Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, we can amend the rule to save the right of every American to be heard on the floor of Congress.

Madam Speaker, a tenet of socialism is to silence all opposition. The right to speak your mind and question your leaders are often the first casualties of socialist governments throughout history; not far behind are other important freedoms, including the right to defend yourself and the right to earn a living, which are impossible to protect without the freedom of speech.

Our Constitution lists the freedom of speech as its very first freedom, and for our Founding Fathers, the reason was self-evident, as Benjamin Franklin once said: ``Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without freedom of speech.''

The very first action of this majority is to take it away.

From the very beginning of this institution, we had the motion to recommit to protect the minority. If you listen to Benjamin Franklin, tell me how the 117th Congress can have any wisdom or any public liberty or any freedom, because you deny us speech.

Benjamin Franklin was right then, and he is right now. But I have noticed the dangerous trend against free speech in recent years, a trend that betrays everything our Founding Fathers lived, fought, and died for.

It began in our schools on college campuses where our students are taught the absurd notion that free speech is about privilege and power, not open debate and rational deliberation.

Then it jumped to the mainstream media and social media giants who used their power to protect their liberal friends and censor conservatives, including during the last election and throughout the pandemic.

Now, with today's vote, the same socialist ideas have found their way onto the floor and into the rules of the U.S. House of Representatives, which will shape every law this Chamber tries to make in the next 2 years, taking the same idea that the socialist governments have taken before, the fear that you might lose based on an idea, so take their voice away.

Whose voices are those? The constituents of millions of Americans. These changes will stop American voices from being heard, primarily by revoking the motion to recommit, the minority's longtime right to offer the last amendment to legislation.

I see my good friend, the majority leader, across the aisle. He and I have switched jobs before. I was the majority leader. For 8 years, never once was it ever debated that we would deny the minority the right to an amendment on a bill. Never once. I know the majority leader will stand up later and say: Well, this has been changed time and time again. Only by Democrats.

I know my friend is an institutionalist. I know he believes in this body, but he cannot believe about taking this away.

Why would you want to? You cannot pass a motion to recommit on the floor unless you have a majority of the people in the body to vote for it. Are you so afraid that you can't hold people that you want to take it away? Are your constituents better than somebody else's?

To again quote Ben Franklin, free speech is a necessary tool for exposing and keeping in check narrow thoughts and narrow men. That is what the MTR is all about. For our constituents, taking it away means freedom of speech is silenced and good ideas are stifled.

While House Democrats have slowly chipped away at this right in the past, today's vote truly represents the nuclear option. It will prove once and for all who is truly an institutionalist in this body.

Is it no wonder that your majority is so thin that you try to take away the MTR? Was the Speaker vote too close?

I can't imagine casting that vote as your very first action. Additionally, these rules mirror the misplaced priorities of the last Congress. Democrats' 45-page resolution strips all mention of the words father, mother, son, daughter, brother, mother-in-law, daughter-in-law. I am a proud father. I am an extremely proud son. But we are going to strike them from the rules. First, we take your speech away. Then, we take away what you can say.

Already, in their race to wokeness--I listened to your opening prayer yesterday. They changed the word ``amen,'' which has nothing to do with gender.

Today's vote is about more than organizing Congress. It is about the American people's right to be heard by their government. This vote is important. It might be the most important vote we take after the vote for Speaker. It signals our priorities, our vision for the entire 2 years.

The fact that this is the Democrats' first course of action as a majority in the new Congress speaks volumes to the lengths they will go to silence the people's voice.

I almost thought it would be the opposite. I know what you thought the day, the weeks, the months before the election. You wondered if you would have enough seats in here for how big your majority would be. I listened to the Speaker say she wasn't going to

only win the majority; she was winning it for the next two or three elections because they were going to gain so many seats. My dear friend predicted a 15-seat gain by the Democrats. But that is not what the American people told you.

I probably would have reversed and said: Oh, my gosh, if we are doing everything that the American people do not want, maybe we should change course. But you actually took the opposite approach.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Let's deny people to even say more because they don't like what we are doing.

I have watched this happen in other parts of the world, but I never thought, in the fundamental belief of the very first amendment of America, of the very belief of this body where we debate, where the voices of America are supposed to be heard, where an MTR has been around from the very beginning of this Nation, of this body--but you will be the individuals, you will be the slim majority, that took it away. You will cast that vote. You will have the history written about you.

The fact that this is your very first course of action, you are setting the tone for the next 2 years. The political and moral stakes are high, and the American people know it.

If censorship replaces open debate on this floor, serious deliberation of the most important issues confronting our country will become impossible. More importantly, Congress will continue to waste time on unnecessary distractions that have nothing to do with the needs of the American people. This damage will be immediate and long-lasting.

But Republicans will never give up our right to fully represent our constituents' voices here in Washington. Democrats' small thinking may limit how we can do what is right for our constituents, but it won't stop us from doing what is needed. Maybe we need a little history in modern history.

You had the ability to control this body for 40 years before Republicans ever won in 1994. You had tried to shut it off now and then based upon certain bills. The very first thing that Republicans did when they had the chance to write the rules and be in the majority, they guaranteed it for the minority--for you, when you were in the minority. They were not afraid.

When we narrowed the majority, much to the same numbers we have today, was it removed then because Republicans were in power? It was not. It was guaranteed. My good friend was here during that time. The Speaker served during that time.

When we, the Republicans, took the majority again and had it for 8 years, not only did we never touch it, we guaranteed it again. You have been in power for 2 years. You lost seats based upon what you did on this floor. Instead of changing course, you now deny people their voice.

That is the history that will be written today. That is the legacy you will live with. I will promise you this: Two years from today, when you are no longer in the majority, we will correct the course of history because we are not afraid of ideas. We believe it makes us stronger. We know it makes this country stronger.

This choice will shape everything we do in the next 2 years and beyond. We have big challenges. We are going to have to work together. But if you deny us, you are going to have a hard time working with us.

Madam Speaker, you and I travel a lot back to our districts. We often fly on the same planes. We see our constituents, and I see you listen to them. I see you talk to them about issues. I have watched you work across the aisle on some of the biggest issues, even when you were not in the majority.

I want you to think one moment, Madam Speaker: What if those constituents you talk to--and you say you will bring their voice to the floor--what if you were going to be denied that? You never were denied that when you were in the minority.

But I just ask every Member of this body, before you cast this vote, you may think a tough vote goes away. Oh, no, it won't. I will make you this promise: You have given me the passion to fight harder for my constituents. You have given me the passion to find a better opportunity for more of their voices to be heard. And you have given me the passion to win back the majority so I can win back the voices on this floor that they won't be denied. And they might not be my constituents. They may be the voices of your constituents because it is the right thing to do that has been here the entire time this body has been here.

Madam Speaker, there are times we will disagree, but there are very few times I have ever been this embarrassed of this body, the hypocrisy of what I am about to see, the hypocrisy of what you think you will defend, everybody in this body knows it is wrong. But you feel you can grip power a little harder. You feel you can hold onto it a little stronger.

I will tell you this: The power of free speech is so much stronger than the power of somebody trying to grip and hold onto the majority.

Madam Speaker, I strongly urge defeat of the previous question.

Madam Speaker, on page 1 of the original Thomas Jefferson Manual of Parliamentary Practice he writes that: ``It is very material that order, decency, and regularity be preserved in a dignified public body.''

Now, we all have the awesome privilege of serving in that dignified public body: this, the people's House. Our American democracy and its institutions are looked up to as an example for the entire world. Jefferson's emphasis on order and decency is just as important today is it was more than 200 years ago.

Unfortunately, that was not the case today.

Madam Speaker, today is a day that historians will write about. It is a sad day for this House, the people's House. Our rules of order and decency were broken today, and worse, the House just voted to condone this violation of decorum.

Madam Speaker, I know there is frustration in this body. But it is our duty to focus not on retribution but on building a more perfect union.

We can be doing so much more, and we should be doing so much better.

Madam Speaker, I would ask that all Members take it upon themselves to uphold the dignity of this institution. Let us preserve and promote those ideals of order and decency that this body was founded upon and that this body will need if we are to address the many challenges facing our Nation.

Madam Speaker, it is not just our Nation that is watching; the world is watching us. I hope we can rise to the occasion.

Madam Chair, the NDAA has been a bipartisan bill for the last 58 consecutive years. In those decades, control of Congress changed hands many times, with Democrats in the majority and Republicans in the majority. Both parties maintained a consistent motto: The troops come first. The troops come before politics. We are making history this week because that all changed.

But not in the Senate, where the National Defense Authorization Act, the NDAA passed with bipartisan support, not just Republicans, but Chuck Schumer voted for it as well; 86 Senators.

But it is not being continued in the House, not under this majority. The NDAA was a test for this new majority. It was a test of whether they could put their radicalism aside and work across the aisle to do what was right for the country. The Democrats, or should I say, many call themselves socialist Democrats, failed that test.

After weeks of infighting they brought yet another partisan bill to the floor. So this year's NDAA, at least the House version, will not and cannot be bipartisan.

Now, let me give you a couple of reasons why:

First, the bill is filled with poison pills and rife with flaws. Here are some of the most harmful ones.

It makes it tougher to recruit and retain effective soldiers and negatively impacts military families. This bill cuts an astonishing $1.2 billion from the military personnel accounts.

Terrorist attacks still threaten us and threaten the homeland, but Democrats would close GTMO and, against all common sense, bring some of the world's worst and most dangerous terrorists to the United States, instead of keeping them where they belong.

Madam Chairwoman, it is going to be quite interesting history when you cast this vote, and when these terrorists come to the homeland, how you answer to your constituents that you cast that vote to make that happen.

The humanitarian crisis on the southern border continues; so does the Democrats refusal to address it. They are working to stop construction on the border and, worse, placing severe restrictions on the military's traditional mission to support border security.

Democrats have spent the last 2 years accusing President Trump of being a Russian agent and telling us how big a threat Putin is. But what does the NDAA do? It actually empowers Russia and China, gives them an advantage.

Even when we worked with our NATO allies on what we would deal with when it came to nuclear weapons, they deny it inside this bill.

When it comes to hypersonics, you cut it. When it comes to the future of this country, you just put us in a weaker position.

Any way you look at it, this bill will not make America safer.

But the problems here go beyond bad policy ideas. The Democrats' partisan process is egregious. Let's just look at the facts.

This year, 439 amendments, a record, were made in order. You would think that would reflect bipartisan amendments. Why do you think it would reflect bipartisan? Because let's look at the last 2 years, and I can look at that because the gentleman on our side of the aisle who was chair at that time ran two NDAA bills. At the end of the day, the vote tally was way into the 300s, almost 400.

But how do you build something in bipartisanship? First, you start in committee. Then when it comes to the floor with all the other Members, you allow their amendments to come.

And those 2 years of those NDAA bills with Republicans in the majority, do you know who had the majority of the amendments on this floor? The minority party. The minority party had the most amendments on this floor.

So of those 439, how was the minority party's voice heard in this new NDAA that now has become partisan? Fourteen percent. That is right. Fourteen percent of the amendments on this floor were allocated to the minority party, when history proves that we have done something different when somebody else was in charge.

But the most egregious of all of this was how they treated the rules that we fought for inside this House, that we had this body open. We are a country of the rule of law. We believe this House should work the same way.

So when I listened to the new Speaker talk about the changes in this body, one was a Consensus Calendar, that anybody who is elected to Congress, if they did their work, if they worked hard, if they were able to achieve more than 290 cosponsors on a bill, you should have a voice on this floor. I heard Members on both sides of the aisle say they could not vote for a Speaker unless somebody would agree to this. It was agreed to, and it was changed.

So when the moment came when a Member had done the work, when it met that threshold--and we know that threshold is hard to meet. That Member's name was Congressman Joe Wilson.

What did Joe Wilson put his effort, his sweat, and his tears in? What could he actually achieve by working on both sides of the aisle? It was the Military Surviving Spouses Equity Act. It would make it easier for spouses of servicemembers who died to receive military benefits. He did everything that the new rule said you had to do.

And what did this new majority do after they quashed any ability for amendments on the other side? They changed the rule that they just created.

My father would look at me. He would question my character if I gave somebody my word and I broke it. Not only did we give somebody our word, we actually changed the rules in this House.

Joe Wilson has 365 sponsors--not just supporters, but cosponsors. That is nearly this entire House. It qualified for the Consensus Calendar that Speaker Pelosi promised to create so the floor would be open to the best, and most of us agreed with that idea. It turns out that was just another broken promise by the majority.

I wonder if anyone on the other side will bring it up. I wonder if it will bother them that, in the moment that you told this body what the rules would be, and somebody achieved it for the military spouses, that you had actually changed the rule so it cannot be voted on.

I have seen a lot of things happen on this floor; I have seen a lot of things that embarrass me; but this is probably

one of the most shameful things I have ever seen a majority do.

The Democrat Socialists stripped the language from Joe Wilson's bill, discarded his legislation, and stuck the language into their own partisan NDAA that our Conference won't support. They put it into a bill that Joe Wilson can't even support after he did all the work, after they made promises not only to the Members of Congress, but remember what promise you made to the American public.

Our national security is not a game, but that is exactly how Democrats are treating it.

Madam Chair, this majority has reached new lows this week. They seem determined to prove to the American people week in and week out that they are incapable of governing responsibly.

They can walk out these doors; they can look down the hall; and they can see the Chamber on the other side taking up a similar bill that reaches 86 percent of the Senate voting ``yes,'' with the leaders on the Republican and Democrat side agreeing to it, with the majority in the Senate not changing the rules that they laid out for the American public to see.

The NDAA for Fiscal Year 2020 will determine whether our military maintains its gains in readiness or languishes after years of progress.

The stakes of this year's defense budget are too high to be left to the wild fantasies to the left. It is time for them to stop the partisan games and send a message to the world that America is serious about protecting its interests, supporting our allies, and shaping the future of the international order for generations to come.

Madam Chair, I know what will happen on this floor today. History will be written about it. Fifty-eight years that this body has put troops first, this is not the history I want for this House. They will write about what happens today, but it won't be in a positive notion. What gets voted on today will not become law.

Madam Chair, I don't get into conference fights and debates. You can have differences within, but why make the troops suffer? How difficult is it to put the troops first?

There are moments for politics, and this is not one. This is not a moment to be proud. This is probably one of the lowest moments I have watched a majority use.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of John G. Giumarra, Jr., who passed away on June 30, 2019 at the age of 78. John was a well-respected businessman not only in Kern County, but throughout California.

Born to a family that had been growing grapes in California since 1922, John joined the family business at an early age. John earned his bachelor's degree from University of California, Berkeley, and went on to earn his Juris Doctor from Stanford Law, working as the Book Review Editor of the Stanford Law Review. He initially moved to Newport Beach to work for a law firm, but the family business quickly drew him back to Bakersfield. There, John applied his legal acumen in assisting his father with the company that bears their family name--Giumarra Vineyards. Working as the in-house counsel, John played a critical role in developing contracts with other businesses, as well as playing a lead role in working with U.S. and foreign government officials to expand American grape exports.

For years, John worked tirelessly, embracing an increasingly important role as the face of his family business. Through his dedication, John transformed Giumarra Vineyards into an internationally-known brand. A pioneer in viticulture, John imported Chilean grapes in the 1980's for use in Giumarra Vineyards products during the off season in the U.S., a move that bolstered the company's market share and served to enhance its rapidly-growing footprint.

In 2015, John became President of Giumarra Vineyards.

John was also extremely active in the grape industry; for 33 years, John served as both the Chairman of the Board of Directors and the Executive Chairman of the California Table Grape Commission. He served as the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the California Grape and Tree Fruit League, as well as on the Board of Directors of both the United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association and the Produce Marketing Association.

In addition to his dedication to leading and growing the grape industry, John was also committed to raising money for education, serving as the Chairman of the annual California State University, Bakersfield Athletics Spring BBQ, raising millions of dollars since he was named chairman back in 1972.

Those who knew John will fondly remember him as a great mentor, a consummate professional, tireless advocate for the grape industry, and a dedicated family man. I am proud to have known him and been able to call John a friend. I will miss his counsel and sage advice on the important issues facing the grape industry and agriculture in our community, state, and across the country.

John is survived by his wife, Pamela, his five children, John III, Randy and his wife Barri, Juliana and her husband Clayton, Joseph, Jillian and her husband Morgan, and his 15 grandchildren. On behalf of Kern County and the 23rd Congressional District of California, I want to extend my condolences to the entire Giumarra family. John will be missed, but he leaves behind a legacy that will continue to serve as an inspiration and shape an industry for years to come.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, on July 4, a 6.4 magnitude earthquake hit Ridgecrest, California. A day later, our Ridgecrest community experienced a 7.1 magnitude earthquake.

To put that in perspective, the Northridge quake that, 20 years ago, severely cost 60 lives and others and crippled Los Angeles was less than that.

People felt this throughout southern California, but the epicenter of these earthquakes was located on the Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake.

Hundreds of aftershocks have already occurred and are still occurring.

The Navy announced that, due to earthquake-related damage, China Lake was not mission capable and that nonessential personnel had to be evacuated. This is significant because China Lake, along with neighboring installations, form a cornerstone of our national defense architecture that integrates all operational domains: air, land, sea, space, and cyberspace.

The men and women who work here help test and develop the technology needed to equip our warfighters with the very best weapons and tools to ensure our military remains second to none.

Now, my amendment, which I offered with Congressman Cook, was included in the en bloc package. It would authorize $100 million to help address China Lake's most immediate needs, and it requires the Department of Defense to develop a plan by October 1 to assess, repair, and modernize the infrastructure and facilities at China Lake and other installations in the R-2508 Special Use Airspace Complex that was damaged by the earthquakes.

The extent of this damage is still being assessed, but we need to ensure that we are not only repairing this important base to address the threats facing our Nation today, but in the years ahead.

Mr. Chairman, I want to be clear to my constituents in Ridgecrest, in Kern County, this amendment is just an initial step in helping China Lake and the communities I represent impacted by these earthquakes make sure they recover.

Over the coming days, weeks, and months, I ask my colleagues in this Chamber and the U.S. Senate to join with me to ensure Ridgecrest, China Lake, and all communities impacted by earthquakes and natural disasters have our full support and are provided the resources they need to quickly rebuild and get back to normal.

I also ask my colleagues to join me in thanking all the local first responders, the local, State, and Federal emergency response officials who have worked nonstop over the past several days to ensure our constituents affected in Ridgecrest were safe, have food and water and a place to sleep.

Finally, I also want to thank the thousands of residents across our communities for their help, their actions, and their prayers for their neighbors in need.

It is said adversity does not build character; it reveals it. Earthquakes can shake our foundations, but the residents of Ridgecrest should hold their heads high. In this time of adversity, their true character has shown and is an inspiration to all of us.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to remember the life and legacy of Mr. David Marcus, a larger-than-life personality, passionate supporter of our community, and a great friend to many, who passed away on June 28, 2019 after his seventh battle with cancer. A resident of Bakersfield, California, David will be remembered throughout our community for his contagious positive attitude, his dedicated faith in God, and his ubiquitous presence--he was known locally as ``Mr. Bakersfield.''

David was born on December 22, 1958 in Passaic, New Jersey, and later moved to Bakersfield. He developed his job skills working at the Bakersfield Association of Retarded Citizens and quickly found a career working at Albertson's, where he inspired everyone he met. David was often seen cheering on different high school sports teams, like his niece's Centennial Golden Hawks. With his can-do spirit and positive attitude, David quickly became known for being their biggest supporter, cheering on our community's student-athletes as they competed for championships. Despite his cancer diagnosis, David was constantly at games, events, and community celebrations, sharing the power of positivity with everyone he came in contact with. In recognition of this, he was announced as the winner of the 2018 Greatest Community Supporter Award, which was presented to him by the Kern High School District.

David, a loud supporter of everything Bakersfield, would make friends anywhere he went as he cheered on and championed different events in the community. From welcoming home veterans as they returned from an Honor Flight to cheering on players with disabilities during the League of Dreams to attending our community's annual Relay for Life, David was someone our community united around. In fact, in just a few days, members of the Bakersfield community came together to raise money to ensure that he received a star on the historic Fox Theatre's Walk-of- Fame in downtown Bakersfield.

For those of us lucky enough to call him a friend, it was not surprising to see that David never lost his vision of the power of positivity and prayer. David prayed for everyone in his family, our community, and even for the members of this legislative body, asking that we be given the wisdom to make the right decisions for our country. Despite battling cancer seven times, David never became angry or bitter. Instead his warm, positive personality shined brighter than ever as the battles got longer and tougher. He will be remembered as a warrior who never gave up and fought valiantly until the end. On behalf of California's 23rd Congressional District, I want to extend my most heartfelt condolences to David's family, including his sister Arlene and husband Virgil; his sister Debbie and husband George; his nieces Bee, Alexandria, and GloriAnn; and his nephews George, Gino, and Guy.

David's life, actions, and love for his community will undoubtedly continue to inspire us, as will his words: Thumbs Up, Cancer Down.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, 58 days--58 days--is the amount of time since the administration asked and said there was a crisis on the border, that they needed funding.

Madam Speaker, 18 times--18 times--we had the opportunity to take a vote on this floor, and we did not come to a solution, and it did not pass.

Madam Speaker, two times--two times--The New York Times wrote editorials in those 58 days calling upon this body to put politics aside, that this crisis on the border was greater than the politics that we want to play.

The Mexican Government realizes there is a crisis on the border and just sent 15,000 troops. We have seen the pictures. We have heard the words. On either side they talk of it.

We were in this well just a few days ago having a debate. Many of us said: Why would we take this moment to do a political maneuver that will not go anywhere in the Senate?

Don't take our word for it. Take the votes for it. The bill did not pass.

There is a time for every season. The season to continue to play politics is over. The season to put people before politics is now.

Don't take my word for it. Take the example of the Chamber that is just across the way. It is not far. You can see it if you look out those doors; you can walk it without taking much breath; and you can understand what bipartisanship looks like, Madam Speaker.

The Senate took up a bill to take up this crisis. The vote was 84-8.

Madam Speaker, 84-8. There has been historic legislation that was passed with much less, but there have been very few that have ever been defeated that have gone 84-8.

But today, we are going to take hours to learn the exact same experience that we had just a few, short hours ago. The 84-8--when I listen to the other side and say that this--the Democratic Party, Madam Speaker, wants to do this.

Let me read the names of some of those who voted for this bill to understand what bipartisan sounds like: Senator Chuck Schumer, Senator Dick Durbin, Senator Tim Kaine, Senator Patty Murray, and Senator Dianne Feinstein all voted ``yes.'' Every single member of the Senate Democratic leadership voted ``yes'' to end the crisis on the border.

But why, Madam Speaker, are we on this floor now? Why does the Democratic leadership on this side want to continue to play politics when the Democrat leadership in the Senate says no?

Fifty-eight days is enough. Eighteen votes over there are too many.

But, yes, people are dying. But, yes, the money is out. We have all acknowledged it on this floor.

Madam Speaker, it makes me begin to wonder, how can a few control so many?

On that opening day, when we are on this floor, we all raise our hand individually. We all swear to uphold the Constitution. Our names are individually on the ballot when we are voted to come in here.

This is not a moment to let somebody else control your name or your voting card. This is not a moment to say, my party tells me to go here, because that is not the case.

Chuck Schumer is the leader of the Democratic Party. Dick Durbin is the leader of the Democrats when it comes to immigration. I have spent hours and months with Dick Durbin in a room trying to come to an immigration agreement, and we have seen places far, far apart. We have spent months trying to come to a conclusion.

But you know what? We have this time. We have found a more perfect union when we found bipartisanship.

But are we going to allow a few to continue to deny it?

Fifty-eight days. You do not have more. The money is gone. The time is now.

We all know that we are better than this. I do not accuse anybody on either side of what they truly believe about a crisis. I have heard.

I have heard people on the other side of the aisle, Madam Speaker, that said they want to vote for the Senate bill. Can we allow them to vote for the Senate bill?

Can we allow them to join with the 84 Senators out of 100 on the other side that said ``yes'' to it? Or do we have a few that control what can come to the floor?

Now, I heard in this rule debate that there are some amendments; that somehow they are going to make it better. What makes it better? That we do not fund to pay any overtime costs for Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, or provide funding for the active duty of the National Guard troops working with them on the front line of the crisis at the border?

Is that making it better?

Is that really what you want to stake your political career on?

Is that really what you want to stand up against bipartisanship for?

Madam Speaker, I have heard a lot of names on the other side say they would vote for it. I think everybody in this body knows that that Senate bill will pass. I think everybody in their heart knows that is where we are going to end up.

But do we have to go through it one more time?

You do not have to worry about what the outcome will be. The leader of the Senate has already said what will happen; because I will promise you this, on this side of the aisle, we will stay here until this is done. We will not leave, and we will stand with the bipartisan vote in the Senate.

If you are worried about getting to 218, do not worry. Put that bill on suspension, I promise you it will pass.

I call upon all of our better angels for this one moment, for this one time, when America is watching, that we rise to the occasion; that we put the partisanship aside; that we have swapped; that the Senate has actually taught us, given us the adult supervision to show that, yes, we have had that fight; yes, you tried to make it and it didn't make it. But there is something better. There is a window, and there is an opportunity.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table H.R. 3401, with the Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, it has been 56 days since the Trump administration asked for emergency funding to address the humanitarian crisis at our southern border, 56 days.

The New York Times had two editorials--not one, but two. Mexico is now sending 15,000 troops to the southern border. But Democrats, Madam Speaker, have rejected a bill to provide the aid that is needed not once, not twice, not even 10 times, but 18 times.

Madam Speaker, I was shocked when I actually heard from the other side of the aisle that someone said there is a crisis. I guess after 56 days, they read some of those editorials. Now, after weeks of doing nothing and denying that a crisis exists, they are offering legislation that is misguided and is purely political.

They are, once again, taking what should be a bipartisan issue and inserting partisan poison pills. I would say I would be shocked, but this isn't the only issue they have done that on this year.

Madam Speaker, they took a bill that had a 100 percent vote from Republicans and Democrats dealing with prescription drugs, and before it got through the Speaker's Office, Madam Speaker, it became political, a poison pill.

They took a bill that was in Ways and Means that got every Republican and every Democrat to vote for it, but, again, before it came to the floor, another poison pill.

I guess we might have to get used to this, but the American public should not.

Madam Speaker, that isn't how it is being used on the other side of this building. In the Senate, they actually took up this issue. They passed it out of committee 30-1.

I know my colleagues might be shocked because I said that went through committee. I know my colleagues might be shocked because I said it was bipartisan. I know my colleagues might be shocked because they actually let the Senators read the bill.

Madam Speaker, when we were on this floor being sworn in, there were a lot of promises made, and a lot of promises have been broken.

There was a rule change, 72 hours. It actually marked the number of hours.

Last night, I watched the Rules Committee. They were going to come before the Rules Committee with a bill that we did not see in committee.

But do you know what? They couldn't get the votes. So we had to say no to the Rules Committee.

They will come back at 10. So I eagerly waited at 10. No, we could not come back.

It is going to be at 11. I eagerly waited for 11. It did not happen.

But, luckily, politically, they got in the back of the room and they were able to buy off some more, Madam Speaker, in a political nature and rush something to the floor.

I wondered if they were going to keep that rule that they championed so hard about 72 hours. Well, I don't know, maybe 5 equals 72. I am not sure what math they keep nowadays.

But let's talk about how they make this problem even worse, because I am not sure anybody has read the bill. I am not sure even if those on the other side know what is in it.

Now, here is how it is worse. Departments of Homeland Security and Health and Human Services cannot share information about the sponsors of children.

Think about that for one moment. They are making sure two departments cannot share information within their own government.

Now, this is necessary to ensure that children are not placed with human traffickers or with predators. Maybe if they had a little time and maybe if they didn't care about politics, they would have allowed a little sharing of information for the children.

Organizations like Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Department of Justice are underfunded. Requests for pay and overtime costs for Border Patrol agents are denied. Think about that.

In the last month, 144,000 people were apprehended coming across the border illegally. These are unbelievable numbers that we have not seen in decades.

So what do the Democrats rush? Deny overtime and deny the ability for those who are serving us the ability to work.

Immigration judges do not get the resources they needed for additional staff or courtroom space or equipment. America is a country that believes in the rule of law, but I guess on this floor it is not the case. The majority wants to deny it.

Now, I wonder that maybe, Madam Speaker, on the other side they say: Well, it is just a rush to judgment; it is such a big bill, I didn't get to read it.

But do you know what? Earlier today, everyone in this Chamber had the ability to vote for more funding for judges just to deal with this crisis, because I have heard, Madam Speaker, on the other side of the aisle, they actually now use the word ``crisis.''

It only took 56 days, but, lo and behold, when they had that moment not to be confused, not to have a big bill but only that subject, every single Democrat on the other side of the aisle, except seven, said ``no.'' So the majority made sure they put in this political bill as well.

Deny overtime during a crisis, because you said it was a crisis, but make sure nobody can work. You have a crisis, but make sure, Madam Speaker, that we can't have the judges down there, because somehow, I guess, maybe you don't believe in the rule of law; and additional funding to investigate human traffickers who you know are smuggling these children across the border is not included.

Maybe, Madam Speaker, that is why you want to rush this bill to the floor. Maybe that is why you don't want to give people an opportunity to read it.

How will you answer that? How will you answer that additional funding to investigate human traffickers who are smuggling children you do not want to include, Madam Speaker?

Did you read the editorials? Is it wrong to prevent the administration from improving the welfare of unaccompanied children, as this bill will do?

Democrats are far more interested in appearing to help children than in actually helping them. The pace and volume at which children have crossed our border over the last year have completely overwhelmed our existing resources.

Madam Speaker, you are making sure that nobody could work overtime during this. In the first half of 2019, more than 56,000 unaccompanied children were apprehended by Customs and Border Protection. That is a 74 percent increase from last year and higher than the yearly totals for the last 5.

Luckily, someone finally realized that is a crisis--but make sure there is no money to deal with it. Health and Human Services shelters are full and out of money. They cannot care for the children if Congress does not pass solutions.

Now, HHS Secretary Alex Azar sent us a very clear message. Madam Speaker, this is what he said: ``I can't put a

kid in a bed that does not exist and I cannot make a bed that Congress doesn't fund.

Madam Speaker, to think that you would knowingly pass something that causes this problem.

Madam Speaker, Democrats are proud that their bill, unlike the Senate, does not help our overstretched law enforcement officers. That is shameful to take pride in making sure they do not get the help.

Border Patrol agents now spend half of their time processing claims and caring for families in custody, including making trips to hospitals and clinics. They are going beyond the call of duty every day and deserve our support, whether you like them or not. If the children who come across our southern border are to be properly cared for, Madam Speaker, Democrats' distrust of our national law enforcement officers must stop.

Madam Speaker, it has been 56 days, but all Democrats threw together is a sham bill more than 3 hours ago. It does not adequately fund what needed to be funded and would only make the crisis worse. Democrats are holding another vote late in the night on legislation that has no chance of becoming law.

Madam Speaker, we are better than this.

Madam Speaker, it is not very far if you walk out these doors; you look down that hall; you will see the other Chamber.

Do you know what happened in the other Chamber? They worked a bill through committee. They worked a bipartisan bill through committee. They didn't run it to the floor in 3 hours. They didn't tell the Rules Committee to be ready and wait and wait and wait and then quickly after, they cut a deal, on one side. They took something that is critical, something that is serious, and they acted that way.

History will write about what happens on this floor. Madam Speaker, you may get emotional; you may be proud of your actions; but the question will be: Will history be kind to you? The question will be: When you voted that day, when you were sworn in, did you really mean 72 hours?

Madam Speaker, when you stand on the floor and you speak of a crisis and you speak of caring for children, why would you not fund to make sure people are not trafficking them?

Madam Speaker, when you spoke about there was a crisis on the border, why would you not fund the men and women who work for our government? Why would you try to deny them overtime?

Madam Speaker, I know the Fourth of July is soon, and I know Members want to get out of here, but America is more than a country. America is an idea, an idea of self-governance, an idea that the rule of law matters.

This is not one of our finest moments. This is not one that I am proud of. What is so shameful, Madam Speaker, is, just a few yards away, they are showing us an example.

Are you rushing because you are afraid the Senate is going to send us something that is bipartisan? Are you rushing because you are afraid the Senate will actually make law?

Madam Speaker, there are a lot of things we could play political games with, but I never thought children would be the one you wanted to use. We are better than this.

There is a moment in time where you should stand up to your own leadership. There is a moment in time that you should stand up for this country. There is a moment in time, Madam Speaker, and this is it.

Madam Speaker, you don't have to follow and be rushed. You can say: No, I watched what the Senate has done. I watched people with my own philosophical belief who belong to my own party work together with the other side and actually come with a bill that could become law. It is not perfect. It is not what I would agree with 100 percent. But do you know what? I understand our government is designed to find compromise.

I don't know what compromise is in this. I don't know who ever worked with another side. I don't even know who rushed it to the Rules Committee just to do some manager's amendment because you bought off a few people.

This is not our finest moment by far, but, Madam Speaker, there is a moment in time when individuals can stand up, and I am hoping that the moment is tonight, that we actually stand for what this country believes and what we will celebrate on the Fourth of July.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I appreciate that.

I have spoken to the leader on the Senate side, and they will bring it up tomorrow. They had passed this bill in committee 30-1.

I ask the gentlewoman: What would be the problem--and I know we have only had 3 hours with this bill. Why would we not take up the Senate bill when it is bipartisan and the President would sign it?

Madam Speaker, last month, I proudly introduced legislation, H.R. 2695, to name Success Dam, located in Tulare County, California, after Mr. Richard L. Schafer, a longtime Tule River Water Master. Last week, I was pleased to see this bill pass the House of Representatives by unanimous consent.

For decades, Mr. Schafer has demonstrated unparalleled commitment to ensuring our families, farms, and communities get the water they need to live and work. A major part of this commitment includes this yearlong persistence to enlarge Lake Success. Doing so, would increase flood protection to communities and farmlands that are below the dam. But as California knows, more water storage means more security for the inevitable times of a drought that put a strain on our lives.

The good news for Tulare County is that, in 2018, the Army Corps of Engineers fully funded work to raise the dam. I stand here today to state with confidence that, without Mr. Schafer's leadership, this project might not have been approved.

This is because no matter how contentious water issues can get--and if you are in California, you know that can be quite contentious--Mr. Schafer has always been the consummate professional, always remaining even-keeled, results-focused. It is only appropriate and fitting that Success Dam be named after Mr. Schafer.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues in this Chamber for coming together and acknowledging the individuals who work hard and make our communities better.

Most importantly, I want to thank Mr. Schafer for his continued leadership and service to our community. This is a much-deserved honor.

Madam Chairwoman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 3055, which is included in the en bloc amendment.

The intent behind my amendment is straightforward. It is to encourage the VA to complete construction of medical clinics that the Congress authorized 10 years ago in public law. Unfortunately, veterans in my district have now patiently waited for the new community-based outpatient clinic in Bakersfield to be built for more than a decade.

Of the 15 new clinics authorized in 2009, a decade ago, the Bakersfield clinic is the only facility that has not been built or opened. That means that thousands of veterans in California's 23rd Congressional District must continue to depend on a very outdated clinic. This is unacceptable.

In 2015, our constituents and I were informed that a new VA clinic was set to be built, only for that to be derailed by the now-failed California high-speed rail project, condemning the property the new clinic was supposed to be built on.

This forced the VA to start all over again, further delaying building our new clinic.

Now, last October there was this great excitement in the community. I welcomed it. It was the long-awaited news that the VA announced that it finally awarded the contract for a new 30,000-square-foot medical clinic in Bakersfield on Knudsen Drive. This new clinic would be state of the art, and it would be able to care for the rise in female veterans and the homeless veterans out there as well. It was the modernization that we have all been yearning for.

Unfortunately, something happened. The new clinic has been subject to several, what I would call, dilatory actions. Most of them have been resolved or dismissed, which only furthers the delay.

Now, you can protest. Here is a dirty little secret we should all learn: You can have the lease on an outdated clinic, bid for the new one and lose it, but then you can protest.

Do you get punished for protesting? No.

Do you know what happens? Our government rewards you. Because you go beyond the lease, they now pay the outdated clinic more money than they paid before, and, lo and behold, they are the ones protesting because they didn't win the contract.

That is unacceptable. Our veterans have fought too hard to wait too long to get this job done. So the VA must move forward and be consistent with the application of law and regulation.

Let's build this clinic on Knudsen Drive that won the award, and let's treat our veterans to a new, modern facility that works for those who really are in need of care, from mental health to a new growth in women veterans, to, even, veterans who are homeless. Let's show that we will never forget the acts that they did for us and how they worked so hard for all of us.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, Special Counsel Mueller officially ended his investigation several weeks ago. His office is closed. Because of Attorney General Barr, his report is public.

And his findings are very clear: No collusion and no obstruction. This is the bottom line of the Mueller report.

But, Mr. Speaker, Democrats refuse to accept it. Mr. Speaker, even the chairman of the committee refuses to go read the portion that he is allowed to read, only six lines. He refuses to read it, but he wants to come here today.

They continue to believe their worst conspiracy theories about the President, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Mr. Speaker, it is even reported in newspapers that, in the campaign to become chairman of the Judiciary Committee, one said he campaigned for the position because he would be the best with impeachment.

Mr. Speaker, even on the floor of this House, there were more than 60 Members on the other side of the aisle who voted for impeachment before the Mueller report was ever presented to the public.

At its core, H. Res. 430 is just a desperate attempt to relitigate the Mueller investigation. That is why I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution.

It does not strengthen Congress' oversight powers, contrary to what you may hear from the other side, Mr. Speaker. Fundamentally, it is an impeachment effort in everything but name.

Mr. Speaker, just look at the unnecessary contempt citation against Attorney General Barr. Less than a month after Barr received the Mueller report, Mr. Speaker, Chairman Nadler issued a subpoena that would have required the Attorney General of the United States of America to break the law.

That is not my opinion. Let's be very clear whose words those are: Jonathan Turley's. Mr. Speaker, probably everybody in this body not only knows who Jonathan Turley is; he has, probably, the utmost respect. He is one of the most respected legal scholars in this country.

Now, he told the committee, Mr. Speaker:

You have to tie your request carefully to your authority to

demand information . . . if Bill Barr had actually complied

with the subpoena as written, he would have violated Federal

law.

If he would have complied, he would have violated Federal law.

Mr. Speaker, that is why we are here. Not only, Mr. Speaker, does the chairman of that committee ask the attorney general to break the law or he will try to hold him in contempt; he won't even go read the report.

On May 8, only a few weeks after the first subpoena was issued, House Judiciary Democrats voted to hold A. G. Barr, the Attorney General of the United States, in contempt.

Why would they vote to hold him in contempt? Because they were so angry that the Attorney General wouldn't break the law. They wanted him to break the law; then he won't be held in contempt.

In a May 24 letter to the Attorney General, Chairman Nadler offered, for the first time, to negotiate and narrow the scope of his subpoena request. Then, you know what? He changed his mind.

Yesterday, the Department of Justice reached an agreement with the Judiciary Committee to turn over documents related to the Mueller report.

Now, if the public is watching, this just looks so disorganized. You wonder, from that committee, Mr. Speaker, wouldn't they know better than to ask the Attorney General to break the law?

Mr. Speaker, wouldn't you know that, when you get to this point in a career, you wouldn't be so upset that someone just doesn't do exactly what you want--and you ask them to break the law--that you would vote to hold them in contempt and force your side of the aisle just to vote that way.

That is not how it has happened in this body before. If the public wants to see a good example of congressional oversight, then let's look at something that is comparable: the House's contempt vote against Attorney General Holder in 2012.

The House Committee on Oversight and Reform took two important actions before suing in Federal court. First, it negotiated with Attorney General Holder in good faith for 15 months--not a few days. It never asked him to break the law either.

After narrowing the scope of its original subpoena, and only after extensive back-and-forth negotiations failed, did it vote to hold him in contempt.

Second, it got the full House to vote on it and approve--you know what--a bipartisan contempt.

Now, I am not sure why the Committee on the Judiciary, Mr. Speaker, would not know this, but I did a little research because I was here during that time. You know why they didn't realize it was the best way to do it and it was bipartisan? Because, Mr. Speaker, a lot of them stormed outside of the Chamber.

Yep. You heard me right. Even though 17 Democrats voted in favor of the criminal contempt resolution against Holder and 21 voted to enforce civil citation, a number of them stormed outside and protested, took their ball and ran home. Mr. Speaker, I guess, to the public, it looked like they had just thrown another fit.

Now, that is pretty significant. As many of you remember, it was contentious. I remember, Mr. Speaker, watching then-Minority Leader Pelosi, Minority Whip Hoyer, and Congressman Nadler lead 100 Democrats off the House floor to protest the vote.

Mr. Speaker, you won't see that on our side. We believe in the rule of law. Mr. Speaker, we would have done the exact same thing the Attorney General did, that Jonathan Turley said, that you would have had to break the law to try to appease somebody's own personal vendetta.

The idea, Mr. Speaker, that someone would run for a position to say that they would be best to impeach somebody and even vote to impeach without even having a report and then, when you get a report and you could go down and read just those six lines that you want to complain about, but you won't--the same person, Mr. Speaker, that would run outside and say: I got elected to Congress, but I am going to pout and I am going to go outside.

Mr. Speaker, that may be the same person that would want to bring this to the floor today.

But what is so different about today than all the others? Well, we are doing something we have never done before. We are doing something that is going to take the power away of every Member in this body and give it to a select few.

Mr. Speaker, if this vote passes today, Members of this body are going to say: Don't bring it here and let me represent my own people and vote about going to court. Let's just give it, really, to three people. Let's give it to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer, and to the majority whip. Because that is what BLAG is.

I know the courts are going to sit there and say that is not what Congress is supposed to do. Congress has never done that before. But, you know what? If this new majority thinks all they want to do is make an attorney general break the law, I guess they could break every rule, every history, every point of representation there is inside this body.

Did we wonder if this would happen? Do we wonder why you wouldn't take the months, as they have shown in the time before, and actually come to a bipartisan conclusion?

I think the plan was already written. I don't know if people can talk about the word ``patient'' because, Mr. Speaker, I remember Congressman Hank Johnson of the Rules Committee--this is the Speaker's committee, so everybody understands correctly, that is just appointed by the Speaker on the majority side--said, Mr. Speaker: ``Donald Trump will stand for reelection again in a very short period of time, and we don't have 400 days to wait. . . .''

So, don't care about the rule of law. Don't care about asking him to break the law. Just break every historical trend and try to take the power away from millions of Americans and from the Members of Congress who represent them here.

I didn't know today would come. Mr. Speaker, I didn't know if someone would go this far.

I didn't know, just because someone, Mr. Speaker, despises somebody else, that an election didn't turn out the way of the desire--Mr. Speaker, I have been on losing sides before, but I would never think I would break the law just because of losing an election.

I would never think of asking somebody in as high an office as the Attorney General of the United States of America to not give due process, to come to the floor and strip the power of 430 Members and put it in a select few.

Mr. Speaker, I have to be honest. I don't put anything past what this new desire is about.

Mr. Speaker, Democrats say we are in a constitutional crisis, and they are right, but not because of Attorney General Barr. The constitutional crisis is this: When Democrats can't win, they change the rules.

I just heard it on the floor, Mr. Speaker, that, yes, from the other side of the aisle, said this has never been done before, and, yes, this is nothing this House has ever desired to do. But it is also no way to govern.

The American people deserve a majority that is serious about coming up with solutions, not subpoenas. There are plenty of important challenges that we can be working on to solve.

Just yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I opened The New York Times. It is not a paper that I think I always agree with, but it had an editorial not for the first time, but for the second time, and it was talking about the crisis on the border.

As I read this editorial, I found myself agreeing with it greatly. When I read it, it talked about the border, talked about Washington needing to stop dithering and do something about it.

I looked and wondered what committee would be most responsible for this challenge? Lo and behold, it was the Judiciary. So I turned it on in hopes that I would see a hearing, maybe I would even see a markup.

No, Mr. Speaker, who did I see? I saw John Dean. John Dean, who pleaded guilty in Watergate. The same individual who has put more than 900 tweets out against the President, many before any Mueller report came forth. He was the expert witness--the same individual who is paid by CNN, the same individual who said the Presidency of George Bush was worse than Watergate.

I guess this new majority will go to no end. It doesn't matter if the facts don't go where they want; just change the rules.

I wonder, all these new freshman Democrats, Mr. Speaker, when they swore in to uphold the Constitution, does that mean trying to make the Attorney General break the law? Does that mean giving their power away to a select few?

There is a crisis on the border. The New York Times knows it. The country of Mexico knows it. I think almost everybody in America knows it except, Mr. Speaker, I guess, this majority.

The committee of responsibility is more concerned about bringing somebody in who pleaded guilty in Watergate, who makes their money off, Mr. Speaker, writing books claiming every Republican President there is is worse than Watergate and then asking the Attorney General to break the law.

That is not a legacy I would be proud of. It is not a legacy I would want to be a part of.

But, Mr. Speaker, I will say on this floor: I will vote against taking the power away, even the power away from people on the other side of the aisle. I won't lead a protest, and I won't go outside, and I won't take my ball, and I won't run home. I believe in the rule of law.

Mr. Speaker, I had the responsibility and the opportunity to go read the redacted portions of the Mueller report, just as some on the other side of the aisle could. It is just six lines. Not that I think it was just my responsibility, but as an elected official I thought it was a responsibility, so I went. But, Mr. Speaker, the people leading this today, they have not. They think they know better.

I don't know if they know better, but one thing I do know: They are changing the rules of the House simply because they cannot win. That is not the American way.

Those are the reasons why we stand up. Those are the things that America unites behind, the rule of law. This will not be a day that is proud. This will not be a day that, when they look back in history, the individuals who vote for this will talk about.

It is one when they get asked the question later in life, Mr. Speaker, is there something they regret, they will regret that emotion overtook them. They will regret their own personal dislike drove them.

I am not sure if they are proud of the day when they storm out of the building, even though there is a bipartisan vote here. But I guess that same emotion, the same, Mr. Speaker, lack of ability to actually look at the rule of law and work toward something instead of just changing the rules because you can't have your way, that is what today is about.

The worst part of it all is removing the power of individual Members and putting in a select three. But then again, Mr. Speaker, when you study history and forms of government, that is what socialism is all about.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor David Reese, an educator and principal at Bakersfield High School, who will be retiring this August after 35 years of service to the students, parents, and teachers in Bakersfield, California, which I represent.

David was born in Dodge City, Kansas in 1958 and moved to Bakersfield with his family in 1965. David graduated from Foothill High School and earned several accolades as part of the Foothill High School basketball team, including winning the California State Boys Basketball Championship in 1976 when he was a senior. David stayed in our community for college, earning his Bachelor's degree from California State University, Bakersfield (CSUB) and then obtaining his teaching credential in 1984. David returned to Foothill as a teacher and coached the boys basketball team, guiding the team to a championship in 1988. In

1992, David became the Dean of Students at Foothill High School, a position where he continued to excel at serving the needs of his students. He quickly rose through the ranks at Kern High School District--the largest 9th through 12th grade school district in the State of California--and became Principal of Bakersfield High School (BHS) in 1999.

As the BHS principal, David oversaw the largest and oldest high school in the community, which has a student body of almost 3,000 students. A principled and passionate educator, David made it his top priority to raise graduation rates and ensure his students were prepared for college. During his tenure at BHS, he prioritized innovative academic programs, making the school the first to start Project Lead the Way, an academic program designed to foster student interest in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields through hands-on experience and visiting local STEM-related businesses around the community. I know that he is proud of the multiple national championships that BHS students won in Virtual Business, a competition where students learn how to start, operate, and market a new business. In addition, David helped promote the Earl Warren Cup, a civics competition for government students designed to test their knowledge of American history and politics.

An avid supporter of the BHS Drillers athletic program, David can often be seen cheering on student athletes at basketball, baseball, football, softball, soccer, and volleyball games, golf, tennis, and wrestling matches, and track & field, cross country, and swimming meets in our community and at state championship tournaments. In recognition of all his work at BHS and for our community, CSUB inducted David into its Alumni Hall of Fame in 2017. And, as this year's BHS seniors graduate, David will have presided over 19 graduation ceremonies, having the honor of personally handing out diplomas to over 13,000 students.

On behalf of the 23rd Congressional District of California and the thousands of students he helped educate during his time at Foothill High School and Bakersfield High School, I want to thank David for his work and dedication in molding the minds of our community's next generation of leaders, helping them to acquire the skills and education during one of the most important and formative times of their lives. I also want to thank his wife Abby, his daughter Becky, and his sons Tyler David and Tyler Thomas, for sharing David with us in the community, including the many late nights and early mornings at work.

While it may be bittersweet for David to leave the school that he so loves, I am sure that he is looking forward to the next chapter of life and spending more time with his wife and family. I know that David will never leave the BHS community because, as the saying goes, ``Once a Driller, always a Driller.''

Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the University of California, Los Angeles, which has distinguished itself as one of the finest institutions of higher learning in the State of California and across the country.

In the past 100 years, 14 Nobel Prize winners, 13 MacArthur Fellows, 9 National Medal of Science winners, 3 Pulitzer Prize winners, 1 Field Medalist, 2 Turing Award winners, and 38 Academy Award winners have called UCLA home. Every year, UCLA receives more applications for admission than any other university. It is for these reasons and more that UCLA was ranked this year as the number one public university in the country by U.S. News and World Report.

The influence of UCLA and its impact on California is wide-reaching and expansive. Even in my district, two hours away from Westwood, thousands of constituents call UCLA their alma mater. UCLA's influence in my district cannot be overstated. For many students who are unfamiliar with the challenges of applying for college, UCLA provides mentorship and a tangible path to higher education, actively organizing workshops and school visits to guide them. UCLA does not limit itself to just educating the next generation of leaders; it has tracked groundwater loss in my district and throughout the Central Valley, demonstrating the need to expand our current water storage and infrastructure. As many people know, UCLA's Ronald Reagan Medical Center provides world-class care for countless individuals, but it also directs clinical trials back home in my district--ensuring that the residents of the 23rd District receive cutting-edge treatment and care. On behalf of California's 23rd District, I am proud to congratulate UCLA on 100 years of great accomplishments.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Virginia DeAngelis for her life of work and service to our community. Jinny is stepping down as the Chief Executive Officer of Desert Area Regional Training (DART), an organization that advocates for, and employs, people with disabilities in Ridgecrest, California, which I represent.

Jinny was born and raised in Wisconsin, graduating cum laude from the University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point, and later obtained her Master's degree and Doctorate in Business Administration, with an emphasis in Organizational Leadership. After all those years in the cold Midwest, Jinny wanted warmer weather, eventually bringing her to the community of Ridgecrest. She taught at the Sierra Sands Unified School District, educating future generations and inspiring them to become the next leaders of our community. In 1993, she started as a Case Manager for DART, and through her hard work as an industrious champion for people with disabilities, she was deservedly appointed CEO in 2003.

As an executive, Jinny continued to dedicate her energy to serving our local community, managing and guiding the development of DART's mission and facilities, all while simultaneously advocating for people with disabilities. DART has managed and operated a thrift store, providing an opportunity for employment for many people with disabilities in Ridgecrest. Because of the generosity in our community, DART recently had to open a new, bigger location that allowed for more space in the shop and greater work experience.

Jinny's presence in our community has been prolific; she serves on multiple boards and volunteers her time for many local organizations, including the Rotary Club of China Lake, Girl Scouts USA, and Ridgecrest Mayor Peggy Breeden's Special Committee on the Handicapped for the City of Ridgecrest. Jinny is a true believer in the power of education and has lent her expertise to others in Kern County through her work with the Autism Task Force in Kern County and the Kern Community College District Adult Education Consortium. For her service and dedication to people with disabilities, she has received many awards, including Rotarian of the Year in 2014, 2015, and 2016.

On behalf of the constituents of the 23rd Congressional District of California, I applaud Jinny for her over 40 years of dedication, hard work, and service to educating and advocating on behalf of people with disabilities. I wish her well as she embarks on the next chapter in her life.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Before I begin, I want to thank both sides. I want to thank the chairman and I want to thank the ranking member, not for the bill that is on the floor today but for the bill that was put out of committee.

When we look across the country, we see division. Very seldom can we ever find a bill that gets every Democrat's and every Republican's support, but that is what we look for, that committees can work together.

The whole reason bills go through committees before they come to the floor is this is where the expertise is, this is where the debates happen, this is where it is combined together.

But now I want to apologize to the chairman. I don't know what the gentleman's leadership did or why. But why would they change the moment that we have for the country to see something that they haven't seen in a while? Why would they do something that a chairman and a ranking member and every member on that committee, regardless of where they come from across this country, regardless of party, agreed to?

Special interest has power. Special interest is more powerful than the members who are in that committee with the expertise. Special interest is more powerful than Members of Congress finding common ground. Special interest is more powerful with the leadership on the other side.

They should not treat their Members this way. They should not treat America this way.

So let's talk about this bill. Because what it really goes to is, how powerful is this special interest, and who are they hurting?

Many parents choose to use a 529 savings account to help them save money for their children's education. We all agree on each side of the aisle that the most important thing that happens when you have a child is the opportunity that they will have. It is no longer about what you will become; it is what your children's opportunities will be.

We all agree that education is the great equalizer. It doesn't matter where a person grows up or what side of the street they live on, but education will give everybody that opportunity.

As a Republican leader, when I watched this committee work, I was proud. I was proud of both sides. I was proud that they were able to come together. And where they came together was on 529 accounts. These plans allow them to invest in a tax-free account, incur interest, and spend it on educational expenses like tuition.

For many years, these accounts only applied to college-related expenses, but, today, thanks to the Republican-led tax reform law in 2017, families can now use those funds to pay K-12 costs too.

Because why would we want to hurt somebody? Maybe they were in a bad school district or have other reasons. We want everybody in America to have that opportunity. That was a big win for all families--Republican, Democrat, Green Party, didn't matter.

Under current law, 529 savings accounts cannot be used for K-12 book costs, tutoring expenses for when kids fall behind and we want them to be able to catch up, fees for college admission exams--anybody that has a child at that age knows how much is spent on all of the exams--or to pay for educational therapy for students with disabilities.

Wouldn't everybody want to help that child with disabilities? I believe so. The action of the committee proved that. Every Democrat in the committee said that, and every member on the Republican side said that. I was proud of that.

But, unfortunately, special interest has more power. This is why, to me, I have real concerns on this bill. The official bill report is fantastic, what came out of committee. But when it got to the Democrat leadership, I guess they had different plans.

Now, I shouldn't be shocked, because I was sitting in this well last week with the same dilemma. Another committee, Energy and Commerce, was dealing with a really important issue, much like what we are dealing with today, prescription drugs. And what happened was that both sides agreed on how to make prescription drug prices lower and give Americans more options, and they all voted for it. But it went right through that leadership, Madam Speaker, on the other side, and special interest won again. They put a poison pill in, so that will never become law.

Madam Speaker, because special interest pressured this leadership to change this bill, it says something. To me, it says three things very clearly.

It seems to me that the Democratic leadership is not the same Democratic leadership that I knew in the past. There are people on the other side of the aisle who call themselves Socialist Democrats. It seems to me that they want institutions, not individuals, to be focused on education funding. They want partisan interests, not parents, to decide how children learn. And they want the Federal Government, not families, to have control over their money.

But that is not what the American people want. The American people want exactly what happened in that committee, exactly the power that brought all the Republicans and all the Democrats together. They don't want special interests to continue to run this House.

The committee proved they could stand up. Whom did they stand up for? Those who need it the most: the parents of children with disabilities, leveling the playing field so every child has an opportunity when it comes to education.

Of all the issues that could divide us, Madam Speaker, I don't understand why the leadership did that to the Ways and Means Committee. I don't think that is right for the work that the chairman and the ranking member put in. We deserve better. We displayed that we could be better. Unfortunately, special interests won over the parents, and that is wrong.