[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.

                          ____________________