Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Nelson Mandela--a man who leaves South Africa and the world a better place for his presence.

From a childhood herding cattle to an adulthood fighting for his people's freedom, Mandela's 95 years are a testament to the power of a single life to change the course of history.

And the arc of Mandela's life bends towards peace.

There are many ways to change the world.

And too often, the world is changed:

By war

By violence

By conflict

But Mandela took the road less traveled and changed the world with his commitment:

To freedom for his oppressed people

To equality for all people--oppressed and oppressors alike

And ultimately to peace for a country deeply wounded by conflict.

From the prison walls of Robben Island to the halls of Pretoria and beyond, Mandela was only human but exemplified super-human courage.

But he was admittedly not a perfect man. And it is his imperfections that bring us closer to him.

And enable us to follow in his footsteps.

His legacy of reconciliation and forgiveness can live on in each one of us when we, too, take the road less traveled and act in the name of justice and in the name of peace.

Let us learn from Nelson Mandela and write the narrative of our lives with

Justice

Equality

And peace.

As Mandela said, ``When a man has done what he considers to be his duty to his people and his country, he can rest in peace.''

Now is your time to rest in peace, Madiba.

As we honor you by promoting peace in our words, actions and deeds.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the career of a truly remarkable public servant who I am proud to call a friend. Fred Meurer is retiring from the position of City Manager for the City of Monterey, California after holding the job since 1991. That is a remarkably long tenure in any job. In the field of city management, it is unheard of. But for those of us who have had the honor and pleasure of working with Fred over the years, those twenty-two years are a testament to his tremendous ability and professionalism.

Fred joined the City of Monterey in 1986, initially as the Special Projects Manager in the City Manager's office, and then as the City's Public Works Director for the next five years. In July of 1991, the City Council appointed Mr. Meurer to the position of City Manager. Since his appointment, Mr. Meurer has been actively involved in fostering working relationships between business districts, residential districts and City Hall. He has overseen the re-development of the City's residential neighborhoods and business districts. Neighborhood policing, waterfront acquisition, the main street program, tourism development, historic preservation programs and development of the education and research economic clusters have been instrumental in diversifying Monterey's economy. The success in this effort has financed the City's program for developing ``preventive'' programs in policing, fire protection, community services, recreation, public works and other public services.

Fred has been actively involved in developing cooperative relationships between the City and the Department of Defense (DoD) activities in Monterey in an effort to further increase DoD mission effectiveness while reducing their operating costs. Fred was responsible for germinating an idea--which Congress enacted in 1994 as a pilot program--of allowing military installations in Monterey County, California, to purchase a range of maintenance and municipal services from local government agencies in the County. Over the subsequent years, the Army Audit Agency has consistently validated cost savings to the Army and ``the Monterey Model,'' as it become known in the Pentagon, became a permanent national program in 2013.

In conceiving this program, Fred's goal was to provide the same high quality municipal services to DoD activities and personnel as the City provides its civilian neighborhoods, while saving the City money by spreading its overhead over a larger base. Similar cooperative service agreements have been negotiated with other cities in the region. These inter-governmental partnerships have also helped broaden the economic base of the City.

Recognizing the value of integrated municipal services between military installations and the city brings not only financial benefits to both parties but strengthens the town-base relationship. Fred nourished that relationship and looked for ways for the town and the military to interact seamlessly. This inter-relatedness was especially evident during the 1995 and 2005 BRAC rounds when the BRAC Commission determined that, because of the inherent value of the community contribution to the functioning of the local installations, there was no way to reproduce those functions elsewhere and those installations had to remain open and in Monterey.

Fred graduated from the United States Military Academy at West Point in 1966, and received graduate degrees from Stanford University in Water Resources Planning and Civil Engineering in 1971. He served overseas assignments in Germany, Viet Nam and Korea. His final active duty tour was as Director of Public Works and Housing at the former Ft. Ord. He retired as a Colonel from the Army in 1986.

Mr. Speaker, Fred Meurer is the epitome of a model public servant who brought wisdom, professionalism, creativity and problem solving skills to the job of City Manager of Monterey and leaves a legacy of accomplishments that not only benefit the residents of Monterey but also serve as a model of sound civic management for others to learn from and emulate. In his 1961 State of the Union address to Congress, President John F. Kennedy commented on his administration's commitment to civil service and the following words, ``Let the public service be a proud and lively career,'' struck me as the embodiment of Fred Meurer's stellar career.

Fred along with his wife Phyllis will now begin a new journey in life. An avid Oakland A's fan, Native American art collector and delicious ice cream maker, new adventures await this dedicated husband, father and grandfather. I wish Fred and his wife all the best in their well-deserved retirement years.

Mr. Speaker, I represent California's Central Coast--The Salad Bowl of the World. I know firsthand how important immigrant workers are and their vital contribution to our national economy.

If America does not have enough workers, America doesn't eat. And whether or not we like it, most of those farm workers are not America citizens. We must rely on immigrant labor to harvest our food and, when the system breaks down like during the government shut down, it threatens the livelihood of our nation's farmers as well as the availability of fresh produce in grocery stores nationwide.

The agricultural labor crisis threatens jobs on and off the farm. For every job created on a farm, many more non-farm support jobs are created in the supply chain of distribution. Yet California's farmers, who are responsible for billions of dollars of economic activity every year, continue to face significant barriers to finding a legal and stable workforce.

Furthermore, the current, broken immigration system is undermining American food security. Many Americans would be surprised to know how close we all came to not having fresh fruits and vegetables at Thanksgiving because the shutdown prevented farmers from getting legal access to the workers they need to harvest their crops.

For these reasons, as well as many others, I believe it is past time for the House of Representatives to act on broad and meaningful immigration reform.

As Members of Congress, it is our responsibility to enact immigration policies that are tough, fair and practical.

Real immigration reform establishes a system that turns those who are willing to work hard and play by the rules into taxpayers, paying their fair share. We need a system that has commonsense rules for who and how many people we let in legally, so we don't flood the labor market in hard times, but that allows businesses to hire the workers they need.

It is time to move forward, not backward. Congress must work together to find middle ground that benefits both the temporary guest workers as well as the agricultural employers. Final legislation must create incentives for farm workers to continue to work in the industry so that the United States can continue to feed the world. I believe in a comprehensive approach to immigration reform that includes earned legal status. This approach is critical for our country, our families, and our economy.

I am concerned that some interim immigration reform proposals would create even more devastating labor shortages for growers and other industries that rely on immigrant labor. It is short-sighted to think mandatory worker verification methods, like E-Verify, are the sole solution to our country's illegal immigration issues. Further, we should not impose additional barriers to legal workers who are willing to work hard and play by the rules. It would risk the economic vitality of the entire American agricultural industry and fail to accomplish true immigration reform.

I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House toward the goal of enacting a comprehensive approach to our nation's immigration problems, including a strong and balanced solution for the agricultural sector.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Salinas School of Dance, which is celebrating its seventy-fifth year of excellence in dance instruction in Salinas, California.

The Salinas School of Dance was founded in 1938 by professional dancer Mr. Ramon Renov, who brought his world class dance experience to the small farming town of Salinas. He performed in the esteemed Ballets Russes de Monte Carlo in Europe and the United States. Mr. Renov retired in 1980 and bestowed ownership to Lisa Eisemann. She has continued a reputation of excellence, maintaining high standards in curriculum and teaching, and constant upgrades to make the studio the heart of the City of Salinas. Ms. Eisemann continues to teach Russian Vaganova style ballet to students of all ages.

The Salinas School of Dance studio is now home to two structured companies; the Salinas Valley Civic Ballet Company and the Spirit of Salinas Irish Dancers. Ballet, tap, jazz, Irish dance and Tappin' Dad classes are taught five days a week. The Spirit of the Irish Dancers is a high performance group that has performed at many local and international events. Two years ago, they performed for the Lord Mayor of Drogheda, Ireland who invited them to visit Ireland and told the Mayor of Salinas that the dance group's skills supersede that of his own country's Irish Dancers.

Every child is welcome to learn and dance at the Salinas School of Dance. Currently, they have children with serious learning disabilities and one young man that has a prosthetic leg and one arm. His parents recently commented that being in ballet has given him confidence that nothing else has provided. He is ten years old and it's his second year at the studio. It is because of Ms. Eisemann's ability to connect with the community and her leadership skills that many of its dance classes remain full year round throughout Monterey, San Benito, and Santa Cruz Counties.

For seventy-five years, the Salinas School of Dance has been a positive fixture in the community. With structure, personal responsibility, respect, and commitment forming the foundation of the dance program, it is no wonder that the Salinas School of Dance has endured and become one of the oldest businesses in Salinas.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Salinas School of Dance on its seventy-five years of excellence and wish you many more years of continued success.

Mr. Speaker, as we reflect on the 50 years since the passing of President Kennedy, I want to reissue that thought about call for service. He struck me in his inaugural address of asking not what this country can do for you, but what you can do for the country; and I immediately responded when he created the Peace Corps. I am wearing this button today proudly as a return Peace Corps volunteer.

My thoughts are as we sort of enter into the next half century of thought about America and service, President Kennedy not only urged us to go to space; he urged us to send our people to places where no person had ever gone before, no American had ever been; to all of these remote countries in poverty situations and places where nobody had ever lived. It changed the image of America around the world so positively.

So for you young people that are thinking about the future, don't think of America as just a platform to make money. America is the platform to launch peace and understanding around the world. Join the Peace Corps, serve this country, call for service. It is honorable.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Congresswoman Davis, for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of, obviously, the legislation I have authored, but I really appreciate the statements that have been made here about General Gourley. He was a very special human being--tall- statured, an incredible soldier, and a retiree who kind of brought together the retiree community of the military along the entire Monterey Peninsula.

We still have nine military missions, including the Naval Postgraduate School, the Defense Language Institute, at which all the languages of the world are taught, the Manpower Development Center, Fort Hunter Liggett, Camp Roberts, and so on. So we have a lot of military there.

He recognized that not only did the Active Duty soldiers--men and women in uniform who have a clinic at the Defense Language Institute-- have to live off of TRICARE but, really, so did their spouses and children. A lot of the doctors in the community wouldn't accept TRICARE because the reimbursement rates were so low. So here were underserved populations. There was a widow population of military retirees, who, after the base closed and the hospital closed and where there was space available, they weren't really familiar with how to use TRICARE or how to find TRICARE doctors. There was the Active Duty military, and then there was this incredible veterans community. So, for the first time in the history of this country, we got the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Defense together, and we decided that they ought to plan a clinic.

General Gourley was so instrumental in getting that sort of one-stop, proud-to-serve opportunity to be in the design of a building and in the operation of a building, and it was no small task because all of these agencies want to be joined. I always remind people that you can't be a veteran without having walked through the Department of Defense first. In the old days, when you left the Department of Defense, then you had to find your way. You had to find your papers and get them all transferred and do all of this heavy lifting, and there was always bureaucracy and a loss of papers and a loss of stuff. So this one-stop system, which we all think is much more cost-effective and a proud way to say ``thank you'' to those who serve, is really going to be implemented in this brand new clinic on which we just broke ground on Veterans Day, a week ago.

From my seat on the Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee, I have learned that we really need to find this unity. When we had found it, it had always been advocated by General Gourley. Unfortunately, he passed away a couple of years ago, but just before he passed away, I was able to do an oral interview with him to archive in the Library of Congress because Congress has developed this oral history archive. I would urge all of my colleagues in Congress to take part in doing these interviews with veterans and to archive their experiences.

General Gourley served in many, many places in this country. He was always a leader and was outspoken. He was critical of things that needed to be criticized. When he was head of the War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, he insisted that soldiers couldn't go to class unless they brought their wives, so that those spouses would come to understand that the Army mindset, in the form of a greater bond within the family, is a shared duty and a shared sacrifice. In that sense of unity, he always used to say, ``Leave a better Army.'' Leave it better than you found it.

I think he left this world a lot better than he found it. One way the community would like to pay tribute to him for his using his retirement to continue to bring this collaboration and this ``thinking outside the box'' together is to name this new clinic after him. He

would be so proud. I was at his burial at Arlington National Cemetery in 2008. In honor of his lifetime of service to our country, to our troops, to our veterans, I am really proud to have introduced this bill, which is to name the clinic after this American hero. I am proud to have been his friend, and I ask your support in passing the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Monterey County Hospitality Association on the occasion of its 25th annual hospitality employee recognition celebration. This is a truly remarkable event that recognizes just a few of the unsung heroes of America's number one industry.

As the co-chair of the congressional travel and tourism caucus, I frequently see the travel and tourism industry in terms of its big economics--generating $2 trillion in revenues and supporting 14.6 million jobs. And indeed, it is crucial that national policy works to help travel and tourism thrive and benefit all of our communities.

But beneath these statistics are the people who work in the hotels, restaurants, rental car companies, and all the other myriad of visitor serving businesses. These men and women shape a visitor's experience and help them decide whether to return to the United States, to California, or to Monterey County. The place sells the first visit, but it's the hospitality employees that keep people coming back.

And that is why the Monterey County Hospitality Association event is so remarkable. I know of no other event of its size and scope where the regional travel and tourism industry comes together in such a comprehensive way to celebrate the extraordinary lengths that its employees go to make the visitor experience to the Monterey region the memory of a lifetime.

Each year colleagues nominate their co-workers for customer service that went above and beyond the ordinary call of duty--the maid who searched through the dumpster for a new bride's lost wedding ring, or a chef who recreated the menu from a couple's first date for their 50th wedding anniversary. From all of these nominees, a selection panel picks ten to receive an ``Excellence in Hospitality'' award.

The panel also singles out one of the awardees for special recognition for service that sets the gold standard. In 1988, this special award was given to Romuldo ``Papa Vince'' Vicente, the renowned bar tender at Monterey's legendary Sardine Factory restaurant. And while the Sardine Factory's founders Ted Balestreri and Bert Cutino receive much of the public recognition for the Sardine Factory's success and the Monterey Bay hospitality renaissance that it helped spark, they will be the first to recognize that it was Papa Vince and employees like him that built the foundation of that success. So it is fitting that this top trophy has since been known as the Papa Vince award. It's people like Mr. Vicente who make the U.S. travel and tourism industry such a vital part of our national life and economy.

Mr. Speaker, I know I speak for the whole House in commending the Monterey County Hospitality Association on the occasion of this significant anniversary as well as extending our congratulations to the past, current, and future ``Excellence in Hospitality'' award winners.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Tony Tollner on the thirtieth anniversary celebration of his restaurant Rio Grill, located in Carmel, California.

Rio Grill is one of Monterey Peninsula's most popular restaurants. It's known not only for its great eats but also for its sense of giving back to the community. When Rio Grill first opened in 1983, the restaurant was part of the Real Restaurants organization, an affiliation of world class restaurants like Fog City Diner in San Francisco, as well as Mustard's Grill and Tra Vigne, both in Napa Valley. Rio Grill staked its claim as one of the region's most popular restaurants catering to loyal local clientele, while also satisfying tourists visiting the Monterey Peninsula. As Rio Grill's reputation grew, the partners of the Real Estate Group decided to part ways and the restaurant continued to thrive under the ownership of Mr. Tony Tollner and Mr. Bill Cox.

Rio Grill continues to evolve and thrive under the guidance of managing partner Mr. Tony Tollner. Expansion to the main dining room occurred on two occasions and is used for special events and meeting space. The Santa Fe room features an open beam ceiling and a built-in ``cantina style'' bar. This year Rio Grill expanded again and unveiled its newest private dining room, the Barrel Room, which features wood and a specially designed wine case.

General Manager Joe Valencia and Executive Chef Cy Yontz continue the tradition of excellence at Rio Grill. The restaurant has won numerous awards for their outstanding attention to detail and creative South-Western menu. Rio Grill was also recognized in 2012 by Union Bank in the hospitality category in their ``Salute to Small Business'', and by the Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce with a Business Excellence Award again in the hospitality category.

Above and beyond its outstanding menu, Rio Grill has been recognized many times for its philanthropy. Rio Grill has always been generous with their gift giving to local non-profits, including Monterey County Food Bank, Dorothy's Place, Animal Friends Rescue Project and many others. The signature fundraiser for the restaurant is Rio Grill's Resolution Run, held annually on New Year's Day, which has raised over $500,000 over its twenty-four-year history. Proceeds from the Rio Grill's Resolution Run have gone to organizations such as Suicide Prevention Services of the Central Coast, Big Brother Big Sisters of Monterey County, and Partnership for Youth and Natividad Medical Foundation.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Mr. Tony Tollner and the rest of the Rio Grill staff for building a high standard of excellence in food and community service. I know that I speak for the whole House in saluting all of them on this joyous occasion.

Thank you, Congressman Mica, for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I feel it is a very special privilege to be able to pay honor to our colleagues here. I think of Bill Young as being one of the lions, one of the giants of this institution, because he really used the institution for what we all get elected to do.

First of all, he loved public service. He was in an elective office for 52 years between State and Federal Government. He also served in the National Guard Active Duty and reservist for 15 years. His life was about service. He used his service here in Congress to be what I think this institution is all about: it is about leadership; it is about friendship; and it is also about accomplishment. I don't think anybody has had a better record of accomplishment in so many different fields.

I came here in 1993, and I had the largest military base in the United States close--Fort Ord, California. I got to know the people on the Defense Appropriations Committee. On my side of the aisle was Jack Murtha. It seems like Jack's best friend was a Republican on the other side of the aisle, Bill Young. Jack said, You better go tell Bill everything you have told me about needing some help.

We were trying to convert swords to plowshares by building a brand- new university to serve the underserved population in Fort Ord, and we needed appropriations for it. Bill just jumped on it. He knew the purpose. Even though he was a strong warrior, he really realized that this was the future after a base was closed.

I invited him out to the district. He came to Monterey, California, where we still had the Defense Language Institute. Bill went in there and saw that all the languages we were teaching were the old tape recorders where you had to wind and rewind. He said, My God, you need some modern equipment, and put in appropriations to get that equipment. He visited the Naval Postgraduate School and got a lot of really interesting feedback from soldiers who had just come out of theater.

But his and Jack's friendship--Jack Murtha, who predeceased him--was just remarkable in this House. If there is a legacy here, it is their legacy. It is how two people being on Appropriations Committee should-- and we all need to go back to what we have been calling regular order, where we come here to accomplish things, to fix things that are broken. Bill Young was probably the first, if any, who would talk about needing to bring back the ability to help areas that just don't get formula money--earmarks. If you disclose of them and go through a process so that you don't have the client-assigned stuff, these things are good, particularly for rural Americans, and particularly for areas where people are really poor.

I think my favorite story is that when he came out to the Defense Language Institute, came on military air, Beverly, his wife, insisted, since I represent Carmel, that I get our former mayor, Clint Eastwood, to have lunch with them. So we arranged that at Clint's Mission Ranch.

On the way from Monterey over to Carmel, we passed by the beach, and there is a stranded sea lion there. Beverly gets out and says, We've got to take care of the sea lion before anything else, and had the entire crew of the airplane--because she insisted they had to come to lunch with her, they had to help get the sea lion. Well, we had marine mammal rescue, and they eventually showed up.

But when we got to the restaurant, I don't think anybody thought that the whole crew was going to come. Bill was insistent, no, everybody is equal here. It didn't matter whether you were a Congress member or just a crew member; you were going to get a chance to have lunch with Clint Eastwood.

We had a lot of laughs, a lot of discussion about things. Then that led to--and I hadn't realized it. Bill was a big animal rights supporter. He and I authored a bill with his friend, Bob Barker, who was here. I met Bob Barker through him. Bob Barker, ``The Price is Right,'' had dedicated a lot of his life to banning elephants in circuses. Bill said, I am going to author that bill. So we did a bipartisan author, and Bob Barker came. In fact, we

linked up with Kim Basinger, the movie star, who was very interested in that issue. We went on, and we didn't win that bill, but we won the puppy mill bill, and we won some other humane treatment of animals. He was really interested in that.

But best of all, I think he left a legacy that we need to get back to: a legacy of production, a legacy of comradery where we really like each other, and a legacy that takes care of not only all the soldiers-- because they didn't care what rank you had; if you were a person in uniform, you were all equal and being treated in the most respectful way--but he also did that for people of less fortune and for animals who need a voice in Congress as well. What a wonderful man.

Beverly and your sons, I really am going to miss going to Appropriations Committee and seeing Bill there. So Beverly and your three adult sons, Rob, Billy, and Patrick, we all share your grief, and Congress will certainly miss Bill Young, a great man in this institution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of the House that in many parts of the world, polio is on the run. What in the past was a worldwide epidemic is now a controlled, limited disease and the potential for total eradication is very real.

One of the groups that has dedicated much of its attention to this problem is our Rotary Clubs. Most of us think of Rotary as being that eclectic group of community volunteers who turn out at charity events or serve at pep rallies for the local high school football team. Their dedication to local goodwill is important, true, but they are actually much more.

In reality, more than 34,000 local Rotary Clubs throughout the world initiate and deliver service projects to address today's challenges, including illiteracy, disease, hunger, poverty, lack of clean water, peace and conflict resolution, and environmental concerns. Back in 1985 Rotary began a mission to eradicate Polio. At that time more than 350,000 children were stricken with Polio every year at a rate of nearly 1,000 people afflicted by the crippling disease every day. Today, the reality is much different. The number of countries which are polio-endemic has been reduced to just three--Afghanistan, Nigeria, and Pakistan. Polio cases have been reduced by 99% to fewer than 700 recorded cases in 2011.

This advancement in health is due to the effort of many governments and charities and even individuals around the world dedicated to public health. But key among them is Rotary which has taken on as one of its central missions a positive initiative to create awareness and to educate the citizens everywhere about the vital importance of eradicating polio worldwide.

Mr. Speaker, on October 24 Rotary Clubs will mark World Polio Day and I commend them on their contribution to the worthy goal of eliminating polio around the globe.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very destructive to a very good policy that was created by this House by the Committee on Natural Resources when, back in the late nineties, all of the Federal agencies and private sector came to Congress and said, We have a lot of conflicts of the sea. We need to start doing some planning in the ocean, like we have on land, so that we can get jobs done.

We were losing all kinds of equipment to fisheries and mining operations. It was just a huge mess. No Federal agency knew what the other Federal agency was doing. It was all on public lands called the ``oceans,'' and the exploration of the oceans was very underserved.

The underlying bill that this amendment attacks was created by the committee in order to create a commission made up, in fact, of people from Texas for the oil industry. One of the things they said is, Stop that conflict. Let's have smart ocean planning. Let's help use and conserve our finite resources and grow our ocean economy.

This is the way to do it, but this amendment wipes it all back. It goes back to the Dark Ages. It goes back to the flat Earth opinion about ocean planning, which is: don't do it.

The aquaculture industry, which is a $1.2 billion industry, has said this would be very destructive, that the Flores amendment would be a major setback for our industry. The aquaculture is growing, and we rely on efficient permitting and long-term planning so our industry can grow and prosper.

If the Army Corps of Engineers can't engage in the National Ocean Policy planning that is geared toward helping our industry, then that is what sets us up for failure.

The North American Submarine Cable Association is opposed to this amendment. They stated that the first and foremost undersea cable operators engage in coastal marine spatial planning. Did you know that undersea cables, not satellites, carry more than 95 percent of the international voice, data and Internet traffic in the United States? They are critical for national security, and they carry civilian and military and U.S. Government traffic.

The Corps is working to improve coastal and sea floor maps and nautical charts, which are critical for navigation, citing offshore energy and recreational boating and fishing. The list goes on and on.

Even in the gentleman's home State of Texas, there are 170,000 people who are employed in the ocean economy. His amendment would destroy their ability to have good planning.

So I urge all of my friends to oppose this amendment, which is opposed by the private sector and public sectors, and it is just not smart thinking.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Price for yielding.

I was sitting in my office listening to this, and I realized that what our sessions are about are telling the American people some of the truth some of the time. The truth of the matter is that this is all about the fact that an extreme division of the Republican Party doesn't like the Affordable Care Act, which was signed into law 3\1/2\ years ago, and so they are using the appropriations process to shut down Congress.

We keep saying you don't need to do this. It has been a law for 3\1/ 2\ years; and guess what, in those 3\1/2\ years we have passed 17 CRs; 17 CRs have been passed since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. And guess what, Republicans voted for almost every one of them. So what is the difference now?

This is just craziness. Our whole country is being put at risk because they won't do what we have done every year because they don't like the Affordable Care Act. Now if you don't like something, use a law-making process called an authorization. When you don't like something, you take a different bill and fix it. You can say, well, we don't like it; we don't even want to fix it. I use the argument that the Democrats didn't like Medicare part D because of the way it was being done. We voted against it, but we never shut down government. We got around to saying, yes, it is the law; let's fix it. When you pass a big law, there are always some things you need to fix. We can fix things, but this is not the process to do it, shutting down government. And the idea of bringing you whatever you like today, we are just going to vote on one thing, one part of government. Now we are onto just one piece. You know we are never going to get around to all of the pieces because they don't like all of government. So they hold these votes.

This is ridiculous. This is putting the country, the world, and lots of people at risk. We could just pass a keep-the-government-open bill, which we have done 17 times since 2010, 17 times without this rancor, without this division.

Come on. Don't give us part of the truth some of the time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

My colleague and chair, Mr. Aderholt, just said that this bill is necessary because funding for the FDA is necessary. He's absolutely right, but this bill doesn't do all that. You cannot just fund one component of government and not have the rest of government. FDA is the Food and Drug Administration. It relies heavily on the Centers for Disease Control. You do nothing to fund the Centers for Disease Control. So as just one critical component of the Federal Government, it isn't the Federal Government, and that's what has been shut down, and so I adamantly oppose this legislation.

We have been here a number of days now with the government shut down because people are trying to use the appropriations process, which is, as every schoolchild knows, the process where the President asks and then the Congress disposes, and we use the Appropriations Committee to dispose; that is, we make the decisions on how much is going to be spent by each agency.

The President came to Congress asking for $1.2 trillion in expenditures. The Republicans rejected that in their budget and came up with a much less budgeted number of $967 billion. This bill on the floor, the big bill, has the Democrats agreeing to $986 billion. That's a $200 billion reduction. That's just amazing. I don't think this has ever been done before where that big of a cut has been made to the Federal Government, and yet we can't pass it.

The Senate has passed it because, as everyone knows, it's a bicameral process, and whatever the President signs has to be passed by both Houses. The Senate has passed over here a clean bill, as we say, which means without all kinds of conditionality. That would go to the President if this House had voted for it. It could go forward tonight. This whole thing--this charade of shutting down government--could be over tonight. All we would have to do is pass what the Senate sent over.

But no, here we go again. Now we're going to take it in piecemeal fashion. Tonight, we bring up the FDA; it's a wonderful organization. I want to point out to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that, since I've been here, in 20 years, we've passed 111 CRs--enacted. In fact, under President Bush, we passed 56. And I'm sure every one of the Republicans passed those; 56, without conditionality. Democrats didn't try to bring down the House. And even under President Obama, so far, we've passed 19 CRs. So why can't we do that now? Why can't we do what we've been doing, this House has been doing for decades, passing a CR to keep government open?

It's certainly not the responsible thing for our committee, and we're very proud of our committee, but a CR is giving up because we haven't passed the appropriation bills that are really the mechanics of how we ought to be spending money. In fact, my distinguished colleague, Mr. Aderholt, has, 94 times, voted for a CR. So I cannot support this piecemeal specialty of the day, just voting for one segment of the Federal Government and ignoring all the rest.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the distinguished ranking member on the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan, Congressman Levin, the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the former

ranking member of the Agriculture Committee and now the ranking member of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies.

Mr Speaker, how much time do both sides have remaining?

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Congresswoman from Texas, Sheila Jackson Lee, the ranking member on the Border and Maritime Security Subcommittee.

I yield the gentlewoman from Texas an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has voted for CRs 19 times since President Obama has been in office, with the whole enchilada, passing them without rancor, without asking the President to negotiate. So there's no reason we can't do that tonight.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California, Henry Waxman, the distinguished ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

I yield the gentleman from California an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Chris Van Hollen, our distinguished leader.

I yield to the distinguished Congressman from Arizona, Ron Barber, for a unanimous consent request.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this piecemeal bill to nowhere that continues to delay and shut down government when we could be passing a bill right now that would keep government open, and it would open it up tomorrow morning; but the Speaker refuses to allow that legislation to come to the floor. He tells the press there aren't the votes.

Let's try it. I dare you. I dare you. Bring it to the floor. Let's see if there are enough votes. I think there are because I think the majority of this body wants to keep the government open and not play these games.

These are games. Never done before. Never done before. Congress has never shut down the government. Yes, it was shut down under Clinton, but it was by a veto. It wasn't for a failure to get them a bill. They're saying, Well, the President has to negotiate. He doesn't have to negotiate.

Under President Bush, we passed 56 CRs with no negotiation. Under President Obama, so far, 19. Almost every Member here voted for those. So you've been voting for CRs continuously for years and years without rancor. What's the difference now? You don't like a bill that passed 3 years ago, and you have to come and break the rules here by getting a waiver so you can bring up these issues on the appropriations bill because you don't want to do it in regular order? This is just insane.

This is insane. We've never done it like this. And the country is wondering what the heck is going on. Well, what's going on is we've just become children in this fight. This is nuts. This is not the way to run a government.

By God, let's get government open. We can do it tonight. Let's bring the bill to the floor and vote on it. Vote against this bill to nowhere.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I am opposed.

Mr. Speaker, this is the eighth time we've made this motion to bring the clean CR to the floor. And what could be simpler than a clean appropriations bill? No riders, no earmarks, no policy changes. I know it's something that my friends on the other side of the aisle have done over and over and over again. In this case, it's even with no increase in spending. It's clean; it's simple; it's the right thing to do.

So why are we here today, day after day, tinkering at the margins? Today we fund one agency; tomorrow it's something else; last Friday it was several others. This isn't any way to run a government, and no one who votes for this bill should think that it is. All this bill does is play favorites, pitting one agency against another for meager government funding.

So I offer this motion to recommit with the hope that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will join me in funding, not part of government, not piecemeal government, all of government. Why? Because all Americans deserve a complete government at their service, a full- time government, not a partial government or a sometimes government.

This motion will allow us to pass the Senate version, which is a clean, what we call, continuing resolution, and it would reopen government within 24 hours. Very simple. Just bring it to the floor. Let the vote be what it is.

We've had, as I said earlier, 111 CRs since President Clinton was elected to office. In fact, I have the breakdown right here. We had 36 CRs, continuing resolutions, passed without this kind of conditionality, without the government shutting down--36. Under President Bush, we had 56 CRs passed without shutting down the government. With President Obama, in the years that he has been here, we've already passed 19 CRs without shutting down the government, without rancor, without conditions.

So why are we doing it now? It doesn't make any sense. Nobody can explain this. All Americans want all of their government back, and we can do that. Voting on this motion to recommit, we can get government open.

So I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this motion to recommit. Support our ability to get government back, working for all the people for all the time, not part-time.

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

Point of Order

Mr. Speaker, I request to be heard on the point of order.

Mr. Speaker, doesn't this bill before us fund a portion of the Federal Government?

My motion to recommit would open the entire Federal Government so that all the consumer protections that our Nation provides are guaranteed. We need to open up not just food safety, but we also need to open up the Centers for Disease Control. We need to open up consumer hotlines. Can the Chair explain why it is not germane to open up all the Nation's consumer protections?

Last Saturday, we agreed to pay our workers furloughed during the shutdown. I supported that bill. But what sense does it make to have workers paid to sit at home and not be able to do their jobs? What kind of strange House is this that would force this situation on our fellow workers? You've got to sit at home, but don't worry, you'll get paid?

Mr. Speaker, if you rule this motion out of order, does that mean we will not have a chance to keep the entire Federal Government open today? Can the Chair please explain why we can't keep the entire Federal Government open tonight, now?

Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Thank you, Ms. Slaughter, for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, I am a member of the Appropriations Committee. This process is about appropriations. That's how we keep government open.

Unfortunately, we've never been able to get any of the appropriation bills to the floor because the Republicans won't appoint conferees to the joint committees, so we're doing a continuing resolution.

The continuing resolution is not new in this Congress. It's been done every year. The shocking thing is it's never been used as a weapon of destruction until now. We were here last year, same argument.

The health care bill is not the issue here. That's been law in this country for 3\1/2\ years. So for 3\1/2\ years, we've been appropriating money to keep government open.

What's the difference now?

The difference now is a new attitude, new breed, very mean, very conservative, very anti-government; and they're willing to bring their internal kind of power within their caucus to shut down the whole country, if not the whole world. It's totally irresponsible.

They argue, well, we can do this if we could change the health care. If the health care bill needs changing, bring it up in a bill. That's how we change things.

So I'm opposing this rule because this rule says, okay, let's bring up 10 parts of government. Let's bring up 10 parts. Let's just have multiple choice. Let's have a triage.

Which parts of government do you like?

I'd like to compliment my colleague, Mr. Cole, because in it we can't be against all health care because we keep open, in one of these bills, H.J. Res. 80, the Indian Health Services, so obviously we're going to provide health services for some low-income people; but we're against any other system that might provide assistance for other kinds of low- income people.

So this is government by multiple choice. It's not working. That's why we oppose it. Let's bring the whole family, the whole Nation together.

Reject this rule. Defeat the previous question and defeat the rule, and get on with a CR that is in this House and can be voted on right now.