[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 151 (Thursday, December 11, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H9065-H9075]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 83, INSULAR
AREAS AND FREELY ASSOCIATED STATES ENERGY DEVELOPMENT; WAIVING
REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO CONSIDERATION
OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 776 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 776
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 83)
to require the Secretary of the Interior to assemble a team
of technical, policy, and financial experts to address the
energy needs of the insular areas of the United States and
the Freely Associated States through the development of
energy action plans aimed at promoting access to affordable,
reliable energy, including increasing use of indigenous
clean-energy resources, and for other purposes, with the
Senate amendment thereto, and to consider in the House,
without intervention of any point of order, a motion offered
by the chair of the Committee on Appropriations or his
designee that the House concur in the Senate amendment with
an amendment consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print
113-59 modified by the amendment printed in the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. The Senate
amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. The
motion shall be debatable for 80 minutes, with 60 minutes
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations and 20
minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the motion to its adoption without intervening
motion.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of the motion specified in the first
section of this resolution, House Concurrent Resolution 122
shall be considered as adopted.
Sec. 3. The chair of the Committee on Appropriations may
insert in the Congressional Record at any time during the
remainder of the second session of the 113th Congress such
material as he may deem explanatory of the Senate amendment
and the motion specified in the first section of this
resolution.
Sec. 4. The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a
two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on
Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived
with respect to any resolution reported through the
legislative day of December 12, 2014.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to my good friend,
[[Page H9066]]
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. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee met and reported
a rule for consideration for the fiscal year 2015 omnibus
appropriations bill. The resolution makes in order a motion offered by
the chair of the Committee on Appropriations that the House concur in
the Senate amendment of H.R. 83 with an amendment consisting of the
text of the FY 2015 omnibus appropriations bill.
The rule provides 80 minutes of debate, 60 minutes equally divided
and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on
Appropriations, and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking member of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce.
In addition, the rule provides the chair of the Committee on
Appropriations the authority to insert any explanatory information.
Finally, the rule provides same-day authority through December 12, as
is customary at the end of session.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to this House the culmination of
the Appropriations Committee's work for the fiscal year 2015. In this
legislation, 11 of the 13 appropriations bills are fully conferenced
and fully funded through the end of the fiscal year. However, the
Homeland Security bill is funded under a temporary continuing
resolution until February 27, 2015.
Mr. Speaker, I carried the initial rule for consideration of the
first two appropriations bills considered in the House back on April
30, 2014, and I believe the record of the House and the House
Appropriations Committee has been good. We considered 7 out of 12
appropriations bills on the floor under an open process, considered 11
of 12 appropriations bills in committee. Contrast that to the Senate,
which was unable to consider even a single appropriations bill on the
floor.
So I am proud, Mr. Speaker, of the work we have been able to
accomplish. The omnibus legislation abides by all the terms set in the
Ryan-Murray budget agreement, providing a top line funding level of
$1.013 trillion.
But at the same time, this legislation contains important policy
provisions that prevent the government from reaching into the lives of
ordinary American citizens, provisions like those which prevent the
Army Corps of Engineers from regulating farm ponds and irrigation
ditches, or provisions like those preventing the Federal Government
from regulating the lead content in ammunition or fishing tackle.
This bill maintains historic pro-life provisions and includes new
ones, like requiring ObamaCare plans to disclose whether they provide
abortion services, and countless others.
At the same time, this omnibus enacts important commonsense
priorities on the direction of this government. It cuts funding for the
IRS by over $345 million. Indeed, the IRS has been cut by more than
$1.2 billion since 2010. It prohibits the IRS from targeting groups for
scrutiny based on their political beliefs. It cuts EPA funding for the
fifth consecutive year, bringing staffing to the lowest level since
1989. It implements a government-wide prohibition on the painting of
portraits. It makes commonsense decisions, like prohibiting funding for
inappropriate videos or conferences that shouldn't be funded by
taxpayers in times of surplus, much less in times of deficit.
But this legislation doesn't just cut funding from programs. It takes
those cuts and reallocates them to programs that are truly in need. For
example, it provides $30 billion for the National Institutes of Health,
an increase over funding from FY14, enhancing funding for Alzheimer's,
cancer, and brain research.
It funds the Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Act, a bill I
authored with Gregg Harper and Eric Cantor, at $12.6 million, shifting
those dollars from funding political conventions to research into
pediatric diseases.
It increases the health care and educational funding to some of our
poorest and most needy constituents--Native Americans--and it provides
funding to deal with crises like those associated with the outbreak of
Ebola or the militant activity of ISIL, the Islamic State of Iraq and
the Levant.
I could go on and on with all the good things included in this bill;
however, I am sure others will speak to those items.
I believe it is important to take stock in where we have come over
the last 4 years. We have taken an annual budget deficit of $1.4
trillion and lowered it to $468 billion, still too high, but one of the
most rapid, if not the most rapid, declines of the deficit in American
history. We prevented additional burdens and regulations from being
foisted upon the American people.
Our work is certainly not done, however. One must always remember
appropriations and appropriating is a process. The bureaucratic welfare
state built by decades of Democratic control cannot be dismantled in a
single blow; however, it can be reduced piece by piece, and this
legislation does just that.
Some of my friends will raise objections to the process, where we are
left with a frustrating choice between the passage of a large omnibus
bill to fund all government or a government shutdown. To my friends, I
say that I agree with you, as do my fellow members of the
Appropriations Committee.
There are some things in this bill I disagree with and some,
certainly, that I agree with; but I do believe that, under regular
order, those with different points of views should be able to make
their case to the entire House.
The House has led by example in this regard. We considered seven
different appropriations bills on this floor in an open amendment
process, all of which were passed by bipartisan majorities. The House
would have considered even more appropriations bills had the Senate
been willing to consider even a single appropriations bill on the
floor. In fact, the last time the Senate passed an individual
appropriations bill was November 1, 2011, more than 3 years ago.
Madam Speaker, this isn't the way to govern. I hope that in the next
Congress the House will have a partner in the Senate, which is willing
to consider individual appropriations bills in an open process so that
we do not have to consider large omnibus packages without the
opportunity for amendment. I believe we will, and I believe we will end
up with a better product because of it.
I am encouraged by the work of my friend, Chairman Rogers, and
Ranking Member Nita Lowey, and I look forward to working with them and
a new Senate next year to build upon the work we have done this year.
Madam Speaker, I urge support for the rule and the underlying
legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I want to take just a moment to say I
know this will be the last time you will be presiding over the House,
and I want to thank you for your friendship over all these years.
Working together with you has been a pleasure.
I want to thank my friend from Oklahoma for yielding me the customary
time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me say about
him, he is someone I admire very greatly. But I don't admire this bill.
I have to rise to debate the rule for the final bill of the 113th
Congress, which is the most closed Congress in history. The House
majority has, over and over again, stifled debate, limited the ability
of Members of this body to participate in the legislative process, and
undermined the institution.
We have had 83 closed rules this term, the most in history, and this
bill follows suit and has been, again, brought to us under a closed
rule, which means that no Member will be able to offer an amendment;
and the $1.1 trillion spending bill to keep the Federal Government
funded will be rushed through the legislative process because the
deadline to keep the government open is 11:59 this evening.
By the same circumstance, I was doing a rule the night of the last
time the government shut down, still on the
[[Page H9067]]
floor at midnight and made the announcement that the great Government
of the United States of America was closed.
We don't, obviously, none of us, want to see that again, but we do
see dysfunction mirrored in the Rules Committee, because all of our
meetings are now only declared emergency. That means it has not gone to
any committee, has no public input, no hearing, no markups, and no time
to fully consider the legislation.
The bill has been brought to us under an onerous, blatantly political
process, and its contents are troubling as well. It seems to me that
with every passing hour, a new alarming provision comes to light.
Perhaps if the House majority had spent less time voting to undermine
the health care law, taking health care away from people, or
investigating a nonexistent scandal in Benghazi, we might have been
able to do a budget.
While this may have averted another dangerous government shutdown,
what we are doing now, this bill, is another example of the preferred
method of governance--manufactured crises. We are pushed and pulled
from the brink for their political games, and America suffers.
At 1,603 pages, this spending bill is a behemoth. It was submitted in
the dark of night at the last minute in hopes that we wouldn't find out
what is in it and serves as further proof that the majority has reneged
on their pledge of transparency.
{time} 1045
Speaker Boehner, himself, said in December of 2010, as reported by
the New York Times:
I do not believe that having 2,000-page bills on the House
floor serves anyone's best interest--not the House, not the
Members, and certainly not the American people.
He was referring, of course, to the fact that we would have 72 hours
to examine such legislation.
Madam Speaker, I submit for the Record the New York Times' article
from December 17, 2010, entitled: ``Republicans Prepare for Looming
Budget Battle''--even then.
[From the New York Times, Dec. 17, 2010]
Republicans Prepare for Looming Budget Battle
(By Carl Hulse)
Washington.--The collapse of a government-wide spending
package in the final days of this Congressional session sets
up a politically charged fiscal showdown early next year,
testing the determination of Republicans about to take over
the House with promises to slash an array of domestic
programs.
As Congress struggled to assemble a stopgap measure to
finance the government at least into the first months of
2011, House and Senate Republicans on Friday hailed their
ability to derail a $1.2 trillion spending measure put
forward by Senate Democrats, and promised to use their new
Congressional muscle to respond to public demands to shrink
government.
``Beginning in January, the House is going to become the
outpost in Washington for the American people and their
desire for a smaller, less costly and more accountable
government,'' said Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio,
the incoming House speaker.
``I will tell you,'' he added, ``we are going to cut
spending.''
With the lame-duck session entering its final days, there
was an air of partisan chaos on Capitol Hill as both parties
scored important legislative victories and events changed on
an almost hour-to-hour basis as the end of Democratic control
of the House approached.
Both President Obama and Congressional Republicans claimed
credit for the package of tax cuts and unemployment pay the
president signed into law Friday. Democrats also appeared
poised to repeal the ban on gay and lesbian troops serving
openly in the military, a long-sought goal of the party and
its progressive constituency.
The House advanced a major Pentagon policy measure that had
previously been tied up in the fight over the military's
``don't ask, don't tell'' policy. At the same time, a major
immigration measure championed by Democrats and the White
House seemed headed toward defeat as early as Saturday.
Republicans celebrated their blockade of the spending
package, which Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority
leader, had to abandon after Republicans denied him the
handful of votes from their side of the aisle that he was
counting on to break a filibuster.
Republicans said their determination to kill the omnibus
spending package even when top party lawmakers had inserted
pet spending projects demonstrated that they were heeding the
fervor of voters who were fed up with giant spending measures
slipping through Congress in the final hours.
``The defeat of the omnibus should reassure every American
that their voice is making a difference in Washington,'' said
Senator Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican and an outspoken
foe of increased federal spending.
But the collapse of the Senate measure, which like its
House counterpart would have financed government agencies
through the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30, means
Republicans could begin the new Congress with an immediate
need to resolve the spending stalemate.
With the Senate making slow progress toward a stopgap
measure, the House on Friday approved a plan to keep the
government open through Tuesday and the Senate later followed
suit to prevent a government shutdown after Saturday.
Aides said that behind closed doors, White House officials
and some Democratic lawmakers were still trying to strike a
deal to finance the government through September. But the
officials said it was much more likely that government
financing would be extended only into February or March.
Republicans say that timeline will allow them to quickly
put their stamp on the budget for the current fiscal year,
and Mr. Boehner and his leadership team have vowed to
eliminate about $100 billion in spending out of about $400
billion in domestic programs.
Both sides say reaching that goal will mean very difficult
choices and Democrats, promising to resist Republican
efforts, say Republicans may find it easier to talk about
cutting than actually doing it.
``They have been really good about talking about the need
to cut this and cut that, but they are never specific,'' said
Representative James P. McGovern, Democrat of Massachusetts.
``I think it is going to be tough.''
The 2011 spending fight could be complicated by the need to
raise the federal debt limit to avoid a federal default--a
vote that many new Republican lawmakers have indicated they
would not make.
Republicans say the debt limit vote could also present an
opportunity, allowing them to tie a package of spending
reductions to the debt increase to make it more palatable.
Another complicating factor is that since Democrats retain
control of the Senate, House Republicans must reconcile their
spending proposals with those crafted by the Senate
Appropriations Committee under the leadership of Senator
Daniel K. Inouye, Democrat of Hawaii. Senator Inouye is
unlikely to agree easily to Republican spending cuts,
creating a climate for gridlock as the two parties face off.
On Friday, Mr. Inouye chastised Congress for jettisoning
the spending package crafted by his committee, saying that
simply extending current funding levels left the government
on autopilot and could lead to disruptions. He said it also
left too much discretion for determining spending priorities
to the executive branch.
``And in two months we will find ourselves having to pass
another 2,000-page bill that will cost more than $1 trillion
or once again abdicate our authority to the Obama
administration to determine how our taxpayer funds should be
spent,'' he said.
Mr. Boehner has made changing the culture of the
Appropriations Committee a top interest of the new Republican
majority, pressing new leaders of the panel to turn it into a
center for budget cutting and stocking it with a few anti-
spending advocates.
On Friday, he indicated that he would prefer that
Republicans next year break up the enormous spending package
that died in the Senate and pass a dozen spending bills
individually to allow for better scrutiny--a process that
could consume considerable time and subject the measures to
multiple attacks on the floor.
``I do not believe that having 2,000-page bills on the
House floor serves anyone's best interests, not the House,
not for the members and certainly not for the American
people,'' Mr. Boehner said.
Aides to Mr. Boehner later said the speaker-designate was
referring to his desire to have an orderly appropriations
process later in 2011 and was not referring to the spending
package Republicans would have to quickly assemble in the
opening weeks of the new Congress.
Lawmakers on both sides were running out of energy and
patience as the session dragged on with no certain conclusion
in sight. Even House Democrats who would be turning over
control to Republicans seemed ready to call it quits.
``A lot of us just want to go home,'' said Representative
John B. Larson of Connecticut, chairman of the House
Democratic Caucus.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, this bill can cause grievous harm to
the Department of Homeland Security by funding it until only February
of next year, and it really does endanger the Nation's safety and
security because they are the people who provide border security and
the TSA. I have said this in the past--but it bears repeating--that
funding the government in tranches weakens, destabilizes, and
undermines our Nation.
The majority's insistence on punishing the President for his
executive order on immigration by toying with the funding for the
Department of Homeland Security, of all things, is troubling. This
maneuver will hinder how we train new officers, how we guard the
border, and it will endanger the Nation's airports; but the most
[[Page H9068]]
egregious provisions of this bill strike at the very soul of our
democracy.
A last-minute, nongermane addition would fundamentally change our
Republic. It gives away almost all power of the people to choose their
leaders and to participate in their government by cementing the status
of power donors. This provision changes campaign finance law to allow
megadonors to give 10 times the amount currently allowed to political
parties for housekeeping, and those of us in the political field know
what it means to have the housekeeping accounts: that means it can go
for absolutely anything. This change flies in the face of McCain-
Feingold, and it completes the mission of the Supreme Court with their
decision on Citizens United.
This tenet has been central to our democracy in that each person has
equal power to influence their government by their voice and their
vote. Not only has this Congress refused to reenact the Voting Rights
Act, but this added provision will hasten the toxic influence of money
and will further corrupt and unbalance our democracy.
Furthermore, the underlying bill includes a provision added only 2
days ago that would put our economy in danger and would roll back the
gains made since the Great Recession. This most egregious provision
would change the Dodd-Frank bill to give undue power back to the banks.
The provision puts the taxpayers on the hook for risky behaviors by
Wall Street banks, meaning, once again, that taxpayers will have to
bail out the banks if they fail. It was a basic tenet of Dodd-Frank's
that we would never do that again, and that will now be undone.
It has been only 5 years since the start of the Great Recession, and
the economy has made great strides in adding 10.9 million private
sector jobs in the last 57 months, but passing this bill would risk
erasing those strides by steering us on a dangerous path toward another
recession.
The former chair of the House Financial Services Committee, Barney
Frank, released a statement this week, calling this inserted provision:
``a substantive mistake, a terrible violation of the procedure that
should be followed on this complex and important subject, and a
frightening precedent that provides a roadmap for further attacks on
our protection against financial instability.''
He continues: ``Ironically, it was a similar unrelated rider put
without debate into a larger bill that played a major role in allowing
irresponsible, unregulated derivative transactions to contribute to the
crisis.''
He is referring to the crisis of 2008.
He is warning us. He is imploring us: Don't make the same mistake
twice. Our national economy cannot take this risk.
Madam Speaker, I would like to insert this article from The Wall
Street Journal from December 10, 2014, entitled: ``Barney Frank
Criticizes Planned Rollback of Namesake Financial Law,'' into the
Record.
[From the Wall Street Journal, Dec. 10, 2014]
Barney Frank Criticizes Planned Roll-Back of Namesake Financial Law
(By Andrew Ackerman)
Washington.--Retired House Democrat Barney Frank urged his
former colleagues to vote against a nearly $1.1 trillion
spending plan, saying it constitutes an attack on a Wall
Street regulatory overhaul he co-authored in response to the
financial crisis.
At issue is a provision included in the plan that would
rollback a controversial part of the 2010 Dodd-Frank law
requiring banks to ``push out'' some of their riskiest
derivatives-trading activities into affiliates that aren't
eligible for federal backstop programs. Mr. Frank is one of
two namesakes of the law along with former Sen. Christopher
Dodd (D., Conn.), who is also retired from Congress.
``The provision inserted into the appropriations bill is a
substantive mistake, a terrible violation of the procedure
that should be followed on this complex and important
subject, and a frightening precedent that provides a road map
for further attacks on our protection against financial
instability,'' the Massachusetts Democrat said in a statement
Wednesday.
The comments came hours after House and Senate lawmakers
unveiled the plan, which would keep the federal government
funded through September. The roll-back of the Dodd-Frank
provision was included as part of an agreement to provide
modest funding increases to the two agencies primarily
responsible for implementing and policing Dodd-Frank--the
Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission.
Sen. Sherrod Brown (D., Ohio) and other congressional
Democrats also warned against the move, saying it would
``open the door to future bailouts funded by American
taxpayers.''
``This provision, originally written by lobbyists, has no
place in a must-pass spending bill,'' he said in a statement.
Critics of the ``push out'' provision, including Federal
Reserve officials as well as some Democrat and Republican
lawmakers, say it doesn't strengthen the financial system and
only moves potentially destabilizing activities to a
different bank subsidiary. The provision could also increase
costs for bank customers that use the derivatives.
Derivatives, which played a central role in the crisis, are
used by firms to hedge or speculate on everything from moves
in interest rates to the cost of fuel.
Mr. Frank said reasonable people can disagree on how to
regulate derivatives. But he criticized the plan to change
regulations through ``a non-germane amendment inserted with
no hearings, no chance for further modification and no chance
for debate into a mammoth bill in the last days of a lame-
duck Congress.''
``Ironically it was a similar unrelated rider put without
debate into a larger bill that played a major role in
allowing irresponsible, unregulated derivative transactions
to contribute to the crisis,'' Mr. Frank said, referring to
2000 Commodity Futures Modernization Act that essentially
barred the regulation of derivatives and was signed into law
as part of a larger appropriations bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, for these reasons and several others,
Democrats should not support this bill, and I urge my colleagues to
vote ``no'' against the rule.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from the State of Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler), my
friend and distinguished colleague, for the purpose of a colloquy with
the majority leader.
Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Madam Speaker, for over 100 years, the Federal
Government has made a promise to our rural schools and counties to
actively manage our forests. However, due to Federal regulations and
litigation, forest management has been dramatically reduced, and our
communities have suffered--thousands of people have lost jobs; counties
lack the resources to pay for basic services whether it is school or
fire or police; and our forest has become increasingly susceptible to
forest fires, disease, and devastation. This situation is a crisis, and
we in Congress must address it.
Mr. STEWART. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
Mr. STEWART. Madam Speaker, as my colleague from Washington has so
ably noted, in areas where large tracts of land are part of the
National Forest System, local school districts have relied in the past
on timber harvesting receipts, shared with local governments, as an
important source of revenue to support their school systems. This is a
problem that was created by activists here in Washington, D.C.
When Federal policies dramatically reduced logging receipts from our
national forests, those schools were hit very hard. That is why we
created the Secure Rural Schools program. This is real. It affects real
people. It affects real families. It has affected many people in my own
State.
So I would like to ask my colleague: Are your local schools feeling
the effects of a situation like mine?
Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Oh, yes. I have heard from many of my local
districts already, and layoff notices are being prepared because of the
uncertainty and the status of the funding of Secure Rural Schools.
Congress must make getting this legislation through both Houses and
signed into law by the President a priority in the next year.
I would, actually, like to ask the gentleman from California (Mr.
McCarthy), the majority leader, if he can give me any assurances that
extending the Secure Rural Schools program will be one of his
priorities early in the next Congress.
I yield to the leader.
Mr. McCARTHY of California. I thank my colleagues for yielding, and I
share their concern on this important matter. I want to ensure my
colleagues that enacting an extension of the Secure Rural Schools
program is going to be an early priority for next year.
Madam Speaker, as the gentlewoman knows, in September of last year,
the House passed H.R. 1526, the Restoring Healthy Forests for Healthy
Communities Act, which would have allowed us to better manage our
Federal forests for the benefit of our rural schools and
[[Page H9069]]
counties. Unfortunately, the Senate was unable to act on this bill or
to find a way forward on this important issue.
I believe, in the next Congress, we should find a path forward to get
this important matter across the finish line, and I will work with our
colleagues and with incoming Chairman Bishop to make sure that this
happens. We need to get this done, and we need to get it done early
next year.
Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. I thank the leader for his comments and
assurances.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a valued member of the
Committee on Rules.
Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentlewoman.
Madam Speaker, I oppose this closed rule, and I oppose the underlying
bill, which is the product of a closed and deeply flawed process.
It contains policy riders that will do great damage to this country
and that have no business whatsoever being in an omnibus spending bill.
It contains an airdropped earmark for politicians that would allow
wealthy couples to give as much as $3.1 million to political parties--
three times as much as the current level. No hearings, no markup, no
discussion--just snuck into the bill with the hope that no one would
notice. We ought to be finding ways, Madam Speaker, to get money out of
politics, not the reverse.
The bill would repeal, at the request of Wall Street special
interests and lobbyists, important Dodd-Frank provisions. It would
allow banks to engage in the same risky behavior that caused the
financial crisis of 2008.
What in the world are my Republican colleagues thinking? I know they
want to do a lot of favors for their pals on Wall Street, but, please,
please, do not do it at the expense of our economy.
The bill contains a provision that the trucking industry wants to
allow truck drivers to work up to 80 hours a week when we know that
over-tired truck drivers put all of us at risk on the roads.
Unbelievable.
Finally, the bill funds new wars that Congress has not authorized. We
are dropping bombs every day in Iraq and Syria. We have 3,000 troops
deployed in Iraq, and we hear more and more talk about having those
troops engage in direct combat.
Yet, this Republican leadership has been content to do nothing. In
fact, the majority has repeatedly and routinely denied Members the
right to debate the issue of war on the floor of the House of
Representatives. None of us will be asked to fight another pointless
war, Madam Speaker--they are not our lives on the line--but we have a
constitutional responsibility to debate and vote on whether to
authorize it. But no. Instead, we are leaving town. Instead, we are
ducking a vote. We are not doing our jobs. It is shameful and it is
inexcusable, and it is a lousy way to end this session.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I just want to make a couple of points in response to my friend.
First of all, there is much of what my friend has to say that I agree
with. This is not the preferred process of the Appropriations Committee
on either side of the aisle in this Chamber. Indeed, we tried to
bring--and did bring--bill after bill after bill to this floor to avoid
this very end.
The responsibility here lies with the leadership of the United States
Senate, which did not bring a single appropriations bill to the floor.
When they won't pick up and pass a bill, we can't go to conference, and
we are left to fund the government in the very final days.
Now, I don't think my friend meant to suggest this, but the idea that
only Republicans were involved in drafting this is just simply not the
case. This bill has to go through a Democratic Senate and go to a
Democratic President. It cannot pass the Senate without Democratic
support or even be taken up. It cannot go into law without the
President's signing it into law.
The reality is that the Democratic Senate and the administration have
been involved in these negotiations at every level, over and over.
Indeed, my friends have been involved in this as well in their capacity
as ranking members on the Appropriations Committee or in the leadership
capacity. This bill, of which I do not particularly like the process,
is, indeed, bicameral and bipartisan in its substance.
Again, I think my friend makes an excellent point in that this isn't
the way to run the railroad, and we ought to work together; but I also
will remind my friends that the last time they were in the majority
they brought exactly two appropriations bills to the floor under closed
rules. They never brought an appropriations bill here in their final
year under an open process. We have done that seven times. We would
have done it all 12 times, but we finally determined the United States
Senate, under Democratic control, was never going to bring up an
appropriations bill, at which point: Why waste the floor time, and why
ask your Members to do the hard work and cast the votes?
That is something that shouldn't happen again. I pledge to work with
my friend, who I know does not want to see that happen again, to make
sure that we fulfill our part of the process on this side of the House;
and I think the new Senate will very likely do the same thing. I am
hoping our colleague who is leaving this Chamber and heading there will
help us in that. She has been a wise and able Member here, and I am
sure she will be equally distinguished in the United States Senate.
We look forward to improving the process--my friend is right about
that--but the absence of passing this bill will shut down the
government. I don't think that is something that either they or our
friends in the Senate or in the administration want to do.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Capito). Without objection, the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) will control the time.
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Just to respond to my colleague, I should remind my colleagues here
that there were five appropriations bills that never saw the light of
day here on the House floor. Of the ones that we did deal with, none of
them included the rollback of Dodd-Frank provisions or the rollback of
campaign finance reform. We can blame the United States Senate all we
want, but they have nothing to do with whether or not we bring up a
resolution to authorize another war in Iraq or not.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Waters), the distinguished ranking member of the Financial
Services Committee.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Chair, I have come to the floor today to stop
Republican efforts to give Wall Street banks a multibillion dollar gift
this Christmas.
Under the cover of must-pass legislation, big bank lobbyists are
hoping that Congress will allow Wall Street to once again gamble with
taxpayer money by reversing a provision that prohibits banks from using
taxpayer-insured funds--bank deposits--to engage in risky derivatives
trading activity.
In fact, The New York Times reported that Citigroup, a bank that
stands to directly benefit to the tune of billions of dollars, authored
this provision. Big banks want to use their cheap funds provided by the
taxpayer backstop to undercut their competition in a ``heads I win,
tails the taxpayer loses'' scenario.
{time} 1100
We know why Republicans want it. The spending bill also quietly
allows individuals such as the big banks to contribute millions more to
their own reelections. This provision must be stopped. Enough is
enough.
This puts taxpayers at risk. This puts consumers at risk. This
provision directly weakens a provision intended to prevent future
bailouts of Wall Street. The Obama administration said this provision
could be disruptive and harmful. Former FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair said
the provision takes reform in the wrong direction.
It is also strongly opposed by consumer, labor, and civil rights
groups, and former chairman Barney Frank, who puts the Frank in Dodd-
Frank, called it a frightening precedent. So I agree, and I am urging a
``no'' vote.
I just heard the gentleman say this is bipartisan and this is
bicameral. It is neither. As a matter of fact, Democrats are not going
to join in putting this bill out.
[[Page H9070]]
We understand that our constituents, our workers, our people out
there, our consumers know that we bailed out the big banks, and they
know that we would be putting them at risk one more time to bail them
out if we allowed them to do this risky derivatives trading.
Dodd-Frank said you need to push out your trading activities and put
them in affiliates or subsidiaries. Don't try and use the people's
backstop, FDIC protection, to do this risky trading with.
If you think the American public is going to stand for a bailout of
the biggest banks in America one more time, you are wrong. This bill is
going nowhere because we have enough people, I believe, that are going
to stand up and fight on this issue and other issues in the bill.
As the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, I am just
focusing on this one bad part of the bill because it is so outrageous.
I ask for a ``no'' vote on the rule, I ask for a ``no'' vote on the
bill.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am going to disagree with my friend from California. This bill is
bipartisan and bicameral. It was negotiated with the Democratic Senate,
and both sides approved it before it was ever submitted to the Rules
Committee for consideration.
It has been alleged that the swaps push-out language contained in the
omni was snuck into the bill, that it allows for risky trading and puts
taxpayer funds at risk. None of this, in my view, is true. The language
included in this omnibus is identical to H.R. 992, which passed the
House with broad bipartisan support by a vote of 292-122.
The language was added to the Financial Services appropriations bill
as a full committee amendment. After a public debate on the language,
it was adopted by voice vote. When the Financial Services
appropriations bill was considered by the full House for 3 days under
an open rule, where 51 amendments were considered, there were no
amendments offered on the swaps push-out language.
The omni provides a commonsense fix for section 716 of the Dodd-
Frank. Risky swaps like those that brought down AIG are still required
to be pushed out. The omni allows low-risk trades to continue to be
conducted by depository institutions, which are regulated by banking
supervisors. Without this fix, farmers and manufacturers will
experience increased costs and regulatory burdens without making our
financial system any more stable.
Former Fed Chairmen Ben Bernanke and Paul Volcker and former FDIC
Chair Sheila Bair have all expressed a need to fix section 716 of Dodd-
Frank. CBO has scored this language as having no impact on the
taxpayers. So we obviously see this differently than our friends on the
other side.
With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentlewoman from New
York (Ms. Slaughter) will control the time.
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the distinguished ranking member of the
Committee on Homeland Security.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the time
yielded by the gentlelady from New York.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my strong opposition to H.R.
83, the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2015.
Just over a year ago I stood here urging the Republican majority to
allow us to vote on the legislation to reopen the government during a
16-day shutdown. At that time the majority's gimmick was called a
minibus, essentially cherry-picked programs within Federal agencies to
be funded one by one.
Today I am troubled to have to rise yet again to oppose another
gimmicky bill that provides piecemeal funding and undermines national
security. Once again, the Republican House leadership has laid before
us a package that, by design, seems to promote partisan division and
appeal to a faction of its party that is blindly determined to punish
the Department of Homeland Security for its grievances against the
President.
When we returned from Thanksgiving last week, House appropriators
were hopeful that we could consider and pass a full omnibus bill.
Unfortunately, today we are forced to vote on legislation that provides
full-year funding for all Federal agencies except the Department of
Homeland Security. In previous Congresses, such an approach would be
considered absurd.
It is important that we appreciate the consequences of a short-term
continuing resolution for DHS. Contracting for the final national
security cutter will be delayed, potentially driving up the cost.
Border security technology upgrades along the Rio Grande Valley will
not happen as scheduled. This approach not only punishes Secretary
Johnson and DHS headquarters, it undermines homeland security.
Madam Speaker, clearly the insertion of the financing for political
parties undermines McCain-Feingold, and for that and other reasons I
oppose the rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I just want to make this point again. I agree with some of the points
my good friend from Mississippi makes, but this could be avoided if the
United States Senate had simply picked up appropriations bills and
passed them.
This could have been long done. We could have come to an agreement
many months ago. We tried on seven different occasions and did bring
bills across this floor. They were under open amendment, something my
friends did not do their last year in the majority, and we had multiple
opportunities.
But at some point when the other body isn't moving and tells you it
is not going to take up an appropriations bill, you just quit hitting
your head against the wall and say, ``Well, I guess we are going to
have to deal with this with a big omnibus at the end of the year.''
If my friends wanted a different process--and I am sure they did--
they should have been talking to their colleagues in the United States
Senate. That is why we are here, not because we wouldn't bring bills
across but because the Senate wouldn't.
At some point, if one-half of the Congress won't work, the other half
can't get its work done. That is just the process and the way it works.
We are hoping the new Senate under new management will do something.
We all know in this Chamber the only reason why they did that was
because they wanted to avoid tough votes. Quite frankly, that is the
reason why my friends wouldn't allow an open amendment process the last
time they were in the majority. It didn't work well for them in 2010;
it didn't work well for their Democratic colleagues this time around in
2014.
I think the lesson both of us ought to draw from this is, let's do
regular order. It actually is in the best interests of the country, the
best interests of the institution. It is even in the best political
interests of the two parties. Just let us go do our work.
But we can't now shut down the government because the Senate refused
to do the process any other way but do it here. And, again, with all
due respect to my friend's concerns on a variety of issues, some of
which I share, quite frankly, there are even some parts of this bill
that I like that I don't like to see passed this way. I don't think it
is appropriate to be passed this way.
At the end of the day you have got to keep the government
functioning. This is the last vehicle to do that.
To suggest, again, it wasn't bicameral or bipartisan--it has been. As
my friends know, this has been negotiated at the top levels of
leadership and on the Appropriations Committee between Democrats and
Republicans in the House and the Senate.
There are some flaws in this process. There are certainly some things
I don't like in this bill, but I recognize it is a gigantic compromise
and one designed to allow government to continue to function, and it
hasn't been the House of Representatives, either Democrat or
Republican, that has gotten us to this point. This is the Democratic
leadership in the Senate that has gotten us to this point.
But at the end of the day, everybody here will have a vote, both on
the rule and on the bill, and the same thing will be true in the United
States Senate. The President has a signature at his end of Pennsylvania
Avenue, and if this process doesn't work or my friends
[[Page H9071]]
want to bring it down, that is up to them. We would prefer not to close
the government, to continue to function.
With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).
Ms. EDWARDS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from New York.
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule that is providing for
consideration of this so-called omnibus bill. Among the many
troublesome eleventh-hour additions to the underlying 1,600-page
spending bill is a provision that not only allows for another
multibillion dollar bank bailout and for taxpayers to be on the hook
for that, but it gives the keys to the bank to the moneyed special
interests by allowing up to $800,000 to be contributed by one person to
the Democratic and Republican Party committees.
Now, most Americans think there is already too much money in
politics, but, oh, no, not House Republicans. They are just saying open
up the spigots to the special interests.
Instead of passing a clean bill that funds the Federal Government and
avoids another harmful shutdown, this Congress, these Republicans have
chosen to bring the American people a bill that would allow for the
negative opinions that they already hold of this Congress to go even
further, to say the richer you are, the more access you have, the more
influence that you have.
Madam Speaker, this provision has no business in a spending bill, no
business in our democracy, and we can't allow the megaphones of moneyed
special interests to take hold of our government.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule. There are a lot of
reasons to oppose it, and I am just naming one. But let's not bail out
the banks again, and let's not give them the keys to the bank in our
pocket and let the special interests take control of this Congress.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Two quick points. As I think I pointed out earlier in the course of
this debate, the language dealing with swaps was actually considered by
this House in two separate pieces of language. One of those bills
passed this House with a bipartisan majority. The other was the
Financial Services bill, where there was no objection, no amendment,
and no complaint.
Now we find at the very last minute concern and objections that were
never raised earlier in the process when there were multiple
opportunities to do that.
With respect to my friend's point about the political contribution
issue, that is something I know a little bit about. I used to be chief
of staff of the Republican National Committee. I was the executive
director of the NRCC, our campaign committee, earlier in my life.
I have watched McCain-Feingold over the years, and I have seen that,
frankly, it has been a failed piece of legislation. I agree with my
friend's point this is not the way to do it. I would have much
preferred to debate in an open process, but the idea there is not big
money in politics I think is an idea that is very much out of date.
There is lots of big money in politics.
We have diminished the importance of individual candidate campaigns
and the party organizations, while we have enhanced them partly through
a Supreme Court ruling. So there is plenty of extra money out there,
and it pours into races. To marginalize the political parties, which
are actually the most accountable, most transparent, and most
responsible participants in the process, is something that we ought to
rethink.
Frankly, to put candidates individually at the mercy of megadonors on
each side--by the way, my friends are as much at risk of this as my
colleagues on this side of the aisle--is something we need to think
about. Again, I suspect that is what happened here.
I wouldn't suggest this was a Republican idea. I don't know, frankly,
if it was a Republican or Democratic idea. I know Democrats in the
Senate consented to it and I suspect participated in it. So let's not
have a lot of show that we don't like this or that and somehow this was
a Republican measure. In many cases it wasn't, or it was a negotiated
compromise.
In this case, again, there will be ample opportunity to deal with
this both later when we vote on the final product and eventually when
the Senate takes it up. But, again, if the Senate would just do its
job, we wouldn't be here in this process. We wouldn't have these
opportunities for people to short-circuit the normal legislative
procedures that I know my friends agree with, and I certainly agree
with.
With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1115
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democrat whip.
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I
thank her for her leadership on the Rules Committee. I thank Mr. Cole
for his remarks.
Madam Speaker, I want to rise and support Mr. Cole. This is not the
way to do it. It is what he said. The good news is we have time to not
do it this way. We have time to return to the Rules Committee, pass out
a rule which strikes these two provisions and pass the bill. In my
opinion, if that is done, then an overwhelming number of Democrats will
vote to support the bill. It will go to the Senate, and I predict
without any doubt that the Senate will pass that bill.
It is clear that there is disagreement on both sides of the aisle
about this bill, but it is also clear there could be a significant
bipartisan majority to do what is a basic responsibility of this
Congress to do, and that is fund government.
Now, very frankly, neither side did its job. We did seven-twelfths of
our job, and the Senate did zero-twelfths of their job, and we can
point fingers at one another which would not be very useful. What would
be useful is if we give to the American people and to our economy the
confidence that we can act together in a bipartisan way to pass
legislation. I tell my friend, Mr. Cole, for whom I have great respect,
Madam Speaker, that we can do that.
The two provisions which he has heard discussed are of great concern
to my side of the aisle, there are things of great concern to his side
of the aisle, and in the next 2 years, we are going to have to work
together to try to accommodate, in hopefully a bipartisan fashion,
having the majority in this body do reasonable things.
The gentleman is a member of the Appropriations Committee. I had the
honor of serving on the Appropriations Committee for 23 years before I
became the leader. The fact is that that committee has a responsibility
that must be accomplished, and that is fund government enterprises,
fund the dollars that we, through programs that this Congress and
previous Congresses have adopted, fund those objectives we think are
important for this country.
I would urge my friend, Mr. Cole, who I think is a very responsible
Member of this body, to urge his side because we have agreement we
think on 99.9 percent of this. These two provisions are very small
provisions, but I will tell my friend they put this bill at risk.
I would urge him, therefore, to urge his side to strike these two
provisions, and I will tell him in return that I am confident that the
overwhelming majority of my side of the aisle will join with I think
the overwhelming majority of his side of the aisle and pass this
legislation which is so important.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend for his very generous and
kind words and remarks. There is nobody seriously I enjoy listening to
more on this floor. I very much appreciate his generous offer which I
know he has made to people far above my pay grade on my side of the
aisle to work together and find common ground not only here in the
closing days of the session, but next year as well.
I appreciate the fact that he is willing to accept over 99 percent of
this bill, and I agree with his political assessment. I think we could
muster strong bipartisan majorities to pass that.
The issues he raised I suspect are being considered and are a little
above my pay grade to comment on, so I am not going to do that, but I
do want to tell my friend how much I respect him and how much I
appreciate his contribution each and every day to how
[[Page H9072]]
this House operates. I think we would have been in a much better place
here as Democrats and Republicans had the Senate done a better job of
doing its job.
Madam Speaker, I will disagree with my friend a little bit or maybe
express a different opinion on saying we did seven-twelfths of our job.
My friend has been a distinguished majority leader in this institution,
and I think he is a master at the legislative process and knows
probably better than most how difficult it is to function on one side
of the rotunda of this Capitol Building when they are not functioning
on the other.
You do reach a point after you have put seven bills on the floor and
the other body has made it obvious that they are not going to put a
single appropriations measure on the floor, your own side begins to
wonder: Why are we doing this? Why are we going through this process?
Now, we did go ahead and move through full committee 11 of the 12
bills which were again done in a bipartisan fashion with consultation
with our friends on the Democratic side. You do reach a point where you
say: Why are we wasting the floor time? Why are we exposing our
Members?
I am hopeful when our friend in the chair arrives at the other side
that we are going to have partners that work with us on both sides of
the aisle and engage in that normal process that I know my friend is
not only a master at, but a defender and advocate for.
Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COLE. Well, I have very little time and actually less time than
my friend has, so I would prefer you to use your own time. If they are
not willing to give you any time, then perhaps I will reconsider that.
With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 20 seconds to the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I was simply going to observe to my friend
from Oklahoma that that puts an awfully heavy burden on the presiding
officer.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
Mr. KILDEE. I thank the gentlewoman.
Madam Speaker, I share the concern expressed by my friend, Mr. Cole,
that if we don't act today, government will be shut down, so I agree
that we need to act. The question that we have to ask ourselves in this
body is: At what price do we keep government open?
There is a lot of good in this legislation, no question about it, but
for me--and I have supported bipartisan efforts to keep government open
in the past, I have only been here 2 years, and I had to do it
already--but the notion that a price has to be paid in order to keep
government open--and that price is to grant greater power to the
wealthiest Americans to have more influence over our political
process--is just too much for me to take.
Of all the problems that we could use this moment to try to solve,
are we offering help to the unemployed who lost their benefits as a
part of this package? No. Are we dealing with the massive problems we
have with infrastructure? No. Are we trying to balance the playing
field for people who happen to be born in a ZIP Code full of poverty?
No.
But what we are doing as a condition of keeping government open is
deciding that the one thing we have to do is to make sure that the
wealthiest Americans can now spend 10 times more money on the political
process than they did last year. Seriously? This is a problem that we
have to solve in order to keep government open?
I just can't imagine that this is the price we have to pay.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Michigan because he is
an exceptionally responsible Member in this body and an heir of a proud
tradition in his family and somebody I enjoy working with and I think
someone that makes a genuine contribution each and every day he has
been here.
In terms of the bill itself, there is certainly nothing inappropriate
about my friends on the other side of the aisle focusing on things they
don't like, but there are some things we ought to think about that we
do like. There are billions of dollars in here to fight Ebola,
something that we sat down and worked with the administration and our
friends on the other side and came to a common agreement.
We have disagreement sometimes and a difference of perspective. I am
actually closer to Mr. McGovern on this, at least in terms of process,
than I am to the administration.
Look, ISIL is a clear and present danger to the United States of
America. The President has asked for things in here; we have put the
things he asked for in here and tried to work with him on that.
I don't think anybody in this Chamber thinks that the work done at
the National Institutes of Health isn't exceptionally important. There
is more money in here for that particular agency in a more difficult
budgetary environment than we had last year.
I know how very much my friend and his family have always been
concerned with Native Americans. Nobody did more than your uncle, our
beloved colleague, Mr. Kildee, Dale Kildee, in that area, and there is
substantially more money in here than the administration requested for
Indian health and for school construction on Indian reservations.
There are certainly some things in here that I share some of the
concerns that my friends have, both from a process standpoint and an
outcome standpoint, but I think you have to make a balance. I think you
have to look at the overall bill. I think you have to look at the
consequences of not passing the bill and the rule.
I think you also have to remember that this is a negotiated agreement
with a Democratic Senate. I don't think we should have gotten to this
point, and had they done their job in the appropriations process, we
would not be at this point; but whenever either body doesn't do their
job, you always get down to the end, and this is exactly the sort of
thing that you end up with.
I don't know how we can avoid that in the next 24 hours, but I do
know this: I hope we all from both sides of the aisle recommit
ourselves to avoid being here next year. I don't blame my friends on
the Democratic side for getting us here. I don't think they had
anything to do with it.
They worked with us in the appropriations process in very good faith
with Mrs. Lowey. That is why we brought bills to the floor. That didn't
happen in the Senate, and that is what has gotten us here. I think we
should reserve our fire for the other Chamber, one thing that tends to
unite us instead of divide us because that is where the problem has
been.
Madam Speaker, again, under new management next year, I hope we won't
see this problem.
With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).
Mr. SARBANES. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the underlying
bill. There are two provisions in this bill that are deeply offensive
to the American people and their sense of fairness.
Over here, you have a provision that would backstop with taxpayer
money increased risky activity on the part of Wall Street. This would
allow them to go out, make more money with less risk, and then if they
run into a problem, the taxpayers of this country would be asked to
come in and bail them out. So you have that provision for Wall Street.
Over here, you have a provision that would allow Wall Street, the
wealthy, and the well-connected to pour 10 times more money into the
political apparatus up here on Capitol Hill and buy influence. Over
here, you have got a Wall Street giveaway, and over here, you have an
opportunity for Wall Street to put more money into the political
process.
These two provisions bumped into each other somewhere in the middle
of the night in the corridors of Capitol Hill up here. They bumped into
each other. Maybe they were introduced, and one said, ``I will be the
quid,'' and the other one said, ``I will be the quo.''
Madam Speaker, I don't know which is which, but I know this is a quid
pro quo, and it is the kind of quid pro quo
[[Page H9073]]
that is corrupting the machinery of our government and is offensive to
the American people. We need to get rid of the quid, we need to
eliminate the quo from this bill, and we need to bring it back in a way
that we can actually support it. That is what we need to do for the
American people.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Kingston), my good friend, our distinguished parting
Member and the chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services,
Education, and Related Agencies Subcommittee of our Appropriations
Committee.
Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished incoming chair
of the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related
Agencies Subcommittee for the time.
Madam Speaker, I just want to say I do support this rule. I will
revise and extend my remarks for the Record later on, but as someone
who worked very long on appropriations bills, the problem has been
historically that the Senate has blocked the passage of most of their
bills.
This year, they did not pass a single one. This year, we passed seven
before we had to shut down. None of us on appropriations want an
omnibus bill. We all prefer individual, one-by-one bills, but in the
absence of that, this is the aggregate of those bills added together,
and I do support the rule.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch).
{time} 1130
Mr. DEUTCH. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend, and I rise in
opposition to the rule and in opposition to the underlying legislation.
Last night in the Rules Committee, I offered an amendment to strike a
measure from page 1,599 of this 1,603-page spending bill that would
have this Congress march hand in hand with the Supreme Court's Citizens
United and McCutchen to allow America's wealthiest donors to give $5
million every election cycle to candidates, political parties, and
their committees. We had no debate about this. The people's House did
not vote to undermine campaign finances, and that this 1,600-page bill
already cuts Pell grants and undermines Wall Street reform proves that
wealthy donors hold enough sway in Washington.
A vote for this bill is a vote for the continued dismantlement of a
broken campaign finance system. It is a vote to continue shutting out
the voices of everyday Americans in our political process. Our
constituents want us to fight money in politics. They do not want us to
be complicit in putting our democracy up for sale.
Madam Speaker, in Washington for the special interests, they view
every day as Christmas. Let's give the American people a present this
holiday season: respect for our democracy and a place for them in it.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a member of the
Appropriations Committee.
Ms. LEE of California. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlelady
for yielding and for her tremendous hard work and support.
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and this bill for
many reasons, even though the bill contains many provisions I support,
such as Ebola funding; a critical $5.67 billion for the President's
emergency plan for AIDS relief; PEPFAR, which I helped write, and the
Global Fund; programs I have worked on for many years and have
supported.
But it also includes provisions I cannot support, such as an
additional $3.4 billion to fund an unauthorized war against ISIS in
Iraq. More than 3 months after this war began, this is 3 months later,
Congress has yet to have the constitutionally required mandated debate
and vote on an Authorization for the Use of Military Force. We are now
involved in another open-ended war in the Middle East without
congressional authority.
This omnibus also includes $73.7 billion for the overseas contingency
operations fund which, quite frankly, is a slush fund.
Congress must get serious about transparency and oversight of our
Nation's bloated Pentagon spending, and we can do that by auditing the
Pentagon, an initiative that has bipartisan support. At the same time
that this bill provides billions in war funding, my Republican
colleagues included a section that will roll back key provisions of the
Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform bill, putting taxpayers on the hook for
Wall Street gambling.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and a ``no'' vote on the bill.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend for all of her hard
work on this bill.
District of Columbia voters passed the most restrictive marijuana
legalization law in the country, Initiative 71, allowing possession of
small amounts of marijuana for personal use only. Four States have
legalized marijuana. The city was motivated by two independent studies
revealing shameful racial disparities, disparities that are endemic, by
the way, in the rest of the country as well in marijuana possession
arrests. Ninety percent of marijuana arrests here are of African
Americans, though Blacks and Whites use marijuana at the same rate in a
city that is 50-50 Black and White.
Do not expect residents to tolerate unequal treatment of the District
of Columbia, a jurisdiction of Federal tax-paying Americans, and, on
top of that, discrimination against African Americans who live here.
I am trying to find a way around the antidemocratic language in the
bill that bullies the District of Columbia. Congress must find its way
out of the local affairs of the residents of the District, who pay the
highest Federal taxes per capita in the United States, while the Member
who represents them must stand by and watch every Member of this House
vote on a matter affecting her district, except the Member who
represents the District of Columbia.
Mr. COLE. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
Mr. WELCH. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady.
One of the big challenges that this institution faces is to restore
its credibility with the American people. This process that we have
gone through, where, at the end of the negotiations between our House
and Senate negotiators, two provisions of great significance were
inserted into the bill--one that would provide relief from Dodd-Frank
provisions to Wall Street banks, the other which would allow
individuals to increase donations to $2.5 million per cycle--had no
hearings. They had no debate. No one has had any input on what the
implications are of these actions that are very significant when it
comes to campaign finance and when it comes to the integrity of Dodd-
Frank.
We must legislate in the light of day and not use a piece of
legislation that is of vital concern to the American people to attach
provisions that have nothing to do with that particular bill. It is why
so many people--Republicans, Democrats, and Independents--think that
the political process is not on the level.
So why put these provisions in? We could pass these bills without it.
These provisions would then be allowed to have hearings in committee,
and then we would be responsible to vote ``yes'' or ``no'' on the
campaign finance provision, on the Dodd-Frank provision, where our
constituents would be able to hold each and every one of us accountable
as to what our view was.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time
to close.
Madam Speaker, this bill spends $1.1 trillion to fund the Federal
Government. While we may yet avert another government shutdown, a lot
of our trust in the legislative process has been destroyed. If a
provision to allow the United States to be mined for uranium by a
company with ties to Iran can be inserted into and passed with the
National Defense Authorization
[[Page H9074]]
Act, taking away land sacred to an Indian tribe, what other deplorable
and risk-ladened bills are in this House majority bill? Heaven only
knows what other egregious actions we will find.
The House majority continues to govern via manufactured crises.
Regular appropriations bills have been replaced with temporary stopgap
measures. Cliffs and brinks and fits and starts continue. The majority
has another opportunity in the new Congress to do the good work of
government and to provide stability to the American people with the
American people put ahead of banking interests and political party
interests--and I pray they do.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and
the bill underlying it.
And to end the 113th Congress, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
As I reflect back on the debate today--and it is always a good
exchange with my friend from New York--I want to reflect on some areas
of agreement and disagreement.
The agreement is we think, like our Democratic colleagues, this is
not a good way to legislate. We do not like the process. We do not like
to pass bills with multiple hundreds of pages and well over $1 trillion
in spending and lots of policy riders. We prefer to legislate as we
began this Congress--that is with an individual appropriations bill.
I want to thank my chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Rogers), and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs.
Lowey), for the manner in which they got the process off and going this
year, and I want to commend my friends on the other side of the aisle
for participating.
This House was moving appropriations bills under open rules with
multiple debates and passing them, usually with bipartisan votes, in
the way that this system should operate. That was not true in the
United States Senate.
That body, under Democratic leadership, never brought up a single
appropriations bill. You simply can't operate the process if the other
side of the Chamber, whose participation is constitutionally required,
refuses to participate, refuses to bring bills to the floor. And that
was done for political and, I would suggest, somewhat cynical
calculations. It didn't work out very well in the end; it never does.
Going through regular order, we all know, is the best way to operate.
But we are here now because the Senate wouldn't do its job. The House
did do its job and continued to do it until it was just painfully
obvious that the Senate was never going to do anything at all.
I have also listened to my friends and their concerns about a
multitude of issues that are dealt with in this bill. They know we can
avoid this next year by following regular order and going through the
process, but there are two in particular that I want to address
quickly.
The first issue is campaign finance. I probably have a different view
than most of my speakers in terms of what ought to be done, but they
are absolutely right in terms of the process by which this has been
arrived at. Now, I will point out this idea that there is not unlimited
money in politics now is just simply not true. The people who have been
penalized are the candidates and the political parties. There are
plenty of third-party groups on both sides that spend enormous amounts
of money, people who write substantially larger checks, and that is
both liberals, conservatives, Democrats, and Republicans. This is
actually a measure, I would argue, to try to allow the parties who are
more transparent and more accountable and, frankly, usually more
professional to have the resources to compete with some of the outside
groups. Be that as it may, the substance of my friend's process
objections are real.
The other area is the Dodd-Frank area. Let me just say, that language
was brought up under the separate legislation and considered; it was in
Financial Services. So the idea it is being dropped in at the last
minute is just not true.
Let me finish with two points. First, there is a great deal of good
in this bill. There are a great many parts of this bill where we have
worked together, worked well together, ranging from Ebola to the
National Institutes of Health, the Native American issues. Those things
ought to be enacted.
Madam Speaker, in closing, the continuing resolution we are currently
operating under is due to expire at midnight tonight. I believe it is
important to keep this government open and support this bipartisan,
bicameral piece of legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the
rule and the underlying legislation.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on adoption of House Resolution 776 will be followed by 5-
minute votes on the motion to suspend the rules on H.R. 5806, by the
yeas and nays; and approval of the Journal, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 214,
nays 212, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 561]
YEAS--214
Aderholt
Amodei
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boehner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Price (GA)
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NAYS--212
Adams
Amash
Bachmann
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
[[Page H9075]]
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gohmert
Gosar
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Jordan
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Labrador
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Massie
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Posey
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salmon
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Stockman
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--9
Campbell
Capuano
Duckworth
Hall
Hensarling
Matheson
Miller, Gary
Negrete McLeod
Smith (WA)
{time} 1215
Messrs. VEASEY, DINGELL, Ms. SEWELL of Alabama, Messrs. GALLEGO,
LARSEN of Washington, Ms. SCHWARTZ, Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California,
Ms. SINEMA, Messrs. NORCROSS and CARNEY changed their vote from ``yea''
to ``nay.''
Messrs. CAMP, CASSIDY, McCLINTOCK, McALLISTER, STUTZMAN and
BENTIVOLIO changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________