Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, reserving the right to object. I, of course, will not object, and I urge my friends in this body not to object.

I urge them not to object because millions of people are at risk. This bill, passed in January to the Senate, which we passed some 3 or 4 weeks ago, needs to be passed as soon as possible for the welfare of our people in this country who have been attacked by natural disasters.

Madam Speaker, I urge my friends on the other side of the aisle not to object.

Madam Speaker, on Friday, May 10, 2019, the family, friends, and former colleagues of the late Rep. Ron Dellums of California paid tribute to him at a memorial service here in Washington. Several of us who served with him in this House delivered eulogies praising Rep. Dellums for his decency, his strength of character, his leadership, his dedication to the men and women who serve in our military, and the respect he earned from his fellow legislators on both sides of the aisle.

I want to take this opportunity to include in the Record the remarks I offered along with the kind words spoken by Rep. Barbara Lee, Chairwoman Maxine Waters, and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton. Majority Whip James Clyburn also spoke, although unfortunately there is no transcript of his remarks. I can attest, however, to his moving words.

Below I share with the rest of our colleagues my remarks in praise of our friend, the late Rep. Dellums, joined by the statements of others made in tribute to him:

Mr. Hoyer: Rev. Lamar and Father Conroy, thank you for your

words of peace and reflection. Cynthia, Erik, Piper, Brandon,

and Pam, thank you for allowing us to join you in mourning

Ron and participating in this service today. To his

grandchildren and great-grandchildren, let me say ``thank

you'' for the love you gave him, because we all saw the joy

it brought him.

I had the great honor to serve in congress with Ron Dellums

for seventeen years. He was a friend, a teacher, an example,

a hero. He was always a gentleman. He was kind, gracious,

strong, and historic. Respected and admired by his colleagues

on both sides of the aisle.

As Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Ron Dellums

was a man who knew the purpose of arms. He understood that

instruments of war could be guarantors of peace. And he knew

that the greatest force was that of the moral being, the

spirit of good will and powerful words used to speak truth.

When he saw the injustice of apartheid in South Africa, Ron

fought with every fiber to arm Congress with truth and make

our country an instrument of moral clarity.

When he and other African-American Members saw an

opportunity to raise issues that were being ignored in

Washington and lift up voices that weren't being heard, Ron

helped create the Congressional Black Caucus that now serves

as the conscience of the Congress.

As city councilman, he drew on his own family's experiences

to see the clarity of his cause championing workers and their

families, the downtrodden, the forgotten, and the

dispossessed.

The people of Oakland elected Ron eleven times to congress

and then made him their mayor--because they saw in him the

kind of moral leader unafraid to stand up for principles and

determined to do right by those who entrusted him with high

office. They knew he would always speak up for them and speak

out for the causes he knew to be just.

Ron Dellums understood that the power of words speaking

truth--on the Floor of the House or in Committee or in the

City Council chamber or from the mayor's desk--could be

mightier than any armament. He was a man who chose his words

carefully and wielded them forcefully.

President John F. Kennedy said of Winston Churchill that he

``marshalled the English language and sent it into battle.''

So too did Ron. And we will remember him always for speaking

truth, speaking justice, speaking goodness, and speaking for

those who needed a voice.

He was regal in bearing. He was real in his relationships--

warm and empathetic to all.

He was courageous in battle. Principled in his policies.

Moral in vision. Worthy of leading. Courteous in demeanor.

Clear in his goals. Loyal to his country, colleagues, and

conscience. Deserving of our love and respect. A Teddy-

Roosevelt ``doer of great deeds.'' And, most assuredly, a man

to be admired, emulated, followed, and--as we do today,

remembered.

Ron was our friend and our exemplar. We were honored and

blessed to be a part of his life.

Ron: you were always faithful, Marine. You were ``Semper

Fi.''

Ms. Lee of California: To our officiant, Rev. William H.

Lamar IV, Father Conroy, Reverend Skinner, and to all members

of the clergy.

First, let me offer my deepest condolences to Cynthia,

Brandy, Rachel, and Ron's entire family and extended family

and Ron's staff who have and continue to experience a deep

sense of grief, yet hope that through the celebration of

Ron's life, we all can join together and keep his legacy

alive through our work and love for each other.

I would also like to take a moment to acknowledge my

colleagues; members here; Majority Leader Steny Hoyer,

Majority Whip James Clyburn, Congresswoman Maxine Waters,

Congressman Hank Johnson, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes

Norton, Congressman Gregory Meeks, and Congresswoman Shelia

Jackson Lee. Members, please stand.

Our former congressional colleagues.

And Ron's friends and constituents, and all program

participants.

I thank you for being here today as we celebrate the life

of a man who was a statesman, a gentleman, and an authentic

representative of the people. Also, Ron was my mentor and my

friend.

I looked up to him, like we all did, as a warrior, and a

fighter.

Ron never gave up his principles and integrity, even though

he was brilliant, a deep thinker, a philosopher, and a man

who--as he would say--had a memory like an elephant. He was a

psychiatric social worker who understood human behavior in

its totality and a proud former marine who demonstrated that

peace is patriotic.

He was a comedian too.

He was so funny--some of you may remember his Richard Pryor

skit--Sandre, and I were with Ron when he played the role of

Richard Pryor at Lou Gossett's house.

What an evening--Ron became Richard Pryor, and Richard

Pryor became Ron.

Ron never let the weight of the world destroy his sense of

humor and fun-loving side with his friends and family.

I first met Ron as a college student in the early 1970s. I

was going to school, raising my two little boys while on

public assistance and developing my political consciousness.

I wanted to be an Intern in Ron's Washington office once I

was in graduate school at UC Berkeley. I went to Ron's

District Director, our beloved, the late Don Hopkins who Ron

relied on and loved deeply, with this request.

Don placed me in Ron's DC Office during the Watergate

hearings in the summer of 1974. I learned a lot that summer,

saw how Ron, as a progressive African American man from

Berkeley and Oakland, navigated his work as a legislator.

Even though--as he always reminded us--they painted him as a

commie pinko from Berkeley and he was on Spiro Agnew's hate

list--Ron wore this as a badge of honor. He knew he came to

Congress as an Anti-war, peace candidate, who knew the

priorities of our country were wrong and destroying people's

lives here at home & abroad.

In 1975, I came to Washington, D.C. to work on Ron's staff.

In those days, it was rare for a woman--let alone a black

woman--to run a congressional office. But Ron was proud to

call himself a ``feminist'' and lived his life by the same

progressive values he espoused on the House floor.

As an ardent anti-war activist, he also sought a seat on

the Armed Services Committee to advocate for alternatives to

military intervention.

Years later, Ron went on to make history as the first

African American to chair the Armed Services Committee--and

he used that position to advocate for more just and humane

military policies. I travelled with Ron, along with his staff

throughout the world. Heads of State wanted his advice and

knew he was a global leader.

I remember him telling his staff ``Let your conscience be

your guide. If you are right--just to stand on that street

corner alone because sooner or later everyone must walk right

to you.'' I'd like to ask Ron's staff--Congressional and

Mayoral--to stand. Ron loved his staff. They are all true

public servants who gave their all to our community, the

country, and the world.

Ron demonstrated this repeatedly--he introduced the South

African sanctions legislation 13 times.

It was the first override of a presidential policy veto in

the 20th century and finally put the United States on the

right side of history.

I will always remember Ron calling me after I was elected

to Congress to come to his beautiful home for dinner. Yes--he

also was a great cook.

Well, we sat at his kitchen table and asked me to think

about introducing an AIDS martial plan for Africa given the

devastating HIV/AIDS pandemic in Africa. His idea led to my

legislation establishing the global fund and PEPFAR which has

saved millions of lives. He worked so hard to help me get

these bills passed and the world owes him a debt of

gratitude.

Ron was my boss, mentor, and yet, like the brother I never

had. He gave me personal advice and support as a single Mom

raising two boys.

When my son Craig graduated from Brent Elementary School,

in the sixth grade here in Washington, DC., he asked Ron to

be the graduation speaker. Ron left Capitol Hill, spoke at

the graduation, took pictures and spent time with the kids

afterward. Mind you, they were young children. They didn't

have any political clout and couldn't vote.

Ron did this out of the goodness of his heart because he

loved children and cared about their future.

My sons Craig and Tony were childhood friends with Ron's

kids Brandy, Eric, & Piper, and to this day they remain close

friends.

Also, as a single woman in Washington, DC, Ron counseled me

on who--and who not to date.

He saved me from a lot of trouble and heartbreaks.

We can't forget that Ron was nominated for President in the

mid-70's, in Cincinnati, Ohio, but he declined the nomination

for the Office of the President at the National Black

Political Convention. Then there was an effort to draft him

to run for president, in New York,--I believe--in 1980.

Of course, he was conflicted--so was the staff. We just

knew he could win--but Ron decided he wanted to continue

serving his constituents because he wanted to help them

achieve their dreams and aspirations.

And, as the father of Coalition politics, which began in

the East Bay, his leadership was needed to continue to build

coalitions for peace and justice around the country.

When Ron called me and told me of his illness, I was

devastated. In his generous manner, he said he didn't want to

worry me and was gentle and cautious in the way he told me--

preparing me for that sad day. But he gave me time to be with

him each week during his last month. Thank you, Cynthia.

I spent my birthday last year--the evening of July 16 after

a legislative session--with Ron and his family. He was in

rare form, telling stories, being the comedian that he was,

toasting our friendship and singing Happy Birthday to me. He

was frail, in pain, but demonstrated a sense of hope and

courage--even as he knew he would meet his maker soon.

After my next visit, which would be the last, he talked

about family and friends--told me some of his secrets, and I

told him some of mine--encouraged me to keep fighting the

good fight and imparted more pearls of wisdom.

As I was about to leave, I was reluctant to hug him,

knowing he was in pain. He reared up in the bed and called me

to him in his playful way and gave me a big hug with tears in

his eyes.

As a brilliant, powerful, elected official, a fighter, and

a physical fitness champion, Ron was also kind, gentle, and a

humanitarian who lived his life with dignity and respect.

He left this earth demonstrating that same sense of dignity

and courage.

He did it his way.

Ron passed me a blue baton when we announced in 1998 that I

would run for his seat upon his retirement.

The baton, which I look at often, reminds me that all of us

must carry that baton that Ron gave us and run our mile in

this marathon for justice, for peace, and unity. So, when we

can pass our batons to the next generation, we know, as Ron

said frequently--we have secured their future. In honor of

the great legacy Ron has left, I'll be introducing the Ronald

V. Dellums Memorial Fellowship For Women Of Color In Science,

Technology, Engineering, Arts, Math, and National Security

Act. And we will get it passed.

Finally, let me say during moments like this, as a person,

of faith, I go to the scriptures often for inspiration and

hope.

2nd Timothy Chapter 4, verse 7 says: ``I have fought the

good fight, I have finished the race, and I have kept the

faith.''

Ron, rest in peace, rest in power, know that we got your

back.

Ms. Waters: By all standards, our brother, Ron Dellums, was

a truly exceptional human being who consistently gave of

himself to his loved ones, his community, his nation, and the

entire world.

Reverend King wrote ``The ultimate measure of a man is not

where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but

where he stands in times of challenge and controversy. In

dangerous valleys and hazardous pathways, he will lift some

bruised and beaten brother to a higher and more noble life.''

In both his public and personal capacities, Ron embodied

this standard of character, purpose, selflessness, and

service.

As an elected official, Ron was a bold pioneer, a true

leader, and a stalwart advocate for peace in the U.S. and

globally. Fueled by his extraordinary acumen and legendary

eloquence, he built a stellar track record of standing up for

principle, righting the wrongs of inequality, and empowering

the powerless.

Ron initiated his career in Congress as a crusader for

peace, taking on the establishment by opposing the Vietnam

War. He pressured Nixon to end the U.S. involvement, and

exposed war crimes in Vietnam, earning him a place on Nixon's

enemies list, of which he was proud to be a member.

Ron was a pioneer in the campaign to end apartheid in South

Africa, proposing sanctions as far back as 1972. He was

fiercely dedicated to opening hearts and minds in Congress to

the plight of the oppressed South African majority. Together

we fought apartheid, with my bill divesting California's

pension fund investments, and Ron's bill divesting U.S.

companies' assets and applying sanctions against the

repressive regime, becoming law just days apart, in Ron's

case by overriding the president's veto.

Ron called out racial discrimination in the military and

advanced diversity and inclusion through innovations that

opened doors of opportunity to people who had been excluded.

He championed the minority set-aside program for Defense

Department contracts, enabling businesses owned by African

Americans, Latinos, and other minorities to compete for a

share of the DoD's large procurement budget.

Ron consistently advocated for peace, opposing expensive,

excessive weapons such as the B-2 stealth bomber, and the MX

and Pershing II missiles. He called for funds for those

weapons to be shifted to cities, communities, education, and

housing. He opposed military intervention in Grenada, Zaire,

Burundi, Sudan, Angola, Liberia, and elsewhere, and was an

outspoken critic of the Persian Gulf War.

Ron's illustrious leadership was on display as chairman of

the Armed Services Committee. He maintained his commitment to

peaceful policy positions while allowing the committee to

work its will on the DoD's authorization and policies that he

opposed. Ron often voted against his committee's legislation.

Ron's principled passion was epitomized by his speech from

the well of the House supporting the Civil Rights Act of

1990. In that August 2, 1990 speech, which is still

emblazoned on the minds of many, Ron implored his colleagues

to support the bill, declaring ``this is throw-down time.

This is the bottom line. This is integrity. There is no

substitute to freedom and human dignity . . . there is no

substitute for justice.''

Ron's nature was just as resplendent outside the public

arena. To his friends and all who sought his counsel, he was

a trusted confidant, a source of strength, a bastion of

wisdom, and a compatriot in our shared goals and dreams. His

personal warmth, thoughtfulness, and empathy were as much a

part of his essence as passion for peace. When facing

conflict, he remained dignified. When confronting challenges,

he remained optimistic. When engaging opponents, he remained

congenial. Even his adversaries in Congress appreciated him

for being fair, responsive, thoughtful, and honorable.

I am grateful that I had the chance to thank Ron for what

he accomplished, represented, and taught us. Shortly after he

left Congress, we celebrated him at the Black Women's Forum

in LA, not just because of what he did for his district and

for the people of mine, but for all 435 districts. We

enveloped him in so much appreciation and praise that day--

every bit well-earned and well-deserved--that the eloquent

orator was rendered speechless, albeit only briefly.

To me, Ron was far more than a colleague, compatriot,

teammate, confidante, counselor, and political soul mate,

although he was all that. To me, Ron was a true friend, a

dear and trusted friend, a brother, and I loved him very

much.

Ron Dellums will always be remembered as the true article;

a man of conscience, dignity, and grace; a leader with the

rare blend of sincere humility and sublime intellect; the

peoples' patriot who waged peace at every opportunity; and a

man who is admired and loved by more people, in more comers

of the country and the world, than he could have imagined.

Ms. Norton: We celebrate our colleague and friend Ronald

Dellums at a time of historic polarization in Congress. It is

a good time to remember the peace advocate who chaired the

Armed Services Committee with such equanimity that he won the

respect, even the friendship, of those who opposed every

cause, of the many into which Ron poured his considerable

talent.

I first came to admire Ron even before being elected to

Congress from my work in the Free South Africa anti-apartheid

movement. For 14 years, Ron did not relent until he freed his

landmark bill for South Africa divestment, overcoming a

presidential veto.

By the time I was elected to Congress, Ron had already been

chair of the District of Columbia Committee for more than a

decade. That committee is long gone, and nothing would have

pleased Chairman Dellums more than its demise. But when

freedom-loving Ron Dellums first came to Congress, he knew

that if there had to be such a Committee, he wanted a seat on

it. Just as Ron sought peace by serving on the Armed Service

Committee, he sought to free D.C. from Congressional control

by serving on the D.C. Committee.

He joined the Committee during his very first term in

Congress. Upon becoming chair of the D.C. Committee, Ron

framed his service as ``an advocate, not an overseer of

District affairs.'' No sooner had Ron gotten to Congress in

1975, in his very 1st term, long before I even thought about

becoming a Member, he introduced the 1st D.C. statehood bill.

Ron would relish our progress today as we close in on

enough votes for the D.C. statehood bill to pass in the House

this term. We expect a vote soon in the Oversight and

Government Reform Committee to send the bill to the House

Floor. When that committee vote occurs, we will not be able

to claim we are breaking new or historic ground. In 1987,

more than 30 years ago Chairman Ron Dellums proclaimed

``There should be no colonies in a democracy'' and led the

District Committee in a vote for statehood for the District

of Columbia that passed in his Committee.

The American citizens who live in the nation's capital will

forever remember Ron Dellums, prescient warrior for equality

and freedom--and well ahead of his time--a leader for

statehood for the District of Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that the Chamber is not full of Members or that the gallery is not jammed with people, for this is a historic day.

Many Members have quoted that extraordinary doctrine of civil rights and human rights articulated by our Founders 243 years ago: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident.'' I tell people that they may be self- evident, but they are not self-executing.

Today, we will take another step in a long journey toward a more perfect Union. Today, we will take a step, and, hopefully, it will be as it was in 1957 when we passed the Civil Rights Act that year; hopefully, it will be as it was in 1964 when we passed that civil rights bill; and, hopefully, it will be as we voted on the Disabilities Act in 1990.

All of those bills were passed in a bipartisan fashion; and, yes, there were bipartisan votes against those bills, some from my party and some from my colleagues on the Republican side. My presumption is, and my hope is, that those who voted ``no'' on those civil rights bills looked back and said: I made a mistake. That was not the vote I should have made.

Every Democrat will vote for this bill. Every Democrat will stand up and say this is another step in the quest for a better America, a more just America, a more accepting America. That is what we have the opportunity to do today.

I hope that many, if not all, of my Republican colleagues will stand not for party, not for policies of party or partisanship, but stand for principles enunciated 243 years ago but still not yet fully realized.

That is what this day is about.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill, which I know will pass, but I hope, as I have said, it passes with a very strong bipartisan conviction and confirmation of the fact that ``we hold these truths to be self-evident.'' This is an opportunity for the House to come together and reject discrimination and exclusion.

I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the bill that Mr. Cicilline put forward. The Equality Act is about America. It is about who we are, what we are, and what we believe.

I want to commend the LGBTQ community and the Equality Caucus for being at the forefront of promoting full equality, equal justice, and equal opportunity for LGBTQ people and their families in this country.

The world looks to us as the strongest supporter, historically, of human rights and equal rights. Have we always been so? No, we have not.

My party was the segregationist party for many years, and we said no to that. We walked away from that. We said that was not the party we were going to be.

Of course, all of us were not members of that part of the party, but this day, we should all stand and say, yes, we believe that all men and all women and all people are created equal, by God, and endowed not by the Constitution, not by this body, but endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and the right to live as you are.

Yes, we make judgments on what you may do, but not who you are. You may be Black; you may be White; you may be a woman; you may be a man; you may be a homosexual; you may be a lesbian; you may be a trans; you may be anything other than what I am; but you are entitled, from me and from your country, to respect and equal treatment, as we said 243 years ago.

Sadly, some States still permit discrimination against LGBT people in those areas that have been discussed. We need to put an end to that and ensure that all people in this country, no matter where they live, are protected against hate and bigotry, exclusion and discrimination. The opportunities this country offers must be open to everyone in our country.

When I first ran for office in 1966 for a seat in the Maryland State Senate, fair housing was the issue, and the proposition was you didn't have to sell your house to somebody whose color was different than yours even though they had the ability to buy it and they wanted to move into that neighborhood.

This issue that we consider today is different in particular, but not in principle. That idea is at the very core of our American society: that opportunities exist for all of our people.

Throughout our history, we have reinforced this idea with the passage of the 14th Amendment, the 19th Amendment, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Fair Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and others. We uphold this commitment to a fair and more just society with passage of this Equality Act.

Surely, we ought to be able to agree. Republicans, Democrats, liberals, conservatives, Northeast, South, and West, surely, we can agree that all men and all women are created equal and are deserving of equal treatment.

Let's come together to make that promise of our Founders ring true.

The Bible says, ``Love your neighbor as yourself.'' Not love your straight neighbor, not love your Christian neighbor, not love your White neighbor, not love your native-born neighbor, not love your neighbor of some other distinction, but, ``Love your neighbor as yourself.''

That means, in my view, love your gay neighbor, love your lesbian neighbor, love your trans neighbor. It means love your Muslim neighbor; love your Jewish neighbor; love your African American, Latino, and Asian American neighbor; love your immigrant neighbor.

Love your neighbor, not your hyphenated neighbor, because we are all created equal.

Martin Luther King, a century after the Civil War, said to America that we are not living out the promise of America. He called us to conscience. He called us to be America. He called us to be that light to the rest of the world.

So today, we say we will judge on content of character. We will be America. We will be the best we can be of America.

Like we did on so many of the civil rights bills that have come before us, again let us vote overwhelmingly to confirm America's promise to its people and to the world. Vote for this critically important statement of America's values.

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

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at 12 p.m. for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Tuesday and Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate and 12 p.m. for legislative business. On Thursday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business.

We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business today.

The House will also consider H.R. 1500, the Consumer First Act. This legislation seeks to reverse the administration's efforts to dismantle the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

In addition, the House will consider H.R. 1994, the Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act of 2019. The legislation is intended to increase the flexibility of 401(k) plans and improve access to the accounts, particularly for small businesses and employees. The bill includes a host of provisions aimed at encouraging small businesses to provide private retirement benefits to their workers.

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

As the gentleman knows, we passed an initial bill some many weeks ago. The Senate didn't pass that. We then passed, more recently, a bill which did, in fact, take care of everyone we know who has had a natural disaster in the interim as well as those we had taken care of the first time around.

So, we think we have a good bill that was passed; however, as the gentleman also referenced, the President has asked for an additional supplemental of a little over $4 billion referenced for humanitarian issues at the border. That is being reviewed.

As the gentleman probably also knows, an offer was made to our side.

That offer has now been responded to with respect to both the initial and the supplemental--initial, I mean the disaster bill--and we are looking for an answer back at some point in time to our response. But, hopefully, we can reach an agreement.

Will the gentleman yield?

Clearly, if we get an agreement--and that, of course, is the big if, but, hopefully, we can. If we can do that, then we will want to move as quickly as possible.

I thank the gentleman for his comment. We have had this discussion on a number of occasions.

I am convinced that Mr. McGovern, the chairman of the Rules Committee, does, in fact, want to have the kind of process that we talked about and that the gentleman just referenced. He also knows that, in the last Congress, we had the most closed rules of any Congress in which I have served, and perhaps in history, 103 closed rules.

But having said that, I am hopeful that the gentleman's side will come forth with amendments that are, as the gentleman says, subject to rational debate and are not gotcha amendments. I am not alleging they are gotcha amendments, but that is obviously a concern that the gentleman had when he was in charge and that we have when we are in charge.

But I know that Mr. McGovern wants to have a fair process, and we are talking about that, so we will continue to do that.

First of all, I would say words are important. That is why we all debate, because we think words are important.

But having said that, I share the gentleman's view, as he well knows, with reference to the BDS movement, which I think is contrary to the interests of our ally, Israel, and contrary to our own interests.

Having said that, as I indicated to the gentleman last week, I have been discussing this with Mr. Engel, and he, as you know, shares the view which I have expressed and my friend has expressed, and his committee is going to be addressing that, I expect, in the near term. When they do, we will decide what actions to take at that point in time, and I look forward to discussing it with the gentleman.

My friend mentioned there are essentially four components of the bill to which he referred, three of which are noncontroversial, as the gentleman knows, and one of which has issues with respect to its constitutionality. Without resolving that issue, the three that are in that bill, I think, enjoy bipartisan support. They were held up in the Senate, as the gentleman probably knows, but we want to make sure those three certainly are adopted.

Mr. Chair, if you put patients before politics, you will vote for this bill because patients care about prescription drugs, but they also care about access to affordable, quality healthcare.

Now, you sent a bill to the President--or you didn't really send it to him because it didn't pass the Senate--and you went down to the White House and you exalted about the bill you had passed, and the President said: This is a good bill. Then he had the opportunity to, perhaps, have his advisers tell him what was in the bill, and 10 days later he said: This is a mean bill because it shortchanged patients for politics.

Mr. Chair, last week the House passed H.R. 986, a bill to protect coverage for those with preexisting conditions, and the Republicans said: No, it doesn't do that. They wanted to change the name of the bill. Not only did they want to vote against it, they wanted to change the name of the bill. Why? Because they want to tell the public we

are for protecting you against preexisting conditions. We just don't vote that way.

This week House Democrats are continuing to strengthen access to affordable healthcare by passing H.R. 987, an additional package of bills aimed at strengthening our healthcare system and lowering prescription drug costs because patients don't just worry about prescription drugs, they worry about their health coverage. As a matter of fact, it is hard to separate the two.

This effort is critical because the Trump administration, in its campaign and from its very first day, and congressional Republicans, have been working tirelessly to sabotage healthcare access and undermine the reforms of the Affordable Care Act. They voted against it and, yes, they voted over, and over, and over again to repeal it.

With all due respect to my friend, we didn't vote for those bills.

Now, we may have voted for some bills to improve the Affordable Care Act, but we certainly didn't vote for any of your bills which had the effect of repealing ObamaCare, because we believe it is in the best interest of the American public, and so does the majority of the American public.

Last year, 1.1 million Americans lost health coverage after years of gains in coverage. This shows us, dangerously, that the Trump administration's administrative sabotage is having its intended adverse effect, from limiting access to open enrollment, to allowing junk plans.

Let me say something about junk plans because the gentleman says: Well, some people can't afford it. Yes, they get a plan and they think they have health coverage, and by the way, it doesn't cover something when they get really ill, or they have lifetime limits, or annual limits. They don't have this covered. They don't have the other covered.

Not only that, but guess what happens to the insurance pool? It becomes riskier. And guess what happens then? The price goes up. You don't have to be a genius or know much about the insurance business to know that that is the case.

From repealing votes in Congress, to anti-ACA lawsuits in the courts, Republicans have been trying to undermine the Affordable Care Act.

From shortening enrollment periods, to cutting funding for outreach to let people know what is available to them and what is the best policy for them. Advice and counsel, they don't have to take any of it, but they ought to have that available to them.

This sabotage is hurting access to affordable, quality healthcare coverage for the people. That is what we are here for. For the people. And that is what this legislation is for. For the people.

The legislation before the House today would push back on these efforts that sabotage in several ways: first, we are banning junk plans that don't provide adequate coverage and raise premiums for comprehensive health plans.

Next, we are taking action to bring generic drugs to market more quickly, helping to lower the cost of prescription drugs. I appreciate the fact that my Republican colleagues support those bills. I appreciate the gentleman who knows full well as a pharmacist the crisis that confronts people when they can't afford lifesaving and health- enhancing prescription drugs.

But they also are facing real problems on the availability of health insurance should they have to have health providers, whether they are doctors, or hospitals.

Finally, H.R. 987 increases funding for outreach, enrollment, and navigators to help Americans find the right healthcare plan. That is for the people, to help the people understand, and to have access, and to be secure in knowing they have adequate healthcare for them and their families.

It also provides States with additional funding to establish State- based marketplaces. Innovation. Our legislation will provide insurers, providers, and patients alike with greater certainty that the Affordable Care Act will continue to make healthcare available and affordable to Americans with preexisting conditions.

I am pleased that my Republican colleagues are supporting the prescription drug titles of this bill. Perhaps we will send it over to the Senate, and maybe that is all they will send back.

But the fact of the matter is, we have a broader responsibility than just prescription drugs. Democrats are committed to bringing healthcare costs down and making sure more Americans can access quality, affordable coverage.

Mr. Chair, I want to thank Representatives Cicilline, Rush, Schrader, Castor, Kim, and Blunt Rochester for their leadership in the component parts of this bill, which will make the security for healthcare better for the people. They have introduced the constituent parts of this bill.

Of course, I want to thank my good friend, Frank Pallone. Nobody has worked harder for a longer period of time to enhance the healthcare of Americans. Nobody has worked harder in committee, both initially on the Affordable Care Act, of which he was a very significant part of the authorship, and since then in protecting it and trying to enhance it. This bill is important for us to pass to do just that.

That is why I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join us in standing up for the Affordable Care Act and its benefits; not undermining the law and its reforms. Having agreement on prescription reforms, bringing prices down, and making generics more available is an important step. But it is not the only step that we need to take. This is not the final step. This is a step. It is an important step.

I hope that Republicans and Democrats would support this bill overwhelmingly because, as I said, it is for the people.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the dean of the California delegation and a good friend of Ellen's for yielding.

Ellen was one of my closest friends in the Congress of the United States. I think Ellen and I voted the same about almost every time the lights were turned on and the votes were requested.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairwoman Lofgren and the California delegation for organizing this tribute.

I rise to join in remembering a dear, dear friend, an outstanding colleague, and a respected public servant.

In recent days, I have been asked to describe Ellen. Words that come to mind are extraordinarily accomplished, stateswoman, a diplomat, an expert in our Nation's defense as a member of the Armed Services Committee and as a member of the State Department, and a politician in the best sense of the word. Her skill in rallying disparate interests behind a common objective was, I think, almost unmatched.

Ms. Lofgren referred to her as presiding. She was a Democrat presiding in a House in which all respected her, which is why she was so effective. She would look to the Republican side of the aisle, and she would tap the gavel. They would know she knew what was right, and they did not want to cross her.

Her determination not to be swayed from the principles to which she always remained true was a hallmark of Ellen Tauscher. Many in the House and in our country will remember Ellen for having been one of the first women, as has been pointed out, on the New York Stock Exchange at the age of 25.

I can imagine there were a lot of old bulls on Wall Street who said, what is that young woman, that young, blonde, beautiful woman doing sitting on the Stock Exchange, a seat on the Stock Exchange?

And the answer to that question: Damn well--like everything she did.

Many will remember her for the 13 years she represented California in the Congress and for her very successful tenure as a top arms control negotiator with the Russians. But I will remember her as one of my dearest and closest friends in the House.

I will never forget Ellen's kindness, sincerity, advice, counsel, and loyalty. I will never forget her honesty and her intellect. Neither will I forget Ellen's determination to see each of us here, regardless of our party or background, as a true colleague in service.

That is how she was able to be so successful as a legislator.

As chairwoman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee, she was respected not only as a presiding officer but also for the depth of her knowledge as it related to our national security and for the fact that she was always genuine.

You knew that Ellen Tauscher was not taking a position for show. She was taking it because she believed deeply that it was in the best interest of our country.

Because of her work on the Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee and extraordinary efforts as a diplomat, Americans are safer today.

Ellen worked tirelessly during the Obama administration to negotiate the New START Treaty, which reduced American and Russian nuclear arsenals to their lowest levels in more than half a century. In that pursuit, she drew on the same indomitable nature, attention to detail, and determination to achieve results that made her so successful in business, in the Congress, and as a campaigner for Senator Feinstein.

She chaired Senator Feinstein's first two campaigns for the United States Senate, and Dianne Feinstein was one of her closest friends.

I join the Senator from California in expressing my deep sadness at the loss of my dear friend, and I join with my colleagues from both sides of the aisle who have said, very rightly, that, with Ellen's passing, this institution has lost one of its most outstanding former Members.

My thoughts are with Katherine, who, as Zoe Lofgren said, she adored. We may have been her good friends, but we were a far-back second to Katherine, a beautiful young woman in her own right, a wonderful athlete, and like her mother, bright, ambitious, fair, and loving.

We send our sympathy to her entire family. May Ellen's memory be an inspiration to all of us in this House to serve in the way she served: with honor, with humility--humility but also great self-confidence--and with determination to see every vote as an opportunity to do right by those who sent us here.

That is what Ellen did every day during her tenure.

I thank Ellen for her service. I thank her for her friendship. I thank her for making America better. We miss her.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Louisiana, the Republican whip, for yielding.

On Monday, there will be no votes expected in the House.

On Tuesday, the House will meet at 12 p.m. for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m.

On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate and 12 p.m. for legislative business.

On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business.

We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. A complete list of suspension bills will be made available by the close of business today.

The House will also consider H.R. 312, the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe Reservation Reaffirmation Act. That will be considered under a rule.

In addition, the House will consider H.R. 987, the Strengthening Health Care and Lowering Prescription Drug Costs Act. This legislation is composed of seven bills that would protect and expand affordable healthcare and lower prescription drug costs. The legislation consists of separate bills from the Energy and Commerce Committee to ban junk health plans, bring generic prescription drugs to market more quickly, provide funding for States to establish State-based marketplaces under the Affordable Care Act, require and provide funding for outreach and enrollment, and fund the navigator program that assists Americans during the open enrollment period.

All of these bills will be directed at trying to reverse some of the steps that have been taken to undermine Americans' access to affordable, quality healthcare.

Lastly, Madam Speaker, the House will consider H.R. 5, the Equality Act. LGBT Americans and their families deserve to be protected against all forms of discrimination no matter where they live. This legislation would ban discrimination against LGBT people in housing, employment, education, jury service, credit and financing, and public accommodations.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The good news is, we just passed a bipartisan bill with 34 Members from my friend's side voting in favor of that bill to give very, very substantial relief and an additional $3 billion to take care of the storms and natural disasters that have occurred since we passed a bill to the Senate many, many weeks ago that, unfortunately, was not dealt with by the Senate, largely because there was a reluctance to help the Americans who happened to live in Puerto Rico to the extent that we are helping other people around the country as we should.

I agree with the gentleman. We had a bipartisan bill today. I am hopeful that we can have a bipartisan bill moving forward.

As my friend knows, the amendment that was offered, the MTR that was offered, was offered to an object in the bill where there had been already a substantial increase, with apparently the argument being made on the floor that that money was going to be taken from the place to which we appropriated it to another area to which it was not appropriated.

We had that somewhat, I want to say, confrontation with the President on doing exactly that, taking money from MILCON and wanting to put it in a wall.

Very frankly, there was the opportunity to do that in the subcommittee and in the committee. In fact, as the gentleman knows, many of his colleagues who serve on that committee voted against funding the level of Head Start that they wanted to make a $2.8 billion increase to.

That aside, I will tell the gentleman that, clearly, we want to make sure that we handle people at the border in a humanitarian way that is consistent with the American way.

It is ironic, I will tell my friend, as you heard in the debate, that today is the 1-year anniversary when we started a policy of taking children from their parents at the border, separating them. Some of those children to this day have not been reunited with their parents. We are very concerned about that.

One of the things that I know the gentleman knows is that when we opened government--the government was shut down when we took over--we included a little over $500 million for humanitarian expenditures for people at the border so we could treat them fairly. I think, frankly, that money has not all been spent at this point in time.

We do know there is a challenge for us at the border, with the numbers of people who are seeking asylum and seeking refuge. We are certainly, as the gentleman suggested, going to work on trying to respond to that in a bipartisan, effective way.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

He had a lot of facts and assertions in his comments. First of all, let me correct: He adopted the President's number. The President's number was wrong. It bore no relationship to reality. He picked it out of the air. Numerous fact-checkers have indicated that.

The facts are that $42 billion has, in fact, been allocated, $20.3 obligated, and $12.7 outlaid. So, clearly, there are funds that have been allocated, but not the $90 billion to which the gentleman referred.

Having said that, obviously, what held it up in the Senate was the argument over Puerto Rico. I mean, that is why we have been put to the process of passing another bill.

The good news in that delay is, we did take care of the Midwest. We put $3 billion in there for disasters that occurred subsequent to the first emergency disaster relief bill that we passed. And, as I said, we included $500 million when we opened up the government for humanitarian relief.

We included another half a billion dollars for judges because there are, as the gentleman knows, legitimate seekers of asylum who are fearful of their own lives, the lives of their families

are in danger, and they are coming here.

The gentleman well knows there are some people in the White House who want to see the numbers of immigrants to America almost eliminated, so that there is some discussion and disagreement in the White House. I don't know exactly where the President stands on that, but he certainly has been hostile to immigration.

So, I take the gentleman at his belief, but we have not necessarily seen that from the White House.

Having said that, we will work--because we believe, as he does, that people who come to the United States need to be treated, for whatever reason they come to the United States, in a way consistent with our American values, in a humanitarian way.

And it is--I will repeat--ironic that we are debating this issue on the year's anniversary of children being taken from the arms of their mothers and fathers and sent hundreds of miles and, in some cases, thousands of miles away, and still have some of them who have not been reunited with their parents.

I am glad that there is concern about humanitarian treatment now. That is appropriate. I share the gentleman's view on that. Hopefully, we can reach bipartisan agreement in the very near term.

As the gentleman knows, the President's request was just sent down last week. As the gentleman further knows, we have appropriated money to certain objects. And we had a confrontation on that, and both the House and the Senate thought the President was taking money and applying it to an object which we had not authorized.

Then the Congress stood up for itself, in a bipartisan way, in the Senate and in the House.

Unfortunately, the President vetoed that bill, and he is spending money that was not authorized by the Congress of the United States.

We are having a number of challenges to the underpinning of our democratic system and the authority of the Congress of the United States versus the exercise of authoritarian power by the President of the United States, and I would hope the gentleman would share that view.

But, having said all that, we clearly want to get to the same objective, and I am sure the Senate--and I know, as I have just talked to Mrs. Lowey--they are going to review the request, as Ms. DeLauro said on the floor, see what the money is going to be spent for, make sure that it is, in fact, going to be spent for humanitarian relief at the border.

We are very concerned about that and, I think, rightfully so. That is what it is projected to be, and we want to make sure that that is what it is.

So, we will proceed, hopefully, in a bipartisan way and, hopefully, with relative speed.

But I hope the Senate, Madam Speaker, will take up this relief bill and pass it forthwith so that the folks who have been so damaged by natural disasters will get some relief and will understand that their Federal Government cares about them and is going to give them the relief they need.

I hope that we can move that as quickly as possible.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman, Mr. Pallone, for the extraordinary leadership he has shown on this issue and so many others, and for his being an original drafter and sponsor of the Affordable Care Act.

Sitting here, I was listening to speaker after speaker after speaker tell me that this doesn't protect preexisting conditions. Of course, it does. But those are people who not only didn't want to protect preexisting conditions, they wanted to repeal the whole bill. They wanted to kick 20 million people off health insurance. Give me a break. Their crocodile tears are not, hopefully, deluding anybody. They are against the Affordable Care Act. We get that. This administration has done everything they can think of to undermine the Affordable Care Act, which has an adverse effect on the ability of Americans to get health insurance at a price they can afford.

Mr. Chairman, over the past few years, congressional Republicans and the Trump administration have engaged in a dangerous campaign to repeal, undermine, and dismantle the Affordable Care Act. Now, depending upon how long they have been here, they may well have voted over 60 times to repeal the Affordable Care Act. All of it. Preexisting conditions and everything else.

Through executive actions and lawsuits, they have sabotaged the law and fueled uncertainty in health insurance markets in the process. They have a suit right now which wants to, effectively, repeal the entire Affordable Care Act that the Attorney General of the United States and the President of the United States are supporting.

Spare me these crocodile tears about how this bill doesn't protect preexisting conditions. It does. But they don't care whether it does or not.

They, the people, want to know that protections for those with preexisting conditions won't disappear. That tens of millions of Americans won't be made, effectively, uninsurable and lose their coverage.

There are very few of us in this Chamber or in the gallery who don't have some sort of preexisting condition. We, Democrats, are committed to making sure that that will not preclude people from getting health insurance.

In the first days of the Congress, we took action to do what the Trump administration's Justice Department has refused to do: defend the law in court. We are taking that action.

Instead, the Trump administration is seeking to overturn the entire law, including the ban on denying coverage for those with preexisting conditions.

Now, the Republicans did pass a bill, when they were in charge. They sent it over to the Senate. They had a big--and I know other people have talked about that--a big celebration at the White House, and the President embraced the bill. Some 10 days later, he said: No, it is a mean bill. The President of the United States embraced it, and, 10 days later, it is a mean bill.

Overturning the law means the end of popular provisions, like a ban on forcing women to pay more for the same coverage as men or allowing those under age 26 to be covered under their parents' policy.

The administration's lawsuit would also bring back out-of-pocket costs for preventive care and screenings. We want to encourage preventive care. Why? It saves money and saves lives. Most egregiously, it would kick 20 million Americans off health insurance coverage who were able to get covered because of the Affordable Care Act.

Last month, the House passed a resolution written by Colin Allred, our new Member from Texas, condemning that lawsuit which would repeal the Affordable Care Act, and reiterating the importance of protecting Americans' access to quality, affordable care.

Yesterday, the House took another step by passing bipartisan bills, which Mr. Pallone brought to the floor, to help speed up the process of bringing the cost of generic drugs down and not prescription costs up.

Today, we have a bill to overturn the Trump administration's guidance that sabotages the Affordable Care Act by allowing substandard plans. Are they cheaper? They are. But, in the end, they are much more expensive because the coverage is minimal.

The effect of such a rule is to drive up prices for those with preexisting conditions. That wasn't the intent of the Affordable Care Act, which aimed to make coverage affordable for all Americans.

Next week, we will continue focusing on healthcare by considering additional legislation to help Americans access quality, affordable coverage.

I urge my colleagues on both sides. Some of them have said they want to protect preexisting conditions. Some of them have said that. If they believed it, then they need to vote for this bill. They need to do something to protect those with preexisting conditions. Today's vote is their opportunity to do so.

I thank Representative Kuster, who is on the floor with us today, for introducing this legislation, and, again, Chairman Pallone for bringing it to the floor.

House Democrats will continue, as we pledged to do in this last campaign and as the people who voted for us are expecting us to do, to protect the Affordable Care Act, protect their ability to get insurance, notwithstanding a preexisting condition, protect their families, protect them, and make America better.

Will the gentleman yield? I would like to tell the gentleman why that happened in Maryland.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 2:30 p.m. tomorrow, and further, when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at noon on Tuesday next for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

On Tuesday, Madam Speaker, the House will meet at 12 p.m. for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m.

On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate and 12 p.m. for legislative business.

On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business.

We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business tomorrow.

The House will also consider H.R. 986, the Protecting Americans with Preexisting Conditions Act of 2019.

On October 22, 2018, the Trump administration continued the Republican assault on affordable, quality health coverage by issuing new guidance to carry out section 1332 of the Affordable Care Act.

That new guidance, Madam Speaker, undermines patient protections and threatens coverage for Americans with preexisting conditions. H.R. 986 blocks implementation of that guidance so as to preserve preexisting condition protections and ensure that healthcare remains affordable and comprehensive.

In addition, Madam Speaker, the House will consider H.R. 2157, the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2019.

The legislation would provide relief and recovery assistance for Americans affected by recent natural disasters. It includes an additional $3 billion above that which we passed and sent to the Senate some weeks ago to address urgent needs following flooding in the Midwest and tornadoes in the South that have occurred since the House passed its first disaster relief bill in January, which, unfortunately, has languished in the Senate.

Lastly, the bill includes an extension of the National Flood Insurance Program until September 30, 2019.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I won't respond to his initial comments. Obviously, we have a disagreement on the impact that the administration has had on preexisting conditions and on the section to which we are referring. But we will have a full debate on that next week when we consider the bill.

With respect to the gentleman's question as it relates to the President's proposal for supplemental funding for border security, which, by the way, was sent down yesterday and is now being reviewed, the gentleman knows that we are strong supporters of border security, and we want to make sure that the border is also humane.

The gentleman did not mention, but I want to point out, that in the bill that we adopted to fund the government that was shut down for 35 days, in the bill that we passed, there was $755 million for construction and technology at ports of entry where most drugs come into the country illegally. We want to make sure those drugs stop.

We want to have border infrastructure that allows for not only security but checking people who are coming into the country to make sure they do not have illicit substances with them, either for their own use or for sale.

In addition to that, we had $415 million for Border Patrol and Customs agents and for humanitarian relief, which, obviously, was anticipating the problem that currently confronts us and to make sure that people who come across our border are treated humanely and with respect.

In addition, there was $30.5 million for alternatives to detention and family case management, which we think is important.

In addition to that, there was a half billion dollars, $563 million, for immigration judges to reduce the backlog of cases.

Lastly, there was a half-billion dollars, $527 million, to assist Central American countries, which has had a positive effect on reducing crime and violence, one of the major reasons that people are fleeing those countries, particularly the Northern Triangle countries, and seeking asylum in the United States of America, pursuant to American law.

But we are reviewing. We want to make sure, as I said at the beginning, that our borders are secure and that we are treating people consistent with American law, not separating children from their families.

The President says he wants to perhaps renew that policy. We are vigorously opposed to that policy. We think the President is wrong in citing previous administrations that separated children. They did so in very few instances, almost exclusively when they were concerned about the safety of a child because of a parent's actions toward the child.

I will tell the gentleman that we are going to be reviewing the President's request very carefully. Ms. Roybal-Allard, who chairs the committee, and Mr. Thompson, who chairs the Homeland Security Committee, both will be looking at it carefully. We will be making recommendations in the near future as to the disposition of that proposal.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The point of reciting the dollars that were included just some weeks ago to the administration is to point out that they had clearly significant sums with which to operate now, and we will see what funds they need in the future. But I wanted to point out that we have not been negligent or sleeping, with respect to both border security and the humanitarian treatment of those who come across our border seeking asylum.

As I said, we will review it and see what determination needs to be made on what further resources are necessary.

Madam Speaker, as the gentleman knows, and I thank him for his observation, the bill to which he refers has essentially four parts, including a provision with reference to the MOU for Israel's assistance package, which we strongly support. We strongly support the levels of that. That was not controversial.

Also, the Syria sanctions bill--of course, we have passed the Syria sanctions bill, and we are working on other bills that relate to that.

Unfortunately, they are being held up in the Senate by some Republican Senators. The Syria sanctions bill has not been moved in the Senate. It also has the Jordan MOU, which is noncontroversial. It has Syria, Jordan, and the MOU. Those are the three factors. One is controversial.

It is controversial because of whether or not it comports with the law. There have been a substantial number of State cases that have been ruled on, State actions taken on this issue that have been held not to be consistent with law and the Constitution.

We are concerned about that because I share the gentleman's view. I am an opponent of the BDS movement. I think it harms one of our most important allies, and it is inconsistent with, I think, the welfare of the people in Israel and, frankly, the Palestinians in the West Bank.

Having said that, we are strong supporters of the resolution. That resolution has bipartisan support, I think, and if it comes to the floor, it will have bipartisan support. The gentleman indicated that.

We intend to come forward with that, but we are trying to work to make sure that other suggestions are consistent with law, and we may move with those as well.

We haven't made that determination yet.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Of course, what the gentleman didn't say is that the last Congress had the most closed rules of any Congress in which I have served, the most closed Congress that we have served in, according to outside observers.

There were 30 amendments available to this bill. I am not sure how many were asked on the Democratic side or the Republican side, frankly. But having said that, there were Republican amendments made in order. Mr. McGovern, the chairman of the Rules Committee, has said he intends to have as many amendments made in order as they believe consistent with getting our work done.

So I would say to the gentleman, unlike the last Congress, I think you will see closed rules be very much the exception while, frankly, they were very much the rule in the last Congress. But I take the gentleman's point, and I will have discussions with Mr. McGovern. But as you know and I know he is one of the fairest Members in this House, and we will be trying to accommodate Members.

I will also say that the gentleman's statistics include the appropriations process, where there were a lot of amendments on both sides of the aisle. We have not gotten to the appropriations process. As you know, it is my intention that we get to the appropriations process and, frankly, try to conclude the appropriations process next month, and I am sure there are going to be a lot of amendments coming from both sides.

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

I think the viewers and the Members of Congress are probably glazed over right now with these numbers, but I will tell the gentleman, there was not a single open rule in the House that was presided over by Paul Ryan, not one--not one. Check your record.

But as I say, Mr. McGovern has clearly said that we want to have amendments made in order so that both sides can get a fair hearing, and I think he has been doing that, and I think he will continue to do it.

Madam Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. Chair, the overwhelming majority of scientists in the world, not just in the United States, believe that climate change is one of the major crises confronting the global community.

We went to Paris, and the world community got together and adopted an agreement that was voluntary in its implementation. No sovereignty was given up by any nation. They said that scientists say we have a crisis and that we need to respond to it.

My friend from Michigan who spoke earlier, Mr. Walberg, said that we ought to be focused on education, housing, healthcare, and job creation. He is right, but to ignore this problem is dangerous and unacceptable.

Climate change is perhaps one of the greatest threats we face as a nation and as a planet. Those who deny it do so at great peril to the health, security, and economic prosperity of our country.

H.R. 9 will not solve climate change. The first step in any journey does not get you there. But without it, you get nowhere.

House Democrats are laying down a marker today that we are committed to tackling this challenge with the seriousness it deserves.

Recognizing and combating climate change must be a global effort. This legislation prohibits the Trump administration from using any funds to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement.

I tell my friends in the House that I believe the overwhelming majority of Americans support that proposition, as do the citizens of the world.

We have been the leader of the free world. Withdrawing from an agreement that was voluntarily entered into by over 170 nations shrugs off the mantle of leadership, moral and intellectual. If the United States withdraws, then we will be the only nation in the world not to be part of this historic agreement which embraces the goals previously set by our country--joined by the contribution of other nations--to reduce carbon pollution, promote technological innovation, and help avoid the most catastrophic consequences of climate change.

If we ignore the challenges of climate change, then we will also close ourselves off to opportunities to take the lead in the race to develop and deploy cleaner and more efficient technologies, which would create jobs and grow businesses and be a boon to our economy.

So I would suggest to my colleagues that those who argue against this bill argue not for economic progress, not for the creation of jobs, but exactly the opposite, and they deny the future: the future of the economy, the future of our health, the future of our environment, and the future of our children.

America, if it is to be great, must not sit on the sidelines and shrug like Atlas in confronting the rest of the world. We must act on climate change.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my dear friend, the chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Engel, for his leadership and his strong voice on behalf of what is an international issue. It is an issue for us, but it is an international issue.

I want to thank, as well, my dear friend, Representative Kathy Castor, for her leadership as chair of the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis and for introducing H.R. 9.

I also want to thank Chairman Pallone and the Energy and Commerce Committee for their leadership.

There have been over 30 hearings on this issue. All concluded we must have a concerted effort to address climate change, and House Democrats will continue to do our part. But this ought to be a bipartisan vote. Every citizen--Republican, Democrat, Independent, and nonaffiliated-- are going to be affected if we do not deal with climate change, and their children as well.

I look forward to bringing to the floor future legislation from our committees which seeks to tackle the climate crisis with substantive proposals, but I urge my colleagues: Let's take this first step. Let's say that we are not going to withdraw from the rest of the world. Let's say we are going to continue to lead on an issue that there is a global consensus on that we must deal with climate change. Take this step. Assert America's leadership.

Mr. Speaker, the shooting that targeted the Jewish community in the San Diego area this weekend was a heartbreaking reminder of the new challenges facing our country and the world in the 21st century.

In centuries past, purveyors of anti-Semitism, xenophobia, Islamophobia, racism, and other vile forms of hatred employed the ancient tools of whisper and rumor and incitement in the village squares to intoxicate mobs with fear, and fuel violence against those of a different race, a different religion, a different origin, and a different color.

Today, the internet and social media have provided haters with modern tools to do the same incitement. We have seen it in Pittsburgh and in San Diego. We have seen it in Charlottesville; in Christchurch, New Zealand; and in Sri Lanka. We have seen it in the viral images online using anti-Semitic tropes, or painting Muslims as terrorists, or vilifying migrant families.

As a nation, we need to take action to counter these new forms of incitement. We are observing a lesson in how hatred has adapted to the 21st century.

What we learn from that lesson and how we adapt to combat new tools of hatred will determine whether our democracy and commitment to tolerance and pluralism will survive this century.

Mr. Speaker, I pray for the victims of this weekend's shooting, and I say to them and all the others who have been targeted by hate in our day: this House stands against hate and will continue to do its part to promote the vision of our Founders, of a nation where all are created equal, and endowed not by the government or the Constitution, but by their creator with certain unalienable rights, and among these are: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Let us all stand for tolerance, for inclusion, and reject hate. One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.