Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding. It wasn't too long ago that we had the gentleman visit our district in western Pennsylvania to talk to a number of folks in the defense industry, and I just applaud him for his very serious work on the Armed Services Committee.

He is good to highlight the situations that we come into when we see these continuing resolutions, the damage it does to our military, the need for long-term planning, how we have threats around the world, both emerging threats that continue to evolve, but there are our old adversaries and not-so-old adversaries: Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, and global terror networks.

We could go on and on and on, but we have to have a military that is ready to respond. And we cannot be holding our military budget hostage to any other part of the Federal Government. It makes no sense.

Speaking of one of those adversaries, I want to talk a little bit about Russia, because Russia has been in the news so much lately. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about Russia and the threat it poses to us and our allies.

For the past 40 years or so, I would describe myself as a hawk when it comes to Russia. As such, I would like to welcome my friends from across the aisle who are finally starting to express their concerns about the Russian bear. The question I have is: What took so long?

Russia has been an adversary of the United States and the West for decades. I will spare the House a lengthy history lesson and then, instead, focus on the recent past. This is important because in conversations I have had back home, there are some constituents who are unaware of that history.

Next month will mark 10 years since Russia invaded the Republic of Georgia. In response to this, then-President George W. Bush condemned the action saying:

The territorial integrity and borders of Georgia must be

respected, just as those of Russia or any other country.

Less than 7 months after the 2008 Georgia invasion, however, during the opening days of the Obama administration, then-Secretary of State Clinton presented a reset button to Russian's foreign minister, as if it was the prior administration's fault for Russia's aggression and consequent chilly relationship.

And mere months after hitting the reset button, we learned President Obama was shutting down a proposed missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. Some reset.

Within the aura of this reset, a Russian bank paid Secretary Clinton's husband $500,000 for a 1-hour speech in Moscow. That is some billable rate, even for a Yale Law School graduate.

At the same time, a Russian company was preparing to take a controlling interest in Uranium One, a corporation that held 20 percent of the U.S's uranium supply. That foreign acquisition required the approval of the Obama administration and Secretary Clinton. Approval was granted.

Ultimately, The New York Times reported that $2.3 million of contributions from Uranium One connections flowed to the Clinton Foundation. But that has not seemed to draw concerns from the new Democrat Russia hawks from across the aisle.

Later, as Secretary Clinton wrapped up her State Department tenure in

2012, President Obama, not aware that a microphone was picking him up said to then-Russian President Medvedev:

This is my last election. After my election, I will have

more flexibility.

And Medvedev responded:

I will relay that to Vladimir.

That would be Vladimir Putin. The flexibility was about missile defense. President Obama even mocked Mitt Romney in a 2012 Presidential debate after Romney identified Russia as our biggest geopolitical threat.

President Obama glibly responded to Romney: ``And, the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back . . . ''

During President Obama's second term, we saw continued indifference towards Russia, Crimea, Eastern Ukraine, the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, Russian violations of the Reagan-Gorbachev Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, ceding Middle East influence that fueled the growth of ISIS, and failure to respond to Bashar al- Assad's use of chemical weapons, to name a few. And not once do I recall ever hearing a peep from my friends across the aisle, even after President Obama drew his infamous red line.

Let's compare the response to the shooting down of Korean Airlines Flight 007 to that of flight MH17. Brilliantly, U.N. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick publicly prosecuted and convicted Russia at the United Nations for shooting down KAL Flight 007, which killed 269 innocent civilians, including Congressman Larry McDonald.

The KAL 007 shoot down dramatically increased our resolve to collapse the evil empire. However, the Obama administration never thoroughly prosecuted the case for Russia's culpability for the MH17 shoot down.

In the midst of all this, Russia was plotting to interfere in our elections. Ignoring the 1980s calling about the foreign policy, the Obama administration did not take the Russia threat seriously. They never picked up the voicemail that the 1980s left.

It was the last administration's failure to understand the threat that Russia posed that virtually paved the way for the aggressive Russia we see today. Throughout the Obama administration, Secretary Clinton and others failed to confront Russian hostility, the result of a reset button.

The reality is that Vladimir Putin wants to sow discord in the West. He would cause trouble to whoever was in the White House. Interestingly, when Putin said in Helsinki that he wanted Trump to win, it was amazing to see people accept his remarks without a hint of skepticism, even though Putin is a former KGB agent and a master of disinformation. Let me repeat that. Vladimir Putin is a former KGB agent and a master of disinformation.

It is President Trump that wants to arm Ukrainians. He is demanding that Germany stop buying gas from Russia. He is advancing American energy development, as opposed to the Obama administration that sought to curtail it. And when Russia's puppet, Assad, used chemical weapons on his own people, President Trump responded with military force.

From that perspective, would Putin, the master of disinformation, really have preferred President Trump over President Clinton? The American people can draw their own conclusions. While my friends across the aisle seem to have awoken to the threat that Russia presents, going forward, I hope they remain as concerned about Russia and President Putin as they are about President Trump.

For starters, they could show up by helping to get to the bottom of the Uranium One scandal. Meanwhile, on our side of the aisle, we take Russia seriously and have done so for decades. We are providing military assistance to Ukraine. We are passing new Russian sanctions legislation on top of what we passed earlier this year. We are the ones countering Russia's influence in the Middle East and their ally, Iran.

When it comes to checking Russia, it is Republicans, not Democrats, who have the established record of doing so, and we will continue to do that for as long as Russian hostility exists.

I simply implore President Trump to be vigilant and clear and heed the concerns of my fellow Republican legislators who have engaged on Russian matters for years.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his work on this area.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the House amendment to S. 1182, the National Flood Insurance Program Extension Act.

This summer has been a challenging time for western Pennsylvania, where summer storms have caused devastating floods. Residents are still recovering from the damage. At the same time, the NFIP, the National Flood Insurance Program, is close to lapsing. That is because, like so many things we have done in the House, the Senate has failed to act.

We know the NFIP is in need of reform. As a member of the Financial Services Committee, I applaud Chairmen Hensarling and Duffy for their work to craft a bipartisan bill that we have passed. Many of these reforms in this bill are bipartisan. They are noncontroversial. Pennsylvania's own insurance commissioner, a Democratic appointee, even testified before our committee in support of the private flood insurance provisions that are essential to improving consumer choice. Unfortunately, the Senate is stalled. We should continue urging Senators to take action, in the meantime.

I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this temporary extension, and I urge the Senate to get back to work.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes this afternoon during this Special Order just to go over some highlights of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act as we continue to see very robust economic growth happening across the country, including in my district back in western Pennsylvania.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is the culmination of years spent listening to the stories of families back home who had nothing left over at the end of the month, of families who were struggling to save for retirement, pay off loans, and simply make ends meet. These stories are not just unique to my district, but they are coming in from all across America to the House of Representatives.

For too long, hardworking Americans toiled under a broken Tax Code filled with loopholes and special interest carve-outs. For most of the last decade, we had sluggish growth, stagnant wages, and limited opportunity across the country, including parts of Pennsylvania. When an economy is stagnant and not healthy, fewer job opportunities exist and workers' hard-earned wages often do not keep up with expenses.

Since being elected in 2012, I told my constituents that it did not have to be that way, that we could do better, that we deserve better. That is why 6 months ago, my colleagues and I passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and the President signed it into law.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act puts hardworking Americans first by allowing them to keep more of their paychecks, bringing businesses home from overseas, and creating that healthier economy.

To help workers keep more of their wages, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act nearly doubles the standard deduction from $6,350 per individual to $12,000, and from $12,700 to $24,000 for married couples, essentially doubling the amount of income that will not be subject to Federal income taxes.

It also expands the child tax credit to $2,000 to help parents with the cost of raising kids, and adds a new credit to help provide care for elderly family members and adults with disabilities.

With these changes, the zero tax bracket increases significantly. Consequently, more Americans will be fully exempt from Federal income taxes, and they can keep more of their hard-earned wages.

Additionally, before the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the United States had the highest business tax rates in the industrialized world. Pennsylvania's combined Federal and State corporate tax rate stood at nearly 45 percent.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is removing a choke hold on our economy, decreasing for American corporations the tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent. Consequently, the Pennsylvania combined rate now stands at 31 percent. This puts American companies in a better place, from a competitive standpoint, than their Chinese and Mexican counterparts.

Think about that. Prior to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, China was treating its companies better, Mexico was treating its companies better, with lower tax rates, and you saw investments going into those countries. Now, with the United States having lower tax rates, it is turning around.

This improvement, as well as other provisions such as the immediate expensing of new equipment, is causing companies to bring cash back from overseas and invest in America and hire workers and raise pay.

Under the new system, small business employers, known as pass-through enterprise--your partnerships, your LLCs--will be able to deduct 20 percent of their qualified business income, and the remaining income will be taxed at new and lower rates.

This translates into a significant tax cut for Main Street businesses, freeing up resources that will allow them to innovate and invest in their communities, hire workers, and increase wages.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act also established a program that will ensure that the benefits of our booming economy reach areas that have been historically overlooked: the opportunity zone programs.

States are identifying areas that have struggled with high poverty and sluggish economic growth. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act provides tax incentives to direct private investment into and reinvigorate these communities. These communities have been starved of robust capital investment for decades. That is about to change.

In my district in western Pennsylvania, Governor Wolf from Pennsylvania has designated zones across the State. In western Pennsylvania, in my district, we have tracts that have been designated in Beaver Falls, Midland, Johnstown, and Aliquippa. These are strong communities, Mr. Speaker, that once again can thrive thanks to the attractive incentives offered in the opportunity zone investment.

This is how it is going to work.

People may have an asset they have been holding for a long time and have a capital gain there. There is $6 trillion locked up in capital gains across this country. If somebody wants to make an investment in a community where there has not been an investment, they can sell that asset, defer their capital gain, and invest in that fund. If they hold that in the fund for 10 years, they can defer the tax for that 10 years, get a step up in basis, and here is where it is great: they will not pay taxes on the appreciation of that investment in the opportunity zone.

Think about that capital that can flow into those communities and stay there and grow a business. That is private capital coming in, which is different from a government grant that might go in.

You have individuals who are looking to make investments. They want that investment to grow. They want that investment to do well. They want that investment to prosper in these communities. This is good news for those communities and good news for people who live there and can get jobs as a result of the investments in these opportunity zones.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is not just about simplifying our Tax Code. It is saving people money. It is about empowering people in Pennsylvania and throughout our Nation with hope and opportunity to better their lives for themselves, their families, and their communities.

These reforms within the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act are resulting in real benefits that are being experienced across the Nation. Already, 90 percent of American workers are receiving higher take-home pay under the new withholding tables. Four million workers have received bonuses, raises, or expanded benefits, and over 1 million new jobs have been created, including 160,000 manufacturing jobs.

For the first time in many years, there are more job openings than job seekers. Last month, the unemployment rate was 4 percent, nearly the lowest in decades, and the unemployment rates for African Americans and Hispanics were at historic lows. Fifty-eight percent of small business owners are confident about hiring new employees, and more Americans are optimistic about their future.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is bringing workers who were pushed to the sidelines during the previous years back into the labor force and restoring hope to everyday Americans. In June, 600,000 people entered the labor force, and 213,000 new jobs were added.

Businesses in my district are reinvesting in their employees, communities, and operations through bonuses,

higher wages and salaries, and increased charitable giving.

In western Pennsylvania, PNC Bank and BNY Mellon have raised their employees' minimum wages. Major companies, including UPS, FedEx, and Home Depot, that employ thousands of western Pennsylvanians, are providing bonuses and contributing more to their employees' retirement plans.

In fact, the Hampton Township Home Depot plans to create its own Success Sharing Program, in which hourly employees will be able to divide an estimated $30,000 to $40,000 among themselves semiannually, twice a year.

The Ellwood Group, a steel manufacturer, is planning a $60 million addition to its New Castle plant and adding 25 new employees once it is fully operational.

Some who opposed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Acts have touted these meaningful benefits to U.S. workers as ``crumbs.'' They have said that this law only helps the wealthy.

Let me ask this: Is the Pennsylvania Utilities Commission requiring 17 of its utility companies to give a monthly credit to their customers, saving $320 million a year, crumbs?

Mr. Speaker, these aren't crumbs. These are seeds that are taking root and growing opportunities, creating jobs and the economy for all Americans to prosper.

Don't just take it from me. Take it from John in New Kensington, who is seeing more money in his paycheck and received a $2,500 bonus.

Take it from Brian in Windber, who is receiving $500 more a month; Michael in Aliquippa, who is bringing home an extra 4.5 percent in each paycheck; Edward in Westmoreland County, who is receiving $128 more per paycheck. That is more than $3,000 per year.

Take it from Flory in Westmoreland County, who said that, thanks to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, her family will have more money to use towards their son's postgraduate education; and Heidi from Allegheny County, who wrote to tell me that ``every penny we aren't taxed can go towards our other bills such as food, utilities, school loans, a mortgage, and clothing for our children. We were barely scraping by during the previous administration.''

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is about empowering everyone, from the single mom in Ambridge, Pennsylvania, looking to buy her first home to the entrepreneur in Beaver Falls, working to achieve his or her American Dream.

When our people can fully develop their God-given skills and talents in a competitive economy without the government's excessive taxes and regulations, not only will our citizens' lives improve, but our country will grow stronger.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this amendment, a narrow amendment which simply prohibits any funds from going toward the District of Columbia from seizing property of citizens not in compliance with the District's individual healthcare mandate. It is a narrower amendment than the one we just debated.

My amendment does not take away the mandate. It simply says one of the remedies cannot be the seizure of property if an individual does not comply with the mandate to buy health insurance.

The individual mandate is, of course, controversial. Even Barack Obama opposed it when he was running in 2008. In one of the debates in the 2008 primary, then Senator and Presidential candidate Obama said: ``A mandate means that in some fashion, everybody will be forced to buy health insurance. . . . But I believe,'' then candidate Obama said, ``the problem is not that folks are trying to avoid getting healthcare. The problem is they can't afford it.''

He separately said:

If the mandate was the solution, we could try to solve

homelessness by mandating that everyone buy a house. The

reason why they don't have the house is they don't have the

money. So our focus has been on reducing costs and making it

available.

Regardless of what anyone on either side of the aisle thinks about a requirement to buy health insurance, it seems ill-advised and unjust to take away property from people that cannot even afford insurance.

I have to imagine that this was an oversight in writing the law, because surely no legislators could have intended such a harsh result.

I would note, Mr. Chairman, that in 2015, 6,902 residents of the District of Columbia were forced to pay the mandate penalty. Seventy- five percent of them made less than $50,000.

I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in supporting this commonsense measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the gentlewoman would realize that this amendment scores points for the 75 percent of the people who were subject to the penalty who made less than $50,000 a year. That is what happens when we have the mandate.

And it is Federal policy now, Federal policy, that holds that people should not be punished if they can't afford to purchase health insurance. They certainly shouldn't be punished by having their property seized.

And if it is only a few people, as the gentlewoman says, I would wonder why she is opposed to this amendment.

This is the Federal city. It is Federal policy that people should not be so punished.

President Obama, when he was running for President in 2008, was pretty clear. He knew what would happen. He observed what was going on with the Massachusetts mandate. He said:

Now, Massachusetts has a mandate right now. They have

exempted 20 percent of the uninsured because they've

concluded that that 20 percent can't afford it. In some

cases, there are people who are paying fines and still can't

afford it. So now they are worse off than they were. They

don't have health insurance and they're paying a fine. And in

order for you to force people to get health insurance, you

have to have a very harsh, stiff penalty.

President Obama understood that. He understood, as a candidate, that it would be wrong to seize property.

Again, when you look at the people who were being levied the penalty in 2015, when the ACA had a penalty, 75 percent of the people who paid the penalty in the District of Columbia made less than $50,000 a year.

Again, President Obama as a candidate:

I think it is important to recognize that, if you are going

to mandate the purchase of insurance and it is not

affordable, then there is going to have to be some

enforcement mechanism that the government uses. It may charge

people who don't already have healthcare fines or have to

take it out of their paychecks.

And candidate Obama said:

And that, I don't think, is helping people without health

insurance.

Again, he liked to keep on going and talking about Massachusetts. What is happening in Massachusetts, then-candidate Obama said:

There are articles being written about it which are that

folks are paying fines that don't have healthcare. They would

rather go ahead and take the fine, because they cannot afford

coverage.

Mr. Chairman, this is for the folks who may not be able to afford it, people making less than $50,000 a year. They shouldn't have their property seized.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to accept this commonsense, narrow amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Hensarling and Ranking Member Waters, as well as members of the Financial Services Committee from both parties, for this important bipartisan piece of legislation.

Small and emerging businesses drive our economy, create jobs for American workers, and are at the forefront of technological change. We need to create the conditions where these ventures can access the capital they need to grow.

This legislation builds upon the successes of the JOBS Act and JOBS 2.0. The JOBS and Investor Confidence Act includes reforms that will make it easier for the next Microsoft or Amazon or the developer of the next lifesaving treatment to get off the ground. When coupled with the progrowth provisions of a revamped Tax Code, especially the Opportunity Zones program, this will bring capital to marginalized areas and create opportunity for all.

This package includes an important and, again, bipartisan bill that Congressman Vargas and I introduced. The FIND Trafficking Act directs the Comptroller of the Currency to study how virtual currencies and online marketplaces can be misused by bad actors to trade in illicit goods or facilitate human trafficking. I thank the chairman for including this bill in the package.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support the passage of the JOBS and Investor Confidence Act.

Mr. Speaker, 242 years ago, our Founders gathered in Philadelphia to launch an experiment in self-rule that has led to the greatest country the Earth has ever seen. Our founding happened in the time of history in which the understanding of the nature of the human person and the source of the human person's rights reached a new level.

``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness''--God-given rights that no one can take away.

This is a transcendent principle that applies to all people for all time. It is the fundamental principle on which Abraham Lincoln relied as he fought to end slavery. The notion of God-given, unalienable rights that no government or majority can take away is as true today as it was in 1776 and 1861.

This Fourth of July, let us recommit to the principles of our founding and continue to work to ensure that all Americans realize the vision of our Founders. That, Mr. Speaker, is an idea that can lead to greater unity in our country.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge my colleagues to support this amendment to H.R. 6, and I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating), for his work on this effort. We have worked before on this issue of naloxone, and it is great that he is bringing forth this amendment. I am happy to be cosponsoring it with him.

The House has been doing amazing, wide-ranging work over the last 2 weeks to combat the opioid crisis, and

I am proud to have assisted with these efforts.

The amendment that I have cojoined with Congressman Keating today is simple. It instructs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to give additional guidance to prescribing naloxone.

Naloxone is the drug used to reverse opioid overdoses, a situation that far too many Americans have found themselves in across the country and across western Pennsylvania.

Opioid addiction is tearing families apart. Unfortunately, an overdose is frequently the grim end to a long struggle.

If we can help some of our fellow Americans come back from the brink with increased knowledge for our Nation's medical professionals, I see no reason not to do it.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I again thank Congressman Keating for his leadership on this.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Mitchell for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5925, the Coordinated Response through Interagency Strategy and Information Sharing Act, or the CRISIS Act.

This bill reauthorizes the Office of National Drug Control Policy, which has not been reauthorized in a very long time. It makes needed overhauls and updates to the office and even streamlines the name of the office to the Office of National Drug Control, or ONDC.

Mr. Speaker, I commend Chairman Gowdy and Ranking Member Cummings for working in a bipartisan manner. I also thank Representative Mitchell and Representative Raskin for working with me to incorporate the first two recommendations of the President's opioid commission into the CRISIS Act.

I introduced a separate bill, the Coordinated Overdose and Drug Epidemic Response to the Emergency Declaration Act, or CODE RED Act, that authorizes ONDC to address those commission recommendations.

ONDC will now be authorized to implement a coordinated tracking system of all federally-funded initiatives and grants. This will help identify barriers and gaps in Federal efforts responding to the opioid crisis and it identifies places where efforts are being duplicated and potentially wasted. This legislation improves the grant application process by standardizing and streamlining it.

The mission here is to deploy Federal resources to localities that need them quickly and efficiently instead of localities wasting valuable time and resources filling out various agency applications.

More broadly, the CRISIS Act will foster better government coordination and strategic planning. ONDC has cross-agency jurisdiction to coordinate the efforts among different agencies, like HHS and DOJ. When agencies work together, the force-multiplying effect can make a huge difference.

We are making progress on the opioid crisis. Bipartisan bills like the CRISIS Act will help win this fight and help the people engage in the fight, like the North Hills of Pittsburgh's Tracy Lawless.

Tracy participated in the President's Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and continues to help find solutions back in Pennsylvania.

Mr. Speaker, I thank her and everyone else who is making a difference.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the unyielding dedication that my constituents have for our military. In particular, I would like to highlight the efforts of several folks back home who are responsible for a number of billboards dotting the highways of Beaver County that encourage people to wear red on Fridays to support our troops who are deployed overseas.

For more than a decade, Americans across the Nation have worn red on Fridays to show support for troops fighting in foreign lands. In this effort, red is not just a color, but a message. RED is an acronym for Remember Everyone Deployed. It is a message to remember our servicemembers who are away from their families, risking their lives on the front lines to defend our freedoms and values. Remembering them is especially important since we often do not see news of those deployed.

Wearing red on Fridays is another way to show our troops that we are thinking of them, that we support them, and that we appreciate their sacrifices. I thank the volunteers of Beaver County for promoting and reminding us of this wear red effort.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, H.R. 6029, the Reauthorizing and Extending Grants for Recovery from Opioid Use Programs Act of 2018, or the REGROUP Act.

In simple terms, this bill will help our Nation continue the fight against the opioid crisis. The REGROUP Act does two things. First, it reauthorizes and extends the Comprehensive Opioid Abuse Program administered through the Department of Justice for an additional 2 years through 2023. Second, it also raises authorized funding levels for these programs from $103 million to $330 million for each fiscal year.

Mr. Speaker, back in my district in western Pennsylvania, the opioid crisis is still a huge problem that continues to destroy lives, hurt families, and plague entire communities.

While we have made some progress, there is much more work to be done. Therefore, we must not only continue to support the Comprehensive Opioid Abuse Program, but enhance it with additional funding.

Originally authorized in the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016, or CARA, the Comprehensive Opioid Abuse Program authorized valuable grant resources to States and localities suffering from the epidemic. These competitive grant programs offer a wide variety of support at all phases of this fight, from first responders to those suffering from substance abuse.

More specifically, the DOJ has developed various grant programs for first responders fighting on the front lines, programs that support drug courts and veteran treatment courts. It also provides grants for increasing collaboration between criminal justice agencies and substance abuse agencies. Furthermore, it even has programs that help develop the prescription drug monitoring programs.

For example, back in Beaver County and Allegheny County, we have veteran treatment courts that provide alternative justice systems where those who suffer from addiction and who run afoul of the law can actually receive the care, treatment, and intervention they need.

The alternate systems that these courts offer are precisely the type of programs that the REGROUP Act will support. Courts like these help break the cycle of addiction for individuals and, hopefully, save lives in the process. Our whole society benefits when someone breaks the chain of addiction.

Mr. Speaker, if we are to end the opioid crisis, we must attack this problem at all levels. We must be committed to this fight for the long term, and we must increase support for these programs. The REGROUP Act will help us continue this fight against the opioid crisis.

Mr. Speaker, as the month of Ramadan comes to a close this week, I rise to wish the Muslim residents of Pennsylvania's 12th Congressional District Ramadan Mubarak.

Over the last several years, I have appreciated the opportunity to break fast at an iftar with a number of these residents, including a recent iftar at the Muslim Association of Greater Pittsburgh.

Ramadan is a holy month for reflection and celebration for those in the Muslim faith. Ramadan also offers an opportunity for all Americans to celebrate the tapestry of the people that makes up our Nation and our Bill of Rights that recognizes as the first of our freedoms the free exercise of religion.

Mindful of the violence that affects those practicing their faith in other lands here, I think particularly of the more than 100 Afghan soldiers the Taliban killed last year at a mosque in Mazar-i-Sharif, or the 14 Afghan Muslims killed when a mosque was bombed in Khost recently. Let us reassert that no one should ever be killed for their faith. May this month of Ramadan be the beginning of a new effort to achieve a lasting peace in troubled lands.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. I also thank the chairman, as well as members on the Subcommittee on Federal Lands, especially Chairman Tom McClintock, for their unanimous support of my bipartisan bill, the Free Veterans from Fees Act. I would also like to thank my colleague, the Congresswoman from Hawaii, Tulsi Gabbard, in co-leading this bipartisan effort.

Throughout the year, veteran groups visit our national war memorials to take part in honor buses and honor flights and other commemorations that require special use permits issued by the National Park Service. The permit application requires, without exception, that a fee be submitted along with the completed permit application. Specifically, here in our Nation's Capital, The National Mall charges $120 for public gatherings and special events. The Free Veterans from Fees Act would waive the application fee associated with special use permits for any veteran demonstration or special event at war memorials on Federal land.

We have a solemn obligation to stand with our veterans. They stood for us. We must stand for them. This simple bill is about fostering a culture in which all veterans are valued for their service and sacrifice to our country. The least we can do is to make it easier for groups of veterans and their families to visit national war memorials so they can honor the contributions of our men and women in uniform.

I have the privilege of serving the many military members and veterans who live and work in western Pennsylvania. Many of these veterans come together to help their fellow veterans and their families by pooling their time, energy, and financial resources to organize bus trips.

In fact, a recent trip from western Pennsylvania happened just this past month. I had the privilege to welcome these veterans and their families to the World War II Memorial here in Washington, D.C. This honor bus was organized by a remarkable couple, Jerry and Lydian Fisher of Beaver County, who have a heart for service and a real commitment and devotion to these trips since 2006.

Veterans want to help each other, and this is proof. I consider it a privilege to meet the men and women whom Jerry and Lydian bring to Washington. On the most recent trip, we even welcomed a 100-year-old World War II veteran, Charles Wiggins from Wilkinsburg.

The men and women who are willing to die for this country should be given every opportunity to commemorate their service, the sacrifices of their fellow servicemembers, and the hardships faced by those left behind. Assessing fees from the very people these memorials were built to honor is unacceptable and unnecessary.

Our veterans were willing to stop at nothing to defend our Nation. We, as a nation, should stop at nothing to ensure our obligation to honor them is fulfilled. Our veterans deserve this legislation. It is just one more simple step to honor them.

Mr. Speaker, this weekend, the Nation sets aside time to remember those who gave all for our country.

Thousands will travel to Washington, D.C., for the annual Rolling Thunder motorcycle ride to remember and honor the fallen, and millions across the country will participate in parades or gather around monuments and parks to recall a loved one or a neighbor who never came home. There will be the playing of ``Taps'' and heartfelt and silent whispers of: I miss you; I wish I could see you; and thank you.

Memorial Day is truly a national holiday in that it is a day that politics are avoided, and given some of the debates we have been having and what you see on TV, that is not a bad thing.

When you visit Arlington Cemetery or any of the national cemeteries across the country, including the National Cemetery of the Alleghenies, not far from my district, the gravestones don't mark one's party affiliation. Rather, the simplicity of the stones remind us that they were Americans, they served, and that they are remembered.

May God grant eternal rest to those who gave the ultimate sacrifice to our country, and may He bless the families of the fallen with His tender mercies.