Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today alongside my colleague, David Valadao, to recognize Mr. James ``Jim'' Camp, a philanthropist and community leader from Bakersfield, California. Jim will be recognized as the Kern County Fair's Person of the Year for his lifetime of commitment to bettering the quality of life in Kern County.

Jim is a tireless advocate for promoting and supporting the community he calls home. He has served three terms on the Board of Directors for the Kern County Fair--first appointed by Governor Pete Wilson and later appointed twice by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. As a member of the Board of Directors, Jim worked year-round to fulfill the Kern County Fair's mission of providing a safe and friendly environment for educational, cultural, and entertainment experiences celebrating the accomplishments of the Kern County community. During his time with the Kern County Fair, Jim also participated on the Finance and Livestock Committee, serving two terms as Chairman of the Board.

More than anything else, Jim has distinguished himself as a man with a heart for the Bakersfield community. Over the years, Jim has paid his personal successes forward, donating to charitable causes across Bakersfield. In particular, Jim and his wife, Beverly, extended their generosity to help fund Bakersfield's Memorial Hospital's Grossman Burn Center. Jim has also been an active member of the Community Action Partnership of Kern (CAPK), serving the community service organization in a variety of roles since 2007, the most prominent being his tenure as chairman of CAPK's Board of Directors from 2013 to 2015. Through his work with CAPK, Jim helped to provide critical services to Kern County's most disadvantaged, organizing and participating in events that helped to reduce poverty and meet critical needs such as education, housing, and healthcare.

Over his life of work and community service, Jim Camp has distinguished himself as a man who always put the needs of others first. We have known Jim as a humble servant to Bakersfield--a man who never sought credit or recognition, but always had his community's best interest in mind. He is a giver--pure and simple--a man with a heart of gold with an insatiable desire to enrich the lives of others. That's a rare quality to come by, and our community is a better place because of Jim and his love for the people of Bakersfield. His efforts have measurably changed the Kern County community for the better, and one would be hard pressed to find a person worthier of the designation of `Man of the Year' than Jim Camp.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday and Tuesday, no votes are expected in the House.

On Wednesday, the House will meet at noon for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m.

On Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business.

On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes are expected no later than 3 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a number of suspensions next week, a complete list of which will be announced by close of business today.

In addition, the House will consider H.R. 3798, the Save American Workers Act, sponsored by Representative Jackie Walorski. This package of bills will reduce unnecessary burdens on employers by restoring the 40-hour full-time workweek, providing relief from the employer mandate, delaying the Cadillac tax until 2023, and saving small businesses time and money in compliance costs.

Mr. Speaker, the House also plans to vote on the conference report to accompany H.R. 5895, the Energy and Water, Legislative Branch, and Military Construction and Veterans' Affairs Appropriations Act of 2019.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, additional legislative items are possible in the House, including WRDA, which represents a critical investment in America's infrastructure. As soon as items are added to our schedule, I will be sure to inform all Members.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Not at this moment, but I hope that it will be today. All the reports are there. It is just finishing a very few items, and I expect it to be done today.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his question. Just as I announced, next week, the House is expected to send the full year appropriations for three bills directly to the President's desk. And just this week, we entered into conference with the Senate on six additional bills. These nine bills make up 87 percent of the discretionary budget and represents the most appropriation bills in conference at any point in the last 20 years.

I am encouraged by the work our committees are doing, and I believe that we are making good progress. As soon as further items are scheduled for the floor, I will be sure to inform the Members.

But the gentleman's question is about a continuing resolution. I want to focus on appropriations, because we have never been at this point in the last 20 years, and I would like to get as many, if not all of them, done before we depart, and we can deal with the continuing resolution with whatever is left when that moment comes.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I have no changes to the schedule at this time, but I am always encouraged. If we get all of our work done, there wouldn't be a point to be here. But as of now, we don't have our work done, so we will need to finish the job.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

As the gentleman knows, in the farm bill, we are still in conference on that; and then additional items, I would like to deal with and get done before we depart, yes.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I continue to monitor the conference reports.

I was talking to Chairman Conaway just this week, along with his counterparts over in the Senate. They are making progress. But as we know, I was hopeful that the first minibus, that we could have voted on that today. But I do think the conference will finish up for us to be able to vote on that next week.

So as these come together, as soon as they are done, I would like to be able to vote and finish as much business as we can before the end of the year.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his question.

I do not want to slow the conference for their work and others, but I would like to see us finish that. And, of course, we do not want those items to expire, so we would deal with that at the appropriate time. But as of now, if we can solve them and vote for the continuation, I would take that up first.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the career of Dr. Donald E. Cornforth, a radiologist and businessman serving the communities of Bakersfield and Delano in Kern County, California. One of the leading voices of our local medical community, Donald is retiring after committing nearly two decades of his life to bettering the quality of life for the people of Kern County.

Though he would leave his biggest mark on the City of Bakersfield, Donald was born and raised in Media, Pennsylvania. Upon graduating high school, he began his journey west, attending Colorado State University at Fort Collins and graduating with his Bachelor's degree in 1964. He furthered his medical education in California, studying four years at the Loma Linda University School of Medicine and graduating as a Doctor of Medicine in 1968. Around this time, the United States was embroiled in the Vietnam War, and for five years Donald served his nation in the United States Army, attaining the rank of Major before being honorably discharged in 1972.

In 1975, Donald was certified by the American Board of Radiology and began a lifelong career in medicine. Before moving to Bakersfield, Donald practiced radiology across Wisconsin and Colorado, and even taught at King Fahad Hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. During this period, he accumulated a reputation for his medical talent and technical acumen, performing Colorado's first percutaneous trans-renal kidney stone extraction in 1982, and the first percutaneous trans-renal UPJ endopyeloplasty in 1983--a world first.

For all his contributions to medicine, however, perhaps the biggest impact Donald made in his career came with his decision to move to Bakersfield in the early 1990's. Upon arriving in Bakersfield, he established himself as one of Kern County's premiere medical professionals, and since 1991, he has led a number of medical practices, most significantly Quest Imaging Medical Associates and Adventist Health Bakersfield. Through Quest Imaging, Donald brought cutting-edge technology to our community that was previously unavailable to Kern County residents, and the company remains a cornerstone of Bakersfield's medical community. Donald has been a fixture at San Joaquin Community Hospital, serving as the head of its Stroke Program and providing his talent as a radiologist for years. For over ten years, Donald has also given his time and talent to the community of Delano, frequently making the trek to Delano Regional Medical Center to provide radiological services.

Donald retires leaving an indelible impression on the community he has called home for two decades. He will be remembered fondly in the Kern County community for his brilliant mind, his tireless work ethic, his philanthropy, and his pioneering, entrepreneurial spirit that pushed him from the suburbs of Philadelphia around the world and back again. I will miss discussing health policy with him, and I know many of his former patients will miss him for his kindness and attentive bedside manner.

As he begins this new chapter of his life, on behalf of our community, Judy and I wish him, his wife, Edna, and his two children all best.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am thankful that he is back with us, but at times I wish he weren't as healthy as he is. I am just joking.

(Mr. McCARTHY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at noon for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m.

On Tuesday and Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business.

On Thursday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes are expected no later than 3 p.m.

On Friday, no votes are expected in the House.

Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a number of suspensions next week, a complete list of which will be announced by close of business tomorrow.

In addition, the House will consider several bills aimed at giving Americans more affordable healthcare choices:

First, the Protect Medical Innovation Act, sponsored by Representative Erik Paulsen. This bill would permanently repeal ObamaCare's burdensome medical device tax. Doing so will create jobs, promote research, and allow for innovation that could lead to the next generation of lifesaving medical technologies;

Next, the Increasing Access to Lower Premium Plans and Expanding Health Savings Accounts Act, sponsored by Representative Peter Roskam. This package would expand access to lower cost healthcare options, encourage healthcare savings, and put a 2-year delay on ObamaCare's health insurance tax, which drives up costs of insurance for almost every American;

Finally, the Restoring Access to Medication and Modernizing Health Savings Accounts Act, sponsored by Representative Lynn Jenkins. This bill would transform and modernize health savings accounts and allow for more innovation in healthcare delivery.

I look forward to the House passing all three of these critical bills without delay.

Mr. Speaker, we also hope to vote on the conference report to accompany H.R. 5515, the National Defense Authorization Act.

Mr. Speaker, the Appropriations Committee has now passed all 12 bills out of subcommittee. By next week, all 12 bills will have also cleared the full committee. By passing the Interior and Financial Services bills today, the gentleman knows the full House has adopted for the full-year appropriations half of those, six bills, making up over two-thirds of the discretionary budget authority.

House and Senate conferees on the first package are working to produce a conference report, and I look forward to continuing work on FY19 appropriations in the weeks to come. As soon as the items are scheduled for the floor, I will be sure to inform all Members.

As the gentleman knows, this is a different year, as just last year we were able to pass all 12. But what is different about this year is, over in the Senate, there is action being taken, which is positive for us. That is why we are already into conference.

I look forward to having those conference reports coming back and moving those bills to the President's desk to be signed. I am proud of the fact that two-thirds of all the discretionary spending will have already passed this floor as of this day.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I do not know at this time. I know they are continuing to work. As soon as they get their work done, I will advise the Members. I will bring it to the floor then.

Mr. Speaker, there is one part of what the gentleman said with which I disagree. The vote we just had was a motion to recommit. We all know what motions to recommit are.

The good news about this is, last year in the omni, we fully funded the Help America Vote Act. That vote was a different vote. That was a vote that moved on to the President and was signed into law.

Now, of that funding that we fully funded--because we believe, just as the gentleman does, that we want to make sure our elections are fair, honest, and that people do not try to manipulate them--40 percent of that money that we fully funded is still available. The challenge here is that we have 19 States that have yet to apply.

So we should work together to make sure those States are applying, because the money is sitting there, and the money has been fully funded. We want to make sure, in the Help America Vote Act, that it continues, that States apply for that money, and that the elections are safe and sound and honest.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you voted against the omni, correct?

So you voted against the funding----

If I can finish, you had stated at the end of your last statement that you voted for that funding. I was just correcting. By voting against the omni, you voted against the funding for that.

The only reason I brought it up is your statement at the end was that you voted for it.

At any time, if I may finish, if I state that I voted for something that is incorrect, please bring it up.

In saying that, you just recently said you supported CHIP, but you voted against it because you voted against the omni. Also, is it not true, when CHIP was by itself on the floor, you voted against CHIP there? Because we brought CHIP to the floor three times.

But if I could move on, that was the case. So you voted against CHIP even when it wasn't in the omni, so there are other reasons to vote against CHIP.

You had a question about a bill.

As we all know, America is a Nation of immigrants. Almost all of our ancestors came from somewhere else in search of a better life in this land of freedom and opportunity, and we want to maintain that.

Mr. Speaker, America is also a Nation of laws. We support immigration, but it also must be legal immigration. We must have the security, especially, along our southern border. As we speak, our men and women at the border are doing their absolute best to maintain both order and decency.

Since 2014, Border Patrol has completed more than 13,000--let me say that again, 13,000--life-saving rescues along the border, including many children. We would be naive to think that there are not certain individuals hoping to enter this country illegally and to do us harm.

Yesterday, when we talked about ICE, one of the elements that came up was the thousands of gang members that they stop. We all know the most vicious gang out there is MS-13. We know it because we know it in our communities. We see the murders. We see the drugs. We know the hundreds of MS-13 members that they have stopped from being a part of our communities. That is why we had that vote.

Simply put, the entire immigration enforcement community deserves our support because they work under very difficult circumstances. I think everybody would agree with that, which is why, if I can be very honest with my friend, I was upset to see many Democrats refuse to stand with the men and women of ICE yesterday.

Why? Six individuals who work for ICE gave the ultimate sacrifice of their life. One was murdered by the Los Zetas cartel.

The gentleman asked if I would bring up a bill. I offered to bring up a Democrat bill, but the author of the bill who put it across the desk and asked people to cosponsor said he would vote against it.

What was most shocking to me is the number of people who voted ``present.'' The gentleman can argue with me all day on things I vote ``yes'' and things I vote ``no'' on. The only time he will ever see my vote up there for ``present'' is a quorum call, because I believe the American public and my constituents expect me to make a decision when I come.

I think it was very clear yesterday. You can make a decision. I know my friend and his beliefs, but I also know his party has a new movement. It is a socialist party, and they are gaining steam. But that new party and that new movement in there, I still believe, would want you to make a decision one place or the other.

Just last year alone, ICE made almost 5,000 gang-related arrests. They seized nearly 1 million pounds of narcotics and opioids.

The gentleman knows, those 2 weeks we spent on this floor dealing with the opioid epidemic, there will be more than 100 Americans who will die today because of opioids, and tomorrow will be the same. That is why we did CARA in the last Congress. That is why we came back with billions of dollars of funding to combat the epidemic. That is why we came back and spent 2 weeks on this floor passing more than 50 bills.

But think for one moment. If my friend on the other side, his colleague, was able to abolish ICE, that would be 1 million more pounds of narcotics. And it is more than just opioids. It is fentanyl. A small dose will kill you.

They rescued more than 900 sexually exploited children. They stopped thousands of predators. My friend knows that, too, when we were able to finally stop human trafficking on the internet.

Backpage.com is no longer there because this Congress acted, and they are being prosecuted. Seventy percent of all human trafficking happens online. But do you know what? We can celebrate that that has changed because of this Congress.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we want America to remain a land of opportunity, but demeaning the individuals who keep this country safe and calling to abolish ICE is certainly not the way to do it.

I thank my friend, and I think we have a difference of opinion, and I think a strong difference of opinion, and that is healthy. But sometimes when you have a difference of opinion, it is a ``no'' and a ``yes,'' not just a ``present.'' You might come to the debate, but you ought to participate and you ought to take a stance.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

To answer his last question first, yes, we will extend flood insurance through November 30 as we continue to work through the other differences we have. We do not want flood insurance to lapse, and we will have that on the floor.

But the gentleman brought up a couple of other points. If I may, I come from a family of immigrants. I come

from a family in which nobody was a Republican. I chose to be in this party based upon its philosophy.

If you come to my office, I have two Presidents' hanging portraits: Abraham Lincoln. The greatest challenge ever to this Nation was the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican President. And the other one is, the other reason why--both of those men--I chose to, and that was Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan did talk about that shining city on the hill. There was another President at the time, and I saw the difference, and I made my selection.

But the gentleman talks about the challenges with the rule of law, the challenges at the border. Nobody on this side wants children to be mistreated. That is why we dealt with the issue, and we brought it to the floor. There was an executive order that dealt with it.

But we moved two pieces of legislation dealing with immigration. Not one Democrat on the other side worked with us. Maybe there were problems. Maybe they disagreed with having greater security on the border, having a wall. I understand that, but maybe that is the difference.

But the question you brought forward was the bill on the floor yesterday. It had nothing negative in it. It had nothing about children. It talked about:

Do you support ICE?

Do you support the families of those six individuals who were murdered in the line of duty?

Do you support the stopping of drugs coming across the border?

Do you stand with those children who get exploited? Those ICE agents actually find them.

Do you stand with ICE when they stop those human traffickers, the modern-day slavery of today, and stop those people?

Well, we had an opportunity for that. I know this other side of the aisle and I know the new Democratic Socialist Party feels differently, probably feels differently than my friend. They want to abolish it. They never put a bill in to reform it. They said, ``Abolish it.''

If we were proposing a bill that said ``support it,'' I would allow your bill to come up as well so we could have a clear choice. But when you were given that offer, the author of the bill said, ``I would vote `no.' '' The people you asked to cosponsor, ``We vote `no,' '' makes me wonder.

But the most shocking part to me--I know we take tough votes on this floor. I know there are tough decisions to be made. But at the end of the day, you have to make a decision because that is why the American people sent you here.

I have never been in a debate, in a primary or a general, where they ask me: If a bill came to the floor, will I vote ``present''? I have never been asked that by my district. Republican or Democrat or Independent or Green Party: ``I want you to go to Washington. I want you to be on that floor. I want you to make a strong debate down in the well. And when you get the opportunity, you press that `present' button,'' never, never have I heard that and never would I have thought I would see that. I have never seen so much color on that board as I saw yesterday.

And if you truly felt your convictions of what you said, your own ``present'' vote made it pass, then go back to the individuals you talk to, go back to that new Socialist Party and tell them what you did, because I didn't see convictions yesterday. I saw you play politics.

Our issues are too important. People have lost their lives, and you vote ``present.'' Now, we have more work to be done. We take this job seriously.

Ronald Reagan talked about that shining city on the hill, about everybody rising up. This is the exact same debate we had when we wanted to pass tax reform. Not one person on the other side of the aisle could vote with it, but there are 1 million more Americans working today.

When I look at the last 49 years of America--because there are a lot of people in this Chamber who are younger than that--there has only been 7 months where unemployment has been below 4 percent. And do you realize that 2 of those months, you just lived through it in April and May? You have never seen the opportunity that you grasp for today.

And do you know what happens with that opportunity? More people want to come, and that is good for America. But we should come legally.

We know our system is broken, and I know my friend knows it, too, because we spent hours talking and trying to work something out. So, yes, we brought a bill to the floor, and we had a pretty good idea that probably it wouldn't pass. Why? Because nobody on the other side of the aisle wanted to step forward.

You know the process; it would go to the Senate. Maybe it is not just perfect, but I think this country is too important to vote ``present,'' and I am going to take risks and I am going to bring bills to the floor that take risks.

So I thank the gentleman for the question. But what I really ask--the election is still a ways away. Stop playing politics. Be a part. That voting card, I don't even know why we have a ``present'' button here.

We want quorum, let's just all say it. But the idea of something so important that people have lost their lives over, what do you think those families felt like today? What do you think those families felt like?

Or what do you think about that young child who got saved from being exploited or got put back to the family and saved?

What do you think about the drugs that didn't come through, the number of lives that continue to live today because of that?

Or what do you think about those men and women, a part of ICE, who question does this government even support them. And every day they risk their lives for that.

It is not a day to vote ``present.'' If you disagree, if you are part of the Socialist Party, stand up and take a stance. Let the American public know where you stand.

May I ask the gentleman what am I not saying correctly? Were there ``present'' votes in that Chamber?

May I ask the gentleman--the 133 ``present'' votes, did they not take place yesterday?

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, they didn't vote ``present.''

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, then why did he vote ``present''?

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I know he misspoke earlier on a couple of things, and I think he may have misspoken again. He made a comment. He said we are autocratic. He said we are the most closed. So I just want to go to facts.

This Congress has a 20-year high for bills enacted with bipartisan cosponsors, a 20-year high. Those are not my words. That is from Quorum, a company that only deals with data and measures all. So that means we are the most bipartisan Congress in more than 20 years.

Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman want to know something else, just on facts? He said we close everything. There have been over 1,650 amendments. 745 of those were Democratic amendments. So I looked back to Speaker Pelosi. She allowed less than 1,000 amendments in the entire 111th Congress.

So, I am sorry, those statements were not correct.

Now, we can have differences of opinion. He has a right to vote ``present.'' If he gets mad about it, he can get mad about it, but that is what the Record shows.

And he said because what were the resolved clauses. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman knows that bill was on suspension. The rules of suspension have a higher threshold to pass, but it also means there are no amendments.

If you want to be fair, instead of just the bill that was coming forward, I offered to bring a Democratic bill up that would abolish

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, that is a lot less than under his leadership.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I asked the gentleman to yield because I just think the Record needs to be corrected.

The gentleman knows, Mr. Speaker, that we brought two immigration bills to this floor that would solve the problem. The gentleman also knows there was an executive order signed that stopped this action being taken before this even went forward.

But I also heard the gentleman say that he voted ``present'' because he didn't want the ICE agents to think he didn't support them, and that he supported those things in the resolved. Prior, he said that is why he voted against it.

I read what was in the resolved. I don't understand how anybody in America looks at voting ``present'' with an idea you support it. That is the only thing that I question.

Now, the gentleman also knows that this is the most productive Congress in modern history. It has passed more bills out of committee than any Congress in the last 25 years. It has passed more bills in this Chamber than any one in the last 25 years. He sees the openness to the number of amendments; and it is not just the number of amendments to Republicans because there are hundreds upon hundreds for Democrats.

The gentleman also knows that the immigration bills that came to this floor had an opportunity. But what is interesting to me is that people want just one that they can support.

Earlier, I heard he voted against CHIP because it was in the omni, but CHIP was on the floor by itself and he voted against it then.

He can vote for the post office bills and that didn't deal with the immigration either, but he can vote for that. But then when it came to supporting ICE, the majority of Democrats voted ``present.'' That is not a profile in courage. That is walking away from a situation.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I can't believe that to be true.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet on Monday, July 23, 2018, when it shall convene at noon for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, last week, Democrats introduced a bill to abolish ICE. That is the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. In doing so, I think we should first review the agency's record.

As it turns out, ICE agents are on the front lines in the battle against crime.

In 2016, they arrested nearly 2,000 human traffickers, criminals who are involved in modern-day slavery. You wanted to abolish that.

Last year, they arrested more than 4,800 gang members, including more than 800 members of the MS-13, one of the most vicious gangs operating today. But you wanted to abolish that and put it into our communities.

They intercepted more than 1 ton of fentanyl that was headed for our communities. Now, we all should know what fentanyl will do, because we just debated more than 50-some bills on this floor, because 172 people who are Americans will die today because of an addiction. Fentanyl is so deadly that just a few grams will kill you. But you wanted to abolish that, to allow it into our communities.

Still, the Democrats say, not only will they want to introduce it, people will cosponsor it. But there is a problem, and I actually think there are two problems with this.

The first problem is that most Americans disagree with you. They actually support ICE. According to a recent poll, just one in four Americans thinks we should abolish it.

The second problem is that Democrats don't even agree with their own bill they introduced. They lack the courage of their so-called convictions, because when we offered the ability to bring up the bill, abolish ICE, that they put into the hopper and cosponsored, Democrats said they would vote ``no.''

They wanted the glory of introducing a bill to the far left of their own party, but they didn't have the guts to accept the consequences. That is the kind of leadership that the Democrats have to offer.

Mr. Speaker, I am even more confused listening to the Democratic leadership. I was here. I was on the floor. I listened, Mr. Speaker, to the leader on the Democratic side when she said: I recommend voting ``no,'' or maybe vote ``present,'' or vote however you want.

I am not sure what position she was requesting when she said all three. And I am not sure exactly what the author wanted to do when he put his bill across the aisle and asked the other Members of his own conference to cosponsor it, when he said he would vote ``no,'' when he had the offer to bring it up on the floor. Does that mean that every bill Democrats put across they really don't want to support? I am just not sure.

Now, we are about to vote on a resolution of the opposite. We want to support the law enforcement officers of

ICE and will renounce the activist campaign against them.

The danger these officers face is no joke. So for those in the back who would like to speak, Mr. Speaker, during this, I would ask that they get quiet for one moment, because six officers of ICE lost their lives defending those.

The danger to these officers is real, and it is not a joke. Six officers have died in the line of duty:

Special Agent Brian Beliso;

Special Agent Timothy Ensley;

Special Agent Lorenzo Gomez;

Special Agent Scott McGuire;

Special Agent David Wilhelm; and

Special Agent Jaime Zapata, who was killed by cartel hitmen in Mexico.

These agents gave their lives in the line of duty. Thousands more of these agents risk their lives every day on our behalf.

I want you to pause for one moment and I want you to think about those agents, think about those families, but think about those thousands of agents who are defending our border. What do they think about a bill that comes across the desk that says you want to abolish them? How much support do you want to give them? How much support do they feel when the leadership, Mr. Speaker, of the Democratic Party says: Vote ``no,'' vote ``present,'' just vote how you want?

Well, do you know what? When they risk their lives and they stop another human trafficker of modern-day slavery and they save another child, I will vote to support them. Or when they stop an amount of drugs coming across and they save American lives, I will support them. Or when they stop MS-13 gang members from coming into any of our communities, I will support them. If only for this reason, agents deserve our gratitude and support.

Mr. Speaker, I am confused. I understand there is this growing socialist movement in the Democratic Party, but when does this socialist new Democratic Party believe we should have no borders? I guess it is today.

Mr. Speaker, that is not what the Americans have asked for, and that is not what America supports. But then again, Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I understand what the other side supports when they offer a bill and they ask people to cosponsor and then they won't even vote for it.

That is why I am happy to offer Congressman Higgins' resolution and stand with the women and men of ICE, because I want a safer America. And for those who gave their life for us, I will stand with them, even if it means standing up against a new socialist Democratic Party.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to congratulate the gentleman for his work, his tireless effort, and his passion for those who have been afflicted with the addiction and have lost the battle.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge the passage of H.R. 6 which contains more than 50 opioid-related bills which we have considered in the past 2 weeks.

We have in this body the opportunity nearly every day to approve legislation of great consequence to millions of people. But rarely do the consequences feel so immediate and so vital as they do for the opioids package we are considering. That is because this legislation has to do with the deadliest drug crisis in our Nation's history.

The grim truth is this: More Americans have died from drug overdoses since the turn of the century than died in the Civil War. Yes, you heard that right. In less than two decades, more than 630,000 people have died because of drugs. Half of those deaths had to do with opioids. This death toll is the ``American carnage'' that President Trump referred to in his inaugural address.

My hometown of Bakersfield has been devastated by illegal drugs, mostly heroin and meth. In 2016 alone, 54 people in my county died of an opioid overdose. This is a statistic made up of 54 stories of unimaginable sadness. They are stories of happy families torn apart by deceit, abuse, and death; stories of parents robbed of children, children robbed of parents, and friends robbed of friends. My local news talked

to one man in Bakersfield who has lost four friends to overdoses in the past few years alone.

Of course, these tragic events are not confined to just my district; they are happening everywhere across the country, coast to coast.

So I would like to tell you another story, this time from the other side of the country. It is the story of Eamon Eric Callanan, age 28. He did not live to see age 29.

Eamon came from a family with deep roots in Rochester, New York. One of his great-grandfathers was a chief of police in Rochester. His grandfather was a judge, and his parents are attorneys. They were the very definition, in other words, of a law-abiding family. But in early 2012, a series of events took place that sent Eamon down a different path and stole him from his family forever.

At age 25, Eamon hurt his back--a story that many in America have seen--while he was on his job. He began taking opioid painkillers in response to his pain. When the pills became too expensive, Eamon, like many Americans, switched to heroin. Before long, the loyal, goofy kid his family once knew was gone. Drugs had dampened the beautiful music of his life and turned it into a sorrowful echo.

Eamon Eric Callanan died of a drug overdose on June 8, 2016. Last Wednesday marked the 2-year anniversary of his funeral.

In many respects, Eamon's story is not unique. He was one of 169 people in his county--42,000 people in our country--to die of an opioid overdose that year. Eamon was just one body in a grim tide of overdose deaths.

So why am I telling you this story? I am telling it to remind you that each one of those victims had a name and a life and friends and family whom they loved and left behind.

One of those people Eamon loved and who loves him deeply in return is actually sitting in this Chamber right now. Her name is Erin. She is Eamon's sister and my press secretary. Erin was 24 days from her wedding when she learned that she would never see her brother again and that he would not be there to celebrate with her on one of the happiest days of her life.

Let that be a lesson to all of us. There is no event so joyful, no place so safe that it is untouched by the drug crisis--even a wedding chapel, even here in the Halls of power, even in my office.

Mr. Chair, if we hope to defeat the deadliest drug crisis in history, we will need the biggest response in history. Rest assured that the response is already underway, led by this administration and this Congress. We are wrapping up voting on more than 50 bills to help millions of Americans affected by the opioid crisis. We are about to vote on a package that contains almost all of those bills, H.R. 6.

Among others, it contains a bill by Congressman Mike Bishop that will reduce the flow of Chinese fentanyl into our country by giving law enforcement new tools to detect suspicious packages in the mail. It includes a reform to the so-called IMD exclusion, an outdated regulation that restricts Medicaid funding for large inpatient treatment programs, programs with the potential to heal substance abuse patients like Eamon.

Those are just two of the important bills that are part of this package. It is no exaggeration to say that they can save lives and save families from the immeasurable grief of losing a loved one to an overdose.

Yes, I am confident these bills will help stem the tide of drug abuse, but I will end on a note of caution.

If defeating the opioid crisis is left to government alone, then we will surely fail. Healing the wounds of drug abuse will take more than just this body can provide; it will take the commitment by every citizen to fulfill our duties to one another.

We have all been touched by this tragedy, so we all have a part to play in its resolution. That means supporting people near us who are struggling with drug addiction. It means rebuilding families and towns torn apart by isolation, addiction, distrust, and death. It means supporting the many charities, ministries, and nonprofits that are already healing the sick in our communities.

In Bakersfield, that means groups like The Mission, the Christian charity where I volunteer. The Mission operates a faith-based addiction recovery program that is changing lives, even knitting together families that have come apart at the seams.

Because of The Mission, a husband and wife with five children overcame their past of drug addiction and drug dealing, and they did it together. Then they convinced their niece to get clean, too.

We need more stories like that. In the days ahead, this House has a chance to do its part to ensure that more stories of abuse and despair have their own happy ending. We will do this work for the healers and protectors, for the suffering, and for all those like Eamon who are now at rest.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at noon for morning hour and at 2 p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m.

On Tuesday and Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business.

On Thursday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes are expected no later than 3 p.m.

On Friday, no votes are expected in the House.

Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a number of suspensions next week, a complete list of which will be announced by close of business today.

In addition, the House will continue our work on appropriations by taking up the 2019 Defense Appropriations bill sponsored by Representative Kay Granger.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans are committed to national security and rebuilding our military. This bill fully funds a well-deserved 2.6 percent pay raise for our brave men and women in uniform, their largest pay raise in 9 years. It prepares for the future by investing more than $90 billion into the research and development of new defense systems and technology. Above all, it ensures American Armed Forces have the equipment and training necessary to successfully carry out their missions around the world.

This bill passed 48 to 4 out of subcommittee, so I hope my friends across the aisle will consider voting for this important bill when it reaches the floor.

Speaking of national security, the House will also make a motion to go to conference on the National Defense Authorization Act, which the House passed last month.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, additional legislative items are possible in the House, including two bills from the Committee on Natural Resources.

First, H.R. 200, the Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act, sponsored by Representative Don Young: This bill would reauthorize Magnuson-Stevens and replace one-size-fits-all regulations with a tailored approach that will ensure vibrant American fisheries.

Next, H.R. 2083, the Endangered Salmon and Fisheries Predation Prevention Act, sponsored by Representative Jaime Herrera Beutler: This bill will allow State and Tribal authorities to respond more quickly to predators of the native salmon population.

Mr. Speaker, the House is also expected to consider legislation related to border security and immigration.

As soon as our schedule is finalized, I will be sure to inform all Members.

With that, I thank my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I appreciate him watching me on TV.

Mr. Speaker, if I could just restate, so maybe I could speak more clearly.

The House is also expected to consider legislation relating to border security immigration. So the answer is yes.

As I said before, we are bringing that bill to the floor. We have been working very closely with the entire Conference, taking all ideas in. We had a very productive conference last night. We will work through the weekend, and you will see that bill on the floor next week. And I look forward to Mr. Hoyer's support as well.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite interesting to me to listen to my friend. He is complaining that somehow he is not involved. Mr. Speaker, he is complaining about the number of hours that he sat in my office, not just himself--Senator Durbin, the chief of staff to the President, the Secretary of Homeland Security as well, and Senator Cornyn--and we worked time and again. But every time, we tried to find compromise. We even went to the point of their number one issue, and the President went beyond what they even asked.

But they said: No, we can't do anything else. They said all they wanted to do was go do a discharge petition. That is all they wanted. They didn't want to work through the system.

But that was not unusual, because my friend, Mr. Speaker, likes to quote people--I don't have it written. I just have it by memory, the number of times my friend told me he would never vote to shut down the government. He doesn't care about politics; he would never do that. But we found it was a different year and a different time.

Then we talked about children's health, CHIP. A number of times, Mr. Speaker, we would go to the other side, we would go to the ranking member, and we would go to those individuals on the committee, but they were told not to work with us. So we would run a bill, Mr. Speaker, with everything that they had ever said they would want in it, and yet they would get to the day and they would vote against it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I just asked the gentleman if he would allow me the opportunity to answer questions.

I know he likes to make long speeches before he gets to a question, and I know he likes to go back in decades for the decades that he has served, but I was only referring to this Congress. I was moving to the answer, but I was building and explaining why the answer is what it is.

He doesn't think the actions prior don't take place until now. We have sat in those rooms and we talked about border security. The interesting part, though, Mr. Speaker: The other side of the aisle that said they were for border security, they were going to perpetuate the problem we currently have because they did not want to end this catch and release. They are going to put families in harm's way.

They question whether you could actually have a border of a wall. That is really the philosophical debate that we are talking about.

Now, we will work through this bill. There are some other parts of the bill that we are working on this weekend. Any changes that come to a conclusion, of course, we will let you know.

But much of what this bill is is the same thing that we talked down at the White House about and we talked for those numbers of hours inside my office about.

But, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman on the other side said that he was never going to shut down the government, but he voted to do it this time. They said that they were concerned about CHIP, but they would vote against it when we bring it to the floor.

Do you know what we had to do? We had to carry it on our own.

And do you know what happened for the American children? The longest it has ever been renewed: 10 years.

So, yes, we want to work with them. But if the idea is to stop anything from happening for the American public, do not expect me to stop. It is too important. If we have to push through on our own, we will.

And my friend made a statement that this body is one-sided. Don't take my word for it. Let's go to Quorum, a company that only focuses on data, that only focuses on measurements. Do you know what they said about this Congress? Seventy percent of the bills signed into law this Congress have one Republican and one Democratic cosponsor, the highest rate in the past 20 years for bipartisanship.

The bills that we bring to the floor, despite the leadership's push, every week, Mr. Speaker, we can see the actions. What was the action that they held everybody until the last minute for those 23 people who wanted to vote for the appropriations bill? They had to wait until the Republicans carried it, then they released them to vote for it.

Or we talk about the farm bill.

Every day, Mr. Speaker, I come back here, I see the ranking member on the other side put a letter out to her Members to not vote for whatever comes.

And, yes, we on this side of the aisle want to solve DACA. But I know. I read your tweets just as well: Dreamers can still apply to renew DACA protections.

But, do you know what? In our bill, we deal with the DACA situation.

Do you know what else we also deal with? We deal with the border, and we deal with security, because we do not want to be back here in another 2 or 5 years with the same problem we have today.

Even if you won't work with us from the children's health insurance, from funding of government, from appropriations for our veterans, you want to hold those votes back, I don't think the public wants to hold those back.

And you know what? If we have to push forward, we will. And I will not apologize for it. This country is too important, the problems are too big.

And I can listen, Mr. Speaker, to every argument we make, but I will just think the American public can look at the data.

Do you know what today is, Mr. Speaker? The 6-month anniversary of the tax bill passing. You know what else it is? One million new jobs. You know what else it is? Unemployment below 4 percent. And in the last 49 years of this country, unemployment below 4 percent has only been 7 months in 49 years, but two of those 7 months were April and May of this year. Unemployment claims, 44-year low. And for the first time in the history of this Nation, there are more jobs being offered than there are people looking for them.

So all that rhetoric, all those arguments you made building up to that tax bill, the Armageddon, the crumbs, how terrible this is going to be, 6 months later, history proves different.

And you know what, Mr. Speaker? If we had waited and waited for the Democrats, there would not be a million new jobs, there would not be unemployment where it is, because, Mr. Speaker, there wasn't one Democrat to vote for it, even though a number of them privately told me on this floor they wanted to, but their leadership told them no.

So if we have to solve the economy and we have to solve immigration on our own, we will.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. My friend made a lot of points. Sometimes facts get caught up in them.

So, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman talked about the floor and the willingness of this side to allow Democratic amendments, or bipartisanship.

As of June 7, Republicans in the 115th Congress--and we are not done with this Congress yet--have provided for the consideration of over 1,200 amendments on the House floor. Now, that includes 570 Democrat amendments.

And I don't want to compare apples to oranges, so let's do apples to apples.

So in the entire 111th Congress--that was their entire Congress when my friend was majority leader--Speaker Pelosi allowed less than 1,000 amendments to be considered on the floor.

Now, despite the unified Democratic opposition, Republicans are still getting the work done, and we will continue to do that.

Now, my friend made a few statements, said there are things I did not say. Maybe there were some things I did not say about the economy, but they are different than what he would, because there is some really good news, and it is not far from here.

Mr. Speaker, you could go to my friend's district. Each of the counties that make up Maryland's Fifth Congressional District has seen a drop in unemployment since 2016. St. Mary's County is down over a full percent to 3.7, Calvert County down to 3.5, Charles County down to 3.8, Prince George's down to 4.1, and Anne Arundel County down to 3.2 percent.

Now, the other point I did not make--and I thank the gentleman for bringing it up to me that I missed points--do you realize in America today, if you are African American, this is the lowest unemployment has ever been; if you are Hispanic, the lowest it has ever been.

Yes, there are things we had to do on our own, but the numbers prove it is worth it.

And what is even more telling about this and something that makes me prouder, it doesn't just help Republican districts, it helps everybody's districts. It helps all Americans. And that is what we are here for.

My friend brought up that there are issues. Yes, there are. That is why we want to pass the immigration bill. We think there should be a border and the border should be protected. We think children should be with their parents, and that is what we are working on.

So I look forward to next week, to us passing an immigration bill that solves a lot of these problems.

And, Mr. Speaker, I hope my friend from the other side of the aisle would look at the bill and understand not everybody gets what they want, because in that bill there won't be everything that I want, not one person in this room will get everything they want. But will America be safer? Will America be better in the future? Will we have a system that works? Those answers will be yes, and that is how I will cast my vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet on Monday, June 25, 2018, when it shall convene at noon for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to the late Mary Katherine Shell, a community leader from Bakersfield, California. Mary served as the Mayor of Bakersfield from 1981 to 1985, and later as a member of the Kern County Board of Supervisors from 1985 to 1997. A trailblazing force in Kern County, Mary K. Shell passed away last week at the age of 91.

Born in Bakersfield, Mary graduated from East Bakersfield High School before attending Bakersfield College. Her future in public service was forged at a young age during conversations with her father, who encouraged her as a child to read the newspaper, be civic-minded, and to involve herself in the issues that impacted her community. A keen reader of the news, it was no coincidence that Mary found herself working for the Bakersfield Californian during World War II, covering home-front war stories and Kern County's rapidly-growing agricultural industry.

With much of the Californian's workforce serving overseas in the war, Mary balanced an incredible workload, often finding herself immersed in Bakersfield's policy-making discussions, learning and covering topics that would mold her into a city leader herself. Outside of her writing, Mary continued to push herself in other fields, working as a secretary for Skyway Associates at the old La Cresta Airfield and even receiving her pilot's license. She would further her career in journalism working for the Bakersfield News Bulletin in 1965, first as a reporter, and later as editor until 1969. In 1972, she was awarded the Excellence in Reporting Award from the California Trial Lawyers Association for her work at Capitol News Service, and in 1975 was awarded the California Taxpayers Reporting Award for articles published in the Los Angeles Herald.

While she loved politics, Mary never once viewed herself as a politician. It took the gentle encouragement of her loving husband, Joe Shell, to inspire her to run to be Bakersfield's mayor in 1979. Mary won in a competitive field of candidates to become Bakersfield's first female mayor in 1980. Upon her election, Shell immediately set out to improve the quality of life of Bakersfield, launching the still-active Beautiful Bakersfield Committee to inspire pride in the Bakersfield community. She commissioned the creation of a city flag, helped establish the annual city prayer breakfast, established one of the first Vietnam War memorials in Bakersfield, and brought back the annual downtown Christmas Parade, which is still a fixture of the Bakersfield Christmas season.

After serving a full term as Bakersfield mayor, Shell successfully ran in 1984 to represent Kern County's 5th Supervisorial District. She dedicated her three terms as a county supervisor to reducing government overregulation and advocating for policies that minimized the waste of taxpayers' money. Mary established herself in the boardroom as a consensus-builder, garnering support from both sides of the political spectrum for her straight talk and her relentless love for the community she represented. Above all else, Mary never stopped acting as a one of our city's staunchest advocates, remaining just as civically engaged outside of politics as she was as an elected official.

Mary K. Shell was, and will always be, a community icon in Bakersfield. A renaissance woman of her era, she defined to generations of Kern County residents what it meant to be a public servant--someone who listened to the needs of her constituents and acted tirelessly, fearlessly, yet graciously, to address the needs of our communities. Over her life, Mary inspired many, and I am confident that she leaves behind a legacy that will inspire countless others to public service. I extend my deepest condolences to her children, her grandchildren, and a community that will miss her dearly. It could be said that Mary K. Shell ``did it all'' in her life, and I am inclined to agree. Bakersfield will not soon forget her.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an outstanding individual, Mr. J. Campbell ``Cam'' Martin, in recognition of his retirement from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). After four decades of Federal service, Cam recently retired from NASA Armstrong Flight Research Center at Edwards Air Force Base, California.

Cam earned his Bachelor of Science degree in Business Logistics from Pennsylvania State University. Later, he received a Master of Arts & Administrative Sciences from George Washington University. A longtime patriot and public servant, Cam served in the United States Navy before beginning his career with NASA Langley Research Center in 1988. While at Langley, he received the NASA Group Achievement Award for the Airborne Wind Shear Flight Operations Campaign foreshadowing a long and fruitful career. In 1994, NASA Armstrong, formerly NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, was fortunate to gain Cam as Chief of the Office of External Affairs, and he has remained an integral member of the Armstrong community.

Cam distinguished himself as a man who truly loved what he did, and he never failed to inspire an interest in aeronautical science with those who worked with him. It was this passion that drove Cam to advocate for years to change the name of the Dryden Flight Research Center to the Armstrong Flight Research Center. Cam knew better than most of Neil Armstrong's legacy as a test pilot at the Center from 1955 to 1962, and through his great effort and collaboration with NASA and our community, the site was renamed in 2014 after the first person to walk on the Moon.

As Armstrong's Legislative Affairs liaison, Cam has served as an incredible resource on all things space and science-related, always underscoring why NASA's mission is worthy of support. Usually soft- spoken, whenever Cam started to extol the great work being done at Armstrong, I could hear the excitement and passion rise in his voice. He never engaged in hyperbole--he never had to since the work at Armstrong is truly amazing. During Cam's tenure at Armstrong, NASA and Lockheed Martin made significant progress on the Quiet Supersonic Technology X-Plane (QUESST), a program designed to quiet the sound of a sonic boom and offer the world the promise of commercial supersonic air travel. Among Cam's other achievements at NASA Armstrong was his successful advocacy for the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA) program, which still flies to this day and provides incredible science. During the fatal test flight crash of SpaceShip Two on October 31, 2014, Cam provided on-scene contingency communications support throughout the day directly to the chief executive of Mojave Air and Space Port, who described those contributions as providing ``calm presence'' and having ``professional brilliance.'' Additionally, Cam has routinely served as a member of my Service Academy Panel, offering his expertise as a former Navy man to advise me on my annual appointments to the United States Service Academies.

Cam Martin's career at Armstrong will be remembered for his passion and energy, his aviator sunglasses, leather fighter pilot jacket, and of course his classic Mustang. I am grateful to be able to count him as a friend, and while he will no longer be working at Armstrong, I know that Cam will continue to advocate for space, science, technology, and, most importantly the first ``A'' in NASA-aeronautics.

After many years of service to our nation, I know that Cam looks forward to spending more time with his wife, Susi, and his children, Scott and Skye. Cam will be missed at NASA, but I salute his dedication to his field and country. I wish him the best as he begins this new chapter of his life.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Yea'' on rollcall No. 269, ``Yea'' on rollcall No. 270, and ``Yea'' on rollcall No. 271.

personal explanation

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, no votes are expected in the House. On Tuesday, the House will meet at noon for morning hour and at 2 p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes of the week are expected no later than 3 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a number of suspensions next week, a complete list of which will be announced by close of business today. All of these bills will be focusing on one thing: fighting our Nation's opioid epidemic.

America has the greatest mission statement in the world: form a more perfect Union. This is our task here.

I am encouraged by all of the good things I am seeing around the country. We have 6.7 million jobs open. We have just created our millionth job since the tax cut has been passed. Unemployment is tying a 50-year low. In fact, Mr. Speaker, in the last 49 years, there has only been 7 months where unemployment has been below 4 percent, and two of those months were April and May that we just went through.

Americans' net worth has increased to $100 trillion. That is $7 trillion since the election, the highest we have ever seen. We also just passed last night, Mr. Speaker, the largest rescission package in the history of Congress.

But I also know that it is our responsibility to work every day to make our Nation even stronger. So, Mr. Speaker, we are in the middle of the deadliest drug crisis in history. For the first time, drug overdoses are now the leading cause of death for Americans under the age of 50. 174 of our friends and family, our neighbors, are lost every day to substance abuse. Simply put, we need all hands on deck to attack this crisis.

That is why we will bring over 60 bills from eight different committees to the floor in the coming weeks to combat this crisis and save lives. This includes:

H.R. 5788, the Securing the International Mail Against Opioids Act, sponsored by Representative Mike Bishop. This bill will close loopholes in international shipping to stop the flow of synthetic opioids;

Next, H.R. 5735, the THRIVE Act, sponsored by Representative Andy Barr, which would establish a pilot program for evidence-based transitional housing nonprofits that have experience in recovery and skills training;

H.R. 2851, the Stop Importation and Trafficking of Synthetic Analogues Act, sponsored by Representative John Katko. This bill will enable law enforcement to more swiftly respond to synthetic drugs and keep our communities safe.

Along with numerous other bills, passing these will truly help us form a more perfect Union.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my friend across the aisle. We are no strangers to droughts in California, but a 44-year championship drought is quite something. So congrats to my friend's beloved Washington Capitals on finally winning Lord Stanley's cup. It was a fun series to watch. It was a well-deserved victory for your team and for all of the fans of this region.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The answer to the question is yes.

I believe the farm bill is incredibly important for so many reasons. The food and agriculture industry drive more than 43 million jobs, over a quarter of all American jobs.

And it is what you talked about earlier. Yes, the economy is moving so well after the tax cut: more than 3 million new jobs, more than 1 million just since the tax cut bill went through, we recently reached.

And the other challenge we now find ourselves in, and it is an interesting challenge we haven't found ourselves in in quite some time: there are 6.7 million jobs out there, but only 6.3 million people looking for them. It has been the reverse for quite some time, and we are actually in a stronger position, so we need to have job training.

The uniqueness of this farm bill, it provides those able bodies who do not have underage children, that we are going to give them the training to help them get into the workforce. So it is just more good news, and our intention is to pass that this month; and as soon as it is scheduled, I will inform all Members.

Well, I thank my friend for yielding, and this is just a clear example of the difference in philosophical opinion.

We had this same debate when it came to the tax bill--that it was going to be Armageddon; if people got bonuses, it would be crumbs; and that we would be in a really worse position than we are.

Well, as we found out, Mr. Speaker, that is totally untrue. The economy is stronger. Again, in the last 49 years there has only been 7 months in the history of America where unemployment was below 4 percent. Two of those seven months are April and May of this year. We just hit 1 million new jobs, based upon that tax cut. More so since the election. Household wealth has increased by $7 trillion just since the election.

Now, this is the philosophical difference. Currently, two-thirds of able-bodied adults report no earned income at all. Why?

Because the SNAP program is letting them down. Not a single child or family who currently qualifies will be cut off. Our proposal only applies to those age 18 to 59. It exempts pregnant women, individuals who are mentally or physically disabled, and the primary caregivers of a child under the age of 6. What we do is give them the job training to get back into the workforce.

Because of that, according to the Foundation for Government Accountability, 83 percent of Americans support work requirements for SNAP. That includes 71 percent of Democrats. Unfortunately, when that bill came to the floor, every Democrat said no.

Mr. Speaker, that was the same thing that happened when we gave the American public tax cuts and created new jobs and the lowest unemployment--unemployment claims gives you the best projection of unemployment--in 44 years. Forty-four years, Mr. Speaker.

Do you know another statistic that just came out?

Small businesses are the greatest creators of new jobs. Since 1974 they have always surveyed them and they asked them this question: Is now a good time to expand?

Mr. Speaker, remember what a small business is. They don't have a great amount of capital. It is at its highest level since they took this poll.

So I don't mind having a philosophical difference of agreement, because there is a contrast between us. There is a contrast in philosophy. One believes it would be Armageddon if you let people keep more of what they earn. The facts don't pan out. Thankfully, we were successful, Mr. Speaker. The American people can keep more.

The other thing that happened, Mr. Speaker, is that 48 out of 50 States have a lower electrical bill. Also, in one company, 1.2 million of their employees have longer maternity leave.

The sad part is, I wish I could have sat here and said: As America, making it a more perfect Union, this whole body voted for it. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, one side had to carry the load.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I would be upset, too, if I voted against every economic bill brought to this floor that had the opportunity to grow America--and the statistics prove it.

It is not me saying it. It is The New York Times. To be frank, Mr. Speaker, I don't think they have ever said many nice things about Republicans. But this is what they said about the economics of today: ``We ran out of words to describe how good the job numbers are. The economy is in a sweet spot, with steady growth and broad improvement in the labor market.'' That is The New York Times.

I don't have a problem if you are upset by the fact that the economy is exactly what we said would happen if we got the economic changes we desired. Just as when we looked at deregulation, we will continue to make this move forward.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have heard many times on the other side of the aisle in these colloquies: Work with us. Work with us on CHIP.

But, Mr. Speaker, they are being directed by people higher up not to work with us in the committee, just as they said not to work with us on the farm bill, when we were working together the whole time. But we kept the things they wanted inside that bill.

Just as we voted on this floor a little earlier today, there was a message that went out from the leader on the other side to not vote at all. So they held their votes until it passed, and 23 brave, courageous individuals on the other side broke from the letter that the leadership asked them not to vote for.

What was it about?

It was about VA and veterans.

I think you have got to stop playing politics.

Just last night on this floor, Mr. Speaker, I heard from my dear friend who was very concerned because there was an agreement and the trust was going to be broken. Even though at the end of the day he couldn't vote for that agreement and trust that we worked so hard together on in an omni, that if we did anything in a rescission package to cut funding that the taxpayers would want us to do, that he couldn't deal with the omni.

So I took him at his word. He said: You had 1, 2, 3 years in these committees. They just sat there in these programs.

There is a program in there that has $4.7 billion parked by the Obama administration to help fund electric cars. What was the one automotive company that went bankrupt and took the money as well? Fisker. That is $4.7 billion. Nothing has been done on that since 2011.

So I took him at his word. We worked with the administration. We brought the largest rescission package here, because, yes, we want to take care of this debt. We think it is the responsibility of everybody here. But, no, those words rang hollow that day. There wasn't a vote for that, but we were able to pass it anyway.

I look right here at the Economic Cycle Research Institute in October 2016. It is their numbers. There was a 2 percent average growth under Obama versus 2.7 under Bush. In terms of average pace of GDP growth, Obama's was the slowest expansion on record. The numbers prove otherwise on what you say, but the most important thing it proves is that people are working. People care about the security of their job. People care about the security and safety of the country.

I feel very thankful that next week our President will be sitting down with the leader of North Korea with the hopes that we can make this world more secure.

We are building the security of jobs. We are building the security of the world. I would firmly believe: Let the American public judge whether they are better off today than they were a few short years ago.

I don't need numbers to show it. I can just see every statistic, the jobs, the people, and I am proud of that fact.

I ask, Mr. Speaker, the other side to follow through. I have heard time and again: I would never shut the government down; we wouldn't go that political. But when the day came, they did.

Politics and the election are over. Let's put people before politics. Let's make sure this country is secure economically and secure with safety around the world. And that is exactly what we are doing here.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I said it before, and I will say it again: Republicans are committed to solving this issue for good, not passing a bill and patting ourselves on the back, but for dealing with this issue in a meaningful way that is beneficial to hardworking Americans.

As you know, my door is always open. You have been there many times. I am committed to bringing all Members to the table and working together to solve this problem.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, I need to go to a meeting dealing with this subject. I am late to it right now. But we will continue to work to solve this problem.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet on Tuesday, June 12, 2018, when it shall convene at noon for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the Kern River Valley Healthcare District.

Nestled in the rolling hills of the southern Sierra Nevada mountain range in Kern County, California, the Kern River Valley Healthcare District was established in 1967 to serve the towns of Kernville, Lake Isabella, Wofford Heights, and many other communities that call the Kern River Valley home. Over the years, the District has grown with the community it serves, providing care for an area that once numbered in the thousands to now playing an integral role in a community with a population now in the tens of thousands.

The Kern Valley Hospital forms the core of the District's services. Recognized as a small rural hospital, Kern Valley Hospital offers both inpatient and outpatient services, capable of hosting up to 27 patients in its Acute Care Unit at a time. The hospital also has a robust skilled nursing program, offering classes, activities, and 24-hour care for up to 74 patients. To keep at the forefront of a rapidly-developing field, the hospital has recently begun offering telemedicine to provide its patients the best treatment at the greatest convenience.

The work accomplished in the District would not be possible without the assistance of the Hospital Foundation and Auxiliary, which was established shortly after the hospital's inception in 1968. The Pink Ladies and Blue Guys of the Auxiliary help make the work of the District possible, investing countless volunteer hours as companions to hospital residents, as behind-the-counter volunteers at the hospital gift shop and the Lake Isabella Thrift Store, and as community fundraisers so that the hospital can purchase new equipment to better provide for the community it serves. These men and women view each other more as family than colleagues, united not out of obligation, but out of a genuine love of the hospital, its mission, and the Kern River Valley community. Since 2004, the Auxiliary has raised nearly $2 million for the Kern Valley Hospital, helping and saving countless lives.

I would like to thank District Board Chairman David Derr, along with Board Members Kathryn Knight, John Blythe, Barbara Casas, and Charlie Busch, as well as the doctors, nurses, staff, and volunteers that have made the Kern River Valley Healthcare District the cornerstone of the community that it is today. The success and local support enjoyed by the District is a testament to its key role in the community, and I look forward to seeing the District continue to serve the Kern River Valley for many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join with me to celebrate 50 years of service on behalf of the Kern River Valley Healthcare District and to wish the District another 50 years of continued success.