Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Wisconsin for his support of this bill and the kind things he said about it.

Mr. Speaker, the American Innovation $1 Coin Act addresses the decreasing numismatic coin sales resulting from the discontinuation of the Presidential $1 coin series.

When enacted, this bill will first commission the U.S. Mint to create a year-long introductory coin series bearing the semblance of George Washington's signature on the first patent.

The bill will then direct the Mint to release four $1 coins each year, as my friend from Wisconsin said, featuring a great American innovation from each State over the next 14 years. Coins will be issued in alphabetical order, starting with Alabama. State innovations will be chosen with input from State Governors, territory executives, the Commission of Fine Arts, and the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am particularly excited about the concept of commemorating and honoring innovation. As Mr. Duffy has said, this is one of the core strengths of our country. We have fights across the aisle, as we should, over our economy and where this government intervenes. I think we agree that one of the key strengths of the United States is our entrepreneurial capacity and the remarkable innovations that come out of all 50 States and the territories of the United States.

It is right that, in some small way, we honor those innovations and those innovators who help our economy grow, give us competitive advantage, and make us all proud to be part of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, these coins will be sold as a product for collectors and minted to demand with oversight from the Treasury.

Per U.S. Mint reports, to the point made by my friend from Wisconsin, the $1 coin costs less than 35 cents to make. As a product for collectors, the $1 coins sell for more than face value, up to $1.32 each. That is nearly a $1 profit on every coin. Proceeds from this coin will return money to the Treasury. In addition, the infrastructure producing these coins is already in place.

This program will sunset once all States and territories have been honored and cannot be resumed, except by an act of Congress.

This legislation has the support of members of the coin industry and their local suppliers and service providers across the States, including a number of small businesses in my district. These businesses represent scores of small businesses and thousands of jobs around the country.

I believe this bill will engage the public, fill the void of a terminated coin series, help increase the Mint's profitability, and create and sustain coin-related jobs in both public and private sectors, all while honoring and commemorating the remarkable innovative capacity of our country.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 770, and I thank Chairman Hensarling, Ranking Member Waters, Chairman Barr, and Ranking Member Moore, as well as my friend from Wisconsin, for their support and determination to get this important bill scheduled and passed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to commit at the desk.

I am opposed to the bill in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, members of the Intelligence Committee, on which few of us have an opportunity to serve, lead very odd lives. Every single day, we descend in the bowels of this Capitol, four floors down. We surrender our iPhones, we surrender our BlackBerrys, and we go into windowless rooms where, on a daily basis, we hear about some of the most grotesque threats to American safety and interests that you can imagine: threats to American lives, threats to American interests, and threats to our very way of life.

We see, every day, how essential 702 authorities are. The intelligence that we gather under this authority is critical to our safety, our security, and our lives. It saves lives. This program cannot be interrupted, and, if it is, God forbid, we will have much to answer for.

Even if this motion fails, the base bill, to those of you with substantial civil liberties concerns--and I count myself amongst you-- the base bill makes important and meaningful civil liberties improvements over the status quo.

I deeply appreciate the efforts of many in this Chamber that oppose this bill, the efforts that they have made. Each and every one of us swears an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, and no one should ever be criticized for working hard to make sure that that process is served; not Mr. Nadler, not Ms. Lofgren, not Mr. Amash, not Mr. Poe.

Mr. Speaker, I have spent much of the last several days trying to improve this bill with respect to civil liberties. I presented amendments to the Rules Committee which were, sadly, not made in order.

But the fact is that these protections exist. There are strict processes and procedures in place at the FBI as to how exactly U.S.- person information can be queried and used. On top of that, the entire 702 program is reviewed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the PCLOB, and is subject to meaningful congressional oversight by each and every one of us.

To authorize this program each year, a Federal judge must find it has met all statutory requirements and is consistent with the Fourth Amendment. Mr. Speaker, three district courts and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have deemed this program constitutional.

But, Mr. Speaker, no bill is perfect, and so the motion I offer would encompass all FBI matters--not just predicated investigations, but all FBI matters not related to national security--and require court orders founded on probable cause before the FBI could access U.S.-person information under 702.

Mr. Speaker, this is a critical national security asset. It is as important as our best operator, as our best technology, as our most powerful weapons, and I appreciate the efforts that have been made to secure our civil liberties. This motion to commit pushes this bill slightly in that direction, building on the meaningful improvements to the status quo, and I urge its passage.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully disagree with the chairman of the Financial Services Committee. This is not simply the gathering of information. This is not simply oversight.

Under H.R. 4324, a condition would be imposed on the sale of commercial aircraft to Iran. The Iran nuclear deal was very clear. It is broadly committed to ``allow for the sale of commercial passenger aircraft and related parts and services to Iran.'' The only condition on the U.S. commitment is that ``licensed items and services be used exclusively for commercial passenger aviation.''

H.R. 4324 would impose a new condition, a new condition which would require certification by the Secretary of State and all of the process that would ensue.

It is not a stretch--in fact, it is fairly clear--that if H.R. 4324 were to pass, the Iranians and others could credibly claim that we have violated our obligations under the JCPOA. Now, nobody should be surprised by that.

Despite the advice of his National Security Advisor, despite the advice of the Secretary of Defense, despite the advice of pretty much everyone around him, President Trump chose not to recertify Iranian compliance with the Iran nuclear deal.

We have seen bill after bill, including the bill just voted on, attempting to reverse the Iran nuclear deal, and we have heard this since this deal first came to the floor.

Let's reflect for one second on what the implications are:

This bill puts the Iran nuclear deal at risk. It arguably takes American aircraft manufacturers out of competition for lucrative contracts. My colleague from Washington will address this shortly.

I don't understand how putting American jobs at risk and taking American manufacturers out of contention in favor of companies like Airbus is about keeping America great again. I don't understand why, when we focus on jobs, this should be an action we should take.

However, I will say something, and I speak as a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Prior to the passage of the Iran nuclear deal, it is not an exaggeration to say I didn't worry every night in a way that we worry today about North Korea. I went to bed every night thinking about Iranian centrifuges spinning, about military technology being created that could ultimately deliver a nuclear weapon to Israel or to Europe or to the United States, and our intelligence community believed that we were 2 to 3 months away from an Iranian nuclear weapon, kind of where we are today on North Korea.

I suspect everybody in this Chamber doesn't want to be where we are on North Korea with another state, with Iran.

I understand the skepticism on Iran, and I agree with everything that the chairman said with respect to Iran being a state sponsor of terrorism, with Iran being a location of money laundering, and I could go on, with Iran being an absolutely appalling regime.

But I speak as a member of the Intelligence Committee for a lot of people in this room when I say that, for the first time in a long time subsequent to the passage of the Iran deal, whatever you think of Iran--and not many of us think much of Iran--we don't go to bed every single night worrying about the possibility of waking up to a nuclear- weaponized Iran.

Why would we put that at risk?

I agree with the chairman that transparency is important, and I agree with everybody that Iran needs to be watched very, very skeptically. But why would we want to be with Iran exactly where we are today with North Korea?

Is this effort, which, in my opinion, is simply a continuation of the efforts to end the Iran deal, to reverse President Obama's legacy, is it worth going to bed at night not just worried about North Korea, but worried about Iran? I would suggest that it is not.

I don't want to go back to the pre-Iran deal era when I became an expert on centrifuges, on Uranium-235, on hardened bunkers and the weaponry that we produced to penetrate hardened bunkers and to the realization that, if we had to go to war against Iran to prevent a nuclear Iran, the consequences would be as awful as if we went to war with North Korea to prevent a North Korea nuclear-weaponized state.

Why would we do this? Why would we put at risk a deal that has given comfort to a lot of us for some period of time?

Mr. Speaker, this deal is not a perfect deal. I don't know that there are perfect deals in this realm. But I do know that, for the next 7, 8, or 9 years, we are not going to have the worry that so many of us had before the Iran deal.

Let's engage on that. Let's figure out what comes behind the Iran deal. Let's figure out other ways to address the behavior of Iran with respect to terrorism and the money laundering. Let's remember that this deal was about removing the existential threat, not making Iran a perfect regime, but removing the existentia threat to the United States of America, and let's not put that deal at risk.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member, and I urge a strong ``no'' vote against this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to mourn the lost opportunity for real bipartisan tax reform. There were lots of Democrats, Mr. Speaker, who were ready to make a deal to make our Code simpler and more competitive. There were lots of Democrats who would have said, yeah, let's lower rates, but let's do it responsibly so that we don't balloon the deficit. And there were lots of Democrats who said let's eliminate that incentive for companies to operate abroad.

But instead, we are where we are today, where we have a bill here and in the Senate that will raise taxes on millions of middle class Americans, that will deliver a huge windfall to the wealthiest Americans, and that will send a tsunami of cash to American corporations.

For what purpose?

American corporations, today, are swimming in cash. They are profitable like never before. There is this fantasy that they will hire more people, but let's actually listen to the corporations. Cisco, Pfizer, and Coca-Cola have said they will take this money and they will return it to shareholders as, quite frankly, they probably should, since it is shareholder money. It is not going to go to new jobs. And remember--this is the kicker--35 percent of shareholders of American corporations are foreigners.

This is not a win. This is a loss for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, on October 3, 2017, I was unable to be present for the vote on the motion to recommit on H.R. 36, offered by Ms. Brownley of California. Had I been present for Roll Call No. 548, I would have voted ``AYE.''

I was also unable to be present for the vote on passage of H.R. 36, offered by Mr. Franks of Arizona. Had I been present for Roll Call No. 549, I would have voted ``NAY.''

I was also unable to be present for the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass, as amended, S. 782 offered by Mr. Cornyn of Texas. Had I been present for Roll Call No. 550, I would have voted ``AYE.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Securing Electronic Records for Veterans' Ease Act, the SERVE Act, because we all know and feel that veterans and their families face very real challenges when they transition to civilian life. We all know that we have an important responsibility to do what we can to help. Finding housing or a roof over their heads should not be an ordeal, especially if it is caused by difficulties in showing the stipend that student veterans get from Uncle Sam.

In conversations with student veterans throughout my district, proof of income for housing kept coming up as a big challenge. In fact, Nick Quinzi, a marine and founder of the Veteran's Student Association at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, Connecticut, told my office that if he had a wish list of things to make his veteran experience better, the number one item would be fixing the lack of verification for the monthly housing stipend and, therefore, giving him better access to housing.

The fact that Nick and many veterans like him have no proof of income that a property manager or landlord could consider when weighing creditworthiness and income qualifications is the definition of an unnecessary burden.

Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan legislation would help veterans obtain proof of income for the housing allowance

they receive while utilizing the post-9/11 GI Bill. This is, as we have all said, a commonsense fix to this problem. It requires the VA to make documentation for the post-9/11 GI Bill monthly housing stipend accessible and available online. That is it.

Student veterans will use this documentation to provide needed verification to housing agents, apartment managers, and potential landlords. This bill would provide a permanent solution to the inadequacy of the statement of benefits that is currently available--an official form, accessible online, that verifies the housing benefit is necessary and builds upon existing website functionality. The VA's eBenefits site already provides access to certification letters for VA compensation and pension benefits.

Mr. Speaker, this fix could have a big effect. There are close to 1.1 million student veterans using the post-9/11 GI Bill who would be eligible to benefit from this.

Mr. Speaker, our veterans have earned this benefit. We, as elected officials, feel a responsibility to make sure that they do not face bureaucratic hurdles that prevent them from taking advantage of all of the benefits that they have earned.

I would like to close by thanking Dr. Roe and Ranking Member Walz for their role in bringing this bill to the floor and for their work on behalf of all of our Nation's veterans.

Mr. Speaker, we all awoke yesterday to a grim but familiar ritual. As we looked at our phones, we saw that dozens of people had been slaughtered in Las Vegas by a madman with a gun.

For the victims, the survivors, and their families, this is a nightmare come true, and my heart goes out to them and to the first responders and to the many people who rushed to help in that hellish situation. But now what?

The question can't be escaped, and it hits particularly hard those of us who live in the shadow of Sandy Hook, years ago, where 20 babies were killed, and we thought that that would be enough to cause this Congress to act--to act for sanity, to act for commonsense, to act for life. But it wasn't. And neither was Orlando, neither was San Bernardino, and now neither, I fear, will be the horrendous massacre in Las Vegas.

Let's be clear that no other tragedy that we face, not terrorists flying into buildings, not hurricanes which render entire islands without power and without hope, cause us to say: This is not a time to address this problem.

We ask ourselves: What can we do better? What can we learn? How can we stop this? Except on this issue. Orlando--Congress does nothing; Sandy Hook, 20 dead children--Congress does nothing; now Las Vegas.

What is happening right now is that conversations are happening in offices to figure out what the decent interval of time is between the deaths in Las Vegas and when we can introduce a bill that will make it easier for people to buy silencers. Not even the near fatal attack on one of our own, my friend Stephen Scalise, was enough to cause us to seriously consider what we might do to staunch the flow of blood that characterizes this country, and this country alone.

Let's be clear. Let's be very clear about what we can do and what we don't want to do.

First of all, to all those who are listening to this and saying, ``They just want to take away my guns,'' no, we do not. I and those of us who stand for gun safety respect the Second Amendment. Many of us enjoy hunting. Many of us enjoy target practice. Many of us believe that perhaps you are safer if you can defend yourself. We have no interest in taking away anybody's guns.

We have interest in at least two things that have the virtue of being supported by the vast majority of Americans: universal background checks, the simple idea that, if you are going to exercise your Second Amendment rights and buy a weapon, we should check to see if you are violent, if you are a terrorist, if you are likely to do harm with that deadly weapon. That is a simple idea that has about 90 percent support in this country, and yet it will not be brought to this floor in what is known as the House of Representatives.

Do we represent or do we not?

There are other ideas. There has to be some limit on the firepower and the nature of the lethal technology that Americans can get access to. We saw in Las Vegas what very powerful weapons, perhaps modified to turn them into military-style weapons, can do to people and their bodies. I think most Americans would agree that there is some line-- some line--between the weapons that we should have access to as a result of our Second Amendment rights and to do what we need to do and those weapons that can wreak the kind of havoc that we saw in Las Vegas.

Last year, after the shooting at the Pulse nightclub, I decided in desperation that I would not participate in any more moments of silence in this Chamber, that prayers and sympathy are fine, but this room can fix this problem. But this room and the people in it refuse to do so, even though we call ourselves Representatives, and we will not bring forward ideas that our constituents would support.

So today, in our despair, we must remember that our great struggles-- suffrage, civil rights, healthcare--took decades for us to achieve. We can break the cycle of violence, but we have to act. We have no other choice.

Mr. Speaker, I urge you to take note of the commitment to principle that the Honorable Charles Wiggins, a distinguished former Member of Congress from California, displayed when asking President Nixon to resign following the ``Smoking Gun'' tape revelation during the Watergate Scandal. Rep. Charles Wiggins, of the House Judiciary Committee, was initially one of President Nixon's most loyal supporters. However, with the revelation of President Nixon's involvement in the Watergate break-in, Rep. Wiggins rescinded his support and called for President Nixon, a fellow Republican, to be impeached. Rep. Wiggins held true to the principle that no man is above the rule of law, including the President of the United States. Four days later, President Nixon resigned. Let us not forget our moral compasses and the commitment to put country over party, and remember the courageous act of Congressman Charles Wiggins holding firm that the rule of law applies to all Americans, even the occupant of the highest office in the land.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the accomplishments of the Fairfield American Little League baseball team following its participation in the 2017 Little League World Series.

For years, Southwest Connecticut has produced outstanding baseball clubs, and 2017 was no exception. After an undefeated run in which they captured district, state and regional titles, Fairfield American went on to represent New England in the Little League World Series in Williamsport, PA. The team finished the season as the number three team in the country, defeating Washington and New Jersey twice before falling to eventual United States champion Texas. They were welcomed back to Connecticut with a grand celebration, receiving the key to the town of Fairfield from First Selectman Mike Tetreau.

Fairfield American exemplified a spirit of hard work and commitment indicative of the motto they wore on the back of their t-shirts: Never Give Up. This group of exceptional young men shined on Little League's biggest stage, finding unwavering strength in themselves and one another. They played every game until the final out and never quit, even when the odds were against them.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me in recognizing everyone who made this season a reality; the coaches, Mike Randazzo, Jorge Rivera and Wayne Righter, who have spent countless hours instilling the value of hard work and sportsmanship; the parents, whose sacrifice and engagement ensured their children had an unforgettable summer; and the players--Andrew Cutler, Anthony Falletta, Anthony Pollack, Christian Smith, Ethan Righter, Griffin Dodder, Aidan Rivera, Leo Randazzo, Michael Iannazzo, Matthew Vivona, Owen Kalagher, Sean O'Neil, Troy Ashkinos and Tyler Bauer, who represented Connecticut proudly.

Mr. Speaker, I thank both the chairman and ranking member for the strong bill that has been offered up today and for the bipartisan manner in which it was developed and enacted and, hopefully, will be passed.

I rise in strong support of this bill, but would note for my colleagues that this authorization bill is an odd one. To fully understand it, you need to go deep into the basement of this Capitol and review it behind heavy metal doors.

The bill is full of acronyms and code words and classified information. As such, it can be hard to understand, and things that are hard to understand sometimes cause anxiety and fear. Let me take a moment to describe what this bill does.

This bill has the strong bipartisan support of my fellow committee members, liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans alike, because it provides the lifeblood to a truly remarkable group of people who work behind the scenes and in the dark to keep us safe and to keep us free.

The unheralded and unacknowledged warriors of the intelligence community never stop in the work that they do around the world. As we speak, North Korea is feverishly working to develop the ability to deliver a nuclear bomb to American shores. Our intelligence community is watching, evaluating, and planning against this mortal threat.

As we speak, for the first time in a generation, Iran is not feverishly working to develop the ability to deliver a nuclear bomb to our shores. Our intelligence community is making sure that that stays true.

As we speak, Mr. Speaker, for the umpteenth time, terrorists in places like Afghanistan and Libya and Syria are spending their time desperately trying to stay alive instead of spending their time planning to attack our airlines, our cities, and our people.

As we speak, Mr. Speaker, Russia lurks, seeking advantage, promoting instability, and working to erode international norms and instability. We should make no mistake about Russia as an adversary, because there is a lot of noise about this. Russia is a country that invades neighboring sovereign countries, it murders political opponents, it bombs Syrian hospitals, and, yes, it conducted an unprecedented attack on the very core of our Democratic system: our free and fair elections.

This bill funds the warriors who are watching that, who are standing up against that, in order to keep our system what we all like it to be.

Mr. Speaker, because these activities are carried out secretly in the dark of night and usually unacknowledged, there is always the possibility for abuse. These activities, by their nature, run up against the lines of those values that make us Americans. This is surveillance. It is other things that are worthy of debate. The members of this committee spend their days in good argument about what the limits of those

activities should be, and we will have additional arguments around things like the reauthorization of the section 702 surveillance programs. These are terrific arguments that we have in a constructive way. These are not arguments that are present in this bill. Just as we did on section 215, we will have a robust discussion of the section 702 international authorities. These are authorities that raise questions and that should be subject to the debate of this Chamber.

But this bill, this bill today, is about the lifeblood of a remarkable group of people who don't always get it right any more than we do, but who are patriots, who respect the Constitution, and who need our support in the work that they do to keep us safe and keep us free.

I would like to, again, thank the majority, the chairman, the ranking member, and especially the staff who worked diligently to make this a bill that we would unanimously support and suggest to my colleagues in this Chamber that we don't see a lot of bills like this one, but this one is worthy of their support.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank Andrew Connery for his many contributions to the New Democrat Coalition. Next month, Andrew will be leaving the New Democrat Coalition to attend law school.

The New Democrat Coalition, which I have the honor to Chair, is made up of 61 forward-thinking Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives who are committed to pro-economic growth, pro- innovation, and fiscally responsible policies. New Democrats are a solutions oriented coalition seeking to bridge the gap between left and right by challenging outmoded partisan approaches to governing.

Andrew joined the New Dem staff as the Policy & Member Services Aide in February 2015. Prior to joining the New Dew staff, Andrew was a legislative assistant for former New Democrat Coalition Member Rep. Joe Garcia of Florida. In recognition for his hard work, he was promoted to Senior Policy Advisor in January 2016 and Policy Director in June 2017.

Originally serving former New Democrat Coalition Chair Ron Kind, Andrew has been a trusted advisor to me and many Members of the Coalition. Over his tenure, the New Democrat Coalition has been active on many issues of national importance that have benefitted directly from Andrew's policy knowledge and expertise. These include working on the development of the American Prosperity Agenda, building support for President Obama's trade agenda, developing a tough and smart national security agenda, advocating for a bipartisan deal on tax reform and infrastructure, helping craft a path forward on fixing the Affordable Care Act, and working on several other policy issues through the New Democrat Coalition's task forces. Andrew also served as a key advisor for New Dem Members and their staffs working with them to develop individual policy priorities, counseling on floor votes, and advising on other matters.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Members of the New Democrat Coalition, I thank Andrew.

Mr. Speaker, on July 12, 2017, I was unable to be present to cast my vote on Amendment No. 5, offered by Mr. DeSaulnier of California, to the Gaining Responsibility on Water Act of 2017 (H.R. 23). Had I been present for roll call No. 350, I would have voted AYE.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning because yesterday the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan organization that we rely on in this Chamber for truth, told us that the Senate healthcare bill--so- called healthcare bill--will throw 22 million Americans off of their insurance. Two-thirds of those, 14 million, are Medicaid patients--the poorest people in America, elderly people in nursing homes.

I don't have a voice in the Senate, Mr. Speaker, but if I did, I would say: I understand how important it is to deliver on the promise you have been making for 7 years to repeal ObamaCare. The Republican base is demanding it, but it can't possibly be demanding the throwing off of their healthcare 22 million Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I also don't have a voice in the oval office, but if I did, I would ask this President, I would say: Sir, you promised to do three things: you promised to increase coverage, to lower deductibles, and to lower premiums for the American people.

I would say: Mr. President, this bill in the Senate does the exact opposite of all three of those things.

So I would say: Mr. President, if you keep your word, stop this Senate bill from passing.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a dear friend and public servant, Devon Joan Pfeifer of Weston, Connecticut, who we lost far too soon. A dedicated and loving mother, beloved community leader, and passionate activist, Devon lived her life devoted to helping the lives of others, fighting for equal rights for all, and championing opportunities for the poor and working class.

The daughter of a carpenter and labor leader, Devon embraced the struggle she found in the labor movement: fair pay and a helping hand for the least fortunate. She brought this spirit of compassion to many volunteer causes throughout Fairfield County, caring for those with disabilities and helping struggling schoolchildren learn to read. She cared deeply for the people she helped, and encouraged everyone to do as much good as they can, for all they can, as long as they can.

A lifelong Democrat and progressive, Devon served terms as Chair of the Weston and Fairfield Democratic Town Committees and as a member of the Weston Board of Education. She worked tirelessly behind the scenes to elect Democrats to local, state and federal offices. Her work embodied the very best of local political organizing; people coming together to support a shared vision for a brighter future. She drew people in to the hard work of creating change with powerful words, an infectious laugh, and seemingly endless energy. She inspired many young people in Fairfield County to pursue public service, mentoring and grooming them into leaders, and I know that today she is proud of their progress and the great work that they do. She always served as our collective conscience, willing us to do more and to do better.

Her activism lives on through her children--Conor and Maevereen-- whom she loved so dearly and within whom she instilled a rebel attitude and fierce sense of civic duty. Devon always strove for equal rights for all people, and her love for her children made her even more dedicated to the fight to make a more equal world for them.

Fairfield County and the State of Connecticut have lost a titan. We owe a debt of gratitude to Devon and I know I, and many others, will continue to be inspired and guided by her. Her legacy is and will continue to be one of service, love, and dedication.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today because we are told that this week is Infrastructure Week. After four contentious months of a new President, and all that has been contained in those 4 months, I actually saw a glimmer of hope and possibility around the idea that we might finally come together to do something for our constituents in an area that they tell us is absolutely essential.

I worry, Mr. Speaker, that we are going to let this opportunity be lost in the political roil that is already consuming this idea of a week that we devote to infrastructure.

So I want to stand here, Mr. Speaker, and say, let's not let this idea go. It is too important. The improvement of our roadways and our bridges, our airports, and our railways is absolutely essential to the quality of life of every single constituent of every single Member of this House.

As I talk to the business leaders in my district, the fact that they have a challenge in moving their people and their goods, that sometimes getting to work is a 2-hour proposition, are the things that hold them back.

I know that the Republicans and the Democrats disagree on an awful lot, but we have to be able to agree on the fundamental notion that if we don't have a functioning transportation infrastructure, if our airplanes and ships and rails and cars don't move well, this country cannot be great, and our economy will be damaged.

These last 4 months have been pretty rough. We got--kicked off with a repeal of the Affordable Care Act; and I understand that my Republican friends had been promising that for years, but it was a brutal experience. It failed on the floor. The American public hates the bill that so many of my Republican friends were cajoled into voting for, much to their political peril.

There was an alternative start to this Presidency. There was this fantasy alternative start that has the President, shortly after his inauguration, saying to the American people: I know that this campaign was tough and the rhetoric was as ugly as it ever has been in an American campaign, but we are going to come together now, in January of 2017, to restitch the Nation, literally and figuratively. Literally means we are going to work together to rebuild the infrastructure of this country.

Sadly, that is an alternate reality that did not happen, and so we are consumed in Twitter feuds and partisanship and some of the most difficult to pass legislation that ultimately is not likely to become law, but which will continue to split the parties in this Chamber.

It is not too late, though, Mr. Speaker. I think we can still turn this around.

I have the privilege of chairing the New Democrat Coalition, 61 Democratic Members who, as challenged as they feel by this President's positions and behavior, are hoping for that moment when we can work with Republicans, when we can get something done with this President that will be meaningful to our constituents. And I know they, and many other Democrats, will be there for that conversation.

To my conservative, even to my Freedom Caucus friends, there is nothing more conservative than the idea that you keep your house in order; that you invest so that your children can have the kind of prosperity that we were able to experience.

And to the President, I would say: Sir, you seem to be a builder. You seem to have recognized the need for this kind of program when you promised a $1 trillion infrastructure investment. And, sir, I would say, if you look at some of our highways that were built in the 1950s, at the entrance ramp to those highways you will see a sign that says the Dwight D. Eisenhower Interstate Highway System. Sir, there is no reason why those signs couldn't have your name on them.

So, Mr. Speaker, this problem is so urgent, it is so potentially bipartisan in its solution, that I want to close with the observation that we need to lift this out of the partisan maw and observe, Mr. Speaker, that yesterday we celebrated the Greatest Generation because, 73 years ago yesterday, they stormed the beaches of Normandy. That is part of why we call them the Greatest Generation. But the other part and the other reason we call them that is because they came back to America and they set aside their differences and they invested in projects like the Interstate Highway System that we all use every day. That is a big part of why we call them the Greatest Generation. They built our country.

And now that generation looks at us and they have a question, and that question is: What will you do with that legacy that we built for you?

Mr. Speaker, let's answer that question in a way that will make them proud.