Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet on Monday, January 14, 2019, when it shall convene at noon for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule to come.

Mr. Speaker, let me just preface it: I know all of our Members are concerned. I know the majority leader, having spoken to him, is very concerned about what we are doing and when we are doing it. Members, obviously, Christmas is coming, and they want to know what they can do. I am pleased that the majority leader agreed to have this colloquy to give us a sense of the schedule as he sees it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), my friend, the majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, the majority leader agreed to have a colloquy on the schedule. He has given us the schedule.

Obviously, there are still a lot of questions, but I understand, and I appreciate the majority leader bringing us as much up to date as he can.

Will the flood vote later this afternoon or this evening be the last vote that the gentleman would perceive?

I think the Senate vote is still open. Is that accurate?

Well, I hope that can happen. We certainly, on this side-- I am sure on your side--hope that can happen as well so that we can get home to our families and celebrate Christmas.

The gentleman does not expect any further votes after the flood vote; is that correct?

I understand the angst continues. We all have that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

What a sad day.

Chairman Frelinghuysen, I feel badly that you are leaving on this note. I know it is not your wish. I know that, if you were in charge, we would have reached agreement. I know, under your leadership, we passed--we didn't pass them. Six bills were forged in a bipartisan way, not our bills, your bills.

Mr. Speaker, the seventh bill is also agreed to, save one item, so that approximately 96 percent of the legislation has been agreed to by both sides, and the United States Senate has passed a continuing resolution based upon those bills by voice vote. Yet here we are, twisting in the wind at 7 p.m. on the day before the government shuts down.

What a sad performance. What a regrettable lack of responsibility, how we have undermined the faith of our people, treated the Federal employee terribly, and given cause for the rest of the world to think: What are they doing?

There is not one person on the Republican side of the aisle who believes that, if they pass this bill, it will be accepted by the Senate. Not one of you believes that. So we are playing political games here to pander to the President of the United States, who sadly rejected a compromise that was reached by all of us.

The majority leader of your party and the Speaker were for this compromise. We were for this compromise and the Senate was for this compromise. One person, why are we here?

I will shut down the government, absolutely. I am proud to shut down the government. That is what the President of the United States said just a few days ago. And today, he put the entire Congress in a tizzy.

How sad it is that the Republican leadership of this Congress and the last Congress have consistently been unable to meet their fiscal responsibilities.

John Boehner brought a bill to open up the government and, sadly, only 78 Republicans would follow their leadership--Mr. Boehner, Mr. Cantor, Mr. McCarthy--only 78, and the rest, including the present Director of OMB, voted to keep the government shut down.

So I am not surprised that we are here, but it is sad that we are here acting so irresponsibly. If we have one duty as we come here, it is to have our government function effectively for our people. We are failing tonight.

This is a pretense. This bill is going nowhere. The Senate won't accept it. Perhaps the Senate will send it back, amended--perhaps. But we are, we think, adults. Let's act responsibly. Defeat this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say I yield to my friend, but maybe I had better say it at the end to see how pleasant we are. I yield to the majority leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I want to join the leader. It is important for the public to understand that much goes on in which there is agreement. Much goes on in this House between staff and between Members that is a positive and bipartisan result for the American people and for our country.

Obviously, the public sees mostly, and the reporters cover, television and print, mostly the confrontation because that is what is newsworthy. A headline saying everybody cooperated and got something done is apparently not a very saleable, marketable headline. But I thank the majority leader.

And as the roles shift and I become the majority leader, I continue to intend to work with the majority leader and with the incoming whip on the Republican side to see if we can forge bipartisan agreements on critical issues that clearly the American people want addressed.

I thank my friend, Mr. McCarthy, and tell him that I look forward to working with him, as we have in the past, and, hopefully, we can do so constructively on behalf of, not only the House of Representatives, but on behalf of our country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader for that information. I would reiterate what the majority leader has said because I believe this is accurate. There will be no votes before Wednesday at 6:30 p.m. next week--no votes prior to 6:30 p.m. next Wednesday, so that Members are advised that they need to be available. We need to be here Wednesday at 6:30, and we need to be available every day thereafter until we get this government on a solid footing.

Is that accurate, Mr. Leader?

Mr. Speaker, as he points out, these discussions are not just about the schedule for the short term. They are about, however, a schedule as to what policies we are going to address, when we are going to address them, and how we are going to address them.

In that context, Mr. Speaker, the majority leader was, I think, rightfully proud of the fact that the committee had reported out all 12 appropriations bills by the August break, and we had passed seven of those appropriations bills on the floor and sent them to the Senate.

Sadly, however, Mr. Speaker, we are now 12 days before Christmas. There was a meeting at the White House about 48 hours ago, at which time there was a debate or discussion on TV, which the American people saw, and the President of the United States said: ``I will shut down the government, absolutely.'' And then he said: ``I am proud to shut down the government.''

Mr. Speaker, shutting down the government is stupid. Shutting down the government is costly. Shutting down the government creates great uncertainty, not only among those who work

for the Federal Government, but everybody who relies on the daily activities of the Federal Government.

We should not shut down the government. My side Mr. Speaker, has offered to the President of the United States, and to all of us, two alternatives. One is that we pass a CR for the balance of the year for all bills. We don't like that alternative, but at least it will provide some certainty for the next 8\1/2\ months until September 30.

The second alternative, which I think is the much better alternative, and it comports with the leader's justifiable pride with dealing with the appropriation bills on this side--as I understand, there is only one disagreement of major proportion, and that is whether we build a wall. We think that is bad policy. The President thinks it is good policy. We are having an argument about that, and we don't agree. The Republicans control the House and they control the Senate. They could pass it. They haven't passed it. But we don't control that. That is out of our hands.

And our suggestion was we have agreed on five of the bills that have been signed into law. About 76 percent of the government's discretionary funding has already been passed. We have about 25 percent left. That 25 percent is in seven bills. One is the Department of Homeland Security. It is clear that we do not have agreement on the Homeland Security appropriation bills, but on six, it is my understanding, Mr. Leader and Mr. Speaker, that we do have agreement, that the two appropriations committees have worked together, the leaders have worked together, and that we have agreement on those six bills.

So our second alternative, the much preferred alternative is to pass those six bills as they have been agreed to, funding those agencies to which those bills apply between now and September 30, the end of the fiscal year, and do a CR for the balance of the year for Homeland Security, or, alternatively, do a CR on Homeland Security at some date next year. Neither of those alternatives apparently has been pursued by the majority party, Mr. Speaker, and the President, as I just quoted, says: ``I am proud to shut down the government.''

Mr. Speaker, the leader has said he doesn't want to shut down government. The whip has said he doesn't want to shut down government. The minority leader in the Senate has said he doesn't want to shut down government. We don't want to shut down government.

But we are at an impasse just about one issue, and we suggest we agree with 95 percent. Wouldn't that make sense for the American people, for us to pass the 95 percent on which we have reached agreement after hard work all year? And on that which we can't agree, agree that we can't agree and fight that another day?

But here we are, 12 days before Christmas. And I would ask the majority leader: Do we have a plan? Mr. Leader, do we have a plan to fund the government on or before the 21st of this month so that we can do what all of us say we want to do, and, that is, keep the government operating on behalf of the American people?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. Let me observe with respect to the gentleman's comment about we did send five bills, 75 percent of government spending, discretionary spending to the President. The President signed it. But when he says it is the best in 25 years, I will remind him that when I was majority leader in 2007, we passed all 12 bills through this House.

The gentleman is correct. We passed all 12 bills. We passed them one by one so that we can consider each one, and they went to the Senate.

Unfortunately, the Senate didn't act in a fashion that I would hope. I will tell the gentleman, it is my intention, as majority leader, to pass all 12 bills.

Not necessarily one by one. We like his process, perhaps. I hope he likes it as much as he liked it the first time when he got that process, because I may--I have learned from the majority leader's skill and judgment so that we----

We may pursue that process, and I know he is going to support it because it is his process that we are going to pursue, sort of like his schedule.

Mr. Speaker, we passed all 12 bills. We sent them to the Senate. Unfortunately, we didn't get them all done.

But the fact of the matter is, this is a process called the legislative process, and I just talked at the outset about compromise and working together. We have six of those bills. It so happens we now package everything, and maybe we are going to do that in the future. But the fact of the matter is, we have agreement on six of the seven bills that remain to be signed by the President of the United States.

The way this process works is, you have agreement on six separate bills. These are not the homeland security. That is where we have a disagreement. I understand that. We cannot pass homeland security right now. But we have agreement on six bills.

Why shouldn't the plan be: We have agreement, in a bipartisan fashion; we can fund those six agencies. There will be no drama, and we will send it. Then we can do a CR on the homeland security, and we can argue about the wall.

We can have hearings on the wall. We can have experts come here and say to them: How do we make sure America is secure? Because every Democrat wants to make sure the borders are secure, every Democrat. We want the border secure.

There is a substantive disagreement. By the way, there are Republicans who disagree with the wall, as the gentleman surely knows, that it is not the best way to secure the border.

By the way, I don't know why we need money for it. The Mexicans surely are going to pay for the wall. That is what the President said. The Mexicans were going to pay for the wall. Now he wants $5 billion to pay for technology we don't think works. So, as a result, we are holding hostage the six bills on which we have agreement.

How frustrated the American people must be when they say: You know, they agree on six-sevenths of the bills, and they won't take yes for an answer.

The response is: ``I am proud to shut down the government.''

Mr. Leader, I would hope that we could send those six bills on which we have agreement. After hard work in

the Appropriations subcommittees, in the Appropriations Committee, both in the House and the Senate, and in communications between the two bodies, they have reached agreement. We ought to be happy about that. We ought to celebrate that. And we ought to send them to the President. There is no indication he would not sign those bills, as far as I know.

Then, yes, we have a disagreement, and the American people have come here to have us debate that, have hearings on that, see what experts say on that. Frankly, if the wall is what your side wants, then I say to the leader, put a bill on the floor Wednesday night and pass the wall. You haven't done that.

We haven't passed the homeland security bill through this House. It got out of committee; you didn't bring it to the floor. We haven't had a vote on it, so there is no consensus on that part of it.

So, Mr. Speaker, let's pass those six bills. Let's have a plan that will work to preclude shutting down the people's government. I hope we can do that. I hope we can do it, come back Wednesday night, and I hope, Mr. Leader, you have a plan between now and Wednesday night to get us to the place where we can do what we have agreed upon, and agreed not to agree on something that we can't agree on, or pass it and send it to the President.

Mr. Speaker, I hope we can do that. That is our responsibility. That is our duty, the duty to have a plan of how to make sure that government continues to operate, and a plan as to how we can have our Members and their families celebrate one of the highest holy days in Christendom.

I yield to my friend.

I thank the leader for his comments, but what is your plan to do that?

We have been now here in this Congress, this year, for over 330 days, 340 days. You haven't passed any plan on homeland security. You haven't brought it to the floor. It passed out of the committee. You have not brought it to the floor in 340 days.

Here we are, with agreement on six bills, Mr. Leader. We have reached agreement. We have worked hard to get to that agreement.

Now, yes, you have a faction of your caucus that has told you from time to time, ``my way or no way,'' even when you had agreement on six- sevenths.

Mr. Boehner had the same problem, and he decided he was going to leave here because he had the ``my way or no way,'' ``my way or the highway,'' ``my way or here's your hat and get out.''

Mr. Leader, you have not told us a plan. We have been discussing this for, literally, all year, and we have a very significant, substantive disagreement. And you haven't brought it to the floor to press your view and send it to the Senate.

I don't know why you haven't brought it to the floor. We haven't had any debate on the floor on this issue. We are prepared to debate that bill.

But what we are not prepared to do is hold hostage six-sevenths of the appropriations bills that remain to be done, which we have agreed upon, worked on, and are ready to go. All you tell me is: We are prepared to do that, but we have got to pass all seven bills. If we don't get everything we want, we are not going to do it.

I understand, because you have the President of the United States saying: ``I am proud to shut down the government.''

What kind of irresponsibility is that?

He wants the wall. I know he wants the wall. We are a democracy, however, not an autocracy, not a dictatorship. We are a democracy, and the wall has not passed this House. There is no agreement on the wall, and we think the wall is a bad strategy.

There are more resources deployed to the South, the southern border, than at any time, I think--I haven't checked this exactly--in my service in the Congress of the United States. So it is not like we have not put a lot of Border Patrol, a lot of technology, a lot of fencing. We have supported substantial security at the border.

Now the President wants more. I get that. But we are holding hostage six-sevenths of the appropriations bills, six out of seven, because the President is going to be proud to shut down the government.

Now, I don't want to be too painful, but we had an election just a few weeks ago, and the President made it very clear he wanted to build that wall. He sent troops down to the border, at tens of millions of dollars' cost. Of course, under the law, they can't deal with law enforcement. And, yes, there were some people that came at the fence, and they were pushed back.

But the fact of the matter is that there is border security. Can we make

it better? Yes. Do we want to make it better? Yes. Will we work with you to do that? Yes. But you are not going to get us to believe something is good that we don't think is good.

You can pass it. The President can sign it. I get that. And we lose. But you haven't brought it to the floor. You don't have a plan to get that done, 330, I guess, 340 days into the year.

So I am, Mr. Speaker, saying, why, when we have agreement--I say six- sevenths. Very frankly, we have agreement on the homeland security bill except for the wall, one item, so, essentially, we have probably 99 percent agreement. But it is my way or the highway, with no plan, as I understand it, to get us from where we are today, where we were 2 weeks ago, and where I am fearful that we will be on Wednesday at 6:30 p.m., because we have no plan to get from where we are to where we need to be.

We have offered two plans. You don't like either one of them. One was a CR for the rest of the year, for everything, for the remaining. We don't like that. That is not our plan, but it is one option, and we would support that if you bring that to the floor.

The other option, of course, is to pass the six bills. We will vote for them, all of them. You can put them in a package. Then do a CR on the homeland security, and we will have further discussions about that, and we will see what the democratic process results in.

It hasn't passed the House. We are not for it. We are prepared to debate it. If it passes and the President signs it, it will be law and my friend will do it, but don't hold the rest of government hostage for something on which there is deep disagreement not only by us, but within my friend's own party.

I implore my friend, on Wednesday at 6:30, bring those six bills to the floor. We will vote for them. Hopefully, his folks who worked to get them in place will vote for them. We will pass them, and we will avoid another stupid, as I said, shutdown of the government of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, is the gentlemen aware we did not shut down government?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, not that year.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is talking about here?

Mr. Speaker, in this session?

Mr. Speaker, I am pointing out that when the gentleman says we didn't pass the appropriations bills, when I said we passed all 12 through the House, we did not shut down government. We ultimately got to a resolution of the differences between us.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the majority leader, what is his plan to do that?

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, everybody likes to talk about the Senate. What the gentleman has ignored is that I said the bill is in committee and in 340 days has not been brought to this floor. If that is the gentleman's policy, he has not brought it to the floor for consideration.

By the way, when he talks about a broader issue of immigration, we agree with him. He has not brought a comprehensive immigration reform bill to the floor, either.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, did they pass those bills?

Mr. Speaker, why not?

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, we didn't vote for it because we didn't like the bills. But the gentleman is in charge, and he has 240 Members. All he needed was 218.

We didn't like his bill, so we did what we do when we don't like bills: we vote against them. But he has 240 people still on his side of the aisle, and he couldn't pass his bill because so many of his Members didn't like it. That is why his bill didn't pass.

Mr. Speaker, what is the gentleman's plan, however, between now and 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday to get us off this dime that we are stuck on and have been stuck on now for almost the entire year, 12 days from Christmas?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, me, too.

Mr. Speaker, what is the solution?

Mr. Speaker, is the compromise we take the wall or we shut down the government? Is that the compromise?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, is your answer to the question, yes, the wall, or we shut down government?

Mr. Speaker, the President to whom the gentleman is very close, he says so. The gentleman says so. The President says, and the gentleman heard the quote, he probably gets tired of hearing it, I am sure: I am proud, he says--I am proud, he says, to shut down the government. I will shut down the government. Absolutely, I will shut it down.

That is what the President said just 2 days ago.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, what is he talking about? I voted against bills whose policies I did not agree with and that he said ``we will therefore shut down the government,'' because if we don't agree, he couldn't get the majority votes on his side, and he couldn't get 60 votes in the Senate--which the Republicans were very, very pleased with that when the Senate was controlled by Democrats. They loved having that 60-vote rule because what they said is it requires compromise. It requires coming together, having to get 60 votes. It requires not saying, ``Do it our way or you don't do it.''

The gentleman has not brought a bill, he has not brought a plan to this floor on how to get out of that. And, Mr. Speaker, the leader has not answered when I said, essentially when he says come together and have compromise, these are his bills. They are not our bills.

We had to compromise. These didn't come out of Democratic subcommittees. They didn't come out of a Democratic committee, didn't come out of a Democratic Senate. These are bills that are his bills that we compromised on.

We are prepared to vote for 99 percent--99 percent--of those seven bills, 99 percent. That is compromising, I think, a pretty far way.

We don't agree with everything in those bills, but he is right, this is a collective body. We have all been elected. We all have one vote, and we have compromised on 99 percent.

He is holding it up. He has no plan other than we take the wall or the President of the United States shuts down government. That is not the compromise that I heard him talking about we ought to have.

Mr. Speaker, if that is the kind of compromise we are going to have between now and Wednesday at 6:30 p.m., we are not going to get there. We have compromised on 99 percent. Let's pass it. Let's move on.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, then I am going to yield back.

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid we are going to almost finish the rest of that hour.

Mr. Speaker, what I hear is that the majority leader's plan is that we give up. Ninety-nine percent of the Homeland Security bill, I presume and believe, is directed at securing our borders. We have agreed with 99 percent of it, probably 99.9 percent of it. That is probably not true in dollar value.

But the plan is for us to give up because 99 percent is not good enough for us to agree with. It has got to be 100 percent. If that is the plan, it is not going to work.

The bill has not been brought to this floor, ever, this year. It is worthy of debate as to how we keep our borders most secure. As I have said, many Republicans, including, very frankly, the second ranking member of the Senate on the Republican side, have questions about the wall. He is from Texas. A lot of Texans think the wall doesn't make sense, Republicans and Democrats. Maybe not all, but some. But if the plan is we just give up after agreeing to 99 percent, that is no plan at all.

Unless the gentleman wants to say more, I am going to yield back.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader.

I must say, Mr. Speaker, I have a serious suspicion--I trust the majority leader, but I believe that gift was probably purchased by Judy, his wonderful, beautiful wife.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Charles David Woodburn, Jr. on his retirement on November 2 after thirty-four years of distinguished service to this House.

Charles David ``Dave'' Woodburn, Jr. was first hired by former Clerk of the House Donn Anderson in September 1984 as a Sales Clerk in the Office Supply Store. He moved through the ranks of Special Order Clerk, Purchasing Department, to Inventory Control Specialist from 1984-2002. When the Chief Administrative Office underwent a reorganization, Dave joined the furniture organization.

Dave has always been recognized as a diligent and hard worker, with a strong work ethic. In the furniture organization he held many positions, including Supervisor and Manager for Receiving and Warehousing. Eventually, he was asked to serve as the Director of the Logistics and Distribution Department. This department was expanded to include Receiving and Warehousing, Logistics and Distribution, and Workflow Management. In addition to these duties, since 2008, Dave has played an integral role in the Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery (BCDR) team with the U.S. House of Representatives. His official title is Capability Manager, responsible for providing logistical support and furniture needs for all House emergency preparedness activities.

One notable contribution that Dave made to the House was his participation in the October 17, 2001 ``Response Project'' related to the anthrax incident on Capitol Hill. All Members, Committees, and Staff were able to be relocated to an alternate location, and Dave and his team were responsible for all logistical aspects of this project. He was commended for his contribution to this effort while ensuring that the business of the House went forward unhindered. Dave and his team have also been at the forefront of the Cannon Renewal Project since 2013. He received the CAO Knowledge Award, presented by Chief Administrative Officer Jay Eagan in 2007, for his extensive knowledge of the House and its operations.

Dave plans to spend his retirement years with his still very active parents, his wife of fourteen years, Marie, and his six children and ten grandchildren. He has said how much he is looking forward to returning to his hometown of Leonardtown, in Maryland's Fifth District, where he was born and raised, after a long and storied career with the House of Representatives. Just as important as the work he performed over the years, Dave passed along his extensive logistics and furniture experience to his staff and coworkers as a mentor.

On behalf of the entire House, I congratulate Dave for his many years of dedication and outstanding contributions to this institution. I wish him many wonderful years of fulfillment with family and community in his retirement.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I will ask the majority leader a question, just to make sure we all understand the schedule. But before I do that, I want to join the majority leader in saying how pleased we are that Steve Scalise not only came back, but is making such a positive contribution to the Congress of the United States.

I say to Steve that, when he came back, he gave one of those talks that I will always remember: his gratitude for the care of so many people around the world for a Member of our body.

I thank him for his friendship and working together. Hopefully we will continue to do so, hopefully in a very constructive way for the American people.

Welcome back, and God bless him, and we wish him a full, full recovery. We don't want him to be too strong on this side, but we want him strong.

And with that, we were talking on this side, and it appeared that the majority leader said we weren't going to be here next week.

Or the week after.

Is there a possibility, from that, that we may be here during the month of October?

Thank you.

We look forward to being back on November 13.

I thank the majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the College of Southern Maryland on its sixtieth anniversary. I join in thanking President Maureen Murphy, faculty, staff, students, and alumni on this milestone. Recognized by the 2019 Aspen Prize as one of the top 150 community colleges in the nation, the College of Southern Maryland provides thousands of students with pathways to successful careers.

Founded as the Charles County Community College in 1958, its first classes met in the evenings at La Plata High School. A decade later, the College's La Plata campus opened its doors, and branches were launched to serve St. Mary's and Calvert Counties in the years that followed. Its name change to the College of Southern Maryland in 2000 reflected a growing regional institution of higher learning. Now, as it begins its seventh decade serving the community, the College provides a broad range of associate degrees, certifications, skills training courses, and wellness programs.

Always adapting to meet the educational challenges of its day, the College continues to adopt new technologies to further its mission. It now offers twelve fully online degree programs and is committed to continued innovation in the design and implementation of curricula. The College has stayed true to its foundational principles of diversity, affordability, accessibility, and forging innovative partnerships that benefit students. More than sixty academic institutions have partnered with the College of Southern Maryland to offer guaranteed transfer admission to its graduates who complete their associate's degrees and meet other criteria.

I've been proud over the years to support the work of the College of Southern Maryland, including by securing $497,000 for its Nursing and Allied Health Care Training and Technology program in 2008 and $468,000 for its STEM Workforce Initiative in 2009. I was happy to be on hand when the clinical nursing lab was opened in 2010 as well as to help facilitate a U.S. Department of Labor grant of $1.5 million in 2012 for the College's program to teach juvenile offenders in-demand job skills for success in the workforce after their release. For the past six decades, the College has lived up to its vision of ``transforming lives through lifelong learning and service'', and I look forward to working with President Murphy and the entire College of Southern Maryland community to ensure that it can continue to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of Bill Shuster. I am also supporting the bill. But I want to thank Bill for being a person who is constructive, visionary, and works across the aisle with constructive ideas. He has made a difference in this House. His father made a difference in this House. I thank him for his service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. It includes key changes to the Stafford Act that I have been working on with Mr. McCarthy and Mr. Bishop for many, many months. I have advocated for over the past year to permit Federal disaster aid funding to be used to not only reconstruct what stood before, but to build to 21st century standards.

Importantly, the bill puts an emphasis on pre-disaster mitigation. The emphasis is on actions taken to lessen the impact of future disasters. Last year, natural disasters cost the Nation a record $306 billion, eclipsing the previous record of $265 billion set in 2005.

If we fail to do this, if we fail to mitigate, then we will have forsaken the lessons of Hurricanes Katrina, Sandy, Maria, and now Florence, or the devastating wildfires of the West. For every dollar spent in mitigating future disasters, we save between $4 and $8 in avoided future recovery efforts. This just makes sense.

Last year, when I traveled with Majority Leader McCarthy to Puerto Rico and to the U.S. Virgin Islands with Mr. Bishop, the chairman of the committee, to see the aftermath of Hurricanes Maria and Irma, I saw Americans struggling without power, access to clean water, basic health services, or shelter over their heads.

The majority leader and I came away from that visit determined to help these communities. Chairman Bishop joined with us. So I thank the committee.

I want to thank Mr. DeFazio, too, who like Mr. Shuster is a constructive, positive Member who wants to make a difference for our country. My constituents thank him, and the country thanks him.

I come to support a bill that was fashioned by two people who wanted to make sure that we did positive things in this House. The American people can be proud of our work today.

Mr. Speaker, I want to add my voice to those of my colleagues who have expressed strong support for this bill, H.R. 1911. It is imperative that the United States leads in the effort to stamp out anti-Semitism both at home and around the world. That's why we need an ambassadorial-level special envoy to monitor and combat anti- Semitism.

In recent years, we've witnessed a disturbing rise in attacks against Jews and Jewish communities all around the world. Americans were deeply shaken last year by the virulent anti-Semitism on display in our own country during the white-supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. I continue to be alarmed by attacks on Israel and its policies that employ rhetoric historically associated with anti- Semitism and that repeat old patterns of singling out the Jewish State in ways that mimic ancient biases. There must be no place for such rhetoric or activities in our country or anywhere that calls itself a free and democratic society.

I commend Ranking Member Engel of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, along with Reps. Lowey, Schneider, Deutch, and Veasey, for their hard work with the bill's Republican cosponsors to ensure bipartisan passage of this legislation. I hope it will send a strong message throughout the world that the United States will never waver in its effort to end the scourge of anti-Semitism and defend our ally Israel.

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), my friend, the majority leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his information. And the minibus that he referred to is what we refer to, I guess, as the first minibus. Has that conference report been completed at this point in time, Mr. Leader?

I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information. Mr. Speaker, we have some 7 days left to go, and, of course, next week is essentially one full day, and then we have 4, maybe 5 days the following week, depending upon what is necessary.

I would ask the majority leader, does he contemplate us trying to effect a continuing resolution for those appropriation items which have not been addressed in the next 7 days? And if so, how long does he expect that continuing resolution to go?

I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I hope his optimism is met because I think that would be a better thing for us to do, so I appreciate that observation.

Let me ask the gentleman as well, if we accomplish what he suggests that we might accomplish over the next 7 legislative days, there will still be a needed CR. Assuming we adopt a resolution which will fund all of government through a particular time, both because we passed appropriations bills, your point being that there are nine that are possible to pass with three remaining.

The gentleman has scheduled, as of now, for us to be meeting the first 2 weeks in October.

Obviously, Members are very interested in whether or not that schedule will be kept or whether there is a possibility that assuming we do, in fact, fund government to some date, either through the year, the next fiscal year, or for a period of time, for those bills that have not passed and been signed by the President, does the gentleman still contemplate that we will be here the first 2 weeks in October?

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that. I would hope that, for scheduling purposes for all Members, we could make that decision by the end of next week so that Members would have the opportunity to plan. I realize full well that it depends upon whether or not, in fact, we get the work done, which is why I was asking about the CR.

In addition to that, the gentleman has mentioned a couple of bills, but the Violence Against Women Act, the farm bill, and the FAA, as the gentleman knows, expire on September 30. Does the gentleman expect us to be dealing with those bills in one form or another?

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, so the gentleman's hope is to vote on these conference reports prior to the 30th of September?

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that observation.

My presumption, therefore, is, if the conference cannot come to agreement, I would presume that we would have an extension on those three bills and others that might need that. Is that accurate?

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the information.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend Rep. Lee and my other colleagues tonight who have gathered to pay tribute to our former colleague Rep. Ron Dellums, who passed away on July 30. I rise to join them in remembering Ron, who was my friend and with whom I served in this House for many years.

Ron Dellums's entire career was spent in service--to his community, his city, and his country. As a U.S. Marine, he proudly wore the uniform of our nation at a time when the peace of the world was threatened by cold war. As a city councilman in Berkeley, he drew on his family history of labor activism to fight for better conditions for working families. As a Congressman, he led the fight for sanctions against apartheid South Africa and chaired the Armed Services Committee as our military challenges were changing from a Cold War to a post-Cold War environment. He was a founder of the Congressional Black Caucus, which today is the conscience of the Congress. Later, as Mayor of Oakland, Ron worked hard to make neighborhoods safer, improve local schools, and bring new infrastructure funding to the city.

Ron fought with tenacity for the causes he believed in. One of those was human rights and the equal dignity of all people. When a presidential veto threatened to block his anti-apartheid legislation, he rallied support to override it. As Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, he earned the respect of his Committee colleagues and military leaders, and he worked diligently to transition our military to meet the threats of the twenty-first century. It came as no surprise to those of us who served with him that when he retired in 1998, praise for his service and leadership came from both sides of the aisle.

I was deeply saddened to learn of Ron's passing. Our nation lost a faithful public servant and a champion for working families and those working hard to make it in America. I mourn with the people of California and my colleagues in this House who served with Ron. I mourn with his wife Cynthia and the Dellums family. I mourn the loss of a man who gave service his all and contributed so much to the nation he loved and this institution he so faithfully served.

Mr. Speaker, this spring the Fifth District of Maryland lost an extraordinary advocate for the men and women of our Armed Services and for America's naval engineering at the Pax River Naval Air Station. John `Jack' Francis Lynch of St. Ingoes, Maryland, which is in St. Mary's County, passed away on May 18 at the age of eighty-five. Jack spent his career at Pax River, first as an engineer, then as Technical Director, and later as part of the private sector and as an early leader of the Southern Maryland Navy Alliance and the Patuxent Partnership.

When he arrived in Southern Maryland in 1955, Jack began a career that would see him become one of the most influential individuals in the history of Pax River and the region. When he became Technical Director at Pax River in 1979, he realized that the installation was at a disadvantage compared to other major military installations around the country. That was something Jack would not abide. Pax River needed more engineers, so he went to Washington and asked that they be hired. He got what he asked for. Pax River had no on-site offices in Washington, so Jack made the trip to the Pentagon over and over again to lobby military leaders on its behalf. By the time he retired from government service in 1986, Jack had completely transformed the way engineers at Pax River trained and worked.

After leaving government service, Jack joined Mantech International until 1999 and continued to devote himself to Pax River and those who serve there throughout that time and after. In the early 1990's, Jack and I worked closely together and with other state and local leaders to secure funding to build an anechoic chamber at Pax River for the precision simulation of aircraft dynamics, the first of its kind in the world. We also worked together to ensure that Pax River benefitted from consolidation during the 1996 BRAC round, which helped make Southern Maryland the hub for aerospace development and testing it is today and a center for American engineering. Much of these achievements were the result of Jack's efforts to bring stakeholders together into the Southern Maryland Navy Alliance. Later, he led the Patuxent Partnership, which was also instrumental in growing Pax River and its critical role in naval aviation.

I will miss Jack Lynch, not only for his devotion to Southern Maryland and to a strong Navy but also for his optimism and determined spirit. I hope my colleagues in the House will join me in thanking Jack for his service to our country and in expressing my condolences to his wife Patricia Ann ``Trixie;'' their son Thomas and daughter-in-law Susan; their son Paul and daughter-in-law Kimberly; their son Patrick and daughter-in-law Kathy; and their ten grandchildren and three great- grandchildren. May Jack's memory bring them joy and comfort, as it surely will inspire all of us in Southern Maryland to carry on the work he cherished.

Mr. Speaker, 28 years ago, President George H.W. Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act. I was proud to be a lead sponsor of that legislation and to be on hand for the bill signing on this day 28 years ago, together with former Democratic Whip Tony Coelho; Representatives Steve Bartlett and Jim Sensenbrenner; and Senators Tom Harkin, Ted Kennedy, Bob Dole, Orrin Hatch, and Lowell Weicker. Other individuals present were:

President George H.W. Bush; Dave Capozzi; Justin Dart; Yoshiko Dart; Chai Feldblum; Lex Frieden; Boyden Gray (Counsel to President Bush); Anthony Imparato; Arlene Mayerson; Paul Marchand; Ed Markey; John McCain; Normal Mineta; Ralph Neas; Katie Neas; Carolyn Ocelinik; Becky Ogle; Lee Page; Liz Savage; Bobby Silverstein (Hatch); Melissa Schulman; Cheryl Sensenbrenner; Bob Williams; John Wodatch, Esq.; and Pat Wright.

We worked hard to shepherd that legislation to passage with strong bipartisan support. The ADA has reshaped the landscape of our country for millions of people living with disabilities, and, indeed, for many millions throughout the world. It has done more than build ramps or widen doorways.

It has changed perceptions and brought greater understanding, not only to the abilities of those who were previously excluded, but also to the challenges of living with a disability.

I am glad we have been able to come together to strengthen the ADA over the years in the same spirit of bipartisanship that we had at its inception.

Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate this anniversary each year, we rededicate ourselves to the project of protecting the civil rights of Americans with disabilities and expanding opportunity, equality, and access for all of our people.

Mr. Speaker, it would be inaccurate to say that this is a vote about process. It is a vote about substance.

In fact, Mr. Quigley's amendment is about one of the most pressing issues of our time. The Director of National Intelligence has said that there is a flashing red danger signal similar to the one that happened before 9/11.

This amendment responds by providing for us to partner with our States to slam the door in the face of the Russian bear or any other adversary who seeks to steal the integrity of our elections.

The flashing red light calls us to action. Surely we can rise above pandering to party and Putin to act on behalf of our freedom and our security.

We have sworn an oath to defend our Constitution and our liberty against all enemies foreign and domestic.

Mr. Speaker, you have the opportunity to do that today. Do so. Vote ``yes'' on this amendment for your country.