Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member, Mr. Engel, for yielding a portion of his time to opponents of this resolution. I also appreciate his willingness to work with me and other Members on our alternative resolution that is more accurate and less divisive, a resolution, unfortunately, the majority has denied a hearing for on the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 11. The resolution before us today fails to credibly reaffirm our Nation's support for a two-state solution. It provides an inaccurate accounting of the United States' longstanding policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It includes reckless and divisive charges regarding the recent United Nations Security Council resolution, designed, it would appear, solely to embarrass the outgoing administration. It falsely claims, for example, that the Security Council resolution ``contradicts the Oslo Accords.'' It goes so far as to link the resolution to the boycott and divestiture movement.

Mr. Speaker, there is room for honest debate about the U.N. resolution and about the U.S. decision to abstain, but there is not room, there shouldn't be room, for this kind of disgraceful distortion. H. Res. 11 doesn't really engage the issues; it obscures and distorts them.

I would suggest that both those who support and oppose recent U.S. actions should oppose this irresponsible and divisive resolution. It does distort the record. In fact, during the Obama administration, fewer U.N. Security Council resolutions related to the Israeli- Palestinian conflict have passed than under any other modern Presidency. In fact, the December resolution is the only one that has passed under President Obama's leadership; and if you want a fair and comprehensive account of the thinking that went into that difficult decision, I commend to every Member Samantha Power's statement at the United Nations, one of the finest statements of its sort that I have ever read.

H. Res. 11 also doesn't take into account the fact that Republican and Democratic administrations alike have allowed Security Council resolutions addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to pass, many of which were opposed by Israel. The fact is 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.

In this period of great geopolitical turmoil and uncertainty, we must reaffirm those fundamental aspects of our foreign policy, including our strong and unwavering support for Israel, while also demonstrating to the world that we are committed to a diplomacy that defends human rights and promotes Israeli and Palestinian states that live side by side in peace and security, a formulation that has characterized our country's diplomacy for decades.

At best, Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 11 would muddy the waters of our diplomacy and foreign policy. At worst, it could undermine our decade- long efforts to achieve a just and lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians. I can't, in good faith, support the adoption of this resolution, and I urge a ``no'' vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining for each side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

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

Mr. Speaker, we are all friends of Israel, but that friendship requires more than demonizing the United Nations and the Obama administration. In fact, it requires the facing of hard truths, the destructive effect of incitement and violence on the Palestinian side, which the U.N. resolution explicitly acknowledges, and the threat to peace and to any conceivable two-state solution by relentless settlement expansion on the Israeli side, pushed by the right wing, unchallenged by H. Res. 11.

The majority, seeking to push this resolution through, has displayed little interest in what it would take actually to achieve peace, choosing instead to distort the history, to impugn the motives of those attempting to achieve peace. It is not worthy of this body. I urge its rejection.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Dean Smith, one of North Carolina's most admired and accomplished citizens, who passed away on February 7, 2015. Dean Smith will long be remembered for his successes as head coach of the men's basketball team at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill from 1961 until his retirement in 1997. The statistics are dazzling: two national championships, 11 Final Four appearances, 17 Atlantic Coast Conference regular-season titles and 13 ACC tournament titles, 8-times ACC Coach of the Year, and Head Coach of the gold-medal winning USA Olympic Basketball team in 1976. He retired with 879 victories, which was the NCAA Division I men's basketball record at that time.

Behind these statistics is the coach of whom his long-time rival Coach Mike Krzyzewski of Duke University said, ``He was one of a kind . . . one of the greatest basketball minds and a magnificent teacher and tactician.'' The tributes that have come forth from his players uniformly praise his lifelong loyalty to them and his excellence as a mentor. ``He was more than a coach,'' recalled Michael Jordan, ``He was my mentor, my teacher, my second father. Coach Smith was always there for me whenever I needed him and I loved him for it. In teaching me the game of basketball, he taught me about life.''

Dean Smith was also a powerful force for good in the community, working actively and courageously for civil rights and equal justice throughout his life. I have known Dean since my student days at UNC, when he was an assistant coach and an active member of Binkley Baptist Church, a fledgling congregation focused on social justice. His sister, Joan Ewing, managed my district office for eight years, and his daughter Kristen was on my campaign staff. I was honored to join his family at the White House in 2013, when he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom. The intervening years mark an unparalleled career, a life well-lived, and thousands of lives positively shaped and influenced.

With Dean Smith it was not a matter of a celebrity endorsing worthwhile causes; Dean was there all along. Long before he was a national figure, in 1958, he accompanied an African-American friend to a restaurant in Chapel Hill, thereby breaking down the barrier of segregation. Much later, when long-time Binkley Baptist pastor Robert Seymour told the story to Washington Post reporter John Feinstein, Coach Smith expressed some irritation: ``I wish he hadn't done that.'' ``Dean,'' the reporter replied, ``you should be proud of doing something like that.'' Dean Smith looked him in the eye, ``John, you should never be proud of doing the right thing. You should just do the right thing.''

This story captures the essence of what Dean Smith was about. Mr. Speaker, I have selected three complementary pieces to fill out this exceptional story, and I ask that they be included in the record.

[From the Raleigh News and Observer, Feb. 9, 2015]

Dean Smith Leaves a Legacy Far Beyond Sports

(Editorial)

Jerry Stackhouse, the former basketball All-America for the

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, remembered his

former coach, Dean Smith, with a personal anecdote that had

little to do with coaching or a game. He recalled that years

after he left Smith's program, he would send his financial

records to Smith.

Dean Smith, who died Saturday night at the age of 83 after

several years of declining health, did that for a lot of

former players, famous and, more often than not, not famous.

He found them jobs, called if a child was sick, counseled

them through personal crises.

And he did more. Long before integration was common in

North Carolina, Smith and his minister and a young African-

American student walked into a Chapel Hill restaurant, sat

down and ate dinner. Chapel Hill was thereafter integrated.

He did, in effect, the same with the men's basketball

program, bringing in Charles Scott as the first black player.

Today, Scott remembers that Smith always called him

``Charles,'' because that was his name and his preference, in

contrast to the more sports-friendly Charlie.

genuine and generous

He lectured governors on what he believed to be the heinous

wrong of the death penalty. He endorsed liberal politicians.

He did not like criticism, but he did not fear it.

He contributed to charities, believing in the dignity of

others and the obligation to share. He was a sportsman, a

thinker, a theologian.

And, yes, he was one of the greatest coaches in the history

of sports, all sports. His records and his innovations (the

four-corners offense, the huddle at the foul line before

shots) will be exhaustively documented in the next days, as

the coach is widely mourned.

But so many who played for him, and so many who never

played for him or even met him, will remember first his

humanity and his genuineness.

For he was the most decent of men. It was bred in him at

birth, as his parents taught him the value of all, and they

lived those values themselves, pushing for integration of the

races in Kansas when that was not a common much less a

popular cause. Young Dean Smith learned well, and he, too,

lived those values all his life.

If one talked to him about his upbringing, asked the

question, ``Coach, where did your views on life and values

come from?'' he would go back to Kansas and his parents, both

public school teachers. In 1934, his father coached the

Emporia High school team to a state championship, with the

first black player ever in the Kansas state tournament.

time for everyone

Though Smith held strong opinions, he understood that those

who didn't agree but

were loyal fans and alums of the institution he represented

were due respect as well. It was the way he treated everyone,

whether a big booster of the university's athletics program

during a golf game or a kid on a playground. Everyone got

time, and everyone got a smile.

His way, and his skills, he shared generously. Said one

high school coach, exiting a Smith-taught clinic for coaches:

``What that man knows . . .''

Make no mistake. He was a ferocious competitor, and he

hated to lose. But he won well. Oft-cited in his obituaries

was his reaction to his team's victory in the 1982 national

championship against Georgetown. It was an emotional, hard-

fought and close game. But when UNC won, Smith's first move

was to hug John Thompson, the Georgetown coach. Class, all

the commentators said.

Yes, but that was simply the man. When coaches against whom

Smith had competed got into trouble or needed help in finding

another position, he would make the calls himself to other

schools, and his blessing was gold. A seeming multitude of

his former players became coaches themselves.

But they also became teachers and doctors and principals

and successful people in work and in life. Dean Smith took

great pleasure in that, primarily in their happiness. Always

he would be ``the coach.'' Always he was first the man, and

the friend.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the following article in my remembrance of Dean Smith.

Carolina Athletics: The Stories Are True

(By Adam Lucas, 2-8-15)

I have been sitting here staring at this screen for 30

minutes. And what I have finally decided I want you to know

the most about Dean Smith is this: it's true.

In the next few hours and days, as the tributes to the

legendary man pour in, you are going to hear all of the

incredible stories again. Some you may hear for the first

time. Some you may hear for the hundredth time.

These stories are true, and you should remember all of them,

because now it's our job to pass them down. Don't embellish

them. They don't need it. They are good enough with just the

facts.

You will hear basketball stories. You will hear former

players talk about how Smith would tell them exactly what was

going to happen in a game. He would tell them what the

opponent would do, how the Tar Heels would react, and how the

opponent would react to that reaction. Then it would happen,

all of it, just as he described.

These stories are true. We know this because we sat in

Carmichael in 1974 when his team came back from eight points

in 17 seconds against Duke with no three-point line. I just

told that story to my children on Saturday night when we

drove home from the airport after returning from the win at

Boston College. My nine-year-old son was talking about a

crazy NBA comeback he'd read about.

``Do you know,'' I said, ``that Carolina came back from

eight points down in 17 seconds with no three-point line?''

``Whoa,'' said my daughter. ``Is that true?''

It is true.

Those of us of a different generation than the Carmichael

crowd were in the Smith Center when Smith's simple act of

calling a timeout so shook a top-20 opponent that they meekly

crumbled. I will forever believe that's what happened when

Smith took a timeout after Henrik Rodl made a three-pointer

against Florida State with less than ten minutes left on the

clock in 1993. Rodl's three-pointer had cut the FSU lead to

17 points. 17 points!

It didn't matter. All that mattered was that the Florida

State players and coaches knew Smith thought a comeback was

possible, or else he wouldn't burn one of his precious

timeouts. And if Smith thought a comeback was possible, then

it was possible, and he's done this before, you know, and uh

oh, there went another turnover, and it's getting kind of

loud in here, and pretty soon Carolina had an 82-77 win.

That was true. That happened. Dean Smith called a timeout,

and Florida State wilted.

And yet despite all those wins, we know exactly how

uncomfortable Smith was with celebrating any of them. I can

report, with authority, that with much cajoling from his

players, he once did the ``raise the roof'' gesture after his

Tar Heels won the 1997 ACC Tournament championship, and then

again after earning a spot in the Final Four. It was the mid-

1990's. Everyone made mistakes.

Otherwise, however, the man who never looked flustered on

the sideline looked completely awkward in victory. He would

almost apologetically shake the other coach's hand. If it

happened to be an ACC or NCAA championship, he would try to

disappear while the nets were being cut, so unwilling was he

to climb the ladder and be the focal point of the fans and

players.

Most of the time, those of us in the stands would chant,

``Dean! Dean! Dean!'' when he was finally persuaded to cut

the final snippet. It seems a little disrespectful now. But

it was the 1980s and 1990s. All of us made mistakes.

It didn't really matter, because he would act like he

didn't hear us. With scissors in hand, before cutting the

first strand, he would point to every manager, player and

assistant coach he could find.

That was true. That happened after every championship, and

there were a lot of them.

There are also those who will tell you those championships

are completely insignificant. Funny thing about the people

who most often say that: they are invariably the ones who

knew him best, the ones who most understood his true

character.

``I can't put his impact on me into words,'' Phil Ford said

of Smith. ``I don't know where I'd be without him in my life.

He's been such an influence on me, and a friend and a brother

and a father figure . . . Before I chose North Carolina, I

felt that Coach Smith would be there for me my entire life. I

was right.''

Imagine that. A 17-year-old boy felt Dean Smith would be

there for him for his entire life, and 40 years later, he

still believes it. Wouldn't you like to have one person say

that about you in your life? Dean Smith has--this is not an

exaggeration--hundreds.

``All of that is credited to him,'' Michael Jordan once

said of his career. ``It never would have happened without

Coach Smith.''

These quotes mean a lot to us because they are from Phil

Ford and Michael Jordan. But what Smith knew, and what he

made every one of his players feel, is that the number of

points they scored for him made absolutely no difference. My

father and I had a joke in the mid-1990s. Carolina had a

player named Pat Sullivan who was not at all flashy. At

various times, he played on teams with George Lynch and Eric

Montross and Rasheed Wallace and Jerry Stackhouse, much

better-known players who were prone to occasionally doing the

spectacular.

It never, ever failed: Stackhouse could have had the most

ferocious dunk of the season and Wallace could have thrown

down an absurd alley-oop and Montross could have had a

double-double and Lynch could have had the game-winning

steal. Then, in the car on the way home, we would turn on

the Tar Heel Sports Network to hear Smith's postgame

comments and seemingly every time, they would start with,

``Well, Pat had a good game,'' because he had set a screen

to free a teammate for an open shot that the teammate

missed.

That happened. Pat had good games. Dean Smith talked about

it. At the time, we laughed, and yet 20 years later, we still

remember it.

This seems like the right time to point out that without

ever really knowing he was doing it, Dean Smith gave all of

us some of the best moments of our lives with the most

important people in our lives. It doesn't matter whether you

attended every game in the Smith era or whether you watched

every game on television. Because of the way Smith did it,

and for how long he did it, we could relate through

generations.

We cried in the living room (I did that, after Louisville

beat Carolina in 1986 in the NCAA Tournament) and we danced

around that same living room (my dad and I did that, after

Rick Fox hit the shot against Oklahoma in 1990) and we high-

fived in the stands.

That's what we did in 1993 in the Louisiana Superdome. My

dad is an accountant and therefore spends most of March and

April at the office. But when Carolina made the Final Four,

he would find a way to get to the game. In 1993, he waited

until the Tar Heels defeated Kansas in the national

semifinals. He stayed at work two more days, then caught a

flight with two connections from Raleigh to New Orleans. He

slid into his seat minutes before the national championship

game tipped off against Michigan, and so I can say that I

watched Carolina win the national title with my dad.

We went to Bourbon Street after the game, because that's

what everyone told us you were supposed to do, and so there

we were--perhaps the two least Bourbon Street-ish people in

all of New Orleans, including one CPA with a pile of

unfinished tax returns on his desk back in Raleigh--high

fiving the Tar Heel players and taunting Dick Vitale (who had

picked Michigan to win the game), and we did all of that

because of Dean Smith.

Without Dean Smith and Carolina basketball, I assume and

hope we would have found something else to talk about and

live together. But because of Dean Smith and Carolina

basketball, I never have to know for sure if that's true. The

people we cheered and laughed with on all those incredible

days are the people we cry with--if we're lucky--today. I

told my father the news this morning. Later, he texted me

this:

``I am very, very sorry. It is really very sad. He was a

large part of our family for many, many years and many, many

fun times. We had a lot of good times and he was always

there. It doesn't seem possible to me. It seems like he and

the good times ought to last forever.''

And so that is why this news will be devastating to so many

of us, because there are so many families who this morning

will be texting and thinking those exact same words. We

aren't ready for it to end.

About a year ago, I was at the Smith Center on a typical

weekday afternoon. A customized van was parked in the first

parking space outside the basketball office, and I knew. As I

walked into the basketball office, Dean Smith came out, being

pushed in a wheelchair, a Carolina hat on his head.

It was awful, and it makes my eyes moisten even now to

think about it. It was not at all the way I wanted to think

about him. And I would like to admit something to you now:

from then on, when I saw that van, I would sometimes take a

different path into the building, because I wanted my Dean

Smith to be the one I remembered. I wanted my Dean Smith to

be the one who I mentioned my daughter's name to on exactly

one occasion, and six months later when passing me in the

parking lot, he recalled it perfectly and asked how she was

doing.

That's my Dean Smith and I wanted that to be everyone's

Dean Smith. I don't want today's students to think of him as

old or sick. Understand this: this man could do anything.

This man could coach and this man could help integrate a town

or a league and this man changed the lives of hundreds of

teenagers who played for him plus thousands of the rest of us

who lived vicariously through their exploits.

It still boggles my mind that so many Carolina fans in 2015

don't even remember the era when Smith was on the sideline.

He's as much a name on a building as a coach to current UNC

students. It's been hard enough living in a basketball world

without Dean Smith in it. Now we have to consider living in

an overall world without Dean Smith in it.

I don't want to be part of that world. And luckily, I don't

have to. On Monday, I will pack my son's lunch, and I will

write a Dean Smith quote on the napkin. I don't know yet

which one it will be, but I know that when I see him on

Monday afternoon, I will ask him about it, and we will talk,

and Dean Smith will be the one who enabled that to happen.

That's true. That will happen. And it will keep happening,

and we are the ones who get to do it. I guess that pretty

soon I will feel lucky for having these experiences and

getting the opportunity to cheer for him and learn from him

and admire him.

But right now I really think I want to sit down and have a

good cry.

Madam Speaker, I rise today, along with my colleague, Mr. Butterfield, to congratulate Coach Mike Krzyzewski of Duke University on becoming the first coach in the history of Division I NCAA basketball to win 1,000 games. Blue Devils everywhere are proud of this remarkable feat, the crowning achievement of a career that has seen Coach K win four national titles and two Olympic gold medals.

As fellow Duke fans will note with relish, many of these 1,000 wins came against other storied ACC programs such as Carolina, NC State, and Wake Forest. That makes Coach K's historic achievement all the more impressive.

I taught at Duke and then represented the campus for a number of years. I know firsthand of Mike Krzyzewski's character and integrity. He is not only a world-class coach; he is also a committed educator who has trained and inspired his players to succeed in whatever they undertake in life.

The Emily Krzyzewski Center in Durham, behind which Mike was the driving force, stands as a memorial to his mother and as a sign of his dedication to at-risk youth as they aspire to a college education.

So on behalf of the Duke community, whose core values Coach K exemplifies, and on behalf of the House of Representatives, congratulations! We look forward to watching you build on your winning tradition for many years to come.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may utilize.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this poison pill amendment, which is a laundry list of attacks on anything the executive branch has done to improve immigration and border security policy. It caters to every whim of the Republican Conference's most extreme elements. It would defund the Secretary's Southern Border and Approaches Campaign designed to unify border security efforts. It would defund policies to improve employment-based immigration, to bring highly skilled workers into our country. It would defund the policy to parole in place family members of citizens or lawful permanent residents who seek to enlist in the U.S. military, a policy supported by the Department of Defense. Incredibly, it would defund the Department's provision of temporary relief to individuals who were brought to this country illegally as children--those covered by the DREAM Act--and to the parents of U.S. citizens who meet certain criteria.

Of course, it would defund the Secretary's policy of setting immigration enforcement priorities. Every prosecutor in this country exercises some level of discretion to make the most of limited resources. We want our police to pursue murderers over traffic violators. We also should want DHS to focus enforcement efforts on illegal immigrants who pose a threat to our communities.

Now, it would be preferable--as the President is the first to acknowledge--to pass comprehensive immigration reform to address our country's festering immigration challenges. But in the face of House Republicans' failure to act, the President has taken well-considered steps, each of them well-grounded in law and precedent. If the Republican majority wishes to change the law in some way to deny him such authority, they should introduce legislation to do so. But adoption of this amendment would sabotage the Homeland Security funding bill and undermine our Nation's security at a time of great danger.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), our ranking member on Appropriations.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez), the chairman of the Immigration Task Force of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez), the chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the remaining time on both sides?

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to close by again thanking colleagues on both sides of the aisle for the good work done on the underlying bill, our bipartisan, bicameral negotiated agreement on Homeland Security.

It is really a shame that we are faced here today with an amendment that has the potential to wreck this good bill and to damage the Homeland Security Department so badly. Now, I don't say that lightly. I think Members

know I don't interject terms like ``poison pill'' into debates lightly; but, believe me, that term applies to the amendment we are now considering.

This amendment caters to every whim of the most extreme elements of the Republican Conference. It doesn't just roll back the President's recent executive action--which, by the way, is thoroughly grounded in law and precedent. It goes beyond that. It rolls back in its entirety the progress that has been made over many years on prioritizing dangerous criminals for deportation and bringing common sense to our deportation policy.

In pursuing this political vendetta, Republicans are putting at risk a full-year funding bill, worked out months ago, for the Department of Homeland Security, and they are doing that at a time of heightened alert.

Mr. Chairman, this is an egregious abuse, probably the worst I have ever seen, of the appropriations process. More than that, it is a reprehensible, reckless tactic which will compromise--has already compromised--the full and effective functioning of our Homeland Security Department and puts the security of our country at risk.

This amendment richly deserves our rejection, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank my colleague for yielding.

Mr. Chair, the bill before us today, funding the Department of Homeland Security for fiscal year 2015, has been ready for final passage for almost 2 months. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas, Chairman Carter, our Senate counterparts, as well as our dedicated committee staff for working cooperatively through November and December to negotiate a comprehensive and balanced measure.

Chairman Carter has summarized the underlying bill very, very well. It provides necessary funding increases for the Secret Service to hire new agents for the 2016 Presidential campaign, as well as to make the necessary security adjustments at the White House.

It provides increased funding for the completion of the Coast Guard's eighth National Security Cutter, $813 million more in disaster relief funding at FEMA, and funding for NPPD's efforts to continue enhancing our national cybersecurity capability.

But it pains me to say, Mr. Chair, that all of these positive efforts stand in stark contrast to the poison pill amendments that the Rules Committee has made in order for this bill, amendments designed to inject partisan anti-immigration politics into a bipartisan effort to keep our Nation safe.

Unfortunately, there is nothing new about adding highly inflammatory riders to appropriations bills in a way that wrecks months of cooperative work and makes bipartisan support impossible. We have seen this in middle-of-the-night Homeland Security anti-immigration amendments for 2 years running. But today we are seeing the most egregious and irresponsible abuse of the appropriations process yet.

Republican leaders have already delayed a full-year funding bill for Homeland Security by nearly a month longer than for the rest of the government despite the fact that this bill was fully negotiated and ready for consideration well before the omnibus bill was assembled at the end of the last Congress. Now, more than a quarter of the way through the fiscal year, the Republican leadership is continuing to play dangerous and irresponsible games with the funding of this Department, the Department that was created to protect the Nation from terrorist attacks.

Members, of course, are aware of the horrendous murder of 17 individuals last week in France by terrorists. This is an alarming example of the kind of brutal and calculated attack that the Department of Homeland Security and its law enforcement partners are working hard to prevent here in the United States. It is the kind of attack that keeps Secretary Johnson up at night and should keep us up at night as well. This alone should make it unthinkable to dawdle on a full-year funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security.

Last Sunday, 3 million people participated in unity marches in France. But we are sending a very different message by delaying homeland security funding.

Six days removed from a heinous terrorist act, we are dawdling. We are holding back. We are refusing to immediately send to the President a bipartisan bill designed to keep the Nation safe. Instead, we are tacking on politically charged items that will rightfully ensure a veto.

Now, Mr. Chair, some Members seem to be under the mistaken impression that departments and agencies might make out just fine under a continuing resolution. Perhaps some Members even think that it would be okay for the Department's funding to expire for some amount of time beginning in late February so that they could underscore the political point they want to make. That is a patently false assumption.

In a few weeks, the fiscal year 2016 budget will be submitted by the President, and DHS still doesn't know how much money it will be spending in 2015. How can we expect the Department to effectively budget if it has no idea of what the baseline will be for its programs and activities? How can we expect an agency to effectively function when the availability of funding for critical new endeavors is undetermined for a quarter of the fiscal year or more? How can we, as a Congress, even perform effective oversight when we force ourselves to simultaneously finish 2015 funding as we consider the 2016 request?

Ironically, the two agencies that stand to lose the most from this flawed Republican strategy are the very agencies they purport to champion, agencies responsible for immigration enforcement: Customs and Border Protection, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Under the House bill, these two agencies combined would receive nearly $1 billion more than the current spending level, which a CR would reflect. The bill we are not passing would provide that additional funding. Republicans, however, appear more interested in scoring political points than in actually making progress on the border.

Now, the apparent intent of the House majority in holding back full- year funding for DHS is to help them reverse the President's executive actions on immigration policy; but how is that going to really play out?

Without 60 votes in the Senate, the bill will go nowhere. Even if the Senate were to pass the bill with the poison pill riders intact, the President would certainly veto it with absolutely no chance the House or Senate could override that veto.

What is left of the majority's strategy? Would the Republican majorities in the House and Senate really be willing to let funding for the Department of Homeland Security lapse when the short-term continuing resolution expires? The vast majority of DHS employees are considered essential, so they would still need to show up for work.

Will the House majority really be willing to let frontline agents and officers at CBP and ICE work without pay? Would the House majority be willing to let the Coast Guard military personnel continue to risk their lives at sea without compensation?

Imagine the outrage--imagine--if a Democratic Congress ever held funding for the Department of Homeland Security hostage during the George W. Bush administration; yet that is precisely what House Republicans are doing with these poison pill amendments made in order under the rule.

Believe me, these pills really are poison. They cater to the Republican Conference's most extreme elements; one of them even targets the DREAM Act students, reversing the President's widely-acclaimed and -accepted decision to focus instead on the deportation of dangerous criminals.

A full-year DHS funding bill was negotiated in good faith on a bicameral, bipartisan basis, and it addresses the most pressing needs of the Department and works to protect the country from harm.

If Republicans want to make mean-spirited and destructive changes in immigration policy, there is a legislative process for doing that.

In the meantime, we should be passing a clean, full-year funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security, just as we should have done in December. I urge defeat of the anti-immigration amendments and adoption of the underlying appropriations bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, because of inclement weather and two grounded flights, I was unable to vote during rollcall 2--Electing the Speaker of the House of Representatives. I would have proudly voted for Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi of California for Speaker of the House of Representatives.

I was also unable to vote during rollcall vote 3--Motion to Table. Had I been present, I would have voted against the Motion to Table.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this misguided legislation.

First, however, I want to commend the bipartisan, bicameral leadership of our Appropriations Committee and its subcommittees for their efforts this year to restore the normal appropriations process, with careful scrutiny of executive budget requests and the cooperative crafting of bills that fund our agencies and chart their course for the coming year.

Their work is reflected in the 11 bills--out of 12--before us today: a significant achievement, despite the overall inadequacy of the underlying budget numbers. The budget allocations, unfortunately, still reflect the ill-advised Republican strategy of focusing deficit reduction almost exclusively on nondefense discretionary spending, on our critical domestic investments.

As ranking member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee, I particularly want to thank the gentleman from Texas, Chairman John Carter, for the collaborative process he has led throughout this year.

Our full-year Homeland Security appropriations bill has been finished for over a week now, making its exclusion from this omnibus all the more troubling.

So, Mr. Speaker, stitching together 11 of our appropriations bills is, indeed, a positive achievement, but it is greatly diminished by the subjection of Homeland Security funding to a short-term continuing resolution and by the inclusion of controversial legislative riders, of which two are particularly egregious.

The first amendment would blow a major hole in the Dodd-Frank bill, putting taxpayers on the hook for some of the riskiest behavior of Wall Street institutions.

The second amendment would blow another hole in our efforts to prevent big money from swamping our political system. The bill's campaign finance provisions are completely nongermane to appropriations and would provide outsized influence to the wealthiest Americans by allowing a couple to donate $1.5 million annually to party organizations. To my knowledge, these provisions have never had a single hearing in either the House or the Senate, and they have no place in an appropriations bill.

On top of these troubling provisions is the shortsighted, abusive treatment of Homeland Security. The bill before us would force the Department of Homeland Security to operate under a short-term continuing resolution until late February, creating a cloud of uncertainty, putting critical programs and acquisitions at risk, and raising the threat of a full agency shutdown early next year.

A short-term continuing resolution limits the Department's ability to make strategic decisions about carrying out its security missions and improving coordination among its components. It also limits the ability to move ahead with the Secretary's Southern Border and Approaches Campaign. It creates uncertainty regarding ICE's capability to detain and deport dangerous criminals and to transfer unaccompanied children to HHS for humane treatment. It could also delay needed procurements and necessary security upgrades at the White House complex to prevent fence-jumper intrusions.

Most confoundingly, the bill provides immigration enforcement agencies with hundreds of millions of dollars less than their known needs and what our bipartisan bill would have provided.

If the Republican majority is concerned about the effectiveness of our immigration policy, this is really a strange way to show it. To hold enforcement funding hostage is no way to bring about positive change. But we know this is all about political pique directed at the President.

This is an unfortunate end, Mr. Speaker, to what has been a cooperative, bipartisan Homeland Security appropriations cycle. It leaves me unable, in good conscience, to recommend a ``yea'' vote. We should reject this bill, put all of our 12 bills together, and proceed with an appropriations bill that can command wide agreement within this body.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this misguided and politically motivated legislation. In fact it would be dangerous and irresponsible for this body to prohibit the Department of Homeland Security from exercising prosecutorial discretion. DHS and ICE must be able to prioritize the detention and the deportation of people who pose a threat to public safety and national security, as opposed to deporting, for example, college students who were brought to this country by their parents. Or, perhaps, spouses of U.S. citizens serving in the military. It is not even a close question.

The reality is discretion is and always has been exercised by every prosecutor in this country. To my knowledge, Republicans have never questioned this, never challenged it, until the current President began prioritizing dangerous criminals for immigration enforcement.

As former Solicitor General Walter Dellinger recently wrote:

In light of how legally conservative the Justice Department

opinion really is, it is a wonder that this issue has become

the subject of such heated, occasionally apocalyptic

commentary. Those who object to the President's efforts to

unite families should stop hiding behind unfounded legal

alarums and debate the President's actions on the merits.

That is very good advice, Mr. Speaker, and I urge defeat of this cynical and unwarranted legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge American Education Week. This annual celebration was established by the National Education Association and the American Legion in 1921, and it serves as a time to remember the paramount importance of education.

This year's theme, Great Public Schools: A Basic Right and Our Responsibility, is a renewed call for all citizens--from parents and teachers, to school staff and education support professionals, to elected officials and community leaders--to work together to improve our schools.

Public education is the bedrock of our democracy, and we must provide robust support of public schools to ensure our young people can fulfill their potential.

But these days, education programs are on the chopping block. State and federal officials seem to have lost sight of the value of investing in our schools. With that in mind, I cannot imagine a better time to acknowledge the importance of public education and the vital and underappreciated contributions that educators make every day.

Somewhere along the line, we have all been inspired by great teachers who have helped us develop the perspective and good judgment to be active participants in our communities. But the support these teachers need to do their jobs effectively--including a competitive salary and funding for supplies and textbooks--is too often the target of over- eager budget hawks.

We've learned this in our home state of North Carolina, where the Republican majority in the General Assembly has slashed the education budget, even as enrollment has increased. Teacher pay ranks 46th in the nation, having fallen from 20th in the last five years. Overall state funding for our schools has dropped by 8.6 percent since 2008, and believe me when I tell you that our teachers and students are feeling the squeeze.

That trend is hardly unique to North Carolina--a recent report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities shows that 30 states have cut education budgets. Insufficient funding for teachers and public schools has quickly become a national problem.

The picture is even bleaker at the federal level. This year, my Republican colleagues once again plan to oversee major reductions in discretionary spending, including education funding. That will mean new threats to all federal education initiatives, from primary and secondary school support to Pell Grants and other college affordability programs.

As state and federal officials debate budgets, we would be wise to remember that none of our education policies will succeed until committed teachers and administrators, critical school support staff and education support staff, and engaged students all have the support that they need to thrive.

Government should be in the business of recruiting great educators who are willing to dedicate their careers to public education. We must provide them with adequate training, opportunities for professional development, competitive salaries, sufficient classroom resources, and support form effective administrators and staff.

We also have to work to ensure that every American student who works hard can afford to go to college. It is wholly irresponsible to make further cuts to Pell Grants and burden students with additional debt. Instead, we should be doing everything possible to incentivize college for bright students who have a passion for learning.

This American Education Week, students and teachers around the country are calling out for our support. I encourage my colleagues in Congress and friends in the General Assembly to answer the call and restore education funding to sustainable levels. It's the best investment we can make in a future we can be proud of.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the ATTIRE Act, which we will offer as an amendment to the rule if the previous question is defeated.

The most notable aspect of the majority's so-called manufacturing bills before us is their lack of ambition and vision. They are simply messaging bills.

So we have an alternative to put forward, a bill that already has broad support in this body. The bill would support textile research and innovation in the United States, strengthening the Make It In America movement as an instrument for creating American jobs, bolstering our economy, and improving our international competitiveness.

The ATTIRE Act would establish a Department of Commerce grant program to fund textile research, supporting innovation in the U.S. textile and fiber products industry. The bill is fully paid for. Although our Nation's manufacturing base has suffered major losses over the last 20 years, the American textile industry continues to employ over 500,000 workers across the country and contributes nearly $60 billion to our gross domestic product annually.

Even in the face of an economic downturn, the industry continues to thrive and adapt to the competitive global marketplace by remaining at the cutting edge of innovations in textile and fiber technologies. Despite all this, there is currently no dedicated source of Federal funding for research into new textile applications and market opportunities.

Mr. Speaker, some of our colleagues may need to be disabused of the notion that the textile industry is old or inflexible or in decline. That is an undeserved reputation. The fact is our Nation's leading textile research universities, research institutes, and textile firms that have been quick to follow up on research findings have made remarkable progress, particularly in the areas of nonwoven fabrics. They have developed innovative technologies and materials with applications in industries as varied as aerospace, biomedical, and alternative energy.

The applications for advanced textiles in the areas of defense and homeland security, notably for first responders, are especially promising. I am referring to major advances in heat-resistant clothing, bacteria-resistant microfibers, and nanofibers able to conduct electricity and capture solar energy.

Additional advances are promised by new manufacturing, processing, and fitting technologies currently under development. Such advances in processing hold the promise of ``reshoring'' many of those textile jobs lost over the past 20 years to low-wage countries.

Mr. Speaker, Federal support for textile research isn't a new idea. Between 1986 and 2010, the Department of Commerce provided consistent and ongoing annual support for textile research conducted by entities such as the National Textile Center, a research partnership of eight universities, and TC-Squared, a leading industry consortium.

Since 2010, however, the Department has not provided any comparable source of funding for advanced technical research, largely because Congress has not provided that funding. Industry stakeholders as varied as high-end athletic and outdoor apparel companies, aerospace manufacturers, defense contractors, and defense textile manufacturers all recognize the importance of Federal support for advanced textile research.

So instead of spending time on shortsighted legislation undermining the EPA's ability to do its job, we should instead be focusing on forward-thinking manufacturing and economic policy to improve our Nation's international competitiveness. With our support, U.S. manufacturers and workers will dominate the 21st century global economy as they did in the 20th century.

Mr. Speaker, if colleagues want to do something serious to help American manufacturers and workers, then we should support this bill. It is as simple as that.

I urge defeat of the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the dean of our delegation, Howard Coble, for yielding, and I want to add to his words of introduction for our new colleague, Alma Adams.

She was elected this past election to fill the unexpired term of our colleague Mel Watt, who has taken the leadership of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. She represents the 12th Congressional District of North Carolina.

Alma Adams was born in High Point, North Carolina. She attended college at North Carolina A&T University. She got her Ph.D. from Ohio State University, and she became a teacher. She had a 40-year career as a professor at Bennett College in North Carolina.

Alma Adams' career in politics began on the Greensboro school board. She served on the city council. She was appointed to the general assembly in 1994 by Governor Jim Hunt and then was elected in her own right for successive terms. She has had a distinguished term of service in our general assembly.

She is known for her unceasing desire to improve the lives of women and children and families. Her issues include domestic violence, teenage pregnancy, affordable health care, and public education. She chaired the Legislative Black Caucus. She also chaired the bipartisan Women's Legislative Caucus.

So Alma Adams, my colleagues, comes to us very, very well-equipped to be a productive and constructive and cooperative Member of this body, and it is my honor and pleasure to introduce you to her tonight, Alma Adams.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding and for scheduling this Special Order here on our first night back in town for the very important purpose of paying tribute to our dear friend and colleague, Howard Coble. I am very happy to join in this, as many other colleagues will be tonight as well.

I have served with Howard since I first arrived here in 1987. He had beaten me by 2 years. He was first elected in 1984 to represent North Carolina's Sixth District.

I think when you hear the tributes tonight from both sides of the aisle you are going to, quite accurately, conclude that Howard Coble is one of the best-liked Members of this body, and that affection extends across the entire political spectrum.

Howard is always ready with a kind word for everyone, from fellow Representatives to Capitol Police and constituents. It is difficult to walk anywhere with Howard in Washington, D.C., or in North Carolina without being stopped several times because he has so many friends who just want to catch up with him.

I have always especially enjoyed introducing my staff to Howard. His first question usually is: ``What high school did you go to?'' And then the second question is something like: ``What's it like working for this scallywag?''

We've sometimes disagreed, of course, on politics and policy, but we have had many, many occasions for fruitful collaboration and cooperation on issues important to North Carolina. We have worked for years, for example, on promoting textile research. We have certainly worked on disaster relief after several major hurricanes. Over the years, I have come to appreciate Howard as a smart and able legislator, and, more than that, I have come to value him as a person and to value his friendship.

My district staff would want me to add how much we all admire Howard's constituent service. When it comes to working with our constituents in dealing with Federal agencies, party lines don't matter. Often, the district lines are a little indistinct and we have to figure out whose district someone is in or get a case referred back and forth. Howard's staff is invariably cooperative and competent. It is not an accident that he has a superb reputation in North Carolina for the best constituent service around.

Howard has been a dedicated Member in this body in Washington as well. He has been an effective legislator, especially distinguishing himself in his leadership positions on the Judiciary Committee. He has done all this with a certain grace and style. He reminds us of a time when our politics were less hard-edged.

So as he retires at the close of the current Congress, we wish him all the best. He leaves this body with immense affection and respect. Our State and the House of Representatives have greatly benefited from the service of Howard Coble.

Godspeed, my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in celebration of our nation's public lands and wilderness and in honor of Wilderness Week, observed September 13-18, 2014.

This year, Wilderness Week takes on special meaning, as this September marks the 50th anniversary of two enduring tools for American conservation: the Wilderness Act and the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Passed by Congress in 1964, these two acts remain vital to our efforts of conserving the best of America's natural lands.

On September 3, 1964, President Johnson signed into law the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, landmark legislation that established a dedicated and permanent funding stream for the purpose of protecting and conserving our nation's irreplaceable outdoor recreational, natural, historic and cultural landmarks.

Paid for by royalties collected from oil and gas companies, the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) has financed generations of projects to bring parks and clean, green spaces to the hearts of our urban areas. The suite of LWCF programs is critical for protecting natural lands, outdoor recreation opportunities, and working forests at the local, state and federal levels. Since its creation, the LWCF program has conserved more than 5 million acres of parks, recreation, forests, and other lands through the federal program and more than 2.6 million acres in communities throughout every state in the nation.

But LWCF does more than simply add to our public lands. Investing in LWCF is also an important way to grow our economy. The Outdoor Industry Association states that outdoor recreation contributes more than $1.06 trillion annually to the U.S. economy, supports more than 9.4 million jobs, and stimulates 8 percent of all consumer spending. And The Trust for Public Land found that every $1 invested in LWCF returns $4 in economic value. Without LWCF funding to stimulate matching investments from state, local and private entities, this crucial economic driver will be lost.

These numbers prove the program's success, and I am pleased that the program is also extremely popular. In recent polls, more than 80 percent of voters expressed support for continuing to deposit fees from offshore oil and gas drilling into LWCF--this broad support extends from every geographic region of the country and every political persuasion. Supporters include governors, mayors, sportsmen, industry leaders, conservationists, Civil War enthusiasts, historians, recreationists, small businesses, forest owners, and the many Americans who see firsthand the tangible benefits this program has had on their communities and families.

Although LWCF has a dedicated revenue stream from offshore drilling royalties and takes no taxpayer money from the general fund, large portions of this funding have been diverted over the years to non- conservation purposes. Even at last year's appropriated level of $306 million, we were a far cry from the $900 million that is annually authorized for conservation work. In addition, LWCF's authorizing legislation is set to expire in September 2015, and it is imperative that we reauthorize this successful program before that date. I believe Congress should uphold its decades long commitment to land and water conservation and reinvigorate LWCF, thereby expanding opportunities for all Americans to have access to parks and natural areas for outdoor recreation.

Along with the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, President Johnson also signed into law the Wilderness Act. The Wilderness Act allows Congress to designate some public lands as ``wilderness.'' These wilderness areas are designed to remain unchanged by humans--to allow ecological and evolutionary processes could be carried out without human intervention and give future generations a ``glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning.'' As such, these areas are off-limits to commercial ventures, such as logging and mining, and permanent structures (roads and lodges), but they remain available for public exploration.

Just as our government had established the first national parks in the world almost a century earlier, the Wilderness Act made the United States the first country in the world to designate and protect wilderness. When it was first signed, the Wilderness Act designated 54 wilderness areas, protecting about 9.1 million acres in 13 states. Since that time, the number of wilderness areas has increased to more than 750, covering about 110 million acres of wilderness in 44 states. Our wilderness areas include some of the highest points of the Rockies to places like Linville Gorge in my home state of North Carolina's mountains. Sadly, some opponents of conservation in Congress would like to see this hard work undone. In 2012, for the first time, Congress actually took 222 acres out of the wilderness designation.

John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club, once said, ``Wilderness is a necessity . . . There must be places for human beings to satisfy their souls.'' Today, in an increasingly urban nation, wilderness areas are ever more important as we need a place to get away, to enjoy and restore ourselves. Wilderness areas also serve to provide biological diversity, clean air and water, and baseline data for research as we deal with issues like climate change. We need to protect connected landscapes to sustain our fish and wildlife and other natural resources for the future.

So, while the 50th anniversary of each of these landmark bills is an occasion for celebration, it must also serve as a reminder of the work we have to do. I once heard it said that ``America's public lands are like unfinished works of art; incomplete masterpieces.'' LWCF and the Wilderness Act will help to complete this work. In fact, that was the promise made to the American people 50 years ago when these bills were enacted. President Johnson wisely observed, ``True leadership must provide for the next decade and not merely the next day.'' So, let us celebrate wilderness week and honor the 50th anniversary of the Wilderness Act and LWCF by renewing our commitment to protect our nation's wild places.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the McKeon amendment, which would permit the administration to train and equip Syrian opposition forces to confront the deadly threat posed to them and their country by ISIL.

This measure is limited, at least for another day the broader question of authorizing the use of force against ISIL. It extends only until December 11, the expiration date of the continuing resolution that it amends; but it is necessary if our country is to get underway the training of forces that are essential, if the Syrian component of the President's plan to degrade and defeat ISIL is to succeed.

The President has no intention of introducing ground combat forces into this conflict, but our strategy does depend on indigenous forces in Iraq and Syria fighting for their own countries, forces capable of taking advantage of the air and other support we will provide.

Getting such forces up to speed in Syria is one of the most difficult aspects of the challenges we face. Many speakers today have stressed these uncertainties and risks. I doubt there is a single one of them that the President hasn't recognized and considered in devising his strategy. But he has also done what we must now do: consider the consequences of letting the threat of ISIL go unchecked.

The continued spread of ISIL and its version of violent jihad present a grave threat to our national security and that of our allies in the region and around the world. The United States must work with allies to ensure that militant extremists do not further destabilize an already volatile region or establish a staging ground for terrorist activities aimed at American personnel and assets both at home and abroad.

So we have a grave responsibility, Mr. Speaker, to weigh the costs and benefits of our actions or of inaction or of this resolution being defeated. This is not a time, if I may say so, for Members to vote ``no'' and then hope the resolution, nonetheless, passes. We don't have the luxury of holding out for a perfect or assured outcome. We must make the best decision we can, countering the threat, but in a careful and measured way that maximizes the chances for success and that gives this body the ability to monitor and oversee the process so as to make course corrections when necessary.

I believe the resolution before us meets these tests, and I urge its adoption.