Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a correction in the Congressional Record. Earlier today, this body took a vote series with twelve votes in a row, ten of which were amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act, H.R. 2810.

During that vote series, we considered Amendment Number Six, offered by my friend and colleague, Mr. Nadler of New York. That amendment would have struck Section 1022 of the bill, which prohibits the use of funds for transfer or release of individuals detained at Guantanamo Bay.

For too many of our friends and allies around the world, the Guantanamo Bay facility has become a symbol of human rights abuses, and our enemies use it to rally opposition to the United States. I have consistently voted to close Guantanamo Bay.

Unfortunately, my recorded vote was opposed to this Amendment. I would like to correct the record of my vote in favor of Amendment Six and opposed to detaining individuals at Guantanamo Bay.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to tell you about a time when bipartisanship was alive and when Congress was, well, boring for most Americans. In fact, it wasn't that long ago.

It was just in March of 2015 that Democrats and Republicans fixed the Medicare payment formula and funded the Children's Health Insurance Program. I was proud to be a Member of the body that day.

Did our bipartisanship dominate the headlines?

No.

Did it get a lot of attention at townhalls?

No, of course not. Because all of us getting along was, well, boring.

But these recent Republican healthcare proposals, they are not boring. They have been developed in secrecy, they are completely partisan, and they take us backward.

I challenge my friends across the aisle, the Republicans, to join us and fix the parts of the Affordable Care Act that need fixing because the Affordable Care Act has made a real difference for

millions of Americans, a positive difference. So let's get back to bipartisanship, back to boring, back to basics because that is what our constituents want most of all.

Mr. Chair, I am voting ``no'' on the ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act. All of us are. Just like healthcare, this legislation takes the approach that the best way to proceed is with the most extreme bill possible, a bill that attracts no Democrats and even makes moderate Republicans deeply uncomfortable.

One reason, the Dodd-Frank Act set up an office at CFPB to protect servicemembers. That office, initially led by Holly Petraeus, has done great work

in educating and fighting for servicemember families. I have worked with Republicans for years to support and enhance it.

This bill makes that office optional. And it specifically strips the funding for its financial counseling project. That is appalling. It hurts my constituents, and, again, it makes my Republican friends deeply uncomfortable. It is one of scores of provisions that make clear this isn't a bill designed to help Americans. It is an ideological document. It hurts men and women in uniform. And oh, by the way, millions of others. It is a terrible approach.

Please vote ``no'' on the ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act.

Mr. Speaker, let's make this clear. The Un-American Health Care Act doesn't just repeal advances with ObamaCare, it takes us backward to a point worse off than we were before the Affordable Care Act.

It guts Medicaid, and will fail to meet existing needs, hurting vulnerable children, pregnant women, people with disabilities, and seniors needing long-term care, hurting them all.

It abandons Planned Parenthood services. Women with nowhere else to turn will lose access to critical services like pelvic exams and pap tests.

I am here today speaking on behalf of single mom Sherry, cancer survivor Marty, star student Kelty, and little Gracie and her devoted grandmother Donna.

We are all one voice saying we cannot afford to make the American healthcare system even worse than it was before ObamaCare. That is the path the un-American Health Care Act will carve. My friends, let's not go down that path. Vote ``no.''

Madam Speaker, today I would like to share a letter I received from Sherry, who lives back in my hometown of Olympia, Washington.

Sherry writes to me:

My husband was a veteran. He worked as a civilian with high

security clearance at White Sands Missile Range and later as

a paramedic and firefighter. When I met him, I was working as

a paramedic, also. We were crazy in love. But I lost him to

cancer in 2009, at the age of 56.

Since the day my husband died, we lost his income. I had to

figure out how to raise our son, who was then 6. I sold my

business on the Oregon coast, lost my house in Newport, and

moved to Washington to be with my sister. I found Olympia a

year later and have been here since. I have qualified for

food stamps for the last 8 years. We have depended on the

food bank on and off.

When all this happened, that was before ObamaCare, and the

$1,000 monthly premium for insurance for my family was simply

not sustainable. At first, I was able to keep my insurance

through COBRA. But after that ran out, we were left to paying

for some cut-rate insurance that provided very little

coverage.

When the Affordable Care Act was enacted, I finally felt

relief. I got covered through the ACA, and that allowed me to

direct some of the money I was paying to insurance toward

food, books, clothing, or tuition. My son is now 13, and 6

foot 1, with a size 14 shoe, so we go through clothes and

shoes for him like crazy.

I still struggle. I still have medical bills and

collections. I still struggle with food and clothes for both

myself and my son. I still go to the Thurston County Food

Bank in downtown Olympia. But ObamaCare allows me to follow

my health closely and helps me pay for the medical care my

son and I require.

I have a spot on my lung that needs constant monitoring,

and ObamaCare has allowed me to go in for those routine MRIs.

Preventative services like mammograms are also paid for.

Since my husband died, I have been focused on raising my

son and getting a higher education degree. I went to massage

school, and

then I earned my degree at The Evergreen State College. I

will graduate with a master's degree in psychology in August.

Not only will I be employable and be able to help others in

the mental health field, I will also get to start whittling

away at paying old medical bills and my student loans.

Although I will no longer need ObamaCare since I will have

health insurance through my employer, the ACA has forever

changed the insurance marketplace. The insurers can't charge

me more for my preexisting condition like they could before.

If the ACA had been in place when my husband died, I would

have been able to keep my business on the Oregon coast. If

the ACA had been in place when my husband died, I would have

immediately qualified for insurance under the ACA, and I may

have been able to keep our house. I want you to know, I am

not lazy. I am a determined, self-improving mom who is

raising her son alone. Before the ACA, I had to decide

whether to pay for insurance or food. I depend on the ACA.

That is the letter from Sherry.

Madam Speaker, this past Saturday, I had the opportunity to meet with more than 300 of my constituents who support accessible, affordable health care in our country. I heard from many, but still a small portion of the 750,000 Washingtonians who gained coverage through the

Mr. Speaker, it may be Valentine's Day, but I rise today to share a story of a Christmas miracle.

Now, this is little Gracie, and she was born on Christmas Day in 2015. Unfortunately, not too long after she was born, she was diagnosed with a respiratory virus. It is a very bad thing for little people because they have little lungs and little respiratory airways. Frankly, it can be extremely dangerous.

To make matters worse, she was snowed in at the hospital where she was born. She had to spend 5 days at the NICU before they could transport her to a children's hospital. When she finally did arrive at Seattle Children's Hospital, she had pneumonia, E. coli, and a collapsed lung. But, fortunately, little Gracie is a fighter, as was her medical team, and she made a complete and full recovery.

With coverage through Medicaid, her parents were able to focus on her care and her future. The financial stress of hospital bills that come with intensive care, a cardiac catheter, a life flight, and numerous medications was daunting, but it was not devastating.

Gracie's story is just one example of the difference Medicaid expansion through the ACA has made for millions of children throughout our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, when I am home, I hear these stories all day long about how the ACA has made a real difference in the lives of people. The ACA in my State expanded coverage to more than 750,000 people. In fact, this January, we hit record enrollment of 225,000 sign-ups. That is a 13 percent jump from last year.

The ACA is working for many people across America; but let's be honest: we have also heard the other stories from people who aren't seeing these gains. Instead, they are seeing higher premiums and increased medical costs in general, with little improvement in coverage. Those are legitimate concerns that Congress needs to address.

But whenever Congress makes major changes, such as Social Security or Medicare, or enacts big ideas, there will always be unexpected results in parts of the program that don't function as anticipated or designed. Our job is to follow up, see what works, and adapt accordingly going forward. Even the best laws are going to require some adjustment.

Let's do that. Let's do it the smart way, the American way, and work together to fix the parts of the ACA that need fixing while maintaining that which works. Repeal and replace is not the answer. It is not the answer. Working together to fix it is the answer.

As we continue--or begin--to work together, I hope we will remember Gracie and know that health care is not a miracle. Health care is the result of hardworking doctors, nurses, and healthcare professionals and a financially viable healthcare system and our actions here to support that in Congress.

We all come here for lots of reasons: philosophy, values, and ideology. We come here to represent our districts and their major components. I have the privilege to represent Joint Base Lewis-McChord, the largest force projection base on the West Coast, and many thousands of State employees--I have the State capital--who work every day to elevate the human condition of their friends and neighbors. We come here to represent the 672,554 people of our districts.

Mostly, I hope, however, that we come here to represent the Gracies of our districts. What I believe deep in my soul is that, if we will keep Gracie and the Gracies of our district in our hearts and foremost in our minds, if we keep them as our touchstone and our North Star, then America is going to be all right. I plead with you to do just that.

Mr. Speaker, Shirley is from my district, and I heard from her this past December when she told me about her daughter, Sarah. Sarah has had health problems all of her life and, unfortunately, because it has been too expensive, she has not been able to afford health insurance, but she was finally able to be covered under the Affordable Care Act because of the historic Medicaid expansion. It made a big difference in her life because just 2 years ago, she was diagnosed with thyroid cancer.

Now, Sarah may be just a statistic to some, and, indeed, she is 1 of 601,000 Washingtonians who have been covered under the Medicaid expansion; 20,000 of whom have been treated for cancer.

But to Sarah's mother, Sarah can't just be boiled down to an ACA statistic. To Shirley, Sarah is her daughter who will lose this coverage if Congress repeals the healthcare law without a comparable replacement. It would put Sarah, in her fight against thyroid cancer, back to square one.

Friends and colleagues, I plead with you, go to your districts. Talk to the Shirleys; talk to the Sarahs. Listen to them.

Their stories matter because they matter.

Mr. Speaker, I have a constituent named Martha. She goes by Marty.

Marty was studying to earn her bachelor's degree in nursing at Pacific Lutheran University when she was diagnosed with rectal cancer. Not good.

Without medical insurance, as we all know, that is a certain death sentence. There is no other way about it. But it wasn't for Marty. Frankly, less than a year before she had finally found affordable healthcare insurance for herself through the Washington State Health Benefit Exchange.

Every family, every person in this Chamber, has been affected by it. Cancer has a way of ripping bodies apart, ripping families apart, and ripping communities apart.

It didn't rip Marty apart. Through her strength, courage, and health insurance, she persevered. She has conviction that God used her community of friends and her family and the Affordable Care Act to help her through treatment and into recovery.

Not only could Marty share that story with me back in 2015, but she graduated cum laude from PLU in nursing just this last December. I am sharing her remarkable story with you--it could be replicated millions of times--to urge you to set aside and rise above partisan politics and not repeal the lifesaving Affordable Care Act. I ask you to do this not just for the sake of Marty, but because there, my friends, but for the grace of God, go each and every one of us.

Mr. Speaker, part of the wonder of being a kid is discovering the world around us, you know, feeling the trunks of trees, picking up sticks, going to the beach, and picking up whatever you find, overturning rocks and looking for creatures. But around the Puget Sound and on the Atlantic coast and the Pacific, marine disease is ravaging sea stars, just like this, 20 species dying quickly, literally melting away.

When disease like this breaks out, how are we going to stop it? The truth of the matter is we have absolutely no system in place to respond--none. So today I introduce the bicoastal, bipartisan Marine Disease Emergency Act.

The Marine Disease Emergency Act speeds up the process to address these outbreaks, providing the right resources and the right time to the scientists and researchers so that they can respond quickly. Responding fast is crucial to preventing widespread exposure or, worst case scenario, extinction.

I ask my colleagues to please join me in supporting the Marine Disease Emergency Act.

Mr. Speaker, Gandhi once famously said: ``Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will.''

Jermaine Kearse has been making plays in Washington State for more than 10 years, first as a Lancer at Lakes High, then as a Husky at the University of Washington, and since 2012 as, of course, a Seattle Seahawk.

You may very well have seen his game-winning catch in the NFC Championship game in the end zone. But that game wasn't a cakewalk for Jermaine by any means. There were interceptions and there were drops.

It was on the sidelines, however, that one of Jermaine's injured teammates said to him to forget about it and to remember that there are still plays to be made here.

Ever want to give up? Ever think it is too hard? Ever think the odds are stacked against you? Remember the will of Jermaine Kearse and the Seattle Seahawks. Tell yourself there are still plays to be made.

Congratulations, number 15. Lakewood and the entire 10th Congressional District are very, very proud of you and, frankly, we can't wait to see you fly in Glendale and make the New England Patriots shake and the earth move.

Go, Hawks.

I thank the gentlewoman from Washington State.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge, thank, and pay tribute to the service of Richard ``Doc'' Hastings on behalf of the people of this country and Washington State.

I have had the privilege to know Doc more than 35 years, and with perverse reference to Mr. Rogers' earlier comments, I even knew him when he had hair. I had the great privilege to serve in the Washington State House of Representatives with him. We overlapped by 6 or 8 years in the seventies and eighties, and as somebody who wears a different colored jersey--his is red and mine is blue--and this is me engaging in understatements as we had materially different world views--with Doc, it

was never, ever, ever, ever personal. He always has a kind word and, frankly, a ready smile for people.

Doc is now finishing up 10 terms--20 years in this Chamber. I don't know that I have ever adequately thanked him for being the very first person to come to my office and extend his hand in friendship and offer to help me in any way he could 2 years ago--something he probably doesn't even remember, so natural an act it was for him but, frankly, so meaningful for me.

Lest I leave the wrong impression about all of these differences that Doc and I have--oh, and we do--I also want to assuredly assert that he can be every bit as good an ally as he can be an honorable adversary. The gentlewoman from Washington State has mentioned several of the ways in which Congressman Hastings has worked collaboratively with all of us, over a long period of time, on behalf of the interests of Washington State: cleaning up Hanford Reservation. I cannot help but note his signature on a letter advocating the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank--a very meaningful gesture on his part and of tremendous economic importance to our State--and even more generic issues.

As a former U.S. Army Reserve veteran himself, Doc is always front and center, standing proud and tall to do what he can on behalf of the men and women who have served in uniform in this State.

I also want to reiterate the gentlewoman from Washington State's acknowledgment of Congressman Hastings' skill over the presiding of this Chamber. Most people don't understand what an incredible skill that is to do it with such seeming ease, not just to have command of the rules and of the parliamentary procedures.

The very manner in which you comport yourself, Congressman Hastings, is truly a thing to be admired. You did it with grace.

Speaking of grace, more than a year ago, one of my dear, dear friends and mentors--someone who also wears my colored jersey--former Governor Booth Gardner, passed away. Congressman Hastings was one of the very first people to take the podium to acknowledge the kindness that Governor Gardner extended to Congressman Hastings' family, a gesture which he would be very familiar with because it comes so naturally to him as well.

It is a privilege to know you. It is a privilege to have served with you lo these short 2 years, but I am very proud to have done so. I am proud to have known you all of these years, and I am proud to call you friend, Doc. Most importantly, on behalf of all of the people of Washington State, including the people of the 10th Congressional District, we thank you for your fine, fine public service and for your dedication to all of these issues that you have worked on so ably and in such a dedicated fashion for so many years. Thank you, sir.

I thank the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the House, I rise to oppose the previous question so that I might, indeed, offer H.R. 4950 to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank for 7 years instead of what the underlying continuing resolution would do, which would reauthorize it for 9 years.

I do so for two reasons: number one, the argument of certainty--here is the truth: the fact of the matter is a 9-month extension of the Export-Import Bank is not certainty. Here is the truth: we are already losing business because of the cloud of the debate that hangs over this Chamber with respect to the continuation of the Export-Import Bank, and that is documented, I might add; so we need certainty.

Everybody who comes from the private sector has made that argument on this floor. I come from the private sector. I make that argument.

The truth of the matter is this: the number one advocate for eliminating the Export-Import Bank likes the idea of a 9-month extension because it plays into his hands of getting rid of it.

Now, I take the gentleman from Oklahoma at his word. I know him to be a gentleman of honor and integrity, and I appreciate, deeply, his words in support of the Export-Import Bank, but the Export-Import Bank will be weakened with this language and will be subject to termination at the end of June 30 when it is isolated and left alone.

One of the arguments that is offered for 9 months is to give time for an effort to develop a reform proposal. I know of one such effort underway by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fincher), and he is operating in absolute good faith. There is no question in my mind. He is working hard to get there.

There is equally no question in my mind that the effort to extend the Ex-Im, if we do it for 9 months, will be severely weakened, severely weakened. There is no assurance. There is no certainty that it will go beyond that date. We have a proposal that would do that, which has 201 signatures on it as cosponsors, I might add.

The second reason, the Export-Import Bank makes America stronger. It created 205,000 jobs last year. It reduced our Nation's deficit by $1 billion in October when that amount of money was transferred to the U.S. Treasury. It creates jobs, and it creates good-paying jobs, manufacturing jobs. It enables America to compete in an increasingly global economy.

Most people lose sight of the fact that, just since the year 1980, global trade has increased fivefold. I beseech the House: do not unilaterally disarm.

Here is the truth: 59 other countries, virtually every developed nation on the face of the planet, has an export credit authority, and most of them are larger than ours, expressed either in terms of absolute dollars or percentage of their gross domestic product.

For us to allow the Export-Import Bank to expire is to unilaterally disarm in an increasingly global trade-driven economy. For us to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank for 9 months is to tee it up for elimination, and you know this in your heart. You know this in your heart because the advocate for doing away with it thinks this is a good idea and has as much said that it tees it up for elimination.

The Export-Import Bank is good for America. It makes America stronger.

It creates jobs. It creates good-paying jobs, and it enables us to compete in a global economy.

I ask you to defeat the previous question so that we might offer a longer-term reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank.

I thank the ranking member of the committee very much.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to offer four elegant, simple, straightforward reasons why it is so critically important that the U.S. Congress reauthorize the Export-Import Bank prior to its expiration on October 1, and they are simply as follows: the Export-Import Bank creates jobs; it helps small businesses; it promotes fiscal responsibility; and it advances economic growth.

With respect to jobs, it has already been cited that in the last 5 years alone, the Export-Import Bank is responsible for the creation of over a million jobs, 205,000 jobs in just the last year.

But here is what has not been said: export-related jobs in America pay 13 to 18 percent more than non-export jobs. So it doesn't just create jobs; it creates good jobs. And it helps small businesses. Nearly 90 percent of all transactions of the Export-Import Bank are with small businesses. And to put a fine point on that, last year, it was 3,413 small businesses, businesses like Pexco in Fife, Washington, which makes traffic signs to promote safety during construction. Pexco recently sold $125,000--a small order by any measure--to the Netherlands, I think it was. Only one entity would guarantee payment because no one else could collect across international borders. And that entity, of course, was the Export-Import Bank.

Stac, another veteran-owned business in Sumner, Washington, with eight employees, they do exporting. They are going to hire three new employees on the basis of their international sales. But do you know what is incredibly frustrating for somebody who comes from the private sector? It is, frankly, the woeful deficiency in understanding, because the small business support that the Export-Import Bank provides does not stop with direct loans and loan guarantees to small businesses because big businesses buy goods and services from small businesses as well.

The greatest airplane maker in the world, Boeing airplanes, uses 15,000 businesses in their supply chain, and 6,600 of them are small businesses.

I was recently on an Alaska flight from Sea-Tac to National Airport in Washington, D.C., and a friend of mine named Eric Hahn, who works at General Plastics in south Takoma, was sitting a couple seats behind me. As everybody was gathering on the plane and shoving their luggage up above and getting seated, Eric jumped up, and he said, ``Denny, do you see this? Do you see this?'' And he was pointing at the plastic between the two overhead bins. He said, ``We made that. We made that.'' General Plastics has 185 employees, another small business.

The Export-Import Bank promotes fiscal responsibility. It has been more than a generation since there was any red penny supporting or subsidizing the Export-Import Bank, in the wake of reforms adopted during the Reagan years. Indeed, last October, more than $1 billion transferred to the U.S. Treasury. If we deauthorize the Export-Import Bank, our deficit is going up. Who wants that to happen? And finally, the Export-Import Bank promotes economic growth.

Let me give you a series of facts. We cannot change these facts by wishing them away. Fact number one: 95 percent of the consumers in the world live outside our borders--95 percent-plus, actually. Another fact: since 1980, global trade has increased something like fivefold-- fivefold. And let me give you another fact: if we in America want to keep our middle class, we had better learn how to sell to the growing middle class throughout the world. And the Export-Import Bank is an outstanding tool to do that.

You know, America's economy is projected to grow by only about 2.4 percent a year over the next 10 years. And do you know what the shame of that is? The shame of that is, it is not fast enough to absorb even the kids coming out of high schools and postsecondary education and colleges. We simply have to grow this economy faster. And there is no better way than to participate in the exploding global economy.

Every developed nation on the face of the planet has an export credit authority. And, in fact, about 60 in all, theirs are larger than ours either in absolute dollars or in terms of a percentage of their gross domestic product. Why? Why would we unilaterally disarm? Why would we unilaterally disarm?

Finally, let me say this. Right now, tonight, as we sit, as we speak, the people of China are pouring billions of dollars into the development of a commercial aircraft. They call it the C-919. They say it will be available for sale within 2 years. Frankly, I think it is going to be longer than that. It will be 3 or 4 or 5 years. But whenever it is, they are going to create even more fierce competition for an industry that is a bulwark of America's manufacturing base, a bulwark. And what about China's export credit authority? It is six times larger in absolute dollars than America's. And as a percentage of GDP, it is 35 times larger.

So I ask the Members of the House, let us not wake up 63 days from now with no export credit authority. This is the 16th time, by my count, we have reauthorized the bank. Almost every time by virtually unanimous support. And there are more than 300 votes on this floor to pass it, if they will bring it to a vote.

In the name of jobs, in the name of small businesses, in the name of fiscal responsibility, and in the name of economic growth, let us reauthorize the Export-Import Bank.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer this bipartisan amendment to carry forth an important issue of public safety to provide legally-constituted marijuana businesses access to banking services. To do otherwise is to render them an all-cash sector of the economy, which is fraught with peril.

If you supported the Rohrabacher amendment to the Commerce-Justice and Science Appropriations which passed clearly, then you will support this as well. It brings forth the terms and conditions of the Department of Justice and Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.

Yesterday morning, on the very front page of USA Today was an article setting forth the dangers of all-cash businesses in our States that have approved legally marijuana-related businesses. In the words of the Attorney General:

You don't want just huge amounts of cash in these places.

They want to be able to use the banking system. It is a

public safety component. Huge amounts of cash, substantial

amounts of cash just kind of lying around with no place for

it to be appropriately deposited is something that worries

me, just from a law enforcement perspective.

If you support public safety, if you supported the Rohrabacher amendment to the Commerce, Justice, and Science bill, you will support this amendment as well. In the interest of public safety, you will do this. Because in the words of the Department of Justice, the two most important terms and conditions: keep marijuana out of the hands of children and keep cash out of the hands of gangs and the cartels. To oppose this amendment is to support that, and I know you don't want that.

So, I urge you in the strongest terms to support this amendment, this bipartisan amendment, as was adopted earlier on the Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations bill.

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

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, I have a new and improved amendment at the desk.

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

This is a referendum on public safety. It follows the exact intent-- but is technically perfected--of the earlier amendment that was offered, and I thank the gentleman from the majority for pointing out its technical flaws. They have been corrected.

It is a referendum on public safety. If you want to render an all- cash sector of the economy in the 23 States that allow for medical marijuana and in the two States that allow for the adult recreational use of marijuana, you will make them unsafe. That is for certain.

I entreat you to pick up yesterday's USA Today and read the excellent article, including the citation of several security experts, about what will happen with a certainty, inevitably, if we do not take this measure.

If you want to keep marijuana out of the hands of children and if you want to keep cash out of the hands of gangs and cartels, you will support this amendment.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the State of Nevada (Ms. Titus).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the State of California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).

First, let's correct the Record. The earlier vote did not approve the opposite amendment. In fact, the decision, as announced by the Chair, was to affirm the amendment, and then the rollcall was provided and is yet pending.

Secondly, the will of this body has, in fact, been manifested on one occasion, and that was an amendment highly similar to this one, to the Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations, and it passed by a clear bipartisan majority in this Chamber.

Lastly--and again, this is about public safety. This is about keeping marijuana out of the hands of children and cash out of the hands of the gangs and the cartels. That is what this amendment is about.

I am frankly stunned to learn that the party whose heritage was in support of states' rights now no longer sees fit to uphold those States who have gone in this direction who, through votes of people and votes of their duly-elected legislatures, have created tightly-controlled markets for this particular substance.

This is not about being in favor or against marijuana consumption. This is about public safety. This is about providing access to banking services for safe environments, safe communities, and I entreat you to support it as you once did before.

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

Mr. Chairman, as the ranking member may be aware, Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps programs are conducted at schools throughout our great Nation.

They are traditionally led by retired military officers and enlisted personnel, and the program prepares high school students for leadership roles. JROTC teaches the young men and women the kind of discipline and self-confidence required to succeed outside the classroom.

In my congressional district is Shelton High School, which successfully operated their Navy JROTC program for 35 years. One year, they dropped three students below the minimum threshold, were placed on probation, and yet, despite the subsequent year exceeding the enrollment threshold, they were required to get to the end of the line, notwithstanding the 35 years of successful operation.

I don't think Shelton High School ought to have to do that. I don't think any high school in the United States ought to have to do that.

The Shelton High School Navy JROTC program provided unmatched leadership opportunities for students, and it instilled exactly the kind of values we want to instill in young people: patriotism, national service, and a sense of accomplishment and responsibility.

Additionally, this JROTC program, in its community, served as the color guard at community events and helped provide volunteers for community organizations. Its absence is now being acutely felt throughout all of the county.

So I respectfully request that we somehow find a way to work together to ensure the Navy has the necessary funds to support these programs at Shelton High School and throughout the Nation.

I thank the gentleman for agreeing to work with us, and I thank you and the chairman for your excellent work on this legislation, which I look forward to supporting.

I also want you to know that, when you tell me you will work with me, I know it to be the case because both of you are men of your word.