Transcripts For CSPAN House Rules Committee Meets On Pending Legislation 20171221

And Vice President , and senator mcconnell said, no, mr. President. We cant. He said, why . We have cosponsors for the immigration bill. And mr. Mcconnell said, just because theyre cosponsors doesnt mean theyre going to vote for it on the republican side. Its the 60 votes and thats what the president couldnt get was the 60 votes and let me just say he was in the tradition of his great father, was in the tradition of ronald reagan. Ronald reagan and George Herbert walker bush protected more a higher percentage of people in their executive orders than barack obama did. Higher percentage of people. In fact, president obama acted because congress didnt act because president reagan acted when congress acted and he said, you didnt do enough. We will do family fairness and he expanded the protections and president George Herbert walker bush continued that work. So the two of the republican president s of our era, president reagan, president George Herbert walker bush and president george w. Bush, not to mention president clinton, president obama, have all been proimmigration. This is the first president that we have had and certainly the first republican president of the modern era who has been antiimmigration. Now, on the subject at hand senator sessions yes, maam. Ms. Pelosi on the subject at hand, i do believe there was not an awareness on the part of the president in our conversations, its obvious, of what happens to the students. It isnt that you are protected until march. You lose status every day. As the chairwoman said, over 100 lose status every day. Because the people have to work, serve in the military or be in school. There are requirements. But if you lose status you cant do any of those things. More than 10,000 well over 10,000, every day they lose status. Thats why march is almost an irrelevant date. Whats relevant is they lose status every day and some of them, even though the white house is not fully aware of all this, are subject to deportation. So that is changes the dynamic, the urgency, and thats why we are here. Its not we want it sooner rather than later. No. Its to address what is happening every single day. And all fairness to this white house, i dont think they realized the lack of status. I dont think the president because i think the president really wants to do this. I think he thought he was i dont agree with what he did, as our speaker didnt agree what he did, but nonetheless he he didnt think it was jeopardizing their ability to retain their status. I dont think he understood that. Maybe understood it or not but didnt understand the numbers of people involved. I dont believe some of the people advising him on immigration did. I go back to your point about president bush. Hes spoken even in this administration so beautifully about it and said, when youre talking about immigrants, do so with respect for them as people. One more point. The senate did have a comprehensive bipartisan bill that the speaker, mr. Boehner, would not bring to the floor of the house. Mr. Sessions and that is true. And i acknowledge that. Ms. Pelosi but you said how democrats or republicans we couldnt get 60 votes when we had the majority. We could get 60 votes when the republicans had the majority but it was not allowed to be brought up in the house. Getting back to this point, the urgency, and why we are here is not just to hasten the calendar. Its to address the danger that these people are mr. Sessions i wanted to make sure i answer the question. The gentlewoman and i are very good friends. I go to church with george w. Ms. Pelosi isnt he beautiful . Mr. Sessions we attend the same church, we hear the same message. Its a message of hope and opportunity. Notwithstanding im a methodist so we have some problems there probably. But my church prays for people. We do the best we can. Ok. Thank you. I wanted to address that directly. We consider this vitally important also. We also address were addressing the needs of the nation on two in two particular areas today. And you came to this committee to give your testimony and were glad that youre here. We are going to continue now through our process that we have but i want you to know that i gave you my response that we intend to have that brought before the committee. And i the gentleman. Ms. Slaughter that will be manana. Mr. Sessions that will be late february, early march. Mr. Hastings just to put a fine point on it if you dont mind. Mr. Sessions yes, sir. Mr. Hastings i believe in light of the fact there is a discharge petition with a significant number of members having signed it to bring the dream act to the floor, do you believe, as i do, that if the dream act was on the floor today that it would pass . Mr. Sessions heres what i believe. I believe that there are significant questions of exactly how were going to make sure that the American Public understands what were doing. And i believe it needs to be a National Debate, and i do not believe that it would actually be appropriate just to bring something to the floor without debate and understanding of that. Did. I go back to your point about president bush. Hes spoken even in this administration so beautifully about it and said, when youre talking about immigrants, do so with respect for them as people. One more point. The senate did have a comprehensive bipartisan bill that the speaker, mr. Boehner, would not bring to the floor of the house. Mr. Sessions and that is true. And i acknowledge that. Ms. Pelosi but you said how democrats or republicans we couldnt get 60 votes when we had the majority. We could get 60 votes when the republicans had the majority but it not just to hasten the calendar. Its to address the danger that these people are mr. Sessions in two particular areas today. And yo that if the dream act was on the floor is engaging a group of people that want to get it done, not a group of people that dont want to get it done. Mr. Hastings mr. Chairman, most respectfully, the question i asked you is undergirted by the fact that 34 republicans, including colleagues here on the rules committee, sent speaker ryan a letter asking him to protect dreamers. Do the math, mr. Chairman. If the dream act would come to the floor it would pass. I ask again, do you feel as i do never mind all this stuff about the debate. There have been a lot of debate. Children are here every day discussing the matter. Weve discussed it here in this committee repeatedly asking the same question. Mr. Mcgovern, mr. Polis, ms. Slaughter, myself, members on the other side have discussed the matter. Do you believe it would pass if it was on the floor . Mr. Sessions i do not in its present form. Mr. Hastings all right. Ms. Pelosi let me mr. Sessions we might disagree and its ok, chairman. Would the gentleman yield . Mr. Sessions the gentleman is recognized. I think perhaps mr. Hastings was referring to me. I was one of the 34 that sent a leader to the speaker and our leadership asking that we address this issue by the end of the year, absolutely. I meet with dreamers from my district, from around the country. In fact, i think i got a meeting with some of them in about 40 minutes so i might have to miss some of your testimony. I apologize for that. Mr. Newhouse there is no doubt if there was a bill on the floor it might receive a positive vote but theres one vote we have to keep in mind and i think i wasnt quite clear when mr. Hoyer made his statement that the president said he would sign the dream act. I dont know i remember that. He has said many positive things about dreamers. He believes that we need to do the right thing by them. But hes also made it clear he wants some things besides the dream act. A clean dream act, at least from my understanding, is not something that he supports. He wants other things so that we do we can prevent these young people and people like them from being put in this position again in the future. And so if it it may be true that a clean dream act would pass, but i dont know that it would pass in the white house. And thats one vote that we absolutely need. In my estimation, mr. Chairman, this is an issue thats very important. It really is. And we have really one shot at getting it done and i want to make sure and i think many of us in a bipartisan basis want to make sure we get it done correctly. We dont want to we dont want to take that vote, mr. Hastings, and then have it be told by the white house. Because that would be that would not be a waste of everyones time but it would raise the hopes of these young people. Mr. Hastings if the gentleman will yield . If the gentleman would yield mr. Newhouse i would. Mr. Hastings i ask unanimous consent that the letter authored by mr. Taylor and mr. Newhouse be made part of the record. Mr. Sessions without objection. Mr. Newhouse thank you for that, by the way. Mr. Hastings id urge the gentleman if the president vetoed the measure, 2 3 of the embers of congress could override. I believe it would be mr. Newhouse if we couldnt then what . I think its incumbent upon us to do it right the first time. Not to use i know its important for a lot of people but recognizing that we need to have a complete package to satisfy not only the house, not only the senate but also the white house. Mr. Hastings mr. Mcgovern if the gentleman will yield . Then what the hell are you waiting for . We have been talking about this for months. And as as leader pelosi and ms. Lujan grisham pointed out, people are losing their status every single day. Maybe the president doesnt realize that. Maybe the speaker of the house doesnt realize that. A couple weeks ago at a press conference said we have until march. Well, we dont. People are losing their status right now. And by the way, these dreamers, some of them are working fortune 500 companies, some in school mr. Newhouse reclaiming my time. Mr. Mcgovern i just want to say mr. Sessions excuse me. The gentleman is reclaiming his time. Were attempting to stick to what we would do. The gentleman will be given time and the gentleman is aware of that. The gentleman has reclaimed his time. Mr. Newhouse thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Mcgovern. Its early. A little early in my estimation for fourletter words but if thats where you want to go i understand. This is a passionate issue. Everybody feels very passionately about this. What are we waiting for . Well, thats a good question. Theres many people in a bipartisan basis working very hard on this issue. They really are. My understanding is that just in the last few days a Bipartisan Group of senators met at the white house and i dont know what was agreed on specifically but apparently theres some commitment to work on this, get this done in january by those individuals with the president. So if thats the case, the pressures off from the senate. It wasnt our doing. It was something that was already worked out that theres going to be something happening next year. So what are we waiting for . I guess thats what were waiting for now. Weve been continuing to work on this, as you know, many of us in this room have been working on it for a long time and still want to get it done. Its not its not our fault that were not doing it right now. Theres a lot of other people that have a say in what happens, as you know, in this town. But its something i agree with the chairman. This is a discussion that not only congress has to have but the American People are engaged in this as well. Its not something, in my humble opinion, that should be attached to a spending bill, a year end c. R. This is an issue that i believe can stand on its own merits, can pass overwhelmingly in both chambers and the white house on its own merits. Ms. Pelosi give us a vote. Mr. Newhouse after it has the necessary, i think important debate and discussion which is happening. Youre right. But as you know, its it needs more. As frustrating as that is, and think this place is frustrating, it would behoove us and give these young people a lasting legislative solution. So with that, mr. Chairman, i yield he back. I appreciate the conversation. I appreciate the passion. But thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Mr. Sessions thank you very much. Id like to say every Single Member of congress has an opinion on this issue. And in particular, this committee does. And you have been well represented virtually every rules Committee Meeting we have on this issue where theres been a discussion thats helped push us. I want to respect both your time and our time. Im going to defer my questions. I appreciate you taking time but i am going to follow the process that we normally do. That way we respect your time. The gentleman from oklahoma. Mr. Cole i am going to take issue with some of that, with all due respect, madam leader. You had four years while you were in the majority. There was never a bill submitted. You had overwhelming majority with president obama. Coming to demand a vote outside the process when you had four hombrage. O take if the Senate Passed a bill with a third of the republicans, 17, if i remember the exact number, so there were over 30 or 31something opposed. Its very seldom that a Republican House is going to put on the floor a bill that basically a third of its members in the senate voted for. I dont think you would put a bill on the floor that a majority of your members would not support. Thats very unusual for any speaker to do. It does happen on occasion. Speaker boehner did several times. You were very helpful in those occasions. We did good Work Together and frankly i always voted for those bills to keep the government open, whether it was when president well, i guess all those were when president obama was in office and certainly when President Trump was in office. As you guys pointed out fairly. But this idea that for four years republicans stopped it when for two years we couldnt stop a lot of things, again, i see this differently, recall it differently. I want to give my opportunity to respond. Ms. Pelosi [inaudible] you were quite the champion in the congress to do that. [inaudible] the appropriators can reach agreement. Mr. Cole i agree. Ms. Pelosi mr. Cole, thank you for your question. In 2010 we passed the dream act in the house of representatives. Maybe were not aware of that. We didnt get 60 votes in the senate. So that, let the record be clear, we did pass the bill in the house. And that was excuse me. Let the record be clear, we passed it in 2010 in the house. We didnt get 60 votes in the senate. Now, i just wanted the record to be clear on that. The world has even changed since then. The awareness and public mind of the dreamers, the urgency of it all is so much more now. And i want to tell you. To follow the path of the distinguished chairman to Start Talking about this in february to take up is an act of extreme cruelty. An act of extreme cruelty when we know what the consequences of that would be. The time for discussion is coming to an end. The time for decision is now. And that is why we come here to plead with you to say help these dreamers. These are people. These are people who are frightened. They are frightened and they have challenges. Theyre serving in the military. Theyre serving in theyre working. Theyre going to school. Theyre constructive. People are whether its a Business Community at the highest levels appealing to the congress to take this up. I agree with mr. Newhouse in that this issue is a bigger issue. We have bigger fish to fry in terms of immigration and that is where we can take up so many of the other issues and, yes, the president is i think he will sign this but he does want a border consideration. And we have been engaged in those negotiations as well. But you cant do everything. Were just saying, lets protect the dreamers, and then all these other issues were talking about like 1 7 of the people in our country whose status we have to address. So there are so many whether there are immigration issues, whether border issues and the rest that are part of the larger discussion, were saying right here and now we have an emergency. We need a decision. We would throw ourselves on the mercy of this committee not ourselves but these dreamers on the mercy of the committee. Ms. Lujan grisham i believe with everything thats said. Immigration reform requires additional attention. Its incredibly complex and its a problem on so many fronts and weve been debating this for 20 years. And people have been waiting, including businesses and the Faith Committee for congress to figure it out for 20 years and i dont suggest that in the next six months, to mr. Newhouses point, that thats going to be an ease path which is why mr. Sessions three months. Ms. Lujan english ham dreamers are a separate issue. Its like not wanting to fund the Childrens Health Insurance Program while we are debating with you today about its timing, that would be like saying we are not going to entertain it for months until we figure out Additional Health care reform. Its a very separate clear issue that requires immediate attention because literally people lose their lives. People lose their lives in detention. They we got sue sides are up. They suicides are up. They lose their jobs. We have childhood trauma. We had pediatricians here in congress testifying. It really is an emergency. I worry that i havent made a very good case for that. And i didnt want any member of the committee to misunderstand that we think somehow dreamers should be a replacement for in terms of that policy, for Immigration Reform or that we think that theres been sufficient bipartisan effort, although i might argue that 20 years is a long time for this country to get policymakers at all levels to figure it out. We have been doing that. But this is a very select, specific issue that i think has much broader bipartisan support as a result. So i thank you, madam leader, for yielding. I thank the committee for hearing me out. Mr. Sessions the gentlemans time. Mr. Cole thank you very much. A couple other things. This is not directed at anybody in this room. But we have finished all the Appropriations Bills and weve been waiting 100 days for the senate to just pass one. And i think thats an institutional concern. Thats not a partisan shot at anybody. I would expect our bills when we sat down with negotiations would change. The Appropriations Committees on both sides have modestly shown they can get to an omnibus. They have shown it three times in a row. They havent lost the art of splitting the difference and finding the ground. The senate has to participate. Frarningly i dont direct this at anybody because i suspect everybody is working, we have to have common numbers. My friend, the distinguished appropriator before she was in leadership, certainly knows and thats above all our heads at the Appropriations Committee. We got to have distinguished leader and whip and our speaker and the majority leader and the president of the United States have got to come to a deal. And once when i said majority leader i meant their majority leader. Probably shouldnt dont throw poor kevin under the bus. Again, that is a tremendous frustration because we have been prepared to negotiate. Maybe if were out of town all the folks that have a hand in that decision can make that decision and we can come back in relative short order and do what we all want to do. I will say and the distinguished whip spoke to this part, i dont necessarily agree with this one to one formula. Its a pretty clumsy concept because it doesnt have anything to do with reality. Sometimes you need to do more on nondefense discretionary. Sometimes you need to do more on defense. Its been a convenient tool, but i think its sort of worked but doesnt work as well when theres not a division, if you will, in between the parties in terms of the branches of government that they control. Thats my observation. Ill work with whatever number that you guys come up with. And, you know, i think all the appropriators will. I think the formula just personally makes a mistake. And with that i certainly want to give my friend a chance to reply, both of them, to anything they care to. And i appreciate this much of the leaders time. This is a lot of leadership time for you to come to a single committee and spend with us and a critical time. It tells me how passionate you are and sincerely committed you are to the issue and frankly how respectful you are of this committee and for that i am very grateful. Ms. Pelosi thank you, vice chair cole, and mr. Chairman and your other committee. I said to the president , we take great pride in our culture as appropriators to find Common Ground because we know the issues. You know the issues here. We know the issues that were dealing with. The committee does. I said the president , left to their own devices, they can reach Common Ground. I think the speaker respects that as well. But as you we are honoring the budget agreement which is about parity. As i said to the president and i say to you, the difference between the 17 billion difference is all bipartisan. Ioid epidemic, veterans, n. I. H. , for which you have been a champion and i respect, some of the pension crisis we face. It isnt bipartisan we arent bringing it to the floor. But this issue, and i appreciate you using the word passion but this is a very intellectual issue as well. And its not even an issue. Its a value. This issue of saving this building is burning down and o re deciding how much h and is in the water we might put on it. We need to solve the issue. It like the schip, i call that, chip, its about our younger people. Its about hopes and aspirations that the people fully support and republicans and democrats and independents as well. The other issue in terms of border, migration, all the rest of that, those are big issues that we have to deal with and welcome that discussion. I want to thank the chair of the committee because of the caucus because they have been engaged daily, intensely in a bipartisan way. On how we can do something in this way and also have some peace of security that mr. Newhouse very correctly points out, i want some Border Security in there. You dont take the chip and en say were going to do everything we want to do on immigration on the border, on dream. Thats a bigger conversation that we lcome, respect and we want sustainability. I think the congress is very capable of that. I think the bill comes to the floor, the dream act, is overwhelmingly passes from what members have said to us. So thats all we want is a shot. Just a shot. Lets have a vote on it. Mr. Cole i want to associate with mr. Newhouses remarks. I dont pretend to be an expert. I would feel more comfortable if the Judiciary Committee would present us a product that they debated. I think they will by march. Ms. Pelosi march is thats an act of cruelty. Mr. Cole well, i seldom been accused of act of cruelty. We have a difference of opinion. Sometimes you i think the process would be helpful here. I think the dialogue that mr. Newhouse referred to would be useful and healing for the country. And frankly it would be a pretty wonderful thing for us in a bipartisan way to actually enact legislation, reform in this area. Thats the way i go about it, piece by piece. People prefer the comprehensive approach. I actually think its easier. I agree with you this is an area where we can find agreement. I think people want to find an agreement here. Legislativively its better if it comes up through committee. I know there is a working group focused on this now. Ms. Pelosi it has produced nothing. Mr. Cole we have not produced anything here. Three months is not a long time. Lets see what happens here. And let it run its course. And i think well be here, as my friend the chairman said, you know, in relatively short order early in the new year dealing with this and presenting a product on the floor that has gone through and is a genuinely bipartisan product. Thats what i hope we can achieve. But theres enough to do in the time we have just to fund the government, in my view, and to take care of some of these other programs by, frankly, by the time the people make a decision on the top line number, i say as an appropriator, 8 billion away from my laborh counterpart in the United States senate, i can o the other way. We can split. You will have an opportunity to reply, madam leader. Ms. Pelosi i respect everything you have said. I think the Judiciary Committee is the appropriate place to take up the comprehensive Immigration Reform. We are just talking about this right now because they havent taken it up and it is an emergency. The full committee should be addressing the immigration issue. Ms. Lujan english ham i will ms. Lujan grisham i will say there is great agreement on the fact about dreamers. They are not a National Security or Border Security issue. That they meet the standards. The way daca works, appears from every data point that we have, bipartisan agreement that theyre going to school, more than 80 are working, theyre fulfilling their military requirements and theyre exactly embedded in communities and familiar lie lives that we were family lives that we were expecting so we dont have immigration and related national and Border Security issues. And the hard part is there is not that kind of stipulation on either the issues, the facts or the strategy on Immigration Reform in judiciary. Now, a complaint. The gang of eight, years before that, that theres really been difficulty because they cant stipulate on some of those baselines are. Which is why if were not careful, even with three months and i agree with the leaders statement it just feels incredibly cruel if we all agree that this group did nothing wrong and even so one could argue were punished anyway because they dont have status, you will, you will, you will, you will. They did, they did, they did, they did. And then i would have to agree, i have no evidence that suggests that the president thought this would be a big deal and that he intended to have this group deported. But i have continuing conversations with Homeland Security and they will say, were not deporting, and i give them their own data. I get a transition and i realize theyre understaffed. This is a huge, huge federal police force that they admit to their credit that they cannot administer very effectively. They have hiring problems. They have training problems. They have oversight problems. They have contract problems. So with their own data we point out, you are in fact detaining and deporting. They didnt believe it until we showed them their own data. Doesnt mean it gets reversed. I dont think they understood what this act would put into motion. If i did i dont know i could be in this institution and not be a bit angrier or disappointed. And i agree, sure, im passionate. I know you hear that. I know you guys can hardly take me on the floor. I am passionate about everything. Thats how we roll. This is an intellectual argument. These kids didnt do anything. In fact, they did everything right. They do lose their jobs. They are losing status. They cant keep roofs over their head. They support entire families. They do have children. And can you imagine if the 7yearold has to and i did this on a radio program. A 7yearold asked me, but my 15yearold, you know, my 20yearold, my 25yearold is going to be deported. How do you what do you say to the 7yearold . What do you say to the young man i met last week who now, this part i dont know if its a fact. I overheard an aspect so i want to tell you what i overheard and be bleier i would never misrepresent information knowingly to this committee or anybody else. What i do know is factual is a young man said, i am responsible for my elementary and younger age siblings. Im the breadwinner and the parent in this regard. Hes in his mid 20s. As i was leaving and hes lost his job because he lost status. And hes subject to detention and deportation. As i was leaving, somebody else told me both of his parties were killed in car accidents. So what are we saying to those children . That theyre going to foster care, and whos going to keep the lights on . It really is an emergency. I dont think and maybe the hispanic caucus didnt do an effective job with the white house. Maybe the minority caucus didnt. Maybe the American Public didnt. Maybe the immigration advocates didnt. But whatever occurred, we find ourselves in an emergency, and you have the power and i respect that. Im here thats why im here this morning. Mr. Sessions excuse me. The gentlewoman is taking a phone call. She may be excused. We appreciate her coming back. Thank you very much. And feel free to use my office. Its right there. I do care very much about this issue. I want to give everybody a chance. We need to keep moving so that were trying to do these things. You have been generous with your time. Thank you very much. The gentlewoman from new york. Ms. Slaughter you know, i never get used to it but what we really do is kick the can down the road. You heard that since weve been here this morning. Third c. R. Planning another one for march. And this is the same debate no matter how you slice it. We just dont get anything done. Is there some way that we could get i. C. E. To suspend deporting 15yearold kids until we can finally deal with it with legislation . Have you considered that at all . Ms. Lujan grisham mr. Chairman and Ranking Member slaughter, we have asked Homeland Security. Weve been unsuccessful. Weve asked them to be clear about their priorities. Weve been asked weve asked them to be clear about when the reapplications were being submitted how to treat those. We have not we were clear in our request about temporary protected status for populations. We have not received a positive response on any of these issues from Homeland Security. In fact, the hispanic caucus is still waiting on many written requests for answers and suggestions from the department. Ms. Slaughter well, im really concerned that this and like so many other things that we are content to say, well get to it. Dont you worry. Were going to fund that chip program. Its going to be ok. Im really depressed about my country. Im worried about where we are standing in the world today. But the government itself here tax bill to me was one of the worst pieces of legislation ive ever seen. Actually passed in the most abominable way could possibly have been done. A bill i have mixed emotions about being proud that democrats had nothing to do with it and then angry that we were not a part of that. So this is just more. Every day, Something Else is piled on that we will take care of some time. But when theyre deporting children and with children committing suicide in the United States whove done nothing, absolutely nothing, it is so unamerican. Inhuman is what it is. We cant put some temporary stay on it, something here. But my gosh, you talked about they dont even notify the parents after they pick up their child who could be a minor child, right, 15 years old and they could be in custody somewhere but you have no clue what happens . What kind of humanity is that . Ms. Lujan grisham thats right. Ms. Slaughter i dont know how they could live with themselves ive taken your child away and locked them up. I dont have any questions. Weve asked them all, as far as im concerned. I agree with you, its certainly what our leader said, its been talked about and talked about and talked about. People are dying. And i imagine a lot of employers wonder everybody at school is wondering where the kids went. We need to encourage legislation. I will again im so sorry. I feel so helpless we who can do something. I feel that about the whole country. I feel we are all obligated to straighten this all out because we work in the place where thats being done. T the emperor has no clothes sort of thing going on in America Today thats very troubling to me and i think this is a large part of it because we do know that the president of the United States ran almost his entire campaign on talking about immigration and building walls and separating people, showing absolutely no compassion whatsoever or even i think showing he understands what hes left in his wake. So all i can do is apologize and tell you that they have all the sympathy in the world from me and as a member of congress, i am ashamed we have not done something about it. Thank you for your extraordinary work. And madam leader, i know i know you so well. Mother, grandmother. As long as ive known you, compassion is one of the most important things for you. We all know that. If any of us is sick you are the first one to call. And i know you feel the same way i do. Theres no reason to talk any more. Theyre picking children up off the street and not informing anybody where they have gone is something so inhuman about that that were not going to act, i can tell you that. I bet you this Congress Spends its whole term without anything done about this. Ms. Pelosi i may just say i appreciate your kind words. My only purpose in being in congress is about the children. I have my own five children. It bothers me that one in five children in america lives in poverty, goes to sleep hungry at night. And what difference can we make in those lives . Anything that affects children, whether its chip, whether its like a the rest, im lioness. Dont hurt the children. Ms. Slaughter thats what were here for. Goodness, thats what i was saying a while ago. We were the only body in the country that request do anything to stop this. Even a temporary hold on i. C. E. , dont pick them up until we get this settled here, or at least put pressure on us to get it done. Ms. Pelosi i think there is a spirit where we can find Common Ground to do something. Its just about time. The most finite commodity, most positive of everything, and time makes a difference and the impact it has in peoples lives. I have no doubt there is a bipartisan consensus that can support this issue and then the bigger discussion on comprehensive Immigration Reform. I have that confidence. Just make the point once again that time is important in the lives of these young people and their families. Mr. Cole, while congresswoman disclaiming saying this is what i heard, we had a saying in appropriations, the antidote is not data. Its illust are a tiff and we do see the evidence to say we really should, we really can make things bitter and we can act upon it. Ms. Slaughter madam leader, i have one question for you. What are the economic costs as you see them for this country of not passing the dream act . Ms. Pelosi i said earlier, in terms of the Cato Institute which is respected body, im sure, by many of you in this cato has said that the has said deporting the cost of deporting and all that it implies is 50 billion. 50 billion. Excuse me. 60 billion. Thats catos figure. The center for American Progress found deportations would cost us 460 billion over the next decade in terms of what that means to their families, lost of productivity and the rest. Because these are contributing members of society, in the military, in a business world, in academic communities and our families lives. Ms. Slaughter paying taxes. Ms. Pelosi there were two measures. One from the cato, one from one is just a shorter term estimate and one is a 10year estimate. Ms. Slaughter well, we need to stop killing people and start working on the infrastructure. It hasnt been that long ago that some of the wire pipes going into new york city were made of brick. Most of the Water Systems in the United States and we would talk about spending that kind of money to deport young people, who mean us no harm. Ms. Pelosi chairwoman has a re that corroborates ms. Lujan grisham 434 billion are what dreamers would add to the economy. They have to keep working in order to do that. Over 10 years. Ms. Pelosi thats from economic economists thats consistent with the american of center of American Progress. Ms. Slaughter thank you very much. Mr. Sessions the gentlewoman yields back. Thank you very much. Let me clarify, the gentlewoman has not brought a temporary, what might be a temporary request for three months to the committee, she brought a bill. The distinguished gentleman from georgia. Mr. Woodall thank you, mr. Chairman. Ive had the great pleasure of getting to know the gentlelady from new mexico during the time and sorry she will go on to bigger and better things. I think if this institution will work the way we all want t to it requires a degree of enthusiasm, passion mixed with engagement. And i think one of the challenges we have in this institution is sometimes our passion turns one another off instead of engaging one another. Madam leader, i make it a point of bringing every young woman that i take down to the floor of the house, if i can find you on the floor ill bring them by to meet you. You are gracious with your time. In fact, we have a few liberal individuals in our constituency back home, a group of young women and they wanted to meet Bernie Sanders. They were so disappointed. They hadnt gotten to meet Bernie Sanders. I found him over in the capital visitor center. You stopped and gave them about five minutes of your time and they havent stopped talking about nancy pelosi since then. I havent heard the name Bernie Sanders again since that time. They have changed their allegiance. I, because i havent gotten a chance to get to know you as i have gotten to know the gentlelady from new mexico, i want to use this time to encourage you to use your position of influence to share not just passion but also find a way to make that engaging. I listened to your exchange with mr. Cole. And he talked about a legislative strategy that would provide a solution within the next 90 days. You described that as an act of cruelty. Ms. Pelosi yes. Mr. Woodall well, its hard in a place where people have different ideas. If they come to the table trying to provide solutions before deadlines and the answer isnt, thank you for coming to the table, the answer is, thats got not good enough. In fact, its an act of cruelty. We all get in those bad we all get in those bad habits. Ms. Pelosi and i dont say that frivolously. Mr. Woodall you dont say it frivolously. Ms. Pelosi no. I dont say it passionately. I say it objectively, intellectually of what it means to the lives of these people. I thank you. Mr. Woodall i took the point. We talked about well, when you were talking about the 60 votes in the senate. In fact, when the chairman raised it, he didnt finish his sentence about a bill never going to the president. You said, we didnt have 60 votes. I remember that. Thats the reason the bill didnt go to the president that one time. The reason the bill didnt go to the president the other times when we had 60 votes is a different issue. Its reasons Appropriations Bills cant move through the United States. I think about the successes that we had together. I havent heard them celebrated at the table. We have funded clip here together chip here together. We committed ourselves doing that. We dont have the 60 votes in the senate. Folks dont like the offsets there. But we have gotten that done together. Ms. Pelosi not in a bipartisan way. Democrats have always opposed the walden bill that takes money from childrens ininoculation to pay for childrens chip. Mr. Woodall i take the gentleladys point. Id be interested in hearing that same point applied to our men and women in uniform. I know the gentlelady didnt vote on the ndaa bill, but the minority whip voted yes. The gentlelady from new mexico voted yes. We all agreed in this chamber in a bipartisan way to fund our military at a set level, but i heard the gentlelady say here that were not going to fund our military at that level until we agree to oneforone parity. I dont understand how we had this conversation of immigration is in shambles. We have to do so much. Lets do this thing on dreamers. Lets move this discreet issue. Lives are at stake was the tale here. People are losing their lives was the story from the witness table. That i will stipulate may be true in the dreamer scenario, im certain its true in the National Security scenario. Ms. Pelosi i agree. Mr. Woodall and so finding that onetoone parity you would say less is a priority, that we agree on what the defense levels should be when we authorized it through the ndaa. We already agreed in a bipartisan way as a u. S. House how we should be funding our military and so theres no need to wait on that deal. We can act today expeditiously because as you said about the dreamer issue, its a separate clear issue that requires immediate action. We have an emergency that was said. That is exactly true of our National Security. Can we commit to that today, that in the same way you have a legitimate case to make, lets solve the dreamers by itself, lets do that as an individual discreet issue that we can do that for National Security, too, the troops we promised a pay raise to a month ago but isnt going to get it if we dont get defense across the board, can we commit to getting that done together . Because your case is persuasive but it should be persuasive for the men and women serving us around the globe as well. Ms. Pelosi is that a question . I thank you for it. Yes, we have had many conversations and been engaged in meetings with general mattis and our objection is not to the oh, wed like to see what the money is for. Wed like to modernize our forces and he everybody has enormous respect for him and his judgment and the other joint chiefs of staff as well as the assistant deputy whatever hes called undersecretary has come to make the presentation. This is not about that number. Although appropriators dont say the authorizing number is the appropriated money. Is that not correct . But nonetheless, thats not the issue. Nobodys saying we want to take down the defense number. What were saying is in nondefense domestic discretionary budget, a third of it, a third of the budget are veterans, Homeland Security , the issue of antiviolence, antiterrorism activities of the Justice Department and the state department, all security functions are in that domestic side of it. It isnt about whether we question the number on defense. We dont. Were saying the strength of our country is reflected in that domestic side as well. I want to stimulate everything you said is true. And what you said the first time as well. My question s. We have agreed is, we have agreed on ndaa defense number. We havent agreed on all of those other great bipartisan priorities were talking about. Mr. Woodall you made a passioned case today we shouldnt hold the dreamer bill hostage until we agree on Everything Else that you also stimulated was incredibly important as it relates to immigration. Why is it legitimate to hold our men and women in uniform and their budget hostage until we finish Everything Else . Ms. Pelosi were not holding our men and women in hostage, mr. Woodall. You probably know that. Nobodys doing that. And i dont appreciate that characterization. But i do want to say this, we did have an agreement. An agreement that said there would be parity. Mr. Woodall madam leader, i didnt interrupt you at all curing your presentation. In the same way when you said you called it an asket cruelty to mr. Coles suggestion, i mean exactly what im saying when im saying my democratic friends are holding my National Security funding hostage until they get the nondefense everybody at and this table knows it. In this chamber knows t its been the practice in the seven years i have been here as we have been negotiating these deals. I dont mean that with any disrespect. As you say its an intellectual issue. Its not one its not one of passion. We have in this chamber knows t its been the practice in the seven years i have been here as we have opportunities that we so many talking past on another. I remember lose when the minori whip was here, he made it very clear that 125 republicans voted to shut the government down years ago. And it took democrats to get it done. It hadnt been even been a month eanch single democrat voted against funding the c. R. And the republicans took the government open. No one leaves for the moment democrats were trying to shut the government down. And nobody believes that. We say it sometimes in the name of getting the press. As mr. Hoyer said it about republicans years and years ago. I believe that that leadership has to start at the top. And again you are a role model to the young women in my district. And i am so grateful for what you do there. I fear that were at a place where we would rather fuss at each other than talk with each other. Again, my friend from new mexico, she will never be accused of misunderstanding what her position is. She is a passionate ms. Pelosi we all agree on that. Mr. Woodall i would dare say there is not a single issue in this congress that i would be uncomfortable approaching her about and trying to find a way around. Shes not going to word smith me. Shes not going to give me the talking points. Shes not going to tell me all the reasons why im a sound ral. Shes going to listen sound al scoundral and give me an open shot. I confess that i dont know as we sit here today where politics ends and policy begins. As that pendulum swings back and forth, i fear it swung too far to one end or the other. I know of your influence. I know of the admiration that this body women of carry for you. And so i just as you have inspirational to the young women in my district, and the young men in my district, to be perfectly candid, i would inspirational to the we tha you can for us to reflect our shared failures and for us to celebrate our shared successes, because the American People dont know of all the ones we have. I remember when the whip introduced a letter from tim walz talking about how bad the bill was. I think its going to be in the record now. That letter absolutely came from mr. Walz. I remember when mr. Walz was sitting in the chair where ms. Lujan grisham, and phil roe, we were celebrating the biggest reform of the Veterans Administration in the history of the organization. This year. This congress. Who did that together . We did. We did. It didnt just go to the senate to die. Something that makes a difference in the something tha difference in the lives of veterans. We have so many things that we ould celebrate together. Again i dont i would be happy to be your accountability partner in that. You hold me accountable for it and ill hold you so. I see the opportunities and i see the great good that you do in so many places. I would just encourage you to help me with that quest again i dont as well. Thank you, mr. Woodall. I dont think you really believe were holding the defense men and women in hostage, any more than i thank you are holding our veterans hostage or people with opioid addiction hostage by not supporting the funding for them on the other side of it. But i do want to tell this story. I think its important for youall to know this because you keep talking about the shutting down of government many years ago. It wasnt that long time ago. And many of the people who were in the lead on it are in the lead in this congress right now. There was a budget agreement. 1 trillion you remember this very well, mr. Cole. 1. 58 billion was the agreement. Bipartisan agreement. House and senate and white house. President obama. House and senate. 1. 358 billion. 1. 58 billion. It wasnt a great number in our view but it was a compromise. We all agreed to t you recall mr. Cole . Agreed to it. You recall, mr. Cole, as we were going to mark up to that number, the House Republicans said not one dollar over 988 billion. Not one dollar over. Your chairman, mr. Rogers, chairman at the time, said we cannot meet the needs of the American People at 988. He said that. That was the number that the House Republican members insisted upon. It was a terrible number. Steny was railing against it. Everybody was railing. Were never going to vote for this. So dont say you are not going to vote for t rail against t but dont say you are not going to vote for it because you dont know. They insisted. House wouldnt move. Unless we had 988. It. Dent obama agreed to the Senate Democrats agreed to it. The Senate Republicans agreed to it. And it was the number of the House Republicans. I went to mr. Bane earn i said boehner, and i said as horrible and painful as it is, as much as we dont like this number. As much as we agree with mr. Rogers that this does not meet the needs of the American People, 200 democrats will vote for 988. You know what it. The senate mr. Boehner said . I cant bring that to the floor. The only group that did not support the republican budget number for the republican democrats were the republican members of the house. Your own number. I said what was that about . Were you supposed to be calling a bluff . He said i just cant bring it to the floor. I dont have the votes. I said, well, we dont like it. But we absolutely cannot shut government down. Well agree to the 988. They wouldnt bring it to the floor. They shut government down. Speaker was part of that. Mulvaney was part of that. Many of the leadership of this congress were part of shutting it down. And when 17 days later, because of public pressure, and billions of dollars lost to the economy, 17 days later, government was opened and mr. Hoyer mentioned how many republicans voted to keep government closed. Many of them among the leadership in this congress right now. Of the em, the head office of management and budget. When we talk about who agreeed to what and where, i of the want you to be reminded, i dont know if you this is not that long ago. You are saying years ago. It wasnt that long ago. And a its so recent many of the people who were in the lead on shutting down and keeping it shut down are in the want you to be leadership of this on the republican side in this congress right now. Cooperated on something that we really didnt even believe in. We believed in mr. Rogers, the republican chairman. This does not meet the needs of the American People. I even had my own leadership and members say we have to vote for this. And they agreed. We can cannot shut government down. We wont shut government down. Government shutdown, its up to the majority. You have the house, you have the senate. And you have the white house. That is all in your court. Very hard for government shutdown, its up to the majority. You have the house, you have the us for the reasons i mentioned, for us to vote for this continuing resolution. We were hoping it could be a place where at least some, if you need our votes, that some of our values might be reflected. But this issue is not even an issue. Dreamers act. This is a value. Thats what brings us together. Our values. Well always differ on this or that and come to compromise. But our values are who were as a nation. I think who were as a nation is to welcome and bring safety to these young people. I thank you for affording me the opportunity to say an had to when we have cooperate in a very, very difficult way. When youall wouldnt even agree to your own number. Mr. Woodall i appreciate those words. I appreciate you taking my words to heart. I think we should talk more about our successes together and less about our partisan failures. I just have one question for my friend from new mexico. I was on the border, i was in guatemala and el salvador and hon dooras with mr. Kennedy and hon dooras with mr. Kennedy honduras and mr. Kennedy. It was 2014. We were visiting with families who said, hey, dad cant get back and forth anymore. So were picking up and were moving to america because hes the breadwinner. He cant come here. Weve got to go there. Those children brought here through no fault of their own as well, no protections in the dreamers act. For folks who came in 2014. Whose parents brought them here in 2014. President obama thought 2007 was the right year when he did aca dream act. Some think 2013 is the right year. If it were to pass today. If we dont do those other things that we talk about, moving separately, getting to them some other time, getting around to that later, arent we, whether its immoral, whether its cruel, whatever adjective we want to apply, arent we just sentencing another generation of Young Children to the exact same fate that youre trying to save this generation of young people from . Ms. Grisham mr. Chairman and mr. Woodall, i would say yes. Which is why i dont disagree. I dont think anyone on this disagrees that we have an Immigration Reform problem. And we have a Central American problem. Were going to have to deal with. You cant get refugee or disagr Immigration Reform asylum or seizea status. We have huge backlogs. We have issues with families that are partially here and partially there. We have governments that even since 2014 have fallen further into hostility and corruption, which changes the strategies that we adopted from Homeland Security. And in fact we appropriated funds to deal with some of those issues to create stability in the triangle region so that we could begin addressing unaccompanied minors and not continue to have one subset of problems or another. Most of the dreamers, that issue, while im not going to say its not that they are looking for safety and refuge in this contry, a lot of it was economically produced country, a lot of it was economically produced our country was doing so well, and mexico in one example is doing so poorly. That has deamericaned, thrick in those southern border states which arent doing well. But youre right. I dont believe in the emergency, and opportunity, folks who were embedded positively after we told them what to do about it, that we say, we were just kidding. To go back. And we erode those families. But i would agree its just as cruel and inappropriate, intellectually and passionately, to go im happy t the passionate one, if we dont deal with these immigration issues and understand the risks that we have at all of the borders, not just the southern border. And that we really talk genuinely about human trafficking, drug trafficking, contraband. Go to the cog not to the exclusion of, not addition of. We have to start thinking about our investments and strategies and partnerships. So that we dont have huge risk with unaccompanied minors. I agree. Mr. Woodall i tell folks back home all the easy problems have been solved. All thats left are the hard ones. They dont get solved by smart people but solved by people who trust one another. We will miss your trust. But we have one year remaining. Ms. Lujan grisham im going to have you appointed to one of our spanish caucus immigrations. Mr. Woodall the giant port of entry which is the atlanta heartsfield international Hartsfield International airport. I mistakenly said all the democrats voted against the c. R. That was not accurate. 175 did. A dozen voted yes. I wanted to correct that. I yield back the balance of my time. Ms. Pelosi let me just say when the vote came to open up government, democrats voted 199. We had one out sick, 199 to open up government. Of the jority voted to keep government shut down. Mr. Woodall i yield back. Mr. Session must have been a democrat that day. My good friend from massachusetts is recognized. Mr. Mcgovern thank you. This is a sad day i think for this country. Voted to keep government shut down. Mr. Woodall i yield back. Mr. Session must have been a democrat that day. The third c. R. Were going to consider. Were not going to provide people any certainty. This is governing by chaos. I know its frustrating to many of us on this side of the aisle. Im sure its frustrating to some our republican friends. But its very frustrating to the American People watching this unfold. There are two ways to govern. One way is through consultation and bipartisan cooperation and listening to the other side and trying to work on compromises and deals. And the other way to govern which is my way or the highway, which is the way what were seeing here today. And i would argue with you that im hearing all this hearing all this were talking about the dreamers here and what is particularly galling to me is to hear members of the republican side talk about process. And talk about the need for more hearings. And talk about the need for more regular order when it comes to this issue. The president of the United States ended the daca program on september 7. Its now december 21. The Judiciary Committee has had this f time to consider issue if it were a priority. We have had the Judiciary Committee come up here with a concealed conceal this issue if it were a priority. Bere reciprocity act. They have been bringing up lots of bills here. This for some reason hasnt been a priority. Bere ave reciprocity act. They have waited. When you talk about process and more hearings, we just did what i would character is a tax bill scam, which is a giveaway to the biggest corporations of this country, and there wasnt a single hearing on it. In the committee of jurisdiction. Not one. Zero hearings. And nobody complained about it. Voted it out of here, went on to the floor, in a very partisan vote, you send it to the white house. Youall went to the waited. When you talk white house to celebrate there yesterday. Dont talk about process. This e been talking about issue, this is a National Debate on this issue for a long, long time. Thousands of dreamers have been on the hill. Visiting this issue, this is a National Debate on this issue for your o. Visiting staff members. Talking about their plight. Asking for help. I dont know if its not a sense of urgency on this, i dont know what we can possibly do to get you to change your mind. And if you dont want this attached directly to a c. R. , we have the power to allow this bill to come up as a freestanding bill. You can vote up or down. Whatever makes you feel comfortable. But we ought to have a debate. There ought to be some deliberations. There ought to be a more open process here. It is clear that there is bipartisan support not only in this congress, but throughout the country to act on this bill. And we ought to do it. And to say well deal with it in march. As we have heard about 122 dreamers are losing their each and every day. So im not sure what that means. When march comes each and every. T understand when you lose your status you cant work anymore. And 91 of Daca Recipients are legally employed and they are paying taxes. And they are following the law. Laws of this country. And they are doing Incredible Service to our community. We read in the aftermath of the terrible storms that hit texas about dreamers risking their lives to save people. They are working in our fortune 500 companies. They are contributing in so many important ways. And for any of you who have met some dreamers in your district, as i have, i mean many of them didnt know that their status was in question. They just thought they were born here. Or that they came here when were so young. I had a young woman were so you i had a young woman from el salvador who said that her family wont let her speak spanish in their home because they dont want they didnt want anyone to think that she wasnt born here in the United States. This young woman, the only country she knows, and the only country she loves, is the United States of america. And she is working. She is contributing to our community. By all accounts we should embrace her. And yet here were rationalizing inaction. Why we should kick this can down the road. And im just saying that there is as leader pelosi and miss Lujan Grisham pointed out, these people are feeling the consequences as we speak. So, look, if you dont want to vote for it, vote no. Its that simple. One of the advantages of being controlled North Carolina control of the house is you get to schedule things. You get to control the agenda in control of the house is you get to schedule things. You get to control the agenda. I get it. These dreamers are not hostages. They are not political pawns. If he wants other stuff, fine. Well work with him in a bipartisan way to try to figure out whether we can come to some accommodation, but these are real people who are suffering right now. And they are experiencing this terrible uncertainty, which i think is cruel. I dont know how else to put it. This is just so wrong. And it doesnt demand more urgency that were bringing up Gun Legislation takes a priority over this . Again, maybe the president didnt realize that we didnt have until march. Maybe the speaker of the house when he announceded in a press conference a couple weeks ago, we have until march to deal with t. Didnt realize people are losing their status as we speak. But the reality is the reality. And all were asking for is a vote. And aim willing to bet that it will be a bipartisan vote. And it will be it will pass. And i think the votes are there in the senate. I believe the president will sign it. But we ought to lead. I justit is so frustrating to people and listen to rationalize why we cant do anything. Of issues with the c. R. We can go into that forever. But on this one issue, when you look at the support out there amongst democrats and the country, ross heres one moment when we could actually come together and do something. And yes, it doesnt solve everything. We got to do Immigration Reform. We have to do a whole bunch peo rationalize why we cant do anything. You have to stop that. Theres lots of other stuff. Boy, 800,000plus people to give them peace of mind before the holidays. To say that we appreciate your service to this country and all that you have contributed. That would be a magnificent this congress to this congress send, especially after all the divisiveness we experienced this year. I absolutely support your amendment and i hope it is made in order. We will certainly offer t and we will certainly all vote for it. But please stop rationalizing inaction. Dont use the excuse that we havent had enough hearings. We had a tax bill up here that had no hearings. Nobody had a problem with it. Were talking about real people here that deserve our compassion, that deserve our support. And quite frankly there are eople we should be truly celebrating. With that i thank you i yield to the gentlelady, the leader. Ms. Pelosi i thank the gentleman for his very strong statement. Mr. Chairman, im going to have to excuse myself for whats going to be happening on the floor today. I just want to take this to a different place. I consider our work here like were in kaleidoscope. On one issue there are certain of us in the design. You turn it again and its different people. Were all a resource to each other. On some issues we can act in a bipartisan way. Other times its regional. Other times its generational. Whatever it happens. Gender. And the rest. We have our comings together in design. I dont want to have any inference to be drawn that because we have disagreements on the tax bill that we cant find disagreement on other issues. Because disagreement on the number that we cant design. I dont want find agreement on other issues. Because, again, were all a source of strength to each other for the American People. And well be in different designs depending what the issue is that comes before us. So again, whatever our differences on other things, hopefully we can find Common Ground on this ethic of caring for caring for people and not saying you voted for this so im not going to vote for this. Or you voted for that and im not going to vote for that. This giant can load scope that is congress the kaleidoscope that is this congress, the beauty of the mixture, ethically in our own caucus we have a great deal of diversity as you do in think in yours. I thank you for your attention to this. That so much you were here for so long with so much to do. I thank you, mr. Chairman, for your courtesy and for your candor. Always that. And again thank all the rules Committee Members for the Great Service you provide to the congress, to your staff. Thank you as well. I just think that we can turn that dial on that kaleidoscope and get to a place. Were all part of a design for a small piece of the challenge that we have in that confidence building we can go to the larger issue of the comprehensive Immigration Reform. And who knows where we can go together. I yield back. Mr. Sessions if the gentlewoman. One of our members does wish to engage you. Dr. Burgess. Mr. Burgess thank you, mr. Chairman. Members can be forgiven if they dont remember the vote on the dream act in 2010 because it did occur pretty late in that session. If i recall correctly it was in the month of december. Many members had actually departed. I remember that i was tasked to run the republican side on the floor because everyone had left town. It did happen, but it happened so late. You are correct, the senate did have a cloture vote earlier in the month of december where they could not get the 60 votes, and we, as mr. Cole pointed out mr. Woodall pointed out, we bumped up against that from time to time ourselves. Its significant because then in june of 2012, when president obama announced the deferred action for childhood arrivals, significant in my state because 18 months later we had the total number, but it was over 100,000 unaccompanied minors pouring across the lower Rio Grande Valley sector because that part of the border is very difficult to control. Even if you are dedicated to Border Security and dedicated to border control, the river meanders, its flood plain, its overgrown with vegetation. Which the u. S. Fish and Wildlife Service will not let us remove, which we should. So that the border would be more controllable. And ill tell you, i have been down there. When these children are coming across on dusty roads, they are out of water, their clothes are not suitable for the types of terrain they have been traversing. We all saw the pictures of the children on top of the train coming from Central America through mexico. How is that compassionate to allow that to happen . And when governor perry asked president obama, come with me to the border and lets look at this, president obama would not go to the border. He was in dallas for a fundraiser, but he would not go to the border with the governor. The governor had to calm the National Guard to the state guard to do the job of defense of the border the federal government was not doing. But i say that just to illustrate that we must, we must, we cannot consider these things in a vacuum. The notion of Border Security is not just a notion. It is something that we have to pay a great deal of attention. Our people are going to be hurt, and hurt badly. Before you have to leave, i do need to point out. The plan which passed through our committee, our subcommittee, actually did not have a subcommittee hearing, mr. Pallones request, he wanted to delay that and have a full committee markup, you refer that to mr. Waldens build. The chip bill was my bill that. Combined with the Community Health certainty bill and became the walden bill. I do want to stress,dy not get what i wanted on that. I want add twoyear bill, and i wanted the state of texas to the chip n what did Program Look Like before. You remember when the Affordable Care act passed, we were told we wouldnt need things like the state Childrens Health Insurance Program, transitional medical insurance. Everyone will have the Affordable Care act and no one would need these programs anymore. When the Affordable Care act passed, the funding for state Childrens Health Insurance Program was increased, but only to the end of calendar year fiscal year 2015. It was authorized to the end of fiscal year 2019, but left unfunded. We did fund it in 2015 with the medicare access and chip reauthorization act. Where it was a bipartisan bill. We did agree. This time the agreement that was made, if were going to expand it to a fiveyear program with which i disagreed, but thats what the senate wanted, thats what Committee Democrats wanted. I ceded on that issue. Let us offset the cost of the bill. I think we came up with responsible offsets. People object to using the Prevention Public Health fund. I would just submit we have used those just to refresh the committees memory, these e dollars that are replenished as self effecting appropriation every two years, or every year of 2 billion to the secretary of the department of health and Human Services for use however that person sees fit. Occasionally we have seen fit to direct some of those dollars to something that we thought comport with the whole idea of the prevention 2 billion to of fund like the cures bill a year ago. Which many of us voted for. There was an offset in the cures bill with the Prevention Public Health fund. Many of us on this dais voted in favor of that. It did use those dollars. Thats not a foreign concept. Assessing a larger part b premium for individuals who earn over 500,000 a year did not seem like a stretch to me when we were looking for offsets for that bill. The part b premium, going back to 2003, this was one more income relation part b premium for people at the very upper reaches of the income scale. Not dividend income, stock he income, but ordinary income of greater than 500,000 a year, you dont get your part b premium offset by tax dollars. Most of us do recall the part b premium only covers 25 of the actual expenditure out of the Medicare Part b, which is and some drugs. 75 is covered out of the federal treasury. We said to those individuals who make over 500,000 a year, you are actually going to pay the premium to cover those expenses. Still a bargain. You still cannot im here to till. Cannot buy a Affordable Care act policy for health care dotgov for nearly the cost of the full charge of the part b premium. So someone says, ok, dont want to pay that extra part b premium, ill go buy health care dotgov, good luck, you are probably paying more for your insurance. We also said that if people are covered by more than one insurance. If they are covered by medicaid and commercial insurance, according to law, medicaid is the payer of last resort. Oftentimes it doesnt work out like that. And i know why that is, because its hard to collect your money from commercial insurance. United, significant in a, they hold cigna, they hold on to their dollars tightly. Most states give up and say bill medicaid because easier. Those dollars come to us quickly. Its a reliable income stream. We dont collect from united and cigna, but we should collect those dollars first before we go to the federal taxpayer for those dollars. These are the offsets that were included. They were very reasonable. They were not draconian. He opposition was simply because we didnt want, my opinion, we didnt want to get to a solution. But the solution is, its there. Its attainable today. Call your counterpart, minority leader over in the United States senate, and let that bill come because we didnt want, my opinion, we didnt want to get to a solution. But the to the floor. And thats one that will pass. I appreciate the chairman giving me the time to engage the minority leader. And ill hear what undoubtedly is coming back. Ms. Pelosi you afforded me an opportunity to make a distinction in a very clear way burgess, we opposed became walden, when it came to the floor. You were quite correct in saying in the past there has been a call on some of the Prevention Funds. But that was the Prevention Funds are additional. We had worked with mr. Boehner, historic we had an agreement when we did the doc fix and schip and Community Health centers and all the rest a few years ago. That was a big accomplishment. Some funds were taken over time some funds had been taken from the additional funding you correctly say comes into the account. What were concerned about in the Walden Burgess bill, put it on walden, is that it went to the base. It went to the basic money of the prevention fund. We did not think that that should be a place where children had to take money from childrens inoculation, lead poisoning. Mind you, not to get back to former issues, we have had nearly a trillion and a half dollar tax break for Corporate America unpaid for and permanent. Were talking here about five years. I agree with you. It should be paid for. It should be offset. But we did not like those offsets. Mr. Burgess its the same budgetary offset used in the cures bill. This dais voted in favor. This dais voted in favor. Ms. Pelosi as i did, too. We have a disagreement there. Let me also say this. In terms of the medicare piece, we do not want i appreciate medicare has some a means testing in it. Mr. Burgess we dont use the words means and testing together in a sentence. Miss paloicey ms. Pelosi income related, that well, there are offsets people have that are not their income. That might be part of it, too. The point being that we dont want to diminish the constituency, the health pool that is there. The people who are healthier and this or that find it cheaptory go shopping elsewhere. We want to keep them in medicare. That was part of that. One other point that you made on the medicare on the it. Rens health side of no. Were committed the first bill we passed when we had the majority, first bill we sent to the president was the it. No. Schip. First bill we sent to the president that passed the congress. We passed other bills in the house when we had our first 100. But the first bill that passed the whole congress was you and i call it schip. We go back. But the chip bill. That was the beginning of 2009. We had a full commitment to that bill. When you talk about we dont want it to happen, no. This is a high priority. It was the first bill we sent to the president. I do think you take heart in the fact there is bipartisan conversation that is almost there for agreed upon offsets in a bipartisan way. We had hoped that that would be what would be the basis for the funding in this bill, but it is not. It is well down the road. Good faith with the house and senate, democrats and republicans, and the white house on that score. Mr. Burgess what im hearing you saying you will support the schip provision in the resolution because we should be able to get this worked out ms. Pelosi you dont have the right offset, resolution becaus we should be able but we do agr its important. Mr. Burgess its an offset we agreed to use before. Ms. Pelosi mr. Burgess, thank you for your enthusiasm for chip and for this very Productive Exchange were having now. Thank you. Mr. Sessions thank you very much for your time. As you know this committee has allowed you to engage us. I think you gave us a fair opportunity, although all the members would have wished that our time would have been longer. Thank you very much. I know youve got to go. We appreciate your presence. Ms. Pelosi thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Mr. Session Merry Christmas to paul. You have had your fun. Ms. Pelosi thats another way to describe this. Mr. Session are you telling me you are leaving also . Miss Lujan Grisham ms. Lujan grisham i can stay as long as you want. Mr. Session judge hastings. Mr. Hastings we have been here a very long time. I dont want to prolong t i do want to point out that by blocking the amendment thats also by miss Lujan Grisham, in many respects were offering a Cold Shoulder to the young many of us have seen demonstrating here at the capitol, certainly in an intense way for the last two weeks. Many of mr. Chairman, we all know that this continuing resolution is the last train before the end of the year. Youve already given a bigtime Christmas Present to billionaires and corporations. Cant you also give a gift to the dreamers and to the majority of this house who recognize this as an urgent priority. Its been a record breaking year for closed rules. Most of my constituents dont even know what closed rules are. But in this particular session of congress we have had 57 completely closed rules. Thats twice the number that democrats had when we were in the majority. You dont have to end on a record breaking closed rule. Lujan make miss grishams amendment in order and give the dreamers a fair chance on the floor of the house. I do believe that most of us know that it would pass. Were leaving a number of things on the table. Longterm Flood Insurance. Perkins loans. Theres been discussion about funding to address the opioid epidemic. Legislation to help save failing pension funds. Thats something particularly critical to people in our country. Believe in longterm bipartisan reauthorization of chip and Community Health centers out in the lurch. And longterm fisa. I was prepared yesterday, i thought we were meeting at 4 00 on yesterday on fisa. I was supposed to handle the ill with the 702 reauthorization. Now that isnt coming up. Were not dealing with raising the defense and nondefense spending caps. And we are leaving medicare ension on the table as well. President Donald John Trump just tweeted, House Democrats want to shut down for the holidays in order to distract from the very popular justpassed tax cuts House Republicans, dont let this happen. Pass the c. R. Today and keep our o government opened. Mr. Woodall, my dear friend, pointed out how sometimes our passion and our discussions use us to form camps and not form agreements. Its a kind of statement that just came from the president. Theres no democrat i know that wants the government to shut down. There is no republican that i know that wants the government to shut down. We have fundamental disagreements on some policy matters, and in past situations that was also the case. But i would remind donald trump, that his tax measure that youall celebrated yesterday, if any of the polls ought to be believed, is not particularly popular in this country. It would be my hope and yours that it would become popular, but at the moment it is not. And the president needs to put his tweeter account under his pillow and sleep on it rather than continue to divide this country the way that he has. Were here about serious matters. The continuing resolution of what is needed to keep this government opened that should handled long before now. And all were asking is for the dreamers. I may offer an amendment, mr. Chairman, if ms. Grisham Lujan Grishams amendment is not offered, and that is to at the very least provide temporary protective status to those who are in the dreamer status under the National Laws of this country, the same as we have for haitians and hondurans and nicaraguans, we could at least until march, if thats when we claim were going to have it, at least not before he end of the these young people and not allow them to be in the lurch losing their status. s disgusting situation that we find ourselves in. Rather than go on, mr. Chairman, ill leave it at that and not cause youall to have to listen to me. I am dretty damn mad about what were pretty damn mad about what were doing to the dreamers. Mr. Session the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. Thank you very much. We appreciate your help. The distinguished gentleman from alabama, mr. Byrne. I would like to personally apologize to the gentleman. I did make a quick decision and ask that the minority leader stay for dr. Burgess. That was not ment against you. I know you wanted time. But in ask that the respect for i did what i did. I offer my apology to the distinguished gentleman. The gentleman is recognized. Mr. Byrne well, mr. Chairman, the questions i have for the two people sitting in the chairs are empty there. I know they didnt leave and didnt do it on a personal basis. I dont take it personally. Do i think its a sign of disrespect to the committee. They come i do think its a sign of disrespect to the committee. They come here to listen to them. I patiently listened and they left. Mr. Sessions the gentleman is entitled to his opinion. Mr. Byrne i did not go to the white house yesterday. I stayed to meet with a democratic member of the house with whom i am working very closely on an issue that is extremely important to everybody in the house. I try to work with democrats every chance i can. And im disappointed your leadership didnt stay. Im further disappointed that the minority leader refused to go to the white house and meet with the president about another issue thats extremely important to all of us. I mean i wasnt invited by president obama very many times, but when he he vinetted me, i went. And we had strong disagreements. But when the president of the United States calls you to come to the white house, you go. Particularly when its on a matter of extreme importance like funding the government of the United States. I do think ms. Pelosi is holding the defense of the United States hostage. I do believe that were endangering the lives of young men and women that wear our uniform all over the world. Were probably going to pass a c. R. And get out of here today or tomorrow. Well all go home to nice homes and our families. Those young people are out there god knows all sorts of places, including south korea, and we have not properly provided for them. And i just got to tell you im not going to feel too good at christmas about that. I think that is a dereliction of duty of the highest order. Its a dares licks of duty because we have had a cynical, manipulative attempt to hold up funding the defense to get an agreement on nondefense matters. Thats what it is. Thats why we didnt show up to the white house for the budget meeting. Thats why we wont engage in good faith discussions with the speaker about getting budget caps. And thats why we have endangered those young men and women. Thats whats happened. They are not here to respond to me. Im sorry, i would love for them to respond, but thats what we have done. And im about to make a decision myself about whether im going to vote for a c. R. To keep the government opened, when i know it endangers our men and women in uniform. If i vote for the c. R. Its because i believe we got to keep the government opened. We have to move forward. If the members on the other side dont want to do that, you dont want to keep the government opened, thats your decision. Mr. Sessions the gentlewoman from new mexico. Mr. Byrne 00 the gentlewoman from new mexico, my president , the leader of my party, wants us to consider a daca fix. Im going to honor his request. I have some grave concerns about it. But im going to honor his request. If youll check with some your colleagues about me, im going to do so in a good faith way. I dont play games with people. Im going to listen. I had a group of pastors come by, they want me to meet with dreamers in my district. Im going to do that. Im going to keep open ears, open eyes, open heart. I am going to reach across as hard as i possibly can on that issue. Im assuring you of that. I wish that i felt youall were reaching back. I dont feel that. Because there are other issues here that are attached to the dreamer issue that somehow were saying we cant talk about those. Well, you dont get to kick the pick the contours of the debate here. You have to accept the contours they give us. Dont know what the contours of the debate here, many times i have to agree to things i dont like to get other things. Thats the way it works. T if were going to have a discussion about dreamers, then we need to have a discussion about Border Security. If you want that discussion and want it in good faith, then return in good faith discuss with us Border Security. Dont say were only going to debate dreamers. You want us to debate dreamers, you want to do it in good faith, you have to do the same thing about Border Security. I think theres a lot of Common Ground onboarder security. If well have the discussion. But if you want us to come to an agreement on your issue, you have to come to an agreement with us on our issue. Does that seem like a fair way to do this . Ms. Lujan grisham mr. Chairman and mr. Byrne, i absolutely accept your offer to continue to work with us to reach across the aisle. I may disagree with you about which pieces are left for whom in this body to address and what priority, including defense. And in fact, without making a complaint, just in observation, because things happen, i was part of the original meetings with the speaker task force, as were my colleagues and counterparts in the senate with their leadership. Nd immediately after we were disinvited to those efforts. I cant tell you why. I cant tell you whether that was meant to be negative or just strategic to get to a place where we could start to reach across the aisle so we know who is where mr. Byrne my question is simple. Is it fair for us to talk about Border Security in the same discussions were talking about dreamers . Ms. Lujan grisham mr. Chairman and mr. Byrne, i apologize i winded. Ng i thought i answered that yes. But we have to be invited to that conversation. In fact, we have been diligently now working in many bipartisan winded. I thought i answered groups spe onboarder security. However, its not done. Dreamers are losing status and being harmed. And dreamers in the context of being in this country today arent a Border Security issue. They are here. These dont have to be always mutually exclusive, i agree n. This context, emergency, at the end of the year, on a c. R. We have an opportunity. With our positions of great power come great responsibility. I do, mr. Byrne, accept your offer. Mr. Byrne im looking forward to that discussion. Because i dont think were going to get a bill that helps the dreamers unless we get something that deals serious fashion with Border Security. Thats a reality. I get lots of speeches around here about people about the realities of the things we have to deal with. Thats just a reality. So if you want a fix on dreamers, you need to come to the table seriously in good faith, talk about Border Security. Im willing to listen with open ears, open eyes, open heart about the whole thing. But im not going to be segmented about it by saying we just got to do dreamers and not talk about the rest of them and get something worked out there. Im sorry you had to listen to my tirade earlier. Its not your fault. You have been here and very atient about listening and responding to our questions. I do appreciate that about you. I think you have yourself an exemplary fashion. Its impressed me. Im sorry your leadership didnt stay so they could have impressed me. I yield back. Mr. Sessions i yield back. Were delighted that youre here. Were moving up and down this panel. You have responding to our questions. I do appreciate that about deci i respect and appreciate that. I expect t i appreciate it. I expect it. I appreciate t i have a question. You talk about trying to be inclusive in listening to people, including people. You want to be included. How about curbelo joining your organization when he was denied . Ms. Lujan grisham i want to report i voted each and every time for mr. Curbelo to join the caucus. Hes aware of that. While i cant always, i bet you feel the same way, take responsibility for the actions of every sing many member on Single Member on ear side of the lyle, i bet you have moments, i hope im not overstepping my appropriateness here, but i have those moments with both sides just chairing this committee. Its an interesting and difficult job. I think that mr. Sessions were angels. We handle this well on both sides. Ms. Lujan grisham i would like to gragg on mr. Kur bello. In spite brag on mr. Curbelo , in spite mr. S you get my point. One mr. Sessions you get my point. One of my friends cannot even be a part which has not been questioned that he is hesk, either. And he cant become a member of the caucus. Ms. Lujan grisham i assure you the issue at hand. Mr. Sessions so theres something deeper. Ms. Lujan grisham i want an opportunity to brag on your colleague. I know were busy. I want to do that. Mr. Curbelo has not stopped working to protect dreamers. And despite disagreements about other issues, to his credit, and to ours, the entire caucus and myself, his ideas and his stalwart support here have not gone unnoticed, i hope, by both chambers and by many members of our great body. Thank you for raising that. Mr. Sessions all im saying is this inclusiveness goes a couple different ways. We cant always get there. You get my point. I accept yours also. Mr. Curbelo is a dear member of our conference. And as a member of this body. Were pleased to have him. The gentleman from colorado. Thank you. I also point out that i arrived here this morning at 8 03 and ms. Pelosi was already in the t i chair. By my reckoning she was willing to spend and did spend about 2 1 2 hours with us today. I think our friends on both sides, thrick on your side, had a number of questions for her particularly on your side, had a number of questions for her. But a dedication of 2 1 2 hours of our committee shows the esteem she holds our committee. Other onger than any witness i recall that has been before this committee. Mr. Session mr. Walden spent about 28 other witness i recall hours. Mr. Mr. Polis ok. So mr. Walden is in the rarefied stratuss with ms. Pelosi then for having spent a good deal of time here. Paul ryan the speaker been here . I dont know. We would certainly love to see mr. Mccarthy and mr. Ryan if they choose to join us. I dont think youd hear any complaints from our side if they were only here for 2 1 2 hours. We would be grateful for that time. Mr. Sessions why would we need to do that when youve got me . Mr. Polis we appreciate your time object this committee on this committee as well, mr. Chairman. I would just again indicate that were mr. Mccarthy or mr. Ryan to come, we would certainly be respectful of their time. If they were with us for two hours or 2 1 2 hours, we would consider that a great sign of respect for our committee. Mr. Sessions let me assure you, they have Great Respect for this committee. They have appointed, as ms. Pelosi has, each of you, we have made sure that our committee to a person is not only the finest in our conference, but here of equal value to each other. And we do appreciate that. This is a representative of our party right here that you see. We speak as not as one voice. But we speak as one team. I know that you engage us every day. That is literally i consider the strength of this team. Not just one person or the other. Mr. Polis earlier i want to address something by mr. Birn said that somehow mr. Byrne said that somehow ms. Pelosi or the democrats are holding something hostage. One has to recognize that the democrats in congress have no ability to hold anything hostage. Were the minority here. Were trying to make motions. They will likely be outvoted. The Majority Party is responsible will the gentleman yield . After hes finished . Mr. Polis i would be happy to yield in a bit. Give you some of my time later. Let me start again here. The gentleman, mr. Byrne, indicated somehow mrs. Pa lowsy or the democrats are holding something pelosi or the democrats are holding something hostage. The democrats have no ability to hold anything who is afpblgt the republicans not venl only have the majority on the floor but actually control the agenda of what we vote on. And if the democrats had a say in that, we would certainly schedule for immediate votes items like child Health Insurance program, the dream act, and i dont even think we would be talking about a shut down of government if the democrats were in charge. But again, the democrats have no ability here to schedule anything for the floor. Despite our best efforts. And if there is anybody who is Holding Government hostage, it is your fellow republicans, mr. Chairman, who are are in who are in control of what we vote on o and control the floor. Happy to yield to the gentleman from alabama. Mr. Byrne i appreciate the gentleman doing so. As mr. Cole regularly tells us, to get one of those things done you have to have a bipartisan agreement because you have to have democrats in the senate agree to t many i wrong about that, mr. Cole . Mr. Cole that is correct. Mr. Polis the gentleman didnt say the senate is holding it hostage, he said ms. Pelosi is holding it hostage. Mr. Byrne but shes part of the discussion. Mr. Polis if the gentleman has an issue its with the senate, not ms. Pelosi. Mr. Sessions we are engaging in what is great for all of us. Does the gentleman have a question for our witness because if we do not im going to excuse the witness. Mr. Polis i think one thing the committee can be better educated on because there seems to be some misunderstanding is the whole issue of deferred act action not expiring until march. It is already expiring every day for over 100 dreamers. And i wanted to that means there are 100 people able to work legally today that are not able to work legally tomorrow. The republicans are creating more Illegal Immigrants every day by failing to act on this. I want to make that clear. And that will continue until Congress Addresses the dream act that is not democrats. That is republicans. That are creating more people that are here illegally every day and i want to ask ms. Lujan grisham to explain how that works. Why are these expiring and why is there no other status for them . What becomes of these dreamers that status expires and theyre not waiting until march, their status expires today, i want you to clarify for the committee why that is so urgent. Ms. Lujan grisham thank you, it is 122 who lose status every day by march well have 4,500. In the deferred action eligibility requirements, you have to renew your application. Based on the date of original application. So in this process, as those original deists application expire and you must reapply, theres nothing to rely aply to to. Theres also a notion, i think, by some in congress that for and again, i dont want this to e the case, im here imploring that we use this vehicle to protect dreamers today so we can deal with the more complicated issues and they are complicated, i dont want to diminish or pretend they arent, and im grateful for the invitation i had by many caucuses, problem solvers, the tuesday group, main street, and so many others, talk about Border Security and identify issues we think both sides can move forward and agree on. But here there is nothing you could return to in march. So some have even said not only do we understand that were risking the 4,500, add to that the thousands of applications by the original, right, renewable date, which was when, october 5, that were postmarked on time but not delivered on time and Homeland Security made a unilateral decision, not standard in the administrative process, to also theny those. You now have thousands of dreamers who cannot work and who are at significant risk and in god forbid march, if i lose this appeal to you on my amendment today and something doesnt occur shortly thereafter, there are some who say well the president could reinstate daca. Theres nothing to reinstate. There would be total chaos in trying to figure out no program to try to reapply to and the fact that thered be no status to protect the folks in this executive order from a Prior Administration thats been rescinded. We have to do something. It does, quite literally, require an act of congress. Im hoping that your question and my answers and my effort today move the committee to join me in approving my amendment today. Thank you. Mr. Polis i thank the gentlelady. I want to make sure again she knows there is no march deadline, the deadline has passed for over 100 people every day. Thats why you see the sense of urgency. Its why democrats have no interest in putting this off until january. We expect to stay here through christmas, through new years, to get this done. There are bipartisan proposals on Border Security. And there are some that our colleagues mr. Hurd have worked on, problem solvers have worked on, those are very close to the finish line. I think we can vote on them this week. And pass them. Along with the dream act. So we are ready to go and again, if there is anybody who is standing in the way, it is not the republican rank and file, it is simply republican leadership. The votes are there. This is ready to occur. President trump has indicated he would sign it. And the deadline has passed. So we are of course ready to stay here and work rather than allow the status to lapse or these defact for these de facto americans. As you know, mr. Chairman, i had the opportunity to offer the dream act every time we had a continuing resolution. We havent prevailed yet getting it ruled in order, this time i hope we will. What an impact and message that would make on the eve of christmas to be able to create that certainty for a million and a half dreamers that just want to be able to contribute to our country and make it even greater. So i strongly urge my colleagues to support the dream act amendment. It doesnt mean you have to support it on the floor. Some of you might vote yes, some of you might vote no, but it is a debate we need to have to ensure democratic support for the rule that will ensure democratic support for the continuing resolution, simply let us have our vote on the dream act so that we can go home knowing what we did what we needed to for our friends and neighbors and constituents of mine like britney and alex and jessica and jose and so many others that ive come to know. Who know that we are here working for them and can advance the issue simply by allowing the house to debate and vote on a bill that will almost certainly pass the dream act. Im happy to yield back. Mr. Sessions i thank the gentleman. The gentlelady has been a very patient and very capable witness and we thank you for being here today and youve enlightened us all. Always a pleasure to see my friend. And unless there are other questions from anybody on the panel, the gentlelady is excused. Thank you again for this much of your time. Mr. Lujan ms. Lujan grisham thank you sor so much. Mr. Cole i was advised that the chairman is in consultation about exactly what is happening next. I didnt realize, i should have been paying attention. Mr. Weber youve been a very patient person as well. I hope you found it at least entertaining. But please come to the dais for our testimony. Mr. Weber thank you. I want to say regarding the Disaster Relief supplemental, my district in texas, most of you know is ground zero for harvey flooding. Im the first three coastal counties from louisiana. Jefferson county, Galveston County and southern half of brazoria county. If memory serves me, houston is just north of me, harris county. If memory serves, some 300,000 homes were flooded, half a million cars flooded a lot of people out of their homes, i have personally experienced in my own district by traveling back and forth all of the devastation and heartbreak and the just unbelievable suffering. On facebook as recent as about a week and a half, two weeks ago, a lady reached out to me for help, shes living in her car. We have People Living in tents, People Living in garages, People Living in houses that have in the been had the sheetrock taken out. Theres still wet carpet and flooded walls, mold is undoubtedly growing. The lady in the car, thank god i was able to finally geten facebook a couple of days later and got back with her. After another three or four day she is responded to me back she had gotten some help from her church and she was out of her car. What im describing is the suffering is immense. We have paid very, very close attention to the bill, the supplemental appropriations bill for Disaster Relief, an we appreciate all the help that the leadership has given us. We expect to have bipartisan support on both sides, mr. Chairman. Weve been in multiple, multiple meetings, we have met with the governor of texas, greg babbot and his staff over a lot of issues that the state is dealing with, how theyre view, you have to remember they are eyes and boots on the ground, my chief of staff has been a stalwart in this endeavor, shes been poring over the supplemental, shes been looking at it left and right, upside down, sideways, every way you can imagine. Were trying to make sure texas being absolutely the largest land mass and the most people affected that were adequately covered in the supplemental bill. So mr. Chairman, i would offer that i have an amendment at the esk. Mr. Session thank you very much. Id like to add to your testimony that the gentlewoman from dallas, texas, former mayor of irving, texas, beth van dyne, h. U. D. Representative for sixstate region is in attendance with us today and has spent a good bit of time this week on a bipartisan basis dealing with members of ongress. I am concerned, as the water dries up so do peoples votes and its been a lesson for a number of people because of the enormity of this whole battle of what one of my dear friends congress, jennifer Jenniffer Gonzales is from puerto rico, theres been a lot said even this morning about how were not doing the right things. Well, there are hundreds of people from new york alone that are down in the islands. The islands themselves present their own problems. The terrain. He infrastructure. The safety issues that go along with this. I want to thank you for standing up. I watched you now for since the day the storm came ashore, before that, your leadership, your common sense, your ability to try and sift through data and information, the opportunity for you to engage beth van dyne and the departments of the federal government. I want you to know that we do care about texas, we do care about you, the gentleman, mr. Hastings, who sits on this committee, on first opportunities for us to understand the enormous impact on his state too. I think what has happened with this supplemental so to speak this disaster issue, is most instructive to us all. I want to thank you for your professionalism in representing not only your people but the state of texas for some commonsense ideas, i want to thank you for being here. I also want to know that we have this we have mr. Polis who is , im going to consider being on this panel, does anybody have any questions, mr. Polis, the uestion id have for you is, has anybody from any of these groups that are working, engaged you yet on your ideas . Or is your legislation just the dream act and thats where you are . Are you hoping to work with other groups . Have they engaged you . Mr. Polis im not sure i understand the question. Mr. Sessions theres a working group, several working groups, have they engaged you . Mr. Polis im in one in particular, problem solvers, a Bipartisan Group. Mr. Sessions how is that going . Mr. Polis good. I think theres a cup of products wed be ready to vote on within a few days. Theres legislative language being drafted a couple of projects, one i know is one that mr. Hurd is working on be mr. Aguilar, the other one is the problem solvers proposal. I would be optimist optimistic we would be able to pass them this week. Mr. Sessions do you consider that those would be people in the room bipartisan . Mr. Polis yes. Mr. Sessions closer to the sense of the problem and why we need to address it and theyre trying to work this through even themselves . Mr. Polis yes, i think everybody who chooses to be in hose rooms is committed to solving the problem, correct. Mr. Sessions its a big issue . Mr. Polis its an enormous issue. Mr. Sessions the gentleman, mr. Newhouse, may or may not tell you but he asked me, may we bring some dreamers in that id want to have a meeting with. I said absolutely, bring them to the Chairmans Office he may or may not tell the story but had an opportunity to have eight or nine people from his home district engage him at the rules committee as weve had before when you brought people up here, i thought it was constructive that we did the same, it is bipartisan. Thank you very much for my questions both of you. Mr. Cole i have no questions, i want to echo your sentiments about my friend from texas. A lot of us have gone through these things, weve had a lot of tornadoes in my district. We dont know a lot object hurricane well, just call it rain in oklahoma. But i know we sent from our state disaster teams down to try to assist. Every time weve ever had any problem the kind of help weve goten from texas, both philanthropic and professional has been absolutely first rate. So all grieve for you and every other one of the victims, whether in texas, florida, louisiana, puerto rico, the virgin islands. You had a lot to do in changing the response. Its worth noting, mr. Chairman, and i say this with no criticism of anybody, because its very difficult to gauge, you know, the sweep of response, the damage, it takes time, to know how much youve lost. So we had a, you know a recommendation from the administration that quite frankly a lot of our members from the affected areas who may be more on top of the situation, learned not to be adequate. And as an appropriator, i had an opportunity to interact with quite a few members in the district and frankly from people not in the affected areas. We forget about how many children get displaced in these kinds of situations and that, you know, weve now in within this bill have money set aside to help School Districts that are receiving children, these were things they could not possibly predict and prepare for. I want to help them. That package moved up pretty dramatically and as my friend and many others from texas and florida and the affected regions that helped educate the Appropriations Committee about what the scale of these were. So i think the package that we have now, assume its approved by congress is somewhere in the neighborhood of 81 billion. Well above the 44 billion the administration requested. I suspect therell be additional help along the way. Im actually very proud of congress, as my friend pointed out in his testimony, very bipartisan in trying to Work Together and come together. I think theres a Real Coalition of folks that understand these are very challenging situations and theyre going to be there regardless of anything to make sure that people, americans in trouble, and through no fault of their own, get the kind of help they deserve and the government has in my view an obligation to provide. Again , my friend has played a big role in that, in educating us, i want to thank him for that. Mr. Weber i appreciate that. Do all the members have a copy of the amendment . Mr. Sessions we have five amendments. We do sir. To weber would you like me go through amendment . Mr. Sessions i thought the gentleman was through with his testimony. Mr. Weber we are grateful the sum was moved from 44 billion to 81 billion. But from a texas standpoint, theres things that help us operate, were a huge state a huge area, theres a lot of energy a will the of water, a lot of resources there. Some may not know, beaumont, the port of beaumont is the largest mover of military personnel and equipment in the entire country and have five i have five ports, more than any other member of congress. So it has a National Security nexus if you will, getting that dredged out, for example. Im sure you heard from chairman mccaul, you know, in his district where youve got Cypress Creek reservoir next to where the army corps of a dam. Rs currently has theres a lot of need there. Heres my amendment. The current language in the bill as we read through it, weve been in close contact with the Governors Office and theyre tracking this almost night and day because they know how it affects the state and the infrastructure and the prospect of future flooding and future lyes lost, future properties lost. Amendment number 3 as you see there shows me, mccaul and cuellar on it, excludes reservoirs from projects requiring 100 local operation and maintenance funding. What that means is again we go back to the reservoir that would be in congressman mccauls district, alongside of aticks and barker dam, the army corps of engineers had to release water after the flooding from harvey was almost done and they had to release water down on homes with little and no notice in many instances and it flooded people out, flooded businesses out where they had never, ever experienced a flood in houston in the last 40 or 50 years. So what we want to be sure is we get that project, those reservoirs, in the language that says if the army corps is going to manage a reservoir, the army corps is going to have another one in that houston area, which is huge, then they ought to be responsible for theup keep, operation and maintenance. Thats what that amendment does, quite frankly. And i can stop there, mr. Chairman if theres questions about that amendment or i can go to amendment number four. Mr. Sessions the gentleman will proceed. Mr. Weber you look at amendment number 4, it adds 1 2 fwation district it is eligible projects, also language in the bill. Most people do not know the which natchez water way, is the eastern board we are louisiana is the second largest waterway, longest waterway in the gulf coast, second only to the mississippi river. And just from an economic standpoint, this the sabine natches waterway is responsible for l. N. G. Exports in this country, it is huge. Its also the feed to the gulf for the port of beaumont and fort of port of port arthur that lets our military personnel get out. With all youre hearing with north korea, saber rattling, iranning and around the world, i think its critical that this is added that navigation districts, which this is a navigation district manages the waterway would be added to that project so that they too from a National Security standpoint would be included. Thats our number four amendment. Im going to strike number five and number six. Im not going to offer those. So im going to withdraw those. Number seven amendment also mccaulcuellarweber requires the deadline of 24 months for study completion under the corps of engineers. What were saying is with this kind of National Security nexus work this kind of energy nexus, 65 , 60 of the nations jet fuel is produced in my district, you add the port of houston to that, its almost 85 . Almost 20 of the nations gasoline east of the rockies. Port of houston, the districts north of me, its over 80 of the nations gasoline. So its huge on energy, were saying to the corps of engineers, these kinds of projects, flood mitigation, those that affect that many lives, that many families, that many homes that many businesses that many jobs that much National Security need to be a priority. And were saying, look this practice of having a study for three, four, five years or longer is unacceptable and these instances we want them to make those studies a priority and expedite with a 24month max. Those in essence are my three amendments. Im open for questions. I appreciate that, mr. Chairman. Mr. Sessions thank you very much. These make sense. m a little surprised that our Appropriations Committee did not know or saw fit to these to do these. Im sure well engage in that at some point. These seem like enormous issues, especially when you consider fort hood, texas. Bliss. Out in el paso. Is the armor that the United States army needs that goes via train to the 14th district of texas, then gets on ships to head out so our men and women are on the other end. This is tremendously important. The gentleman from massachusetts. Thank you, thank you for being here. Mr. Mcgovern i think i speak for everyone saying our thoughts are you, with the people in texas and people hit by Natural Disasters all over the country. Im not an expert on it, you know your district your state better than i do. These seem reasonable to me. I hope theyre made in order. But i have this feeling that they wont be. And im just going to throw this up, i dont want to put you on the spot. But you know, one of the ways to kind of force this issue would be to vote against the rule. So that they would maybe come back and maybe think differently about providing these, making these amendments in order. Im just throwing that out there because i think youre in a difficult situation, these guys are in the majority but i think that may be the only way to force votes on these things and well do our part in this committee, on our side, to make them in order but i just throw that out there. Mr. Weber i appreciate that, mr. Mcgovern. Does that mean youll vote for the rule to help this. Mr. Mcgovern you know what, maybe. But the deal is, you guys control the votes here and i can tell you, with pretty much cerny, pretty much certainty, democrats are going to vote no. Mr. Weber i thank you for the questions and comment, i do want to draw attention to just how important this is and how it would improve the bill and to our great appropriators and to our great staff, especially my hief, shes been done a yoemans job of work through this. Its been very, very conform kated. These are unprecedented times, theres a lot of suffer ought there. Were saying we want to mitt gate this going forward, because its not a question of if texas or any other states for that matter with these kinds of projects gets a hurricane, its simply a matter of when. Mr. Mcgovern i appreciate that. If it were me id be doing everything i possibly could for my district and hoping people would gin with me, im very, very sympathetic. Lots of luck. I yield back. Mr. Sessions i appreciate the gentlemans sincere appreciation that this is serious. It is worthy that you are taking time to fight this battle. The gentleman from georgia. The gentleman from florida who also is in the same circumstance. As i speak earlier, mr. Chairman, one of the things year not addressing is Flood Insurance and all of us know how critical that is. Mr. Hastings id like i, like mr. Weber, have issues at home, colleagues of ours, mr. Mast, Frances Rooney as well as tom rooney, and mario diazbalart, we have been working on issues having to do with lake okeechobee. And dam referred to as the hoover dam and the need of army corps of engineers to expedite matters with reference to assure to shoring up that dam. What happens is when the late lake gets high when the lake gets high, they release water, to the east and to the west and tourism ing to our industry and so im fully supportive of your amendments being made in order. Mr. Weber thank you. Mr. Sessions the gentleman from alabama. The gentleman does not seek time. The gentleman from colorado. And you dont have any questions for yourself . Mr. Polis no. Mr. Sessions we consider you to be a witness at the same time. S the time the judge speaks about how he gets opportunity, our witness and a questioner at your own trial. Mr. Polis thank you, i ppreciate the opportunity. Mr. Sessions thats like, youre schizophrenic and so are you. Both sides of that coin. You get answered. Thank you very much. The gentlewoman from wyoming does not seek any question. Mr. Weber, storm was a long time ago. A lot of work has begun into this. Your leadership and the leadership of the gentleman, mr. Poe, mr. Culberson, among others has been exemplary. And our prayers are still with you, our prayers are still with judge hastings, mr. Curbelo, others who have been impacted, the ran nees, both the gentlemen the rooneys, both the gentlemen, were going to try to bring this bill to the floor today. Were going to try to bring what we believe is the right thing after hearing from the texas delegation, the florida delegation, i hope you engaged and felt like you made progress. I hope you feel like that people did not just take an easy out and take what the administration wanted. I hope you recognize that its probably not perfect, but its darn better than what it could have been. I appreciate your leadership, judge, i appreciate your leadership being part of that team that worked together. If the gentleman will remember, we have an awesome stenographer, anything you brought in writing should be left with her so she can complete the record today, not only of your Exemplary Performance but that you wish to have on record. Mr. Weber i want to take one last opportunity to wish you all a very Merry Christmas. Mr. Sessions thank you, sir. Is there any other member who would seek to give testimony to 4667 . 4667, h. R. Seeing none, this closes the hearing portion. The chair will be in receipt of a motion from the gentleman from oklahoma. Mr. Cole i move the chair grant a rule providing for Senate Amendment to h. R. 1370, the department of Homeland Security authorization act of 2017. The rule makes in order a motion offered by the chair of the committee on appropriations or his designee, house concurs in the amendment consisting of the text of 11512. The rule waves points of order, and the motion shall be considered as read, the rule provides one hour of debate on the motion equally divided and controlled by the Ranking Members of the committee on appropriations. Section two provides for consideration of h. R. 4667, making further proningses for fiscal year september 30, 2017, or Disaster Assistance for harvey and maria and irma. The rule provides for one hour of debate equally divide and controlled by the chair of the committee on appropriations. The bill shall be considered as read and the rule provides that the amendments printed in the rules Committee Report shall be considered as adopted and the bill shall be considered as read. The rule weas all points of order. The rule provides that clause 2e of of rule 1 shall not apply during consideration of the bill. The rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Section 306 the rule provides that on any legislative day of the first sofingse the 115th congress after december 21, 2017, the journal of the proceedings of the previous day shall be considered as approved an the chair may at any time declare the house adjourned to meet at a date and time to be announced by the chair in declaring the adjournment. Section 4 of the rule provides that on any legislative day of the second sofingse the 115th congress before january 8, 2018, the speaker may dispense with organization and legislative business, the journal of the proceeds of the previous days proceedings shall be considered as approved and the chair may be at any time declared the house adjourned to meet at a date and time to be announced by the chair in declaring the adjournment. Section five of the rule provoids that the speaker may appoint members to perform the duties of chair during the period addressed by sections three and four. Section six of the rule provides that during each day of the period addressed by sections three and four of the resolution shall not constitute calendar days for the purpose of section 7 of the war powers resolution. The resolution provides that for each tai in Section Three and four of the resolution shall not institute a legislative day for purposes of clause 3 of rule 13. Mr. Sessions you have heard the motion from the gentleman from oklahoma. Ill take one minute. The rule is one rule. Two measures. The first is the Senate Amendment to h. R. 1370, makes in order a motion to concur in the Senate Amendment with the amendment consists of the text of the continuing resolution. One hour of debate to the Appropriations Committee. It also includes a second measure which would also require being voted on. Emergency disaster aid package, closed rule, another record here for the gentleman from florida, selfexecutes mimi wait a minuters 1 and jenniffer givesezcolon number two, one m. T. R. , motion to recommit. Provides for december and january district work period and would mean if were able to accomplish this then we can sing the song and well be home for christmas. Amendment or discussion . Yes there is. Mr. Sessions the gentlewoman is recognized. Ms. Slaughter i move to make in order, give the necessary waverers in amount to the house amendment to the Senate Amendment to h. R. 1370 by representative Lujan Grisham, number 4. Which would add the text of the dream act, h. R. 3040 3440 to the end of the c. R. Since weve already selfexecuted two amendments, i would certainly like to see this added or at least allowed to be discussed on the floor. I think history is going to show that this is one of the most duplicitous things we have ever done. Those young people were told to come forward and register. And say they were undocumented and where they lived. And then the rug was pulled out of them and that protection was taken away and they are being picked up and destained detained and as eunderstood this morning, suicide rate is pretty high. Longer they are no covered, once theyre undocumented, their school is over, their jobs are over. And since they contribute mightily to the tax base of this country because they do work and do contribute and pay taxes, i think in the future people will write textbooks about what we did to 800,000 young people who were americans in every way but on paper. So i certainly hope well give good consideration to allowing this amendment to be made in order. Mr. Sessions discussion . I would hope the second paragraph of the letter written says and the Congress Respectfully after due consideration including bipartisan relationships with each other reached a an opportunity to resolve the matter. I expect that to be done very quickly. Not quick enough for your amendment. Ms. Slaughter no, it isnt. Mr. Sessions all im saying is i hope therell be a second paragraph. Ms. Slaughter im not clear where this ship is sailing anyway, its pretty ad hoc, some days we have hearings, some days we dont, emergency meetings and no Committee Action and no anything. And i really dont know that this is going to wait until sometime when everybody thinks theyve determined how theyre going to build a wall or whatever else theyre going to do but these are human beings. And many of them are very young. Mr. Sessions we engaged with the gentleman, mr. Polis who said likeminded people in the same room are struggling to come to the same answer. Ms. Slaughter lets help them. Lets put this on the floor and vote it. S those in favor of the amendment, certify by saying aye. Those opposed, no. Ms. Slaughter roll call. Mr. Sessions noes have it. Roll call vote. Votes] [roll call mr. Sessions clerk will report. The clerk four yays, eight nays. Mr. Mcgovern i have an amendment to the rule. I rule the committee make in orter ep bloc waivers to 4667 offered by mr. Weber, numbers three, four, and seven. He waited here for a very long ime and mr. Sessions i believe seven was taken out. Mr. Mcgnchyk youve withdrawn all your amendments . Then i withdraw the amendment but i thought they were good amendments. Mr. Weber we realize the lateness of the hour. Mr. Mcgovern even with the lateness of the hour we are the rules committee and should respect the urgency of the hour. But if you withdrew them. Mr. Sessions i appreciate the gentleman hearing not only mr. Weber but taking up the cause so thank you very much. Further amendment or discussion . The gentleman from florida. Mr. Histings i have an amendment to the rule, i move the committee make in order and provide necessary waivers for an amendment by me to the continuing resolution with the text consisting of the following. None of the funds appropriated in the exonting appropriates act of 2018 division d of public law 11556 may be used to deport recipients of the deferred action for childhood Arrivals Program. With your permission i would offer a brief discussion. Mr. Sessions the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Hastings we had a rather substantial amount of dialogue today on the subject. Among the things that some of us learned was that the status of the people that are here under the deferred action for hildhood Arrivals Program is volatile in the sense that each day a significant number of them are losing their status. Some of those persons are subject to deportation. It would seem more than reasonable that we would disallow those deportations until such time as we have addressed the remedy and the necessary discussion nationally that you feel and others that should take place with reference to this matter. As you know, mr. Chairman, i have been a lead person working through the years with reference to Central Americans who sought temporary protective status because of the conditions in their respective countries, more specifically, honduras, nicaragua, and el salvador. And i for years, even before coming to congress and as a member of congress, have sought temporary protective status for haitians and will continue to do so because of the conditions that are extant in their country. These young people that are here under the daca provision, all of us know what their status is. I shouldnt belabor it. But we certainly shouldnt deport any of them. Lets just use one example. What if a deferred action youngster is in the military. Status tatus or her expires tomorrow. Then theyre eligible for deportation even after having served our country as many of the daca people do. I dont think thats right. And i agree with mr. Byrne that there should be active discussion ongoing with reference to Border Security and any other matters having to do with immigration but the urgency of this particular matter should be addressed now and therefore i think at the very least we should not deport any of the persons who lose their status and with that, i yield back. Mr. Sessions the gentleman is the gentleman open for questions . What is the due process status under what you described for a person who is in the military . Mr. Hastings i dont know. Mr. Sessions thats the reason why im reticent to offer relief when i have not studied it. The gentleman knows i tried to study to be prepared for the amendments that we have. So i want the gentleman to know appreciate his advocacy and i do respect it also and im not saying i disagree with it but there are questions that i do not know thats easy for me to guess what might or might not be in the law but theres a due process under that, i would envision, i dont know what the answer is, for persons in the military that you brought up. Not just for them to be picked up on a military reservation but some process that would go through. Im sorry, i did not come prepared. Im saying i should probably understand this. Especially since its a driving issue of our nation at the time. I tell you, i will bone up on this to where im better prepared to then defend, deny, or support something that you might bring up but i think we dont know the answers to to these things. Mr. Hastings i understand that, mr. Chairman. Perhaps i chose as an analogy a poor example. And the simple fact of the matter is, that we know that these persons were either brought to america or when when they were children or have status that we took cognizance of and allowed them to be here under the deferred action. I would think that military person as well as anyone else would be contemplated by the amendment that i offered and that is even if there is a due process for them that they would not be at any point in time deported until such time as theres a total resolution with reference to mr. Sessions all im suggesting is i dont know enough to know what the due process is, so i cant assume and i do respect the gentleman and i know he hear ispoint too. Mr. Mcgovern i want to support the gentlemans amendment. We spent a lot of time talking about the need to enact the dream act. We heard a lot of rationalization as to justifying the action of the congress and the president took away their status on september 7, its now december 21. And then we were told we need more discussions and we need more committee hearings. Without any understanding of what the committees were doing up to this point. What we do know is contrary to what some thought that everybody was ok until the end of march, people are losing their status each and every day. People are losing their jobs each and every day. And if somebody gets picked up for speeding or broken taillight and is whether theyre, you know, on leave from the military or whether theyre just theyre you know, working at a business, they are subject to basically being deported. And so at a minimum let us aeroon the side of caution to say that as, while you try to figure out what you guys are going to do, let us not deport these people. They are incredible assets to our community, they are working, they are owaying the law, they are obeying the law, they are making this country great, we should celebrate them but we should not be deporting them. And i think at a minimum, you know, this is a reasonable, rational thing we ought to be able to debate and vote on on the house floor. Yield back my time. Mr. Sessions were going to vote on the motion. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. Noes have it. The gentleman asks for a recorded vote. Roll call vote. The clerk will poll the committee. Oll call vote] mr. Sessions clerk will report the total. The clerk four yays, eight nays. Mr. Sessions the amendment is not agreed to. Mr. Polis i move the committee provide a rule for consideration of h. R. 3440, the dream act as a stand alone measure under an open rule with three hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary. If i can speak to this amendment, i think this is a good compromise amendment. It will basically allow the dream act as the basis of what gives vng to the floor but under an open rule. So during that several hour period members on both sides of the aisle will be able to refine any lastminute elements of what needs to be done to prevent over 100 people from falling out of legal presence every day and to address the issue going forward. I know that theres, as has been indicated in testimony, various groups that have thoughts and have worked on it, many bipartisan, my understanding there might be some republicanonly groups working on this too. Its time to address this on the floor of the house. I think there will be a number of amendments and i think the house can work its way and get through this. I have great confidence in the integrity and abilities of the gentlemen and gentlewomen who make up this body on both sides of the aisle. We need to give the house a chance to do their work. I think this is a good answer. It means that the rules committee itself will provide an open rule and i think that we can hatch through any additional issues that divide a us a divide us and reach a product americans can be proud of and that our aspiring american neighbors and friends will also be proud of. I yield back. Mr. Sessions thank you very much. Ould offer a little bit of of my words to the gentleman. Ill be going home. I hope. Ill be knowing my stepson that serves in the United States navy in pearl harbor in his and his colleagues in the United States military are going to get only temporary relief also. For another month. This body seemingly finds a way to argue and fight. I do recognize that people do eed the opportunity. I would also say were not dealing fairly with the military this body is going to have to come to real grips to what its with what its doing. And im very, very much in the corn over trying to resolve things. And yet here we are fighting as much as we can and we cant even find relief for our military. Its a circumstance that we worked ourselves into as two bodies and we got to get better. Were going to come back and were going to present what i think will be a fair opportunity as we said we would for what youre fighting for. Today, were not even doing the same thing for our military. And we got a lot of soul searching to do over christmas. Thats my comments. Over what were doing. Anybody else . Vote now on the polis amendment. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. Noes have it. Gentleman asks for a roll call vote. He clerk [roll call vote] mr. Sessions clerk will report. The clerk four yays, eight nay. Mr. Sessions the amendment is not agreed to. The motion will now be on the motion from the distinguished gentleman from oklahoma. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. The gentlewoman asks for a roll call vote. Clerk will poll the committee. He clerk [roll call vote] mr. Sessions clerk will report the title. The total. The clerk four nays, eight yays. Mr. Sessions mr. Woodall will handle this for the majority. Ms. Slaughter mr. Mcgovern. Mr. Sessions mr. Mcgovern will handle time for the minority. To our staffs thank you for the time, Merry Christmas. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] House Rules Committee wrapping up their work as they put together rule for debating a shortterm funding package and Natural Disaster aid and relief. Celt to expire this coming friday night. The package will keep the government funded until january 19 of next year. The rule calls for an hour of debate on both the temporary government funding bill and the disaster aid proposal. The house in the meantime has been in a holding pattern, theyre in recess waiting for results of the rules committee. We expect the house to gavel back in shortly to start rules debate and then they are expected to have votes and hold general debate with more votes to follow. Its likely to be a long day in the us