mr. thompson: mr. speaker, i rise in strong support to the senate amendment to h.r. 2952 that attaches a cybersecurity work force assessment act and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. for the department of homeland security to be effective in its cybersecurity mission, it must have a work force in place to meet this challenge. yesterday, the house considered legislation to grant d.h.s. special hiring authority to secure talent in the competitive cybersecurity employment marketplace. the measure before you today includes language authored by the gentlelady from new york, ms. clarke, that requires d.h.s. to develop and issue a comprehensive work force strategy for the department's cybersecurity mission and includes a five-year implementation plan and a 10-year projection of the cybersecurity work force needs

of the department. cybersecurity is a complex mission for the department and requires a wide range of talent at all levels. given the urgent nature of d.h.s.'s recoupment -- recruitment efforts, it's essential that department have this strategy in place. secondly, the bill requires the department access the readiness and capabilities of its work force to meet its cybersecurity mission. lastly, the urgent need to fill critical national security missions often leads to an overreliance on contractors. to encourage students to come to work for the government is a vital -- in this vital arena, this legislation also directs d.h.s. to develop a plan to create a cybersecurity fellowship program. under such a program, d.h.s. would pay promising students tuition in exchange for a commitment to serve for a fixed period of time at the

department in a cybersecurity position. for all these reasons, i urge my colleagues to vote for h.r. 2952, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. meehan: mr. speaker, i have no more speakers. if the gentleman from mississippi has no further speakers, i'm prepared to close once the gentleman does. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from mississippi. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the ranking member of the subcommittee on cybersecurity, infrastructure protection and security technologies, the gentlelady from new york, who actually this legislation is what she's been about. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for three minutes. ms. clarke: thank you, mr. speaker, and i thank the ranking member for yielding time. mr. speaker, i rise in support of the senate amendment to h.r. 2952. as my ranking member, mr.

thompson, has said, for the department of homeland security to be effective in its cybersecurity mission, it must have a work force in place to meet this challenge. a long-standing interest of mine has been how best to help d.h.s. meet its cyberwork force needs. to that end i've authored legislation that the committee unanimously approved in october to help ensure that d.h.s. has the, quote, boots on the ground, end quote, it needs to meet its diverse cybersecurity mission. i'd like to thank chairman meehan for the support you have shown for my effort and the spirit of collaboration that you have shown. this legislation requires d.h.s. to develop and issue a comprehensive work force strategy for the department's cybersecurity mission. the department is required to develop a five-year implementation plan for that strategy and a 10-year projection of the cybersecurity

work force needs of the department. before developing a strategy and implementation plan, it is important that d.h.s. conduct a work force assessment to get a sense of the readiness and capacity of the department's cyber work force. it is also important that department determine where these positions are located within the department and where these positions are filled by independent employees, independent contractors, detailees by other federal agencies or are vacant. the work force assessment required under this bill requires d.h.s. to do just that. finally, i'm glad that it directs d.h.s. to develop a plan to establish a cybersecurity fellowship program under which talented undergraduate students sign on to the department for a period. establishment of such a program could help encourage students to come to work for the government in this vital arena. i urge all of my colleagues to

vote for the senate amendment yield back and i the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from mississippi. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, i have no further requests for time, and i'm prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the legislation under consideration today is a product of bipartisan, bicameral negotiation. it has two parts. the core bill, which addresses the overall direction of federal physical security and cybersecurity research and development efforts for protecting critical infrastructure and the clarke cybersecurity work force amendment. the language in both parts went through regular order and was approved by the house. therefore, i urge passage of h.r. 2952, and before i yield

back, in case ms. clarke leaves, our committee has the unfortunate task next year of losing the chair and ranking member of this fine subcommittee. and i want to personally say that i really appreciate the manner in which they worked together on not just hearings but bringing forward good legislation to the full committee and ultimately this legislation we are dealing with today. so i compliment both of them and we will miss them. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. meehan: i want to thank the gentleman for his kind words and for his cooperation and the ranking member helped set a tone for the collaboration on the committee, along with leadership of our chairman of the committee, the gentleman

from texas. plt beginning, our focus was working together to find solutions to the important issues which don't have a democrat or a majority -- democrat or a republican unique perspective. it's an american perspective. it puts the priority on protecting our homeland. i want to particularly express my appreciation to the ranking member of our subcommittee, the gentlelady from new york, for all of her collaboration and the delightful manner in which we had to work through difficult issues together but ultimately got to compromise and to important resolutions on these issues and matters of importance. and i appreciate her foresight on this particular provision which i'm pleased to strongly endorse. and the reason for that is we're facing very challenging times globally with the issue of cybersecurity. we not only have to worry about

the impacts with the issues of cyber issues with the kinds of materials we have in the private sector, but we're dealing in an unsafe world in which threats are not only the theft of information or interference with systems but the ability now for those who ant to do us harm to use the cybernetwork to carry out that harm. and therefore, it's more critical than ever that we're and to attract to d.h.s. in fact in government the kinds of people who are prepared to be on the front lines of this battle. this is exactly what this provision will enable us to do. first, to attract people. and i'm always inspired by them because they have the same sense, focus and dedication to their country that so many brave men and women do that sign up and serve us in uniform. while they're serving in a different capacity, their service to our nation is every bit as real in the sense of personal sacrifice that they make to help us attract the

best and the brightest to protect our assets. and you have to appreciate it. many of them, once they get that expertise, are very, very desirable to corporations and others in the business world who will pay them significantly more to come to work for them. so this idea of beginning to create the bullpen, so to speak, of the next generation of cyber prepared warriors for our country is at the heart of what the gentlelady is trying to do to enable universities and others to develop these kinds of programs that support students who in return support for their education will come to work for us. that will get us the next level of individuals, and it will begin the process of training those individuals which we will need. and so this is, again, another important piece of our overall successful approach to try and to create cybersecurity, and i urge all of members to join me in supporting this bill and i

yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time has expired. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass and concur in the amendment to h.r. 2952. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the senate amendments are agreed to and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass 2519. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of

the bill. the clerk: senate 2519, an act to codify an existing operations center for cybersecurity. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from texas, mr. mccaul, and the gentleman from mississippi, mr. thompson, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. mccaul: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. mccaul: i thank the speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mccaul: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to first start out by hanking -- this is not one person. this is a huge team effort, both in a bipartisan way and bicameral way. i want to thank pat meehan for his great leadership on this. i want to thank yvette clarke

for her great work, and benny thompson willing to come together in a bipartisan way in our committee to get something good done for the american people. i want to thank senators carper and coburn for moving forward. not something we've seen this congress, some actually coming back from the senate to the house to pass out of this committee, something we haven't seen much these days. and i also want to thank the staff. i want to thank alex manning, who's staff director and brett de witt for his great work, tireless hours on the democrat side as well, holding over 300 meetings with the private sector, working day in and day out to get to the point where we are today on the house floor. mr. speaker, i consider this to be an historic moment, historic moment on the house floor as we

pass the most significant cybersecurity legislation ever passed by the congress. this issue 10 years ago, no one would understand it. today, people are finally starting to wake up to the fact that the threats were a cyberattack is real. and as we look at the threats from china, from russia, from iran, we look at the theft of i.p. a lot of people have been hit personally with home depot and target. as we look at the theft of intellectual property from russia and china, when we look at the espionage on a daily basis, every federal agency being hacked into, including the pentagon, to steal things out of this federal government, to hurt our national security and then finally when we look at the most malicious threat and that is the threat to shut things down. we saw recently, mr. speaker, an attack from iran that shut down 30,000 hard drives of the

largest energy producer in saudi arabia. while simultaneously hitting our financial sector. and they continue to hit our financial sector every day. they are hitting them as i speak right now. we look at power grids being brought down and water and energy. this threat is real. this threat must be dealt with. i'm pleased on the very last day of this congress that we're going to pass legislation that's going to protect america and make it safer, that's going to protect our critical infrastructure from this daily attack from foreign enemies that we have unfortunately across the globe. and how will that work? this bill will codify what's called the end kick, the cybersecurity

protection act, the d.h.s., is aflian interface to the private sector, which has been supported by both business groups like the chamber and privacy groups like the aclu. amazing how we could bring this coalition together, but that's how strong this bill is. privacy and business coming together doing what's right. this will great a safe harbor, mr. speaker, where the 16 critical infrastructures, the 16 sectors can come together, the federal government can take our threat information, our malicious codes that they use to attack us and share that with the private sector. it also allows the private sector to share the information that they have the federal government in a safe harbor that's protected both business-wise and personally as well. 80% to 85% of this threat information lies in the private sector.

this -- this coalition, if you will, this partnership of information sharing will better protect our critical infrastructure. most importantly, to have the at the s on the floor department of homeland security, at the cybercommand, at the ncic, sharing information, not just public-private, but amongst the sectors themselves which is not taking place today. . it will go a long ways to protecting the american people and infrastructure. our military is great cyberoffensive capability to shut things down. that in the wrong hands make us very vulnerable. we are a weakness, our vulnerability lies is our ability to defend the nation against these cyberattacks. and they are getting worse and

they are getting more malicious. by countries and state actors that don't really like us and want to do us harm. so i am proud of the work that we have done. i am proud of the work we have done in a bipartisan way. this committee has done. and i'm proud what the senate has finally achieved to bring this finally to the point where we can pass this bill out of the united states congress and have it signed into law by the president of the united states and at the end of the day it's what we got elected here to do. and that is to do good things, to govern, and get good things done on behalf of the american people. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from mississippi. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of the senate amendment to s. 2519, the national

cybersecurity protection act of 2014 and yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, this bipartisan measure is the product of extensive bicameral negotiations and in many ways the culmination of years of oversight work by this committee. it not only sends a strong message of support for the department of homeland security, as the lead civilian agency for cybersecurity, but also pay special attention to the challenge of bolstering network security for critical infrastructure. over the past decade, americans have come to understand the need for cybersecurity to be woven into everything that a company, government, or individual does from running the most intricate machinery, to everyday participation in social media.

america's used to depend on the two oceans to protect us from invasion. interconnectiveness resulting from advancement in technology as fostered great economic, scientific, social, and cultural wars. at the same time that interconnectedness allows our enemies to do harm without ever stepping foot on u.s. soil. one of the strengths of s. 2519 is that it emphasizes voluntary information sharing and collaboration between the department and critical infrastructure owners and operators to address this national threat. importantly, it does so in a manner that is consistent with our constitutional values and principles. much like the house passed version of this measure, h.r. 3696, that was heralded by the aclu as pro-security and pro-privacy, many on the

consideration today effectively avoids the privacy and civil liberties pitfalls that have plagued other cyberinformation sharing legislation. s. 2519 leverages existing private-public partnerships such as information sharing and analysis centers and sector coordinating councils to foster better information sharing and does so without dangling the controversial liability protection carrot before companies. the opportunity to access timely threat information from a federal civilian agency should be carried enough to motivate companies to engage with d.h.s. -- carrot enough to engage with d.h.s. it represents an important moment for the committee and the 113th congress. at the beginning of this congress expectations were high for some legislative action in the area of cybersecurity. it has taken some time to get

here, but what we have before us is something solid that sets forth what d.h.s. must do as the lead civilian agency for cybersecurity. we have seen cybersecurity legislation fail to become law multiple times. le president obama's executive order -- president obama -- while president obama's executive order is making progress in attempts to show up some cyberweaknesses in our nation's fabric, more work needs to be done. with this cybersecurity legislation, we will be doing our part as d.h.s. authorizes to raise the level of cybersecurity , particularly within the federal government and protecting our nation's critical infrastructure. thank you. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time of the the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. mccaul: i yield as much time as he may consume to the

distinguished gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. meehan. let me also point of personal privilege say what an honor it's been to serve with you, sir. we are going to miss you on this committee. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. meehan: let me thank the gentleman again for his leadership not just on this particular issue but his leadership of the committee. as i have said before, with my colleagues on the other side, working in a bipartisan fashion for these important issues. i'll be brief on this. i can tell you it's not the brevity of my words that will instill the seriousness of this issue. and when the chairman mentioned that this is some of the most important legislation that we have done ever on cybersecurity, i echo that sentiment. because the nature of the threat is real, growing, and constantly changing. and the ability for us to be able to be adaptive in real time

to communicate with us, private sector and the government facilities to protect our homeland is critical. second point, and this is significant as well, is very real attention was paid to the issue of privacy. recognizing the individual desire to be assured that private information is not inappropriately utilized or misapplied by anybody let alone the government. this bill was the product of work that was done in detail with over 300 different meetings, working through the complexities of this particular issue. and has already been articulated, one of the few bills i would imagine in this congress or any congress that has strong endorsements from the chamber of commerce and the aclu simultaneously. and lastly by organizing by

sector, this creates the framework, this is the important foundation, there's still so much more to be done, but this is the foundation of at that the house, of the structure that will allow us to create and continue to create the kind of ed fast -- enphysical that will enable our private sector, government sector, and all of those who are engaged in this issue in the country to be better positioned to protect americans. their information and their safety. and i strongly endorse this. i thank the gentleman for his leadership. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from texas. mr. mccaul: i continue to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from mississippi. mr. thompson: i yield as much time as she may consume to the ranking member of the subcommittee on cybersecurity, infrastructure protection, and security technology, ms. clarke. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlewoman is recognized. ms. clarke: i again thank the ranking member for yielding me the time. mr. speaker, i rise in support of s. 2519, the national cybersecurity protection act of 2014. we worked long and hard to develop and describe how d.h.s. can best accomplish its complex cybersecurity mission. i am pleased at our bipartisan and bicameral negotiations have been fruitful and look forward to the progress that the department can make next year. in closing, i'd like to express what an honor it has been to serve under the leadership of ranking member thompson, chairman mccaul, and alongside chairman meehan in service to the homeland security mission of our nation. i look forward to our continued collaboration as i move to my new assignment on the energy and commerce committee in the 114th congress, and i thank you, mr. speaker. and yield back the balance of my

time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from mississippi. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from mississippi reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. mccaul: mr. speaker, i have no more speakers. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. who seeks recognition? the gentleman from mississippi. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, i'm prepared to close. i have no further speakers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of this legislation and thank my principal partner in the house, chairman mccaul, for his unwavering commitment to this issue and willingness to work across the aisle to get it done. i also want to recognize the contributions of the chairman and ranking member of the cybersecurity subcommittee, representative meehan, and clarke, and our senator partners. finally, aid like to acknowledge

staff that helped us get this to this point. rosalyn and chris on my staff. and brent and alex on the majority staff. again let me compliment the chair for not giving up. but staying the course. even doing it on the last day gets it done. and so with that, mr. speaker, i urge a yea and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from mississippi yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. mccaul: i'm prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mccaul: i want to recognize all the members involved and the senate and staff and to my ranking member, bennie thompson, i guess as churchill said never, ever, ever give up. here we are on the last day of this congress getting this done. what a gratifying experience it is.

what a great moment it is. not just for this congress but more importantly for the american people when it represents. 73 years ago this week this nation was attacked at pearl harbor. there are a lot of people that make analogies to what would be a cyberpearl harbor if we are caught unprepared. i believe that this bill will go a long ways to defending the nation from what would be called a cyberpearl harbor event. my father served as a b-17 ombardier in theure peaian theater. he flew -- in the european theater, he flew over 32 missions. the air campaign in advance of d-day invasion and battle of the bulge. they dropped bombs. in the cyberworld that we live

in, we have to worry about digital bombs. and how can we stop that from hurting the united states, from impacting the united states, from bringing the united states to its knees. i believe this is the first step , the first step of many, and i look forward to working on more legislation the next congress. this is the historic first step we have taken in this congress to move forward on this very important issue and get it done to protect the american people. so with that, let me again thank everyone for their efforts. i just want to thank the speaker and this has been a great day for america. with that i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back the balance of his time. all time has expired. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass senate 2419. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? mr. cole: mr. speaker, by the direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 776 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 150, house resolution 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 work force. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption without intervening motion. section 2, upon adoption of the motion specified in the first section of this resolution,

house concurrent resolution 122 shall be considered as adopted. section 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. ection 4, the requirement of clause 6-a of rule 13 for a 2/3 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 2, 2014. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for one hour. mr. cole: mr. speaker, for the purposes of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentlelady from new york, ms.

slaughter, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. cole: during consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks . the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. cole: mr. speaker, yesterday, the rules committee met and reported a rule for consideration for 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 f.y. 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 work

force. 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'm 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 covered through the end of the fiscal year. the department of defense bill is funded through a temporary resolution through february 27, 2015. mr. speaker, i carried the initial rule for consideration of the first two appropriations bills considered in the house back in april 30, 2014. i believe the record of the house and the house appropriations committee has been good.

we considered seven 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'm proud, mr. speaker, of the work we've 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 $1,013,000,000,000, but at the same time this contains important policy provisions that prevent the government from reaching in the lives of ordinary american citizens, provisions like those which prevent the army corps of engineering 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 contains -- 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 enact important commonsense priorities on the direction of this government. it cuts funding for the i.r.s. by over $345 million. indeed, the i.r.s. has been cut more than $1.2 billion since 2010. it prohibits the i.r.s. from targeting groups -- for scrutiny base on their political police. it cuts e.p.a. funding for the fifth consecutive year, bringing staffing to the lowest levels since 1989. it implements a governmentwide 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 institute of health, an increase over funding from f.y. 2014. enhancing funding for alzheimer's, cancer and brain research. miller the gabriela research act, a bill i authored with gregg harper and eric cantor at $12.6 billion, shifting those funds from political conventions to research into pediatric diseases. it increases the health care and erical funding to some of our poorest and most needy constituents, native americans, and it provides funding to deal with crisises like those associated with the outbreak of

ebola or the militant activity of isil, the islamic state of iraq and levant. i could go on and on with all the good things included in this bill. however, i'm sure others will speak to those items. i believe it's important to take stock in where we've come over the last four years. we've 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've prevented additional burdens in 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 view 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 the floor, 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 three 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'm encouraged by the work of my friend, chairman rogers and ranking member nita lowey and look forward to working with them and a new senate next year to build upon the work we've done this year. i urge support for the rule and the underlying legislation, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: good morning, madam speaker. and i want to take just a moment to say i know this will be the last time you will be

presiding over the house. i want to thank you for our friendship and working with you. it's been a pleasure. and i want to thank my friend from oklahoma for yielding me the customary time. and let me say about him, he's 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. house majority over and over again stifled debate, limited the ability of members of this body to participate in the legislative process and undermine the institution. we have had 83 closed rules this term, the most in history, and this bill follows suit and was 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 strange circumstance, i was doing the rule last time the government shut down. on the 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 in the rules committee because all of our etings are now only declared emergency. with that it means it has not gone to any committee, has no public input, no hearings, no markups and no time to fully consider the legislation. the bill has been brought to us under a blatantly political process and is -- and it seems to me with every passing hour a new alarming provision comes to

light. perhaps if the house majority spent less time trying to undermine the health care law, take 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're doing now, this bill is another example of the preferred method of governance, manufactured crises. we are pushed and pulled from the brink for the 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 we wouldn't find out what's in it and serves as further proof that the majority reneged on their pledge of transparency. speaker boehner said himself in december, 2010, as reported by "the new york times" and i quote, 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 for the american people. end quote. he was referring, of course, to the fact that we would have 72 hours to examine such legislation. madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert into the record "the new york times" article from december 17, 2010, titled "quote, republicans prepare for looming budget battle. even then. end quote. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: thank you very much. it really doesn't endanger the nation's safety and security because they are the people who provide border security, t.s.a., i said this in the past but it bears repeating, if funding the government in parts 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 on 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 endanger the nation's airports. but the most 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 the leaders and participate in their government by cementing the status of power to owners. this provision changes campaign finance law to allow megadonors to give 10 times the amount currently allowed to political parties for housekeeping and we all know 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 chase

of mccain-feingold and competes with the supreme court with their citizens united. this has been central to our democracy that each person has equal power to influence their government by their voice and their vote. not only has this congress refused to re-enact the voting rights act, this added provision will hasten the toxic influence of money and further corrupt and unbalance our democratcy. furthermore, the underlying bill includes a provision added only two days ago that would put our economy in danger and rollback the gains made since the great recession. this most egregious provision would change dodd-frank bill to give undo power back to the banks. the provision puts the taxpayers on the hook for risky behaviors by wall street banks, meaning once again taxpayers will have to bail out the banks if they fail. it was a basic tenet of dodd-frank we would never do that again. that has now been -- will be

undone. it's been only five years since the start of the great recession, and economies made great stride and 10.9 million private sector jobs in the last six to seven 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, quote, 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. he continues, ironically it was a similar unrelated rider put without debate into a larger bill that played a major role allowing the irresponsible unregulated derivative transactions to contribute to the crisis. he he's referring to the crisis

of 2008. he's warning us, he's imploring us don't make the same mistake twice. our national economy cannot take this risk. madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert this article from the "wall street journal" from december 10, 2014, entitled, quote, barney frank criticized plan rollback of his namesake financial law, end quote, into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: thank you. for these reasons and several others, democrats should not support this bill. i urge my colleagues, madam speaker, to vote no against the rule and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: thank you, madam speaker. i would like to yield to my friend and distinguished colleague from the state of washington, the gentlelady, ms. herrera butler, for the purpose of a colloquy with the majority leader. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from washington is recognized. ms. herrera butler: thank you,

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 dramatically reduced and our communities have suffered, thousands of people have lost jobs, and counted lack the resources to pay for basic services whether it's school, fire, or police. our forests became increasingly susceptible to forest fires, disease, and devastation. this situation is a crisis and we in congress must address it. i yield to the gentleman from utah. >> so ably noted, local school districts in areas with large tracks of land are part of the national forest sim tell 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. mr. stewart: when federal policies dramatically reduced logging receipts from our national forests, those schools were hit very hard. that's 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 colleagues, are your local schools feeling the effects of this situation like mine? miss ms. herrera beutler: oh, yes. i have heard from many of my local districts already. and notices are being prepared because of the uncertainty and the lack of funding. congress must make getting this legislation through both houses and signed into law by the president a priority in the next year. i'd actually like to ask the gentleman from california, the majority leader, if he can give me any assurances that extending

the secure rules schools program will be one of his priorities early in the next congress. i yield to the leader. mr. mccarthy: i thank my colleagues for yielding. i share their concern on this important matter. i want to assure my colleagues that enacting an extension to the secure rural schools program is going to be an early priority for next year. as the gentlelady knows, in september of last year the house passed h.r. 1526, the restoring healthy forest for healthy community acts. which would have allowed us to better manage our federal forest for the benefit of our rural schools and counties. unfortunately, the senate was unable to act on this bill or 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. i will work with our colleagues and 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. i yield back to my colleague. ms. herrera beutler: i thank the

leader for his comments. with that i yield back. mr. cole: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma reserves the balance of his time of the the gentlelady from snoveraget ms. slaughter: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, a member, valued member of the committee on rules, mr. mcgovern. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for two minutes. mr. mcgovern: i thank the gentlelady. 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 politician that is 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 mark up, no discussion, just snuck into the bill with the hope 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 lobbyists born dodd-frank provisions. it would allow banks to engage in the same risky behavior that cause the 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, please do not do it at the expense of our economy. the bill contains a provision that the trucking industry wants to allow struck drivers to work up to 80 hours a week. 80 hours a week. when we know that overtired 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. and yet this republican leadership has been content to do nothing. in farkt the majority has repeatedly and routinely denied

members the right to debate the issue of war on the floor of the house of representatives. well, none of us will be asked to fight another pointless war, madam speaker. it's 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's a lousy way to end this session. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: thank you very much, madam speaker. let me yield myself such time i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cole: i want to make a couple points in response to my friend. there's much my friend says that 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 bill and did bring bill after bill after bill to this floor to avoid this very end. responsibility here lies with

the leadership of the united states senate which did not bring a single appropriations bill to the floor. so 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. 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 signing it into law. and the reality is 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 leadership capacity. so this bill which i do not particularly like to process, is, indeed, bicameral and bipartisan in its substance.

again i think my friend makes an excellent point, this isn't the way to run a railroad. we ought to work together. i also remind my friends, the last time they were in the majority they brought exactly two appropriations bills to the floor under closed rules. never brought an appropriations bill here in their final year with an open process. we have done that seven times. we would have done it all 12 times until we finally determined the united states senate under democratic control was never going to bring up an appropriation bill, which point why waste the floor time and why ask your members to do the hard work and dast the votes -- cast the votes? that's something that shouldn't happen again. i pledge to work with my friend that i know doesn't want to see that happen again to make sure we feel our part of the process on this side of the house. i think a new senate will very much likely do the same thing. i'm hoping our colleague who is leaving this chamber and heading there will help us in that. she's been a wise and able member here. i'm sure she'll be equally

distinguished in the united states senate. we look forward to improving the process. my friend's right about that. -- in the absence of passing this bill we'll shut down the government. i don't think that's something they, our friends in the senate, or administration want to do. with that, madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. without objection, the gentleman from massachusetts -- -- will control the time. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i should remind my colleagues here that there are five appropriations bills that never saw the light of day here on the house floor. and of the ones we did deal with, none of them included the roll back of dodd-frank provisions or campaign finance reform. we can blame the senate all they want. they have nothing to do whether or not we bring up a resolution to authorize another war or not. with that i yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from california, the distinguished ranking member of the financial services committee, ms. waters. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for three minutes. ms. waters: thank you very much.

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 chief funds provided by the taxpayer backstop to undercut their competition in a heads i win, tails the taxpayer loses

scenario. and 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 re-elections. 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 could be disruptive and harmful. they say it takes reform in the wrong direction. it is also strongly opoed by consumer, labor and civil rights groupings and former chairman barney frank, who puts the frank in dodd-frank, called it a frightening precedent. i agree. i'm urging a no vote. i just heard the gentleman say this is bipartisan and this is

bicamera. it is -- it is bicameral. it is neither. as a matter of fact, democrats are not going to join in putting this bill out. 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 allow them to do this risky derivatives trading. dodd-frank said you need to push out your trading activities and put them in subsidiaries. don't try and use the people's back stop, fdic protection, 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're 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'm just focusing on this one bad part of the bill because it is so outrageous. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. waters: i ask for a no vote on the rule and a no vote on the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cole: this bill is bipartisan and bicameral. it was negotiated with the democratic senate and both sides aproved it before it was submitted to the rules committee for consideration. it's been alleged that the swaps pushout language was snuck into the bill, that it allows for risky trading and puts taxpayers at risk. none of this is true. the language in this omnibus is identical to h.r. 992 which passed the house with broad

bipartisan support with 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 service appropriations bill was considered by the full house for three days under an open rule, where 51 amendments were considered, there were no amendments offered on the swaps pushout language. the omniprovides a commonsense -- the omni provides a commonsense fix to dodd-frank. risky swaps are still required to be pushed out, like those that brought down a.i.g. but the omni allows low risk trades to continue to be conducted by depository institutions regulated by banking supervisors. without this fix, farmers and manufacturers will experience increased costs without making our financial system more table.

-- stable. former fed chairmen ben bernanke and paul volcker and others have expressed the need to fix section 617 of dodd-frank. c.b.o. scored this language as having no impact on the taxpayer. 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: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from mississippi, the distinguished ranking member on the committee on homeland security, mr. thompson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. thompson: thank you very muchism 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 appropriation act of 2015. just over a year ago, i stood here urging the republican

majority to allow taos vote on the legislation to reopen the government during its 16-day shutdown. at that time, the majority's gimmick was called a minibus. essentially cherry picked programs within federal agents to be funded one by one. today i'm 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 return from thanksgiving -- when we returned from thanksgiving last week, house appropriators were hopeful 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 d.h.s. contracting for the national security 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 d.h.s. headquarters, it undermines homeland security. madam speaker, clearly the insertion of the financing for political parties is -- undermined mccain-feingold and for that and other reasons i oppose the rule and the

underlying bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cole: i make this point again. i agree with some of the points of my good friend from mississippi -- that 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 to come to an agreement many months ago. we try tond several different occasions. we brought bills to the floor, under open amendment, something my friends did not do their last year in the majority. we have multiple opportunities. but at some point when the other body isn't moving, it's not fwoipping to take up an appropriations bill, you quit hitting your head against the wall and say we're going to have to deal with this in a big omnibus at the end of the year. if my friends wanted a different process, and i'm sure they did, they should have been talking to the united states senate. that's why we're here.

not because we department bring bills across but because the senate wouldn't. if one-half of the congress won't work, the other half can't get its work done. that's the process. we're hoping a new senate, under new management, will do something. we all know in this chamber, the onlyry they did that is to avoid tough votes. frankly, that's 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, didn't work well for their democratic colleagues this time around in 2014. i think the lesson bolt of us ought to draw from this is, let's do regular order. it actually is in the best interest of the country, the best interest of the institution, 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, and there are parts of

this bill that i like that i don't like to see passed this way, i don't think it's appropriate to be passed this way, but at the end of the day, you've got to, you know, keep the government function. and 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 senate. so there's some flaws in this process, there's 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 you know, it hasn't been the house of representatives, either democrat or republican, that's gotten us to this point. this is the democratic leadership in the senate that's 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. same thing will be true in the

united states senate, the president has a signature at his end of pennsylvania avenue. if this process doesn't work or my friends want to bring it down, that's up to them. we'd prefer not to close the government, to continue to function. with that, madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter spm i'm pleased to -- ms. slaughter: i'm pleased to yield a minute and a half to the gentlelady from maryland, ms. edwards. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for a minute and a half. ms. edwards: thank you, madam speaker, and i thank the gentlelady from new york. i rise in opposition to the rule for consideration of this so-called omnibus bill. among the many troublesome 11th hour additions is a provision that not only allows for another multibillion dollar bank bailout and for taxpayers to be on the hook for that, but gives the keys of 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's already too much money in politics, but, oh, no, not house republicans. they're 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 you have. madam speaker, this provision has no business in a spending bill new york business in our democracy and we can't allow the mega funds, the 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. i'm just naming one. but let's not bail out the banks again and let's not give them the keys of the bank into our pockets and the special

interests to take crolve of this congress. i yield -- take control of this congress. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: i yield myself such time as i moi may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cole: the language dealing with swaps was 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's something i know a little bit about. i used to be chief of staff for the republican national committee. i was the executive director of the nrcc, our campaign committee, earlier in my life. i've watched mccain-feingold over the years. and i've seen that frankly it's been a failed piece of legislation. i agree with my friend's point that this is not the way to do it. i would have much prefered a

debate, open process. but the idea that there's not big money in politics is an idea that's very much out of date. there's lots of big money in politics. have diminished the importance of individual candidate campaigns and there's plenty of ex-paramoney out there. it pour into races. to marginalize the political parties, which are the most accountable, most transparent and most responsible participants in the process is something we ought to rethink. and frankly, put candidates, individually, at the mercy of mega donors 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's 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, you know 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 when ewe vote on the final product and when the sthath takes it up. but again if the sthath would do its job, we wouldn't be here in this process, wouldn't have these opportunities for people to short circuit the normal legislative procedures that i know my friends agree with and i afree with. with that, madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter spm i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from maryland, the democratic whip, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. i thank her for her leadership on the rules committee. i thank mr. cole for his remarks.

i want to rise and support mr. cole. this is not the way to do it. that's what he said. and 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, an overwhelming number of democrats will vote to support the bill. it will go to the senate. i predict without any doubt that the senate will pass that bill. but it is clear 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 7/12 of our job and the senate did 0/12 of their job. we could point fingers to one another which would not be useful. what would be useful is if we to to the american people, our economy the confident kens -- the confidence we can act together in a bipartisan way to pass legislation. i tell my friend, mr. cole, for whom i have great respect, mr. speaker, that we can do that. but the two provisions which he's 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 two years we are going to have to work together try to accommodate in hopefully a bipartisan fashion having the majority in this body

do reasonable things. the gentleman's 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. so i would urge my friend, mr. cole, who i think is one, a very responsible member of this body, to urge his side because we have agreement, we think, on 99.9% 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 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. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman virginia tech. mr. cole: i want to thank my friend for his very generous and kind words and remarks. there's nobody, seriously, i enjoy listening to more on this floor. i very much appreciate his generous offer which i know he's 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. and i appreciate the fact that

he's willing to accept over 99% 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. they are a little bit above my pay grade to comment on. i'm not going to do that. i do want to tell my friend again how much i respect him. how much i appreciate his contribution each and every day to how this house operates. and 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 his job. i will disagree with my friend a little bit or express a different opinion on saying we did 7/12 of our job. my friend has been a distinguished majority leader in this institution, and i think he is the master of legislative process knows probably better

than most how difficult it is to function on one side of the rotunda, this capital building, when they are not functioning on the other. do you reach a point after you 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? we did go ahead and move through full committee 11 of the 12 bills which were done in a bipartisan fashion with the consultation with our friends on the democratic side. but you do reach a point where it's just why are we wasting the floor time? why are we exposing our members? i'm hopeful when our friend in the chair arrives at the other side we'll have partners that work with us on both side of the aisle and engage in that normal process i know my friend is not only a master at but defender and advocate for. i i have very little time. and actually less time than my

friend has. so i would prefer you use your own time. if they are not willing to give you any time, then perhaps i'll reconsider that. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from -- ms. slaughter: i yield 20 seconds. mr. hoyer: i object to my friend from oklahoma that puts an awfully heavy burden on the presiding officer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from michigan, mr. kildee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. kildee: i thank the gentlelady. i share the concern expressed by my friend, mr. cole, that if we don't act today government will be shut down. 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 opened? there's a lot of good in this legislation. no question about it. but for me, and i have supported bipartisan efforts to keep

government opened in the past. i have only been here two years, i had to do it already. but the notion that a price has to be paid in order to keep government opened, 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. what we are doing as a condition of keeping government opened is deciding that the one thing we have to do is to make sure that the wealthiest americans can now

spend ten 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 opened? i just can't imagine, i just can't imagine that this is the price we have to pay. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cole: i want to thank my friend from michigan because he is an exceptionally responsible member of this body and hare of a proud tradition in his family. somebody i look forward working with and has made a contribution each and every day he's been here. in terms of the bill itself certainly nothing inappropriate about my friends on the other side of the aisle focusing on things they don't like. there are things we ought to think about we do like. there's billions of dollars in here to fight ebola. something we sat down, worked with the administration, our friends on the other side came to a common agreement. we have disagreement sometime

and difference of perspective, closetory mcgovern on this, at least in terms of process, than i am to the administration, but look, isil is a clear and present danger to the united states of america. the president's asked for things in here. we have put the things he asked for in here and tried to work with him on that. don't think anybody in this chamber doesn't think that the work done at the national institute of health is an exceptionally important. there's more money in here for that particular agency in a 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 my friends have both from a process standpoint and

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 this is a negotiated agreement with a democratic senate. i don't think we should have gotten to this point. 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's why we brought bills to the floor. that didn't happen in the senate. that's what's 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's where the problem has been. 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. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from maryland, mr. sarbanes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. sarbanes: thank you very much. 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. and this would allow them to go out, make more money, with less risk, and if they run into a problem, the taxpayers of this country would be asked to come in and bail them out. you have that provision for wall street. over here you have a provision that would allow wall street and

the wealthy and the well connected to pour 10 times more money into the political apparatus up here on capitol hill and buy influence. so over here you got a wall street give away, and over here you got 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, one of them said i'll be the quid, and the other said i'll be the quo. and madam speaker, i don't know which is which, but i know this is a quid pro quo. it is the kind that's corrupting the machinery of our government. and it's offensive to the american people. we need to get rid of the quid. we need to eliminate the quo from this bill. bring it back in a way that we can actually support it. that's what we need to do for

the american people. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will receive a mechanical. the messenger: madam speaker, a message from the snafment. the secretary: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has passed s. 2822 cited as the dignified instrument of our veterans act of 2014 in which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. cole: thank you, madam speaker. i'd like to yield 30 seconds to my good friend, our distinguished parting member and the chairman of the labor, health, human services subcommittee of our appropriations committee, mr. kingston. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. kingston: i thank the distinguished incoming chair of labor, health, and human services for the time. i want to say i do support this rule. i will revise and extend my remarks for the record later on. as somebody who's work very long

on the appropriation bills, the problem has been historically the senate. the senate has blocked the passage of most of their bills. this year it did not pass a single one. we passed seven before we had to shut down because of their process. none of us on appropriations want an omnibus bill. we all prefer individual one by one bills. in the absence of that, this is the aggregate of those bills added together. i do support the rule. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman continues to reserve. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from florida, mr. deutch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. deutch: i thank my friend, -- my friend. madam speaker, i rise in opposition to the rule and 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 of citizens united and mccutcheon to allow america's wealthiest owners to give $5 million every election cycle to candidates, political parties, and their committees. we had no debate about this. the people's house didn't 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 throw enough sway in washington. a vote for this bill is a vote for the continued dismantlement of a broken campaign finance system, a vote to continue shutting out the voices of everyday americans in our political process. our constituents want us to fight money and politics, they do not want us tomorrow complicit in putting our democracy up for sale. madam speaker, in washington, for the special interest, they view every day as christmas. let's give the american people a

present this holiday season -- respect for democracy and a place for them in it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: i'm pleased to yield one and a half minutes to the gentlelady from california, ms. lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for a minute and a half. ms. lee: thank you very much. i thank the gentlelady for yielding and for your tremendous hard work and support for so many yearings. -- years. i rise in opposition to this rule and this bill for many reasons. even though the bill contain miss things that i support, ebola funding, a critical $5.67 billion for they are president's plan for aids relief, pepfar that i helped write and the global fund programs i have supported for so many years. but it also includes provisions i cannot support, such as an additional $3.4 billion to fund an unauthorized war against isis

in syria and iraq. more than three months after this war began, three 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 frank sli a slush fund. madam speaker, congress -- which quit frankly is a slush fund. madam speaker, congress must get delofle pentagon spending, we can do that by auditing the pentagon. which has bipartisan support. this bill provides billions more funding. my republican colleagues included a section to roll back key provisions of the dodd-frank wall street reform bill, putting

taxpayers on the hook for wall street gambling. may i have an additional 30 seconds? ms. slaughter: we don't have it. ms. lee: i urge a no vote on the rule and a no vote on the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: i'm pleased to yield a minute and a half to the gentlewoman from the district of columbia, ms. norton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for a minute and a half. ms. norton: i thank my good friend for all her work on this bill in committee. the district of columbia council passed the most restrictive marijuana reform law in the country, allowing possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use only. four states have done tam