Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today alongside my colleague, Congressman David Valadao, to honor Dr. Horace Mitchell, President of California State University, Bakersfield (CSUB). Dr. Mitchell joined CSUB as its fourth president in 2004, and will be retiring after a near 50-year career in education later this month.

Horace began his professional career at his alma mater of Washington University, Missouri, where he received his PhD in Counseling Psychology. As a member of the faculty, he served in multiple positions, including Assistant Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, Assistant Professor of Education and Black Studies, and Chair of the Black Studies Program. He went on to serve the University of California, first at Irvine for 17 years, and then Berkeley for nearly 10 years, before learning of an opportunity nestled in the southern part of California's San Joaquin Valley. It was at this school--CSUB-- where Dr. Mitchell would leave perhaps the greatest mark of his decades-spanning career. Upon his arrival, Dr. Mitchell announced his goal of making CSUB the pride of the California State University System. Over the next decade, he worked tirelessly to make that vision a reality.

Dr. Mitchell saw an untapped potential in the students he served, and dedicated his career to helping the student body of CSUB reach heights they had never seen before. Under his guidance, CSUB attained both its highest enrollment rate, as well as its highest graduation rate in the University's 53-year history. CSUB has seen its profile rise under Dr. Mitchell's tenure and is frequently cited as one of America's top public universities for both its undergraduate and post-graduate programs. Additionally, Dr. Mitchell was the driving force behind CSUB's transition to National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I athletics, allowing the Roadrunners to bring Bakersfield's best athletic talent to the national stage.

More than anything else, Dr. Mitchell will be remembered as a leader who put his students first, factoring the well being of CSUB's student body in every decision he made as President. To cultivate a more supportive learning environment, Dr. Mitchell changed CSUB's

academic calendar from a quarter system to a semester system, offering students more time to focus on the demands of their curriculum. Upon the opening of the CSUB Children's Center, Mr. Mitchell donated his own money to furnish improvements to the center so that CSUB's students could attend courses knowing that their children would receive the best quality childcare a university could offer. For some, work is a means to a paycheck, but Dr. Mitchell's care and concern for the students and faculty at CSUB and the Bakersfield community was a labor of love and dedication.

Mr. Speaker, we join friends, family, students, and faculty of California State University, Bakersfield, and the entire California State University System, in thanking Dr. Mitchell for his commitment to bettering the standard of education in the Bakersfield community and beyond. A man who made Bakersfield his home for 14 years, Dr. Mitchell saw the best that our community had to offer and, in turn, made it his goal to give back to that community. It has been an honor to count Dr. Mitchell as one of our friends, and we will always value the advice and guidance he dispensed over the years on everything from education policy to community volunteerism. After many years in public service, we know that Dr. Mitchell looks forward to spending more time with his wife, Barbara, his children, and his grandchildren. Horace will be missed in the world of CSUB, but we salute his lifetime of service on behalf of our community. We wish him the best as he begins this new chapter of his life.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

We are approaching the end of spring, but there is still enough time for a good spring cleaning. For families, that may mean doing yard work, cleaning out a closet, or maybe even giving unused items to charity. For Congress, it means tackling long-overdue budgetary spring cleaning.

There are billions and billions of taxpayer dollars originally set up to fund different programs and projects that cannot or will not be used for their intended purpose. Tonight, the House will do something about it. We will take a first step in cleaning up the Federal Government's accounts by voting on the Spending Cuts to Expired and Unnecessary Programs Act.

We aren't talking about taking spare change here. We are talking about something more than just that. Tonight, we have the opportunity to return $15 billion, with a B, to the Treasury.

As Members, we are charged with being good stewards of taxpayer money. Mr. Speaker, it is a responsibility we all have and claimed on this floor many times. It shouldn't be a partisan exercise. Historically, it hasn't been.

Mr. Speaker, you can look at many Members who have been here for quite some time. Congress accepted 214 of Ronald Reagan's rescissions. The majority party on the floor was different than it is today. It accepted 111 of Bill Clinton's rescissions.

President Trump's spending cut request is a straightforward and smart way to trim a bloated Federal budget.

So, where do these savings come from, I know many of you might ask. Have you ever heard of the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program? It is an Obama-era subsidy program to green-car companies like Fisker Automotive, which defaulted on its $192 million loan. Just think Solyndra, but for luxury cars. This failed subsidy program hasn't issued a loan since 2011. Mr. Speaker, that is 7 years ago. Yet, it has $4.33 billion sitting unused in an account.

Can any Member think of a good reason why that money should continue sitting in that account, where it cannot and will not be used or just be wasted on another non-related government program?

I would really love to hear the reason, but I doubt one will be coming.

So, what else does this bill clean up?

It also brings back expired funds from CHIP. Before anyone claims Republicans are cutting CHIP funding, which is children's health insurance, Mr. Speaker, we debated this on the floor many times this year where one side of the aisle, the majority, passed it. Not only did they pass it while the other side in the minority, Mr. Speaker, voted against it, we passed it and made history.

How did we make history?

We signed the longest reauthorization of CHIP, guaranteeing its funding for 10 years, a full decade. A full decade, Mr. Speaker, Members of this floor had the opportunity to vote for it. Unfortunately, it wasn't one time, Mr. Speaker, that the other side voted no, and it wasn't just two times.

But, thankfully, Mr. Speaker, for all the children across America that use this program, Republicans were able to reauthorize it for 10 years--a decade--the longest ever. Republicans have made sure that CHIP isn't going anywhere. We have removed any uncertainty about the stability of the funding of that program.

The funds we are rescinding tonight were appropriated long ago and will not be used for their intended purpose now. In fact, Mr. Speaker, Democrats voted to rescind those exact CHIP funds just 2 months ago. They know they can't be used for their intended purpose.

I would like to remind my colleagues that the minority whip said he would not oppose ``money laying in an account that has not been spent for 1, 2, 3 years.'' He even called it ``a reasonable thing to do.''

So instead of partisan rhetoric and doomsday speeches, let's see this bill for what it really is: a smart approach to cleaning up unused accounts in the Federal budget, which has been done many times before under President Clinton and President Reagan.

Before tonight's vote, each and every Member of the House should consider this question: If this body cannot be trusted to reclaim money that will not or cannot be used for its intended purpose, can we really be trusted to save money anywhere else?

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the late Ed Grimes, who served as Mayor and chief executive of the City of Tehachapi for six years. He passed away on May 21, 2018 at the age of 75 after a lifetime of service to his community.

Mayor Grimes started his storied career in public service on the Tehachapi Unified School District as a member of the School Board, serving a career of 20 years, twelve of which were spent as the board chairman. He would later campaign successfully for a seat on the Tehachapi City Council in 2003, and was first elected as Tehachapi's Mayor in 2006. Over his career in public service, Mayor Grimes served ten years on the Tehachapi City Council and served three terms as mayor during the years of 2006 through 2008, 2010 through 2012, and 2016 through 2018. A man with a true heart for his city, Mayor Grimes refused a paycheck during his tenure as an elected city official, instead donating his salary to fund scholarships for Tehachapi high school students preparing to go to college.

Ed, affectionately known at home as ``Mr. Tehachapi,'' called Tehachapi his home for 68 years of his life. A lifelong football fan with a heart for the youth of the community he served, Mayor Grimes dedicated his free time to fundraising for Tehachapi High School's Warriors football team, raising over $50,000 for high school athletics over a period of nearly two decades. His passion for youth athletics was not limited to the sidelines; Mayor Grimes could often be heard narrating Tehachapi High School football games over the stadium public address system, a hobby that earned him the nickname of ``The Voice of the Warriors.''

Mayor Grimes will be remembered for his kindness, leadership, and passion for life. His life of service illustrates the best of public service, and he will be remembered as a man who truly loved the city he called home. It didn't matter if we were discussing the local economy, family or simply football, time spent with Mayor Grimes was always time well spent. I will miss Mayor Grimes' words of wisdom, his humble manner, and his laugh that was so infectious that you could not help but join him. I extend my deepest condolences to his wife Ruthie, his children and grandchildren, and the entire Tehachapi community as we all mourn the loss of this local icon.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleague, the Honorable David Valadao, in memory of Mr. Harvey Hall. Mr. Hall served as the mayor of Bakersfield, California from 2000 to 2016 and will be remembered as a community icon who never stopped believing in the city he called home.

A lifelong resident of Bakersfield, Harvey Hall was a model civil servant, a community legend who would greet you wearing one of his trademark suits and a welcoming smile. Mayor Hall was a cheerleader for Bakersfield in the purest sense. He was an advocate for the businesses and organizations of the city he served, and it was not uncommon to see him each and every day at ribbon-cutting ceremonies or lending his support at community gatherings across Bakersfield. Everyone knew Mayor Hall, and Mayor Hall made it his goal to get to know everyone he met. He was a man who remembered names and would always make the time to pull you aside for a chat, no matter who you were. When you were with Mayor Hall, you always felt like the most important person in the room.

Outside of his responsibilities in City Hall, Mr. Hall focused himself on bettering the quality of life in Kern County. A consummate businessman, Mayor Hall founded Hall Ambulance Services, Inc., an emergency services company that has been a mainstay in Kern County for nearly 50 years. Mayor Hall had a heart for education and dedicated his mayoral salary to the Kern Community Foundation, awarding over $250,000 to fund scholarships for local high school students pursuing secondary education during his time in office.

More than anything else, Mayor Hall's love of community was illustrated in quieter ways. He used his own money to help Bakersfield's homeless get back on their feet and would regularly host community clean-ups to beautify a city he saw nothing but potential in. Mayor Hall welcomed the diverse communities that make Bakersfield the community that it is, and was a mainstay at the annual Sikh Parade and Harvest Festival. Most importantly, he understood the power of a thank- you note and would always offer his humble thanks for the smallest of gestures. This love of community extended outside of Bakersfield too, for Mayor Hall understood that Kern County was a better place when all of its communities succeeded. He often gave his ear to neighboring communities and always made himself available to provide assistance or advice when it was needed.

There is a lesson to be learned in the manner in which Mayor Hall lived. He was a man who lived life's purpose both in and out of public service. He was a man forged by a city that he made into his own. He was a man who never missed an obligation, who always knew the true potential and promise of Bakersfield and its residents. Harvey Hall made an indelible impression on Kern County, and it is our every hope that those whose lives he impacted honor his legacy by showing the same love, passion, and dedication to Bakersfield as our city's longest- serving mayor did. For some, he was ``Mayor Hall.'' For others, he was just ``Harvey.'' But for us, he will always be ``Mr. Bakersfield.'' We extend our deepest condolences to his wife Lavonne, his children, grandchildren, and a community that loves him as much as he loved it. Mayor Hall exemplified the best qualities of Bakersfield and will be missed, but he leaves behind a legacy that will continue to shape our community for years to come.

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

Next week is National Police Week, so several bills will focus on supporting the work done each day by our men and women in law enforcement. That includes H.R. 5698, the Protect and Serve Act, sponsored by Representative John Rutherford. This bill would make inflicting or attempting to inflict serious bodily harm on any police officer a crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

The House will also consider H.R. 2, the Agriculture and Nutrition Act, sponsored by Representative Mike Conaway.

Ronald Reagan said, ``American farmers are the backbone of our country,'' and both myself and the data would agree.

Food and ag industries drive more than 43 million jobs, over a quarter of all American jobs, and U.S. farm exports generate more than $300 billion in economic activity.

This important bill will reauthorize farm and nutrition assistance programs for 5 years, while making reforms to modernize key programs and better support rural America.

Since my friend often asks about items beyond the week to come, I would like to make this a bonus colloquy for him, and preview several items that are possible during this work period.

This includes H.R. 5674, the VA MISSION Act of 2018, sponsored by Representative Phil Roe. This bill would fundamentally transform the VA and the way American veterans receive care for the better.

I want to applaud Chairman Roe for his hard work on this legislation, which recently passed his committee on a bipartisan vote of 20-2.

Next, H.R. 3, the Spending Cuts to Expired and Unnecessary Programs Act. At $15.4 billion, the bill represents the largest single rescissions request in history.

More importantly, this bill allows Congress to give our Federal budget a much needed spring cleaning to the benefit of hardworking taxpayers.

Third, H.R. 5515, the National Defense Authorization Act, sponsored by Representative Mac Thornberry. This bill supports the historic investments we have made to rebuild America's

military and ensures our brave men and women have the resources they need to keep us safe.

Finally, the House may take further action on Dodd-Frank reform, including potential action on the community bank regulatory relief bill passed by the U.S. Senate.

I look forward to both Chambers taking additional policy actions in this space in the coming weeks as we continue to improve access to capital for American families and businesses.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman has asked before and as we have worked time and time again, the committee is working on a budget, and as they get through, we will bring it to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

Even though I gave him a bonus colloquy beyond the week in front of us, that does not mean if I don't mention something, that that item would not come forward. So as the Budget Committee works, I will keep the gentleman apprised of where they are and when the timing is for us to bring it to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for those many questions.

I have got good news for the gentleman. If his concern is the contingency fund for the Children's Health Insurance Program, no need to fear. In the life of the entire program, the most that has ever been used, accumulated completely, is $300 million; that is why we set aside $500 million.

Go beyond the long history of it. CBO tells us they don't expect any of it to be used, but we want an insurance, just as we wanted this program to survive; that is why it got extended more than 10 years.

Mr. Speaker, I don't have to remind my friend he voted against that. But we care about the Children's Health Insurance Program; we care about the taxpayers.

The good news is, in this rescission program, none of that money can be spent. And if you are concerned about it and worried about maybe you would make that vote, Mr. Speaker, the leader of the other side, she voted to take that same amount from CHIP in the omnibus to spend somewhere else, because you can't use the money, and we have already extended it 10 years, and no child is going to be harmed by this. CBO says it, all the way through, and we keep the contingency fund there.

But you won't rescind the money that you now have the authority to even spend on the program to give back to the taxpayers? That is what is interesting to me because I listened to you closely, and we have had this discussion before about rescissions. It was just in our last colloquy.

I remember when we talked about rescissions because that used to be common practice. President Bill Clinton did it 111 times. President Ronald Reagan did it 214 times. And both Presidents, Mr. Speaker, had Congresses that were from other parties some time during their administration.

So when you and I talked about it, because you had voted for rescissions before, I wanted to make sure I got your input before ever talking to the administration because I would like to have your help on this. I think the American taxpayers would like to have everybody's help on this.

So I asked you in that colloquy, I was hoping that you would support this bill from our last one because you said, in our last colloquy: ``I wouldn't irrationally oppose a rescission which said we've had money laying in an account that has not been spent for 1, 2, or 3 years. We shouldn't just have it sitting in that account.''

Because in our colloquy, Mr. Speaker, the concern on the other side from my friend was we were going to break a trust; that we were going to take money from that omnibus that he felt a lot of people negotiated in, but, unfortunately, that trust he couldn't vote for.

You even interrupted me to say you believe that rescinding those funds was a reasonable thing to do. I agree that it is a reasonable thing to do.

So this administration, I think, may have listened to our colloquy, Mr. Speaker, because if you look at this rescission package, the largest one ever done, common practice from President Ford up until Bill Clinton, you asked for funding that has sat for the last 1, 2, or 3 years. But even in this one, we identified programs that have sat there for 7 years.

There has not been a loan in a program since 2011, and there is more than $4 billion sitting there. Taking you at your word, you would jump at this. I should have asked you to cosponsor it.

Now, I hope all Members will put the politics aside and be able to support this because this is really what the taxpayer is looking for. This is really what this House has a history of doing.

I know you have brought up a few other issues in there, and I know, when you talk about the Children's Health Insurance Program, the CBO has said that ``rescinding the unobligated balances would . . . not affect outlays, or the number of individuals with insurance coverage.''

There are so many times I hear CBO quoted here, so I hope we would quote it here as well. In other words, this will have no effect on the CHIP program.

Mr. Speaker, as I noted earlier, in the omnibus, those who voted for it, and the leader on the other side did, it did the exact same thing with a higher number. So it was unobligated then and okay to do it. I am just not sure why it wouldn't be now if you send it back to the taxpayers.

Now, I do want to, also, Mr. Speaker, know because we have worked on this CHIP program for quite some time. Now, the Republicans passed the longest and most generous CHIP extension in the program's history.

Now, for the record, my friend did vote against it, not once, not twice, but three times in this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to quote an AP article from Andy Taylor, because you just can't make this stuff up.

``Just weeks ago, Democrats supported almost $7 billion in cuts to the Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP, eager to grab easy budget savings to finance new spending at the Department of Health and Human Services. But some Democrats howled over the Trump proposal anyway.''

Let me get this straight. Is it okay to rescind the CHIP program, Mr. Speaker, when Nancy Pelosi wants to spend more? But when President Trump wants to save the taxpayers money, with no effect on the CHIP program at all, is that what Armageddon is?

Now, I don't want to play politics, and I know you have mentioned a lot, and you did mention the tax bill, and you did mention April. There was more good news in America. It wasn't just that unemployment is at 3.9 percent. You know the last time--the whole time I have been elected in Congress----

Yes, 18 years ago. Do you know that the claims for unemployment are at the lowest point it has been in more than four decades? That is more than 40 years.

Do you know, just in the last year, 2 million more people have jobs? Did you realize the millions of people who actually got bonuses; or just in one company, 1.2 million Americans have a longer maternity leave?

And did you see the revenue into America's Government last month? It was the largest surplus in the history. The most revenue coming in.

So all of those colloquies we had of the fear of this tax bill, the one that allowed Americans to keep more of what they earned, the one that we promised would create more jobs, the one that would bring more prosperity, facts don't lie. America is in a very good place, and I am thankful that we had that debate.

Now, I know, Mr. Speaker, the others on the other side, there wasn't one of them who could agree with us. But I think today they can agree with the numbers of what it says and what it means; that we know for any American who has a child that is 18 years old and ready to go away to college, they don't have the fear that they are going to have to come back and live with their

parents. They are going to enter one of the strongest economies to find a job, of course, in their lifetime, but maybe almost in one of the best times we have seen in ours.

So, yes, I am excited about this. I am also excited about the idea of bringing a tradition back that saves the taxpayers money, one that, Mr. Speaker, my friend has voted for before, one that protects the CHIP program by setting aside, on a contingency basis, more than what has ever been asked for in the history of it, $500 million when only $300 million it has, and even though they say not one dollar would be spared. So we have the reserve there for it.

I am excited that the administration listened to our colloquy, took my friend's wisdom and advice that he would look at any accounts that sat there 1, 2, and even 7 years that was unobligated, to be able to save the taxpayer money. And I look forward to when that is on the floor so that we can vote on it together and show the American public that we are serious about saving taxpayers money.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman realize that there are 2 million more people in the workforce in less than a year?

Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman understand that more than 5 million people got a bonus that, Mr. Speaker, some people on the other side thought was crumbs?

Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman understand that the 3.9 percent unemployment rate, many Americans have not seen that in almost two decades?

Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman understand that we just watched last night our President at Andrews Air Force Base bring back three Americans that were held in prison in North Korea, and for the first time since that conflict has gone on there is an opportunity to end that war?

So, yes, I think some of our best days are right now; but with the potential of what we have not only with our tax bill, but, if we get our farm bill moving where we help individuals to get into that workforce, because that unemployment is so low, I do believe the best days are in front of us.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, I remember what the gentleman said. The gentleman is very concerned about the trust that we would have because of the months that went into the omnibus, that we would break this trust, even though those who negotiated, still some did not vote for it. But in that omnibus, because defense had been cut more than 20 percent, because when I wake up this morning and I see rockets flying from Syria into Israel, when we watch the world become unsafe, it is not 20 percent safer. We made an investment into military.

The gentleman does not want any cuts to go into that process, but my question to the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, is there any cut in the rescission the gentleman supports, because I took him at his word.

I said to the administration: I just had a great conversation in a colloquy that the gentleman on the other side said of course he would look at anything that was 1, 2, 3, or further years that was unobligated.

That is the only thing that is in the rescission. The easiest way not to save taxpayers money is to find something that is not in the bill that you just really need.

The gentleman laid out in a colloquy what he wanted in a rescission. It did not deal with the omnibus because the gentleman is worried about the trust. The gentleman said he would look at anything from 1, 2, 3, or further. That is the only thing in here.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my friend: Is there anything in the rescission bill that he could support by giving the taxpayers more money back?

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman has any idea, because I know he has served on the Appropriations Committee, please offer up, like any Member can, what he would cut or what he wants to find as savings. I will look in any department anywhere to find a savings.

Now, Mr. Speaker, can the gentleman show me where in the CHIP program--because, one, you cannot use these funds; two, the contingency base is more than what has ever been used in the history of it--show me where the Children's Health Insurance Program, because no one is saying it. No one can show that it is. Please point it out to us.

You do not have the authority to spend this money. We put a contingency fund, set aside, and looked at the history of the program. The most that was ever used was $300 million, so we keep $500 million in reserve.

If the gentleman could explain to me why, then, for those who voted for the omnibus on your side of the aisle, would you make a larger, same amount, and the argument then to take that money in the omnibus but not now, why is it different?

Why is it different when the taxpayers will save money into an account you cannot spend, you don't have the legal authority to, and it is just sitting there, and it goes to the criteria of what you laid out, 1, 2, 3, or 4?

The great thing about a rescission, this doesn't have to be the only one. So if you want to work with us and you find areas that you want to find savings to the taxpayers, I will make myself available to have those meetings.

Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes, because if you listened to what I said earlier, it went to HHS.

But this is the point: Then the gentleman is acknowledging that you could not use that money for the CHIP program, so it is still sitting there. You do not have the authority for it. It is exactly what you said to me in a colloquy, just our last, that you will look at any account that is sitting there 1, 2, 3, all the way to 7 years.

Mr. Speaker, I don't understand the argument, if no child could be harmed, if the Republicans put it for 10 years, the longest it has ever been, you can't use the money, and we leave a contingency fund there.

If the gentleman wants to find a reason to get to ``no,'' I understand that. But I am of the belief I want to find a way to save money, and I don't know what points the gentleman tries to bring up and say it is political. No.

The whole time I have been in this House, I have always held to the belief: It doesn't matter; we can find in any program waste. But this rescission program is about money that is sitting in accounts that you laid out that you said you would be more than willing to look at, and that is what we have done, and I hope you would be able to keep your word and vote for it.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. Did the gentleman yield to me? On what point?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I will answer any question he has or any other reason why he finds a way you can't save taxpayers money, but let me answer your questions.

Since we don't touch FY18 funds, it does not affect FY19 baseline.

Secondly, I said earlier, the gentleman is a Member of this Congress. Rescissions do not have to be a one-time offer. If you have any ability or any ideas, I am more than willing to work with you. I am more than willing to work in the future not just on that line, but others as well.

That is great. Will the gentleman offer an amendment to the bill?

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman used Congressman Tom Cole's name, saying that he would say something. Congressman Tom Cole is a cosponsor of the rescission bill.

He is an appropriator, just as Congresswoman Kay Granger, Congressman Tom Graves. They are all on the Appropriations Committee, and they are all cosponsors of this bill because they want to continue to look to ways that you can save taxpayers money.

I know we have gone around and around here. The question really ends to a philosophy. Can we find a place that we can save the taxpayers money, or can we only find the time that we will take that money when you can't spend it and spend it someplace else? I believe we could take money that you cannot spend and give it back to the taxpayer.

The gentleman brings up other areas. My door is open. I don't want this to be the only rescission. I look for any department, any area in government that we could find savings that are left over, that are sitting there. Or let's make it more accountable. Let's find savings in the current process as well. I am all for that.

But the one thing, Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to is voting ``no.'' That is the easiest thing to do on this floor. I can always find a reason why I am against a bill because something else was not in it.

What is in this bill today is what my friend said in the last colloquy. His argument against having a rescission package was all based upon the omnibus. So he laid this out. Then we meet that criteria, and then he is going to lay another reason out.

You cannot point to anywhere, CBO or any other place, where it states that the CHIP program is harmed. I am sure he was concerned about that, Mr. Speaker, when he voted against it three times, when he extended for 10 years.

This isn't about CHIP. It has nothing to do with it, because the CBO says it is all protected. We put a contingency

fund in there greater than what was ever used in the history of the program.

Mr. Speaker, what the real story here is: Can you take money and give it back to the taxpayers and save money, or do you always have to spend more in Washington? I think when the bill comes to the floor, the American people will get that answer.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The gentleman just said nickel-and-dime programs. This will be the largest rescission in the history of this country. It is not nickels and dimes. It is the taxpayers' money. If it is nickels and dimes to the taxpayers, I want to save those, just the same. But this is billions.

The gentleman tries to make an argument that doesn't hold. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman argues that CHIP could be in jeopardy. The CBO says that is not true. The press writes that it is not true. I cannot find anywhere that this program would be harmed.

I listened to my friend on the other side explain why he voted against CHIP three times. His explanation is because he said there was a promise on the other side for some other bill to come to the floor. I can take him at his word, but my only question back to him would be: Then why does he vote for any bill? Shouldn't he vote ``no'' on every bill that is on the floor then, if that is the protest?

I don't understand why he would take it out on the Children's Health Insurance Program. I don't understand why, when we had the opportunity and we were able to achieve it, he voted ``no'' to get the longest extension in a decade.

Mr. Speaker, I know the American public will see through what is politics and what is policy and what is opportunity. Yes, we did pass a tax bill and, unfortunately, it was just one side that voted for it.

Yes, our unemployment is the lowest it has been in more than 18 years. Our unemployment claims are the lowest they have been in 44 years. Two million more people are now in the workforce.

If you go back, 9, 10 years, the participation rate in America was over 65 percent. Unfortunately, just a few years ago, it got all the way down to 62.7, the lowest it has been since 1978. But the good news is, it is on its way back up.

The good news is, Mr. Speaker, millions of Americans got bonuses where they could fix their car, maybe buy that new washing machine. The better news is, Mr. Speaker, that the revenues into government are even higher--part of what the argument was on passing the tax bill.

Mr. Speaker, it was even an excitement to watch President Trump sitting at Andrews Air Force Base watching three Americans get off an airplane that have been in prison in North Korea, released on the hopes that the war and the battle of North Korea against South Korea can end, and that the President has announced that he has a location and time for that meeting.

Yes, the world looks brighter. But there are still places around the world that are not safe. And, yes, we did make an investment into the military that I am very proud of. I actually voted for that bill. People will say a lot of people negotiated. Some that negotiated didn't vote for it in the end.

So, Mr. Speaker, I try to listen to the other side and I take what they say very seriously. When I heard in our last colloquy that a rescission bill had to be made on those funds that have sat there for 1, 2, 3, and even 7 years, that is what we did. And I look forward to working on further bills in any department that anyone in this body would like to work on.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 100th anniversary of William Penn Elementary School.

Opened in September of 1917, William Penn started as a five-classroom schoolhouse in the heart of downtown Bakersfield. The tenth school added to the Bakersfield City School District, William Penn opened to one hundred and sixteen students, from kindergarten to fourth grade under the tutelage of then-principal Ms. Eleanor Pavey.

Much like the city it called home, William Penn quickly grew from its humble, small-town roots, adding an additional four classrooms in 1925 to accommodate a rapidly-growing student body. During World War II, William Penn stressed the importance of patriotism in its student body, and its teachers instilled a respect for America's Armed Services in the young minds humming through the school's corridors. To support the American war effort, students at William Penn planted victory gardens, collected paper for paper drives, purchased war bonds, and knitted afghans to be given to soldiers serving abroad.

In the summer of 1952, disaster struck. A 7.3 magnitude earthquake along California's White Wolf Fault, the third largest in recorded California, damaged much of the school and its grounds. The damage was so great that William Penn was condemned, and its student body was relocated to Wayside Elementary School along with students from other Bakersfield City damaged schools. The students of William Penn, however, were undeterred and made it their mission to rescue their neighborhood school. Each afternoon, students would hold a carnival to raise funds to reconstruct William Penn from the ground up, and with the help of the Bakersfield City School District, students returned to William Penn Elementary in January 1955.

Today, William Penn serves nearly 300 students from kindergarten through fifth grade. The school is currently led by Principal Marshall Dillard and its mission could not be possible without his leadership and the passion and hard work of a stellar team of educators including: Alicia Lifquist, Leticia Pacheco Contreras, Robin Johnston, Adriana Humphrey, Sarah Abraham, Janette Hubbell, Nicole Craig, Monica Garza, Leonel Gamino, Crystal Ullrich, Sheryl Daniel, Laurie Kessler, Matthew Lundin, and Kirsten Roza, as well as office and support staff Theresa Blair, Elosia Kelley, Susana Lizardo Hammock, Tina Estrada, Melissa Ednalino, Andrew Morales, Maritza Zuniga, and Monica Gonzales.

The measure of a school like William Penn isn't the mere 100 years of its existence; it is the generations of students whose dreams and opportunities have been shaped by the

education and influence so passionately driven by their teachers, parents, and community. William Penn's story is one of love of country and community and dedication to its students. This school is a part of what makes Bakersfield such a great place to live and grow up in. As one of Bakersfield's oldest schools, it remains an icon in our community, and on behalf of our community, I wish William Penn another century of academic excellence.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 75th Anniversary of the Arvin-Edison Water Storage District.

Established in 1942 to serve the booming agricultural industry in the southeastern portion of California's San Joaquin Valley, the Arvin- Edison Water Storage District has played an essential role in making Kern County the number one agricultural producer in the United States.

The District provides water to over 131,000 acres of agricultural land in Kern County, from both surface water through the Central Valley Project's Friant Unit as well as from groundwater. The water irrigates tens of thousands of acres of almonds, carrots, citrus, grapes, potatoes, and other annual crops with a value exceeding $1 billion in 2016. And in true California fashion of never letting a drop of water go to waste, the water the District provides to irrigate these and other crops results from a true conjunctive use process--District also recharges the underground aquifer to help stabilize groundwater levels in a region that relies on well water as a primary source of irrigation.

To accommodate Kern County's ever-expanding agricultural industry and variable surface water supplies, the District has had to take innovative approaches to water management and storage. For instance, when times are good and water is flowing from rain and melting snow, the District developed a network of groundwater banking programs connected by miles of canals and pipes to capture this water for use in dry years. This approach helped our communities and farmers weather the recent multi-year catastrophic drought in California, ensuring that they were able to access life-giving water.

In 1997, the District entered into a 25-year agreement with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California that has empowered the District to complete capital improvement projects without increasing water costs to Kern County farmers, including expansion of the aforementioned water banks.

I am proud of the work accomplished by the Arvin-Edison Water Storage District, currently led by President Edwin Camp, Engineer-Manager Jeevan Muhar, Deputy General Manager David Nixon, Director of Water Resources Steven Collup, General Superintendent Christopher Krauter, and Directors Ronald Lehr, Jeffrey Guimarra, Derek Yurosek, Dennis Johnston, John Moore, Charles Fanucchi, Catalino Martinez, and Kevin Pascoe. They and their predecessors' efforts have made a lasting impact on our community which will continue to play a critical role in the lives of Kern County farmers and those who enjoy the products they grow.

The Arvin-Edison Water Storage District's role in shaping the face of American agriculture cannot be understated, and I wish the District another 75 years of success.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 148 and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 149.

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 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.

Next Tuesday, April 17, is also Tax Day. While this is a day Americans usually dread, I am pleased that this will be the last year they will have to file under the old and burdensome Tax Code. Because of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, not only will filing be simpler, Americans will keep more of their hard-earned money, on top of the bonuses and increased wages we have already seen.

In addition, the House will vote on several important bills aimed at safeguarding all taxpayers next week.

First, there is H.R. 5192, the Protecting Children From Identity Theft Act, sponsored by Representative Carlos Curbelo. Studies have shown the rate of ID theft is actually 50 times higher among children than adults. This bipartisan bill would modernize fraud detection systems to prevent such theft from occurring in the first place.

Second, H.R. 5444, the Taxpayer First Act, sponsored by Representative Lynn Jenkins, which would improve the independent appeals process at the IRS, along with other crucial taxpayer services within the agency.

Lastly, H.R. 5445, the 21st Century IRS Act, sponsored by Representative Mike Bishop. This bill would boost cybersecurity and other IT systems in the IRS to ensure the agency serves all taxpayers effectively and efficiently.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the House passing all these critical bills without delay.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, my friend is correct that in this House we worked to pass all 12 appropriation bills. We sent them to the Senate, and the Senate did not act. So as the process works, we had to come to an agreement.

My friend on the other side said he worked very hard on that, but at the end of the day, I tell my friend: You voted against it.

A rescission, as my friend knows, is not about an omnibus bill. It is about finding savings for the American people. To quote Ronald Reagan: ``The problem is not that people are taxed too little, the problem is that the government spends too much.''

On this side of the aisle, we know that unaccountable and unnecessary spending not only puts our fiscal future on shaky ground, but it also puts burdens on the programs that Americans actually rely on. That is why we passed all 12 appropriation bills. Unfortunately, the Senate Democrats blocked even debate on every single one of these bills. So they wouldn't even debate it, and they put us into this late process.

Now, as far as rescissions, I believe the Trump administration is committed to sending Congress a rescission proposal.

As my friend knows, the 1974 Budget Act would give this proposal fast-track procedures both in the House and, more importantly, in the Senate, which means, to the American public, it takes 51 votes to pass. So no longer can a minority hold up debate or hold up process to harm the American public.

While this has not been done in 20 years, President Trump is not afraid of challenging the status quo, and I personally respect that. But I want to look at history, and I want the American public to understand it.

Rescissions were once commonly used by five different administrations, both Republican and Democratic, and at times the Republican Presidents had Democratic majorities in Congress. Let me give you a for-instance: President Bill Clinton proposed 166 rescissions. Congress passed 111 of those.

George H.W. Bush, when Democrats controlled both, proposed 169. They passed 34 of those.

Ronald Reagan proposed 602, and they accepted 214 times to be able to cut spending.

Now, Jimmy Carter proposed 122, and Congress accepted 50.

President Gerald Ford proposed 152, and Congress accepted 52.

As far as what this proposal looks like, it remains a work in progress. Now, I will continue to work with the administration, but the one thing I want to be very clear about is this is not about an omnibus. This is about saving money.

So what a rescission package can do is it can go back into other accounts that have just sat there with money in them with no action. No business would run their business that way. No family would want it run that way, to keep some debt while you have money sitting over here.

If you can save, I would believe everybody in this body would want to save the taxpayers some money if there is an opportunity to do this. And if I checked my record correctly, I believe my friend has voted for a few rescissions in the past.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

If I first may answer the other questions the gentleman raised.

First of all, when he talks about trust, everybody should know what happens when you get to an omni and why. We had an omni not because of this House. We had an omni not because of this majority. We passed all 12 appropriation bills. The last time that was done by a Republican majority, the iPhone wasn't invented.

We sent it to the Senate, and do you know the sad part? The last time when we sent it to the Senate, maybe they debated the bills and the bills failed--no. And it wasn't the majority on the other side in the Senate. It was my friend's party on the other side that wouldn't even allow it to come to debate.

Now my friend talks about being very concerned because they spent a lot of time negotiating. You see, I don't really care for omnis. I would never want to see another one on the floor. That is why we did our job.

But when it comes to an omni, the minority has power. They could say: No. This can't be in it.

And they kind of finally came to an agreement. And when they did, my friend on the other side said: I am worried about trust, so I am voting against it after all these negotiations.

And then he brings up: Oh, my God. The Republicans. They spent money on the military.

Sequester has cut more than 20 percent from the military. You can look back just the last 2 weeks. How many of our men and women died not in combat, but in training? How many planes of ours can actually fly today?

I will tell you this: The world is not 20 percent safer while the military has been cut.

As we speak today, our Navy is sailing. As we speak today, we are concerned about what is going to happen with Iran. We are concerned: What is North Korea going to do? And where is Putin on the march?

So, yes, I am proud of funding the military. That is why we did it.

Did you want to put the other? No. We are held hostage because the minority in the other Chamber decided to hold the country hostage.

Now, when it comes to rescissions, let's be truthful with the American public. That could be unobligated funds from prior years. So if there is money, just because it was budgeted and appropriated but they didn't need it all, why don't you save the taxpayers and bring that back to the Treasury?

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the gentleman's support, because we didn't have it last time.

Mr. Speaker, in these rescissions, we can look at these unnecessary programs. That is healthy for the country. The world changes. We should modernize. We should make government more efficient and more effective and, most importantly, more accountable.

Now, my friend needs to be familiar with this process, because when I look at history, both in 1996 and 1998, the omnibus bills included numerous rescissions that President Clinton proposed and Congress accepted.

Now, that was back when you voted for the spending bills, but I am hopeful you will be for this rescission as well, because I believe the American public will look at it not as a Republican or a Democrat.

Every time I watch people run for office, they say: I want to go line by line. For 20 years, we didn't have people that wanted to do that in the administration. Today, we do, And I applaud President Trump for saying it, and I applaud President Trump for doing it.

Now, you talked about a few other things. You are concerned about debt. I am concerned about debt. You think there are two different ways to solve this. I believe if we grow the economy and we watch our budget, we can solve this problem. When I look at the revenue coming in, it is hitting its highest level.

When I walk across this country, I now see growth of more than 3 percent. I see unemployment at almost the lowest point in my lifetime. And if you happen to be African American, or you happen to be Hispanic, it is the lowest it has been in America. I just saw 800,000 people come back into the workforce.

If you look at manufacturing jobs, in the last 3 months, we haven't seen that type of growth since 1984. If I look at the last administration and I go and look for the highest growth year under President Obama, it is still lower than the worst year under Bill Clinton.

So let's grow and get this deficit taken care of. But what is interesting to me--I wrote this down because I want to get it right, and you correct me if you think it is wrong--you said: Whatever we spend, we should pay for it. Is that correct?

So this concerns me then. That Democrat budget that you voted for not only increased the deficit by $6.8 trillion over 10 years, it calls for the $3.9 trillion in revenue enhancements. We know what that means. That means tax increases. So you want to increase taxes by $3.9 trillion, but you want to increase the debt by $6.8 trillion. That doesn't meet what you just said. You said whatever we spend we should pay for.

So you are going to increase the debt almost double, and you are going to increase taxes. That is the difference between us. When we put the tax bill on the floor, and I look at just in one company, 1.2 million of those employees, they got extended maternity leave; the number of companies that raised what they pay; the electrical bills for Americans in 39 States are now lower because of that tax bill. And let's not even talk about the millions of bonuses that Americans got. That is their own money. And the revenues are coming in higher.

The growth is bigger. Our opportunity is greater. But what you want to do is snatch that back--say, no, no, government needs it. But you are not saying government needs it to pay off the deficit because you are raising the deficit even higher. It just doesn't work.

So what I am hopeful for, when we come back to this table--and I do believe in trust--but if you are at the table and you make an agreement, come to the floor and be honest. Come to the floor and uphold that agreement that you talked through. Because I will tell you, I didn't like that bill. Because we voted on all 12 bills here. I voted for all of those. I voted for those and sent them to the Senate, and the Senate held this country hostage.

And do you know what? The military, the number of men and women, there is a greater number who are dying in training than in any combat we have today. That is a direct correlation to the funding they have. And we know where the world is today. We have an obligation to make sure our men and women can carry out their duty and be safe. But today, the question is: Can they carry out their training and be safe? We made a downpayment to make sure that is the case.

And so I will say to my friend, I am concerned about the debt as much as you and even more. That is why I voted to grow this economy and get more money in. I voted on this floor to actually curve what is causing the greatest growth, to guarantee it for next generations so it is there. Because if you let it get out of control, it will not be there.

But what is more important, at the end of the day, is that we can look back on any unobligated funds. It may be 5--it could be 6, 7, 8 years ago, and that money is just sitting there, and that program is doing nothing. If you are concerned about the debt, you want to take it back and let's pay it down. I look forward to working with you.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I apologize, you did ask me that the last time. I got caught up, and I forgot the other stuff. The President has sent a budget. The Budget Committee is reviewing it. I think you will see one coming after they review it.

But the one thing I do want to bring up, let's not repeat the same things we have gone through. We are living under the Budget Act of 1974. I think the world has changed since then. Why don't we modernize the Budget Act? We put that in that last bill. The bipartisan working group, I would say that should be our top priority. Let's not repeat the same mistakes, and let's not constrain ourselves if we really want to tackle this deficit.

I am hopeful you will work with us on that. But you said a few things that are interesting. You support the military, and I don't doubt that. But you voted against the military funding that was on the floor. When you talked about that omnibus that you wanted a lot of trust because everybody worked so closely together on and you are really afraid about the rescissions coming back that can take money back that wasn't even in the omnibus--a trust that that could break that you voted against-- you said, but, of course, the Republicans wanted the military. And you said, we increased it by 10 or so, even though it has been cut by more than 20. You said, but, of course, we wanted to fund other things. I thought you said education.

You said opioids.

So if you care about the military, you care about education, you care about opioids, and you are concerned about breaking a trust because you negotiated this, why did you vote ``no?'' Why did you vote against the things you just said you cared about? Then you said you cared a lot about the deficit. But on this floor, we had a balanced budget agreement--you actually said you supported it--but that is not how you voted. You voted ``no.'' So when you had an opportunity----

The answer is no, I'm not saying that, and you know I am not. Let me be very clear. They fought for the military funding; and when we got in the room to make the agreement, we held up our word. So let me follow through with a few more, because you make me concerned.

May I ask the gentleman if I may finish my answer before the gentleman reclaims his time.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is very healthy that we have these debates. I think the American public should see it because I believe, Mr. Speaker, when somebody says they support something, the best way to prove it is you vote for it.

As I stated earlier, the gentleman said he supports the military. I don't doubt that. But when the military funding bill came to the floor, after it has been cut by more than 20 percent and after more people have died in training than in combat, we had the opportunity to do it.

The gentleman also said in that bill there was good stuff like opioids and education. But he said ``no'' to that. I have heard the gentleman on this floor, Mr. Speaker, I have heard my friend talk about CHIP and the importance of that. I know it is important to the gentleman, but he voted against it.

I heard, Mr. Speaker, my friend bring up, because one of our colleagues here, Mark Meadows, talked about he would rather have a different BBA, but when he had the opportunity, he voted for that because he does believe in a balanced budget.

Mr. Speaker, I went to Puerto Rico with my friend. But when that funding came on the floor, I don't doubt that what he wants to do, we have written editorials together. He voted ``no.'' He told me time and time again that shutting down the government is the worst thing and that he would never do that. But when the time came, Mr. Speaker, he shut the government down this year.

So there is a difference between words and actions.

The one thing I would say, Mr. Speaker, my friend also told me he would let me answer this question without reclaiming his time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate individuals and their words. I just want to make sure people are held accountable for their actions. Yes, there was an omnibus on the floor, not anything on this side of the aisle wanted.

We passed all 12. We did our job. We did our job just like we promised. Unfortunately, the Senate--and it wasn't the majority over in the Senate, it was the minority--wanted to hold it hostage the same way they did when they wanted to shut down the government.

I think the American public deserves more and deserves better. That is why I think we need to reform the 1974 Budget Act, and I think this floor will see a great debate. I think both sides of the aisle would like to see it reformed. I just hope that the American public will not only hear the words but see the action in the votes to back up what people say.

We have.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my friend to give his explanation of why he voted ``no'' on the omni the people negotiated for, and I don't doubt that that is the reason why. He said he was concerned about DACA. The only thing, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about, that was the same excuse he gave me of why he voted to shut the government down when he said he would never do that either.

But, Mr. Speaker, when I read his Twitter account----

Once I finish this, I will give my friend the date.

Tuesday, on the gentleman's Twitter account--I like how my friend uses it more often, maybe the President inspired him--@WhipHoyer, Dreamers can still apply to renew DACA protections. Learn more about the requirement for applying for renewal.

I don't know which one is right. If on his Twitter account he says that it is okay because no DACA students or kids are being removed, he says in his Twitter account you can apply right now. But I am going to vote against the omni that we negotiated with because I am really worried about the rescissions that go against maybe some money that has been wasted.

But when I look at this, Mr. Speaker, I know for a fact the President made another offer to not only solve DACA, but to solve Dreamers. All he requested was could we have the border secure. He wasn't asking for an astronomical number.

When you think back, many times, Mr. Speaker, I get an argument from the other side about the Gang of Eight bill. They spent twice as much on border security than the President is asking for.

I know for a fact the President talked to the leader on the other side, of his party. I know for a fact they came back and said no. I know the President actually put it out on his Twitter account. The President wants to solve this problem, but he wants to make sure the border is secure.

Mr. Speaker, as we speak right now, there are people who are marching from other countries because they think they can just march directly across our border.

I think our border needs to be secure. I would hope everybody would feel that same way. I know the President wants to solve this problem. He offered. As a fact, Mr. Speaker, the President said it from inside these Chambers for the whole Nation to hear.

Sometimes I begin to wonder: Do words and action actually do the exact same thing? Could it be possible, Mr. Speaker, that sometimes people play politics with issues? Could it be possible that sometimes people could use that for an excuse? Could it be possible that people would say they want to solve a problem, but when they have the offer of a solution, they say no so they can keep it to try to make a political argument out of it?

I don't know. Maybe. But I will tell the American public this: We want to solve that problem.

Now, Mr. Speaker, my friend on the other side of the aisle is worried about the debt. I am, too. He voted for a budget that would increase it by more than $6 trillion, but he wants to raise your taxes and take more of your money by another $3 trillion. It still increases it much more than what he takes in taxes.

He said he heard those arguments all before that the Republicans, they won't do well if they let people keep more of their own money. Well, I just looked at the latest numbers. In the first 3 months with the new tax bill, do you know what? More revenue came in. Millions of people got to keep more of what they earned.

What is interesting is so many Americans got a pay raise simply because government said you could do better with your own. That, I think, is true. And if my friend, Mr. Speaker, agrees with that, I know he will be there for the recision.

Where can we stand up for the taxpayer? If there is money wasted here, why wouldn't we go line by line? It won't be just the omni. It will be all those other accounts that have been sitting there. I don't think that is a Republican or Democratic idea. I truly believe that is an American idea, and I think that is the responsibility that we all have.

I know these colloquies go long. I like my friend across the aisle, Mr. Speaker. I consider him a friend. But just as anybody has friends, we have different philosophical opinions, and that is healthy. But at the end of the day, we can't make excuses. At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, there is a bill on the floor.

And, yes, I want it 100 percent my way, but, unfortunately, that is not the way our government is created. It is supposed to find compromise. I can always find an excuse: Do you know what? Someone didn't look right at me, or someone said something I disagreed with.

But as we know today, no DACA child is getting deported. As we know today, the President wants to solve this. As we know today, the President

has made many offers. So, I think, Mr. Speaker, there is no more time for excuses. It is time for solving.

Will the gentleman yield?

He knows that is not true. You just said I want to stop unification of moms and dads? You know that is not true, and you know I made an offer to actually speed that up.

Yes, I am saying that is not true. Let me explain what it is.

So, when someone comes here, they can petition others. They can petition their parents. They can petition their children. They can petition their spouse.

They can petition their brother and sister, and then they can petition their married children.

Right as of today, currently, you are only allowing 65,000 for brothers and sisters. That is not a mother, and that is not a child.

Right now, today, there is more than a 30-year wait. So what we proposed is that system is not working. So a brother and sister has their own family. So instead of taking those up, why don't you put those into the spouse and the children?

So what we offered to you--and maybe they didn't quite understand it--you would speed up the process for parents, your spouses, and your children. I always thought that was very reasonable.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman asked me a question earlier. I want to make sure I answer it.

I made a claim that the gentleman voted to shut the government down. My claim is based upon three times:

January 22, the continuing resolution to keep the government open, you voted ``no'';

On February 6, the continuing resolution, you voted ``no'';

Then, when government was shut down, there was a bill to reopen the government on February 9, and you again voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet on Monday, April 16, 2018, when it shall convene at noon for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an outstanding member of our community, Mr. Ed Whiting, on his retirement as Chief of Police and for his tireless and dedicated service to the City of Taft, California.

For well over thirty years, Ed has dedicated his life to ensuring that the citizens of California's 23rd Congressional District remain safe and informed. Having graduated from East Bakersfield High School in 1976, Ed has long served as an instrumental member of California's Central Valley community. Upon graduation from high school, Ed enlisted in the United States Air Force as a Law Enforcement Specialist, where he learned how to effectively enforce rules and maintain order. Ed's successful career with the Air Force is marked by the accolades that he received--including a Good Conduct Medal and the Joint Service Commendation Medal for Operation Red, White and Blue during the 1980 Cuban Refugee Resettlement in Florida. He retired from the Air Force after achieving the rank of Sergeant.

Following his military service, Ed joined the Kern County Sheriff's Office before attending the Police Academy in Bakersfield. Ed went on to serve in Bakersfield, McFarland and eventually Taft in a myriad of roles--from Police Officer to Detective to Sergeant. His down-to-earth demeanor and larger-than-life personality have made Ed a joy to work with.

With an extensive background in law enforcement and a passion for serving others, Ed was the ideal candidate to take on the role of Taft Police Chief in 2012--serving proudly with diligence and grace. Perhaps one of the most telling events of Ed's success as police chief was the smooth and orderly manner in which he handled the 2013 shooting at Taft Union High School. Ed's effective rapid response strategies became a trademark of his career, and I truly believe that Ed's leadership greatly enhanced the Taft community's safety.

On behalf of California's 23rd Congressional District and the United States Congress, I am grateful for Ed's service to our community, as I know the Taft community is as well. I have always appreciated his friendship and advice, and I know that many others join me in celebrating his successful career. I wish Ed, his wife of 29 years, Robin, and his two children, Melissa and John, happiness in Ed's retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 45th anniversity of Cerro Coso Community College.

Established in the fall of 1973 as a separate college within the Kern Community College District, Cerro Coso grew quickly from its humble roots in the Indian Wells Valley community of Ridgecrest to representing the largest service area of any community college in the State of California. Today, the college serves an incredible 18,000 square miles of desert, mountain, and valley communities in eastern California at eight sites across Kern, Inyo, and Mono counties.

Cerro Coso has defined itself as the premiere community college in the eastern region of the Congressional District I represent, offering over 180 classes each semester and nineteen two-year degree programs, all of which have been accessible online since 1997. A source of great pride for the Indian Wells Valley, Cerro Coso has dedicated its mission to serving students who deserve an education regardless of financial or personal status. In what has become known as the ``Cerro Coso Promise,'' the college offers financial support to its student body, assisting with tuition and books so that students can achieve their educational goals regardless of financial barriers. The work accomplished at Cerro Coso is invaluable and truly vital to the community it serves.

I am incredibly proud of the faculty, administrators, and educators who have made Cerro Coso Community College into the educational powerhouse it is today in our community. The work these dedicated individuals have done has touched the lives of thousands of students, providing them the skills and knowledge to succeed in any endeavor they pursue. As a former trustee of the Kern Community College District and currently a proud Representative of the college and the Ridgecrest community, I look forward to continuing to watch Cerro Coso's growth and achievements in the years to come. Go Coyotes.

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 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 tomorrow.

One worth highlighting is H.R. 4909, the Student, Teachers, and Officers Preventing School Violence Act, sponsored by former sheriff, Representative John Rutherford.

Mr. Speaker, all Members of this House were saddened and horrified by the tragic events in Parkland, Florida. Sheriff Rutherford's bill will provide local communities with critical resources to upgrade our schools and keep our children safe. I look forward to the House speaking with one bipartisan voice next week and passing this important bill without delay.

Mr. Speaker, the House will also consider several bills from the Financial Services Committee. This includes two bills sponsored by Representative Scott Tipton: H.R. 1116, the TAILOR Act; and H.R. 4545, the Financial Institutions Examination Fairness and Reform Act; as well as H.R. 4263, the Regulation A+ Improvement Act, sponsored by Representative Tom MacArthur.

Taken together, these bills will consider House Republican's work to create an economic environment that is both pro-competition and smart and balanced in its regulatory approach.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, additional legislative items are possible, including potential legislation making further appropriations for FY 2018. I will be sure to inform all Members as soon as any additional items are added to our schedule.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I have great respect for the gentleman, and there were a lot of questions inside there, I believe.

Out of my respect for the gentleman, I am quite concerned that if he is fact-checked, he is going to get quite a few Pinocchios, so let me walk through, first, how he started the debate.

The gentleman started and the first question was concerning government funding to March 23. He then felt that work was not being done, and he used the phrase--and I may get it a little incorrect, but he said we only were able to pass a budget agreement because of the majority of the Democrats, and not the majority on the Republican side, passing it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

So I think it would just be helpful on the record to actually state what the vote was.

There were 167 Republicans who voted for that budget agreement, 67 who did not. There were 73 Democrats who voted for it, but the majority of Democrats, 119, voted against it, which Mr. Hoyer was in that group, as well, voting against it. So I would make one point, and that is 71 percent of Republicans voted for this budget agreement.

And just to make the facts correct, Mr. Hoyer's concern about the appropriations process, this House passed all 12 appropriations bills, and we did it on time and we sent it over to the Senate. In the meantime, the Democrats shut the government down before we could ever get there. So I think history should actually play to facts.

Yes, I am concerned about the March 23 deadline, but I am pushing hard. I would actually like to take those bills up next week. And as Mr. Hoyer knows, being a member of the Appropriations Committee as he was in the past, when you get to this point where we already have the numbers set, it is really what is called a four corners, the four leaders.

Now, the committees are all working through it. They are actually making great progress. There are a few things left to actually close out. I would like to get it done a week ahead of time, and I hope Mr. Hoyer's side would as well.

So let's walk through some others.

First of all, I was a small-business owner. The idea is having a bill on this floor that creates more jobs, that brings more access to capital. Mr. Speaker, I heard from the other side, the leader, she thought crumbs was the idea of Americans getting $1,000 in a bonus. That is about equal to what I am hearing, and I am offended by it. It is not insignificant that someone wants to create a job and have access to capital. The gentleman is wrong about that.

Then the gentleman talks about our Speaker. Our Speaker has worked a great deal, and, yes, he has kept his word.

Mr. Hoyer was in that meeting with me when we were in the White House. Before we left that bipartisan, bicameral meeting with the administration, we agreed to work on this issue in four areas, and we have had numerous meetings in my office about that as well.

I don't know, maybe you forget to state that we are a rule of law Nation. In doing so, that is why we are in this position we are today, because there was a past executive branch that thought they were a legislative branch and they did something that everyone would agree they do not have the power to do. So the current President said to move it to the legislative branch like it should be because there are court cases coming. In doing so, that is what we are working on.

The courts have now come back, giving further time. The Supreme Court has now given a timeline that wants to make sure the Ninth Circuit before there--so this gives us time to solve the problem.

I am more concerned about solving a problem than just passing a bill for some political favor. I do not want to be back at this place in another 2 years and having kids sitting here who are questioning where they are going to go.

I know you raised some issue about individuals. Not one person is in jeopardy that is registered within DACA. You have been in meetings where you heard that from the Secretary of Homeland Security, where you heard that from the Chief of Staff to the President as well.

The President even went further than talking about DACA to even making the point solving, but he also had three other pillars. As you know, we need a secure border. You also know the current law does not treat everybody equally who comes here illegally, so you are going to perpetuate the problem if you maintain the current law.

Thirdly, the idea that we want to make sure the nuclear family is closer together sooner--you have got a 30-year wait when someone wants to come in and petition a brother and sister.

Why don't we help them be able to bring their children and their spouses in together?

That is one of the proposals as well.

Then the whole concept of merit. Those are all common sense. I think they could be bipartisan. And the sooner we solve that problem, we will solve it for a long term.

So on this side of the aisle we want to get this job done long before the courts even have to act. I think that would be the proper thing to do. So, yes, that is what we have been working upon.

Now, another issue you brought up was about guns, and you talked about this Congress. I first want to give you a few little facts. I appreciate that you always mention my book. That is why I smile. We don't get any royalties from it, but the veterans do, so please mention it as much as you like.

If I take--and let me just give you the numbers. Quorum does this. Some bright kids out of Harvard created a company and it is all about data.

There are more bills out of committee, 643 in this Congress; and there are more bills out of this House, 558, than any Congress in the last 25 years. And in that meantime, we also passed tax reform that hasn't been done in three decades.

I know some people on your side of the aisle refer to it as crumbs or Armageddon, but I will tell you, to those families out there that got extra money, that are actually fixing their car or actually paying their hospital bills, or those 1.2 million people who just work at one company that now have a longer maternity leave, they don't think it is crumbs, and they don't think having a bill on the floor that let more people take a risk and create a small business is insignificant.

Now let me talk to you about what we did because we believe background checks are important as well. Let me give you a little background. The background check is only as good as the database of what you have.

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System, referred to as the NICS database, is currently administered by the FBI. If the NICS check indicates a person as being in a prohibited category, the FBI will signal a deny on the firearm transfer. However, the NICS database is incomplete and outdated.

For example, on November 5, 2017, a mass shooting occurred at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas. Devin Patrick Kelley murdered 26 and injured 20 others. Kelly was prohibited by law from purchasing or processing firearms or ammunition due to a domestic violence conviction in a court martial while in the United States Air Force. However, the Air Force failed to record the conviction in the FBI NICS database.

That is why this House, this Congress, this majority acted. We put the Fix NICS bill in December--it is sitting in the Senate--which would strengthen our background check system and make it more accurate. It would require Federal agencies to certify twice per year that they are uploading criminal record information to NICS, requiring agencies to establish an implementation plan to ensure maximum coordination and reporting of records. Now you are on record to voting against that.

We have another bill on the floor from a former sheriff from Jacksonville, Florida. He is looking at school violence. Let me walk you through that one.

As I mentioned, Congress will vote next week on the STOP School Violence Act. This bill is proudly supported by Sandy Hook Promise, who note that it will ensure that millions more schools will be trained in prevention and lives will be saved.

Now, this isn't the only thing we are doing. Just this week, we are having oversight. We took the Oversight and Government Reform Committee in this Congress and the Judiciary Committee in this Congress this week, and brought the FBI in, and they will come back again; because there is not one person in America who wants to see what happened in Florida to happen again.

But let's walk through this situation, because I think it is important that we examine it because we want to solve these problems. There were multiple red flags that were raised to the FBI about the behavior of Nikolas Cruz.

The very first red flag: On September 25, 2017, a YouTube channel host took a snapshot of a comment under his video that said: ``I am going to be a professional school shooter.'' He sent that comment to the West Virginia FBI tip center, where all tips are supposed to go, which deemed it a credible threat and opened an investigation.

FBI agents searched for files on Nikolas Cruz, but they were unable to identify the individual and did not even reach out to YouTube in an attempt to recover records on Cruz, so on October 11, 2017, the FBI formally closed the inquiry. That was one red flag, but that is not where it ended.

A second red flag: On January 5, 2018, a second tip came via a phone call to the FBI from a concerned family member. They described in detail problems with Cruz he was showing with regard to social media, cruelty to animals, school trouble, and dealing with a recent death in the family.

When the FBI searched the database again for Nikolas Cruz, the previous tip popped up. However, despite the call from a family member, from a previous red flag, from a YouTube comment from the individual himself that he wanted to be a professional school shooter, they closed the investigation. The shooting happened on February 14, 5 months after the first tip.

This House has not stopped to act. This House acted in December. The background checks have to be fixed. That is why we passed it and put it into the Senate. That is why we are taking up more action now for the schools and adding that to what we already took up in this House. Those aren't insignificant.

I believe there is a path forward. Just as we did all appropriations bills, just as we have been through numerous meetings when it comes to DACA, there is not one child in jeopardy today. The only jeopardy that we will have is if we don't get together and solve the problem.

We have narrowed it to four areas. You and I know what has been said in those meetings. You and I know where it is. We can find compromise. We can solve this problem. But let's make a pledge to the American public that we don't do a bill for the sake of something politically. We create law that solves something so we are not back here in a future Congress taking up the exact same issue putting other people in jeopardy. That is my promise, and that is what I will continue to work for.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

That would be the same outcome that is already sitting in the Senate. The Senate has the Fix NICS bill now. We will add more to it.

I hope you are just as frustrated with the Senate as I am.

Why can they not pass something?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Let me give the gentleman a few facts. There are 426 bills that have passed this House that sit over in the Senate. Of those 426, there is less than 10 that are partisan. The rest of them all have bipartisan votes.

There are more than 200 votes on bills that sit over in that Senate that were passed here by voice unanimously. So I am not one to do something politically just so somebody else feels better that now they can vote for something because they voted against it before. I am for making law and saving children.

So from this point, we are going to pass the STOP School Violence Act. We are going to send it to the Senate, just the way they already have our Fix NICS bill over there. And let's have the Senate--and I will take you up on this. Let's work together right now to get that bill back over here.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I actually have the same question. I don't know what we have to do.

You know, we come here quite often to have these colloquies. They are supposed to just be for what is happening the next week, but we talk about more issues. For a long time, I heard: What about the Children's Health Insurance Program? You know what, this House brought it up early. We tried to work through committee. The Speaker knows how many times I went on the other side.

They wouldn't even let their committee work on it. So what did we do? We took the ideas that the Democrats had, we put it in the bill; we passed it bipartisan; they still said no. They didn't say no once, they said it numerous times to the Children's Health Insurance Program. And I sat here wondering: What more do we have to do?

Disaster relief. I know, Mr. Speaker, the heart of the minority whip. We went together to Puerto Rico. We went together to the Virgin Islands. We went to Florida. What more do we have to do? Then we brought it to the floor, and he still said no. But you know what? We still got it done.

Government funding. He started this whole discussion about government funding. He misspoke and said it was because of the Democrats that we were able to make this plan. He said a majority of them; and it was not a majority, it was a minority.

It was a majority of the House.

Legitimately, may I respond?

May I ask the gentleman: Are you stating that we brought CHIP up just weeks before it expired?

After?

With all due respect, I think you might want to ask your staff before you put that on record, with all due respect. Well, I am not sure you are correct because we brought it, and it passed this House.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I know you reclaimed your time the time before, but let me finish what I was saying.

With all due respect, what do we have to do? Yes, we have Fix NICS sitting over in the Senate. And, yes, we are going to add to it for school violence. We know that it does not have to be partisan, but the background check system is broken. Let's not make it partisan. Let's get it done.

When it comes to the challenge for DACA, we are just down to four items. Border security. Not one person in here would probably argue against that. And I know my friend across the aisle, Mr. Speaker, I know his heart. He is a good man. He was, as he stated earlier, majority leader. They had the majority here. They had 60 votes over in the Senate. They had a lot of Members in the Senate, and they had the Presidency. Same problem at that time, too. They did not fix it.

I don't want to be in that same place in the future. My commitment is to fixing this problem. So let's sit down. Let's talk about border security, but let's make sure our borders are actually secure.

When I look back--and people talk about that Gang of Eight bill--you put more money in there for border security than was even being requested today. But people still, on the other side, say no, Mr. Speaker.

But the other point, too, is, if somebody comes from Mexico or Canada and illegally comes across the border, why are they sent back to their country but everybody else is not? Let's secure the border correctly. Then, when it comes to really protecting the nuclear family, why don't we make it a little faster that you could have your children and your spouse with you? And do you know what that would do? I think that would make everybody a little stronger.

When it comes to the idea of coming to America, should it just be the luck of a lottery, or should it be merit? I think merit is a fairer process for everybody's opportunity.

Now, I don't think anybody out there that is listening or can hear this later would say those are partisan ideas. But when we sat in the White House and we discussed it and we said let's narrow it to those four items, I know the way our government is designed.

It is not designed that one person gets all their way. It is based upon compromise.

This city, our capital, was because of a compromise. The creator of the banking system, Alexander Hamilton, made this our capital. George Washington, our first President, never served here. He was sworn in on Wall Street and served his second term in Philadelphia.

As my good friend knows, Mr. Speaker, when a bill comes out of committee, it gets worked on, then it is brought to the floor. That is exactly what is happening with Mr. Goodlatte today, so we can bring something to the floor and pass it, that everybody, hopefully, can vote for.

This Congress has acted on so many items, but so many times this year it has felt like the election has never ended. I know the heart of many of the Members on the other side. They wanted to vote for disaster relief. They were so frustrated that they shut the government down.

Do you know what? We have all learned from that lesson before. It is not productive.

I also watched people when they talked about health facilities. They wanted that funding, but they couldn't vote for it.

Then they said the whole problem was, when we brought all 12 appropriation bills to the floor, that they couldn't vote for them because they needed a budget agreement. They needed more money. So, yes, it took a long time to work that out because you want to hold that with other issues as well.

Finally, after the shutdown, that was able to be broken apart. But when we finally got that budget agreement that really is negotiated by both sides, even the individual on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, came to the floor and said she was going to vote ``no,'' but she negotiated and wanted to tell how she got victories inside the bill.

That is not compromise. You can't sit in a room and say, ``Okay, I will give here and you give there,'' and based upon the formation of our government, with the Senate as well, we come to an agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what goes on in people's minds and why they wanted to be there. I will make this promise to the American public: I will stay in the room, I will take the ups and downs, but at the end of the day, I want to solve a problem. I don't want a political bill.

I will tell you this, Mr. Speaker. I have been in the room many times with this President. He said on this very floor, he went beyond DACA. For those in the American public must understand. It is a much higher number. And for him to find that compromise, he just asked for three other things. That doesn't mean we are going to get them all, but that does mean we could find compromise in those three.

Mr. Speaker, the one sad part, if we had this debate with the American public, they would find compromise with those three items. They would probably find it very fast. They would want their borders secure; they would want the nuclear family closer together sooner; and they would probably want to see some merit.

So I know there are times here that we get heated, but the majority of bills that pass this floor are bipartisan.

As I stated earlier, more than 200 of those more than 400 bills that are sitting in the Senate passed by voice, all the Democrats and all the Republicans.

We are going to differ on some items, and that is right. I want you to keep your principles. But there is a window, and there is an opportunity. And I know, as the days get closer, the election will be sooner, but let us make a promise to one another. Let's keep that election on the outside, and let's find solutions on this side, in this House.