Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor one of North Carolina's finest and most distinguished citizens, James Dickson Phillips, Jr., former Dean of the Law School of the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill and former judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Judge Phillips died at home in Chapel Hill on August 27, at the age of 94.

A native of Scotland County, North Carolina, Dickson Phillips attended the public schools of Laurinburg and then Davidson College, where his athletic, academic, and leadership abilities became evident. He joined the army upon graduation in 1943. He was commissioned a lieutenant in the 17th Airborne Division and led his platoon as part of Operation Varsity, the largest single-day airborne assault in history. He was badly wounded in a firefight with retreating Germans and was awarded a Bronze Star and Purple Heart for his service.

Phillips enrolled in the UNC-Chapel Hill Law School after the war. He excelled as a student and in the practice of law and was invited to join the faculty in 1960. He was named Dean in 1964 and served for ten years. The present Dean, Martin Brinkley, describes him as one of the school's greatest deans and a ``trailblazer'':

By the fall of his second year as dean, total enrollment at the law school had more than doubled. The faculty also nearly doubled in size during his deanship. Dean Phillips hired Carolina Law's first African- American visiting faculty member, Harry Groves, and its first full-time African-American member, Charles Daye. There was only one African- American student at the law school when Phillips became dean; by 1973, there were 23, along with two Native American and one Latino students. The ten women students who enrolled during his first year had swelled to 121 by the time he left.

During his 10 years as dean, Phillips inaugurated the Holderness Moot court program and the McCall Teaching Award. Small section classes were instituted for first-year students, and the upper-class curriculum greatly expanded. The first-ever clinical classes were sponsored. By far the largest fundraising effort in the law school's history up to the time was successfully executed, while the 10-year North Carolina bar passage rate among Carolina Law graduates averaged 95.8 Percent.

President Jimmy Carter in 1978 appointed Dickson Phillips to a seat on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, where he served until 1994--the ``greatest judge produced in North Carolina'', in the judgment of former UNC Law School Dean Gene Nichol ``since (eighteenth-century US Supreme Court Justice James) Iredell.''

As was recalled in his obituary, ``His role as an appellate judge brought together his great personal attributes of precision, clarity and wisdom along with a love of justice and mercy and a generous but realistic understanding of human nature and foibles . . . He brought both a long view of history and the particular experience of life in North Carolina of the Depression and post-war years to his decisions.''

Judge Phillips' major cases involved some of the most contentious issues of the day--minority voting rights, gerrymandering, and sex discrimination. In a series of decisions beginning in 1982 with the Gingles case and continuing into the 1990s with the Shaw decisions, he led three-judge federal panels in rejecting state legislative districting that diluted minority voting strength, and upholding as constitutional majority-minority congressional districting. These cases remain important in enabling African-Americans to achieve representation in state legislatures and Congress. In the sex discrimination area, he dissented from the Fourth Circuit panel's finding that the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) could constitutionally provide a ``separate but equal'' program for women, a position that the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately adopted.

Over the years, Dickson Phillips served on many other fronts--as a trustee of Davidson College, a founding trustee of the NC Nature Conservatory, and first chairman of the state Ethics Commission. He and his wife Jean were faithful members of the University Presbyterian Church in Chapel Hill, where they both served in many leadership roles.

I consider myself fortunate to have known Dickson Phillips late in his career--a man of great dignity, a source of wise counsel, always generous with words of encouragement and support. Stories abound of his great kindness, never too busy to relate to aspiring students, law clerks, and citizens of all walks of life. We grieve his loss with his family and friends, even as we express our gratitude for a life of great integrity and accomplishment, with positive consequences for those he touched, and for even more who may never know his name.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would restore the EPA's Science and Technology account to 2017 levels.

I offer this amendment to underscore the importance of environmental research to the health and safety of the American people, as well as thousands of jobs in my district and across the country.

This amendment is framed in increase-decrease terms for the simple reason that, given the subcommittee's inadequate allocation, there is simply no place to turn for an offset.

The EPA's Science and Technology account funds research and development activities within the agency, supporting the work of the world's leading environmental research enterprise and informing the environmental policies that Congress enacts.

The bill on the floor today would cut this account by $105 million, a 15 percent reduction. About the only good thing I can say about that is that it isn't as bad as the Trump budget, but it is still a deep and devastating cut. Mr. Chairman, we have to restore these funds as this bill moves through the remaining stages of the process.

The EPA's Office of Research and Development funded by this account not only supports EPA programs in air, water, toxicology, and energy research, but it also facilitates innovative partnerships with some of the premier higher education and research institutions in the country.

EPA research facilities employ more than 2,000 people, supports some 700 affiliated jobs in my district alone. This includes advanced laboratory scientists, administrative personnel, also blue-collar jobs in maintenance, custodial, and security positions.

The EPA research that this agency conducts, world class research, it allows us to remain proactive in protecting the air we breathe, the water we drink, resources, whose safety we must never, ever take for granted.

Now, I know the EPA is continually a scapegoat when it comes to spending cuts. In times of crisis, however, we don't hesitate to call on them to respond quickly to events that could pose a threat to the environment and public safety.

Just last week in the devastating wake of Hurricane Harvey, sites containing dangerous chemicals and contaminants were severely flooded and damaged. Research from this office, the office being cut in this bill, proved invaluable in putting together a safe and effective response.

In other words, the EPA is part of the first line of defense to respond to events that pose threats to public health and safety. It follows that if we gut the EPA's research budget, we are putting ultimately the American public at risk.

The EPA research cuts underscore, I think, how fraudulent the claim is that this is a bill that would make America secure and prosperous. Really? In reality, it would cripple investments that Americans count on each and every day to keep them safe and healthy.

Mr. Chairman, I remain hopeful that a bipartisan budget agreement will be reached that will allow us to restore this research funding and do right by the people we represent.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have to acknowledge that the chairman did a pretty good job of describing some of the research that we have underway in North Carolina and around the country, and I know he understands that and wants to support it.

I also know that we have got to do better than the allocations represented in this eight-bill omnibus effort. So I pledge to work with him and other colleagues to achieve that kind of agreement, and then also to revisit this account and other accounts that we know need attention if we are to do our duty as representatives of our communities and also maintain the investments a great country must maintain.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding. I thank Chairman Calvert for engaging in this colloquy with Mr. Lance and Ms. Slaughter and me.

We are highlighting the importance of the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities and the importance of robust funding for the work of those agencies. There is no more efficient dollar spent in the entire Federal budget. I will say in a minute what I mean by that.

I am very happy to be co-chairman, with Mr. Lance, of the Congressional Humanities Caucus, to be a member of the Congressional Arts Caucus, which Ms. Slaughter and others have led, and proud to support the missions of these two agencies.

Federal support for the arts and the humanities affirms America's rich and diverse cultural and artistic heritage. It really is an investment in the quality of life of our people. I think we should see it that way, and we need to

be steadfast in our support and our investment. It is one of the most efficient we make, as I said. It leverages private, nonprofit, and corporate dollars.

In 2015 alone, for example, Federal NEH museum grants leveraged $104 million in outside funding from only $33 million in Federal funds. That is a pretty good return for the taxpayer.

They support millions of jobs, these endowments do, and the projects they fund, hundreds of millions of dollars in direct economic activity, and the American public loves them. Participation all over this country, in communities large and small, rural and urban, is widespread and enthusiastic.

So again, I thank the chairman for his attention to these important lines in the budget. I hope we can bolster our commitment to the arts and humanities and do even better as the appropriations process moves forward.

Mr. Chairman, I thank our ranking member for yielding, and I thank her and our chairman for their good work.

I must still rise, however, in opposition to the fiscal 2018 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies bill, and the Republican Omnibus bill.

I want to stress, Mr. Chairman, that I am heartened, as I imagine every Member of this body is heartened, by the bipartisan cooperation we have been able to muster to reach out to our neighbors in Texas and Louisiana who have been so devastated. It is the same kind of solidarity and cooperation that I know we will muster, whatever the need is after Irma reaches our shores. We anticipate that storm with a great deal of concern and apprehension.

We have a history in this body of pulling together when it matters for our neighbors whenever disasters strike. That kind of cooperation is absolutely essential to who we are as a country and who we are as an institution.

Mr. Chair, I want to urge that we bring that same spirit of cooperation,

that same understanding of the historic cooperation that has characterized appropriations, to our larger appropriations challenge. After all, this is the power of the purse. This is our main constitutional power, and history shows it works best when it is exercised cooperatively, no matter who the President is or what the party division is.

We need to work in a cooperative fashion to make sure that this power is just as effectively and responsibly exercised as possible. This eight-bill exercise in which we are engaged today is a deeply flawed process. We need to overcome this, and I believe eventually we will, with a bipartisan budget agreement such as we have had each of the last 4 years. This will let us cooperatively write appropriations bills that address our country's needs. But that is not where we are today, Mr. Chairman.

I do want to give the chairman of our subcommittee, Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida, credit for an open and collaborative process, but he and the subcommittee have been dealt an inadequate hand. We simply can't do what needs to be done with this allocation.

In the case of the T-HUD bill, we have only appropriated $56.5 billion for vital transportation, housing and community development programs, and that is $1.1 billion less than the enacted level. We have got to do better than this. We have got to do right by our country's infrastructure needs.

One of the most egregious omissions in this bill is funding for the TIGER program. This is a program that has addressed infrastructure needs across our country. Estimates are that we are addressing only 5 percent of the meritorious projects put forward under TIGER.

I can tell you about one project we are funding. I visited it last week: Union Station in Raleigh, North Carolina, a beautiful multimodal facility that is going to facilitate passenger rail, transit, buses, intermodal transportation, and it is going to revitalize a landmark downtown district.

That is an ideal use of TIGER funds. Communities all over this country need that sort of investment, yet this bill zeros that program out completely. It also cuts New Starts for transit--Capital Investment Grants--by $659 million.

Now, I give the chairman credit for including bill language to ensure that the FTA continues to rate and review projects in the New Starts pipeline, but at this funding level, only a few of those projects can actually be funded. Our cities across this country are eager to institute transit programs. They have gone through all the steps to do this responsibly. We need to keep faith with those communities by improving on this aspect of our bill.

Over at HUD, the Choice Neighborhoods program--formerly called HOPE VI--that has transformed dozens of public housing developments into thriving, mixed-income communities, receives only $20 million in this bill compared to $137 million in the fiscal '17 bill. Now, I recognize this is a placeholder amount, and I look forward to working to improve this number moving forward.

Additionally, the Community Development Block Grant and HOME programs are each cut by $100 million in this bill despite bipartisan calls from local elected officials across the country to preserve those funding streams.

We are in the midst of a housing crisis nationally. Only one in four people eligible for Federal rental assistance can receive it. We have a huge public housing capital backlog, and our infrastructure continues to crumble, resulting in decaying highways and bridges and congested roads. We should be increasing our commitment to meet these housing and transportation needs, not shortchanging them. We have done this for far too long already.

We have returned again and again to appropriations, especially domestic appropriations, to bear the whole brunt of deficit reduction. The results are a disaster for our economy and for the work of our appropriations committees.

It is truly the worst of both worlds. We are not really addressing the main drivers of the deficit, yet we are doing untold damage to critical national investments.

I strongly object also to several policy riders in this bill. They unnecessarily attack high-speed rail, they roll back transportation safety, and they harm labor rights.

No number of amendments offered today can fix this bill. I remain hopeful that ultimately we can get a serious budget agreement. In the meantime, I urge my colleagues to reject this omnibus bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Torres).

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to join the chairman in opposition.

The amendment would decimate the salaries and expense accounts at the Department of Transportation, Department of Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies. There are broad consequences for this, but I want to focus on one consequence: cybersecurity.

The inspectors general of both departments have indicated that both agencies have a lot of work to do in addressing cyber threats. The CIOs at DOT and HUD have been working to address these challenges. They have had issues in hiring and staffing cybersecurity professionals in what is a very competitive labor market.

The bill would make these challenges even more difficult by reducing the salaries and expenses of the CIO offices by 10 percent.

We owe it to our constituents to have a safe and secure transportation system and to safeguard personally identifiable information. This amendment would make it harder for these departments to do this, and I urge its defeat.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman for offering the amendment. I am compelled to oppose it, in part, because our authorizers have expressed reservations, at least on our side, about this amendment.

No one disagrees with giving the States flexibility, but we and the authorizers, in particular, have some questions about how the gentleman's amendment would go about providing that flexibility.

The set-asides in the bill reflect the agreement in the FAST Act. Therefore, before legislating on this, we need to be clear about how this would work and whether it does, in fact, violate the premises of the FAST Act and other questions raised by our colleagues.

I suggest a ``no'' vote. I also suggest that we could return to this and deal with it later once some of these questions might be cleared up.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding. I join him in opposing this amendment. It would reduce the total amount of spending on new infrastructure projects by $474 million.

The main criticism of this bill, as the chairman has said, is that we ought to be doing more investment in infrastructure, not less. This amendment would make the bill's shortcomings even worse.

The Federal-State partnership for State of Good Repair program can be used for grants along the Northeast Corridor, the Chicago to Detroit Corridor, and publicly owned rail infrastructure throughout the Nation. These corridors include many of the Nation's passenger rail bottlenecks.

This amendment would take away dedicated funds to improve passenger rail service throughout our country. It is a distraction from the infrastructure challenges we face. We should be finding ways to invest in infrastructure: worthy new projects, expand mobility and opportunity. This amendment moves in the opposite direction.

Mr. Chairman, I urge its defeat.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the chairman for yielding and join him in opposing this amendment.

Amtrak serves more than 500 destinations in 46 States. It is a more and more critical component of our transportation system in North Carolina and many States like it across the country. It connects small communities that otherwise wouldn't have access to air service or other first-rate transportation.

In the past 11 years, Amtrak has had ten consecutive years of record ridership, serving over 32 million passengers last year. So this is an irresponsible amendment. It would eliminate thousands of jobs for Amtrak workers, and it would hurt the local economies that benefit from Amtrak routes.

Eliminating this national network service would also harm State- supported routes, and we in North Carolina and other States take notice when that is charged, and it is an accurate charge. They feed into these long-distance routes. It costs the government billions of dollars due to the violation of labor agreements. So it would be a very costly amendment. There is no doubt about it.

Support for a robust national rail system has been reaffirmed by members of both parties, and we can reaffirm it here tonight by voting against this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I commend my colleague for offering this amendment, and I strongly support it. Like many Members, I have seen the difference that NeighborWorks makes in my own district: making available hundreds of affordable apartments, often for veterans, for families.

The administration proposed slashing NeighborWorks by $113 million, so I commend the committee, our subcommittee, for refusing that proposal. But we need to bring it back to the fiscal year `16 level, and that is what my colleague is proposing. That would be $35 million. It would bring us to that fiscal year `16 level of funding, and it would let NeighborWorks do even more good work in our communities. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman for yielding time to me, and I join him in opposition to this amendment.

There are some conflicting accounts about what the underlying bill would do. Certainly there has been an attempt to contain the damage in the bill. Some groups like the National Low Income Housing Coalition, however, estimate that housing vouchers would be lost under the current bill, and then we have this amendment? This amendment would compound many times whatever problems are involved in the legislation. It would have a horrible impact on low-income families.

The gentleman has asserted here tonight that veterans wouldn't be harmed, that the disabled wouldn't be harmed, the elderly wouldn't be harmed. Read the amendment. Where is any of this stated? How can he make such statement? All these groups and more would be harmed.

Mr. Chair, I urge this amendment's rejection.

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

Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment. The Private Enforcement Initiative provides grants to nonprofit organizations to prevent and eliminate discriminatory housing practices.

These organizations receive complaints. They investigate them. They work to educate landlords and property managers on their responsibilities under Federal fair housing law. Their work ensures that legitimate complaints move forward and that education is provided to housing providers when that is appropriate.

Across the country, PEI grantees are working to ensure that families with children have access to housing. Just this May, HUD and Project Sentinel, an organization in California, announced a conciliation agreement with a landlord who refused to rent to people with small children and infants. Another PEI grantee in California worked to ensure that a person with disabilities had access to a medically required service animal. Another grantee in Illinois worked to ensure that a mortgage lender did not discriminate on the basis of race. This is the kind of work that PEIs do.

It may seem expedient to some to transfer the funding and responsibility of investigating fair housing complaints to States and local units of government, but we would lose a lot by doing that. What we would lose is the organizational knowledge, the years of expertise that the PEI program has developed.

Now, if the gentleman has specific issues with the program about how it is run, you know, the authorizing committee can hear those complaints, not the appropriations process. This is not the place to refine the law under which the program operates, let alone to pull the plug on funding.

Given all of the good work that PEI grantees do across the country and in my district, I can't support eliminating this program, and I urge colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a pretty good example, I must say, of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There may be complaints here and there. There are ways to pursue those complaints. But the good work that these organizations do, the documented cases of discrimination, discriminatory practices, exclusion that they have remedied, that they have made right, should be very compelling to us.

Certainly, the blunt instrument of simply withholding of funding isn't going to deal with that. It is going to likely do great damage to organizations that, across the country, have had a very positive impact.

This amendment would end their work. It would end the work of nonprofits that use funding to ensure housing providers remain in compliance with Federal housing law. It is a very bad idea.

Mr. Chair, let's oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I can't imagine why we would want to micromanage Pennsylvania's transportation system. I wouldn't want the body micromanaging North Carolina's.

We had a decision about tolling in my district a few years ago. Tolling wasn't anybody's first choice or second choice or third choice. But if tolling had not been instituted on a part of the loop road around Raleigh, North Carolina, if tolling had not been instituted, we would have waited 20 years for the road to be constructed. So we took a deep breath and we undertook a toll project, and that is why the road is built and serving commuters today.

Now, that decision could have gone either way, but we would have had no business in this body coming in and dictating that decision in North Carolina or any other State. I don't know why we should start tonight.

Federal law is very flexible about the use of Federal aid funds for new toll facilities and even existing toll-free roads. States will make different decisions about this.

I would say our infrastructure needs are pressing enough to require an all-of-the-above approach, and if tolls are appropriate and are accepted, then that is perhaps what we should do. But that is a decision for State and local officials and their constituents in considering these matters. We have no business in adopting an amendment of that sort, and I very much hope we will not.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like the clarify that I am not the least bit interested in getting into the merits of this project. It is none of my business, none of our business, so that is not the point. I haven't said a word about the merits of the project. I know nothing about it.

What I do know is that this is a decision that the State of Pennsylvania is perfectly capable of making for itself. I am not interested in the folks that might be on the losing side of a decision to come to this body to carry their water. We have no business doing that.

This is simply an inappropriate exercise of appropriations power, and I urge the amendment's rejection.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Davis-Bacon is a pretty simple concept, and a fair one. It requires that workers on a federally funded construction project be paid no less than prevailing wages, the wages paid in the community for similar work.

The Davis-Bacon Act ensures workers are paid decent wages, while preventing unscrupulous contractors from undercutting competitors. In doing this, Davis-Bacon helps protect workers and the Federal Government.

Mr. Chairman, the House has taken numerous votes on this issue, and on every vote, this body has maintained Davis-Bacon requirements.

Last year, we avoided including divisive language like this, and it is my hope that we will stop attacking working people and their organizations and defeat the amendment before us.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross).

Mr. Chairman, I urge defeat of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I understand the concern that has led to it about the practice of tolling or the possibility of tolling on two adjacent highways in two States.

But the same kind of reasoning that applied, I think, to Mr. Thompson's amendment earlier would apply to this. This is not a decision for us to make on the floor of the House tonight. This is clearly a local matter. We don't have any business micromanaging it. The States involved can have their own decisionmaking processes. They have their own ways of consulting with one another for that matter.

Federal law has been pretty flexible on this for good reason. It has been flexible about tolling, about the treatment of existing toll-free roads for good reason. We have pressing infrastructure needs in this country. We have great need for flexibility in the way we fund infrastructure improvements.

I relayed earlier the kind of decision we made in North Carolina. It was not particularly our first choice to have a toll road, but the alternative was waiting 20 years, so we have a toll road. Others will make other decisions. But it is not our place to preempt those decisions, let alone in an appropriations bill.

Mr. Chairman, I do oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Our colleague does make solid points about the importance of manufactured housing, about the serviceability of it, about the access of it, about the affordability. There are many, many aspects about manufactured housing that lend themselves to our constituents at various income levels.

He asks why we would possibly want any kind of consumer protections enacted at the Federal level in this business, though. I think the answer to that is pretty obvious: It is about safety and security. It is about protecting consumers who put good money down for these houses.

That is not to say every rule, every protection is well-conceived. Possibly some need to be scrutinized and some need to be revised. But are we going to do it tonight on the floor of the House in an appropriations bill? I would hope not. That is not a good way to proceed.

We, for one thing, have colleagues on the authorizing committee who have not had hearings, as far as I know, on these issues. We have not had people who live with these regulations in to talk about them or groups that look out for the consumers come in.

We have very limited debate here tonight, with 5 minutes on each side. On that basis, we are going to wipe away carefully conceived consumer protections in the area of manufactured housing?

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues not to go down this path. That is not to say we shouldn't consider these things.

Congress, including the authorizing committees, and HUD should fully examine the impact of these individual regulations before we jump the gun and make sweeping changes to existing policy. I urge defeat of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, it is news to most of us, I expect, that consumer protections is incompatible with consumer choice. We offer protections of all sorts. In the case of housing, it is against predatory practices. As the houses are sold, it is against shoddy construction, it is against a race to the bottom in terms of quality that individual buyers may not be able to perceive.

That compatibility of basic consumer protections and consumer choice is presented every day in our marketplace, and I certainly don't see why it should be absent here, although, as I said earlier, some of these rules may be up for scrutiny. It is just not that we are prepared to do it here tonight.

I would also point out that the only type of housing that moves across State lines is manufactured housing, so that probably provides an additional argument as to why we should be particularly diligent in dismantling Federal protections. I urge rejection of the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, immigration enforcement is a Federal responsibility. Local law enforcement is not and should not be the long arm of ICE. And if it is perceived to be the long arm of ICE, it is going to be very difficult to work with the community to do what needs to be done for local law enforcement and community protection.

The end result would tear entire communities apart, would greatly hinder the ability of local law enforcement to effectively do their job.

Furthermore, this amendment has no place in the T-HUD appropriations bill. The employees of the Department of Transportation, Housing and Urban Development are not law enforcement. They do not routinely need to interact with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. This amendment would insert unnecessary controversy into the bill. It does nothing to improve transportation. It does nothing to provide housing for vulnerable Americans. It doesn't change existing law, nor does it change the way HUD and DOT programs are administered.

The underlying bill has enough challenges as written without adding something of this moment and this divisiveness. So I urge defeat of this needless and partisan distraction.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, the facts are pretty clear about this matter. A thousand people die on our highways each year because of speeding trucks. The technology that limits speeding by large trucks is already installed and successfully deployed by many trucking companies across this country.

We know that high speeds in large trucks are a deadly combination. A 2012 study by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration found that trucks without a speed limiting device had twice as many speed- related crashes as those who had a speed limiter installed. Those are the facts. Pretty incontrovertible, I believe.

So on the basis of this, quite rightly, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration have a rulemaking under way, a careful rulemaking looking at all the evidence, and the proposal is here tonight that we upend that, that we on the floor of this House, with 5 minutes of consideration on each side, that we abrogate unto ourselves the decision to upend this safety rule.

This is technology that saves lives. The evidence is very clear. What that exact rule should look like in the end, we don't know, but we do know that to completely set aside the rulemaking process in such a vital area is reckless and irresponsible. This amendment should be rejected.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

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

Truck crash deaths in this country have increased significantly in recent years. That should be the backdrop of this discussion. 4,067 people were killed in crashes involving large trucks in 2015 alone. That is a 20 percent increase since 2009. And studies show that driver fatigue--that is what this amendment is all about, driver fatigue--is an important part of the problem.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and the National Transportation Safety Board repeatedly have recommended that all trucks and buses be equipped with ELDs.

In 2012, Congress decided to take strong action to address this problem and passed a requirement for the use of ELDs with bipartisan support as a part of the MAP-21 legislation.

Supporters of this amendment say that the enforcement community is not ready to begin enforcement by December 18. That is really not the case.

And it is also true that inspectors aren't going to pull truckers out of service for noncompliance until April 1 of next year. That is a considerable grace period. It will give the trucking and the enforcement community ample time to adjust to the mandate.

The Department of Transportation has estimated that the benefits adopting ELDs to be over $1 billion. So implementing the mandate makes financial sense, and it certainly makes sense in terms of the safety of our people, the safety on our roads.

Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this needless, divisive, and, indeed, provocative amendment.

President Bush, long ago, ordered Federal agencies to comply with E- Verify. That was in 2007. I have seen no indication that the Trump administration intends to rescind this order.

This amendment, if it only applies to hiring at Federal agencies, would do nothing, absolutely nothing. So why is it before us? What is the purpose here tonight? Is it possibly a political purpose?

What the amendment does do, in fact, is to insert unnecessary controversy into this bill. It does nothing to improve transportation, and it does nothing to provide housing for vulnerable Americans.

The underlying bill, one would think, has enough challenges, as written, without this gratuitous amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I urge defeat of this distraction, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the Reverend Dr. W.B. Lewis who is retiring after fifty-three years as the Pastor of First Cosmopolitan Baptist Church in Raleigh, North Carolina.

I have come to appreciate over many years the gracious hospitality and faithful witness of Rev. Lewis and this congregation. Early in my term of service--but well into his--we worked together to help land a so-called ``section 202'' Housing and Urban Development grant to construct rental housing for the elderly under First Cosmopolitan's sponsorship. Those apartments stand as a symbol of Rev. Lewis's leadership and the church's understanding of its ministry.

Under Rev. Lewis's leadership, First Cosmopolitan has grown into a powerful pillar of the Raleigh community. Dr. Lewis himself has become an institution of sorts within North Carolina. For four years, he served as the President of the General Baptist State Convention. He was appointed by North Carolina Governor James Hunt to serve on the board for Smart Start. His service has also included the Raleigh Interdenominational Ministerial Alliance, the Raleigh Interracial Ministerial Association, the Raleigh YMCA Board of Directors, the State Board of Chaplaincy, the Rich Park Board of Directors, the Board of Trustees at Shaw University, Prince Hall Lodge, the Masonic Order of Raleigh, Wake and Johnston Missionary Baptist Association, Wake Baptists Association Ministers, and the Deacons Union.

Reverend Lewis has rightfully been recognized on numerous occasions for his roles as a pastor, builder, teacher, mentor, spiritual and community leader, and friend to many. In 2013, he was inducted into the Wake Baptist Association ``Hall of Fame''. In 2017, he was presented with the ``Loving Cup'', the highest award that can be presented to an individual minister or pastor who has served with distinction, from the General Baptist State Convention of North Carolina.

During his tenure he was also instrumental in the planning and execution of two projects critical to the South East Raleigh Community: the Willie B. Lewis Family Center, and Rich Park, a 100 unit apartment complex that serves the elderly and handicapped. Reverend Lewis also co-authored ``A Splendid Enterprise,'' a history of the General Baptist State Convention of North Carolina. Having an artistic eye, he was also instrumental in the design of the beautiful Martin Luther King Jr. Park in Raleigh.

In celebration of his great accomplishments, Rev. Lewis will be the recipient of the order of the Long Leaf Pine, which is the highest honor bestowed upon a citizen by the Governor of the State of North Carolina. I am pleased to join the State of North Carolina and the Raleigh community in celebrating this remarkable man, whom I and many others regard as a mentor and friend. We thank Rev. Lewis for a legacy of lives touched and a community made more welcoming and just, and we wish him the very best in retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this so-called security minibus.

The Republican majority has rushed through the fiscal year 2018 appropriations process, passing 12 bills without benefit of a budget resolution. Now they have failed to secure the votes on the floor for that Republican-only omnibus package, so they have decided to move forward with what is before us today--four appropriations bills stitched together that would bust the Budget Control Act defense cap and, if enacted, result in a $72 billion sequester against all defense accounts.

The entire fiscal year '18 appropriations process has been a Republican exercise in sham accounting and wishful thinking: ignore current law, jack up defense spending, and impose huge, unnecessary, and detrimental cuts on domestic appropriations.

When future students learn about congressional appropriations, this episode should be exhibit A of what not to do.

The four bills before us today are also full of objectionable and unreasonable policy riders, including the ridiculous inclusion in the rule of $1.6 billion to be spent on 74 miles of border wall. Nobody would know it from the President's hysterical rhetoric, but there are already 700 miles of fence along the border--vehicular fencing and pedestrian fencing. I know about it because most of that fence was built when I was chairman of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee.

When Congress appropriated funds to build that fence, we required segment-by-segment analyses and environmental impact studies. This bill doesn't include that. It doesn't include any language regarding congressional oversight. There are no requirements for Homeland Security to submit a cost-benefit analysis or to work with Congress through any modifications.

Mr. Speaker, funding an unnecessary wall, especially without congressional oversight, is not a defensible use of taxpayer dollars. We would simply become complicit in what we all know was campaign demagoguery.

Speaking of which, wasn't the Mexican Government going to pay for this wall? Weren't they going to pick up the tab?

This $1.6 billion should be spent on much more important priorities, within and beyond homeland security, that would actually improve the lives of our citizens.

It is time for Republicans to stop playing games with taxpayer money and start negotiating with Democrats. We know this is going to have to happen eventually. We need a bipartisan budget and appropriations package that actually has a chance of becoming law and that addresses the need of a great country for serious investment.

Oppose the border wall. Oppose this sham appropriations minibus.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to stress two critical aspects of this legislation.

First, it would impose tough sanctions on Russia for its serious international violations, the seizure of Crimea, its violent incursion into Ukraine, its cyber interference in the 2016 U.S. election. Perhaps most importantly, in the present context, it would prevent President Trump from removing or softening existing sanctions without congressional approval.

Second, the bill addresses Iran's unacceptable behavior in the non- nuclear realm, such as ballistic missile development, human rights violations, financing of terrorism, without violating the nuclear deal with Iran.

The JCPOA celebrated its second anniversary 2 weeks ago. It has given the international community 24/7 access to Iran's nuclear sites, provided an enforcement mechanism to ensure that Iran's nuclear-related activity is solely peaceful, and elongated Iran's breakout time to over a year. It has made the world a safer place.

Mr. Speaker, as the United States continues to monitor the JCPOA and Iran's behavior, it is important that Congress continue to refrain from actions that would violate the deal, threaten the deal, or impose careless sanctions that--under the guise of being tough on Iran--would make the United States less safe.

This legislation meets that test, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life and legacy of Paul Hardin III, former Chancellor of the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, who died on July 1 after a courageous battle with ALS.

My wife Lisa and I treasure the friendship of Paul and his wife Barbara and were privileged to join his family in a moving memorial service at University United Methodist Church last Saturday.

Paul was a man of great intelligence and insight, moral seriousness and integrity, and irrepressible enthusiasm and dedication--qualities abundantly evident throughout his career in higher education.

As was said more than once in the memorial service, Paul pledged allegiance to ``two shades of blue.'' The deeper hue belonged to Duke University, where he earned his undergraduate and law degrees and edited the Duke Law Journal.

Paul then served in the Army's Counter Intelligence Corps and practiced law in Birmingham before returning to Durham to spend ten years on the faculty of Duke Law School. He was appointed to his first college presidency, at Wofford College, at age 37, and went on to serve as president of Southern Methodist and Drew Universities. In 1988 he became the seventh chancellor of UNC-CH, where he served until his retirement in 1995.

As a young man, Paul made a credible run for Mayor of Durham, and throughout his life he was attentive and involved in national, state, and local politics. In recent years, Paul, along with Barbara, brought his trademark high energy to the leadership of Democrats in their retirement community, Carolina Meadows.

They also shared, as children of ministers, deep roots in the Methodist Church. Paul, his son Russell reported at the memorial service, seriously considered entering the ministry as a young man. But his father, who was a Methodist bishop, assured him that he could render faithful service and powerful witness in his chosen fields of education and the law.

Paul's father was right, as the thousands whose lives Paul touched can attest. I am honored to join this chorus of tribute, and include in the Record a piece by Paul's friend and mine, Village Communications President Jim Heavner, from the Raleigh News and Observer of July 5.

Paul Hardin--A Good Man Who Made UNC Better

When Paul Hardin slipped away last week, North Carolina

lost a brilliant and fine man, a UNC chancellor whose

leadership was endearing, its lessons enduring.

``This may be audacious, but here's an idea,'' I heard him

say so often as a way to prepare us to hear how he might see

the future differently. The good fortune of my work and home

town gave me much time with Paul and a friendship that grew.

He and I were pulled together in work when my company owned

the school's sports network.

It was the good fortune of us all to learn from him. Among

the leaders I have known, none was more dogged in defense of

the values he sought to protect. He was clear-eyed and

courageous in facing down those who threatened those values.

It was likely the example of his Methodist minister father

(also a bishop) that inculcated his habit to find noble

qualities among many where the rest of us could not. An

extroverted and joyful soul, he loved much about politics and

once ran for the town council in Durham.

It is little-known that he served in the CIA, or that his

excellent golf game honed on the Duke team (his alma mater)

qualified him for the British Open at a time when he was in

Scotland. A great storyteller, Paul loved to recall those

days and so many more.

He was a brilliant student who finished first in his class

at Duke, where he also obtained his law degree. He would have

to call on all of that as a university leader. It's a job

with high prestige buffeted daily by high winds of disparate

owners and bosses and the thunder of their loudest voices.

Paul would frequently recall the story attributed to Lincoln

about the politician who was tarred and feathered and run out

of town on a rail: ``Except for the honor of the public

experience, I would have preferred to walk.''

Most every university is beset with the challenge of

balancing the conflicting goals of big-time sports and the

university's academic mission. As president of Southern

Methodist University, Paul Hardin heard of a minor

malfeasance by the football coach that led him to learn of

cash payments to players.

Paul was not a Pollyanna. He had a good political radar but

never let it overpower his gyroscope. Knowing that he was in

Dallas, where many see football as the reason to have a

university, he nonetheless reported it to the NCAA and told

his trustees that he was going to clean it up, knowing that

he would face criticism.

His board members fired him. The school ultimately was

given the NCAA's only four-year ``death penalty.''

Paul later said that it ``perked up'' his career. It was

that experience, his exhibition of putting his values first,

he said, that got him the job heading UNC in Chapel Hill 13

years later.

Unflinching in his support of the Knight Commission on

College Athletics' position that a school was more important

than any coach, he never swerved in his commitment to

administrative control of athletics and transparency in its

dealings. He was a great fan of basketball and UNC's iconic

Dean Smith. Yet, when the head coach's Nike contract came up

for renewal on Paul's watch, the chancellor insisted that it

be made public.

(Ironically, while he was demanding the coach's contractual

transparency, he also was being criticized in cartoons in The

News & Observer for allowing Dean to make so much money while

he was away playing golf. In some things, you just can't

win.)

He also faced issues of protest and social unrest. He was

caught in the jaws of irreconciably-conflicting forces when

supporters of the Black Cultural Center wanted it expanded

into its own, freestanding building, something others

opposed. The chancellor was initially opposed, as an advocate

for more integration. He saw it as a contributor to

separatism.

The faceoff between conservatives and growing campus

protests became overwhelming. Hardin agreed to build the

center, which was done in the subsequent administration. Yet,

he had paid a price for it in criticism from all sides.

Paul was a pioneer in fundraising, creating the

university's first major fund campaign that was first

announced as one for $200 million to celebrate the UNC

Bicentennial. That was then raised to $300 million and

ultimately reported $412 million in gifts.

Paul showed them the way. The school now channels that

Hardin audacity, embarking now on its second multi-billion-

dollar campaign.

He loved being the ``Bicentennial Chancellor,'' with its

many commemorations, including an anniversary speech in Kenan

Stadium by President Bill Clinton.

Paul Hardin loved life, one well-lived until the ravages of

ALS took him away. He was still able to find good in all

things and laughter with good friends until the end. Paul

could lament the awful examples and roiling consequences of

today's political leadership, even as he might find something

good in each of those who are, at least, he might say,

willing to lead. The more we ponder that world view, that

life, the closer we come to our own better angels.

Our community and our state lost a good man. A good, good

man.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleague, Mr. Butterfield, in honoring the life of a towering figure in North Carolina politics, Senator Ralph Hunt, Sr., of Durham.

I first got to know Senator Hunt early in my political career when I was chairman of the North Carolina Democratic Party. Ralph was already a business and community leader in Durham, having served in the U.S. Army, taught in Durham city schools, started a career in business, and served as one of the first African-American members of the city council, where he served from 1975 to 1985, including 3 years as mayor pro tempore.

Ralph was a genial, energetic, and beloved leader. He was also a tireless advocate for the needs of the people of Durham--all of the people. It is no coincidence that the city has undergone a renaissance over the course of Ralph's long career. He served as executive director of the Durham Business and Professional Chain for over a decade. He provided leadership to the Mutual Savings and Loan Association, which provided vital access to capital for many Durham residents; and to the Downtown Durham Revitalization Foundation board, which helped pave the way for the thriving downtown we see today.

Ralph, of course, is best known, as my colleague has noted, for his service in the North Carolina Senate from 1985 to 1993, and again from 2004 to 2005. He held various leadership positions in our caucus, and he mentored a new generation of progressive elected officials. The North Carolina Senate still bears the mark of his leadership.

In the intervening years, between those years of service in the Senate, he served with distinction on the North Carolina Utilities Commission. More recently--and I respect the fact that Ralph took this on late in his life--he assumed the challenge of chairing the Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People at a critical juncture for that organization. In fact, Ralph always stepped up to the plate and always took on challenges when he was needed. He was an exemplary citizen. He was also a devoted husband, a loving father and grandfather, and a community leader who will long be remembered in Durham and throughout our State.

As we mourn his passing, we give thanks for his life of strong citizenship and service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the career of Duke University President Richard Brodhead, who is stepping down after 13 years of service.

Dick Brodhead succeeded Nan Keohane in 2004 as the 9th president of Duke University, attracted by what another president, former Governor Terry Sanford, defined as the university's ``outrageous ambition.'' President Brodhead has led the university on a new trajectory of growth and international renown. In one of his first major actions as president, he led an effort to greatly expand the endowment for financial aid, which has allowed academically talented students to pursue a Duke degree regardless of their financial circumstances. President Brodhead's time at Duke has been transformative, from the renewal of campus gems such as Duke Chapel, Baldwin Auditorium, West Union, and athletic facilities to the construction of a series of stunning new research facilities.

Dick Brodhead also embraced and amplified one of Duke's enduring themes: knowledge in the service of society. He launched DukeEngage, a civic engagement program that provides undergraduates the opportunity to apply their knowledge to challenges in communities in the U.S. and around the globe. Under his leadership, Duke established the Duke Global Health Institute, which translates research to address health inequities around the world.

Further expanding Duke's global reach were the creation of Duke Kunshan University in China and the construction of the Duke-NUS Medical School in Singapore. Closer to home, he enriched Duke's relationship with the City of Durham by investing in K-12 education, community health clinics, and neighborhood revitalization and helping spark the renaissance of downtown Durham.

President Brodhead had the opportunity to help Duke celebrate ten NCAA national championships won by men's basketball and lacrosse and women's golf and tennis teams, while a host of Duke student-athletes were victorious as individual national champions and Olympic medalists. At the same time, Duke ensured that athletics upheld the academic mission of the university.

An expert in 19th-century American literature, President Brodhead came to Duke after a distinguished teaching and administrative career at Yale University. He has authored or edited more than a dozen books on America's great writers, including analysis of the works of Hawthorne, Faulkner, and Welty.

President Brodhead has also assumed a national leadership role in higher education. Elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2004, he was named the Co-Chair of the Academy's Commission on the Humanities and Social Sciences, created at the request of a bipartisan group of House and Senate members, including myself, to bolster teaching and research in the humanities and social sciences. The Commission's 2013 report, The Heart of the Matter: The Humanities and Social Sciences for a Vibrant, Competitive, and Secure Nation, stands out for the

persuasiveness of its argument and its practical import. Dick Brodhead was a hands-on co-chairman and has played an active role in the report's dissemination.

Cindy Brodhead has been of indispensable support to Dick throughout his tenure. Cindy has a background in corporate and regulatory law and has made significant contributions to the arts and humanities across our state. She has served on the boards of the Carolina Ballet and Preservation North Carolina and has rendered outstanding service as chair of the North Carolina Humanities Council.

My wife Lisa joins me in thanking Dick and Cindy Brodhead for their friendship and for all they have given to Duke, Durham, and North Carolina. We are fortunate indeed that they have devoted their great energy and talent to our community, and we wish them well as they open the next chapter in their lives.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding and for taking up this Special Order to focus on the role of the Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities in American life and the need for us in this body to have some historical perspective and appreciation of that, and to rise to the occasion of the challenge presented by the Trump preliminary budget to make certain that these efforts are appreciated, and, more importantly, that they are funded, that they are supported in this body and in our budget for fiscal 2018.

I am glad that the gentleman took some time to give us a history lesson. He comes by this advocacy honestly because he is the Representative from Rhode Island. The inspiration behind the Endowments, back in the 1960s, was Senator Claiborne Pell of Rhode Island, a towering figure in the Senate.

I suppose I am one of the few Members around here who has been around long enough to remember Claiborne Pell. I never served with him, but I was a young staff member in the U.S. Senate when Claiborne Pell was going strong.

I first got a job as a summer intern and then returned summer after summer. I ended up writing a dissertation out of the Senate office of Senator Bob Bartlett of Alaska who was a friend and collaborator of Claiborne Pell's.

Pell had many things going. I remember his chairman, Senator Lister Hill of Alabama. When I interviewed him at one point, he remarked on Claiborne and how just Claiborne had everything going. You had to really work to keep up with him.

But these Endowments were favorite projects of Claiborne Pell and of that uniquely fertile period in the history of this Congress when these efforts were pioneered and established, and, of course, they have enriched our national life ever since.

As the gentleman from Rhode Island mentioned, I have been honored to co-chair the Congressional Humanities Caucus. I have also been a member for a long time of the Congressional Arts Caucus.

It is at least in part in that capacity I speak out today in defense of these Endowments, but also as a U.S. citizen, as a former academic who appreciates the role both of these Endowments play in supporting academic life and research into our history, our culture, our national background.

And not just research at the very top levels of our great universities, although they do some of that, but also the kind of local historical understanding that is developed through local arts councils and through local groups who research history and put on pageants and who educate young people and who do so much to enrich our national life from the bottom up.

One of the strengths, I think, of both the Arts and the Humanities Endowments, maybe their greatest strength, is their grassroots character--how they work to make history and the arts real and tangible and meaningful to young people coming along and to our local communities.

That is one reason their political support is so strong and so broad in terms of the political spectrum. We all know there have been times in the past where opportunistic politicians took out after the arts and the humanities thinking that maybe they could get a point or two by pretending to be antielitist or something like that. Efforts fall flat because Members of this body and most Americans know that the Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities operate at anything other than an elitist fashion.

They have managed to, at one and the same time, support the great achievements of our top research institutions but also to fund all sorts of activity at the local level, to the grassroots level, that has enriched our understanding of who we are and where we came from.

There was a Commission on the Humanities organized by the American Academy of Arts & Sciences a few years ago. It was co-chaired by the distinguished president of Duke University, Dick Brodhead, and a prominent businessman, John Rowe. The heart of the matter is the report that they produced. I would recommend to colleagues that report. It is not a report designed to gather dust on a shelf. It is a report designed to be an action document to help us understand that the humanities in this country are an important part of our educational excellence. They are an important part of our competitiveness internationally.

The humanities are important to national security and to the business world in terms of languages and cultural understanding and the kind of historical perspective that people need to operate in the modern world.

We all have our stories about how the humanities have enriched our lives and given us understanding. I experience that every day, not in a direct application necessarily but some kind of appreciation of where we have come from historically. What is the validity of some of these idealogical arguments that we hear? What is the history of our institution and of our role at critical moments? There is so much, whatever your walk of life, whether you are a Member of Congress or a businessperson or whatever. You are not going to get an instant history when you need it, when you need to have that understanding and that perspective. You gain this only by virtue of your educational background and what is available to you in terms of resources to deepen your understanding, and then you draw on that later, and it is extremely important to have that to draw on.

We need to situate ourselves, in this body especially, situate ourselves historically and understand the challenges we face. A broad liberal arts education is simply irreplaceable as a way of doing that. There are no more effective champions of broad liberal arts education and all of its facets than the Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities.

They have a robust system of partnerships with State agencies, local leaders, and the philanthropic sector. I particularly appreciate, in my district, the Carolina Ballet; the North Carolina Symphony, which gave a wonderful performance at the Kennedy Center as part of a series to celebrate State orchestras last week; and the National Humanities Center in my district also, a home for first-rate research in the humanities where scholars come year in and year out.

There is an economic impact that is sometimes not fully appreciated. A recent analysis by the Bureau of Economic Analysis found that our Nation's arts and cultural capacity produces over $700 billion in economic output and supports millions of jobs.

Coming down to specific programs, in fiscal year 2016 alone, the Endowment for the Humanities museums grants leveraged $33 million into an additional $104 million. That is a pretty good return, quite a return, for the American taxpayer.

In fact, every dollar that the State Humanities Council gives out in grants, since fiscal year 2015, leveraged at least $5 at the local and State level.

There are all kinds of reasons for us to appreciate the arts and the humanities--the ways they enrich our lives, the kind of ways they equip this country and this country's young people to be insightful, to be creative, to think outside the box, to develop their skills to the fullest extent for their own good and also for the good of our country.

In the face of all this, how can it be that the preliminarily budget of the Trump administration proposes eliminating these time-tested and productive programs?

I don't believe that will stand. I don't believe Members of either party in this body will let it stand. The funding already is very modest for these institutions. I am not talking about meeting the Trump administration halfway. I am talking about restoring full funding for the Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities and standing up proudly for these institutions and understanding and furthering understanding of the role they play in our national life.

Where did this proposal come from? I know where it came from--an outside rightwing think tank. That is the only credential that I know that this proposal from the preliminary budget has. I hope and believe that this was an overly hasty inclusion in that preliminary budget based on nothing more than this think tank's proposal.

I know it is up for reconsideration, I hope by the administration itself, but certainly by this body, as we put together our budget for 2018 and also our appropriations bills for the year.

We have got to stand up for our institutions' prerogatives in this case, but

exercise those prerogatives on behalf of our own constituents, our own communities, and two of the finest and most efficient and most effective uses of Federal funds that are in the whole budget, the National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities.

Let's hold fast in our investment. It is one of the most efficient we make in terms of leveraging private, nonprofit, and corporate dollars. It is one of the very most effective in enriching our national life.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend again for taking up this Special Order. I am happy to work with him on this, and we will count on a cooperative effort going forward.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's men's basketball team for winning the 2017 NCAA Division I National Championship, in the face of a spirited challenge from Gonzaga University.

As a proud alumnus of UNC-Chapel Hill, the Nation's first public university, I was delighted to cheer on the entire team--players, coaches, and staff--during their outstanding performance yesterday in the Nation's most competitive and most popular collegiate athletic tournament.

The Tar Heels have now played in a record 20 NCAA Final Four games, the most of all time, and last night marked their sixth NCAA National Championship and seventh overall National Championship. The years 1957, 1982, 1993, 2005, and 2009 are seared in the minds of North Carolina basketball fans, and I know I speak for our entire State when I say how delighted we are to add 2017 to that list!

The teamwork, camaraderie, and determination of this year's team were evident throughout the entire season as they struggled to overcome their heartbreaking defeat in the last seconds of the 2016 National Championship game. While their tournament finishes may have been a little closer than we wished, the team managed six wins against a formidable slate of opponents. These 15 young men played hard, played smart, and played together.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the names of the players, coaches, and staff.

UNC Men's Basketball Roster

Nate Britt, Upper Marlboro, Md.; Theo Pinson, Greensboro,

N.C.; Joel Berry, II, Apopka, Fla.; Kennedy Meeks, Charlotte,

N.C.; Isaiah Hicks, Oxford, N.C.; Tony Bradley, Bartow, Fla.;

Shea Rush, Fairway, Kan.; Kanler Coker, Gainesville, Ga.;

Brandon Robinson, Douglasville, Ga.; Seventh Woods, Columbia,

S.C.; Aaron Rohlman, Gastonia, N.C.; Stilman White,

Wilmington, N.C.; Luke Maye, Huntersville, N.C.; Justin

Jackson, Tomball, Texas; Roy Williams, Head Coach; Steve

Robinson, Assistant Coach; Hubert Davis, Assistant Coach;

C.B. McGrath, Assistant Coach; Brad Frederick, Director of

Basketball Operations; Sean May, Director of Player

Personnel; Jonas Sahratian, Strength & Conditioning

Coordinator; Eric Hoots, Director of Player Development.

Mr. Speaker, we could not be prouder of our team's victory last night.

To paraphrase the greatest basketball player of all time and a fellow UNC alumnus, Michael Jordan, who was perhaps channeling Yogi Berra, ``The ceiling truly is the roof.''

Hark the sound, and Go Heels!

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this misguided and shortsighted pay-more-for-less bill, also known as TrumpCare.

In all my time in Congress, I have never seen such blatant disregard for the interests of the American people.

Twenty-four million hardworking Americans will lose their coverage.

TrumpCare will raise premiums, while reducing critical premium subsidies that millions depend on. Meanwhile, deductibles and out-of- pocket expenses will go up.

Particularly hurt will be the Americans aged 50 to 64 who will have to pay five times more than others for health coverage, no matter how healthy they may be themselves.

TrumpCare then goes on to ransack the Medicaid funds that older Americans rely on for long-term care, and it shortens the life of the Medicare trust fund by 3 years.

North Carolina consumers in the insurance marketplace, many of them insured for the first time, would face the second highest healthcare cost increases in the entire country, an average of over $7,500. Again: mainly older, poorer North Carolinians. For example, a 64-year-old resident making $22,000 a year would see a premium spike of over $14,000. That is over half of his income.

After years of trying to destroy the ACA, is this the best that Speaker Ryan and President Trump can come up with? Defeat this bill.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, March 3, is Employee Appreciation Day; and since we

won't be in session, I rise today to register my appreciation for the staff members who allow me to serve the people of the Fourth District of North Carolina.

The current political and media environment is not always an easy one for congressional staff to operate in, yet, every year, the staffers working in my North Carolina district offices help thousands of constituents navigate Federal agencies. They reach out to local businesses, governments, and other organizations, and help constituents access needed support.

In Washington, D.C., our office staff researches thousands of pieces of legislation. They help me communicate with hundreds of thousands of constituent communications, and help welcome constituents to Washington. And they join me in meetings with constituent groups and local and State representatives and universities and businesses--every imaginable group.

So the list of tasks is long, but all of them help ensure that the people of the Fourth District of North Carolina have a voice in the people's House. Simply put, these staff members that serve all of us represent the very best of public service. I and the people of North Carolina are grateful for their service.

Mr. Speaker, in recognition of their dedication and diligence, I would like to include in the Congressional Record the names of each of my staff currently employed in my office:

Nadia Alston, Katelynn Anderson, Sonia Barnes, Nora Blalock, Bayly Hassell, Asher Hildebrand, James Hunter, Lawrence Kluttz, Tracy Lovett, Sean Maxwell, Neel Mandavilli, Dave Russell, Samantha Schifrin, Anna Tilghman, Justin Wein, Leigh Whittaker, and Robyn Winneberger.

I am grateful, Mr. Speaker, for the effort that these staff members continue to put forth and for the opportunity that Employee Appreciation Day gives me and others to honor their service.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this sham Republican budget resolution.

After wringing their hands for the last 8 years about debt and deficits, today's resolution makes clear Republicans care about fiscal discipline only when it is a Democratic President they are dealing with. This budget resolution would add $9.5 trillion to the debt

over the next 10 years. It has only one purpose: to provide for the eventual repeal of the Affordable Care Act, but it would ruin our fiscal health as well.

Of course, the ACA was fully paid for by Democrats with new revenue and with cost-containment measures. Nonpartisan budget experts say that repealing the ACA would actually increase the deficit by $350 billion. So the hypocrisy of our Republican colleagues on this issue is simply breathtaking, even by Washington standards.

Of course, repeal of ACA wouldn't just blow a hole in the budget, it would: destabilize the insurance market and cause premiums to skyrocket; eliminate insurance coverage for 30 million Americans, including 4 million children; raise taxes on the middle-class; burden local and rural hospitals with more uncompensated care; eliminate Medicaid benefits for millions of vulnerable citizens; and abolish vital patient protections, including the provision that stopped insurance companies from discriminating against those with preexisting condition.

After more than 6 years, moreover, we are still waiting for that comprehensive Republican plan to replace the ACA. News flash: they don't have one.

They simply don't have one. Rather than work with Democrats to improve the ACA, Republicans continue to put their own political ideology over the health and well-being of the Americans we are all pledged to serve.

I urge all Members to forcefully reject this budget resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this closed rule and the underlying resolution.

Mr. Speaker, there is a legitimate debate to be had concerning U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334 and the United States' decision to abstain, but H. Res. 11 does not engage on those issues. Instead, it misrepresents the motives of the Obama administration as it made the tough decision to abstain, and it distorts the content of the U.N. Security Council resolution, apparently for political purposes. In fact, H. Res. 11 runs a real risk of undermining the credibility of the United States Congress as a proactive force working toward a two-state solution.

As we enter a period of great geopolitical uncertainty, that principle has never been more important. In the face of new threats to democracy and stability, we must join together to reaffirm the most fundamental tenets of our foreign policy, including our strong and unwavering support for Israel. But we must also demonstrate to the world that we are still committed to diplomacy that defends human rights and promotes peace.

In an effort to make that unifying affirmation, I, Mr. Engel, and Mr. Connolly offered an amendment in the Rules Committee yesterday in the nature of a substitute for H. Res. 11. Our substitute was intended to put forward clear, consensus language that omitted the flaws of the underlying legislation and reaffirmed America's longstanding commitment to Israel and to peace in the region.

Our alternative didn't attempt to solve all the region's problems. We didn't pass judgment on recent events at the United Nations. In fact, those of us working on this resolution have varying views on that question. Nor did our resolution include politically charged attacks on the foreign policy priorities of the other party.

Instead, our resolution is carefully designed to allow a broad, bipartisan consensus to speak in one voice in support of a two-state solution as the most credible pathway to peace.

Unfortunately, this substitute amendment was not made in order by the Rules Committee, which instead moved forward with the closed rule we have before us. The alternative resolution has now been introduced separately as H. Res. 23, and it is available for cosponsorship.

Today, however, we don't have that before us because of this rule.

Members don't have the opportunity to vote on this or any other resolution that accurately affirms both our vital relationship with Israel and the longstanding bipartisan consensus that supports a viable two-state solution. Instead, we are presented with an extreme resolution that badly distorts the history--and we have heard that again here this morning--and that recklessly maligns U.S. diplomacy, all to embarrass the Obama administration for political gain. It is not worthy of this body.

I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' on the rule, and ``no'' on the underlying resolution.-