we ought to talk about as well. We are just taking money that we would have been spending anyway, and we are spending it a lot more productively.

Now, my friend is right. This is a new program. This is a new approach. So trying it out for a year, spending $100 million--a lot of money--but obviously we would spend more this way if we would know this would be successful. But I can't help but think it will be successful.

It is important to note that this bill is actually, again, exceptionally bipartisan. I was struck, as I hope my friend was, yesterday when we were in Rules Committee considering this legislation. We are used to seeing the members of the Ways and Means Committee come up and sort of fight in front of us. Instead, they actually came up arm in arm with a bipartisan proposal that they had agreed to that, again, is an excellent, excellent work.

It is exactly the way that Congress should work, quite frankly: find common ground and advance commonsense solutions that make life better for the American people. In this case, at least, I think we have succeeded in doing that.

It is also important to note that the rule authorizes the consideration of H.R. 2353, the so-called Perkins grant program. The Perkins grant is something we are pretty familiar with in Oklahoma. This is Federal money that moves into career tech systems that helps actually, again, workers acquire the necessary skills to be productive, quite often, again, working with the employer who has already got the jobs available. We then train the worker at a career tech system partly funded with Federal dollars, and that person is assured the job the day they walk out.

I suspect that bill, like this bill, when it finally reaches the floor will also have substantial bipartisan support. I want to pledge to my good friend that we are going to continue to work together on things like this. I don't think anybody disagrees about putting Americans back to work. Workers would rather be at work than, frankly, just receiving government assistance and not able to go work. So this bill does that.

I want to urge support of the rule and, again, the underlying legislation.

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

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

Decades of experience tell us that the most effective antipoverty program is a job, and this bill helps low-income Americans earn success through the dignity of work.

States actually, as my good friends on the other side know, spend very little of their TANF funding on moving people into jobs. Today, half of all TANF recipients are neither working nor preparing for work. This bill ensures that money only goes to those who are working, providing individuals with paychecks in lieu of benefit checks, a key tenet in welfare reform.

This pilot only provides funding for one fiscal year, repurposing money that has already been appropriated and, frankly, using it in a better way than it was originally appropriated to achieve.

The bill requires that States report on outcome measures and provide high-quality evaluations so that Congress can make appropriate decisions after we have actually seen the results yielded by the program.

And finally, as we have been pointing out, but I think around here it is always worth pointing out multiple times, where actually CBO estimates the bill has no cost. So we are actually doing something good without increasing expenditures for the taxpayers, and, indeed, we are probably in the process of creating new taxpayers, people who can contribute to the wealth and the activity and the prosperity of the country; and people, honestly, who want to contribute to the wealth and the activity; and employers who want to provide people with an opportunity to improve themselves and become more productive.

So it is a good bill all the way around, and, again, I will be urging the passage of the rule and the underlying legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we have been having such a wonderful bipartisan moment here. My good friend from Oregon, and appropriately, wants to change the tenor a little bit.

Let me begin by actually congratulating my good friend from Oregon because he is a serious legislator and does serious things, and I am probably going to find myself on the same side with him on the issue of air traffic controllers where I think his points have been very well made.

On this particular piece of legislation, I must admit, I have not had the opportunity. I don't sit on my friend's committee to actually read it, but I suspect the committee hasn't picked it up and dealt with it either.

And just from a process standpoint, I think the appropriate thing to do would be for the committee to actually review it. It could be amended in committee, as indeed this bill was, and then we would have the opportunity to consider it on the floor. But to bring it to the floor immediately, to me, is premature, legislatively.

I also want to take issue, on the record, with my friends of the President of the United States in terms of job creation. I suspect President Trump, in his private life, has created more jobs than just about anybody in the Congress of the United States, and I think he has laid forward some incredibly important proposals to continue and build on his personal record, now that he is President of the United States.

One of those proposals, as my friends are surely aware, because I think they largely agree with it, is to enhance the apprenticeship program announcement he made recently. Another one that my friends may not be quite so much in agreement with, he has laid out his principles for tax reform.

The greatest engine for job growth is never going to be the Federal Government. It is going to always be the private sector. And if we could, as the President has suggested, cut corporate tax rates, incentivize the return of profit, something where perhaps we can work together, that are stranded overseas, bring them back here and invest in America, I think we would create a lot more jobs a lot more quickly and in a lot more sustainable fashion than we would do through additional public spending.

Finally, I think we ought to give the President a little bit of credit for emphasizing and bringing home American jobs, something that actually began once he was President-elect. We saw it in Indiana with Carrier air-conditioning. We have seen it in other cases where he has promoted the sale of American arms in the Middle East where we have got substantial things.

So I think this is a President who actually gets up each and every day and thinks profoundly about what can we do to create an overall ecosystem, an environment, if you will, that will incentivize private investment, private employment, American jobs, and bringing American companies back to this country.

I think he is actually off to an exceptionally good start in those areas, and I look forward to working with him on that. I suspect we will see a tax proposal on this floor in the not-too-distant future-- our friends on Ways and Means are working on it now--that will mirror many of the principles that the President laid out in his initial draft discussion of what he thinks we ought to do.

And that one change, changing the Tax Code, I think, will do more than

all the programs that we would work on, many of them worthy programs, many of them things, I think, where the Federal Government does have a role.

I will agree with my friend from Florida, I am disturbed about some of the cuts in training programs. I have seen those programs work and work well, and I suspect the President will find out, as other Presidents have found out--we used to routinely praise President Obama's budget on the floor. It never got very many votes. I don't think it ever got any Democratic votes--that, you know, Presidents propose, as they should, that is their prerogative, they run the executive branch, but, at the end of the day, it is Congress that makes the final funding decisions.

I happen to know a little bit about those programs because they come through my subcommittee on appropriations, and I want to assure my friends they are not going to disappear. And we may have to make some tough choices, as you always have to do, in appropriated dollars, but on many of the programs that I know my friend cares about and has championed in his distinguished career, they are going to be protected, and we are going to try and work in a bipartisan fashion in those areas and keep those things going.

But, at the end of the day, I think the President's record on job creation will be outstanding, and I think the actions that he has taken in the opening part of his administration are a testament to how seriously he takes the challenge of making sure that every American has a decent job, a job that pays a good wage, a job that will provide for his or her family, and a job that will give them an opportunity to live a life of dignity and prosperity, something we want every American to have a chance at.

So with 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 addressing a couple of points that my friend made. There will be places we agree; there will be places we disagree. I think too often around here we talk about how nothing gets done when this has actually been an extraordinarily productive period in terms of passing legislation. We are going to have differences on some of that legislation, there is no question. There is a reason why God created a Democratic Party and a Republican Party, and it probably wasn't to always agree all the time, but it was to challenge one another and try to work together when they could or define alternative paths when they felt they must, and let the American people make the decision.

Fortunately, we are blessed to live in a country where they get to make that decision on a regular basis like clockwork. They have been making some decisions recently. I think the President has had a pretty good run in special elections. We are pretty pleased with the decisions they have been making. But at some point they will change their mind-- they always do--and they will decide somebody else has a better way.

I think in the interim we ought to stress occasionally so the American people know when we do work together. I actually was home after we managed to pass healthcare through this particular body, and that bill moved through multiple committees, had multiple amendments, lots of negotiation. Obviously it is in the Senate now. I think that process will start over there. But the day before we passed it, actually, we came together in a really quite remarkable way. We passed an omnibus spending bill of over $1 trillion. That bill had worked through the Appropriations Committee of each House, 12 different bills put together to fund the Federal Government. That particular bill gave us the largest increase in defense spending in about a decade, the largest increase in border security money in about a decade. It gave us a substantial increase in money at the National Institutes of Health and at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, areas that Democrats and Republicans alike have been working together on and feel very strongly about.

That bill also broke the one-to-one relationship--pretty artificial relationship, in my view--that President Obama had laid down that, if you increase defense spending, you have to automatically increase domestic spending whether you need to or not or whether you can afford to or not.

Frankly, that bill actually passed with a majority of my friends on the Democratic side in both the House and the Senate and a majority of Republicans in the House and the Senate voting for the same bill and Donald Trump signing the bill.

Now, when I go home and I explain that to people, they look at me with a blank stare. It is like: What? That really happened? One trillion dollars with all those different elements in there and a majority of Democrats voted for it and a majority of Republicans voted for it and Donald Trump signed it?

I say: Yeah.

They are amazed. They have never heard about it. They have never seen it. I think that is because sometimes we present a false narrative of constant conflict. There is certainly plenty of conflict here. Look, I have some sympathy with the minority. Having been in the minority myself, you always feel shut out. But this is an occasion--this legislation, and, frankly, that spending bill--when my friends certainly weren't shut out. They participated, and they participated vigorously, and they contributed in the process.

I am with my friend. We need to do more of that. As a matter of fact, I think you will see it is happening right now. If you go to the Defense Committee, they are working on their authorization bill. That committee is the most bipartisan committee probably in Congress. Every time they report something out on an authorization--I think they have 63 or 64 members, something like that--the vote is always like 60 to 3. They have clearly put aside their partisan differences to work together.

In this bill, we have done exactly the same thing. So while we are going to have some points where we disagree, we are going to have some opportunities to agree and come together. And I pledge to my friend I will continue to work with him to try and see that we find more of them.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to encourage all of the Members, obviously, to support the rule, but I am sure my good friends on the other side probably won't accept the invitation. That is okay. This is a process vote and they have got other matters they want on the floor, and I certainly understand that they will be opposing our rule and trying to offer an alternative.

But when the matter counts, when the actual legislation reaches the floor, I think H.R. 2842 will draw broad bipartisan support. This House is taking steps to help workers leave welfare rolls and return to the workforce. Under this bill, employers will be incentivized to hire TANF recipients and will help bring the unemployed up into the workforce and the economy.

This bill is a commonsense bipartisan solution that will benefit everyone: the workers, the employers, the community, the economy, and the Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to applaud my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for their work on this important piece of legislation. I think if we can get it through this House and we get it through the Senate, I am sure that Mr. Trump will be more than happy to sign it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. However, had I been present, I would have voted yea on Roll Call No. 308.

Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 296.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Faso

Mr. Speaker, circumstances have arisen, which caused me to return home to Oklahoma early; however, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 267 and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 268.

personal explanation