Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize a new interactive exhibition, Native Voices: Native Peoples' Concepts of Health and Illness. This new exhibition, which examines concepts of health and medicine among contemporary American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians, will start to travel on August 26, 2014, throughout the United States and is scheduled to open in Oklahoma, a state with a rich Native American heritage that I have the privilege to represent.

Native Voices, developed by the National Library of Medicine, part of the National Institutes of Health, explores the connection between wellness, illness, and cultural life through a combination of interviews with Native people, artwork, objects, and interactive media.

The National Library of Medicine has a history of working with Native communities as part of the library's commitment to make health information resources accessible to people no matter where they live or work. The Native Voices exhibition concept grew out of meetings with Native leaders across the country.

According to the Library's Director, Donald A.B. Lindberg, MD, the exhibition honors the Native tradition of oral history and establishes a unique collection of information that visitors will find both educational and inspirational.

Topics featured in the exhibition include: Native views of land, food, community, earth/nature, and spirituality as they relate to Native health. It also highlights the relationship between traditional healing and Western medicine in Native communities as well as economic and cultural issues that affect the health of Native communities. Other efforts by Native communities to improve health conditions is included as well. The exhibition also touches on the role of Native Americans in military service and healing support for returning Native veterans.

To make the Native Voices exhibition accessible to people even if they cannot visit it when it comes to a nearby community, there is an online version of the exhibition at www.nlm.nih.gov/nativevoices and a free iPad App available through iTunes.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 661 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my 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, on Wednesday the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration on two measures: H.R. 5016, the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, and H.R. 4718, that would permanently extend the bonus depreciation.

The resolution provides a modified open rule for consideration of H.R. 5016 so that all Members have the opportunity to come to the floor and offer any amendment to the bill that complies with House rules on this important piece of legislation.

The resolution also provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 4718, and provides for 60 minutes of debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means. In addition, the rule provides for a motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, a little over 2 months ago, I was pleased to present the House the rule for consideration of the first two appropriations bills. This rule will provide for the consideration of the eighth appropriations bill by the House.

In the Appropriations Committee, we have already reported out 10 of the 12 required appropriations bills and are moving closer to finishing the two remaining bills. Contrast this with the other body, where they have yet to pass even a single appropriations measure.

Mr. Speaker, the Financial Services Appropriations bill maintains the fiscal discipline agreed to as part of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 that this country desperately needs. While the President requested an additional $1.7 billion over fiscal year 2014-enacted levels, this bill actually funds these programs at $566 million less than last year's level.

In addition, this bill maintains a number of important funding restrictions over the IRS. Given their unconscionable targeting of conservative organizations and their deliberate stonewalling of legitimate inquiries by the Ways and Means and Oversight and Government Reform Committees, these funding prohibitions are necessary and appropriate.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 4718, which permanently extends bonus depreciation. During this extended time of sluggish economic growth, it is important for the Congress to pass legislation that will encourage our job creators to do just that--create jobs.

An analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Foundation found that permanent bonus depreciation would actually grow the economy by 1 percent, adding $182 billion to the economy; increase the capital stock by over 3 percent; increase wages by about 1 percent; and create 212,000 new jobs.

Since its creation in 2002, this credit has routinely been extended on a bipartisan basis. It is important that we do so again today.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Chairman Rogers for making good on his commitment to ensure orderly and timely consideration of appropriations bills. I also want to commend Chairman Camp for examining the Tax Code, ensuring we can provide the tax certainty that so many businesses need in order to make investment decisions that benefit us all.

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

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

As usual, my friend is a sharp and acute debater and makes points over a broad number of issues.

I do want to say, for the record, I am not such a great businessman, but I have a great business partner who has been my partner for 25 years. She is the managing partner. She made the call. And I have been very fortunate to be friends and partners with her for many, many years.

I think she probably moved as quickly as she did because she didn't think the government would have the good sense to keep this open. But the fact is, under both Republicans and Democrats, we have done bonus depreciation. When my friends were in the majority, they continued to routinely extend it themselves.

And after more than a decade, it has become, frankly, pretty much a permanent feature of our Tax Code. Now it is not so permanent that you can absolutely rely on it in the business sense. But I still accept the argument, after something that has been repeatedly confirmed by both sides, and both sides have repeatedly extended it and made it effectively permanent, we ought to go ahead and provide business with that certainty. Again, we will have a debate on that, and that is appropriate.

The second point I want to discuss, where I do differ with my friend a little bit: look, we always quibble no matter who is in the majority over how open the process is and how much the minority is allowed to participate in it. When we do that, we usually need to remember, if we are in the minority, what our record was when we were in the majority.

I want to remind my friends on the other side that throughout the 111th Congress, the final 2 years of their time in the majority, 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 the consideration of appropriations bills under an open process, with 22 open rules.

Again, I was on the Appropriations Committee when my friends took the opportunity that every Member enjoys, to come down and participate in the appropriations process, away from everyone--their side and our side alike.

Additionally, the Congress has allowed under our control more than 1,000 amendments to be offered on the House floor, including a total of 488 amendments offered by Democrats and another 137 bipartisan amendments. Forty percent of all submitted amendments have been made in order. Compare that to our friends, who made only 17 percent in order under their majority regime in the 111th Congress.

So when you actually compare the record of the Republican majority to the most recent Democratic majority, any fair analysis would show that Republicans are running a far more open and transparent House. I think that is something that my friends need to recall when they raise this particular critique.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have enormous respect for my friend from the District of Columbia. She does a tremendous job representing her community, and she is an articulate and able Member of this body. It is true. We do have an unusual degree of authority as Congress over the Capital of the United States. That is a constitutional issue and an article I, section 8 issue.

Being the Capital brings great privileges and benefits to Washington, but it also, unquestionably, at times, brings some difficulties and some strains as well; so we all--whoever is in the majority--try to manage that as best they can.

In terms of the abortion issue, the language in this bill that applies to D.C., as I understand it, has been pretty routine under both Democrats and Republicans over the years, and so that is my understanding of that issue.

On the marijuana issue, the Federal prohibition here has existed for many years and was actually proposed in the President's budget. The amendment that was offered and adopted in the committee--and there was a very spirited debate about this by Dr. Harris--does add new language to prohibit local funds for recreational use of marijuana. The intent is to prevent D.C. from legalizing marijuana for recreational use.

D.C. has enacted a law which makes possession of small amounts of marijuana a civil offense, carrying a $25 fine, and that goes into effect later this month.

In November, D.C. may have a ballot initiative to legalize possession of

small amounts. I suspect this will be an ongoing discussion and concern between the Congress and the community.

I yield to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.

Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlewoman for the points that she made. I would just say that, again, this is going to be an ongoing source of tension--it has been.

To clarify, when I said the Capital benefits, I meant to imply in no way that citizens here don't have the same obligations, same responsibilities, and bear the same burdens. I happen to have two wonderful military bases in my facility. We think we are privileged to host them. We derive considerable benefit and employment from their presence.

I will note, just as the gentlewoman suggests, we pay taxes, too. We are American citizens, and those weren't put there for our benefit. They were put there for the purposes of defending the country, but we are happy to have them.

I suggest there is probably a lot of that same pride in this community for hosting the Capital of the United States, so that was my intent in that remark.

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

I do not.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by agreeing with the last two speakers, in terms of the substance of their argument. I happen to be a cosponsor of that legislation, which is proposed by

my good friend, Mr. Simpson, and I think they are discussing a very real and very important issue, and this is an issue where there is considerable bipartisan agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I probably will end up opposing the manner in which you are going to try and bring this to the floor, but I do think it needs to come to the floor. There is an orderly process to do that. There are discussions underway to continue to work on it; but, again, my friend makes a very good point.

I have tried consistently during my tenure here, no matter who is in control, to recognize that, when we have disasters, that people who are dealing with them need immediate help, and you need to vote accordingly and try and make that occur.

I sit on the Interior Subcommittee where we wrestle with this funding issue that both of my friends brought up, and they are precisely right. Since you can't predict a fire, you can't produce the amount, we end up treating fires differently than every other kind of disaster and we savage the normal budget process and actually drain a lot of accounts, accounts that in some cases would help us prevent future fires by helping us get rid of hazard fuel buildup in forests and things of that nature.

Again, I think my friends make a good point. I think we are going to continue to work on this in a bipartisan manner. I hope we will get there.

I will note for the Record that when we were actually considering the Republican budget, we were engaged on that committee, which I sit on as a representative from Appropriations, in discussions with one of our Democratic friends on the other side of the aisle about bringing an amendment and actually writing it in the budget. We had Republicans prepared at that point to vote for that amendment in sufficient numbers. The White House, I was told, was actually in favor of doing that. For whatever reason, the decision was made not to do that. Again, I cast no aspersions here, but I think we probably missed a more appropriate opportunity of actually cementing it down.

But I will say this: both of my friends have my commitment to continue to try and work with them and find an appropriate vehicle and appropriate time to get this done. I appreciate very, very much the fact that you came to the floor and brought it up and reminded us of how significant an issue this is. This is something we should be able to work across the aisle and accomplish. I thank my friend.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I am prepared to close.

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

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to say that one of the basic functions of Congress is to actually fund the government. This rule would continue that process for consideration of appropriations bills for fiscal year 2015. In addition, it would allow for consideration of legislation that makes bonuses depreciation permanent, a provision that has existed as part of our Tax Code under both Democrats and Republicans since 2002.

I have enjoyed the debate. As always, I appreciate exchanging views with my good friend from New York, by way of Kentucky, two States blessed, and 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.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and was not present for rollcall vote No. 368. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on final passage of H.R. 4899, the Lowering Gasoline Prices to Fuel an America That Works Act of 2014.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to be the first to acknowledge that this legislation may not indeed be the appropriate place in which to address the issue raised in the amendment. But I do believe the amendment is an appropriate way to highlight a problem that simply must be addressed by the President and by the Congress.

In recent weeks, there have been many news accounts reporting that we have had an explosion of unaccompanied juveniles coming and crossing our borders, largely from Central America, from the countries of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador.

This population has overwhelmed facilities that we normally use to house people that have entered our country illegally, and military facilities have now been used, pressed into service, to deal with this population.

In full disclosure, one of those facilities happens to be in my district, Fort Sill, Oklahoma, the home of the Field Artillery School.

But other facilities have also been used, at Ventura, at Lackland Air Force Base in Texas, and the State of Washington, and still others are being considered.

I am concerned about this for three reasons. First, these military facilities are absolutely inappropriate places to house this particular population. They are not designed for that purpose. They are not equipped for it. They have gotten very little notification of it. It is simply the wrong place to put folks.

You don't bring outsiders onto a military installation who have no business being there and, in addition, also their caretakers.

Second, while much of the expense will be picked up by other various departments of government, it will inevitably cause some expense and some inconvenience to the Department of Defense at a time when we have a very strained military budget.

Lastly, while we are told that these facilities are going to be used only on a temporary emergency basis, there is, indeed, the risk that they could become permanent, something I think that would create a confusion of missions on military bases, not to be avoided.

We need to address the cause of the flow, not simply manage the flow better, and we shouldn't use military facilities in that process.

The administration says that this flow of unaccompanied juveniles-- which, by the way, was 6,000 2 years ago, is 66,000 now, and is projected to reach 120,000 to 150,000 within the next couple of years-- is the result of a humanitarian crisis.

I would submit it is actually the result of a policy failure. We are essentially incentivizing the flow of this population by not returning the unaccompanied juveniles to their countries of origins quickly.

Indeed, once they arrive in the United States, we try to find sponsors for them in this country, and they effectively stay here permanently.

That is not what we do, by the way, with Mexican juveniles. If you are a 16-year-old illegal immigrant from Mexico, we return you immediately, and we have had no similar spike in that particular population coming across the border.

What we are doing may appear to be humane to the juveniles in question. It is actually not. First, we are disrupting the countries from which they come. We are destabilizing those countries by incentivizing this flow.

Second, these young people don't just walk across Mexico. They are transported by cartels, by criminals. It is the same people who bring drugs into our country, and they are making an enormous amount of money, and we are strengthening them by incentivizing this flow.

Finally, the young people themselves are at an enormous risk during the process of transportation. They are being brought across the length of a country--Mexico--in the company of criminal elements, very unsavory elements, and they are very much at risk.

I think we need to stop using military facilities for this purpose and to, frankly, begin to return people to their countries of origin. In my view, that would actually stop the flow and remove the incentive to come.

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. Chairman, I respect my friend from Indiana pressing the point of order. I suspect he will prevail, and I am prepared to withdraw.

I want to serve notice that I am going to eventually find the appropriate vehicle, so that we can address this. I think it is a real issue, but I respect my friend's concerns that this may not be the appropriate vehicle.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate what my colleagues had to say, and I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize an AbilityOne program. Located at Tinker Air Force Base, the program has resulted in the employment of more than 1,300 people with disabilities around the state of Oklahoma.

The AbilityOne Program buys products and services from participating community-based nonprofit agencies that are dedicated to training and employing individuals with disabilities. In doing so, the program affords Americans with disabilities opportunities to acquire job skills and training, earn wages and benefits, and gain greater independence. This program provides vital assistance to a segment of the population that has one of the highest levels of unemployment in our country.

Since 1996, the Dale Rogers Training Center, with the assistance of Professional Contract Services, Inc. (PCSI) has improved the quality of life, helped remove barriers to independent living. The benefits to those that participate in the program cannot be overstated. The opportunity to work, be independent, and participate in community life enhances participant's lives and provides an avenue for them to contribute society.

Mr. Speaker, for these reasons I would like to thank all the people involved with the AbilityOne program, and PCSI for their important work to Oklahomans of all ages and abilities reach their full potential.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, May 19 and Tuesday, May 20, 2014, I regret I missed votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes 218, 219, 220, 221, and 222.

I was in my hometown of Moore, Oklahoma on the first anniversary of the devastating tornado that tore through the Fourth District. Even though the storms last May were some of the worst we've experienced in years, we are pulling through and showing that disaster cannot crush our spirits or break our communities. That is and always will be the Oklahoma way.

Mr. Chairman, I have enormous respect for my friends from Kansas. We usually agree, but in this case, we don't.

I represent Tinker Air Force Base, which has 15,000 Federal civilian defense employees, along with thousands of private employees, working in contract facilities on and around the base. Usually, they work together, but sometimes, they compete for work. When they do, that work should go to whomever can do the work better and cheaper.

This amendment overrides every other law in the book, in terms of managing the defense workload by prohibiting the transfer of the workload from the private to the public sector, even when the public sector can do it better and cheaper.

That, in my view is inefficient, it is counterproductive, and ultimately it is unfair. We should allow the work to flow to those best able to complete it, and we should rely on the services to actually make the decisions in this regard.

So I urge the rejection of the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 569 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the point of order in favor of consideration of the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, the question before the House is should we now proceed and consider House Resolution 569. While the resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, the Committee on Rules is not aware of any violation. In my view, Mr. Speaker, the point of order is merely a dilatory tactic.

In fact, the Joint Committee on Taxation states that ``the bill contains no intergovernmental or private sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.''

This legislation makes permanent a simplified research credit that will help open the door for economic growth and give businesses the certainty they need to thrive. This measure has been routinely extended and supported by both parties for many years. In order to allow the House to continue its scheduled business for the day, I urge members to vote ``yes'' on the question of consideration of the resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), my 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, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of H.R. 4438, a bill that would permanently extend and enhance the research and development tax credit.

The resolution provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 4438 and provides for 90 minutes of debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means. In addition, the rule provides for a motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, dozens of so-called temporary tax extensions expired at the end of 2013. Some of them, like the one we will consider under this rule, have long been bipartisan and long been renewed annually.

As a small business owner myself, one of the things that a business craves is certainty, certainty that you can plan around. Providing a certain tax structure is important to businesses.

Take, for example, the R&D tax credit for which this resolution provides consideration. The R&D tax credit has been repeatedly extended since 1981. If it doesn't make you think it is permanent, I don't know what does.

Too often, we here in Washington tell businesses ``trust us,'' that we can promise to extend X, Y, or Z tax provisions indefinitely. But they can't take that to the bank. They can't take our word that we will be able to deliver on promises that we make. The only thing they can rely on is the law itself. If our tax laws expire every year, it injects an uncertainty into the business environment that inhibits economic growth.

We all know that encouraging research and development makes good economic sense. Ernst & Young did a study that found that the R&D credit increases wages in both the short and long term. Additionally, the legislation we will consider also increases research-oriented employment in both the short and the long term.

Many of my friends on the other side talk about raising the minimum wage and about increasing jobs. Those are certainly worthy matters to discuss. Permanent extension of the R&D tax credit does just that. That is why both sides have routinely extended this tax credit in good times and in bad. It is time to make it part of the permanent Tax Code.

Mr. Speaker, others have criticized this legislation because it only deals with a small portion of the expired tax provisions. However, to them I would say two things:

First, just as we have had to examine and pare back the discretionary side of the budget, we need to examine the tax side of the budget. There are over 200 tax expenditures, or spending on the tax side of the ledger, that, if all extended, will cost us more than $12 trillion over the next 10 years. We need to take a serious look at which credit should be extended.

And secondly, this provision is the first of many that will be considered by this House. While the Senate has been content to move in a ``comprehensive manner'' on issues like immigration and even tax extenders, the House has taken a more deliberate approach.

The Ways and Means Committee has marked up seven different extenders affecting a variety of industries that I hope the House will consider in the coming weeks. This will allow us to have a vehicle to take to conference with the Senate to provide individuals and businesses with the certainty that they so desperately crave.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Chairman Camp for beginning this process in earnest and look forward to consideration of additional measures at the appropriate time. Many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have supported the extension of the R&D credit because they have seen the value of making this provision permanent.

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

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

I want to begin, actually, by agreeing on a couple of points with my friend from Florida.

Sandy, if you will recall--and I know you do. I actually voted with you. I believe that relief should have been rendered. I am glad we did that, and it was done in a bipartisan fashion; so certainly, where I am concerned, my friend knows that I have been consistent on that point.

I also want to agree that there are a lot of extenders in this package that ought to be considered. As my friend knows, I actually raised one of those last night in an amendment at the Rules Committee-- and it was withdrawn--simply to make the very point that he is making, that we shouldn't only focus on a few, but that all of these need to be considered, and each of them ought to have an opportunity to be looked at and discussed.

I think Ways and Means owes us a pathway, if you will. I have no objection to what they are doing here today, but I do think we all need to understand what is going to be considered.

In my view, all of these, since we have routinely extended them in the past, probably ought to be considered in one fashion or another. I suspect, frankly, they will be because, once we arrive in the conference committee, the Senate will probably have passed that in total, and there will be some sort of discussion there. Again, my friend's point is an important one with which I agree, in that we ought to look at these things.

The reason we are beginning with this one--and with a series of five or six others is--number one, these are ones that both parties have generally agreed upon in the past. This is not a controversial measure. When they were in the majority in 2008 and in 2010, my friends extended this particular tax credit, along with many others, so we don't think it is controversial in the partisan sense.

Secondly, we think these are the types of tax cuts that broadly contribute to growth, and that is something I know both sides want. We want a growing economy, we want the jobs that that generates, and frankly, we want the additional tax revenue that a growing economy yields.

We have made some very tough decisions over the last few years, sometimes on a bipartisan basis, about reducing this deficit. When this majority came in, the deficit was running at about $1.4 trillion a year. This year, it will come in at something like $540 billion.

That is actually a very rapid decline. Along the way, some of those decisions have been pretty tough decisions--bipartisan, some of them. We, on our side, like to focus on the cuts we have made, and as my friend has pointed out, we have cut out literally hundreds of billions of dollars of discretionary spending.

None of that has been easy--again, sometimes on a bipartisan basis. Eventually, it had to pass a Democratic Senate and be signed by a Democratic President, so in a sense, those reductions had been bipartisan.

We have also generated revenue. The fiscal cliff bill, which I supported, preserved most of the Bush tax cuts, but it did generate revenue. Those things working together have helped bring the deficit down, but we are never going to get the deficit where I know both sides want it to be, if we don't have an economy that is growing and moving, creating jobs, innovating, is at the cutting edge, and is competitive with our international peers. This legislation is an attempt to do just that.

It is also an attempt, in my view, by Ways and Means and by Chairman Camp to begin the process of looking at these tax extenders one by one. While all of them have some constituency in this body and while many of them have overwhelming bipartisan constituencies, there is no question that not every single one of them would pass muster if it were looked at individually, so I applaud Chairman Camp and his committee for what they are doing.

I think we are trying to proceed in the right direction here. I don't have any illusions that this will be the final legislation. It will simply get us into conference with the Senate; and, hopefully, there will be more discussion there, but I think we are doing the right thing and are proceeding in the right way.

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

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

I want to agree with my friend about his concern on the deficit. I know it is genuine. Frankly, I appreciate the fact that our friends on the other side of the aisle are concerned about the deficit.

I will remind them, when we took the majority in this Chamber in January of 2011, the deficit was about $1.4 trillion. It is about $540 billion today. So to suggest that this majority has not been serious about lowering the deficit and has not made really tough decisions-- sometimes with my friends on the other side of the aisle, sometimes not--I think is to misstate the facts.

We are concerned about the deficit. If renewing this R&D credit is irresponsible without an offset, I will point out to my friends that you did it in 2008 and in 2010 when you were in the majority, so I don't think you are being consistent here in terms of this particular measure.

Finally, I want to make the point that the real key to getting out of this situation in the long term is threefold. First, obviously restraining domestic discretionary spending, we have done that, and it has been hard to do. Second, I think getting entitlement reform, we haven't done that. Hopefully, someday, we will.

Third--and maybe most importantly--is getting the economy growing again, moving in a way that creates jobs first and foremost, that provides a higher standard of living for our people, but that, yes, generates extra revenue to the government. There is nothing like a growing economy to help shrink the deficit.

This is a measure that both sides in the past have agreed actually stimulates economic growth; creates jobs; and, therefore, generates additional revenue. I think that we ought to approve the rule and that we ought to consider this thoughtful consideration of our Tax Code on a piece by piece, item by item basis and move ahead.

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

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

I hate to keep repeating myself, but I think I will.

My friends passed this tax credit themselves when they were in the majority in 2008 and 2010. So while I appreciate this newfound concern about deficits on their side of the aisle, I remind them that since we have been in the majority, the deficit has actually declined--and declined pretty dramatically--from $1.4 trillion, which is what they handed over to us, to about $540 billion today.

I would be the first to agree that is far too high, but the movement has been in the right direction.

So to suggest that somehow this side of the aisle has been fiscally reckless or irresponsible, I think simply doesn't bear up to scrutiny.

Second, I remind my friends again this has been a bipartisan tax measure over the years. It has been routinely renewed, whether it was a Democratic Congress or Republican Congress, since 1981. It is as close as you ever get to be permanently in the Tax Code without actually being there.

But we still have that level of uncertainty that is associated every time that we have a discussion over the extension. We are simply removing, I think, that uncertainty, and we are doing what all sides have done regularly, which is recognize this is an important component of our Code and that we think it generates a great deal in terms of valuable research and generates economic growth and jobs.

I would agree with my friend that we are going to have to do different things to actually get the deficit down to where we want to go.

I serve on the Appropriations Committee, not on Ways and Means, and I will tell you we have really made dramatic cuts in the discretionary budget, some of which I think are actually too extensive. We have done that in an effort to try and, again, restore fiscal sanity.

I have cooperated with my friends on things like the fiscal cliff that have generated revenue. So it hasn't just all been cuts.

I do agree with my friends that Ways and Means needs to do two things: it is responsible for taxes and it is responsible for entitlements.

We all know that entitlement spending is the largest single driver of the deficit, by far. I would hope our friends, on a bipartisan basis, would sit down and start looking at entitlements on the Ways and Means Committee.

In terms of taxes, I think that is exactly what they are trying to do in this measure; that is, begin to look at this piece by piece and pick out the things that are worth keeping.

This credit, without question, both sides for over 30 years looked at and said, This is worth keeping. This is valuable. It generates jobs. It generates growth.

If my friends on Ways and Means want to look at this and tinker and change it around the edges, they are the tax experts. I trust them to bring us something here that is good. But remember, this bill is going to conference. There is a United States Senate that probably has a different view than us. It is going to sit down and negotiate with us. Then the bill has to go to the President.

So I look on this as a step in the right direction, not as a final destination point, let alone as some sort of dramatic departure from what we have been doing around here. It is actually pretty consistent with what we have been doing in terms of the policy.

What we are doing is making important correctives, turning what has been temporary into something that is permanent. And we are doing it piece by piece. Because, again, not all of these extenders, quite frankly, should be extended, but we ought to look at them one at a time and make that decision. I really think that is all we are about, Madam Speaker.

With that, I would again hope that we pass the rule and the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I want to disagree with my good friend from Florida on one thing, and I think it is probably just a phrase, but I want to put an important corrective in the Record.

My friend said we could finally vote on something that would be worthwhile. I would actually suggest that we voted on a number of things that have been worthwhile.

Frankly, this would have been in December, but the Ryan-Murray budget agreement, I think, was very worthwhile. I think that the omnibus spending bill that finally put us back into

some semblance of regular order in the appropriations process was worthwhile.

I think the farm bill that was passed as both a safety net program for many of our needy families in our country, as well as an important economic tool that my friend Mr. Lucas got through on a bipartisan basis, was, again, very worthwhile.

I think the flood insurance bill that this Congress has passed on a bipartisan basis was, again, very worthwhile.

I think the fact that we have dealt with the doc fix, as there has actually been in Ways and Means an agreement as to what we should do-- not an agreement on how to fund it, but we bought a year's worth of time so our health care providers that do such a great job helping and seniors and our needy people on both Medicare and Medicaid are going to be continued to be reimbursed--I think that is a good job.

I think this Congress doing the Gabriella Miller Kids First Research bill, taking money out of political conventions and putting it toward pediatric research, that is a pretty good job.

I think the fact that a couple of appropriations bills have actually crossed this floor on a bipartisan basis and are ready to go to conference earlier than any time since 1974 is a pretty good job.

So while we disagree--and I wouldn't say this is the most productive Congress in modern American history--to suggest that it is not doing its job and moving along legislation expeditiously is something I do have at least a different view on.

I want to agree with my friend from California on H-1B visas. I actually think he is correct about that. As I understand it, there has been action on that issue in the Judiciary Committee. It actually passed out of committee. When it comes to the floor is sort of not in my lane, but I do hope we do deal with that.

And no question, the whole immigration issue that my friend brings up is an important one. I appreciate him doing that. I thanked him for doing that last night. I thank him for doing it again today.

I don't think this is probably the vehicle for a comprehensive bill. I think it would probably meet more resistance. But talking about it and pointing out the importance of dealing with some of these issues I think is extremely helpful.

It doesn't change the basic fact, though, Madam Speaker. What we are dealing with here is pretty simple, but pretty important, though. Let's do something that in the past we have agreed on on a bipartisan basis. Let's focus on research and development so America is always at the cutting edge of technology and job creation and give our entrepreneurs and our businesses this very important tool and a sense of certainty that it is going to be there.

Again, this is something we have been doing since 1981. It is not new. It has been bipartisan. I think making it permanent, letting businesses know that we can actually work together, is the right thing to do.

Then we ought to proceed, as the Ways and Means Committee is proceeding, systematically and look at all these other extenders, some of which will make it, some of which won't. We will undoubtedly have a vigorous debate about that.

It won't always be a partisan debate. I suspect on some of these things I will be with my friends on their side of the aisle and vice versa because things like the Indian Lands Tax Credit I don't consider partisan. It gets very good Democratic and Republican support all the time.

So, again, let's work together. I think that is what Ways and Means is trying to do. They are advancing a product systematically and appropriately.

I think we have the right rule for it. I think we have a good piece of legislation. I suspect and certainly hope there will be a strong bipartisan vote on the underlying legislation.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Florida. It is always a pleasure to appear with him.

I do want to make a point that, with respect to all tax provisions, they almost always do come to this floor under a closed rule because, quite frankly, they have to be scored, i.e., we have to figure out how much the amendments cost and what have you.

So it is very seldom we have an open rule on anything that deals with tax policy, and I think we are following customary procedure here.

I also, again, want to make the basic point that this is legislation that, honestly, I think, over the years, most of the time, both sides of the aisle have agreed upon.

There is no objection to research and tax credits. Both sides have decided it is good policy, that it helps American companies be competitive. It helps us stay at the head of the pack, in terms of innovation and technical development in this country.

This is probably one of the least controversial provisions in the Tax Code, so I think moving it and making it permanent, removing all uncertainty and confusion, is probably, well, in my view, certainly a good thing for our economy. I hope, after the rule vote, that we can come together on that.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I would like to encourage my colleagues to move the process forward. This approach is important because it allows the House to consider individual tax provisions on their own merits and not hidden by a larger deal.

This credit is good for economic growth. It both creates jobs and increases wages. It is important that we not lose sight of that in the midst of this debate, so I would urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 569 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

sections:

Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the

Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare

the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on

the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.

15) to provide for comprehensive immigration reform and for

other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be

dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of

the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the

bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and

controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the

Committee on Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall

be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All

points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At

the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the

Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with

such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous

question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and

amendments thereto to final passage without intervening

motion except one motion to recommit with or without

instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports

that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the

next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the

third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,

resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further

consideration of the bill.

Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H.R. 15.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on consideration of H.R. 4487, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Madam Chairman, thank you for the recognition, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

H.R. 4487, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2015, provides $3.3 billion for the operations of the legislative branch, excluding Senate items. The recommendation is the equivalent to the fiscal year 2014 level and a decrease of $122.5 million, or 3.7 percent, from the requested level.

Conforming with the longstanding practice under which each body of Congress determines its own housekeeping requirements and the other concurs without intervention, funds for the Senate are not included in the bill as reported by the committee.

Through seven hearings and meetings with agency heads, the committee listened to all who presented their respective concerns and budget requests. It was necessary to make some critical decisions and prioritize programs, and we did this in a bipartisan and transparent manner.

We are presenting to the House today a bill that is fiscally responsible and maintains current operations for the Legislative Branch agencies.

The bill includes $1.2 billion for the operations of the House. This is equivalent to the fiscal year 2014 enacted

level and $20 million below the request. It is worthy to note that the funding provided for Member's Representational Allowances and Committees provides for the current operations, and I do not anticipate further reductions in the coming year. The bill also includes the Members' pay freeze for fiscal year 2015.

With this bill, total funding for the House of Representatives is 14 percent below fiscal year 2010.

The bill includes $348 million for the Capitol Police. This is $9.5 million above the fiscal year 2014 enacted level and $77 million less than the requested level. This will support 1,775 sworn officers and 370 civilian positions. A slight increase above last year is provided to ensure the Capitol Police maintain current operations and ensure mission-essential training.

Knowing that access to the House office buildings is of critical concern to Members, we directed that the Chief of Police develop an action plan that will make sure public access to our buildings is easily accessible during heightened periods of visitation. The implementation of this plan is in the early stages, and we will continue to monitor the budgetary impacts to the Capitol Police.

The bill includes $45.7 million for the Congressional Budget Office. This is at the fiscal year 2014 enacted level and $378,000 below the requested level.

The bill includes $488.6 million for the Architect of the Capitol, excluding Senate items. This is a decrease of $40.5 million from the fiscal year 2014 enacted level and $79 million below the requested level.

Within the recommended level, the committee continues its prioritization of projects that promote the safety and public health of workers and occupants, decrease the deferred maintenance backlog, and invest to achieve future energy savings.

The committee recognizes the continuing challenge of preserving and maintaining our infrastructure and prioritizing critical projects in the current budgetary environment. It is important to note that $21 million is recommended for the final phase of dome restoration, a very high priority of this committee.

In addition, we are continuing the 5-year practice of including funds for the House Historic Buildings Revitalization Trust Fund, a fund established by Ms. Wasserman Schultz when she was chair of this subcommittee in anticipation of the renovation of the historic Cannon House Office Building.

Might I say, it is one of the really tremendous contributions that my friend and colleague has made, and I hope it stays inside of our operating procedure for many years to come. It was a wise decision.

Also included is $16 million for the lease cost of a portion of the Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. Federal Office Building in preparation of the Cannon renewal project.

The bill includes $595 million for the operations of the Library of Congress. This is an increase of $16 million above the fiscal year 2014 enacted level and $1.9 million above the requested level. The amount will allow the Library to continue at current operations.

Established by Congress in 1800, the Library of Congress is one of the largest libraries in the world, with a collection of more than 130 million print, audio, and video items in 460 languages. It is imperative adequate funding is provided to maintain acquisitions, preservation, the administration of U.S. copyright laws by the U.S. Copyright Office for research and analysis of policy issues for the Congress by the Congressional Research Service, and the administration of a national program to provide reading material to the blind and physically handicapped.

The bill before you accomplishes all of that.

It is important to note $5.5 million of the funding is provided for the Deacidification Program, which is $1 million over the Library's request. And $8.2 million is for the Teaching with Primary Sources Program, at $1 million over the request, to be used for competitive opportunities for developing online interactive and apps for classroom use on Congress and civic participation.

It is $1.2 million above the request for the Copyright Office to reduce the claims and processing time for copyright registrations and to conduct business analyses for the process engineering of the documentation recordation function.

The bill includes $122.6 million for the Government Printing Office. This is an increase of $3.3 million above the fiscal year 2014 enacted level and $6.3 million below the requested level. Funds have been included for continuation of development and infrastructure costs associated with the Federal digital system and the system replacement for upgrading the extensible markup language.

The bill includes $519.6 million for the Government Accountability Office. This is an increase of $14.2 million above the fiscal year 2014 enacted level and $5.5 million below the requested level. Language is included to establish a Center for Audit Excellence to build global institutional auditing capacity and promote good governance. This center is to be operated on a fee-based basis.

Finally, the bill includes $3.42 million for the Open World Leadership Trust Fund. This is $2.58 million below the fiscal year 2014 enacted level and $4.58 million below the requested level.

As a sign of support for Ukraine, the committee has reduced the program by 43 percent. This represents the program's percentage of participants from Russia. It is important to stress that Open World's program does not just focus on work with Russia. Ukraine has the next largest group of participants, closely followed by other nations in the surrounding region. Therefore, we encourage the center to do more in Ukraine and with other participating countries in the surrounding region.

I would like to thank my good friend, the ranking member, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, for her role throughout the process. We have worked well together in a bipartisan manner. It has truly been a team effort.

Also, I extend my appreciation to all members of the subcommittee in their efforts in helping bring this measure to the floor. I also want to thank the truly excellent staff that has nursed me through this.

Let me just add, parenthetically, that we had a pretty unusual situation in that, because of some early retirements and the loss of our dear friend, Bill Young, we had a lot of reshuffling to do on our committee. On our side, that meant we only had one carryover member, and that was the vice chairman, Mr. Harris from Maryland, who was indispensable and extraordinarily helpful to the rest of us.

Again, without a capable staff and without, frankly, a wonderful working partner in my ranking member, we would have had a much more difficult time. Frankly, I don't think anybody in this institution knows this bill and this process better than Ms. Wasserman Schultz. She has been my friend. I was once on her committee as a very junior member when she chaired it, and I learned a lot from her then. I learned a lot more from her this time.

I look forward to the debate, and with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH01MY14.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH01MY14.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH01MY14.003

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend from the great State of Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

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

My friend and I have had a number of opportunities to talk about this issue. We talked about it in committee, we talked about it yesterday in discussion on the rule, and we are talking about it today because I think he wants to make his point, and I think he is using every opportunity to make his point.

Quite frankly, it is a point that needs to be made and a point that deserves to be heard. One of the things I will miss about my friend a lot is his tenacity when he has got something that he thinks is important and his willingness to go through a little heat and a little criticism, which I know he has received over this, to make that point. That is a very valuable characteristic in any Member.

I don't think we are in immediate danger, the kind of future and the kind of House that my friend describes, but I do think, if we were to continue this course indefinitely, we would be.

Now, again, as I mentioned yesterday in our exchange, remember, a lot of people who come here for a short time aren't coming here to cash out on anything. They are coming here because they believe in the limited time of public service, and quite often, that is a pretty popular point of view in their districts. So I cast no aspersions on somebody that comes for 6 or 8 years, and that is their choice.

In my State, that is exactly what Senator Tom Coburn did in this body for 6 years and what he has done in the United States Senate. I know that is a sincere opinion as to what he thinks the appropriate thing is, and quite frankly, he has certainly never cast himself out and hung around Washington, D.C. I think that is true of many, many Members.

As my friend makes a good point about the character of the body and where we may be headed if we do the wrong things over time, I also think we are in a really critical point in our country where we are having to make a lot of difficult decisions.

We have made a lot of difficult decisions on this committee, made a lot of cuts that we didn't want to make because we thought the budget deficit was too high, and we needed to ask people to make some painful reductions.

I think if you are going to ask people to make painful reductions you have got to lead by example, and I think that is actually what both sides have tried to do.

Again, I know when my friends were in the majority, we didn't always get cost of living increases and those sorts of things either. They had inherited a difficult situation. They were making tough choices, and they were trying to lead by example.

I think that is exactly what this majority has continued to do, and so maintaining your personal credibility and your institutional responsibility, while you are arriving at and administering difficult decisions, I think, is a very important characteristic. So that is what we have tried to do in this bill.

Again, I appreciate my friend for making his point because I think, over time, we could change the character of the institution if we are not careful. I don't think that is an immediate concern, but it is one we ought to reflect on as we move forward.

Again, I thank him for his service, and I thank him for his persistence and tenacity.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I was tempted to actually yield my friend from Georgia (Mr. Bishop) additional time, he was being so kind to all of us on both sides of the aisle. But I genuinely want to thank my friend who is a very valuable member of our committee and, again, someone who is always thoughtful, always helpful, and always works in a bipartisan manner. You saw it on this floor yesterday when he and Chairman Culberson delivered their bill in a very bipartisan and a very professional manner. He does the same thing on our committee. So I just wanted to thank my friend.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I just wanted to once again thank my friend, my working partner in this, Ms. Wasserman Schultz. She, in this area, is an absolute expert without peer in this House, which has been enormously helpful to me.

Again, I want to thank the members of the committee. I want to thank all of the staff, frankly, from both sides of the aisle, all of the personnel offices. They have just been absolutely first-rate.

As I observed, I think, in one of our committee meetings, if the current chairman of the Democratic National Committee and the former chief of staff of the Republican National Committee can work this well together, then surely all things are possible in this universe.

It has been a pleasure to work with my friend. I look forward to continuing that collaboration as we go forward.

With that, Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I want to begin by thanking my friend. We serve together on the Rules Committee. It is very seldom that I would disagree with my friend, who not only has a distinguished record here, but a distinguished record in law enforcement.

And let me make it clear. I am quite content to let the body work its will on this matter. I appreciate my friend actually bringing it forward. I think it is important to discuss.

I had not really thought about this a great deal until I saw my friend's amendment. I don't lease a vehicle through my office at all. Although we have discussed it and looked at it, it just never seemed to be appropriate or make sense for us. We do have 63 Members, however, who do do this practice. The average cost of the vehicle is $589.

Now, I can't tell you that I have taken a survey of all 63, but I have talked to a few--just sort of tell me what your reasoning is--and the responses are pretty diverse. But you could break it into two or three categories.

First, some of them cover exceptionally large districts, and they find this the most cost-effective way to actually cover it, I mean, even to the point of saying, as one Member said:

I go through rough terrain to reach remote areas. I need a

vehicle that, frankly, is quite a bit more robust than

members of my staff have or that I even have personally,

sometimes, to reach some of my constituents.

I thought that was a pretty impressive reason.

Second, others, again, just find it much more cost-effective than actually paying and reimbursing for mileage. But I think the core thing here is to trust--actually trust--the Member to make the decision.

I think an important point here is to note that we are not going to save any money, really. This comes out of the Member's Representational Allowance as it is, so there is not a real savings here. And it is all publicly disclosed, so Members take some considerable risk if they do this. They have to be able to explain it to their constituents.

At the end of the day, I just simply don't want to micromanage individual Members in how they spend the money which we allot them through this bill.

And with that, I understand my good friend would like to say some things, so I will yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), the ranking member.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Madam Chairman, I just want to thank my friend from California for bringing this amendment. I think it is a truly important amendment and something that we are more than happy to accept, and appreciate her raising the issue very, very much.

Madam Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding. I want to thank my friend too because I know the spirit in which this is brought is to save money and to make some tough decisions, and I share that. It is worth pointing out that we did reduce the Architect's request by $79 million.

Frankly, we are spending about $40 million less than we did last year, so it is not as if we have not been serious about this. We did look at this particular area. My friend from Florida made the point that not only is it a well-traveled destination point and very desirable place, but it is a pretty old building, and we really do have serious problems here that we think are potentially health hazards.

We have chunks of the building, 5-15 pounds, that have fallen off from the height of 40 feet, and that is a health hazard; so given the traffic there, given the fact that we have been pretty tough across the board, we thought this was one of those urgent priorities that needed to be taken care of.

Again, I have no qualms with my friend's motives. I know he is trying to save money. I share that belief. We have made a lot of tough decisions across the board, and it is certainly appropriate for this body to look, and if people can find areas, we are happy with that.

In this case, our judgment as a committee--and certainly my judgment--is that we need to make certain that a facility that is this well used is kept safe and in good repair, so we don't risk liability and risk injury and, frankly, that we do keep open and functioning one of the most beloved institutions of the Capitol complex.

Madam Chair, first, I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I want to thank my friend too because I know he is very serious about looking for places to cut costs. Indeed, later on, there are a number of items that Members have brought to our attention that we will accept. In this case, we don't think it is appropriate.

I do want to thank my friend from Florida. I happened to be on this committee as a junior Member when she did do, I think, an unbelievably good job in working us through what had been a bad process and cost overruns in the Center.

At the end of the day, this is where millions of Americans--this is their portal to the Capitol. It is well run, and it is well managed. I think maintaining access and keeping it safe and keeping it welcoming, if you will, is very important.

So while this is a legitimate question to raise, I agree with my friend and would oppose the amendment.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I want to thank my friend. Again, I appreciate the spirit in which he approaches this. This is an interesting point of discussion because we actually have Members of both parties who really like this program and think it is very important, and we have Members of both parties that share your point of view. It is not a partisan debate in the least.

I would say that there are a number of both contemporary points and a number of longer-term points that ought to be taken into account.

First, this was originally a $6 million item. We have cut it by 43 percent aimed at Russia. All the other participants in this program are the very countries that Russia threatens right now; particularly Ukraine, which is the second largest participant. I think it would be a really bad signal for this country to actually cut programs that are supportive of democracy in the areas immediately around Russia and, frankly, I think more or less plays into Mr. Putin's hand.

Beyond that, we have a unique institution, a unique arrangement, and a unique person heading it at the Library

of Congress, Mr. Billington, who is probably the world's most expert on Russian history, culture, and literature. This has been well placed, as long as he has been the librarian, and well used.

So, again, I appreciate my friend's motives, but I would urge the rejection of his amendment.

With that, I would like to yield the remainder of the time that I have to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), my good friend.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

Madam Chairman, I want to accept this amendment.

You certainly aren't behind the times. You are usually ahead of the curve.

In this case, the gentleman certainly is. I appreciate him pointing out an area where we can save $300,000. He is precisely right on this. We are more than happy to accept the amendment and, again, very much appreciate our friend for bringing it to the floor and for saving the American taxpayers $300,000.

Will the gentleman yield?

Madam Chairman, I want to thank my friend for bringing this to the floor. He is precisely right in everything that he says about both the costs and the functionality of the document in question.

His staff member is to be commended for bringing it to his attention and for you acknowledging her. I think staff people every place are grateful. We are delighted to accept this amendment, delighted to save the money, and, again, appreciate our friend bringing it to our attention, pointing it out, and saving the taxpayers $200,000.

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

Madam Chairman, my friend is, frankly, one of the most thoughtful and best Members of this body. There is no question about that. So, when we discussed this, I took it very seriously because it was my friend's proposal, and I think any other Member in this House would do the same. At the end of the day, I came to a different conclusion for a number of reasons.

First, we are in a very tight budget. We have no increase at all, so funding this initiative means effectively taking money away from someplace else. Second, I looked at the long-term spending pattern of this program in the past. It actually peaked at $20 million, so I think starting at $2.5 million is not likely where it will end up over time. Third, quite frankly, I looked at what some of my predecessors in my position had thought, both Republican and Democratic. As my friend knows, obviously, the Democrats had the majority after 1995 for a 4- year period, which was relatively recently, and they looked at this and came to the same decision that was made in '95, and that, I think, we make today, which is that there are other sources of information. The Government Accountability Office, in particular, has developed a capability here, and we think there are other sources of information.

While I don't deny that this has played a useful role in the past, I just believe, given the constrained circumstances that we have today, given the possibility that this will grow, and given what at least to date has been a bipartisan judgment that this is something we didn't need to renew, I, reluctantly, decided not to include this in

the bill. For that reason, I would also oppose the amendment.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), my good friend, the ranking member of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee.

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

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

Again, I want to thank my friend because I know he is, indeed, committed to this idea.

In closing, Madam Chair, I think, as usual, my friend Ms. Wasserman Schultz probably made the salient point of the debate. We are taking from our historic trust fund, which preserves this building, and redirects that resource. That is a mistake. That is just simply a mistake. If there is another way to fund it, I would still have grave reservations about reintroducing it because I do think the information is available elsewhere, but robbing from your seed corn, I think, is something we shouldn't do.

We have established this fund. We have been able to maintain it under Democrats and Republicans alike. We are going to have these challenges going forward. I do not want to set the precedent of this becoming a piggy bank to fund other things out of. We need to maintain our campus. This is an important way to do it, and I think weakening it in any way would be counterproductive.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, after spending the last few hours debating and amending this bill, we have before us a bipartisan piece of legislation that funds this House, its safety, and the agencies that support the legislative process, and all in a fiscally responsible and, frankly, bipartisan way.

Yesterday, in nearly a unanimous fashion, this House passed a bill that provided nearly $4 billion in funding that directly supports and assists our wounded warriors, and I think most all of us on both sides of the aisle are proud of that.

This includes $2.6 billion for the Prosthetic and Sensory Aids Service, $560 million for the largest system of spinal cord injury of care in the United States, and $135 million to assist blind and visually impaired veterans. It also includes $96 million for research that benefits wounded warriors in areas like prosthetics, traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injuries, and the like.

The total medical care budget of the VA for FY15 is $59.1 billion, enough to care for 6.7 million patients and, again, is something that I think every Member in this House ought to be proud of and was more than delighted to support.

This legislation, as with all appropriations legislation that we bring to the floor, makes every stride to ensure that the very best care for our wounded warriors and veterans is available. I know that I speak for this entire body when I say we deeply respect and respect the service and sacrifices of our troops and veterans and that the bill we passed yesterday is hard-and-fast proof of that.

Frankly, had we wanted to do more, I would suggest that yesterday would have been the time to do more because, clearly, everybody was willing to support that measure.

Keep in mind, the bill before us now is the smallest of the 12 appropriations bills, but it is still incredibly important; and advancing this bill gets us one step closer to completing our necessary work, our constitutional duty of funding the Federal Government.

Motions to recommit like this one, quite frankly, are mostly political ``gotcha'' tactics, and both sides do it. I cast no partisan stones here. I have seen it happen on this floor many, many times before. But I think both sides probably ought to stop and reflect if we are really honoring the veterans or if we are using them to make a political point. I would hope not the latter, because yesterday we did the right thing; today we are trying to score points at one another's expense.

Yes, both sides have done this. I am sorry it happens. My personal opinion is that it shouldn't, and I hope we will dispense with it going forward.

The bill in front of us has bipartisan support. If it is allowed to proceed, it will pass overwhelmingly.

Over the past 2 days, we have done some great work, kicking off the appropriations process at the earliest date in decades and passing our first bill yesterday with overwhelming support from both sides of the aisle. Let's continue that good work today. Let's pass this bill. Let's reject the motion to recommit. Let's get the work of the people done.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 557 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 Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of the first two appropriations bills that the House will consider for fiscal year 2015: H.R. 4486, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act; and H.R. 4487, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act.

The resolution provides an open rule for consideration of H.R. 4486 so that all Members have the opportunity to come to the floor and offer amendments on this important piece of legislation.

The resolution also provides a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 4487, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, which is customarily considered in this manner. This structured rule makes in order eight amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to this House the first of what I hope are many appropriations bills for fiscal year 2015. Because of the Ryan-Murray budget agreement late last year, the Appropriations Committee has been able to move expeditiously and report these two bills for consideration by the whole House. In fact, this is the earliest that appropriations bills have been considered in this House since 1974.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, both of these bills enjoy strong bipartisan support. Both were reported out of committee by voice vote and take into account updated priorities for the coming fiscal year.

I am proud, for example, that we were able to provide additional funding for our veterans, who have given so much in service to our country. I am also proud that these bills maintain the fiscal discipline this country so desperately needs.

The MilCon-VA bill actually spends $1.8 billion less than fiscal year 2014, and the Legislative Branch bill provides for level funding.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Chairman Rogers for beginning this process in earnest, and look forward to consideration of additional appropriations measures at the appropriate time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my good friend for putting an emphasis and a spotlight on an area of bipartisan cooperation in the veterans area. He is precisely right in the concern that both sides of the aisle have for the men and women in uniform that have fought this Nation's battles.

While the wars themselves have been contentious, I actually don't think the funding of veterans has ever been contentious, regardless of who was President and regardless of who was in control of this Chamber.

Quite frankly, as I recall, during the Bush years, we increased veterans expenditures by about 100 percent over an 8-year period. That has continued under President Obama.

Again, you can never do enough, but I think the Congress actually, over an extended period, has really tried in this area and has worked together quite well in a bipartisan sense.

My friend also referred a little bit to the legislative branch, and there, again, we probably have some areas of agreement, maybe some areas of disagreement, but not profound ones.

The reality is we are in a difficult time financially. My friend is absolutely correct when he points to some of the reductions in House expenditures. We have reduced, by about 14 percent, House expenditures over the last 3 or 4 years.

I would suggest, while those changes have been difficult, they have been appropriate, given the size of the deficit and the fiscal difficulties we had.

It is important to note, in this budget, we make no further reductions. As a matter of fact, we actually increase expenditures in some important institutions that actually support Congress and its work.

We have not done it again, as my friend has correctly stated, for Members' offices or for committees. We did do a little bit of that last year in raising so-called MRAs and committee budgets.

This year, because of the allocation we had, frankly, I have chosen, as chairman of that committee, to focus on things like the Government Accountability Office, the Government Printing Office, the Capitol Police, the Congressional Budget Office, areas that are absolutely indispensable in the operation of this institution. The Library of Congress, another one where the Congressional Research Service is housed, again, is very important to what we do.

Hopefully, as we go forward, we will be able to do more in some of these areas, but I think, given what we had, we have done reasonably well; and again, while these have been tough decisions, they have been made in a bipartisan manner with the cooperation between majority and minority on the appropriate Legislative Branch Subcommittee.

Finally, my friend did point to the Senate, and I suppose we always have a little bit of envy of the other body in terms of its funding. I would suggest, while their expenditures have gone up, they have not been particularly dynamic in their legislative performance.

Frankly, far be it from me to offer a definitive opinion. We normally let each institution do what they want to do, but I am always happy for the contrast in the budget of a Republican House and a Democratic Senate because I think it is abundantly clear which one is serious about fiscal responsibility and which one is not, and I suspect we will have that debate going forward.

Again, I thank my friend for his remarks and his focus on what is genuinely important, and I know, when he talks about this institution and its staff and its functions, he does so with genuine respect and genuine concern.

Again, some of those concerns, I certainly share, and perhaps, going forward, as we did last year and we tried to do in some of the supportive institutions this year, we can restore some of that capability that I know he and I would both like to see us have.

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

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

First, I want to begin by extending the same regard and personal affection to my friend that he was kind enough to display toward me. I have had the privilege of serving with him on the Appropriations Committee, obviously, ever since I arrived at that committee; and we currently serve on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee together, the Legislative Branch Subcommittee together, and Interior Subcommittee together. And on that committee, Interior, of course he was an absolutely superb chairman. I happen to think he is an even better ranking member. But he was a superb chairman, and we have worked together on many items. And I, like my friend from Florida, am going to miss my friend from Virginia, who I think has rendered distinguished service in this Chamber, and certainly to our committee.

In terms of his suggested amendment, I will make two points. First, we are advised this is a clause 2 violation to be legislating on an appropriations bill; and I thought there was a reasonable chance, secondly, that we would have a chance to discuss this and he would have a chance to make his point.

And I am glad that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) did make the point that he made because I think it is a very important point to be made. I particularly share your concerns about the long-term character of the body, and I think those were well stated. I don't think we are in any danger right now of reaching that point, but I think my friend does point out a trend that could occur.

I would also be quick to add, there are about as many different styles of Members as there are Members themselves. Some people come here with the idea of being here for a long time. Other people come here for shorter periods of time, not with the idea of cashing out, but because they believe that is the appropriate way to serve.

In my State, my good friend Senator Coburn has always lived by term limits. He did when he was in this Chamber. He has, again, in the Senate. So not every Member that comes here and serves 6 or 8 years is trying to cash out. They just think that is the appropriate length of time, and that is a judgment that is quite often shared by their constituents. And again, I think either one is appropriate. I think Members and districts make that decision for themselves.

But I also think, in consideration of the decisions we have made in the last several years--by both parties, by the way. Again, my friends, when they were in the majority, had some concerns about increases in salaries as well, and I think that was because they saw the fiscal problems of the country.

We have had to make some tough decisions around here in the last few years. We are going to have to make, I think, some more tough decisions. And I think sometimes, to add legitimacy to those decisions, you have to lead by example. I think that is what we have tried to do. I think that is what my friends tried to do as well during the period that they were in the majority. So as long as we are preaching fiscal austerity, we have got to practice a little fiscal austerity.

But I want to conclude by saying, I still think my friend's point is a very important one to be heard. I am glad he made the remarks that he did and has raised it.

I am sorry for your staff because I am sure the incoming mail and calls have been extraordinary.

But again, one of the things I like about my friend, even when I disagree with him--because on occasion, we do--he is never afraid to articulate a position and present a point of view. And if there is a little fire associated with that, so much the better. I think he enjoys the give-and-take of that. And that is one of the things I am going to miss the most about him when he departs this Chamber.

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

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

I want to thank my friend from California for working so closely with Chairman Culberson and Ranking Member Bishop on what is a genuinely important contribution to the legislation; and I think, frankly, it is pretty exemplary of the manner in which Chairman Culberson and Ranking Member Bishop worked together throughout this process. I saw it myself during our full committee markup where, literally, they were working together to make changes to try and respond to Members' legitimate concerns in this area and did it right to the last minute of the bill.

So I know we are going to have contentious moments in the appropriations process; we always do as we go forward. But in this particular case, in this legislation, and certainly between the chairman and ranking member, I think we have an example of how to work together in a bipartisan fashion that most Americans, if they had a chance to learn about it, would be genuinely pleased with.

So again, I thank my friend from California for participating outside the committee in that. I think she made a very valuable contribution, and I am pleased that she made that point. And again, I recognize the wonderful work of Mr. Culberson and Mr. Bishop.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I want to begin by thanking my friend from New Jersey and again recognize his very special and very distinguished service in this body. This is a typical example of the good sense and the compassion he brings to the floor on a regular basis, and I know I appreciate that. And while we are in different parties, he is one of the people, like my friend from Virginia (Mr. Moran) who spoke earlier, that I most admire and I think is generally admired on both sides of the aisle. So I associate myself with the remarks he made and appreciate that very, very much, and I wish him well in whatever he chooses to do next because he has certainly distinguished himself here, as

he had in his academic career before he came here. And whatever he does next, I know he will be equally distinguished in that field, but we will miss him very much in this body.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate what my friend from California had to say, the reality is this legislation doesn't have anything to do with the minimum wage, and frankly, it would be inappropriate to consider the minimum wage here. It would be legislating on an appropriations bill, something that as a rule we do not do around here.

Second, while not wishing to engage in a long debate about the minimum wage, I will say this. Remember, the people of this country and the people of individual States have the opportunity to move on this issue when they choose. Indeed, 19 States, if I recall correctly, actually have minimum wages above the Federal minimum wage.

There is serious concern that the one-size-fits-all minimum wage doesn't make a lot of sense. I can tell my friend I don't pretend to be an expert on what the cost of living in California or New York is, but I am sure it is considerably higher than it is in the State of Oklahoma, and at the end of the day, I actually trust the Oklahoma Legislature, the Oklahoma Governor, and the Oklahoma electorate to make this decision for themselves. I don't think imposing a national solution or national standard in this case is necessary or desirable.

So, again, I think you leave this to the wisdom of the States and localities. I think that is what our Founders generally envisioned we should do when we had questions of this nature.

Again, I am sure we will have this debate another time and on other occasions. It is a perfectly appropriate debate to have. It is not an appropriate debate, it would not be something we could do legislatively on this particular rule or the underlying legislation. So it seems to me not a strong reason to vote against either one because this vehicle could not carry the legislation that my friend from California would like to see enacted.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I am prepared to close whenever my friend is.

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

In closing, I would like to say that one of the basic functions of Congress is to fund the government, and this rule would begin the process for consideration for fiscal year 2015 of actually doing that function and doing it in an orderly way and appropriate way.

I am particularly pleased that the appropriations process has moved as well and as quickly as it has so far this year. To that, I give credit to my

friend, Chairman Rogers, and my great friend, Ranking Member Lowey. They have worked well in a bipartisan manner.

I want to also commend the chairman of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Subcommittee. Mr. Bishop is the ranking member, and Mr. Culberson is the chairman. I think they have done a wonderful job.

Frankly, I have had the opportunity to work with my good friend Debbie Wasserman Schultz in the legislative branch as the ranking member, and I am currently privileged to be the chairman. I think that has been a very productive relationship. I have no doubt we are going to have some contention in other bills, but these bills have really moved together in a bipartisan fashion, and I think given the allocations that we had, have been worked through in a very professional, workmanlike way.

Now, my friend from Florida did mention the syrupy debate, and I know that is not his style. I have had the privilege of serving with him on the Rules Committee not just in this Congress but in a previous Congress, and he is one of the best debaters on the floor, and I have no doubt on every occasion I have seen he always gives as good as he gets and makes his case quite well. But I have appreciated having the opportunity to have this exchange with him. Obviously, I would urge that my colleagues actually support the rule and the underlying legislation.

While the rule vote is a procedural vote, and it is not uncommon for us to basically have a partisan division, I suspect that when the underlying legislation actually reaches this floor on the MilCon bill, the VA bill, and on the legislative branch bill, we will have a great deal of bipartisanship. Certainly, I look forward to that vote. I look forward to the debate and discussion over those. But the first thing we have to do is pass the rule, so, again, I urge my colleagues to pass this.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 557 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

sections:

Sec. 5. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the

Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare

the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on

the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.

1010) to provide for an increase in the Federal minimum wage.

The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All

points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.

General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not

exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair

and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and

the Workforce. After general debate the bill shall be

considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All

points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At

the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the

Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with

such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous

question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and

amendments thereto to final passage without intervening

motion except one motion to recommit with or without

instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports

that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the

next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the

third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,

resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further

consideration of the bill.

Sec. 6. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H.R. 1010.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend, Mr. Woodall, for yielding me the time. I want to urge support for the rule and the underlying legislation.

I would be the first to tell you that this budget is not a perfect budget--no budget is actually perfect--but it is a good budget.

There are a couple of issues that do concern me, as I addressed Mr. Ryan last night; and we are worried that we haven't dealt with the wildfire issue to my satisfaction, which disrupts the appropriating process within Interior, but he assured me that he recognized that was a problem, and we are going to continue to work on it. I actually am going to vote for Mr. Woodall's budget when I have the opportunity to do that. It is the most conservative approach on the floor, and I appreciate that.

I think we ought to stop and remember that without Paul Ryan, we wouldn't have the choices in front of us today. The United States Senate has chosen not to have a budget once again this year, something that it frequently does. And with all due respect to my friends who do have a budget--and I am pleased that they do--in 2010, when they were actually in the majority, they didn't present a budget to this body, either.

It is Paul Ryan that has forced us to confront the fiscal crisis that is facing the country and has actually put something on the table to deal with it. Now, you don't have to agree with everything in it, but it has a lot of virtues to it. The first virtue is it actually focuses on the number one driver of the debt, and that is our unsustainable entitlement programs.

We have made a lot of progress in the last few years in this body on a bipartisan basis in reducing discretionary spending. We are actually spending $165 billion less in discretionary accounts than we were in 2008 when George W. Bush was President of the United States. I don't agree with all those reductions, and I suspect my friends on the other side don't either, but that is a tangible contribution to reducing the deficit and moving us toward balance.

What we haven't dealt with, what the President has largely refused to deal with, and what I suspect my friends in their budget will not deal with, but Paul Ryan has, are the real drivers of the debt: Medicare and Medicaid, in particular. There is an offer in there to sit down and deal seriously with Social Security, as well. And until we do those things--and Paul Ryan has started us on a path to do them--we will never bring the budget into balance.

Now, one of the other things I like about Mr. Ryan's budget is, gosh, it really does balance within 10 years. It makes a lot of tough choices. My friend, Mr. Woodall, actually gets there a little bit faster because he makes even tougher choices, but it balances.

My friends on the other side and the administration haven't presented a budget that balances in 10 years or 20 years or 30 years or 40 or 50--or just draw the lines right on out to infinity. I don't think that is what the American people sent us here to do. But until somebody actually has the courage to do what Mr. Ryan has done and what Mr. Woodall has done, that is the situation the country is going to be in.

The other thing I like about the Ryan budget, in particular, is that it actually incorporates in it the agreement that he arrived at with Senator Murray in the other body. Now, there was a lot of criticism about that because it probably wasn't what I would have negotiated if I got my way or probably Mr. Woodall or any other Senator, but it was a real agreement--only a 2-year agreement, but a real agreement. And against a lot of criticism, Mr. Ryan incorporated, okay, if that is going to be the settled law of the land, then that should be part of our budget. He put it in there, and I am proud of him for doing that.

Finally, again, it reduces not spending, but the growth of spending. We are going to hear a lot of talk about slashes and not investing. If you actually look at the Ryan budget, Federal spending still grows. It grows by about 3\1/2\ percent a year. The difference is the Democratic alternative--well, excuse me--the current course is like 5.2 percent. That is not a great deal of difference. We could really restrain our deficit in the short term and ultimately bring ourselves into balance not by slashing everything, but by simply making some of the simple, commonsense reforms that my friend, Mr. Ryan, to great criticism, has advanced and put on this floor year after year after year.

So I want to urge the adoption of this rule, which is a terrific rule, because despite some complaints, the reality is my friend, Mr. Woodall, and the Rules Committee have put a variety of choices before this body.

We are going to have a budget from the Progressive Caucus that is very different than I would like, but it is going to get its opportunity. We are going to have a budget from the Congressional Black Caucus--again, different than I would choose, but it certainly deserves to be heard and examined. We are going to have Mr. Woodall's budget. So we are going to have several choices before we get to Mr. Ryan's budget, any one of whom might win, might actually persuade people.

At the end of the day, we are going to have multiple choices because of this rule, and so it deserves to be dealt with because it does, indeed, open the process. At the end of the day, I suspect Mr. Ryan's budget will be the one that passes. Again, I am very proud to do that, and I urge its passage.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Ryan for again putting together yet another budget that balances in ten years. I know from the many meetings that we had on this side of the aisle that there was a lot of thought put into how we can maintain our commitment to fiscal balance, given the mounting debt, and the overall deterioration of our economic growth, brought about, in part, by the over 17 trillion debt.

Additionally, this budget maintains the Republican focus on dealing with the true drivers of our debt, entitlement programs. It would have been very easy, given that the Bipartisan Budget Act set the 302(a) allocations for Fiscal Year 2015, to not do a budget; however, this budget, this blueprint yet again allows us to share our vision for the future.

This budget reflects the discretionary caps which were agreed to in the Bipartisan Budget

Act. As a member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, I have seen the devastating cuts in end strength and capabilities we will face if we continue with sequester. And, instead of making discretionary cuts for the fifth year in a row, we have redoubled our efforts in entitlement programs to ensure they are available for all in the future.

I was disappointed to see that the President reversed himself in his budget submission, removing Chained CPI from his budget proposal. However, House Republicans are willing to work with the President where possible and find common ground that will move our debt trajectory downward, instead of increasing at an exponential rate.

Many have criticized this budget for ``moving the goalposts'' and now transitioning to a Premium Support model for those 56 and below; however, Madam Speaker, we have to face the facts. Every year that we do not act it becomes harder and harder to preserve the current programs for those already at or near retirement. This budget recognizes that hard reality and adjusts itself accordingly.

Finally, Madam Speaker, I want to say a little about wildfires suppression costs. When devastating wildfires do occur and the costs exceed the Forest Service's budget, most often, other programs within the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee bear the costs. And that is not right. I am disappointed that this budget fails to consider how we can better budget for the true costs of wildfire suppression activities. My friend from Idaho, Mr. Simpson, has a deficit-neutral bill that would deal with this issue. Much of what we have considered on the floor the past few days has aimed at ensuring the true costs of programs are reflected in the budget. That is what Mr. Simpson's bill does and I hope we can consider it in the coming weeks.

I hope this budget serves as a wake-up call that it is time to act. Here in Washington, we can become numbed to the problems facing our country. But they are real, and they must be addressed. This budget reflects the Republican vision for the future, one where we are in control of our destiny, as opposed to turning over control to our creditors.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment. If I did not know my friend from Virginia as well as I do, I would have thought I had detected a little sense of sarcasm in his remarks, but, frankly, I know that is not the case. I know it is a sincere proposal.

I must say, though, as chairman of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee of Appropriations, which has jurisdiction over the CBO, I am pretty familiar with its operations, its resources, and its capabilities, and the simple fact of the matter is that the amendment would create an unsustainable amount of work for the CBO for no benefit in new or additional information to the Congress of the United States. By arbitrarily picking $1 billion as the threshold for the analysis, this amendment would force CBO to conduct analyses on dozens of additional bills.

CBO Director Elmendorf wrote to Chairman Ryan yesterday to explain the limits of their capability and capacity. Let me quote from his letter:

The CBO would not be able to perform the analyses

envisioned by that set of amendments: We do not have the

analytical capabilities or the level of staffing that would

be needed to undertake and complete the tasks that would be

assigned to us, nor would the usual timetable for considering

legislation allow the time that would be required to complete

such analyses, even if we did not face those analytical and

staffing constraints.

The time that it would take the CBO to produce these additional estimates showing no discernible impact would delay Congress' legislative work at both the committee level and on the floor. The simple fact is, the amendment is unworkable and ill-conceived, and I urge its rejection.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by Chairman Hastings. This important amendment includes a provision protecting the hunting, fishing and related treaty rights of all federally recognized tribes with respect to the provisions of H.R. 3590.

Treaties are at the foundation of the government-to-government relationship between the United States and Indian tribes. Throughout the history of this country, tribal governments signed hundreds of treaties with the United States, often ceding significant portions of their homelands. Many of these treaties included provisions in which the United States made solemn promises to secure and protect the important hunting and fishing rights as well as other rights to sustain Indian people. As we pass laws that affect federal lands, it is important that we ensure the continued treaty rights of all federally recognized Indian tribes.

Rights emanating from treaties between Indian tribes and the United States apply to all federally recognized tribes, whether they were recognized by treaty, an act of Congress, administratively or through a court settlement. This amendment to H.R. 3590 would make it clear in the legislation that the treaty rights, including treaty hunting and fishing rights, and other rights of all federally recognized tribes are preserved and not affected by the other provisions of this legislation. I urge your support for this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great personal privilege and pleasure for me to come down here on behalf of 14,000 farmers and ranchers in my district and 75,000 farmers and ranchers in the State of Oklahoma, and goodness knows how many tens of thousands of people beyond that in various phases of agriculture and ag industry, and thank my good friend, Chairman Lucas, for what he has accomplished.

I think it is easy to be the critic; but I think all of us on this House floor know how long and how arduous this struggle has been to bring all the competing interests together, to bring both sides of the aisle together, to bring both Chambers together, and to bring the administration together in support of this legislation.

It is easy to see why you would support it if you actually step back and take a look at what it does. First, it does save $23 billion. Frankly, those cuts largely don't come out of the safety net programs, where actually there is simply relatively modest, but important reforms. They actually come out of the production end of this business. Changes need to be made there, but we ought to recognize those are tough changes in and of themselves.

Second, it preserves the capability of this country to continue to produce more food and fiber than anybody else in the world--not just for our people, but for all over the world--and to deliver that at a cheaper price than anybody else in the world. It is worth reflecting that Americans pay a lower percentage of their income for food than any other country in the world. Guess what? With the additional income, they are able to do other things, invest in other things, and go on.

Finally, I am particularly pleased that the safety net has been preserved and that important programs are in place. We ought to recognize that wouldn't have been possible without my friend Chairman Lucas, all he has done to bring us together and how hard he has worked.

This bill, frankly, deserves the support of every Democrat and every Republican on this floor. I urge my colleagues to be supportive when the time to vote comes.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 458 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Worcester, Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my colleague and 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

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

Madam Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for the consideration of H.R. 3547. The rule authorizes the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations to offer a motion that the House concur in the Senate amendment with the House amendment consisting of the text of the fiscal year 2014 omnibus appropriations bill.

The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations. Additionally, the rule conforms the title to the content of the bill by providing for the passage of an enrollment correction after the adoption of Chairman Rogers' motion.

Lastly, Madam Speaker, the rule provides floor management tools to be used during next week's recess.

Madam Speaker, I want to commend my good friends Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey for bringing to this House a bipartisan bill that brings to a close the fiscal year 2014 appropriations process while maintaining the Republican commitment to fiscal responsibility.

Since Republicans took control of the House, we have cut discretionary spending 4 years in a row--the first time since the Korean war. At the same time, this bill provides no new funding for the Affordable Care Act and also includes a pension fix for medically retired personnel and survivor benefit plan annuitants. While there is still work to be done to ensure that we honor the service of our veterans and military retirees, this is a good, bipartisan first step.

Madam Speaker, I know many of my friends here voted against the Ryan- Murray compromise budget, and they voted against the fiscal cliff deal of 2011. However, look at where these pieces of legislation have brought us. We have cut discretionary spending 4 years in a row, to a level $164 billion below the fiscal year 2008 level, the last year of the Bush Presidency. That is a feat to be commended. We have dealt with tax expenditures, in part, as a portion of the fiscal cliff deal. Yet, despite this progress, we still have not been able to close over $600 billion of our annual budget deficit.

Madam Speaker, discretionary spending has paid more than its fair share in dealing with our budget deficit. Entitlements such as Medicare and Medicaid spending and other mandatory programs must be reformed in order to put us on a path to a balanced budget.

With the passage of this omnibus, which releases us from the threat of a government shutdown, we are showing the American people that we actually are capable of working in a bipartisan manner. I hope in the future we can work to capitalize on our bipartisan success and bring America's bloated debt and deficit under control.

Madam Speaker, passing this rule and this omnibus spending bill is the responsible thing to do. It is the thoughtful thing to do. As opposed to lurching from crisis to crisis, this omnibus is carefully crafted over a period of many months. And it sets priorities, controls spending, and reasserts congressional authority over the appropriations process far more effectively than yet another continuing resolution ever could.

Many of our colleagues have not seen regular order in the appropriations process. And, sadly, until the Senate is able to pass bills for us to conference together, I think we will be forced into relying on omnibuses in the future. But this is not a continuing resolution. The Ryan-Murray agreement gives us a reasonable foundation for our work in fiscal year 2015.

With that, I urge support of the rule and the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I want to thank my friend for his support of what is a bipartisan bill, a bill for which the President of the United States also issued a statement of support. We appreciate that. I would suggest that we are actually doing what my friend quite often suggested we do--work in a bipartisan manner and arrive at a common solution.

I would add one thing to my friend's description of the 1990s. We ought to give a little bit of credit to the Republican majority who actually voted for those agreements--when most Democrats did not--that balanced the budget, and particularly Speaker Gingrich, because, with all due respect to President Clinton, he never once submitted a balanced budget.

With that, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), my good friend, a colleague from the Rules Committee and a classmate.

I yield my friend an additional 2 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a great Member from Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo), my friend and colleague.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

No, Madam Speaker, I do not.

No, Madam Speaker, I do not.

No, Madam Speaker, I do not.

No, Madam Speaker, I do not.

No, Madam Speaker, I do not.

No, Madam Speaker, I do not.

No, Madam Speaker, I do not.

No, Madam Speaker, I do not.

No, Madam Speaker, I do not.

No, Madam Speaker, I do not.

No, Madam Speaker, I do not.

No, Madam Speaker, I do not.

No, Madam Speaker, I do not.

No, Madam Speaker, I do not.

No, Madam Speaker, I do not.

No, Madam Speaker, I will not.

No, Madam Speaker, I do not.

No, Madam Speaker, I do not.

No, Madam Speaker, I do not.

My good friend from the other side of the aisle clearly hasn't dealt with a lot of Native Americans, where the answer is normally pretty much the same. So, Madam Speaker, I do not yield.

No, Madam Speaker, I do not.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend for giving me the opportunity to renew so many acquaintances with my good friends on the other side and make some new ones. So I appreciate that.

I want to reiterate my earlier announcement that all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only, and we are not yielding for any other purposes.

I would like to make the point that this legislation is genuinely bipartisan. The legislation that my friends have asked for consideration was not within the scope of consideration of this legislation. I have no doubt it is being dealt with in the Senate right now, but it is simply not appropriate, in my opinion, to bring it into this debate, particularly since we are under time constraints. Were we to fail to pass this rule and the underlying legislation in a timely fashion, we would risk a government shutdown, which I know my friends on the other side of the aisle want to avoid as much as we do.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to remind my good friend that this legislation is comparable, and this is actually under consideration in the United States Senate right now. Frankly, my friends on the other side of the aisle control the majority there.

I would also like to remind them that when the President first raised this issue about a week before the end of the year, the Speaker said, If you will help us find a way to pay for it, we will consider it. So far I don't recall that that offer has been taken up in any serious way by anybody.

The cost of this is extraordinary: $25 billion over a year; a temporary 3-month extension would cost between 7 and 8. We are trying to deal with what have been, really, deficits that have been extraordinary. This program has been extended for 5 years.

Again, we would love to continue our dialogue with our friends. We hope something productive happens in the United State Senate. For now I am going to keep the focus where it belongs. That is on this omnibus spending bill, which is a bipartisan accomplishment, which the President has urged that we pass, which I know many of my friends on the other side also favor.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I want to remind my friends--and I have no doubt about my friend's compassion, I genuinely do not. We have had the opportunity to serve together on the Rules Committee. I would argue the compassionate thing to do here would be actually to start creating jobs.

This recession ended in 2009. It has been a lot of years. We have 140 pieces of legislation stacked up in the United States Senate waiting for the Senate to act on that we think would generate jobs, everything from Keystone pipeline to enhanced energy production. There is a disagreement, but I think if the Senate would act proactively we would actually do what I know we both want to do and create jobs.

The other thing I would suggest, I have some sympathy with my friends on the other side of the rotunda in my party. They have not been allowed to present any of their ideas or any of their amendments on the floor. I think they would probably like to work with our friend in that regard, let's just see.

Again, I would suggest today we should concentrate on the thing that we know we can do in a bipartisan fashion: pass an omnibus spending bill that will prevent a government shutdown and will provide a firm foundation for our economy that both sides and the President of the United States have agreed is the right thing to do for the country.

You usually make progress one step at a time. It seems to me that is an important step and a step we ought to make today by passing the rule and the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I remind my friends on the other side of the aisle that supposedly we are in the 5th year of a recovery and that we have extended these extraordinary benefits for 5 years at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars.

Now, the Speaker has indicated that if our friends, either the administration, our friends on the other side of the aisle, or our friends in the Senate have an idea how to pay for this extension, he would give it due consideration. So far, it doesn't appear that such an idea has been forthcoming.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, could I inquire from my friend if he has any additional speakers.

In that case, I will reserve the balance of my time.

I thank my friend.

Madam Speaker, in a few moments, I will offer an amendment to the rule. The amendment is necessary due to a late request submitted by the administration to ensure that the fix for disabled military retirees works as it was intended. The amendment was fully vetted by the relevant House and Senate committees, majority and minority, and the administration. The

Congressional Budget Office has confirmed that the change does not affect the cost of the bill. This amendment will ensure that we properly execute the agreed-upon compromise.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, in closing, I would again like to thank my friends Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey for their efforts to bring an important product to this floor, a product which fulfills our constitutional responsibility of appropriating funds for the government for the fiscal year 2014.

While this is not the bill I would have drafted, or I am sure that my friend would have drafted, I believe it strikes an appropriate balance between key Republican and Democratic priorities, and I believe it will attract the majority of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle as well as the majority of my friends on my own side of the aisle.

I want to thank my friend in the sense that, while we have had a contentious debate, we are actually going to be, on the underlying legislation, voting together. That may have been gotten lost in the debate. I will be voting with the majority of his colleagues and at the urging of the President of the United States. So we ought to recognize that, while we have had some partisan differences here, the legislation itself was crafted in a bipartisan manner. It was brought to this floor. I would agree with my friend, I would have preferred 12 different bills and a lot more time, but we have a limited time frame here. It was brought in a cooperative manner. Both the ranking member and the chairman are urging its passage. It is something that we ought to take, frankly, some pride in and certainly congratulate those who had a hand in it.

I want to also point out to my friend on the unemployment issue, here we probably do disagree. But the Speaker has made it apparent, if there are appropriate pay-fors, he is willing to consider that. Without questioning my friends on the other side of the rotunda, so far they simply have not provided that. I think the Speaker's offer has been out since before the end of the year, since before the benefits ended.

It is also worth noting that this does not affect regular unemployment benefits. Those are still there for all Americans. This is a program which has been extended 5 years. We are now in a time when the recession is 4 years in the rearview mirror. Unemployment has been coming down. If it still needs to be extended for some people, we ought to find a way, in my view, to pay for it, and I think the Speaker has made it apparent that he would consider any serious proposal in that regard. So far, we haven't had that.

Sometimes, Madam Speaker, the smart vote and the easy vote are the wrong vote. I know some of my friends on the other side might decide to vote ``no'' on the underlying legislation. I never quibble with a rule vote. I respect that process because from their perspective there is a lot to criticize here. Certainly from my side of the aisle, there is a lot to criticize as well. We are going to have some ``no'' votes. But I think there is not much question that the right vote here is to vote for the underlying legislation, assuming that the rule is adopted, and I think it will be. I think it is the right thing for the country. I think it is the right thing for the process itself to actually get back to regular order, to consider the bills in the manner that I know my friend would like them to be considered in, and to have an open amendment process, which we do on appropriations legislation. This is an essential first step to doing that.

I think that Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey have probably done more in this legislation to restore the process and rebuild. They have given us a foundation for the next fiscal year that will allow us to do precisely the things that my friend would like to do and that I agree, in a normal process, ought to be done.

So I would obviously urge support for the rule, but more importantly, after the rule passes, assuming it does, the underlying legislation so that we can work together in a bipartisan fashion; we can make sure that we have no government shutdowns next year. I think that will do more to create jobs and economic certainty than probably any single thing we could do.

Our Appropriations Committee, working in a bipartisan fashion under the leadership of Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey, has done that. I would suggest that this probably is something that all of us should reflect upon, congratulate upon, and then try to spread throughout the institution. If we worked the way they worked in putting this bill together and bringing it to the floor on every other piece of legislation, I think the country would be well served; and, frankly, all of us would have a great deal to be proud of. With that, again, I urge the passage of the rule and the underlying legislation.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Cole

Madam Speaker, I offer an amendment to the resolution.

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