Floor Statements

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I share the sentiments of the chairman. Space technology is critically important. I want to acknowledge the work that was originally done by Bobby Braun, who is now at Georgia Tech, Mike Gazarik, who now is the chief space technologist at NASA doing an extraordinary job, but the resources are needed.

I want to thank you for offering this amendment because it points us toward greater resources in that regard. I am familiar with the great work that is being done in your home State of Ohio at the Glenn Research Center.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Madam Chair, I would join and sign such a request to the

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I want to acknowledge the great work of the gentleman from Texas on patent reform. We worked together and he led the effort that has reformed our patent system, I think, in a remarkable way.

The majority leader and I spent some time on one of the last vote days here to go over to NIH and hear from Dr. Collins about great research, particularly interested in pediatric cancers and the like.

So these are two gentlemen, the authors of this amendment, who have been very positive and focused in a number of areas that I share with them. However, this amendment is misguided, and I want to speak in opposition to it.

The notion that we would want to eliminate certain investigations by the National Science Foundation into economic science or behavioral science, when we talk about disasters, the reason why we have saved so many lives, it is not just that we have improved weather forecasting, even though that would be eliminated in terms of the moneys here for investigative purposes by the National Science Foundation, but also understanding the behaviors of people facing disasters is very important. That would be cut.

This area of posttraumatic stress is a critical area. We know now that many of our returning soldiers face posttraumatic stress, but we also know that children living in very difficult circumstances in our country are more traumatized than if they were living in a war zone, an active war zone in another country. So eliminating, cutting back scientific investigations in this regard would be, I think, disastrous.

That is why I am hoping that whatever is causing this, there will be some reversal of it eventually. But in the meantime, I want to suggest to the House that we should oppose this amendment, we should oppose the notion that somehow we don't want to know certain things.

I was at the University of Pittsburgh. I saw some results of National Science Foundation funding that started out 30 years ago that a Member on this floor would be on the floor complaining about now. It was the examination of what happens in the neurons of a monkey when they move their arm, what neurons fire off in their brain.

Well, that research today, 30 years later, literally has a woman who, because of a disease, has no control of her body, but can now move an artificial arm through her thoughts. This is the result of research by the National Science Foundation. It is the world premier basic science foundation, it is the model for our economic competitors. They are imitating it.

A small country like Singapore with less than 5 million people is investing $7 billion in their national science foundation. Here we are, the wealthiest country in the world, and we are putting $7.4 billion, which is the highest ever, and I thank the chairman.

But now we want to put handcuffs on the agency about what it is that they can look at in terms of improving the life chances of Americans. The research has paid off. That is why we are the great country that we are today. The World Economic Forum says our Nation and our Nation's economy is driven by innovation.

The last thing that we should be doing on the floor of this House is equivocating or compromising or making it more challenging for those who are engaged in the innovation ecosystem to do their work.

Even though I compliment the gentleman, Mr. Smith, and the majority

leader, Mr. Cantor, for all their efforts, I can't imagine for the life of me why we would be on this floor tonight debating a retreat on behavioral science, on economic science. It makes no sense. I would hope that the House, notwithstanding the fact that the majority is held by the other team, I hope in this instance, as the chairman said, we would realize that this is not a competition between Democrats and Republicans. We are competing against countries that have big and plus populations like China and India, they want to eat our lunch economically, and what we need to do is stop the bickering back and forth and figure out what is best for our country.

The chairman and I voted for Simpson-Bowles. We were one of just less than 40 Members who did so. I might be in the minority on this vote, but I am going to vote on what is in the best interest of our Nation, and that is to continue to invest in innovation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, in defense of the National Science Foundation and in opposition to these cuts, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey, Congressman Holt. This is another one of these amendments that works against the effort of the committee, which is to try to increase--in fact, we did increase--the National Science Foundation's budget.

Madam Chair, in reclaiming my time, there will also be

another amendment on NSF that the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price) may speak to, and with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), who represents, in part, one of the greatest research triangles in the country outside of Philadelphia.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

I am opposed to this amendment.

I do, however, want to yield to the gentlelady from the great State of Florida--part of the Space Coast, and who does an extraordinary job--to speak on behalf of Legal Services. Before I do that, I want to make one point.

Last year alone, Legal Services helped 41,000 veterans of the United States of America who were facing foreclosure and had other challenges related to disability claims.

This notion that we should do away with access to courts for people who have worn the uniform to protect our rights, I think, is wrongheaded.

I yield to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Castor) to speak further on this subject.

Reclaiming my time, in closing, I participated with the former Attorney General, Dick Thornburgh, in a pro bono effort for some of our major law firms, which is great. However, national Legal Services in many of these rural communities, unlike a big city like Philadelphia, don't have the benefit of the law firms where they can have pro bono partners and the like. If they are going to have a lawyer for a soldier, a veteran who needs help on a foreclosure, it is going to be Legal Services.

So to cut off their access to the court is the wrong thing for us to do, and I oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.

As for myself, I believe that America and our ideals, the notion that someone could have their liberty taken, be held with secret evidence, be denied an opportunity to appear before a court of law, be denied counsel or outside contact, is something that our country would never engage in.

The problem with this theory is that we are engaged in it. The problem is that, under President Bush, Sr., he would say about China: You all are arresting people with no charges, no public evidence, no tribunal of any sort, and that this is not part of the civilized world.

I remember questioning the former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich. We had a talk right after 9/11. He was talking, and I said: Well, if we are a Nation of laws, how are we going to reconcile that in this new circumstance? He said: It is going to be very difficult. And here we are. It is very difficult.

We are spending $3 million per prisoner to house people in a foreign land under charges that we are not prepared to make public, no offering of a trial, most of whom were turned over for bounty or for ransom paid out by our government. I don't know how it is that we suggest that we want to project to the rest of the world what a Nation of laws actually looks like, but as for me and my district, I am going to cast a vote in favor of this amendment because the Constitution of the United States was drafted and written and signed in Philadelphia, and somehow I believe that the notion that our country would ever come to this moment is the voice from the source of those who wrote that document at that time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make a couple of points.

One is that this requirement is in place now and has been in place, and it has not disrupted life. It has saved lives, however.

This requirement does not actually apply to normal shotguns or to hunting rifles. I think it is important for the House to understand that it applies to semiautomatics that are greater than a .22 caliber and that can hold a detachable magazine. All this says is, if somebody shows up and buys 1,000 of these, the Federal firearms license dealer needs to report that multiple sale. It is a reasonable thing.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member on Appropriations.

In reclaiming my time, I would now like to yield to the gentlelady from Connecticut (Ms. Esty).

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, this is an attempt to authorize on an appropriations bill. These buffer zones that have been put in place under the expertise of NOAA have been part and parcel to making sure that the salmon in the hatchery system work properly. I think for us to delve into this at this point is difficult, and the wording is challenging.

Rather than deal with it here, I would ask if we could talk about it and see what we could do in conference, and that would be a good thing. I would hate for us, after having invested tens of millions of dollars in the salmon, to be taking a rash action here on the floor.

I yield to the gentleman, and I would like to work with you on this.

In reclaiming my time, it is true that I represent an urban area, yes. I would be glad to continue to yield.

Reclaiming my time, the United States taxpayers have invested a lot of money for the help of salmon in your neck of the woods. I am all for it. I like to make sure that whatever we are doing is correct. We have got treaty obligations. We have got hatcheries. We have got all kinds of stuff going on with both the Native Americans and the commercial fishermen operations there.

All I am saying is I don't want to come to the end of the night, after we have been debating this bill for 2 days, and rush something forward that may not be the way to go.

It is interestingly worded. I know that you have good intentions. I would like to work with you and the majority staff and see where we are. I just can't support this, given the complexities of the issues and the limitations of me being from an urban area. I want to make sure I have a complete grasp on the issue.

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, a lot of us would love to go out to dinner tonight and have salmon.

The issue for the science of this is that you can't make a mistake. This is a multiyear process. You have got a lot going on here. And if you blow it, you are going to blow it for a big industry that is important for America.

So I would like to work with you and make sure that we get it right. And the expertise of NOAA, I think, could be helpful in that process.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I want to thank my colleagues from Pennsylvania.

And yes, the case that was referenced centered in Pennsylvania, and it is a case that is pending before our courts. I won't have much to say about it other than under our system, an indictment is merely a charge. We have to go through the process.

But the one thing that we do know--having nothing to do with the instant case--is Chairman Wolf has worked on this for a number of years. He has exposed all of us to information about this and arranged briefings from our highest levels of law enforcement officials in our country.

And clearly, there is a great deal of cyber snooping going on. It emanates from a number of different places, China included: Ukraine, Nigeria--we can go through the laundry list. But we have to do more to protect ourselves.

I want to thank the gentlemen from Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle and Mr. Murphy, for bringing this amendment forward. As the chairman indicated, we will work with them in a way to make this as concrete as possible as we go forward.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I want to thank the gentleman for bringing this amendment forward. It is so very important that our country move aggressively in this area.

As you travel around the world, you see other countries doing so much more in terms of renewable energy and utilizing cleaner energy sources.

In Ireland, it is wind energy. In France, it is nuclear. In Israel, you have solar along the Dead Sea. Morocco has got one of the largest solar operations.

One of the things that our government can do to save money, as was mentioned in the last discussion about the need to save money, is that we could be moving to a different type of fuel, and we also could be improving the circumstances under which the air that our grandchildren will breathe will be healthier.

I want to thank the gentleman for bringing this forward. There are vehicles that are coming forward that are going to be solar-powered and powered by other types of alternative fuel. Our military has been investing very significantly in this regard, in terms of aviation fuel.

There is work for us to do. We can actually do it together, Democrats and Republicans; and therefore, I rise in support of this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Let me say a couple of things. One is I am opposed to this amendment.

Now, generally, I am opposed to us building new prisons. I think we would be much better off building new schools. But there are circumstances in which people have to be incarcerated to protect society from them.

I want to talk about one young man who lost his life, and I think it is important relative to this amendment. His name was Eric Williams. It was February of 2013. He worked for us. He worked for the Federal Government. He worked in a Federal prison in Pennsylvania, and he lost his life because of the overcrowding there.

So one of the things is that, if we are going to imprison more people than any other nation on the face of the Earth, then we have to do it. And we can't do it on the cheap. We have to have facilities that are well staffed so that our guards and the people who work for us are not put in unsafe circumstances.

Now, this political nonsense, this is a new theme of some of my colleagues on the other side. We can't pass immigration reform because the President might not do something or might do something. We can't do this prison that we have already invested money in because the President might do something or not do something. So it is kind of like this hyperconcern about what the President may do.

We should do our job, and our job is that, if we want to take the prison census from 20,000 to 220,000, then we have to have the facilities. We can't stand on the floor and vote for prison sentences that go out years and decades, have people tried through the DOJ that we are funding, and then have no place to incarcerate them. It doesn't work that way.

So this amendment makes no sense, that you would have a facility that the taxpayers have paid for, you have a system that is overcrowded, you have people like Eric Williams who have lost their lives trying to do a job on behalf of the American public, and then we have politics intrude. This is not about criminal justice management. This is about politics. This is about, well, you know, Obama and this and that.

There is no place in America in which we can have a circumstance in which we incarcerate someone and make sure--we don't have any breakouts from Federal maximum security prisons. If you did, the Congress would be excited about it. It hasn't happened. So the idea that we can't incarcerate people safely is defied by the facts. What we can't do is safeguard our prison staff if we put them in a situation where overcrowding exists.

So I would hope that we would reject this amendment.

I would be glad to yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Reclaiming my time, when I was back in school, I read a paper called ``Metaphysical Madness,'' and the essence of it was that in politics the question was: How do you get ambitious, vindictive people to agree on something? That is how you make progress. Well, I don't know that we want to be vindictive. But the point here is that we still have to, in some way, come to a shared agreement about how this country is going to go forward.

If you think the majority leader of the U.S. Senate, who is from Illinois, is going to have this bill moved forward with this language in it, it is not going to happen. We are just asking for a bottleneck. So we should stop wasting time and find a way to go forward.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) as a courtesy to my colleague to speak on the question of hemp.

Reclaiming my time, in the hope that perhaps whatever the circumstances that might emerge from these couple of amendments, maybe it might bring greater harmony in our country.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

There may be some confusion. The entire comments of the gentleman who just spoke, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, was on an amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie). That is not the amendment that was being debated and is being offered by my colleague from Kentucky, and we were trying to clarify that because the House could be confused.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

It won't take long to make this point. All of us grew up during a time in which part of the ability to attract people to Federal service, particularly to law enforcement, were

shows that highlighted the FBI and its prowess, but think about it today, in order to recruit people, in order to have job fairs and career fairs and to communicate information about the agency.

For instance, it is trying to recruit now people who can help in cyber crimes, and they have had a problem getting people who can get past some of the screening, so they have to do even more public relations in order to attract people who are capable of helping to build the cases like some of the ones which were discussed here earlier on the floor in which American companies were being cyber hacked and they were stealing essentially American jobs and wealth in that process.

I think, in this effort to separate the FBI from Hollywood, we might be separating the agency from its ability to promote itself. There is no Member of Congress that doesn't understand and appreciate the fact that there are times in which you need to be able to communicate with the public, and so it is the case with a Federal agency.

I think that the amendment--and I understand the impulse, and I am sure there is waste, and I can show you waste in the FBI and in any of these other agencies, but I don't believe that communicating with the American public is something that we should consider as wasteful. I, therefore, oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus).

I yield to the gentlewoman from Oakland, California, Congresswoman Lee.

Reclaiming my time, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the prison system that the Federal Government is operating, which has been growing exponentially over the last decade, will have gobbled up-- by the time we pass this bill--about a fourth of the DOJ's budget. This is like the Pac-Man arcade game that keeps eating money.

Now, there are very interesting things going on in the land. There are Democrats and Republicans. There are the most conservative people in our country and the most liberal who are saying things that are fascinating, like we need to stop incarcerating so many people, that America really should not be the leading nation in the world in the percentage of people that we put in jail and that maybe we need to rethink part of what we are doing.

We have the problem of having very violent criminals we don't seem to have enough prison space for because we are locking up nonviolent people for things that we should probably find some way to have diversions for.

We have had multiple amendments today for diversion programs. You might not want to call them that, but that is what they are--drug courts, veterans courts. These are vehicles by which to divert people from the prison system because we know something about the prison system.

We know that, if you put people in there, the most likely circumstance is that they are going to go back again and again and again and that they are going to go back for increasingly more serious and more violent activities because the one thing that is happening in the prisons is that they are becoming involved in a vocation that is essentially antisocial.

I am not dealing with the amendment itself because the chairman is right, in that we need to know what it says, and we need to act in a responsible way, but we should not be, in any way, under some illusion that we are going to continue, as a country, to just put more and more people away.

It doesn't make sense, and as politicians who are supposed to be leading the most powerful nation in the world, we need to start to make some sense on this point.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

In reclaiming my time, I can tell you that those are States that the chairman and the former ranking member, Mollohan--and now myself--have been investing in, in the Justice reinvestment programs, that help States think through how to do just that and operate a more safe environment for their people.

Mr. Chairman, I hope that the gentleman will withdraw his amendment and work with the chairman and me, and we will see to what degree we might be able to meet his concerns.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, this is impractical. If there were a resignation in the office and if you needed to have a temporary detailee, it would be prohibited from this amendment. The last thing we would want is the President using such extraordinary power without the benefit of proper staff and due diligence.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlelady from the great State of Maine (Ms. Pingree).

Reclaiming the balance of my time, without oceans that are alive and healthy, we are going to be challenged ourselves to live.

Our Nation has the responsibility for the greatest amount of oceans anywhere in the world. It is tough being the United States of America. We have some responsibility.

We now, for the first time ever, have an ocean policy, and the gentleman offers a proposal to prohibit the implementation of a policy to create better health for our coastal communities and for our oceans.

I reject the amendment, and hope that the House would do likewise.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I will not take more than 50 seconds.

Simply put, the notion that we as a country are better off having less information defies most logic that I can think of at this hour of the night.

I think more information is probably good, and I would ask that we vote against this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman be willing to share a minute of that with our side?

If the chairman would yield, we have a member of the committee who wanted to say a few words on this and had some concerns. She is only going to take a minute.

Mr. Chairman, I respect Chairman Wolf's ability to accept the amendment. I just wanted to register my opposition to it.

And I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, with brevity, I reject the entire predicate of the amendment, that we are not going to Mars or that Russia is leading space exploration or any of the other things.

However, I understand the gentleman would not like to not waste the taxpayers' money, and, therefore, he has offered this amendment. The chairman has accepted it. But the idea that our country is not the leading premier nation in the world in space exploration, I do not accept.

And with that point, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

So we have had about 30,000 small and medium manufacturers close their shop in our country over last 20 years. We have 11 million Americans who go to work every day making things with their hands. We still lead the world as the number one manufacturer, but what used to be an absolute lead is now relative. Part of the challenge is technology.

This Congress has provided writeoffs for new machinery and other types of write-downs on capital equipment. We need to fortify our manufacturing base, and we also need to provide technical support. We provide billions of dollars to our National Laboratories. I went out to visit Oak Ridge in Tennessee. They have a manufacturing center there that helps small manufacturers think through their challenges. And the last thing we need to do is to retreat on this battlefield on manufacturing.

So the gentleman from Georgia is headed in the wrong direction. I hope

that the Congress does not follow him. I will be voting against this amendment, and I support this technology loan guarantee program. In fact, I authored it in this bill, and, yes, it has been built up over the last couple years to make sure that before they do anything that they do it correctly because we want to get it right.

But the one thing we should be certain about is that small and medium manufacturers, which are at the heart of our manufacturing industry in our country, they need our support, and this is a way to help them. It is not a handout, it is a loan, and it is actually a loan guarantee.

It is a way to go to help manufacturers across our land, and I hope that even at this late hour that we not fall victim to the suggestion that we can't do what we should do to make sure that this country can continue to lead in this critical area.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I will take about 50 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this amendment. I think intruding on the National Science Foundation and the work that is based on merit and peer-reviewed science, we should not be using politics in the political process as a substitute for it.

I hope that Congress would in its wisdom vote against the amendment offered by my friend, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Without claiming my own time, I just want to support the thrust of this proposed amendment, which is that we should provide a shield law. The idea that, in 2005, a reporter was jailed for over 85 days is wrong, and we do want to have the freedom.

We have a constitutional responsibility to protect the freedom of press, but I agree with the chairman, we don't want to do it on an appropriations bill at 10:30 at night. We want to make sure it is clear what we are doing, so I oppose the amendment under those circumstances.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chair, the process that the gentleman seeks to intervene in with this amendment started some 16 years ago. And I would like the Congressional Record to reflect this, that apparently if a Presidential election doesn't go in the right direction, the other team's notion is to yank all of the authority away from the person who did win.

Unfortunately in our democracy, it doesn't work like that. When they are not calling for some Member of the Cabinet to resign or doing something else to intervene in the President's authority, they have these theories. Well, this new theory is that Obama has concocted some strategy to turn over the Internet to our enemies.

This is a process that started 16 years ago, and through the Bush administration and the Clinton administration. It is a process having to do with what we might want to call the yellow pages for the Internet, the domain names and how people can create their addresses on the Internet.

The theory of the Internet was to have no government in control. The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America has been one of the major proponents of this. I don't believe that anyone on the other team would suggest that somehow they have concocted this scheme with the President to have us empower the Syrians or someone with control of the Internet.

So it is hard for me to focus on this as a substantive matter, because the truth is so far from what has been stated it is hard to reconcile the two things. But the point here is that one of the things that we have tried to say to the rest of the world is that the Internet is not controlled by government, that it is an opportunity for people to enjoy an American ideal, which is freedom of speech, freedom of association.

There were those on the other team who were happy when, during the Arab Spring, people were using social media and Twitter to interact against oppressive regimes around the world. So we have this kind of selective amnesia on these issues. It seems to come into play having anything to do with the Obama administration. There is nothing I can do about it this evening. Maybe it is covered under the Affordable Care Act. But I oppose this amendment, and I oppose the knee-jerk, irresponsible actions that would suggest to countries like China and others that we want to control the Internet versus we want it to be an opportunity for people to gather information, speak freely, and associate freely.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Chairman, I want to know whether I can raise a point of order against this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I won't waste the Congress' time going through a great deal of debate. But as brief as I can, what the gentleman's amendment says is no matter what the result, if whole classifications of people are discriminated against based on a set of policies, the DOJ can do nothing about it. That is the America he wants, and I hope the Congress would register our opinion on it when we get a chance to vote. We will be seeking a roll call vote on this matter.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Reclaiming my time, what I said is what the gentleman offers to the House is an opportunity where no matter what the result, if whole classifications of people are left out, i.e., there is a disparate impact, that DOJ can't go after it. That is what you offered to the House.

I appreciate your offering, and we will see what kind of America we would like to have when we cast a vote on this.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make just one other point here.

Every single Federal appellate court has upheld a way to proceed in terms of looking at the impact of policies.

What the gentleman offers is that if American baseball looks like it looked prior to Jackie Robinson, that that is just perfectly fine. I happen to think that American baseball is a little bit as a pastime more enjoyable for all of us after the Jackie Robinson decision, which was to take into account those who have been left out and to take an affirmative action to include them in. That is the America I want my children to grow up in.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.

I concur with the chairman. Maybe it will get approved, but not in our bill and not at this time because we don't completely understand it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, obviously, between the Garrett amendment on disparate impact and this, this is, I guess, not actually part of their effort to reach out for a greater fan base--the idea that local communities can't make decisions in their own interests and that we need the heavy hand of the Federal Government to herd them into some particular set of responsibilities that are actually our responsibilities.

Immigration law is our responsibility. It is not a local community's responsibility. When the fire department shows up, it is supposed to put the fire out, not worry about where someone's papers are. I just think that it is somewhat contradictory of what we hear from the other team about where they are headed, but this might be representative thereof, rather than doing comprehensive immigration reform.

We must do our job as the United States Congress. Now, the Senate has done its job. The President has said that he wants to sign a comprehensive bill. The Chamber of Commerce and all of the various religious and faith-based groups in our country have come forward, but rather than the Congress taking up a bill--any bill--on immigration reform, what we have is this constant effort to get at local communities that are just trying to make the best of a very tough situation that the Federal Government is creating.

Now, we will burden them because we don't want to take our responsibility and enact a comprehensive immigration program.

I am opposed to this amendment, but I am pleased that the gentleman has reminded us that this is, in essence, the immigration program that has some currency from the majority party. We should do something different than this, and we can.

There are 218 votes on this floor that would do comprehensive immigration reform if we would bring it, then we wouldn't have to deal with these kinds of amendments year in and year out, bill in and bill out, because we would have dealt with the problem.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I thought the gentleman would yield for a second.

My question was that a large swath of our bill has not been authorized, including NASA, so we have to deal with transport back and forth to the International Space Station.

Even though it has not been reauthorized, your amendment, as written, would seem to prohibit NASA from being able to conduct life-sustaining activities relative to the space station.

That was my question. The gentleman neglected to yield, but I will have it stand as a rhetorical question for the moment, and I oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in direct opposition to the amendment, and I rise with mixed emotions. I am very pleased this is the last amendment. But, nonetheless, I am opposed to it--not in the main. That is to say, of course, none of the funds in this bill should be used to operate contrary to our laws, but some of the vagueness of the language as it intersects with State and local communities and decisions they may make.

So, for instance, a local community may say that in an emergency situation public safety officers should not engage in questions about whether you have papers or not. Or, when you are seeking information about a child that has been kidnapped, and you go to a certain home or family, you shouldn't be questioning them about their immigration status when you are trying to save a child who could be in imminent danger.

There could be circumstances in which this apparent language would create a real problem.

I reluctantly oppose the amendment. I thank the gentleman for joining the party and closing us out tonight, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority leader.

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise to offer to the House our support for the base bill. The chairman of this committee, whom I have had the honor to work with for a number of years, has laid out in some detail some of the appropriations in this bill. And as our Constitution requires, no dollar out of our Treasury shall be appropriated, except by act of Congress. So we are here in our constitutional roles.

I want to thank Chairman Wolf for all of the courtesies extended to the minority. Obviously, if we were drafting a bill, we might have a different set of numbers in different areas, whether for legal services or COPS. But in the main, this is a bill that the chairman has extended himself in every effort that could be done to accommodate the minority. I want to thank him for his work with me over these many years, inasmuch as this will be the last bill that he will carry on the floor.

This bill, I think, represents a set of priorities important to our Nation that he has laid a predicate for that will be carried on even by others who may assume the role that he sits in today.

As for the Democrats, I want to say a number of things. One is that we are very pleased that in this bill the science accounts have been a focus of high priority. For NASA, over $17 billion. For the National Science Foundation, $7.4 billion. As has been indicated, it is the highest amount to date. The Office of Science and Technology is fully funded at the President's request.

I think some of us know now that I consider the science activities in this bill to be very, very important. In particular, superior among equals in terms of science-related activities is neuroscience. Here, again, you will see an extraordinarily significant increase. It is one of the highest increases in any of the science accounts.

The World Health Organization says well over a billion people are suffering from brain-related diseases and disorders. The National Institutes of Health says that 50 million Americans suffer from dementia and epilepsy and all manner of neurological-based diseases and disorders.

In this bill, we continue to fund a neuroscience initiative that was crafted--and the chairman supported me in this effort--in our very first bill. We continue to lay important foundations for the effort to actually come to grips with some of these challenges. So I am very pleased about that.

On the manufacturing initiatives, the manufacturing extension partnership is very important. Today, we lead the world in manufacturing. Our lead that was absolute is now relative. We see other countries who are moving aggressively in this field.

The chairman led an initiative in terms of re-shoring these jobs. I have focused on trying to bring in more technology into our manufacturing plants. But the two of us share a concern that America has to be a country where we make things and where the manufacturing sector is secure in terms of being an important part of our economy's future.

I want to also mention the focus here on youth mentoring. It is above the President's request. This includes groups such as the Boys & Girls Clubs of America, which is a congressionally chartered organization serving some 4 million young people; Big Brothers Big Sisters; and Girls, Inc.

We could go through the list. These are national evidence-based organizations that are really making a difference in the lives of young people. And the committee is aware of the great work that these organizations are doing. So we have seen fit--and appropriately so-- with the chairman's support, to raise the appropriations in this regard even above the President's request.

So there will be a number of amendments that we will debate. Democrats may have a different opinion on some of these items from our colleagues on the other team. There may even be circumstances where there will be intramural differences on some of these issues.

At its base, I think the CJS bill we present today reflects the Nation's priorities. Obviously, if we had a larger allocation, we would invest even more in a variety of these priorities.

I think some of the points that the chairman has pointed to in terms of human trafficking and aeronautics investments, on the manufacturing side, there are a number of areas where you can see clearly that the chairman has taken extraordinary care to make sure that a number of items get the appropriate revenues that are needed so that we can truly make a difference.

So we are anxious to have the debate and to get to the amendments and have the House work its will.

I want to thank the majority as we come here today. We have an open rule so the House will have an opportunity to work its will.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from the great State of New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member for the Democratic team on Appropriations.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), the ranking member on the Science Committee, the authorizing committee here in the House, and an extraordinary leader on science and innovation.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of California, Congressman Sam Farr.

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

I want to take a minute to acknowledge someone else who has played a very important role in our country's science activities and is now retiring.

I spent some time over at NASA headquarters, and I also went out to visit the Jet Propulsion Laboratory to see the Mars Rover land after 8\1/2\ months of travel. The NASA team is an extraordinary team.

One of its members, the head of the Education Office, a former astronaut, is retiring, and I wanted to take a minute during general debate to acknowledge his great service to this country. Leland Melvin hails from the chairman's great State of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and we want to wish him well and thank him for his service to our country.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), my colleague who has worked here on small business and research connections to science to commercialize technology and to help build the American economy.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey, Rush Holt, my friend, the great science leader here in the Congress. He is the only one among us who has a terminal degree in nuclear science, and he is also retiring this year.

I have no further requests for time during general debate, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Madam Chair, I concur with the chairman.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, I rise in the first instance in support of the focus of the gentlelady's amendment, but I have to oppose the amendment because of the offset. One of the prison guards that was murdered was from my home State of Pennsylvania, and I think that depleting $3 million from this account at a time when we have a situation where we have far too many people in prison--and hopefully through our criminal justice reform efforts, we will do something about that--but while we have people in prison, we have a responsibility to administer these prisons safely, and I think it will be unwise.

Now, I support wholeheartedly export initiatives. We have increased this account each year. I have visited and spent time focused on this. And the chairman had mentioned a number of initiatives. We also fund the SelectUSA and the other parts of the President's export initiative. But I am opposed to this amendment solely on the basis of the offset as offered.

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

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Madam Chair, I support the chairman in accepting this amendment, but his warning about census and the need for us not to assume that we can walk out with a bill with zero for census and live up to our responsibilities--our constitutional responsibility--is not an appropriate notion for this Congress, so I do support this one. I am going to be opposing many others.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I support the intent of the amendment. I can't support the offset. It comes out of the general exploration account of NASA, but it would put additional strains on programs like Commercial Crew and Commercial Cargo, which are very, very important--not just because we have to depend on the Russians at the moment to take astronauts to the space station, this was put in place years ago--but given the political circumstances, and the chairman is right, there have been threats to whether or not we will have access to transport.

We do have to think about accelerating our Commercial Crew Program. It has been very successful to date, in terms of cargo, but we have not utilized the commercial cargo system yet to actually put human beings into lower Earth orbit on private spaceships like SpaceX or Orbital Science, so it is a concern now that this offset would be used.

So I think what I am saying is that I hope the gentleman will consider the fact that we will look at this issue in conference and try to find other ways to do it, but I cannot support this offset. It would not be a responsible thing for us to do, given where we are.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of the amendment also.

Madam Chair, I thank the chairman for agreeing to accept it.

I want to spend a second on this. There is no more important an issue facing our country in terms of national security than this question of cybersecurity, and Chairman Wolf has been at the very forefront of this.

We have seen the unfortunate circumstance, for instance, with a corporation like Target. Target has invested over a billion dollars in revitalizing libraries in our schools in our country. They have done a lot of great work. They were victimized by cyber criminals emanating from, apparently, Ukraine. I think that whatever assistance we are providing to the new government there should be contingent on making sure that the cyber threat emanating from Ukraine visited upon our companies here should be part of the considerations.

The chairman has also pointed out what has now become obvious, given the DOJ's action, that China is also quite active in this realm. We have seen this problem in places like Nigeria. We can go around the globe. If we are going to protect ourselves, we are going to have to take action.

I thank the chairman for accepting this amendment. I think this is an appropriate improvement to the base bill, and I yield back the remainder of my time.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, first of all, in terms of the previous amendment that was withdrawn, it is very important that we note that innovation is the driving force in our economy. The World Economic Forum said: America's economy is built on innovation. So I want to just add my voice in terms of that amendment, but in terms of the offering relative to the Economic Development Administration.

The Speaker of the House earlier was saying that as you listen to Americans, they are concerned about jobs. Well, one entity in the Federal government has a track record of developing jobs in each of our 50 States. Just recently they announced a 300,000-mile initiative in Alaska. Now, Alaska is a little bit away from my hometown in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, but wherever you look in our country, the EDA has been working. It stitches together communities of interest, builds support in jobs. It is a program that the majority would love because it is not decisions from on high. These are decisions that are made at the local level about where to build industry, what types of industries to attract. It has a proven record decade after decade stitched throughout America, not one piece of unbroken cloth, but kind of like a quilt, many colors, many different pieces patched together.

So I support the EDA, I oppose this amendment, and I hope that we give a resounding vote in support of the Economic Development Administration. If we can spend American taxpayers' money in far off places in this world building economies under the notion that that is how you strengthen democracies and provide peaceful places in the world, then we can take American taxpayers' money and invest it in communities right here at home so that Americans can go to work.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Madam Chair, first of all, I appreciate the majority leader. I know for certain that he has an interest, particularly in these areas that he has spoken about, because on one day, at the end of a long week, the two of us ventured over to the National Institutes of Health to sit and learn a little bit more about the merit-based selection process for investment and investigations to end diseases, and Lamar Smith, who is a great Member, led the effort on patent reform.

However, I think that both are misguided in this attempt to move away from the world-renowned merit-based selection process at the National Science Foundation.

All of our competitors are actually trying to mimic the merit-based selection process that the National Science Foundation utilizes, and it is critically important that the National Science Board, in the ways that these decisions are made, is not going to be influenced by politics.

That was in the wisdom of the creation of this, and it has worked so well that we now lead the world. If we want to continue to lead the world, the last thing we want to do is to interject politics into the decisionmaking process of what basic scientific research should be supported.

There are more proposals that come in than can be funded that are done on a peer-review, science-only basis, and I think it would be a very unwise signal for this Congress to send if we were to move in this direction.

I hope that our colleagues, even though we have great respect for the majority leader, would act with more respect for basic science and for a merit-based selection process.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I also rise in support of the amendment.

This is a crisis any way you look at it in my home State of Pennsylvania whether it is in the Pocono Mountains area or in the city of Philadelphia. All throughout the country, we see this epidemic. People are losing their lives, and extraordinary action needs to be taken.

I do want to say that our side, even though we support this particular amendment, is concerned about the offset. Just so that we can start to make sure that everyone understands that we are concerned about it, we will want a recorded vote on this, and I will vote in favor of it as we do have a responsibility at some point to think about funding the census. So I will stop there.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I ask for a recorded vote on the last one.

I indicated in my remarks that we were asking for a recorded vote.

Would you like to read back my remarks?

Madam Chair, I respect your decision then, and we will proceed. Thank you.

Amendment Offered by Mr. McNerney

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I have spent a lot of time and effort on this issue. I join with the chairman in acknowledging the fact that in the chairman's mark is a very significant investment in the National Weather Service and in our severe weather forecasting activities.

And, again, the offset here is the U.S. Census. And so even though I support the amendment, I am going to be seeking--and will remain standing--a recorded vote. Because the House needs to acknowledge that if we are taking money from the Census now, there will come a time in which we will have to ante up on our constitutional responsibilities.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I will not request a recorded vote on this amendment, but I did want to speak on behalf of it.

Colleagues in my home State of Pennsylvania, Congressman Meehan and Congressman Brady, have been very interested in the Veterans Courts.

I was originally involved in the creation of the drug courts in Pennsylvania years ago. I think this is a very important effort, particularly as it relates to our veterans, but in terms of a host of populations to help divert people, when possible, from the criminal justice system and make our communities safer at the same time, so this is a very important amendment.

I disagree with the offset, and I want that to be registered, but I will not burden the House with another recorded vote.

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

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

The chairman and I sat through some hearings last year, listening to and learning about the hatcheries in Washington State and learning about both the treaty responsibilities and the natural hatchery programs. I think we funded it at the level that was requested and then above that.

On top of the fact that we are at a level beyond what was requested, this, again, would diminish the accounts for the census.

We have a constitutional responsibility. We swear our oath to the Constitution. It requires the United States Congress to fund a census, and even though the hatcheries in Washington State deserve appropriate support, I think that the committee has moved in that direction.

I have to oppose this on the basis that it, again, attacks an account that we have a responsibility to protect, even though it may not have the same level of political or popular support as some of these items.

I love eating the fish, but we have got to make sure we count the census, so that we can live up to our responsibility as a Congress.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

Madam Chair, I rise in support of this amendment.

I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I concur with the chairman and look forward to working with the gentleman from Delaware on this issue of horseshoe crabs because they are critically important to both biomedical research and to the economy. We look forward to working with him as we go forward.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I rise in support of this amendment and thank the chairman for accepting it. I join with the chairman in asking for a recorded vote.

My home State, like many of our States, rushed forward with hundreds of thousands of names into the system after the Newtown shooting of 20 schoolchildren, but names that should have been in the system from the beginning.

So I think it is very important that, if we are going to have this system, that we have the information in it, and this amendment provides the resources, and none of the offsets are from the census account.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I concur with the gentleman's remarks.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, I rise again in support of this amendment. I join with the chairman.

I do note that this review has taken place at a number of universities, but none of these investigations have concluded and we don't know the exact facts. But we do know that young people on college campuses and in other circumstances are victimized. It is important that this program receive additional support.

I thank the gentlewoman for bringing this amendment to our attention, and I thank the chairman for accepting it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Madam Chairman, I thank my colleague from Iowa for offering his amendment. I oppose it.

I would hope that we would usher in the day in which the House would take up comprehensive immigration reform. The President has acted, the Senate has acted. The people's House should vote on this matter so that we can come to some conclusion on these issues. We are not going to handle it in a piecemeal fashion, but I think that it is clear that there is enough concern in our country. The Chamber of Commerce says we need to do immigration reform. Every responsible organization has spoken out on this, all of our religious leaders have spoken out.

The United States Congress has the responsibility not to run from this issue but to stand up and vote and be counted. I hope one day the gentleman from Iowa will have an opportunity to vote on comprehensive immigration reform, and I hope that the people in my district will have a chance to see me vote on this. The House should not delay any longer.

This is an appropriations bill. We are not in the business of immigration reform on this bill. We are just trying to run the bare bones of the United States Government. I hope one day we will come back to this issue appropriately.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of this amendment and its goals, and I agree with the spirit of the chairman on this matter.

I do want to note that we went through a series of amendments in which we cut the general administrative accounts at the Department of Justice, and there will be a day of reckoning as there was with the Census Bureau. It has nothing to do with your amendment, but we do have to fund those accounts.

This is what happens when you have an allocation that is squeezed: the offsets all start to sound pretty familiar. The last three or four amendments have all been related to cutting money from these general accounts. They are good amendments, and this is a good amendment, so I stand in support of it.

I just want the House to take note that, at some point, we will have to reconcile these figures and conference with the Senate in that we will have to be funding for these general accounts at DOJ.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

The gentleman moved back and forth from the original allegations to today's report from the inspector general, but left out some very important points, and I want to make sure the House is operating from full information.

The allegation that veterans died for a lack of care was not proven by today's report. In fact, the inspector general said today they have no ability to determine this issue.

The actual whistleblower who made this allegation in the first place was on FOX News on Sunday and said that he had no ability to tie the death to the delay.

I think we don't want to create a situation where we don't have veterans seeking care based on misinformation.

So what I want to do is just take a minute and make sure the House is aware that under every analysis, the care at the VA is good or excellent. This is from the actual veterans' care organizations and their testimony before the Congress, House, and Senate.

In fact, today, I had a young woman who was a paralyzed Vietnam war veteran. She walked into my office. She is involved in a spinal cord program at the Bronx VA that has got her up and walking. It is part of the ReWalk system.

She was first denied some benefits because her autoimmune deficiency was caused by agent orange, and that had been denied for many years. But under General Shinseki, they have allowed this. And now, because she had more than a 50 percent disability, a quality wheel chair and other access.

I want to make this point clear. One is that no one anywhere has found that some veteran died because of a lack of service. It has not been proven. It is an allegation. There is an investigation. And we should see the investigation to its conclusion. But the one thing we don't want to do is create a situation where veterans who need care don't pursue it. And especially in spinal cord and in terms of artificial limbs and traumatic brain injury, there is no better care that our veterans can get than at the VA.

So I just want to make this point that we are not dealing with the substance of the amendment, but that on the facts of this investigation the House would be well served to let us have an investigation and then let us react to what the facts are.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

That being granted, I also think it is a great amendment and from a great Member. I thank the chairman for agreeing to it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Madam Chair, I oppose the offset. I do not oppose the notion that we should have a more robust clemency approach in our country. I commend the administration for this, and I hope that we can find a way to provide more support.

I don't agree with the gentleman's math, that $2 million cut from any number of other places in the Bureau of Prisons would be just fine. I know these accounts pretty well, and I have some concerns about that.

I do think that in a $28 billion investment or spending in the Department of Justice in total, clearly, there are dollars that could be used so that innocent people in our country, or those who have deserved to have some relief, can appropriately apply for clemency.

I will be glad to work with the gentleman on this as we go forward.

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

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word and hopefully to offer the last word.

Madam Chair, I resemble some of the remarks that have been made as of late on the floor. I want to say a couple of things.

One is that a lot of us like to hold onto things, but, you know, life moves on and the country moves on. There is a point in time in which the country made a decision around alcohol and put it in a different category than other things, and, seemingly, the public is making a decision about marijuana.

Now, it may have something to do with the last few Presidents we have had, who all agreed that they smoked marijuana, or it may have something to do with medical marijuana and the notion that it can help in terms of dealing with the pain that people feel when they have chronic pain and diseases. Whatever is going on, the truth of the matter is that the Congress, we are probably the last to hear of it. But the Nation has kind of moved on, and you see this in the State actions.

You see it in my hometown, where the district attorney got elected 4 years ago and decided he was not prosecuting any more marijuana cases, where the people had just possession for use. And now, 4 years later, the city council has finally decided, well, maybe the police shouldn't lock people up since the DA is not going to prosecute them.

So sometimes those of us who are in political office, we get dragged along a little slower. But it doesn't matter what we decide on this issue. There are decisions being made, and the country is moving in a different direction, very similar to the decision that was made on the prohibition in terms of alcohol.

So the point here is that we will vote however we may vote. It will not be the deciding issue in this regard, because local communities are deciding. Just like in Kentucky now, you have Mitch McConnell and others talking about what we are going to do about hemp. There is going to be some movement here on some of these issues, and those of us who have got a few gray hairs, we might just have to hold on and know that the country has made changes on some of these social issues.

But there is still the reality that when we made the change on alcohol, we went from shooting up and down the street during prohibition over it, with Eliot Ness and crew, to a point where we have accepted it as part of, as you said, our culture. Now, it is still not healthy; it is still addictive; it is still a drug; but it is not criminalized in our Nation. And that might be where America is headed on the question of marijuana. And some of us, at times, have to accept change for what it is. It is a change because people have grown to a different point of view or, as the President has said, you evolve on some of these issues.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman. I want to thank the chairman and ranking member on the House Appropriations Committee.

Madam Speaker, I want to speak in support of the underlying matter, the appropriations bill. There is a lot that I could say, a lot of progress that we have made on a number of issues; but I want to, at this moment, talk in particular about the investments we are making in science and innovation.

The World Economic Forum says that the American economy is an innovation-driven economy; and throughout this appropriations bill at NASA, at NIHS, in terms of our Federal laboratories and across our whole spectrum of activities including DARPA and others, we are making significant investments.

I want to say that working with Chairman Wolf over the last three bills that we have moved through this floor and through the process, we have launched a high-priority research effort on neuroscience or brain research, and we have added to that each year. This bill is no exception. We have worked now in this legislation to internationalize this collaboration in important ways because the E.U. and others have launched similar initiatives in terms of understanding the complexities related to human brain diseases and disorders therein. So I thank the chair and the ranking member.

I want to thank the leadership of the committee, the staff and my fellow colleagues on the Appropriations Committee. This is a moment that I think we can all see helps us move our Nation forward, and I rise in support of the bill.

I want to also thank my great friend, the chairman of the subcommittee which I have the privilege of being the ranking member of. Chairman Wolf has done an extraordinary job and will continue to because we have some more work to do. But I want to just extend to him my public thanks for his cooperation through this entire process.

Let me say a couple of things very quickly. I introduced some legislation, the American Discoveries and American Jobs Act, that suggested that where we finance investment with taxpayers' money, we should require that new products that emanate from that be manufactured in America. The impulse, the essence of that, is embodied in the CJS bill, and I want to thank Chairman Wolf for that.

I want to join with him on the prison reform effort because it is so critically important that our Nation think anew about our criminal justice system. I think that this is an action-forcing event that will pay great dividends for our Nation through the task force that is embodied in the bill.

I want to indicate, again, that one of our highest priorities on the committee has been youth mentoring; and, again, we have a significant investment in that regard, the Boys & Girls Club of America, the Big Brothers Big Sisters, all of our national, evidence-based youth mentoring programs. And I know that we as a Nation want to see many more of our young people be successful. So I'm thankful for that.

The Gear UP funding, working with Ranking Member Bishop on the suicide prevention efforts, this bill represents in a lot of respects progress on these issues, and legal services, and then in terms of my day job, NASA, both in terms of space technology, commercial crew and the James Webb Telescope.

I'm looking forward to voting to support this and then having the U.S. Senate support it so that the President can sign it. I thank Chairman Rogers and our Ranking Member Lowey for their great leadership on this effort.

Mr. Speaker, I rise at this moment for the House to appropriately acknowledge the life and legacy, the truly extraordinary leadership, of President Nelson Mandela who has passed on to history now but who, during his 95 years, played an extraordinary role in the life of his country and his countrymen. And this Congress played a part in that process through the debates on this floor and through, finally, the passage of sanctions and then, even more so, by overriding the Presidential veto and putting into place sanctions that President Mandela indicated and all recognized played an important role in ending apartheid in South Africa.

There are Members who are no longer Members of the House, some of whom have even passed on themselves. There was Congressman Bill Gray from Philadelphia, who authored the sanctions legislation; Congressman Dellums, who had previously authored and fought side by side; and many members of the Congressional Black Caucus and others, Democrats and Republicans, on the floor of this House who were involved in this activity.

I rise for this Special Order to appropriately pay tribute to the leadership that was exhibited by President Mandela and his African National Congress. I am going to yield to Members for an opportunity for them to reflect on the life of President Mandela. Obviously, we recognize that he was born and that he died, that he went to school and he played certain roles in his profession as a lawyer, but he has also been recognized around the world for the struggle that he led and that he dedicated his life to.

I yield to the gentlewoman from the great State of Ohio (Ms. Fudge), who chairs the Congressional Black Caucus.

I thank the gentlewoman, and I thank her for her leadership on this House floor on behalf of not just the people she represents in Ohio, but throughout the country.

I now yield to someone who is no stranger to struggle. Nelson Mandela, when asked about his life being a struggle, he said, No, you misinterpret; the struggle was my life. Well, the struggle is this gentleman's life. I yield to the gentleman from the great State of Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. Speaker, I met President Mandela on a number of occasions, both in Philadelphia and here

in Washington, and when I traveled to Africa with then-President Bill Clinton when Mandela was leading some peace talks in a country that was involved in a great deal of conflict at that time.

Before I met Nelson Mandela, I knew a State legislator from the great State of California who had led the fight and the rallying cry in State houses, not just in California, but around the country, for divestiture from South Africa. I want to yield now to Congresswoman Maxine Waters, who really was an extraordinary figure in the fight in the United States to get pension funds and universities and others to divest.

I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

I thank the gentlelady. And she reminds me of all the great people in Philadelphia who played a role, Godfrey Satoli, who represented the ANC. He was the ANC's representative there, and former State representatives David Richardson and Sonia Sanchez.

But the one clarion voice in the Congress when I was very, very young, who introduced the divestiture legislation, and was just at the very point of the spear, was Congressman Ron Dellums.

And Barbara Lee, who now represents that district, but worked for the great Congressman when he was here, I want to recognize Congresswoman Barbara Lee now, who has dedicated a significant part of her work to helping Africa in its development and continuing to deal with the challenges that remain after so many years of colonial rule in a number of these countries.

I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

I thank the gentlelady from California.

I yield to my colleague from the United States Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).

I thank the gentlelady, and I thank the people of the U.S. Virgin Islands for establishing this honor.

Obviously, there are many segments of Nelson Mandela's life and there was a period, a point, when he was a lawyer. There was a point in which he was leading and involved in negotiations. There was a point in which, upon the police assault on those who gathered in Sharpeville when 69 died, that he took up armed struggle.

And there was a point, after being released from prison, after 27 years, that he was elected President. I embrace the entire legacy. I think it is very much in keeping with our own country's evolution over time, in which you had to deal with the times as they presented themselves.

Remembering her predecessor, Congressman Mickey Leland, who was so involved in these issues over time, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

I thank the gentlelady from the great State of Texas.

In 1994, Nelson Mandela was elected President. It is not of the same historical importance, but I was elected to the Congress that same year. But I am reminded that every day we are made anew.

And we have a new Congresswoman from the great State of Ohio, Congresswoman Beatty, who I want to recognize now for her comments on the life of Nelson Mandela.

I thank the gentlelady from the great State of Ohio.

And, obviously, when Nelson Mandela looked at the United States, one of the things that he was most interested in was the civil rights struggle in this country, understanding that African Americans who were fighting for the right to vote and for equal justice under the law, we were in a significant minority position demographically; whereas in South Africa, Black South Africans were the overwhelming majority in that country. And he was quite taken that the United States could right itself in such a way, at least legally, against the law that oppressed minorities here in our country, African Americans, in particular. He always was interested in this.

One of the persons who was uniquely involved in that and who serves with us in this House today is the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton.

I thank the gentlewoman for her extraordinary contributions to this remarkable occurrence in our lifetime, to see Mandela and his transformation from prison to President. I will have something more to say about that as we close.

But I want to recognize the gentlelady from the great State of New York, Congresswoman Yvette Clarke, our new ambassador to South Africa who is doing an extraordinary job. I want to mention that she also, by the way, has the best birthday in the world because she shares it with me.

I thank the gentlelady. I thank not just you, but all those who hail from your part of the country who helped in this struggle.

I will yield to the Congressman from the city of Newark, the State of New Jersey, Congressman Donald Payne, Jr., who will speak on the life and legacy of President Nelson Mandela.

I thank the gentleman.

I now yield to the Democratic leader of the House of Representatives, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi.

Thank you, Madam Leader, for coming and sharing with us profound reflections on the life of President Mandela.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, Chris Van Hollen, who has done a lot of work in this House today.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

I yield to the gentleman from the great State of Georgia.

To this list of Republicans who supported this effort, let me add the name of former Speaker Newt Gingrich, who supported the divestiture effort here in the House, and we want to appropriately recognize his contribution since he is from the great State of Georgia.

I yield to Congressman Johnson.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material relative to the subject of this Special Order.

In closing, I would like the House to focus on the transformation of this man who moved from a prison cell to being the President of a nation.

Through his circumstance of 27 years, during which his picture or his name could not be spoken, he became a world figure. He could not have more than one visitor for 30 minutes in a 6-month period, but yet hundreds of thousands have gathered to memorialize him. Delegations from almost 100 countries will go to his funeral and have gone to his home-going celebration. This is a man who traveled a great distance over these 95 years. He had the willingness to fight against oppression, and he had a willingness to reconcile with his oppressors in a way in which all could live in harmony.

He sets a great example for the world, so I thank the House for taking this time to honor his life and legacy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I only have a minute, so let me be concise.

On Monday, I was in San Diego with 30,000 brain researchers excited about the age of discovery and attacking diseases like Alzheimer's and bipolar and schizophrenia. Yesterday, via satellite, I spoke to a public health conference in Brussels for the European Union. Their theme was that the wealth of their member countries was the health of their population.

And then I come to the floor today where we see people who want to retreat from the idea which is to make sure that every single person in our country, for the first time in this Nation's history, has access to affordable health care coverage. There will be no retreat, no equivocation. I know there is this desire among Members on the other team always to somehow go backwards, to some other age in our country as if our future is in the past. Our future and the shaping impulse of our country is in the future, and it is in the health of the citizens of our country.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill, and I want to first thank Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member Rahall, and Tim Bishop for their hard work. The committee has developed a product that is worthy of House support, and I rise in support of it.

We are almost at the 80th anniversary of the Mississippi River Control Council. We have seen a lot of progress in my part of the country in terms of waterways. I like the work that the committee has done on the Harbor Maintenance Fund.

I serve on the Energy and Water Appropriations Committee, as the ranking member has indicated. The Army Corps has taken some hits on this matter. Really, it is the responsibility of Congress to put us in a position to move forward. Some of the delays that have been occasioned by the environmental assessment have been much too long, and I think that the committee's efforts to shorten that is good. I have some concerns about limitations on dollars, but I know that, as this bill goes forward, it will be perfected even more.

So I rise in support, and I hope that many Members of the House will find it within their purview to support this important legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise to urge expedited passage of this legislation. I join with the chairman and the ranking member of my committee, and I agree with every word that has been stated by the majority chairman and the ranking member.

This is critically important. This Monday, I was in a foreign country. I was in the State of Israel. I met with the President and with a whole group of brain researchers from around the world. They had difficulty understanding, given our Nation's leadership on so many critical issues, that we could be in a paralyzed situation.

So I am happy that the Senate has acted in such an overwhelming way on this matter, with some 81 bipartisan votes. And I would urge the House to act--and I know we will--to restore our government, to pay our bills, and to get on with our responsibilities as the most powerful Nation in the world, the wealthiest country in the world. We can pay our bills, and we can conduct the affairs of government in a way that gains us respect around the world rather than befuddlement.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady.

I've seen this act before, but most Americans don't recall the shutdown under the Clinton administration. What they recall is the 25 million jobs moving our economy forward, having peace and prosperity. And I would bet 20 years from now, this fleeting moment is not going to be recalled by many people in our country. They're going to think about the 42 months of straight employment gains, the return of the housing market, the auto industry, and bringing our young people home from Iraq.

This majority has managed this brilliantly. Now the ObamaCare affordable health care exchanges are open all across the land, but they've managed to shut the national parks and to do a lot of other damage to our reputation even by this meaningless shutdown. Senator Mikulski has said she'd be glad to go to conference once we pass a CR so that the government stays open.

What the majority comes to the floor with is, Well, we don't want the government to stay open; we want to go to conference. This is not going to work. The Obama record, from eliminating Don't Ask, Don't Tell, to Wall Street reform, to the stimulus, and, most importantly, for opening the door to health care for tens of millions of Americans who have never had the access to be able to go to a marketplace--those marketplaces are open. They're going to stay open no matter what this majority does. Never again is health care going to be denied to people who are American citizens here in the greatest country on the face of the Earth.

I thank the gentlelady.

Mr. Speaker, I've been here for 10 terms, and I've seen a lot. I was here when most of the Members of my party voted against the prescription drug program offered by the other team. President Bush pushed it through, and it created a $7 trillion hole in the budget. It wasn't paid for.

But after we won the majority, we won the Presidency, we didn't go back to try to undo it. We actually worked to fix it a little bit--we got rid of the doughnut hole--and we embraced it and moved forward.

There seems to be a problem on the other side. They don't seem to want to come to grips with the fact that the game is over, that the teams have left the field, and that this question about the affordable health care bill is settled law; that is to say, that this consistency would be admirable except it's somewhat of a kind of foolish consistency to come 40-plus times, attempting to delay or to repeal the ObamaCare Act, as they refer to it. It doesn't make any sense.

We're not in negotiations with the President. We're trying to pass a bill that the Senate will pass, and the Senate has made it clear that they have no intention of retreating or equivocating one inch on this matter. So all we're doing is spinning our wheels.

So to delay health care, I would say this: health care delayed is health care denied. And our country, after some 90-plus years, multiple Presidents, has come to the conclusion that when there are Americans who need access to health care, that there's going to be a way for them to get it.

Those changes are going to open on October 1 no matter what we do. The majority needs to speak a little hard truth in the mirror to itself on this matter. The sooner the better.

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I come to address the House, the Congress of the United States.

We are the wealthiest country in the world. We are the most powerful country in the world. We have one program that focuses on improving the lives and life chances of people in our lower-income communities across our country. It's called the Community Development Block Grant. It was created under Republican President Richard Nixon in 1974.

Since its inception, we have invested about $132 billion in some 1,209 communities across our country. Over the life of this program, we have invested about the same amount as we took to build the International Space Station. In 1 year, we spent approximately the same amount in Afghanistan. This year, we are spending $3.3 billion on the Community Development Block Grant, which is the lowest amount in the history of our Nation.

What the majority, my friends on the other side, are proposing in this appropriations bill is to spend the least amount ever on this effort. They want to slash it from $3.3 billion to $1.6 billion. Now, it's not that they are mean-spirited. It is because the allocation for this bill is fatally deficient. It is too low to meet the needs of the greatest country on Earth in so many respects that we could be here all day in pointing out the deficiencies, but I want to focus on just this one program.

Because it was created by a Republican President, it operates in the most, I think, approving way for those on the other team. That is to say that these are grants for which all of the decisions are made at the local level by Republican and Democratic Governors, by Republican and Democratic local officials. They decide what the priorities are going to be to help uplift these communities. So it's unfortunate that they would single out this particular program--the only program that we have to help the neediest communities across our country. I've seen it. It has worked in local business districts, encouraging small business development. I've seen its work in helping seniors put in major systems repair and heating and windows or roofing so that they can be protected in the winter.

This is a great program, even though it was developed by a President of the other party. It operates through local decisionmaking. It's already at the lowest level ever, and if you added up what we've invested in it in all of these years, it wouldn't add up to what we've spent in building the International Space Station. If we added up all that we've spent on it in all of these years, it barely gets to the number we spend in 1 year in Afghanistan, but we still think somehow we should cut it in half.

It's a wrongheaded decision. I would ask that we reconsider it. I know the allocation is tough, but it's going to be a lot tougher on so many more Americans who live in communities, in being reminded of what Jay-Z said, that have their shades on and are just waiting on the Sun to shine their way. I would ask my colleagues to think about that as we go forward. Think about the wrongheadedness of this and how unworthy it is for the greatest country on Earth to say to its citizens who need our help that somehow we can spend money in Afghanistan--in some far off place--or that we can build a great International Space Station, which I support, but that we can't do anything about the challenges in these neighborhoods. I ask the entire House to live up to our responsibilities in a much different way than we are doing now.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Griffin of Arkansas

Mr. Speaker, I submit the following letters regarding William Gray.

District Attorney's Office,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, July 10, 2013.

Congressman Chaka Fattah: I was deeply saddened upon

learning of the untimely passing of Congressman William H.

Gray, III, which occurred on July 1, 2013. Congressman Gray

had a dynamic and overwhelming personality that touched the

lives of thousands of people through his endless humanitarian

efforts.

My life was personally touched by Congressman Gray, when he

appointed me to attend the United States Military Academy at

West Point. I also owe my military career in a large part to

him.

Our nation has loss one of its finest and distinguished

senior statesmen. Congressman Gray was the epitome of a

political, religious, and civic leader. He made an indelible

impact on the hearts and minds of everyone whose lives he

touched. He lived his life striving to improve the quality of

life for all mankind. Let this be a living testament to his

distinguished legacy.

Congressman Gray was also blessed with a wonderful wife and

fine sons. He had the support of the Bright Hope Baptist

Church Family of Philadelphia, various political colleagues

and brethren in the ministry, and many friends.

I extend my deepest condolences to his family. My prayers

and thoughts will continue to be with them.

Sincerely,

R. Seth Williams,

District Attorney, City of Philadelphia.

Mr. Speaker, thousands and thousands of Members have served in this body. For almost each of them, it was an honor to serve; but for a very small portion of those who had the honor to serve in this House, they have literally honored this institution by their service.

I rise today to reference one of them, William H. Gray, who served in the United States Congress. He was an extraordinary public servant, but this was not his only place where he served. I want to reference his leadership here in the House as a Member and then chair of the Budget Committee, rising all the way to majority whip, an accomplished lawmaker; but he also served as a senior pastor of the church where his father and grandfather had served back home in Philadelphia.

He served when he left the House, providing opportunities for hundreds of thousands of young people to go on to college as the head of the oldest nationwide scholarship fund, the UNCF.

Bill Gray served in so many different capacities, but he did it extraordinarily well. So I rise today to ask for a moment of silence in the House to honor this life of service.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Thank you. I ask for the House to stand for a moment of silence.

Mr. Speaker, let me first thank the House for setting aside this time to appropriately reflect on and to celebrate the life of service of William H. Gray--Bill Gray, as we know him--who represented my hometown of Philadelphia so very well in this Congress. But as we're going to have a number of speakers, I'll have ample opportunity to talk. So I want to move to a process in which we can acknowledge some others who want to say a few words.

General Leave

I first ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material into the Record on the subject of this Special Order.

I now yield to the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Fudge), who chairs the Congressional Black Caucus, for an opportunity to talk about Bill Gray and his service to our Nation.

I thank the gentlelady.

Representing the city of Philadelphia was something that Bill Gray was born to do. He was just an extraordinary Member.

We have one of my colleagues who knew Congressman Gray and worked with him from her earliest days in public service, so I yield to my colleague, Congresswoman Allyson Schwartz.

Let me ask that we place into the Record a number of letters from local elected officials back home in Philadelphia: Councilwoman Marian Tasco, State Senator Vincent Hughes, State Senator Anthony Williams, City Councilwomen Blondell Reynolds Brown and Cindy Bass, and State Representative Dwight Evans.

Marian B. Tasco, City of Philadelphia, City Council.

To the Members of the 113th Congress: Respectfully, I join

with friends, family and my constituents to submit this

letter for The Congressional Record memorializing a world-

class citizen, with a keen sense of purpose, a man of God, a

champion at the forefront of ending apartheid in South

Africa, and a man who humbly served the least of these. Over

the past 40 years, I have called The Honorable William H.

Gray III many things: pastor, my candidate, a mentor, my

congressman, and of greatest importance to me, my friend.

Undoubtedly, Bill Gray lived a beautiful life. Having

succeeded his father as pastor of Bright Hope Baptist Church

in Philadelphia in 1972, I came to know Bill Gray very well.

He knew best how to engage the people he was charged to lead.

And, he knew how to help individuals identify their best

qualities and develop and expand upon them. I credit Bill

Gray for helping me to recognize my own ability to organize.

Compelled to be his campaign manager when he ran for

congress, and later his director of constituent services, he

was a mentor to me and others locally and nationally who

sought public office. He was instrumental in my run for

office and election as Philadelphia's first African American

City Commissioner, and strongly supported me in my bid to

become council person for the Ninth District. I am forever

indebted to him and grateful for his vision.

Admired for his commitment to the city of Philadelphia,

Bill Gray was a powerbroker who used his influence to provide

federal resources and opportunities to often underserved

communities. And though he walked amongst kings, queens and

heads of nations, he was never too busy to meet with his

constituents, return a phone call or help someone in need.

The passing of this gentle giant is untimely, yet I hope

all that mourn him will find comfort in knowing that Bill

Gray leaves behind a legacy of goodness that surely

withstands the test of time.

God bless Bill Gray and God bless America!

Marian B. Tasco,

Ninth District Councilwoman.

I now yield to the gentleman from Georgia, Sanford Bishop.

I thank the gentleman for that recitation of God's prayer.

Now you'll hear from someone who actually served with Bill Gray, who was his colleague in more ways than one, because Bill Gray was also a member of the greatest college fraternity. He was an Alpha. I now yield to the gentleman from New York, Congressman Rangel.

I thank the gentleman.

It is true that Bill Gray traveled a great distance in his life--born in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, to his date of expiration in London--but he did so much in that period of time to make this world a better place.

I want to yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) so she can talk about the life and legacy in service, the extraordinary public service, of our former colleague, Bill Gray.

I thank the gentlelady.

I didn't get a chance to travel with Bill Gray as a Member because obviously he was here before I arrived, and by the time I got here, he was gone. But I do remember flying on Air Force One with President Clinton, and we flew into the heart of Africa, and we walked into a meeting with President Nelson Mandela. And in talking with the President, I explained that I represented Philadelphia. He said, Bill Gray's seat. That will resonate for all of time that Bill Gray had such an impact that this man was able to walk out of prison after 27 years and become President in part because of the leadership on this House floor to do away with constructive engagement and say, No, we need as a Nation to take the right moral position, along with Congressman Dellums and others. Rangel was in it. It was indispensable to helping South Africa make that transition.

So I want to move from California now to another little, small, tiny State--I'm sorry, excuse me, Texas. Let me yield to the great gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Thank you.

All of us have expressed our condolences to the Gray family, his lovely wife and three sons, but I want the Members to take note that we have with us this evening a number of Bill Gray's former staff members who are here and they are in the gallery, and I would just ask that we appropriately acknowledge their presence.

I would like to yield to the gentleman from the great State of New York, Congressman Meeks.

I thank the gentleman and also would like to thank all who have assisted the family at this time, including the United States Department of State, which assisted in dealing with some of the issues around the death of Bill Gray in another country. And I want to thank them.

I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

We have about 20 minutes left. The gentlelady's going to have 2 minutes, the speaker that follows her is going to have 2 minutes, and then we're going to be going down towards 1\1/2\ minutes from that point forward in order to make sure that everyone has a chance to make comments. And I will reserve the last 4 minutes for myself.

Mr. Speaker, I will place in the Record a number of letters from local elected officials: State Senator LeAnna Washington, State Senator Stack, and a number of State legislators, including my own, Vanessa Brown, and J.P. Miranda.

Senate of Pennsylvania,

July 3, 2013.

Dear Members of the United States House of Representatives:

It was with sadness an shock that I received the news of the

untimely passing of The Honorable William H. Gray, III.

Former Congressman Gray was a leader to African-American

elected officials throughout Pennsylvania, but he was first

and foremost a native son of Philadelphia. There is no

elected official in the city of Philadelphia that has not

been mentored or inspired by Congressman Gray. His legacy--

that of serving his constituents through not only his

Christian faith, but as an elected official--and his

dedication to ensuring a brighter future for young African-

American students through the United Negro College Fund--will

not be one repeated in our lifetime.

My condolences to all those who knew, respected, and loved

Philadelphia's Bill Gray. He will truly be missed on many

levels.

Sincerely,

LeAnna M. Washington,

4th Senatorial District, Philadelphia &

Montgomery Counties.

I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).

I thank the gentleman.

Bill Gray, for myself and my wife, for my parents, for tens of thousands of Philadelphians, was just a wonderful human being who did so much to help so many.

And I think it is appropriate that the Democratic leader has come to the floor to address us on the occasion of recognizing the service of someone whom she served with, and they were great friends. And so I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader.

I thank the gentlelady, and I thank her for her leadership in this House and her own extraordinary career that continues as we go forward.

I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

I thank the gentleman.

The Sunday after Bill Gray left Congress, he preached a sermon, where he said that he was chasing his mission. And his mission wasn't money. It wasn't being in Congress. It was serving people. And he was leaving the Congress to go lead this fine scholarship organization, the UNCF. He did an extraordinary thing in terms of convincing people of the likes of Bill Gates to write a billion-dollar check at one sitting. No one had ever gotten a check that large on behalf of young people in our country who seek an education. Bill Gray had the gift of being a Baptist preacher who was always optimistic.

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota, Keith Ellison.

I thank the gentleman.

It was said by Ben Hooks on one occasion that we're all passing one by one and we should not get caught with our work undone. So Bill got his work done.

I yield to the gentlelady from the great State of New York, Yvette Clarke, who was born on the best day on the calendar. We share birthdays. But she is much more beautiful and brilliant than I.

Let me thank the gentlelady.

I yield to my fraternity brother and colleague from the great Commonwealth of Virginia.

November 21 is a great day.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

I thank the gentleman.

There are many who are honored to serve in this House. There are few who honor the House through their service. Bill Gray honored the House through his service.

But I knew Bill Gray as a preacher from north Philadelphia. He constructed the Philadelphia Mortgage Plan, the Philadelphia Insurance Plan, the guard against red-lining neighborhoods and green-lining neighborhoods in north Philadelphia and northwest Philadelphia. I saw him deal with the challenges of bringing resources for transportation and infrastructure and job training into Philadelphia as a member of the Appropriations Committee--which no one actually normally talks about. They talk about his chairmanship of the Budget Committee, but as an appropriator, he did a great deal to move our country forward.

So as I move to close, I want to thank his family for sharing Bill Gray with the rest of the world. Not just here in the Congress, but all around the world Bill Gray worked to make a difference.

And I want to thank his church family. Because on this Saturday, when he's funeralized, there will be people flying in from all over. But the people who he married and baptized, the people who he consoled on their sick beds, to them, he was their pastor.

For those who served with him in the House, they learned a great deal from Bill Gray's service here, which is that it's not the length or the number of terms, it's what we do when we have the power to make a difference. He was truly an impact player.

As a tennis player, he had a great, aggressive net game. He played aggressively, and he always played to win. I thank the House and I thank my colleagues for taking out this time to recognize his service, his life, his legacy, and his leadership.

I yield back the balance of my time.