Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 776 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend,

the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 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 for the fiscal year 2015 omnibus appropriations bill. The resolution makes in order a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Appropriations that the House concur in the Senate amendment of H.R. 83 with an amendment consisting of the text of the FY 2015 omnibus appropriations bill.

The rule provides 80 minutes of debate, 60 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

In addition, the rule provides the chair of the Committee on Appropriations the authority to insert any explanatory information.

Finally, the rule provides same-day authority through December 12, as is customary at the end of session.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to this House the culmination of the Appropriations Committee's work for the fiscal year 2015. In this legislation, 11 of the 13 appropriations bills are fully conferenced and fully funded through the end of the fiscal year. However, the Homeland Security bill is funded under a temporary continuing resolution until February 27, 2015.

Mr. Speaker, I carried the initial rule for consideration of the first two appropriations bills considered in the House back on April 30, 2014, and I believe the record of the House and the House Appropriations Committee has been good. We considered 7 out of 12 appropriations bills on the floor under an open process, considered 11 of 12 appropriations bills in committee. Contrast that to the Senate, which was unable to consider even a single appropriations bill on the floor.

So I am proud, Mr. Speaker, of the work we have been able to accomplish. The omnibus legislation abides by all the terms set in the Ryan-Murray budget agreement, providing a top line funding level of $1.013 trillion.

But at the same time, this legislation contains important policy provisions that prevent the government from reaching into the lives of ordinary American citizens, provisions like those which prevent the Army Corps of Engineers from regulating farm ponds and irrigation ditches, or provisions like those preventing the Federal Government from regulating the lead content in ammunition or fishing tackle.

This bill maintains historic pro-life provisions and includes new ones, like requiring ObamaCare plans to disclose whether they provide abortion services, and countless others.

At the same time, this omnibus enacts important commonsense priorities on the direction of this government. It cuts funding for the IRS by over $345 million. Indeed, the IRS has been cut by more than $1.2 billion since 2010. It prohibits the IRS from targeting groups for scrutiny based on their political beliefs. It cuts EPA funding for the fifth consecutive year, bringing staffing to the lowest level since 1989. It implements a government-wide prohibition on the painting of portraits. It makes commonsense decisions, like prohibiting funding for inappropriate videos or conferences that shouldn't be funded by taxpayers in times of surplus, much less in times of deficit.

But this legislation doesn't just cut funding from programs. It takes those cuts and reallocates them to programs that are truly in need. For example, it provides $30 billion for the National Institutes of Health, an increase over funding from FY14, enhancing funding for Alzheimer's, cancer, and brain research.

It funds the Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Act, a bill I authored with Gregg Harper and Eric Cantor, at $12.6 million, shifting those dollars from funding political conventions to research into pediatric diseases.

It increases the health care and educational funding to some of our poorest and most needy constituents--Native Americans--and it provides funding to deal with crises like those associated with the outbreak of Ebola or the militant activity of ISIL, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

I could go on and on with all the good things included in this bill; however, I am sure others will speak to those items.

I believe it is important to take stock in where we have come over the last 4 years. We have taken an annual budget deficit of $1.4 trillion and lowered it to $468 billion, still too high, but one of the most rapid, if not the most rapid, declines of the deficit in American history. We prevented additional burdens and regulations from being foisted upon the American people.

Our work is certainly not done, however. One must always remember appropriations and appropriating is a process. The bureaucratic welfare state built by decades of Democratic control cannot be dismantled in a single blow; however, it can be reduced piece by piece, and this legislation does just that.

Some of my friends will raise objections to the process, where we are left with a frustrating choice between the passage of a large omnibus bill to fund all government or a government shutdown. To my friends, I say that I agree with you, as do my fellow members of the Appropriations Committee.

There are some things in this bill I disagree with and some, certainly, that I agree with; but I do believe that, under regular order, those with different points of views should be able to make their case to the entire House.

The House has led by example in this regard. We considered seven different appropriations bills on this floor in an open amendment process, all of which were passed by bipartisan majorities. The House would have considered even more appropriations bills had the Senate been willing to consider even a single appropriations bill on the floor. In fact, the last time the Senate passed an individual appropriations bill was November 1, 2011, more than 3 years ago.

Madam Speaker, this isn't the way to govern. I hope that in the next Congress the House will have a partner in the Senate, which is willing to consider individual appropriations bills in an open process so that we do not have to consider large omnibus packages without the opportunity for amendment. I believe we will, and I believe we will end up with a better product because of it.

I am encouraged by the work of my friend, Chairman Rogers, and Ranking Member Nita Lowey, and I look forward to working with them and a new Senate next year to build upon the work we have done this year.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from the State of Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler), my friend and distinguished colleague, for the purpose of a colloquy with the majority leader.

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

I just want to make a couple of points in response to my friend.

First of all, there is much of what my friend has to say that I agree with. This is not the preferred process of the Appropriations Committee on either side of the aisle in this Chamber. Indeed, we tried to bring--and did bring--bill after bill after bill to this floor to avoid this very end.

The responsibility here lies with the leadership of the United States Senate, which did not bring a single appropriations bill to the floor. When they won't pick up and pass a bill, we can't go to conference, and we are left to fund the government in the very final days.

Now, I don't think my friend meant to suggest this, but the idea that only Republicans were involved in drafting this is just simply not the case. This bill has to go through a Democratic Senate and go to a Democratic President. It cannot pass the Senate without Democratic support or even be taken up. It cannot go into law without the President's signing it into law.

The reality is that the Democratic Senate and the administration have been involved in these negotiations at every level, over and over. Indeed, my friends have been involved in this as well in their capacity as ranking members on the Appropriations Committee or in the leadership capacity. This bill, of which I do not particularly like the process, is, indeed, bicameral and bipartisan in its substance.

Again, I think my friend makes an excellent point in that this isn't the way to run the railroad, and we ought to work together; but I also will remind my friends that the last time they were in the majority they brought exactly two appropriations bills to the floor under closed rules. They never brought an appropriations bill here in their final year under an open process. We have done that seven times. We would have done it all 12 times, but we finally determined the United States Senate, under Democratic control, was never going to bring up an appropriations bill, at which point: Why waste the floor time, and why ask your Members to do the hard work and cast the votes?

That is something that shouldn't happen again. I pledge to work with my friend, who I know does not want to see that happen again, to make sure that we fulfill our part of the process on this side of the House; and I think the new Senate will very likely do the same thing. I am hoping our colleague who is leaving this Chamber and heading there will help us in that. She has been a wise and able Member here, and I am sure she will be equally distinguished in the United States Senate.

We look forward to improving the process--my friend is right about that--but the absence of passing this bill will shut down the government. I don't think that is something that either they or our friends in the Senate or in the administration want to do.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I am going to disagree with my friend from California. This bill is bipartisan and bicameral. It was negotiated with the Democratic Senate, and both sides approved it before it was ever submitted to the Rules Committee for consideration.

It has been alleged that the swaps push-out language contained in the omni was snuck into the bill, that it allows for risky trading and puts taxpayer funds at risk. None of this, in my view, is true. The language included in this omnibus is identical to H.R. 992, which passed the House with broad bipartisan support by a vote of 292-122.

The language was added to the Financial Services appropriations bill as a full committee amendment. After a public debate on the language, it was adopted by voice vote. When the Financial Services appropriations bill was considered by the full House for 3 days under an open rule, where 51 amendments were considered, there were no amendments offered on the swaps push-out language.

The omni provides a commonsense fix for section 716 of the Dodd- Frank. Risky swaps like those that brought down AIG are still required to be pushed out. The omni allows low-risk trades to continue to be conducted by depository institutions, which are regulated by banking supervisors. Without this fix, farmers and manufacturers will experience increased costs and regulatory burdens without making our financial system any more stable.

Former Fed Chairmen Ben Bernanke and Paul Volcker and former FDIC Chair Sheila Bair have all expressed a need to fix section 716 of Dodd- Frank. CBO has scored this language as having no impact on the taxpayers. So we obviously see this differently than our friends on the other side.

With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I just want to make this point again. I agree with some of the points my good friend from Mississippi makes, but this could be avoided if the United States Senate had simply picked up appropriations bills and passed them.

This could have been long done. We could have come to an agreement many months ago. We tried on seven different occasions and did bring bills across this floor. They were under open amendment, something my friends did not do their last year in the majority, and we had multiple opportunities.

But at some point when the other body isn't moving and tells you it is not going to take up an appropriations bill, you just quit hitting your head against the wall and say, ``Well, I guess we are going to have to deal with this with a big omnibus at the end of the year.''

If my friends wanted a different process--and I am sure they did-- they should have been talking to their colleagues in the United States Senate. That is why we are here, not because we wouldn't bring bills across but because the Senate wouldn't.

At some point, if one-half of the Congress won't work, the other half can't get its work done. That is just the process and the way it works. We are hoping the new Senate under new management will do something.

We all know in this Chamber the only reason why they did that was because they wanted to avoid tough votes. Quite frankly, that is the reason why my friends wouldn't allow an open amendment process the last time they were in the majority. It didn't work well for them in 2010; it didn't work well for their Democratic colleagues this time around in 2014.

I think the lesson both of us ought to draw from this is, let's do regular order. It actually is in the best interests of the country, the best interests of the institution. It is even in the best political interests of the two parties. Just let us go do our work.

But we can't now shut down the government because the Senate refused to do the process any other way but do it here. And, again, with all due respect to my friend's concerns on a variety of issues, some of which I share, quite frankly, there are even some parts of this bill that I like that I don't like to see passed this way. I don't think it is appropriate to be passed this way.

At the end of the day you have got to keep the government functioning. This is the last vehicle to do that.

To suggest, again, it wasn't bicameral or bipartisan--it has been. As my friends know, this has been negotiated at the top levels of leadership and on the Appropriations Committee between Democrats and Republicans in the House and the Senate.

There are some flaws in this process. There are certainly some things I don't like in this bill, but I recognize it is a gigantic compromise and one designed to allow government to continue to function, and it hasn't been the House of Representatives, either Democrat or Republican, that has gotten us to this point. This is the Democratic leadership in the Senate that has gotten us to this point.

But at the end of the day, everybody here will have a vote, both on the rule and on the bill, and the same thing will be true in the United States Senate. The President has a signature at his end of Pennsylvania Avenue, and if this process doesn't work or my friends

want to bring it down, that is up to them. We would prefer not to close the government, to continue to function.

With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Two quick points. As I think I pointed out earlier in the course of this debate, the language dealing with swaps was actually considered by this House in two separate pieces of language. One of those bills passed this House with a bipartisan majority. The other was the Financial Services bill, where there was no objection, no amendment, and no complaint.

Now we find at the very last minute concern and objections that were never raised earlier in the process when there were multiple opportunities to do that.

With respect to my friend's point about the political contribution issue, that is something I know a little bit about. I used to be chief of staff of the Republican National Committee. I was the executive director of the NRCC, our campaign committee, earlier in my life.

I have watched McCain-Feingold over the years, and I have seen that, frankly, it has been a failed piece of legislation. I agree with my friend's point this is not the way to do it. I would have much preferred to debate in an open process, but the idea there is not big money in politics I think is an idea that is very much out of date. There is lots of big money in politics.

We have diminished the importance of individual candidate campaigns and the party organizations, while we have enhanced them partly through a Supreme Court ruling. So there is plenty of extra money out there, and it pours into races. To marginalize the political parties, which are actually the most accountable, most transparent, and most responsible participants in the process, is something that we ought to rethink.

Frankly, to put candidates individually at the mercy of megadonors on each side--by the way, my friends are as much at risk of this as my colleagues on this side of the aisle--is something we need to think about. Again, I suspect that is what happened here.

I wouldn't suggest this was a Republican idea. I don't know, frankly, if it was a Republican or Democratic idea. I know Democrats in the Senate consented to it and I suspect participated in it. So let's not have a lot of show that we don't like this or that and somehow this was a Republican measure. In many cases it wasn't, or it was a negotiated compromise.

In this case, again, there will be ample opportunity to deal with this both later when we vote on the final product and eventually when the Senate takes it up. But, again, if the Senate would just do its job, we wouldn't be here in this process. We wouldn't have these opportunities for people to short-circuit the normal legislative procedures that I know my friends agree with, and I certainly agree with.

With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend for his very generous and kind words and remarks. There is nobody seriously I enjoy listening to more on this floor. I very much appreciate his generous offer which I know he has made to people far above my pay grade on my side of the aisle to work together and find common ground not only here in the closing days of the session, but next year as well.

I appreciate the fact that he is willing to accept over 99 percent of this bill, and I agree with his political assessment. I think we could muster strong bipartisan majorities to pass that.

The issues he raised I suspect are being considered and are a little above my pay grade to comment on, so I am not going to do that, but I do want to tell my friend how much I respect him and how much I appreciate his contribution each and every day to how

this House operates. I think we would have been in a much better place here as Democrats and Republicans had the Senate done a better job of doing its job.

Madam Speaker, I will disagree with my friend a little bit or maybe express a different opinion on saying we did seven-twelfths of our job. My friend has been a distinguished majority leader in this institution, and I think he is a master at the legislative process and knows probably better than most how difficult it is to function on one side of the rotunda of this Capitol Building when they are not functioning on the other.

You do reach a point after you have put seven bills on the floor and the other body has made it obvious that they are not going to put a single appropriations measure on the floor, your own side begins to wonder: Why are we doing this? Why are we going through this process?

Now, we did go ahead and move through full committee 11 of the 12 bills which were again done in a bipartisan fashion with consultation with our friends on the Democratic side. You do reach a point where you say: Why are we wasting the floor time? Why are we exposing our Members?

I am hopeful when our friend in the chair arrives at the other side that we are going to have partners that work with us on both sides of the aisle and engage in that normal process that I know my friend is not only a master at, but a defender and advocate for.

Well, I have very little time and actually less time than my friend has, so I would prefer you to use your own time. If they are not willing to give you any time, then perhaps I will reconsider that.

With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Michigan because he is an exceptionally responsible Member in this body and an heir of a proud tradition in his family and somebody I enjoy working with and I think someone that makes a genuine contribution each and every day he has been here.

In terms of the bill itself, there is certainly nothing inappropriate about my friends on the other side of the aisle focusing on things they don't like, but there are some things we ought to think about that we do like. There are billions of dollars in here to fight Ebola, something that we sat down and worked with the administration and our friends on the other side and came to a common agreement.

We have disagreement sometimes and a difference of perspective. I am actually closer to Mr. McGovern on this, at least in terms of process, than I am to the administration.

Look, ISIL is a clear and present danger to the United States of America. The President has asked for things in here; we have put the things he asked for in here and tried to work with him on that.

I don't think anybody in this Chamber thinks that the work done at the National Institutes of Health isn't exceptionally important. There is more money in here for that particular agency in a more difficult budgetary environment than we had last year.

I know how very much my friend and his family have always been concerned with Native Americans. Nobody did more than your uncle, our beloved colleague, Mr. Kildee, Dale Kildee, in that area, and there is substantially more money in here than the administration requested for Indian health and for school construction on Indian reservations.

There are certainly some things in here that I share some of the concerns that my friends have, both from a process standpoint and an outcome standpoint, but I think you have to make a balance. I think you have to look at the overall bill. I think you have to look at the consequences of not passing the bill and the rule.

I think you also have to remember that this is a negotiated agreement with a Democratic Senate. I don't think we should have gotten to this point, and had they done their job in the appropriations process, we would not be at this point; but whenever either body doesn't do their job, you always get down to the end, and this is exactly the sort of thing that you end up with.

I don't know how we can avoid that in the next 24 hours, but I do know this: I hope we all from both sides of the aisle recommit ourselves to avoid being here next year. I don't blame my friends on the Democratic side for getting us here. I don't think they had anything to do with it.

They worked with us in the appropriations process in very good faith with Mrs. Lowey. That is why we brought bills to the floor. That didn't happen in the Senate, and that is what has gotten us here. I think we should reserve our fire for the other Chamber, one thing that tends to unite us instead of divide us because that is where the problem has been.

Madam Speaker, again, under new management next year, I hope we won't see this problem.

With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), my good friend, our distinguished parting Member and the chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Subcommittee of our Appropriations Committee.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

As I reflect back on the debate today--and it is always a good exchange with my friend from New York--I want to reflect on some areas of agreement and disagreement.

The agreement is we think, like our Democratic colleagues, this is not a good way to legislate. We do not like the process. We do not like to pass bills with multiple hundreds of pages and well over $1 trillion in spending and lots of policy riders. We prefer to legislate as we began this Congress--that is with an individual appropriations bill.

I want to thank my chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), for the manner in which they got the process off and going this year, and I want to commend my friends on the other side of the aisle for participating.

This House was moving appropriations bills under open rules with multiple debates and passing them, usually with bipartisan votes, in the way that this system should operate. That was not true in the United States Senate.

That body, under Democratic leadership, never brought up a single appropriations bill. You simply can't operate the process if the other side of the Chamber, whose participation is constitutionally required, refuses to participate, refuses to bring bills to the floor. And that was done for political and, I would suggest, somewhat cynical calculations. It didn't work out very well in the end; it never does. Going through regular order, we all know, is the best way to operate. But we are here now because the Senate wouldn't do its job. The House did do its job and continued to do it until it was just painfully obvious that the Senate was never going to do anything at all.

I have also listened to my friends and their concerns about a multitude of issues that are dealt with in this bill. They know we can avoid this next year by following regular order and going through the process, but there are two in particular that I want to address quickly.

The first issue is campaign finance. I probably have a different view than most of my speakers in terms of what ought to be done, but they are absolutely right in terms of the process by which this has been arrived at. Now, I will point out this idea that there is not unlimited money in politics now is just simply not true. The people who have been penalized are the candidates and the political parties. There are plenty of third-party groups on both sides that spend enormous amounts of money, people who write substantially larger checks, and that is both liberals, conservatives, Democrats, and Republicans. This is actually a measure, I would argue, to try to allow the parties who are more transparent and more accountable and, frankly, usually more professional to have the resources to compete with some of the outside groups. Be that as it may, the substance of my friend's process objections are real.

The other area is the Dodd-Frank area. Let me just say, that language was brought up under the separate legislation and considered; it was in Financial Services. So the idea it is being dropped in at the last minute is just not true.

Let me finish with two points. First, there is a great deal of good in this bill. There are a great many parts of this bill where we have worked together, worked well together, ranging from Ebola to the National Institutes of Health, the Native American issues. Those things ought to be enacted.

Madam Speaker, in closing, the continuing resolution we are currently operating under is due to expire at midnight tonight. I believe it is important to keep this government open and support this bipartisan, bicameral piece of legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation.

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

The previous question was ordered.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 17 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, December 11, 2014, at 9 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida for yielding.

I want to talk a little bit about the legislation and then the rule itself.

It is not unusual that we are at a difficult moment near the end of the session and have must-pass legislation. And the main portion of this legislation, the National Defense Authorization Act, is actually very good and very bipartisan. Frankly, it was passed out of committee with overwhelming votes from both sides of the aisle. We all know that the chairman and the ranking member, who are two of our most distinguished Members, work very well together. Like anything in a $500 billion bill, I could quibble with this or that, but the reality is I favor the legislation. I have no problem supporting it and the rule that moves it forward.

I also want to agree with my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern). I have the same concerns he does about the authorization for military action. I jointly signed a letter with him to that effect. I look forward to continuing to work with him to that effect because he is precisely right that we need to address this. I think the appropriate way is a full authorization debate, not an amendment, but my friend certainly states his case eloquently.

We also have a major lands bill appropriated with this. Most of that bill is really pretty noncontroversial. Most of it went through committee or a lot of it across the floor. There are a lot of good things in there and things that I find very easy to support.

There is a particular portion, however, that I do oppose, and that is section 3003, as I recall. But it is basically a copper mining issue in southeast Arizona, where we have two Indian tribes that have sacred sites in this area, on what is now Federal land, and they have opposed this legislation.

Now, this legislation was debated on this floor in stand-alone legislation and was then pulled because the votes were not here to pass the legislation. So we are passing, by rule, a bill that the majority in this House did not support.

Fortunately, the bill is somewhat different. There are a couple of things that have been added: a consultation

with the tribes in question, a stronger environmental review. Whether this is window dressing or sincere is hard to know. But I am going to urge the tribes in question to use the consultation fully and aggressively, and I am going to urge the Federal agencies that are responsible for the environmental considerations here to be extraordinarily aggressive in their oversight. We do have a trust responsibility when it comes to sacred sites on Federal lands--or non- Federal lands, for that matter. We have a governmental responsibility.

This is a bill, remember, that did not make it across this floor, and it has never been considered by the United States Senate on the floor. Frankly, if that bill couldn't make it across this House, I very seriously doubt it would have made it across the floor in the Senate. So we really have the rules in the sense, I think, thwarting the majority opinion inside the Congress, and that is unfortunate.

However, speaking personally, when you serve as a member of the majority on the Rules Committee--and I was given extraordinary latitude last night to try to change this rule in a way that would have stripped this particular provision and did vote against the rule in committee-- when you are given that responsibility, once the committee makes its decision, you also have a responsibility to accept the decision that has been made.

I also have the great privilege, on my side of the aisle, of serving as a deputy whip, and that usually requires that you support the rule, that you support your party, which is pretty routine on procedural matters on both sides of the aisle. In 12 years, I have never voted against a rule that my own party put on the floor, even if I had disagreements with it. And I do have disagreements; but in the end, I will support the rule, with reservations.

I hope that the provisions that are in the law--to be fair to the authors that have been added since that legislation--will give us some avenues, but I think we ought to reflect long and hard over using this kind of procedural mechanism in this way.

On our side of the aisle, we would like to think we are going to be a different kind of Congress and have been a different kind of Congress, and we can always play the back-and-forth. We have got plenty of gotchas for the other side in terms of how they used rules when they were in the majority. But if we are going to do things differently, it needs to start someplace. So I wanted to come down here and highlight this as, I think, a mistake but make it clear, at the end of the day, I support the rule that the committee arrived at.

I will be looking forward to working with my friend from Massachusetts on his particular concerns about authorization. I will be looking forward and really watching this issue in Arizona with a great deal of concern, and I will continue to push aggressively that we change the manner in which we operate.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

I rise to support the Native American Housing Assistance and Self- Determined Reauthorization Act of 2014.

I want to begin by thanking my friend Mr. Pearce. Nobody has worked harder on this legislation and, frankly, cared more and done more to make sure that a part of our population that historically has not done well, to say the least, has the opportunity to not only receive some benefits that are appropriately and rightfully theirs, but to take more control over their own destiny and their own housing. I think this legislation does just that.

I want to thank Members on both sides of the aisle. I see my good friend from Wisconsin over there who, we worked together on VAWA. I know what her commitment is on Native American issues, and I appreciate that very, very much.

This legislation provides Native American tribes with much greater efficiencies when deploying NAHASDA funding. We all know government, however well intentioned, quite often is a pretty clumsy and pretty bureaucratic instrument. Consolidating the environmental review requirements, requiring the HUD Secretary to study and recommend to Congress standards to streamline the construction of Indian housing, recommendations for HUD to establish alternative reporting requirements for tribes, these are all good things that will speed the development of housing and allow tribes to deploy their funds more efficiently.

There is also legislation in here to deal with taxpayer protections and tribal accountability to make sure the HUD Secretary has the authority to recoup unexpended funds that are held for too long; it strengthens tribal flexibility and sovereignty; and, finally, it allows tribes to pursue alternative funding sources by encouraging private investment, something that is desperately needed.

I know, and happened to come in the last part of the debate, there was some discussion about the Cherokee Freedmen issue. That is an issue I know a fair amount about since the tribe is located in my home State of Oklahoma. I want to agree with Ms. Moore that we do have a chief, Chief Baker, who is extremely concerned about this issue and is trying to work it through.

The bill itself, the language, is really just an update from what we did in 2008. We are trying to allow the courts and the tribe to solve the issue. I think they genuinely have made progress that the people here that have had legitimate concerns about this issue can be proud of. I think they will continue to do that. But there is no substantive change in what my friend Mr. Pearce has brought forward and what existing law was in this area.

I just want to end once more by thanking my friend Mr. Pearce. Frankly, this bill would not have been on this floor without his diligent work. I certainly want to thank Mr. Hensarling for working with my friend Mr. Pearce, and I want to thank my friends on the other side of the aisle who also have focused a great deal of attention and concern on this issue to try and make sure that the first Americans aren't the last Americans in almost every category. So, again, I thank my friends, and I look forward to the passage of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, during this past recess, on October 29th, the Turkish people celebrated Republic Day, which commemorates the 91st anniversary of the establishment of the Republic of Turkey.

On October 29, 1923, the Turkish Parliament proclaimed the new state as a republic, replacing the Ottoman Constitution. Turkish soldiers prevailed in the War of Independence despite being under equipped. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, who led the Turkish Army became the new country's first President. Turkish women played a crucial role in helping to bring about a new nation. During the war they were often left earning the only income in their households. They also assisted in the war effort by transporting ammunition on their backs, moving cannon balls, and pushing equipment to the battle fields.

Since independence, Turkey has made incredible gains and taken its place among the community of nations. Turkey remains an important ally in a turbulent region. Its economic vibrancy has catapulted the country to become the 6th-largest economy in Europe and the 16th in the world. Turkey has prevailed because of its roots as a republic and its place as one of the few democracies in the region.

This political stability along with a strong cultural connection has led to Turkish investment in Native American enterprises. Turkish businesses have sought to share their experience and expertise with Native Americans. There have been several Native American delegations to Turkey, and Turkish businesses have visited tribes to discuss ways in which to work together. This relationship between Turks and Native Americans is a shining example of how stable governments help foster collaborative growth.

Mr. Speaker, all this is why, on this occasion, I congratulate the people of Turkey on this important anniversary, and look forward to a strong and stable Turkish Republic for many generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, on May 27, 2014 the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, wherein the Court affirmed the sovereign immunity of our Nation's federally-recognized Indian tribes for off-reservation commercial activities. Because the United States Constitution expressly and exclusively grants to Congress plenary authority over every one of our Nation's 566 federally-recognized Indian tribes, I rise to provide my views on this decision that can have serious ramifications for Indian Country.

As the Court's Bay Mills decision correctly observes, our nation's federally recognized Indian tribes are independent governments whose sovereignty pre-dates the United States Constitution. Our founding fathers wisely chose to subject Indian tribes solely to the authority of the United States Congress, to the exclusion of state governments, as well as the Executive and Judicial branches of the federal government. And though Indian tribes are subject to the authority of Congress, they retain all of their inherent and historic sovereign powers, except as those powers may be expressly modified by Congress. If Congress does not act to take away the sovereign powers of Indian tribes, those powers are retained.

One of the most important attributes of sovereignty possessed by Indian tribes is sovereign immunity from suit, including suits initiated by State governments. In addition to being consistently affirmed by decisions of our nation's highest court over the past two centuries, tribal sovereign immunity has been repeatedly acknowledged and confirmed in federal case precedent. Thus the Supreme Court correctly upheld the sovereign immunity of the Bay Mills Indian Community, and affirmed the express desire of Congress that Indian tribes retain the fullest extent of their immunity from suit.

Like state and federal governments, Indian tribes rely on their inherent sovereign powers, including immunity, to protect their treasuries and further their economies. These sovereign powers are vital for any government to provide essential programs and services for its citizens and are critical in maintaining the viability of our nation's Indian tribes, many of which are located in the most economically depressed regions of the country and have been under constant duress due to severe cutbacks in federal funding over the past several decades. For Indian tribes, sovereign immunity is necessary not only to protect the Tribes from private litigants, but also to prevent state governments from overstepping their constitutional authority and diminishing the rights and sovereignty of Indian tribes through litigation. As the Supreme Court acknowledged in the Bay Mills Indian Community decision, only Congress has the authority to diminish the sovereign rights of Indian tribes.

While I applaud the Supreme Court's decision affirming Tribal sovereign immunity, I am deeply disturbed by dicta in the Court's majority opinion that is not only at odds with the Constitution and prior Supreme Court precedent, but is an affront to tribal sovereignty. In its majority opinion, the Court suggests that a state may bring a suit for prospective injunctive relief against tribal officials for alleged violations of state law based on the doctrine of Ex Parte Young. Prior Supreme Court precedent, however, has made clear that the doctrine of Ex Parte Young only permits suit for prospective injunctive relief against government officials for alleged violations of federal law, not for alleged violations of state law. The basis for authorizing such suits against government officials is that federal law is supreme

to state and tribal law, and thus states and tribes cannot officially authorize their officials to violate federal law. However, state law is not supreme to tribal law under the United States Constitution. The Court's suggestion that tribal officials acting in their official capacity are subject to suit for alleged violations of state law is not only in clear conflict with prior Supreme Court precedent, but permitting such suits would eviscerate tribal sovereign immunity by giving states the ability to do indirectly what our Constitution has prohibited from them doing directly: exercising jurisdiction and authority over Indian tribal governments through litigation. Furthermore, it will undoubtedly expose tribal officials to individual liability and aggravation if they are named in baseless Ex Parte Young suits.

Perhaps worse, the Supreme Court's Bay Mills decision includes dicta suggesting that, if civil remedies against Indian tribes and their officials ``prove[] inadequate,'' a state may bring criminal charges against tribal officials acting in their official capacity for alleged violations of state law. This also would enable states to trump the sovereign rights of Indian tribes by criminalizing what would otherwise be civil, government-to-government disputes between states and Indian tribes. Such action would violate the United States Constitution and the sovereign rights of Indian tribes that the Constitution guarantees. Again, the Constitution withholds from States the authority to exercise jurisdiction and power over Indian tribes, and grants that power solely to Congress. The Supreme Court does not have the power to usurp Congress' Constitutionally granted plenary power over Indian affairs by granting States the right to criminalize the exercise of tribal sovereignty where Congress has not seen fit to do so. And again, it will be tribal officials acting in their official capacity that could be exposed to potential criminal liability for doing the very same thing that all of us who are here as elected officials are trying to do--be good civil servants.

Therefore, I urge our federal and state judiciaries to treat the above-referenced dicta (and erroneous dicta at that) in the Bay Mills decision as just that: non-binding dicta, and to instead uphold the United States Constitution by deferring to Congress on all issues involving tribal-state conflicts. Where Congress has not expressly chosen to subject Indian tribes to state jurisdiction or authority, the states cannot usurp Congress' plenary and exclusive authority over Indian tribes by bringing suits or criminal charges against tribal officials for alleged violations of state law as a means of exercising control over sovereign Indian tribes.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 722 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 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 may 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.J. Res. 124, the Continuing Appropriations Resolution for fiscal year 2015. The rule is a structured rule which provides for the consideration of a short-term continuing resolution keeping the government funded until December 11, 2014.

The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for the adoption of a technical amendment by Chairman Rogers and makes in order an amendment by Chairman McKeon. That amendment provides the authority for the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to train and equip appropriately vetted elements of the Syrian opposition and other appropriately vetted Syrian groups or individuals.

For this amendment, the rule provides 6 hours of debate equally divided between Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith. The rule also provides for one motion to recommit.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule corrects a technical error and puts in place the base rules of the House regarding media access to the hearings and meetings of the Benghazi Select Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my friend Chairman Rogers for bringing a bill to avoid a government shutdown to the House. As a member of the Appropriations Committee, it is frustrating that we are forced into acting on a short-term continuing resolution when we spent much of this year, both in committee and on the floor, updating congressional funding priorities for fiscal year 2015.

This House has done its work. I wish I could say the same for the other body. While the Senate has chosen not to pass even one appropriations bill on the floor, this House has passed seven.

While the Senate Appropriations Committee has passed eight of the 12 appropriations bills out of committee, the House Appropriations Committee has approved all but one. If the Senate would work with us, I believe we could pass all of our bills on time.

The CR we are considering today is a clean bill continuing the funding of government operations at last year's levels. It includes only 36 so-called anomalies all within the total level of funding.

These changes are necessary to address current immediate needs like addressing the Ebola crisis, funding programs to counter regional aggression toward Ukraine and other former Soviet Union countries, and funding to ensure appropriate treatment of veterans and continued oversight of the VA.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, this bill extends the Export-Import Bank through June 30, 2015. I know some of my friends will disagree with me; however, I believe the Export-Import Bank provides a vital service. In an era when foreign governments are directly subsidizing industries, our companies are in need of a level playing field. I believe the Export-Import Bank does that.

In my home State of Oklahoma, since 2007, financing provided by the Export-Import Bank has supported over $1.1 billion in sales by U.S. companies that would not have existed otherwise; in addition, the Export-Import Bank has returned over $2.6 billion to the United States Treasury since 2008.

Finally, and most significantly, the McKeon amendment would provide the President with the authority he has requested to train and equip appropriately vetted elements of the Syrian opposition. The amendment ensures congressional oversight by requiring detailed progress reports on a plan, a vetting process, and procedures for monitoring unauthorized end use of provided training and equipment. It would also require the President to report on how this authority fits within a larger regional strategy.

Mr. Speaker, when we look back on what brought us to this point, there are at least three significant failures that we can point to: first, former Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki was given the opportunity to create a multiethnic, multisectarian, inclusive State of Iraq, but, instead, he squandered it; secondly, President Obama didn't insist forcefully enough to keep a residual American presence in Iraq; and, third, Mr. Speaker, when ISIL expanded out of Syria and into Iraq, both Prime Minister al-Maliki and President Obama were slow to respond.

When Ramadi and Fallujah fell to ISIL, their indecisive leadership allowed and encouraged this terrorist organization to assert itself in the Middle East. Mr. Speaker, the salient discussion is not about the past and how we got here but about the future and what we must do now.

I agree with the President that ISIL represents a clear and present danger

that must be dealt with, confronted, and destroyed. I am willing to give the President the authority and the funds needed to accomplish this mission. This amendment gives the President what he has requested while maintaining an appropriate role for Congress, but I do disagree with the President on several important issues.

I don't believe that he has the inherent authority to use military force in Syria, and nothing in this amendment authorizes him to do so.

I believe that going to war on the authorizations that were passed in 2001 and 2002, which dealt with very different times, places, and peoples, is shaky, at best. In fact, Mr. Speaker, a vast majority of my colleagues, including myself, were not even here in Congress when those authorizations were approved.

When we return in November, I hope that we repeal the 2001 and 2002 authorizations and replace them with ones that reflect the views of this Congress not the Congress of the last decade.

Additionally, I disagree with the President's choice of tactics. Regardless of whether he intends to use them or not, I believe the President was far too quick to rule out options and tools that he, in fact, may need later. War is the most unpredictable of all human enterprises. History shows that it is vital for a commander to maintain as much flexibility as possible.

I also do not believe that the authority and resources the President has requested will be nearly enough to achieve the mission he has outlined. It is going to take far more from our country, our allies, and our friends on the ground to destroy ISIL than envisioned in this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I don't believe the President can succeed in the effort to destroy ISIL without bipartisan, popular support, and I hope he will take this opportunity to build on that. We are not Republicans or Democrats in war, but Americans first. The Commander in Chief has asked for our support in the underlying legislation. He should get it.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it is not surprising I am going to disagree with my friend about who has and who hasn't done their job and who has been open and who hasn't been open in terms of how they have operated on the floor.

The reality is this House majority has repeatedly brought appropriations bills to the floor and moved them across the floor. Unfortunately, our counterparts and the Democratic majority in the Senate have not been able to do that for whatever reason. It's a little hard to have an appropriations process when the United States Senate will not bring a single appropriations bill to the floor largely because the majority on that side is evidently afraid of voting on any sort of amendments to an appropriations bill.

Now, if you actually look at the record in terms of who has been open and who hasn't, I remind my friends that the Democrats' 2006 manifesto, ``A New Direction for America,'' states:

Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure

that allows open, full, and fair debate consisting of a full

amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer

its alternatives, including a substitute.

The fact remains that when Democrats took control of the House they did just the opposite. Throughout the 111th Congress, in the final 2 years of Representative Pelosi's time as Speaker, the House never considered a single bill under an open rule. That is the definition of a closed process.

On the contrary, under Republican control, the House has returned to consideration of appropriation bills under an open process, with 22 open rules. This year alone, the House has considered 404 amendments during the appropriations process, 189 of which were offered by our Democratic colleagues. Contrast that to the United States Senate, where that process has not happened at all.

When you compare the record of the Republican majority to the most recent Democratic majority, any fair analysis will show Republicans are running a much more open, transparent House of Representatives.

Let me also, if I may, Mr. Speaker, turn to the issue of the Benghazi Select Committee. I know that has caused considerable concern, I think, largely based on misunderstanding.

Clause 2(g)(1) of rule XI, which applies to all standing committees and the select committees, mandates that the meetings of the select committee be open to the public, including the press, unless there is a vote conducted in open session to close such a meeting. The rule today only ensures that the logistics for media covering the hearing follow the standing rules of the House. There is no change to the rules governing public access to the meetings of the select committee.

Might I, just for the Record, Mr. Speaker, actually read the relevant portion of the rules here--``(7) The provisions of paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(12) of clause 4 of Rule XI shall be considered to be written rules adopted by the select committee as though pursuant to such clause''--essentially applying to the select committee our own rules. That is the only thing that is being done here. It is a technical amendment, certainly no effort to short-circuit the process or make it less transparent.

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

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

First, I want to respectfully, once again, disagree with my friend from New York on the appropriations process. The reality is we have brought bill after bill to this floor. Every Member has had the opportunity to offer any amendment on seven different bills and to vote ``yes'' or ``no'' on their final disposition. The Senate hasn't brought any. And, frankly, at some point the Senate's failure to do its job begins to impact our ability to do ours, because it is very difficult to get time on the floor and use it knowing there is not anything going on on the other side. And that is just the reality of it.

So, if my friends can talk the Senate into beginning to move, I think they would actually find the House, which is already far ahead of them, would continue to work with them and we would actually begin to pass bills. But until the Senate will bring a bill to the floor of any kind for an appropriation, very difficult for us to get our work done over here.

Now I want to address myself, if I may, to my friend and colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern. There is much in what he says that I agree with. Frankly, I think he is correct when he says that we need at some point a full authorization, a full debate, full discussion. He is absolutely right, and I want to commend him for the action he took in his amendment on Iraq in July that we voted on. I was very happy to vote it. So I think, in substance, I find very little to disagree with in what my friend has to say. I do point out a couple of things, though.

First, and I think my friend is aware of it, the Speaker has actually taken the position that we need a full authorization debate and discussion. And I am told that he conveyed that to the President and actually said he thought this institution, our country, which I know is what we care about supremely, and the President himself would be better off under such discussion. That is a viewpoint that I agree with, and I think many Members on both sides of the aisle and with both points of view on the issue also hold that opinion. So this is actually a decision that has been largely made, in a sense, by the President.

We are trying to respond in a short period of time to what the President has asked us to do, and I think that is an important point to remember in this. This is not a fight on this floor between Democrats and Republicans or even for proponents. I think it is, at another level, a difference in perception about what authority the President has, his view versus probably Congress' view on a bipartisan basis.

I think it is a challenge in terms of timing. It is extremely difficult for the leaders of either Chamber to look like they are undercutting the President at a time of danger and when he has come with this request. We have set 6 hours of debate aside for a reason. If you will remember, the President's original request was simply to drop this measure in the continuing resolution and have no vote and no discussion at all. It was actually our side and your side that insisted that it be pulled out and that a vote and discussion occur. When we come back--again, I share my friend's opinion--I would be prepared to do it before the election. I see no particular need in waiting, but I don't get to make that decision.

At the end of the day, we are giving the Commander in Chief what he is asking for. I think we are trying to be both responsible and helpful. We have actually curtailed considerably what the President asked for. We noted specifically that this does not authorize the use of military force in Syria. We have required reviews. I suspect we will be revisiting this issue again--I certainly would hope so--and I look forward to working with my friend to make sure that we do.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my friend.

In reclaiming my time, if I may, I don't presume to speak for the Speaker. I know that we have this vote largely because the Speaker wanted to make sure that we had a vote, and I know the request that he made of the President. Look, I am not condemning the President on this either. I understand all Executives try to tell you they have the authority to do everything they want. Ours do when we have a Republican, and Democrats do.

All I can say is, at the end of the day, I think we have a robust debate, and we have an opportunity to register opinion. But I want to continue to work with my friend and make sure that we have precisely the kind of debate and discussion and vote that his own amendment in July actually envisioned, because I think my friend is correct. I think this is an issue of constitutional propriety, and I think it is an issue, ultimately, of war and peace, and I think we ought to all vote on it. I would be happy if we did it before the election, but I will work with my friend to make sure that we do it as quickly as possible.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), my good friend, a fellow member of the Appropriations Committee and a fellow subcommittee chairman.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

I just wanted to quickly note that I actually agree with a very good deal of what my friend from Texas has to say.

I do want to correct him on one item. The amendment we are talking about is not like the authorizations of 2001 and 2002, mostly because it is very finely tailored to limit the executive branch.

It actually runs out on December 11 or earlier if we actually pass a National Defense Authorization Act and deal with the Syrian issue in that context; so it is very limited in terms of time, very limited in terms of scope. It explicitly states that it does not authorize military action in Syria.

With all due respect, I would suggest that most of my friend's disagreements are with this administration. They are largely disagreements with the President. The Speaker is doing what he can to provide an opportunity for us to debate and express that in the continuing resolution, and I will work with my friend from Texas to make sure that we have a fuller, more robust debate because I think the country deserves that, and I think my friend is right to demand it.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I want to thank my friend from Washington for his kind words. I couldn't agree more with him about the Export-Import Bank. I think it is a very important institution that ought to be reauthorized, and I intend to work with my friend to make sure that happens when the time comes.

I don't think, as a rule, reauthorization in a continuing resolution is a good idea. I think it is much more appropriate, particularly for a matter this controversial and this serious--and, again, I agree with the substance of what my friend says--that we go through a normal committee process and that we come to the floor and have a full debate. I don't think this is the appropriate vehicle for that.

While I look forward to working with my friend on the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, I doubt that it is going to happen in this particular vehicle so, hopefully, in the new Congress, as we make persuasive arguments, as my friend has advanced, we will find that we get the broad bipartisan support we need to do that reauthorization.

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

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

I do want to revisit, in closing, this issue of appropriations and openness, and I want to remind my friends on the other side of some recent history.

In 2010, when my Democratic colleagues controlled the House, they only considered two appropriations bills. At that time, by the way, they also had control of the Senate. I presume it would have been easier for them to have cooperated with a Democratic Senate than for us, but perhaps not because they only got two appropriations bills done the last year they were in the majority.

My colleagues deviated from the longstanding practice of open rules for appropriations bills by making in order only 40 amendments that year. You heard that correctly. Democrats considered two of 12 bills, with only 40 amendments made in order.

This year, Republicans have considered seven of 12 bills, considering 404 amendments, 189 of them which were offered by my Democratic colleagues. I will let the American people decide who has the better record on actually bringing appropriations bills to the floor and opening them up for full consideration by this House.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate all of those who spoke today for the sincerity and the thoughtfulness of the debate. I particularly know that we probably find ourselves on common ground in wanting to make sure the government doesn't shut down, pass a continuing resolution.

It is interesting to me that that was not the subject of a great deal of contention; so I would hope that is something that brings us together. It is something that, certainly, the Speaker wants to accomplish, but the President and the majority leader want to accomplish that as well. Surely, we can find a bipartisan amendment for that.

Obviously, the great issue of the day and this week is going to be this discussion over the Syrian matter, and, again, I want to congratulate my colleagues for the seriousness with which they are approaching this.

I think we have all learned some very hard lessons in the last 13 years, and I am pleased that the amendment that would bring to the floor--an amendment, by the way, the President didn't particularly want.

I would recall for the Record that the President wanted this authorization for active title 10 authority for him to train Syrians to simply be dropped into the continuing resolution. It was the Speaker with the support of the Democratic leadership as well that wanted to make sure that we had a separate vote and discussion on this issue. I think that is a very good thing.

Now, I agree with my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern). I would prefer a much more robust and fuller discussion, and I hope we reach that point. I think that is exactly the course that the Speaker recommended to the President.

He said:

I think the institution that I preside over will be better

served, I think you will be better served, and I think the

country will be better served if we have that debate.

I know the Speaker made every effort to get to that point. Others have a different point of view. I respect the President. Like most Chief Executives, he has had to take some very expansive views of his authority under the Constitution.

I recognize some people, frankly, are concerned about having this vote ahead of an election. Personally, I would prefer to do it ahead of an election, but I don't get to make those decisions, and I think the Speaker has done the best that he can do in reconciling all the conflicting opinions between the Senate, the House, and the executive branch and has managed to bring us at least something that is a serious debate and will be taken seriously by the country; moreover, I am particularly pleased that my chairman, Mr. Sessions, on the Rules Committee made sure that we will have not a cursory debate but 6 hours of debate.

If any Member wants to voice their opinion, 6 hours is an awful lot of time. I suspect they are going to have the opportunity to come down here and do that, and I hope they will.

I think what we are going to see is probably a bipartisan opposition to the amendment and bipartisan support. Frankly, in issues of war and peace, that is probably the better way for us to proceed; so I think it is a challenging situation. I think all concerned are trying to work together and do the right thing and to present clarity.

I just want to go on record once again, personally, as hoping that as soon as possible that we come back--the President asked for broad authority--that we repeal the '01 and '02 resolution, something the President has asked us to do himself before, and work together and present a more precisely defined and limited resolution that gives him the authority to act robustly in the defense of our country, to punish people who commit the barbarous acts that we have seen in recent weeks, and to do the things that are necessary with the full bipartisan support of Congress to secure the security of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, the underlying resolution upholds the primary responsibility the American people have sent us here to do, ensuring the continued funding of the government. While not my first choice, passage of a continuing resolution is better than any of the alternatives; additionally, it provides the President the additional authority he has requested to degrade and destroy ISIL.

I would urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 3043, the Tribal General Welfare Exclusion Act. H.R. 3043 would align federal Indian affairs policy with federal tax policy. H.R. 3043 would require field agents to receive training and education on federal Indian law and the government's treaty and trust obligations to Native Americans to ensure that their actions in the field follow the law and IRS policy. It would do so by clarifying that tribal government programs and services that aid the general welfare of the tribe are not subject to federal income taxation. It also establishes a Tribal Advisory Committee within the Treasury Department. Additionally, the Joint Committee on Taxation has determined the bill would do this at little to no cost to the federal government.

The Constitution clearly states that the federal government shall provide for the general welfare of the people. The IRS excludes a broad array of government services including, but not limited to, education, public safety, court system, social services, public works, health services, housing authority, parks and recreation, cultural resources, and museums. Through treaties and executive order, Indian tribes ceded hundreds of million of acres of their homelands to the United States. In return, the U.S. made promises to provide for the health, education and general welfare of Native communities. Sadly, we have fallen short in meeting these solemn obligations. In recent years, Indian tribal governments have stepped in to cover these shortfalls in federal obligations by offering tribal government programs and services to meet the needs of their communities. To be clear, these are governments providing government services for their citizens.

Instead of fostering these acts of tribal government self- determination, over the past decade, some IRS field agents have targeted tribes for audits and investigations seeking to tax tribal citizens for benefits derived from these programs and services. Field agent decision-making has been at best inconsistent and arbitrary. Activities allowed in one audit have been challenged in another. Field agents have conversely given wide deference to federal and state government programs that provide for the general welfare of their citizens. In doing so, they have exempted general welfare programs from taxation, an exception known as a ``general welfare exclusion.''

H.R. 3043 will codify and better align federal tax policy with Indian affairs policy and ensure that IRS policies that recognize appropriate tribal government actions are actually being implemented in the field.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I urge passage of H.R. 3043, the Tribal General Welfare Exclusion Act.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 700 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee met to report a rule that would provide for same-day authority for any resolution reported from the Committee on Rules related to the ongoing humanitarian crisis on the southern border, border security, and related immigration law through September 5, 2014. Additionally, the

rule provides suspension authority through September 5, 2014, on the same topics.

Mr. Speaker, this rule is very straightforward. It allows the House the maximum flexibility to deal with the crisis on the southern border during the district work period by providing both same-day and suspension authority through September 5.

Any legislation considered during this time period would still need to go through the regular process, by either a rule for consideration by the Rules Committee or under the standard suspension process. This resolution just allows for expedited consideration of those matters while preserving as much of the district work period as possible.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, obviously, my friend and I are going to have a disagreement about the nature of the bill that I think will, in rather short order, be before us. Let's go back and look at a little bit of history here.

The administration was warned in 2012 and 2013 that we were going to have a crisis on our hands if we didn't do something, that we were going to get a flow of unaccompanied minors. They did absolutely nothing. As a matter of fact, the President of the United States submitted a budget to us which cut money for enforcement and detention at the border, which cut money for support of people that were here while they were being processed, and that cut money for aid to the countries where most of these folks are coming from. That is real foresight.

So we have been confronted with a crisis, and a crisis that, in our view, the President contributed to by unilaterally changing whole sections of the immigration law and leaving the impression, probably unwittingly, I would say, but leaving the impression to many people that, if we get to the United States, we are going to be able to stay.

There is no question criminal elements have picked that impression up, broadcast it. Thousands of people have sent them tens of thousands--millions, really--of dollars and put children on a perilous journey of over 1,000 miles to this country.

Now we are trying to act on that, and we think, number one, if we don't do that, the societies from which they are coming are going to be disrupted. And we have been told very clearly by the leaders of those countries: We would like our children back.

Number two, if we don't stop this process, we are going to continue to enrich cartels to an extraordinary degree. Frankly, as one border agent told me, he said, from a cartel standpoint, this is actually easier than drugs, because with drugs we try to interdict you every step along the way, and if you get to the border to cross, we continue to try and interdict you. In this case, we actually, once they bring an illegal unaccompanied minor here, complete the transaction. So it is encouraging the flow, and that is dangerous for the young people involved.

We all know that in the course of that journey there is a risk that sex trafficking will take place. There is a risk that people will be lured or forced into drug dealing. There is a terrific physical risk. We know a lot of those folks are abused in the course of this process or sexually assaulted, so we need to stop this flow. We need to do it in a humane and appropriate way.

The President, by the way, has suggested that this is due to the 2008 law which we all passed, in good faith, to deal with sex trafficking. I personally don't think that is the case, but if that is true, then we ought to make some tweak to that law. We don't need to repeal it, but we need to make sure that we do something so that we don't have an enormous backlog here and we can actually handle the flow appropriately.

We have waited in vain for the President to tell us what that tweak is. I mean, it was his Secretary of Homeland Security that actually raised this issue and said we need to be able--he said this in testimony in front of the United States Senate--we need to be able to treat people coming from the three Central American countries essentially the same way we treat Canadian and Mexican minors that arrive at our border. That was the position, but we have not seen any more requests.

So if you look at our bill, frankly, number one, it is going to take care of that problem with a tweak. Number 2, we are going to provide additional moneys to handle this process through the end of the fiscal year and the end of the calendar year. Number 3, then we can work, because there will probably be additional resources needed next year, under the caps in the Ryan-Murray budget agreement and redirect that flow of money from less urgent to more urgent problems.

So we think it is a responsible way to proceed. I think, essentially, that is

what we are going to try and put before the House. Regardless, once we pass something, then the Senate can pass something.

I am sad to say, Mr. Speaker, that the other body was unable to do anything yesterday and it has adjourned and gone home. Frankly, we were unable to get things done yesterday in a way that I think I certainly would have liked, but we stayed here, and we are going to continue to work through the problem, present a product. Hopefully, the Senate will come back and do the same, and then we can proceed legislatively and provide the resources and legislative corrections that are needed to deal with the situation.

I am pleased that we are in session. I am pleased that we are working toward a solution.

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

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

I want to disagree with my good friend, the minority whip, on a point.

I don't think the Senate left yesterday because of anything the House did. It failed to act, and it left. It went home because it couldn't pass a bill. That is something we are not going to allow to happen here. We are going to pass legislation. We are going to get our part of the job done.

The Senate, then, will be free to come back and pass something, and we can go into a conference and do exactly what my friend suggests, work out a compromise. So hopefully that is where we will end up in this process.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The gentleman may be surprised to find that, actually, we are not too far apart on the issue.

Now, currently, we have over $700 million still on hand to deal with wildfires. The gentleman and I actually cosponsored legislation that our friend from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) has offered so that we can actually deal with this and change the structure of how we fund wildfire fighting. I suspect that issue will come back again. As a matter of fact, I was willing to work during the budget process with some of my friends on the other side of the Rules Committee to actually write the change into the budget. We had the votes on our side, working with our friends, to do that. For some reason, the Democratic amendment was withdrawn. I don't know why, and I cast no aspersions. But that is an area where we would like to work with you. I don't think it is particularly appropriate to be done in this bill.

This bill is about dealing with the crisis on the southern border. It shouldn't be a Christmas tree or a grab bag. If we need additional resources, we should come back to do that. Again, we have sufficient resources on hand. Congress will be back in session in September, back in session after the elections. So I think we are going to have multiple opportunities to deal with this.

I look forward to working with my friends on this particular issue when those opportunities occur.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I want to disagree with my friend on the root of this issue. I don't think whether or not we passed immigration reform has anything to do with the border crisis. I really don't. Frankly, what is occurring there would be illegal had we passed what the Senate passed. So it just simply doesn't address the problem.

What the problem here is, by our own actions in this country, we have sent a message that if you get here, you can stay, whether you are legally entitled to or not. And it is going to take so long to process you, you will essentially never be sent back.

And we have allowed criminal cartels to distort our position and to make tens of millions of dollars off of this. That needs to be stopped. That needs to be reversed. It is not helpful to anybody.

Now, again, we may differ on the ideas. Although, I would point out for the record once more, the administration did ask: Please do something about the 2008 law. They asked that a month ago. And then they have sort of gotten quiet since then. We don't hear anything else about that.

They have asked for resources. We have looked at what they need. We said we will be willing to do that. We are going to take them from existing moneys. We are not going to spend new money. This is an urgent priority. We think you are right. We are going to redirect that. And by the way, if you are going to need additional resources next year, we will work with you again there. We are going to do it under the Ryan- Murray budget cap. We are not going to go outside the process. And we are using that.

I think my friend from Maryland, the minority whip, is correct. We are using exceptional procedures--but they are procedures within the traditions of this House--to react to a crisis situation, and we are trying to stay here to get our work done and hopefully challenge the Senate to come back and do the same thing. So we are working the process and the crisis as best we can. With that, we will continue to work.

And I will reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

I think we need to step back from the emotion a moment and look at the realities of the situation. Number one, anybody that seeks refugee status in the United States can go to any of the embassies in the country and request it. You don't have to travel 1,000 miles. You can go request it, and we will look to see whether or not you qualify.

Number two, the President of the United States has said that the vast majority of these children will be returned. That is not us. That is the President. He has said that. We are trying to do it and work with him in an expeditious way because we think sooner is better.

Number three, we are not returning them to criminals. We are returning them to the custody of their governments, their own officials, who are probably better situated to make these decisions than we are 1,000-plus miles away.

So let's be real. Nobody is stripping any rights away from anyone. We actually have a situation--a 2008 law--where a loophole has been exploited by criminals. That is what is happening. And we are trying to stop the loophole and keep people from embarking on a dangerous journey and discourage people from giving thousands of dollars of their hard- earned money to criminal cartels to participate in that. That is the effort that is underway here.

Nobody would have fewer rights than the people that are currently here from Mexico or Canada. We would still have the ability to adjudicate issues. The process would be a lot faster and, we think in that sense, more humane and more efficient and more expeditious.

And with that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, I just want to make the point to my friend. Nobody is trying to strip away the rights from anyone. The 2008 law has been abused. Those people have found a loophole in it, and they have clogged the legal system. We have offered not a repeal, but a relatively minor fix.

The President of the United States and his administration have also said this law is at fault. As a matter of fact, they are actually the ones who put that suggestion out there. The President of the United States is the person who said the vast majority of these people need to go home and will eventually go home. So if he has a better way to do this, we would love to see the proposal.

What he sent us was a funding proposal with no fix at all. It is a proposal aimed at better managing the flow of people, but not reversing that. It is a proposal, frankly, that goes well beyond this fiscal year, well beyond this calendar year, and allows him basically to operate outside the budget agreement limits--the caps--that we have all agreed to. We don't think that is appropriate. We think you reprioritize money toward the more urgent issue.

We agree with the President. This is an urgent issue. We are willing to find the savings in other parts of the budget. We are not willing to break the budget, and we are not willing to break the budget caps that both sides agreed to. That is really, I think, the essence of the difference. We are trying to offer a solution. It may not be the final solution.

I hope the Senate will offer their solution. We can go to conference, and we can work with the President, but so far, the only ideas that have been put forward to actually fix the problem, I think, have largely come from our side of the aisle.

I am sure that won't last indefinitely. I think my friends will do the same thing, but certainly, they dominate the Senate. The Senate can do the same thing. Sooner or later, they will get it done.

We will continue to work on this, but for right now, again, nobody's aim is to strip anybody's rights away, but we are going to try to confront an urgent crisis, and we are going to try and do it in an expeditious way, in a responsible way, and in a limited way.

We can come back here and look at the larger issues in September and after the election. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Parliamentary Inquiries

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

Mr. Speaker, I couldn't disagree with my good friend from Texas more. I think everybody on both sides of the aisle cares about these children. Now, we care about them enough to restore the cuts that the President made in the aids to the country of origin.

We care about them enough to restore the cuts that he made in his budget to our own border security. Yes, our border security does need to be armed, not to deal with children, but to deal with the criminals that brought them here and abused them in the process. That is what we are talking about here.

Now, there is nothing to be gained by continuing this flow. Even if some of you would like every particular person that got here to stay-- and, again, I quote the President, the ``vast majority'' will not be allowed to, will be sent back--stopping the flow is what we ought to be focusing on and stopping people from giving thousands of dollars to criminal cartels to bring these children to the borders and abuse them in the process. The quicker that stops, the better off we are.

We are willing to work with the countries of origin, I think, on both sides of the aisle. We had the President up here saying, pretty emphatically, that they needed some assistance in dealing with that. We think that is appropriate. We try to do that in legislation, and frankly, we have done it in the foreign operations bill, where we are more generous to the countries of origin than the administration has suggested we should be in its own budget.

Mr. Speaker, we are interested in dealing with the problem, but we are also interested in helping countries keep their children in their country, which they tell us they want to do.

We are also interested in making sure those children are never subjected to this journey, which I think all would agree is difficult and dangerous, and we are also extraordinarily interested in making sure that the criminal cartels who are making profit off this are discouraged from doing this, that they can't go and tell their potential customers: Give us the money and put your kid at risk, but if we actually get them there, there is a good chance they will stay.

That false promise, that dangerous promise offered by criminals victimizing innocent people is frankly what we ought to be focused on and what we are trying to focus on.

Again, we will continue to work toward that end. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that we have a good product. I think that we will. The House will consider it, and then we hope the Senate actually comes back from its district work period and deals with it as well, and we will go from there.

That is the reason for the rule. That is the reason, so we can act during this multiweek district work period, should the opportunity actually occur to do that.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time.

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

No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I will not yield, and I do want to reiterate my previous announcement that all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. I am not yielding for other purposes.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

I want to point out that if the 2008 law is not the reason, then my good friend's remarks need to be directed to the administration because they have told us it is the reason. The President has cited this as the reason. But if it is because we have sent a signal down there by unilaterally changing something, there is some explanation for a tenfold increase in the flow of individuals across our border.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I do not, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), my good friend, my colleague on the Rules Committee.

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

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

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

Parliamentary Inquiry

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

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

I am prepared to close whenever my friend is prepared to close.

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

We have had a very passionate and--in many cases, compassionate-- debate. I want to recognize that quality in many of the speakers, my friends on the other side. I have no doubt about their passion. Frankly, I have no doubt about their compassion. I know they want to do the right thing.

I also want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that this bill actually is, as my friend from Massachusetts suggested, a mechanism to keep us in session and working on the problem, so that we have the ability between now and September 5 to actually act and act quickly. I think that is a very important thing.

It is important, too, to think back about the nature of the problem that we are dealing with. In the last 3 years, the number of unaccompanied juveniles arriving at our borders has gone from about 6,000 to--the estimates I hear this year will be somewhere like 90,000 and may well reach 150,000 within the next year or two.

The administration, according to news reports and testimony, was actually warned about this in 2012 and 2013. Frankly, they didn't prepare for it. I am quite certain they didn't anticipate it.

They actually submitted a budget this year that called for cuts in many of the areas that we are clearly going to need to deal with this huge--and unanticipated, I guess, on their part--influx of unaccompanied juveniles.

Worth noting for the record, we actually restored a lot of those cuts in the foreign operations bill that has now cleared the full Appropriations Committee. I am glad we did.

The administration then, when confronted with this crisis which it did not anticipate, told us this was due to the 2008 sex trafficking law. Frankly, I am somewhat skeptical about that because this influx didn't happen in 2009, 2010, or 2011. It only begun to be remotely visible in 2012. That coincides, by the way, with some of the President's unilateral abrogation of immigration law.

I think that is probably more likely to be the cause, but regardless, the administration has pointed to the 2008 law. The President has done that. The Secretary of Homeland Security has done that.

So far, they have offered no formal solution, although in testimony before the Senate, the Secretary of Homeland Security said he would like the law changed, so that people arriving at our borders are treated the same way as Canadian and Mexican juveniles. That was his request, not a repeal of the law, but that was--at least in testimony-- his suggestion.

The President has said that, regardless, the great majority of these children will eventually be returned home. He sent us a request recently to deal with the crisis in terms of the financial resources that he needs.

He did not send us a fix, he did not send us a proffered legislative solution, just simply a mechanism for money that would go around or go outside of the Ryan-Murray budget agreement that we had agreed upon.

What has been our response? I would be the first to acknowledge this is a difficult problem to deal with. That is why the administration, I presume, has not offered us a solution.

That is why the Senate, which tried to pass one yesterday, gave up and went home. It is not an easy problem. Indeed, yesterday, we weren't able to bring legislation to the floor that would actually address the problem.

The difference between this body and the other body is this body decided to stay here and continue to work on it and try to come up with a legislative response. That response, undoubtedly, will include a fix, a tweak, an amendment to the 2008 law.

If my friends have a better solution, then I would hope the administration or the Senate or somebody offers that. So far, it has been as if we blame the problem on the 2008 law, but we are told you can't change the 2008 law.

That position is both intellectually and politically, I think, indefensible. If this is the problem, tell us how to fix the problem. If you won't tell us, we will suggest one, and that is exactly what we are going to do.

We have also decided to look at the financial issue, and there is no question additional resources are needed to handle this influx, secure the border, add additional judges, and add additional courtroom facilities to handle an enormous backlog.

So we say, well, we are not going to give you a 13-month blank check, but we will redirect resources from within the existing budget toward what we agree is a more urgent problem, and we will help you get through this fiscal year and this calendar year, and then let's sit down and talk about what is necessary for fiscal year 2015 and try to do that within the Ryan-Murray budget agreement. I think that is what we are going to do.

So we are willing to work with the administration in these areas.

I would also suggest, at the end of the day, the worst thing we could do would be to go home and not do anything. My friends have suggested-- and I think appropriately so--that you can't tell the President he is overreaching in one area and then is pulling back in another without providing legislative authority and legislative guidance. I think they are absolutely correct in that position. I have made that point myself both privately and publicly, but that is what we are going to try and accomplish. Hopefully, we can accomplish it today. If we do that today or this weekend, we will have done our part of the job. The Senate then, by the way, could reconvene and do its part of the job. Then we could go to conference, in working with the administration, and come up with something, but it does begin with somebody at least doing his job. That is what this House and that is what this majority is absolutely determined to do.

Mr. Speaker, there is not much more that can be said on a resolution that is only 10 lines long. This resolution is important so that we can consider possible legislation in a timely fashion related to the border crisis. I would urge my colleagues to support the rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 696 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), 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, on Wednesday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of three measures: H.R. 5230, the supplemental appropriations bill to deal with the influx of unaccompanied minors across the southern border; H.R. 5272, a bill that would prevent the administration from expanding the use of deferred action for individuals who are not legally present in the United States; and the Senate amendment to H.R. 5021, the Highway and Transportation Funding Act of 2014.

The resolution provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 5230, the supplemental appropriations bill. This is consistent with the way all seven supplemental appropriations acts considered in the 110th and 111th Congresses were treated when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were in the majority. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, and provides for one motion to recommit.

In addition, the resolution also provides that after the passage of H.R. 5230, that it be in order to consider H.R. 5272, a bill that would prevent the administration from expanding the use of deferred action for individuals who are not legally present in the United States. The resolution provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 5272, provides for 60 minutes of debate, equally divided by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, and provides for a motion to recommit.

In addition, the rule also provides for consideration of a motion to disagree to the Senate's amendment to H.R. 5021, so we can send the bill that easily passed the House on an overwhelming bipartisan vote back to the Senate.

Finally, the rule provides for same-day and suspension authority today to

resolve any outstanding issues before the August recess.

Mr. Speaker, this rule demonstrates this House's careful consideration of the President's supplemental request. Earlier this month, the President submitted to Congress a $3.7 billion request to deal with both the urgent crisis of unaccompanied juveniles crossing the border and with wildfires.

Since then, Chairman Rogers, Chairman Granger, Speaker Boehner, and the Republican Conference have thoughtfully considered what resources the President needs to address this crisis through the end of the fiscal year.

The result, Mr. Speaker, is a significantly pared-down piece of legislation. It provides $659 million to meet the immediate border security and humanitarian needs. This supplemental sends the message that this administration has been unwilling to send, that if you come here illegally, you will be deported. And it provides the resources to effect just that.

It provides $334 million for Immigration and Customs Enforcement for boosted enforcement efforts, accelerates judicial proceedings by providing $22 million to hire temporary immigration judges and provide courts with video teleconferencing equipment, and makes smart policy reforms, like changing the 2008 sex trafficking law to require that all unaccompanied minors are treated the same, among others.

These important policy reforms, which the President initially asked for, are a reasonable, thoughtful response to the tenfold increase of unaccompanied alien children since 2011.

Mr. Speaker, the President's advisers warned him this crisis was coming back in 2012 and 2013, but he ignored that advice. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the administration has mismanaged this entire issue from the beginning.

If the President's FY 2015 budget had become law, we would have seen a reduction of nearly 3,500 detention beds, a 2 percent reduction in ICE's investigative capacity, and a 12 percent reduction to CBP air and marine operations, all vital tools to deal with this problem.

In addition, the President's budget request for the Central American Regional Security Initiative, which confronts narcotics and arms trafficking, gangs, and organized crime in that region and addresses border security deficiencies and disrupts criminal infrastructure, was actually proposed to be cut in the President's FY 2015 budget. The House FY15 foreign operations bill reverses those cuts and actually increases the resources to deal with these related problems.

Mr. Speaker, at every turn, the administration has failed to address the border crisis adequately, and now the President wants a blank check to proceed. His aim is not to stop and reverse the flow of unaccompanied minors into this country. He merely aims to manage that influx more efficiently. The House cannot accept that.

This legislation, H.R. 5230, adequately funds the shortfalls caused by this administration's policy by using existing resources. And Republicans are willing to provide additional resources should they be needed in FY 2015 appropriations, within the bipartisan budget cap set by the Ryan-Murray budget agreement. But we believe that this bill provides the appropriate resources at this time.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, the bill provides for consideration of H.R. 5272, which would prevent the administration from expanding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, the so-called DACA program. I, like many of my colleagues, believe that DACA has incentivized juveniles to attempt the long and dangerous journey from Central America, with the hope of staying in this country permanently. Executive orders, like DACA, only serve to keep that hope alive. I believe it is important to send a strong signal that this program should not be expanded. H.R. 5272 does just that.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule would send back the original House- passed highway bill to the Senate. While I appreciate what my friends in the other body have been able to do, I believe it is important to provide Members the maximum amount of flexibility to craft a long-term highway bill. By accepting the Senate amendment, which would only provide adequate funding of the highway trust fund through mid- December, we would be effectively creating a new crisis in the middle of a lame duck session of Congress. Given the limited number of session days before the election, this does not seem like a prudent course to take. Instead, the House should return to the Senate its bipartisan legislation, which passed this Chamber by a vote of 367-55.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is important to move forward on these three important pieces of legislation before the August district work period. I urge support for the rule and the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Parliamentary Inquiries

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to disagree with my friend on a couple of points that he made. First, I would suggest the President actually hasn't taken action or suggested action. A month ago, he told us that the 2008 sex trafficking law was responsible for his inability to return people to their country of origin, unaccompanied minors.

We have been waiting for his corrective for 30 days; instead, Mr. Speaker, we get an open-ended supplemental that goes through from this fiscal year to the end of the next fiscal year with a lot of measures-- some of which, by the way, we agree with--to manage the flow, but absolutely nothing to stop and reverse the flow.

So we think, in that absence of leadership from the executive branch, we have acted. We have actually done what a month ago at least he was suggesting ought to be done, giving some discretion and giving some ability to try to deal with the loophole in the law.

In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, we have looked at what he put in front of us, and we have decided, look, we can actually offset this money. We don't have to spend extra money. This is a higher priority. We will take money from lower priority areas.

We will get us through the end of this fiscal year and through the end of this calendar year, and in that interim time, we will have an opportunity to work with the administration to continue to address the problem within the limits of the Ryan-Murray budget agreement that we agreed to on a bipartisan, bicameral basis not that long ago.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this issue of the DACA controversy that we have here, I would like to make the following points: first, nothing in this legislation changes the current state of affairs at all. In other words, what the President has done up to this point is left undisturbed.

However, we do believe the abuse of prosecutorial discretion is actually one of the things that contributed to the current crisis that we have--not deliberately, but, frankly, I think the President unwittingly or unknowingly sent a signal that if you get here and you get across our border, you are going to be able to stay. So we want to be very careful that doesn't happen again.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, the President has said if Congress doesn't do certain things by such and such a date or by the August work period, then I intend during that time to use my pen and my phone to effect some changes that I want.

What is interesting to us, by the way, less than 2 years ago, he said these kinds of things were unconstitutional and couldn't be done by the executive branch. Now, he has changed his view on that.

So we are going to finally put in place something that will prevent him in our absence from once again abusing prosecutorial discretion to achieve other aims.

With that, I would like to reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, my friend is always a terrific and impassioned speaker, and I love to hear him. I genuinely do, but what he is saying is, frankly, at odds with the facts.

Look at the record. It was the President in his budget who wanted to cut border security, cut detention beds, reduce aid to Central America, and reduce law enforcement. That was the President's proposal.

Before this crisis, we had already corrected some of those mistakes in the FY15 Foreign Operations budget. So in terms of who has been willing to put resources not only in a law enforcement sense but in a humanitarian sense, it has been the majority side of the aisle, not the minority.

Frankly, our plan will not increase suffering; it will decrease it. What will increase suffering is continuing to send the signal that coming here illegally will be rewarded. The challenge of that is, number one, when you encourage that behavior, we are destroying the societies from which those young people are coming. The officials of those governments have met with ours, and they say that we would like our children back. That is a terrible thing that we are doing to those countries.

Number two, the people who are financing it, well-meaning people in most cases, trying to bring children into the United States, are turning their money over to criminal enterprises and cartels. They are strengthening the very people who are destroying their society and committing crimes across the entire region, not just our country.

And finally, the children that are encouraged to come are young people, mostly juveniles from three countries and, frankly, are subject to a horrific and dangerous journey. Along the way, they can be pressed into sex trafficking. They can be turned into drug smugglers. They can be physically abused. We don't know how many of them never make it here at all.

Any policy left in place that encourages that, wittingly or unwittingly, ought to be changed. Until the signal is sent unmistakably to these societies, don't spend your money, don't put your kids at risk, the flow will continue.

Now the President of the United States, at least 2 weeks ago, said:

The majority of these children are going to be returned.

That is his statement, not ours, not us doing something that he said isn't going to happen. He said the overwhelming majority of these children will be returned. Doing this quickly and humanely might keep other children from following the same route.

This is a tough, tough situation. It is a situation, quite frankly, that the President was warned would happen in 2012, was warned in 2013 by officials in his own administration, and ignored. You can see he ignored it in terms of the budget he actually proposed to present to Congress this year. Thank goodness we didn't actually do what he asked us to do.

I think if you look at this objectively, you can see the President was overtaken by a crisis. He fumbled it and mismanaged that crisis, in my opinion, and now my friends on the other side of the aisle are trying to turn this into something that it is not. It is a border crisis debate and discussion. It is not an overall immigration debate. It is not a political stunt. We certainly didn't plan for this to happen. My friends clearly did not plan for it to happen. The President didn't plan for it to happen or he would never have submitted the budget that he did. So we are trying to respond quickly and expeditiously to a crisis.

This is not, by the way, a once-and-for-all response. We are here in August. We will be back here in September. We will be back here after the election. We have an appropriations process, probably an omnibus bill waiting in the lame duck that will continue to address this, but something has to be done now.

What the President requests, again, doesn't address the problem. It is an open-ended check and, frankly, sort of

gets him off the hook until September 30, 2015, when we would have to come back here again.

The bill in front of us is a much more prudent, much more targeted, much more thoughtful, and much, frankly, more efficient use of resources in the interim while we continue to work to get a handle on the situation.

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

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

Let's talk for a minute about the additional money to HHS. That is exactly, by the way, what this does. The difference--and I think there is probably some confusion here--is we are doing it for a short period of time, and then we are going to probably continue to do it next year, but do it within the constraints of the Ryan-Murray budget deal. The President, frankly, hot-wires around the congressional agreement that was made to lower the budget by extending these expenditures to the end of the next fiscal year.

So just to reassure my friend, nobody is more interested, I think-- actually, let me put it this way. I think we are both interested in making sure that, when anybody is in the custody of the United States, they are treated humanely and that there are sufficient resources there to do the job. So this does it in the short-term. I would expect in the appropriations process--again, within the overall spending caps that we have both agreed to--we would continue to do that by moving resources from less important areas to more important areas.

I am going to disagree with my friend on, I think, his point that most of these folks ought to remain inside the United States. Frankly, I agree with the President of the United States: most of them should not.

There is a process, by the way, if you want to apply for refugee status. You do that by going to an American Embassy which is actually in the countries there and they make that determination. You don't do it by breaking the laws of Mexico and breaking the laws of the United States by simply arriving here.

The President has said that most of these young people will be returned. The longer they are here, the more you are going to encourage other people to come, the more people will be subjected to that journey that we all know is dangerous and deadly, and the more often criminal enterprises will be enriched as people give them money to transport juveniles to what they think will be permanent residence in the United States when the President of the United States himself says it will not be permanent, that most of them will return. Better to act on this now.

Now, again, I will be the first to tell you that I don't expect this to be the final piece of legislation. This is an emergency measure. It is timely, it is focused, and it is funded at an appropriate level. We will be back here again in September. We will be back here working on the appropriations process, no doubt, in a lame duck. Frankly, at that time, the appropriate additional resources will undoubtedly be made available, but they will be made available within the budget caps of the Ryan-Murray deal.

I think sometimes when we compare this bill to the budget request the President made, the supplemental request, we really are comparing apples to oranges because the timeframes are much different. Remember, the President's bill also includes wildfire funding. That may be appropriate, but we just don't think it is appropriate in this vehicle, in what ought to be a focused approach.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Let me pull us back from arguing about rules and procedures to what the real essence of the conflict on the transportation bill is: 357 Members, an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote, voted to send the transportation bill to the United States Senate.

That bill, by the way, ran through, if I recall correctly, May of next year, giving us enough time to actually then come to what I know both sides want, and that is a longer-term highway bill.

What the Senate did was send us back something with fewer dollars and a shorter timeframe that actually reaches simply into December, meaning a lame duck Congress would have to deal with the transportation deal. Not likely to happen, particularly

when we will also be dealing with the omnibus spending bill since the Senate, in its infinite wisdom, has been unable to pass a single appropriations bill.

So I think cluttering the calendar with the transportation fund dispute and problem in a short timeframe simply isn't wise. We think it was a political game on the part of the United States Senate. But regardless, the position of this House as expressed by a bipartisan vote of 357, is overwhelmingly clear. We want to expedite that and get it back to the other side so hopefully they can see that type of gamesmanship doesn't work and they accede to the position that, frankly, both sides of this Chamber adopted in overwhelming numbers.

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

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

This is a subject on which, obviously, there is considerable passion and considerable emotion. I respect that on all sides.

I will remind my friends who are insisting on immigration, they did actually control the Chamber for 4 years and didn't bring up an immigration bill ever, had two different Presidents who would have signed anything that they cared to pass, and never introduced one.

I will not yield until I finish my point. You have got plenty of time. I think you can make your points on your own.

I certainly will yield to my friend on that.

Reclaiming my time, I thought we were talking about comprehensive immigration reform--safely after an election I might add.

But the President of the United States, who ran in 2008, saying he would have a bill on the floor within 100 days, didn't do it.

My friends had basically complete control of this Chamber and the other Chamber. They demonstrated that by passing, again, ObamaCare without a single Republican vote, passing Dodd-Frank, and passing the stimulus bill, so they had the ability to do this and chose not to do it. That is their right. They were in the majority. But please don't lecture us on people stopping individual bills.

We have 350 bills, by the way, this Chamber has passed, sitting and waiting for the Senate to consider any of them, any of them. So I recognize, again, there is a great deal of passion here, but that is not what this debate is about.

This debate is about a border crisis that we both recognize exist. This debate is to give the President additional resources to deal with that, even though he in some measure contributed to creating it. And this debate is to make sure that we send the message unmistakably: if you subject children to this journey and pay criminals thousands of dollars to bring them across, they are not likely to get to stay--a point that the President of the United States has made. He has said a majority of these children are going to go home. If my friends have a quarrel with that, they should direct that to the President, not to us.

In this case, we do think if you don't discourage that, you are going to feed criminal behavior. You are going to put these children at risk, and you are going to destroy the society from which they came.

I don't think we can in a single bill have an overall solution to this problem of this level. I personally think it is going to take an effort somewhat similar to what we did in Colombia--in a bipartisan sense, I might add--on the drug trade, where we invested considerable resources in Colombia to help them deal with that problem. I am not going to tell you it is perfect there, but it is considerably better than it was in the 1980s and 1990s.

So that is where we worked together constructively and did something good for those societies and something good for our own country. That will probably be the model that has to emerge again in Central America.

But, again, that is a problem far ahead of us and legislative in scope. This is a response to a crisis. We think it is the appropriate response.

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

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

I have a great deal of respect for my friend from the Appropriations Committee. He is an excellent legislator and tremendous Member.

I am, though, going to point out the record of the Democratic majority the last time they were here and in control of what happened on the floor.

In the 111th Congress, the final 2 years of Representative Pelosi's time as Speaker, the House never considered a single bill under an open rule--not one bill. That is the definition of a closed process.

Under Republican control, the House has returned to consideration of appropriations bills under an open process, with 22 open rules. We had no open rules on appropriations when my friends were in the majority.

This year alone, the House has considered 404 amendments during the appropriations process, and 189 of them offered were by our friends on the other side.

When you actually compare the record overall, frankly, I think the comparison is much to the advantage of Republicans. So we are trying to deal with complex issues in a relatively short period of time.

I know the Congress will be back in session in September. We will be working on the appropriations process in the lameduck again, so there are going to be ample legislative opportunities, but we are in a crisis situation, which we are in this case.

We are trying to respond thoughtfully and expeditiously. We are trying to put resources toward the problem. We are trying to get at the core of the problem, which the administration itself a month ago identified as a 2008 law, but has now offered absolutely no suggestions how to fix.

So we have not tried to repeal it. We have tried to tweak it and address the problem. If my friends have a better solution, we would love to hear it, but we haven't heard it. Instead, we have been told the 2008 law caused the problem, but you can't change the law. That seems to me both politically and intellectually indefensible.

We are going to continue to try to solve the problem that has been identified by the administration. At some point, we hope they will join us in trying to actually correct the problem that they say exists.

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

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

Just a few correctives, if I may. We are actually putting in additional resources. We haven't cut resources. It is the President's budget that cut resources. It cut detention beds, enforcement, and aid to the countries in Central America that are dealing with this problem. That is the President's budget.

Those things were all corrected in the Foreign Operations budget that has not yet reached the floor, but has been passed by the full Appropriations Committee.

I am going to disagree with my friends on the other side that this has anything to do with comprehensive immigration reform. Quite frankly, it does not. It is a border crisis. It has nothing to do with this legislation.

The root cause of the problem here are criminals who go back and tell people: if you pay money and subject yourself to a dangerous journey and we get you to the United States, you will be able to stay. That is who is at fault here. That is where the focus ought to be.

When my friends point to specific cases, I always point out, number one, we have an avenue called the United States Embassy. In the country, you can go and plead refugee status there. You don't have to travel 1,000 or 2,000 miles across very dangerous country. You simply afford yourself of the available opportunities.

Finally, in the President's judgment, most of these children will be returned. That is the President's judgment. Frankly, I think he made that judgment, trying to discourage what is happening now. That is precisely what we are trying to do in this piece of legislation.

So I think there is a lot of passion, and it is appropriate because there are some heartwrenching cases, but there is also a lot of political theater here. The reality is, again, most of these children, according to the President, will be returned.

The quicker that can happen, the less likely it is that other children will follow them and be subjected to a very dangerous journey. That is what we are trying to achieve. We are going to try to do that in this measure today, but we invite our friends to work with us as we go forward, as I suspect that we will.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the distinguished Member from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

I do not. I am prepared to close whenever my friend is.

I would certainly do that for my friend.

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

I am going to differ with my friends, obviously, on a number of important issues.

First, I think they, probably, without thinking it through, accused us of wanting to roll back a human sex trafficking bill that passed this body unanimously. Absolutely untrue. Nobody has any intention of doing anything like that. It is the administration that said that legislation--a loophole in it--is what caused this crisis. I would dispute that, quite frankly.

I think what has caused it is, first and foremost, the President's sending an unmistakable signal, a signal that may have been misinterpreted that, if you manage to get to the United States, you are going to be able to stay. He did that by unilaterally changing and thwarting whole sections of our own immigration law, by doing things that he, himself, had said a year

before were unconstitutional. That signal, I think, has been picked up by criminals and turned into a message that has been directed at naive and vulnerable people, saying, if you give us thousands of dollars, we will take you on this journey, get you to the United States, and then you are going to be able to stay.

When the President first addressed this problem--again, he was warned in 2012 and 2013 by his own advisers that this might well happen--he did not prepare for it. He submitted a budget that actually cut border enforcement and that cut security aid to the Central American countries so they could secure their own territory. When he finally dealt with this, he said this 2008 law is part of the reason.

What this bill does is tweak it. It simply says we are going to treat children coming from the affected areas, from noncontiguous countries, in the same way we treat Mexican children. It has always been a question as to whether or not we should have that distinction. There is no particular reason why somebody from Central America should automatically be treated differently than somebody from Mexico.

In addition, I will point out to my friends there is an easier way. Just go to the American Embassy in the country, and if you have got status that would qualify as refugee status, you can make your case there. You don't have to pay thousands of dollars. You don't have to subject yourself to a dangerous journey in the company of criminals.

The President, frankly, has said that this is an immigration issue. I don't think it is. I think it is a border crisis, and I think it needs to be dealt with that way. I think the record is, again, pretty clear on this, and that is exactly what we are trying to do. We have acted on a problem the President has identified.

When my friends express concern that the majority of these children will be returned, number one, remember they are going to be returned to the custody of their governments. They are going to be returned to the people who are actually responsible for trying to take care of them within their societies. Second, that is exactly what the President said is going to happen. Those were his words. The overwhelming majority of these young people will be returned. The quicker and the more humanely and the more expeditiously we accomplish that, the fewer of them will undertake this journey, and the fewer of these families will be conned out of their money. You are not doing the next people a favor by not dealing with the problem in front of us.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, this legislation continues this House's commitment to govern and deal with crises before they become even worse--the shortfall in the highway trust fund, for instance, in the supplemental request. They are all things the American people expect us to deal with before the August district work period. I would urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. tomorrow.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 6 o'clock and 23 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, August 1, 2014, at 10 a.m.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 39 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, July 31, 2014, at 9 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, Friday, July 25, marks the 40th anniversary of the Legal Services Corporation (LSC). In 1974, Congress--with bipartisan support, including that of President Nixon--established LSC to be a major source of funding for civil legal aid in this country. LSC is a private, nonprofit corporation, funded by Congress, with the mission to ensure equal access to justice under law for all Americans by providing civil legal assistance to those who otherwise would be unable to afford it. LSC distributes nearly 94 percent of its annual Federal appropriations to 134 local legal aid programs, with nearly 800 offices serving every congressional district and U.S. territories.

LSC-funded legal aid programs make a crucial difference to millions of Americans by assisting with the most basic civil legal needs, such as addressing matters involving safety, subsistence, and family stability. These low-income Americans are women seeking protection from abuse, mothers trying to obtain child support, families facing unlawful evictions or foreclosures that could leave them homeless, veterans seeking benefits duly earned, seniors defending against consumer scams, and individuals who have lost their jobs and need help in applying for unemployment compensation and other benefits.

It is LSC-funded attorneys who help parents obtain and keep custody of their children, assist parents in enforcing child support payments and help women who are victims of domestic violence. In fact, three out of four legal aid clients are women, and legal aid programs identify domestic violence as one of their top priorities.

Given the vital role played by LSC-funded attorneys, we need to do better than turn away more than 50 percent of eligible clients who seek assistance because of lack of LSC program resources. With the growing number of Americans eligible for services and increased demand for legal services, the need for legal aid attorneys has never been greater. On this anniversary, I salute the Legal Services Corporation and LSC-funded attorneys for the vital work they do every day on behalf of Americans who need qualified counsel. Every day that a legal aid attorney protects the safety, security and health of our most vulnerable citizens, they bring this nation closer to living up to its commitment to equal justice for all.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 680 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), 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

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

Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of two measures, H.R. 3393, the Student and Family Tax Simplification Act, and H.R. 4935, the Child Tax Credit Improvement Act of 2014.

The resolution provides a closed rule for consideration of these two measures, as is customary with tax legislation. In addition, the resolution provides for 60 minutes of debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means for both H.R. 3393 and H.R. 4935. And it provides for a motion to recommit on each bill.

Finally, Madam Speaker, the rule combines both H.R. 3393 and H.R. 4935 before sending it to the other body.

Madam Speaker, with tuition prices continuing to climb, more Americans are struggling to plan for and afford higher education. Today's broken Tax Code makes it even harder to pay for college, with 15 complicated, overlapping education provisions that take the IRS 90 pages to explain.

We need to simplify education tax benefits so families can actually use them, and we need to get our economy back on track so students and families are earning enough to afford a good education.

H.R. 3393 takes a good first step. It consolidates four current tax benefits for higher education, the American opportunity tax credit, the Hope Scholarship credit, the lifetime learning credit, and the college tuition deduction into a new, simplified and, most importantly, permanent tax credit.

In addition, H.R. 3393 also includes strong antifraud provisions requiring taxpayers to include on their tax return the name and taxpayer identification number of the student and the employer identification number of the applicable higher education institution.

In addition, this rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4935, which modernizes and improves the child tax credit. Originally created in 1997 to help ease the financial burden that families incur when they have children, this credit has failed to keep pace with the cost of raising a child. Initially, it provided a maximum credit of $400 per child. However, under the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, this credit was expanded to $1,000 per child, was made partially refundable, and was indexed for inflation.

Unfortunately, some of these good changes expired in 2010. I would note for my colleagues that even with these increases, since 1960, the cost of raising a child has increased by approximately 4.4 percent a year.

H.R. 4935 would index the child tax credit for inflation, eliminate the marriage penalty, and would require an individual to include their Social Security number on their tax return to claim the refundable portion of the child tax credit.

Current estimates suggest that at least $13 billion in improper refundable tax credit payments are made each year. This provision would help to combat that growing problem.

Madam Speaker, the cost of raising children increases every year, but the current child tax credit fails to take these increased costs into account. In addition, the current tax credit penalizes married couples.

By making these commonsense changes, we can ensure that the credit truly serves its intended purpose.

Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation, which continues our targeted approach to updating, improving, and modernizing the Tax Code.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my friend. We do agree conceptually on quite a bit in terms of the Tax Code. I think both of us individually, and both sides collectively, honestly want to do things that make it easier for people to pursue a higher education.

Certainly, I think we are all interested in eliminating the marriage penalty as well. So I think we are moving broadly in the same direction, even though we have some disagreement.

I will point out to my friend that it is not unusual that tax legislation would come to the floor in a closed rule. As a matter of fact, that is almost always the way it is done, simply because you have to be able to score the items, and you have to understand what the real cost of tweaking is.

So whether Republicans or Democrats are in control, a closed rule is usually the order of the day on any tax legislation.

I appreciate my friend's concern about the deficit, and in that I am quite sincere.

Now, I do also always like to point out to my friends that when they were in the majority, for 4 years in a row the deficit got greater each year. And since we have been in the majority the last 4 years the deficit has gotten smaller each year.

So I actually think that we not only have a rhetorical concern about the deficit, we have demonstrated over and over again that certainly this current majority is very, very serious about dealing with it and will continue to do that by reining in spending and putting forward thoughtful reform proposals, which I believe we have done.

I would also point out to my friend, and I think he would agree with me on this, this is a vehicle. This is not going to be the final product. My friend is exactly correct when he says there will be a negotiation.

Our concern has been, watching what has been going on on the other side of the rotunda, so to speak, is that there hasn't been very much serious work. We think they are going to look at the extenders package in terms of tax relief and basically just try and jam that through without any thoughtful pruning and without making elements of it which have been approved over and over and over again, and which are clearly popular on a bipartisan basis, permanent.

So that is what we are trying to do. I think we are constructing a platform to go into negotiation with the Senate. And I suspect what emerges will be somewhat different than what either side goes in with. That is pretty normal in the legislative process.

But I think the concepts here that we are moving forward on are correct and, I think, have broad popular appeal and bipartisan support. These are provisions--and we have done this over several bills now-- that both parties have approved overwhelmingly, time and time again on a sort of yearly basis. And we want to take those things and make them permanent.

I suspect, in that process, some things that are less popular might be jettisoned. But again, that is for the negotiators to decide. We are simply trying to get to that conference.

We are marking out what our position is. We recognize the Senate will have to do the same thing, and from there we will move and, perhaps, at a later point in this process we can find ourselves actually on the same side.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my good friend from the State of Georgia (Mr. Woodall), my fellow Rules Committee Member and RSC president now, rapid ascent, to make whatever remarks he cares to.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we have opened quite a range of things to talk about with Mr. Woodall's remarks and Mr. Polis' response and my good friend from New Jersey, Mr. Pascrell's proposal. Let me sort of take some of them up in order.

My friend from Colorado, who I know is sincere, talked a little bit about the need to reform entitlements, and I couldn't agree with him more, and that is a discussion I think we really, seriously need to engage in as a body.

I would invite my friend, if he has an opportunity, to look at a bipartisan bill that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Delaney)--from his side of the aisle--and I have on Social Security reform.

It doesn't really deal with a lot of the reform, but it is a process bill. It would send us down the road to have a bipartisan proposal which, I can assure you, would have things that your side doesn't like and things that my side doesn't like, and then we would have to vote on it up or down.

I think it is a thoughtful way to try to begin to deal with some of these, and it is genuinely bipartisan, so I would hope my friend from Colorado would look at that.

My friend from New Jersey mentioned the Ex-Im Bank. I couldn't agree with him more. I support it. I have consistently supported it, and I know there is a disagreement on our side of the aisle, I think, largely about that.

I hope that it is resolved in regular order--that is, that the committee votes on it and it comes down to the floor. When that happens, I look forward to working with my friend to enact that legislation.

I am intrigued by what my friend from New Jersey had to say about his tax proposal because I think, at the minimum, he has certainly put his finger on an important problem which is a real loophole that we ought to consider.

Now, I don't consider myself an expert on tax legislation. I am like my friend in the chair. I am an appropriator. That is the world I know. So I would hope that my friend's proposal would get appropriate consideration in our Ways and Means body and move through regular order because I think this is an area that we can cooperate on.

Frankly, we have got some bipartisan proposals in terms of stranded profits overseas that I think both sides could work together on, perhaps, and bring some investment back to our shores, but we do have to defend the process whereby we move legislation--that is it needs to come through the appropriate committee, we duly consider it, and it reaches here.

Again, while I may oppose the process by which my friend is moving, I am not at all prepared to say I oppose his product. I just simply haven't had a chance to look at it, but I think he is addressing an important issue.

The last area I do have to disagree with my friend on a little bit: I do like Walmart. I am a shopper at Walmart, and I am a stockholder at Walmart, and I think they are a great American company, but we live in a great country. My friend can shop where he chooses to, and I can shop where I choose to, and we will get down the road.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I care to consume.

Again, I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, I frankly have no objection to my friends' using the process to bring these ideas up for debate and discussion. I actually think that is helpful and that moves the process forward, and I applaud them for that. I don't disagree necessarily with what they are talking about in terms of tax deductions for jobs that are exported as opposed to jobs that could be imported. I think that is something we ought to consider.

But, it is not the subject of the legislation that is in front of us today. Those subjects are, one, what can we do to modernize the Tax Code and give students permanent certainty in terms of tax deductions that are available to educate themselves and give their families the ability to deal a little bit with the mounting cost of college. That is a good idea. Both sides can broadly agree at least in principle. And what can we do to make sure the marriage penalty disappears and that we can target appropriate tax relief to families with

children at least up to a certain level of income, I believe $150,000, to give them a little break with the cost of raising children.

Those, to me, are modest steps, but they are important programs because they affect the daily lives of American workers. I am not suggesting that what my friends are proposing doesn't do the same thing. I just think this vehicle, we probably ought to work within the bounds of what Ways and Means has sent us.

I will say, I sense some of my friend's frustration in terms of moving legislation. We have got 321 bills sitting in the United States Senate that haven't been acted upon that this House has sent over there, so I know a lot about feeling shut out. I think if our friends on our side of the aisle in the upper Chamber were here, they would tell you that they have had fewer amendments this year than Democrats in this Chamber have gotten on any appropriations bill that we have brought forward. We don't have a broken Congress. We have a broken United States Senate, in my view.

But, having said that, we have got a chance, I think, here to take a step in the right direction, to thoughtfully consider things that have worked their way through the Ways and Means Committee, to position this Chamber to sit down at a later point and negotiate with our friends-- Republican and Democrat alike--in the other Chamber and perhaps produce, toward the end of this year, some good and permanent changes in the Tax Code that, if an agreement is reached, I suspect we could have overwhelming bipartisan support for.

So, we are just at that point in the process where we need to develop and put forward our proposals. We would hope that our counterparts in the United States Senate do the same thing, and that we can sit down and again find common ground in between. We have done that on some occasions before. If we will just operate the way our procedures are set up, I am confident we can do that again.

So, with that, Mr. Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time.

I am certainly prepared to close whenever my friend is.

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

Let me address a number of remarks my friend made in passing. Let me begin by reminding anybody who happens to be listening or following the debate this isn't an immigration bill. This is actually a tax bill, and it is really about trying to make some things that have had bipartisan support permanent.

We all agree that we need to, insofar as we can, help people that are educating themselves or members of their family and provide appropriate tax relief. That is what this bill does. It is simply that simple.

Number two, we all think that you shouldn't have a tax penalty for being married, and if we can do things to help you with the cost of raising a family, we ought to try and do those things because it has been tough. That is what this bill does.

Now, we can disagree about the merits, but I think the general thrust is something we probably broadly agree on. Making those items permanent within the Tax Code is important so people can actually get used to using the benefits, understand them--sort of internalize them--and make them permanent and predictable for families. So that is our goal with this legislation.

Finally, we would like to get, eventually, to a conference with our friends in the Senate who I suspect would share some of my friend from Colorado's concerns that might be in their legislation. He knows how the process works. We will sit down at that point and see if we can find common ground. If the two negotiating teams can, then I suspect we will come back with something that a great number of us on both sides of the aisle can support.

What my friend, Mr. Camp, the chairman of Ways and Means, is trying to do is actually make permanent some very good bipartisan ideas that I think we can rally around.

Now, my friend also mentioned the deficit, and I want to, again, laud his concern for that. I appreciate that. I genuinely do. I recognize this is a work in progress, not a final product, but I will point out again for the record, when my friends were in the majority, the deficit got worse every single year. It has gotten lower every single year since then. So I think we are serious about dealing with the deficit.

I would invite my friend, and I know he would seriously engage in this, let's find some areas on the part of the budget that I think need addressing--the entitlement area--where perhaps we can find some common ground.

I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

I do want to disagree with my friend on a couple of points.

Number one, this isn't a symbolic piece of legislation. It is legislation in progress, but it is not feel-good. I know Mr. Camp and his committee are anxious to actually change many aspects of the Tax Code.

I know Mr. Camp wants to make at least some of these things permanent. We may succeed or we may not, but it is certainly not meant to be anything other than serious.

Also, my friend mentioned and talked at considerable length about the issue of immigration and the border crisis, two issues that I regard as somewhat distinct. We do have a border crisis, and I suspect we will see legislation to deal with that. There is a difference in philosophy. I think the administration just wants resources to manage it. I think we would like to change some of the root causes and address it, and hopefully stop the massive flow and all of the human tragedy that goes with it.

There is a huge debate about what do we do with unaccompanied juveniles or minors who arrive, and that is an important debate to have. But we ought to stop and think: Is there something that we are doing that is encouraging that flow? Because, believe me, everything that is coming out of this is bad. It disrupts the societies from which these people are coming. We are treating children from Mexico different than we are treating them from Guatemala. We have people now pouring money into criminal cartels and strengthening them. And finally, the children themselves, the juveniles themselves, are confronted with a thousand-mile long journey where they are breaking not just the laws here but also in Mexico. They are at great risk. They are traveling with criminals. There is a lot of abuse. Some of them are undoubtedly forced into sex trafficking and perhaps others to the drug trade. There are plenty of opportunities for abuse. Nobody should want that to happen.

We are going to try to offer some serious proposals. I am very pleased with my colleague on the Appropriations Committee, Kay Granger from Texas, who has put together a working group and some very thoughtful proposals. We have tried to scrub them on the Appropriations Committee. Hopefully we will be able to address that issue.

Finally, let me just end with this. In closing, I believe it is important, Mr. Speaker, to continue this deliberative approach towards fundamental tax reform. The child tax credit has existed since 1997, and the reforms contemplated in this legislation are important. In addition, the consolidation of four separate education credits into one simplified credit will result in much less taxpayer confusion.

I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

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