Floor Statements

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. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his exposition of the schedule.

I want to speak briefly to the appropriations process.

I think the Appropriations Committee is fairly close to the completion of its bills. Can the gentleman tell us when the balance of the appropriations bills might be coming to the floor and when we can perhaps expect the next appropriations bill on the floor?

I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his observation. I share his delight that the Senate is moving bills. I would observe that they appear to be moving them in a bipartisan fashion, which I think is positive for an outcome on the appropriations process.

In that vein, I know we are in conference on the MILCON and Legislative Branch minibus. Does the gentleman have any idea when that might conclude and we might be considering that conference?

I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, let me just mention, we just had a vote, and, obviously, I was disappointed in the outcome. I was the sponsor, probably as the gentleman knows, of the Help America Vote Act, which created the Election Assistance Commission. The Election Assistance Commission bill, the HAVA bill, passed with a big bipartisan vote and was signed, as the gentleman knows, by President George W. Bush in a very bipartisan effort.

The premise was that, for 200 years, the Federal Government had not participated in assisting the States in running Federal elections. I will repeat that. The vote for President, the vote for Senate, and the vote for the House were all done through State administrations with no participation by the Federal Government.

In 2002, the Congress and the President made a determination that we would contribute to making sure that our elections ran correctly. The gentleman will remember the issue of hanging chads and the question of whether or not votes were properly counted. It was of great concern across the aisle. So we passed the legislation.

Unfortunately, however, we have not continued to pursue that. And today's vote, we have a greater challenge today. The challenge in the 2000 election was inappropriate administration, domestically, of our election. The problem in 2016, as Speaker Ryan pointed out and the Intelligence Committee found and the intelligence community has found, was that there was clearly an outside attack on America by Russia, and perhaps others, to undermine the integrity of our elections.

The vote that we held just a few minutes ago was about the Federal Government continuing to partner with the States to ensure the integrity of our election system and its safety from outside attack, interference, and undermining.

I hope, Mr. Leader, that we could visit that issue. I hope the Senate visits that issue. Perhaps we can visit it in conference, and, together, Republicans and Democrats could join together in an effort to work with our partners in the States to ensure the integrity of the administration of our election and to ensure that votes are cast correctly, counted correctly, and reported correctly.

As the sponsor of that bill that was cosponsored, as the gentleman may remember--no, you weren't here in '02--by Bob Ney of Ohio, but overwhelmingly supported on both sides of the aisle, I hope that we could move ahead, in the weeks ahead, as we move toward the November 6 election, to make sure that Americans--Democrats, Republicans, independents, all others, and not only in this country but around the world--have confidence in the results of our election.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether the gentleman wants to respond to that. I yield to my friend.

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

I would simply be constrained to say, I listened to Mr. Frelinghuysen. I listened to his opposition to the MTR. The pretense that the amendment that was offered is somehow a procedural or nonconsequential amendment is incorrect. Mr. Frelinghuysen didn't even try to make the argument. He said it was a good bill; we ought to pass it. Fine. The amendment would have not undermined the bill in any way.

Now, there is a provision in that bill, as the gentleman knows, to, in effect, undermine the agreement that was made last year, with respect to the funding levels, by putting $500 million into a grandchild's or a children's fund by the chairman of the subcommittee. It is a little bit like your rescissions.

The gentleman who put that in voted for a $2 trillion deficit- creating document and put $500 million in a trust fund to bring down that deficit. I know my friend is happy that that will, at that rate, take 4,000 years to fill that $2 trillion hole.

So I disagree with my friend that the amendment would have had any adverse effect on the bill that was passed.

Now, I voted against the bill, but the bill passed the House of Representatives. Nothing would have adversely affected that bill. I appreciate what the gentleman said about last year's action, which I supported, which I thought was correct, and which I appreciated the Congress taking.

Next, Mr. Speaker, we had a vote on ICE. The gentleman can argue it one way or the other. I know you criticized us; we criticized you. The fact of the matter is, what it did not deal with--and you will indicate that there was a bill that dealt with this in a fashion. But, again, I would remind you that your pledge, through your Speaker, was to take issues head-on, one at a time, discretely, not confuse them.

I would urge the leader, the Speaker, and the majority party to bring a bill to the floor that deals simply with an issue with which we believe the overwhelming majority of Americans agree: Do not rip children from the arms of their parents. Do not estrange children from their parents for weeks and months. Do not traumatize children, perhaps permanently, by this policy of separating children.

I would hope and urge the majority leader to bring a bill to the floor that would deal with that discrete issue.

Mr. Nadler has a bill, H.R. 6135, to prohibit the Department of Homeland Security from pursuing this policy of separating families. John McCain has said that that policy of separation offends the dignity and decency of the American people. That is John McCain, former candidate for President in your party, Mr. Leader, and I would agree with him on that issue.

I would urge the leader to bring a bill to the floor to deal with this issue directly, and I believe--perhaps I am wrong--that it would receive a very significant majority of support in this House.

I would ask the gentleman, is there any plan to bring such a bill to the floor in the near future?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

The omni last year? Yes.

I am going to reclaim my time, Mr. Leader, for this.

Of course, I supported that policy. Now, the reason I was going to reclaim my time, very frankly, Mr. Leader, I have done some research on bills you voted against. I could go through them and pick out this, that, and the other that everybody in the world was for, and I could say you voted against it. I have not done that.

The reason I have not done it is because I don't think that would be intellectually honest on my part, because I know that there are things I would pick out that you clearly supported but you didn't support some parts of the bill and, therefore, indicated your objection by voting against them, which is exactly what I did in the omni. The gentleman, my friend, knows that to be the case.

My friend brings up CHIP all the time. My friend knows that I have supported CHIP at its very inception and in every step of the way of its development and reauthorization. My friend knows that, but he continues to pretend, because I voted against the omni, that I voted against CHIP. I didn't like the omni. I thought the omni was wrong. Very frankly, I think I was correct in that vote.

Now, the omni passed, and it passed with a very substantial number of Democratic votes. I didn't lobby against the omni with my Members. I did indicate that I did not agree with things you had left out and did not put in the omni, and I, frankly, did not agree with some things that were in the omni.

Having said that, let's not go back and forth. I can get a lot of bills the same way and show that you voted against motherhood and apple pie in this bill, that bill, and the other bill. You know that to be the case. I would hope we can stop doing that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

You are correct.

I will do that. I will tell you, you are correct in saying that I did not support the omni, but I did support the proposition.

Separating children from their parents.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman talks a lot about law enforcement, correctly so. We ought to honor those who protect us and who put their life and limb at risk daily to do so. We ought to honor them whether they are ICE agents, whether they are Border Patrol agents, whether they are DIA agents, whether they are members of the Armed Forces, whether they are members of the sheriff's departments or police departments in our various communities around the country. We ought to have compassion for those who are victims whom they are protecting and compassion for those whom we lose in the performance of their law enforcement duties.

There is not a Member of Congress who has been at more memorial services for law enforcement officers that we have lost through the centuries than I have, period.

Yesterday's vote was because of the patently political nature of the resolution that was offered. The majority leader says he wanted to offer a bill of one of our Members who suggested the elimination of ICE--small number. And that Member, apparently, according to the majority leader, told him: Look, I am going to vote ``no'' on that if you bring it to the floor, obviously trying to raise a point about wanting to stop the policies and practices--not the ICE agency, but the policies and practices of ripping, literally ripping children from the arms of their fathers and mothers and estranging them at places that neither knew where the other was.

The gentleman talks about the opioid epidemic being on the front page. It is there, and properly so, because it is a crisis, and we have dealt with it in a bipartisan way, which was correct to do so. We believed it was underfunded for some period of time. We have come up with some more funds. We are glad about that.

But he did not answer my question, and he distracted us from the focus. There was a bill, which we didn't like, because the bill had a lot of other stuff in it, which is why the Speaker said we ought to consider things discreetly, individually, one at a time. Don't confuse and obfuscate the issue.

So bring a bill to the floor that says that the policy that the President was pursuing, that he then changed--and the courts have now interjected themselves; we don't know for how long--to say that we ought not, that is not who we are as Americans, Mr. Speaker.

These 2- and 3- and 4-year-old children whom we see on the front pages of our paper, they are not MS-13. There is not a Member on this floor who will defend MS-13. There is not a Member on this floor who does not want to see the folks who gain some status by being an MS-13 caught, stopped, and taken out of our country if they are not citizens of this country, not a one of us. So that is a red herring dragged across this floor back and forth yesterday and today.

Mr. Speaker, you would think that we could say that America's values do not support taking children, small children, infant children. An instance was cited on the floor yesterday where a mother was nursing her child and that child was taken from her and the mother was put in handcuffs.

Is that America? Is that the compassionate country of which George Bush talked? Is it that bright and shining city on the hill of which Ronald Reagan spoke? I think not, Mr. Speaker.

Lastly, I know that flood insurance is going to expire July 31. I see the ranking member, Ms. Maxine Waters, on the floor. I know she has been working on this with Mr. Hensarling. Does the leader know whether or not that bill might be coming to the floor or some extension coming to the floor next week?

I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman knows damn well that is not the case, and I am tired of hearing him demagogue about that. I expect him to do it between now and the election, but the gentleman is not honest when he does it, and he knows that, Mr. Speaker.

He says something about the Democratic Socialist Party--it is my time. It is my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is my time.

This is the most autocratic Congress in which I have served. It has had the most closed rules. And the majority leader brings to the floor his version of what he wants to say and how he wants to characterize it. No consultation with us, no amendments allowed, and then we say we are not going to vote against ICE agents. We honor the work that they do. We honor the sacrifices they make. We honor the critical role they play in defending our country and enforcing our laws.

But, Mr. Leader, we are not going to take it or leave it. We are not going to vote ``no'' on a resolution that purports simply to honor our ICE agents. If it were simply that, it may have been a different matter.

But, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the majority leader would stop talking about--there are some people in his party who say absolutely absurd things at the very highest level of his party, and I haven't brought them up.

Mr. Speaker, I asked a simple question. The Speaker of this House said he was going to bring issues to this floor individually, vote them up or down. I asked the leader: Will you bring a bill to the floor which will stop the separation of children from their parents? He says he did. 113 of his colleagues on his side of the aisle thought it was a bad bill and voted ``no.''

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, they didn't vote ``present.'' I voted ``present'' because I wanted to say to the leader, Mr.

Speaker, I am not going to take it or leave it.

He wants to make me look like I am not for law enforcement when I have been for law enforcement in the 50 years I have been in public office, without fail--without fail.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I voted ``present,'' Mr. Speaker, because I was not going to take it or leave it. I was not going to just take what the majority leader wanted to shove down my throat and the throat of others. Because, Mr. Speaker, the rhetoric in that bill--and let me say to the leader, Mr. Speaker, he and I worked on a lot of resolutions regarding Israel, and we want to keep the Congress united on Israel, and we keep the Congress united on Israel.

How do we do it, Mr. Speaker? We work on the language. We work on the language of the whereas clauses and the resolved clauses so that we can create a broad majority. We could have done that with the ICE bill, easily--easily--an overwhelming support for their role and for their courage and for their character.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I asked about the bill that deals with flood insurance. I think the gentleman has told me that that is going to come to the floor, and I am prepared to yield back the balance of my time.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know who ``we'' is. Somebody who introduces a bill on either side of the aisle doesn't make it a ``we'' bill.

And the reason they brought the nonbinding resolution to the floor, when they really wanted to bring the bill to the floor, is because it wouldn't have served their political purposes because everybody on our side of the aisle would have voted ``no.'' He knows it. That is why he didn't bring it to the floor, for politics; not for principle, for politics.

And to his credit, I understand the Speaker didn't want to bring it to the floor either. At least that is what is reported in the papers.

Now, Mr. Speaker, my question has still not been answered.

There have been more closed rules in this Congress than any Congress in recent memory, during the time I have served. Now, there have been a lot of bills passed, and we passed them on bipartisanly. We had about six, seven, eight, or nine naming a post office the other day.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Isn't that wonderful.

I voted for all of them, either by voice vote or by card. They were bills that we all agreed with.

But more closed rules on this floor, including today's bill that we passed, than any Congress in recent memory.

My question to the majority leader was: Will he bring to the floor a free-standing bill which provides that children will not be separated from their parents--which John McCain says is inconsistent with the decency of the American people--so that we can vote on that proposition and that proposition only. The majority leader has not answered that question.

He talks about voting ``present,'' which he didn't like. I am sorry he didn't like it, but I would vote ``present'' again to express my opposition, the only way it was possible to do, because, unlike his characterization, I did not want to say to ICE agents, ``I do not respect you.'' Therefore, I did not want to vote against a resolution, the resolved clause of which I agreed with.

But it didn't deal with the most critical issue. It could have--it didn't--and it is nonbinding. To argue about that is to dissemble about the question that I asked.

I am prepared to end this because I don't think we are going anywhere. I don't think I am going to get an answer from the majority leader, and I don't think he will bring it to the floor, free-standing, any more than he will bring a comprehensive immigration reform bill, which is so necessary to this country, to the floor, no more than he will bring a Dreamers protection act to this floor.

He is gesticulating, Mr. Speaker, as if: What do you mean by that?

He brought a bill to the floor that he said solved the problem that 113 of his Members voted against. It got over 300 votes against. That is not a viable option to bring to the floor. He knew it was going to fail. He knew it was another message bill.

So I asked him: Will he bring that bill to the floor individually, discretely, to protect these children, or not? I haven't gotten an answer to that.

The second thing I asked him, which he did answer, is that we are going to bring a bill to the floor, apparently, hopefully, to protect those who live in flood zones and who are going to have trouble getting flood insurance on August 1. He says he will bring that to the floor.

Now, I am prepared to close and to yield back the balance of my time.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, this has gone on longer than it should have. But it has given us time to look at a MILCON-VA vote on May 15, 2008, in which the majority leader, on a substantive vote, not a resolution that was nonbinding, but a substantive appropriations bill, voted ``present.''

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Voted ``present,'' Mr. Speaker, voted ``present.''

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank the ICE agents for being present.

It is unfortunate that our Republican colleagues are not present doing the business that cries out to be done.

I am voting ``present'' on this resolution because it is a sham and a distraction. It is an outrageous attempt to hide the continued suffering of children behind a partisan attack on Democrats.

This is exactly the kind of gotcha vote that alienates Americans from our government. It is as shameless as it is inappropriate. It is inappropriate because Republicans are not doing a single thing to address the crisis of children still separated from their parents, even after a court ruled that they need to be reunited.

Democrats refuse to play the Republicans' game when it comes to children's well-being and the safety of those who come here seeking asylum. We are not falling for this trap, and you can say we are doing it as much as you want. Democrats support secure borders and honor the service of all whose lives are at risk in protecting our country and our people.

I take a back seat to no one in the House over the years in supporting our law enforcement personnel, but we will neither be silent nor will we cease fighting to bring an end to the dangerous and inhumane policies of the Trump administration that are traumatizing families and children at our borders, which Senator McCain correctly called ``an affront to the decency of the American people.''

Shame on the Republican House majority for putting such blatant partisanship ahead of the children. Shame on you for using our law enforcement agents as pawns in your political games.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to 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 the information.

Mr. Speaker, I note that the bill that was supposed to be on the floor either yesterday or today dealing with DACA and dealing with the children, who are an object of great concern by all the country, is not mentioned in the gentleman's remarks for legislation that will be considered next week.

The DACA bill was supposed to be voted in the second immigration bill pursuant to the rule that we adopted this week. That vote, I thought, had been postponed until next week. Now, however, I do not see it being announced as a bill that is going to be considered.

It is disappointing that, after months of committing to working together on a solution to the DACA crisis, Mr. Speaker, this week, the House considered two partisan bills.

I would like to point out that Speaker Ryan, on September 5, 2017, some 8 months ago, said: ``It is my hope that the House and Senate, with the President's leadership, will be able to find consensus on a permanent legislative solution that includes ensuring that those who have done nothing wrong can still contribute as a valued part of this country.''

Speaker Ryan said more recently, on February 8, 2018, when he urged people to support the caps bill--that is, setting the limits of expenditures--``my commitment to working together,'' and he looked at our side of the aisle when he said that. But, Mr. Speaker, the only persons who apparently will be included in ``working together'' are between the Freedom Caucus and others on the Republican side of the aisle.

He went on to say: ``My commitment to working together on an immigration measure that we can make law is a sincere commitment. Let me repeat,'' the Speaker said, ``my commitment to working together on an immigration measure that we can make law is a sincere commitment. We will solve this DACA problem.''

He said that February 8, 2018, from that rostrum on the floor of this House. There has been no ``together.''

Now, my friend, the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, said this: ``This all started when I was at Camp David with the President this weekend.''

We know that the majority leader is probably the closest ally that the President has in the Congress of the United States.

``He was telling me how, earlier last week, he was with some Republican Senators talking about DACA. They all agreed, but he said we can't solve that unless we bring Democrats into the room, too.''

That was Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy on FOX News on January 10, 2018.

So I ask my friend, the majority leader, can the gentleman clarify whether or not changes will be made to H.R. 6136--that is, the Ryan- Trump so-called compromise that, from our perspective, ``together'' meant simply together among Republicans trying to decide what the Republicans wanted to do. Can you tell me whether there will be changes to that so-called compromise bill and whether or not that

bill may be brought to the floor anytime soon?

I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, together, working with their Conference, not with us, not, frankly, with a bipartisan group that has support on this floor of 240 Members. 240 Members of the House of Representatives, and you need 218 for a majority, support an option and have been asking for that option for a long period of time.

Now, the majority leader is looking somewhat quizzical, Mr. Speaker, and he wants to know how you get to 240; 193 plus 47.

There were 54 Republicans who asked for the rule putting four bills on the floor, but 7 were, apparently, encouraged to take their name off of that, so only 47 Republicans remain. All 193, that is 240. That is a majority of the House.

What was asked for was to put four options, giving everybody a chance to put the option that they liked on the floor. Notwithstanding Speaker Ryan's commitment and notwithstanding the comments that Mr. McCarthy made following his meeting at Camp David with the President of the United States where they needed to bring Democrats in, all we have seen is a deeply divided Republican Party negotiating with itself.

They brought a bill to the floor, and they passed the rule. The only real effect of the rule, because the bill lost, was to negate the 216 signatures--and we believe there would have been more but for arm- twisting--to bring those compromised bills to the floor, which had both Republicans and Democrats working together and supporting. Two of those bills, the principal sponsors were a Republican and a Democrat.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, he says he is going to bring a bill to the floor--I presume he is talking about the bill that was going to be brought to the floor yesterday then changed to today, and then changed to next week--whether there will be amendments in that bill and, if so, will they be discussed with us and will we have input into that process?

The gentleman concluded, Mr. Speaker, his comments with he hopes he could have our support. We are not included. We are shut out. The compromise has been rejected and undermined, and the Speaker ignored 216 people who asked for those bills to be brought to the floor, and he said no: no openness, no transparency, closed rules, consistent with the policies that have been followed in this, the most closed Congress in which I have served.

So I would ask my friend again, Mr. Speaker: What changes will be affected in the bill that would be brought to the floor, or are we going to be told when they are brought to the floor what those changes are?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time just to remind the majority leader of what I asked.

The majority leader likes to talk about what we did in the past. His party shut down the government, and he says I voted to shut down the government. That is absurd that he could cite a vote of mine against some sort of proposal that they put forward.

The question is: He refuses to put on a bipartisan, to give even the House the opportunity to consider a bill that is supported by 240 Members of this House. And, frankly, my perception--and I am not bad at counting, Mr. Speaker, which is why I am standing at this podium and why the majority leader is standing at his podium. We understand counting.

I dare him, Mr. Speaker, I dare him to put the Hurd-Aguilar bill on the floor, and I guarantee him it will get 240 votes. The people's House will be allowed to speak. But they are afraid to do that, Mr. Speaker.

All of this stuff about we had meetings in his office, we had meetings in his office and he knew, from the start, that the two things they were asking for were nonstarters. Very frankly, I have had discussions with the Secretary, who said: Well, we will just stick with border security and DACA.

But that is all in the past. What we are talking about is today. And what they did was shut down the people who wanted to vote on their option, on our option, and on two other options in this, the most transparent House that would take issues one by one and would face the tough issues head-on. While people are twisting in the wind and while children are being separated from their parents, ripped from the arms of their moms and their dads, we fiddle while Rome is burning, and we talk about shutting down government.

Their party shut down government a number of times since I have been here. They did it intentionally. And, very frankly, their Speaker and the head of the OMB voted ``no'' and to shut it down; they voted not to open it up.

That is not the issue, Mr. Speaker. The issue is: What are we going to do to solve a problem the President of the United States said we ought to solve?

Now, the President of the United States, of course, this morning, says: No, forget it. Go deal with it.

His tweet at 7:06 a.m. this morning: ``Republicans should stop wasting their time on immigration until after we elect more Senators and Congressmen/women in November''--in other words, until we take over.

This President who said: Well, you know, I met with Kim Jong-un. He is loved by his people. And, boy, when he says stand up, his people stand up.

Perhaps, that is what he wants us to do, Mr. Speaker, but we are not North Korea. We are a democracy, and, very frankly, they don't have the courage, Mr. Speaker, to bring bills to the floor and allow this House to work its will. What they do is they negotiate with themselves and bring bills to the floor, neither of which would have passed yesterday.

After all of their compromise, after all of their talk, and after all of their commitments to solve the problem, neither one of their bills would have passed yesterday. They have 240-plus Members. They don't need us, but they took the bill off the floor because they couldn't get their own party to come to agreement.

So, Mr. Speaker, my question is, and I will reiterate my question: What changes are going to be effected in the bill that would have been considered yesterday, had it not been pulled from the floor, that we will have to consider next week?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Certainly.

Mr. Speaker, he didn't answer the question, of course. He hardly ever does.

400,000 more jobs created in 2016 than 2017. He doesn't say that. They inherited a growing economy. We inherited, when President Obama took office, a receding economy, hemorrhaging 787,000 jobs in January of 2009. He doesn't talk about that. That was after the two tax cuts that they passed in 2001 and 2003 that they said would create the greatest economy we have ever seen. It didn't. He didn't say that.

Mr. Speaker, he didn't say that the only time we balanced the budget for 4 years was under President Clinton, and we created jobs and had the best economy he has experienced and I have experienced. He didn't say that.

And, Mr. Speaker, what he didn't say is why we are not bringing to this floor four pieces of legislation, giving everybody on the floor the opportunity to express their opinion and say to the American people how they think we can address, yes, border security, which we want to address.

But what the President asked us to do and the Speaker said he would do, and the Speaker has not done, and that is to address in a rational way, in a way that can get the majority of votes--the two bills they brought to the floor, they knew they couldn't get the votes.

The farm bill that he just talked about that is going to the Senate, it is dead on arrival. He knows it, Mr. Speaker. The 69 times they tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act, wasted time. He knows it.

And he mentions, by the way, how bipartisan this Congress is. Let me tell you why it is bipartisan: we don't control it, but we cooperate when we can. When we were in charge, it wasn't nearly as bipartisan, because the Republicans did not cooperate when they could.

And, Mr. Speaker, he talks about fiscal bills. Ninety percent of the fiscal bills could not have passed this House, kept the government open, opened the government up, give relief to those who were suffering from natural disasters without substantial Democratic help, and in many instances with the majority of Democrats and the minority of Republicans.

But the answer I looked for, Mr. Speaker, what are we going to consider next week in terms of an issue that the Speaker said some 8 months ago we were going to solve and promised us in February 2018 he was going to address to solve DACA? And now we have this crisis in the country created by the President of the United States with children being wrenched from the arms of their moms and dads. That is what we ought to be discussing.

The majority leader is a good friend of the President's. I understand that. All the President has to do is pick up the phone and call and say to the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security: stop wrenching those children from the hands of their parents.

We don't need legislation, but now we have legislation. And I would ask him if he would bring the Nadler bill to the floor, which will prevent children from being wrenched from the hands of their families simply because they have committed a misdemeanor of wanting to seek opportunity in the land of opportunity that we call America.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend for his response, but we need to know what is going to be considered next week.

Apparently, they haven't decided. So the majority leader says they will let us know as soon as they have decided what they are going to do--who they have to deal with to cobble the votes together on their side of the aisle. We have 240-plus votes for an option, but they are being muzzled. They are being prevented to express the will of this House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the majority leader, does he believe that my representation that Hurd-Aguilar has 240 votes on this floor inaccurate?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, we will close now.

Neither of the questions that I posed were answered. And certainly the fact that there are 240 votes on this floor was not disputed, by the majority leader, for the Hurd-Aguilar, which addresses security at the border. By the way, cosponsored by Mr. Hurd, a Member of the majority leader's party. A Member from Texas who knows about the border and who, I presume, wants to keep it secure. The bill he has cosponsored has at least 240 votes on this floor.

This is the most closed Congress in which I have served, the most closed rules. That is a fact. And apparently it is closed to the majority, who want to move ahead on a bill and just have the opportunity to vote on it and to give the Speaker the opportunity to put something on the floor and have the House consider it, and have Ms. Roybal-Allard and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Republican from Florida, have a bill on the floor and have it considered, and have Mr. Goodlatte, who did, in fact, have his bill on the floor, and it lost.

So, Mr. Speaker, I regret that I don't know what there is going to be next week, because we need to take action. And we need to take action not by compromising with one side of the aisle and seeing only capitulation by some. We do need compromise, we do need action, and we need action that can pass the Senate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, these rules would mark the capitulation by a large number of Republicans who, for a time, reflected the views of 86 percent of the American people and the hopes of the Dreamers those Americans support. If they vote for this pretense of reform and security, they will have abandoned the principles they mouthed and the people who relied on their courage.

Contrary to the Speaker and majority leader, the test for bringing bills to

the floor must not be whether the President, untethered to principle, would sign them, but whether they reflect the will of the people and this House.

The Speaker refuses to put options on the floor supported by, at one time, 247 Members of this House. Now, 240 Members have supported a rule to give us four competing options to address the Trump-caused crisis. That number may not comply with the Hastert rule, but it does comply with democracy.

And it would give the Speaker his option as well. The Speaker clearly fears that his alternative will fail. As a result, he has opposed an open process. So much for the leadership that claimed--falsely--to pursue transparency, openness, and a willingness to take the tough issues head on and individually.

The bill it would bring to the floor, contrary to what Speaker Ryan and Leader McCarthy claim, is no compromise. A compromise, by definition, requires both sides to come together and meet in the middle. We did. And we built a majority of support for a bill.

The Ryan bill is a capitulation by those who have professed support of the Dreamers. Indeed, the only compromise in this bill is how it compromises our values, our principles as Americans, and how it compromises our economy and national security.

The conservative Cato Institute has said that only 12 percent of Dreamers would ever actually attain citizenship under this hoax of a bill.

For those seeking refuge from fear for their lives and from assault, and from having their children torn from their arms and separated--as Laura Bush pleaded, ``immoral''--this bill does not provide a solution. Instead, it provides for locking up those children in prison with their parents. Isn't that a wonderful option?

The American people are overwhelmingly outraged by what is happening at the border and want to see Congress take real action. As John McCain stated, such a policy that is being promoted by the President and the Republicans in Congress ``is an affront to the decency of the American people.''

In addition, the Ryan bill imposes new restrictions on legal immigration. Democrats will strongly oppose this noxious bill.

Mr. Speaker, please summon the courage to let the people's House work its will and demand that the President return to a policy of treating these children as we would want our own children to be treated. That is not what these bills do. Reject these bills. We are America. We are better than these bills.

Mr. Speaker, normally at this time the majority leader and I do a colloquy. We do a colloquy to discuss the schedule for the week to come. My suspicion is they don't know what the schedule is for the week to come because they were going to offer two immigration bills to undermine the proposal that so many have made to have four alternatives on DACA available for the people's House to speak for the people.

We are noting today 6 years since President Obama put into place protection for DACA protectees. Mr. Speaker, 86 percent of the American people support doing just that, and the President asked this House to act. Mr. Aguilar and Mr. Hurd in a bipartisan way--everybody says to the public: Yes, we want to work in a bipartisan way--well, the majority had the opportunity to do it, and they have retreated from that responsibility and that assertion.

I lament the fact that we have not acted as the President asked us to on protecting DACA. They are Americans in everything but paper.

Mr. Speaker, it is warm in here.

Mr. Speaker, there is joy in the Washington Capital Region today.

When I get up in the morning every day and I read the front page of the Washington Post, I say: Oh, my goodness.

Today, I read the front page of the Washington Post. ``At last, Capitals,'' with Alex Ovechkin holding the Stanley Cup high, celebrates.

Mr. Speaker, I was in the Maryland State Senate in 1973, and one of the great citizens of our region, Abe Pollin, said to us, to me, and to others: We want to build an arena in Prince George's County. It was called the Capital Center.

And in 1974, Abe Pollin brought hockey to the Washington Metropolitan area.

Abe Pollin died not too long ago. Before he died, he sold the Caps to Ted Leonsis. Abe Pollin and Ted Leonsis are ecstatic today.

Forty-four years, and now we are the national champions. Mr. Speaker, I rise with great joy and excitement to celebrate the tremendous victory last night by the Washington Capitals in the Stanley Cup finals.

The Caps had an extraordinary season and brought home a victory for the national capital region; its first major sports championship since 1992.

When team captain Alex Ovechkin raised the Stanley Cup over his head last night, he did so on behalf of thousands upon thousands upon thousands of Caps fans across our region, including, of course, my district.

That moment came after a 4-3 victory over an extraordinary team, the Vegas Golden Knights, who, in their first season as an expansion team in the National Hockey League, became the first team to come to the finals in that status. They had a magnificent season and their own exciting path to the finals during their inaugural season.

As the celebrations continue from last night into today and over the coming days, I want to offer my congratulations to the players, coaches, managerial staff, and my thanks to all the fans who made the Caps' victory possible.

I hope my colleagues, dare I say even the ones from Nevada, will join me in congratulating them as well.

Alex Ovechkin was chosen as the most valuable player, having scored 15 goals in the playoffs.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say one last thing. My father was born in Denmark. Lars Eller, a member of the Washington Capitals, was born and lives in Denmark, scored the winning goal.

The colors of the Danish flag, as some of you may know, are red and white. How appropriate. How wonderful. How grateful we are for the vision of Abe Pollin and the sponsorship of Ted Leonsis.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for the information he has given us, and I certainly thank him for his comments at the close of his initial statement on the colloquy.

We are all ecstatic, as I am sure the gentleman can understand, that after 44 years--and I might say I was an initial season ticket holder to the Washington Capitals, who started their career at the Capital Center in Prince George's County under the ownership and tutelage of Abe Pollin, an extraordinary member of our community who died, and then now under Ted Leonsis' leadership, and, of course, Alex Ovechkin's extraordinary accomplishments of his own, being named the most valuable player.

And I might say, as I know the gentleman would join me in saying, the Las Vegas team had an extraordinary accomplishment themselves, being the first expansion team ever to make it to the finals in the National Championship.

So, it was a wonderful night for those of us who live in the Washington National Capital area, and we thank the gentleman for his observation.

Let me say as well, that we share the gentleman's happiness that the economy is doing well. It is doing well. What he did not observe, but we are happy about, is that President Obama, under his leadership, took this economy from the worst economy that the gentleman and I have experienced in our lifetimes to one of the best.

Now, it was not the best, because the best economy was under Bill Clinton in the late 1990s in terms of almost every indication. But it is certainly positive information, as the gentleman has pointed out, of where the economy is now.

So we all welcome that. We are hopeful, of course, that we will build on that.

The gentleman mentions there are over 6 million jobs available. One of the challenges, as the gentleman knows, is that we don't have the skill sets matching the jobs, and that is why they are vacant. That is why they are unable to fill them. We need to, I think, focus on that. We need to focus on investing in our infrastructure.

But as was mentioned on the floor yesterday in terms of a couple of the bills Tim Ryan, in particular, mentioned, there are still 4 in 10 adults who can't pay a $400 bill if it came present. So we have work to do, and hopefully we can do that together.

But it certainly is good news that unemployment is down and the economy is moving along, continuing in the path that, from our perspective, was set by President Obama, and that President Trump, unlike President Obama, inherited a thriving, robust, growing economy. So I am pleased that we have gone to that place.

Now, I know the gentleman indicated that a number of opioid-related bills will be on the floor next week. I talked to the chairman of the committee yesterday, the gentleman from Oregon, and most of those are bipartisan bills. I hope all of them will end up, as they come to the floor, as bipartisan bills.

The addiction crisis, of course, requires that we invest in a comprehensive, long-term approach to expanding access to substance abuse treatment. I hope we can tackle this issue in a meaningful and bipartisan way. But I do want to address a number of other upcoming items for this work period, starting with the farm bill.

As the gentleman knows, last month, the farm bill failed on the House floor, and we have until June 22 to reconsider. My question is: Does the gentleman expect that we will see a farm bill on the floor by June 22?

I yield to my friend.

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

He talks about work. We are requiring those to work to work in order to get government benefits. What is controversial about that?

Democrats support work. We want to see people working. We oppose, however, your SNAP proposal because it is antiwork. You are taking a work requirement that is working and replacing it with one that won't work.

This is not about putting people to work. It is about pretending that you care about work as cover for taking assistance away from struggling families.

As a result of this bill, there will be fewer working--I know the majority leader wants to hear this particular piece of information.

As a result of this bill as it is currently written, there will be fewer working SNAP beneficiaries, not more, and millions more people going hungry. That is the working poor who are getting nutritional assistance for themselves and their families. There will be less of them under your bill.

I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is ecstatic about recent statistics. I think that he has, of course, warrant to be.

Let me read to the gentleman statistics over a 68-year period where Democrats have had the Presidency and Republicans have had the Presidency on and off. The gentleman's words are almost exactly the same words I heard in 2001 and 2003 when we were told and the country was told, if we adopted those tax bills that the gentleman is so very proud of--which is plunging our country $1.8 trillion into additional debt, which he and his party wrung their hands about so repeatedly--and that the CBO says is a result of what I believe to be the most fiscally irresponsible Congress in which I have served.

Let me repeat that. I have served in 18 Congresses. I believe this past Congress to be, this Congress that we are in, the most fiscally irresponsible Congress in which I have served.

Yes, we have a philosophical difference. You gave 83 percent of your tax revenues to the richest people in America. CBO says that; I don't say that. And 17 percent to all the rest; i.e., some 300 million-plus Americans.

Yes, we have a philosophical difference. We would have suggested that the mix be a little fairer to those in the middle and the bottom of the economic growth. But, no, you chose to give your benefits to the wealthiest in America. Not surprising. It is trickle-down economics one more time.

In 2001 and 2003, what happened? You did the tax cuts.

And what happened 6 years later? The country was plunged into the deepest recession you, Mr. Majority Leader, or me have ever experienced in our life. As a matter of fact, you have to be over 90 years of age to have experienced a deeper recession than was brought on by the Bush economic policies in the last decade, a depth of recession which the Obama policies brought us out of faster than any other nation in the world.

Those are the statistics. Faster than any other nation. The stock market--we are all about the stock market. The stock market went up almost 300 percent under Barack Obama. Now, when you get to 300 percent, we will about how well you have done. We will see what your trade policies that the President is imposing on the country do to employers and to employees and to consumers. We will see.

But let me tell you what has happened over the last 68 years under Democratic Presidents and under Republican Presidents. The gentleman wants to know about history. Under Republican Presidents over the 36 years that your party enjoyed control of the Presidency, the GDP grew by an average of 2.5 percent. Under Democrats for 32 years, by 4.1 percent.

Now, what did that 1.6 percent difference mean?

What it meant was, under Republican Presidents over the last 68 years, 35 million jobs were created. The gentleman talks about jobs. Under Democratic Presidents--4 less years, 32 years--there were 64.960 million jobs created.

Now, I hope, unlike your past performance, that the job growth continues, that the stock market increase continues, but that has not been the history. We will see.

So I hope that when you deal with the farm bill, notwithstanding your statistics, that you bring a bipartisan bill. Very frankly, the farm bill has historically been a farm bill. But what you did was passed a tax bill giving the rich 83 percent of its benefits. And in the farm bill you were taking nutritional assistance away from families and children. That is why you couldn't pass it, among other reasons. It was not bipartisan, as it was two Congresses ago when we reauthorized this. You tried to cut the SNAP program by $40 billion.

The gentleman well knows the Senate is not pursuing your policies either

on the Republican side or the Democratic side.

You are missing a lot of good information.

The fact of the matter is, you know your farm bill is not going to pass the Senate.

Mr. Leader, on the farm bill I would urge you to come together with us. I don't know that there is a more bipartisan member of this Congress than Collin Peterson, the ranking Democratic on the Agriculture Committee. Very frankly, the chairman was not interested in a bipartisan bill. I don't know whether it was by direction or his own view.

But let us come to a bipartisan agreement on this farm bill and pass it over to the Senate so that you can do something, not just talk about how you are reducing nutritional assistance to people that rely on it for their food every day.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I hear the words of the majority leader. He and his party, without exception, opposed President Obama's programs. Without exception.

We became the majority in 2007, and we worked with President Bush on a number of things, including a very substantiation environmental bill signed by President Bush, and other bills as well.

He mentions about the rescission package. Mr. Speaker, if you will recall, when we had this debate some weeks ago, he said everything in this rescission bill is what we don't need.

Guess what, Mr. Speaker? Ebola money was rescinded in that bill some weeks ago, but not in this bill. He changed it because, very frankly, Mr. Speaker, they found out, oops, we need the Ebola money. So they took it out of this bill.

We think you need the CHIP money. We think we need the CHIP money to make sure that if there is a happening or an occurrence that occurs, the CHIP money is needed either directly or indirectly to make sure that children, in fact, are taken care of.

Who has said that? Mr. Tom Cole has said that. We have used that money effectively and appropriately.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is hard to believe that if the Ebola money--which I was assured was not needed--that cut was restored by our Republican friends, Mr. Speaker, because they found out, yes, it is needed.

Now, in terms of wasting time, 65 votes over the last Congress to repeal the Affordable Care Act--65--with a full and unquestioned knowledge that none of those votes would result in something happening for our country in the United States Senate. They weren't going to vote for that. They knew that. So we spent a lot of time on that.

Let me also say: The gentleman says let's get about our business. Let me ask the gentleman: Does he expect a bill on the DACA protectees, the Dreamers, to come on the floor next week?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I would only say, I appreciate his comments. But, Mr. Speaker, I have heard them a long time, many, many times: We are going to solve this issue.

Mr. Ryan came to the floor and said: We are going to solve this issue. You vote for this caps bill, and we will get an immigration bill on the floor that will solve this issue.

That was some 2\1/2\ months ago. It is not solved yet, Mr. Speaker. I hope the

leader does, in fact, bring a bill to the floor quickly.

In fact, the suggestion that had been made by many Members of his party and mine to bring four options to the floor seems absolutely consistent with the Speaker's pledge to take the tough issues head-on; and that is, bring the Democratic bill that is cosponsored by one of the senior Republicans, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, to the floor; bring the Goodlatte bill, which has been reported out of the Republican Judiciary Committee, to the floor; bring a bill cosponsored by Mr. Hurd and Mr. Aguilar to the floor.

Then what we provide, Mr. Leader, is that the Speaker can bring a bill to the floor of his choosing. What could be fairer than that to let the people's House speak on this critically important issue? So I would hope the gentleman would facilitate that coming to the floor.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, let me say that this is the most closed Congress in history. He talks about coming to his office, and I have. We have worked constructively and positively together, and I have great respect for the majority leader. I know he is very close to President Trump, and he has talked about his working with President Trump to move forward.

Let us hope that the talks with Korea bear fruit. We have had a lot of talks with the Koreans. They have made a lot of pledges, and they haven't followed them. We will see what happens. We are hoping for the best.

In coming to your office, we have had some discussions. We have had discussions about DACA. But, very frankly, when we come to this floor, this is the most closed Congress, Mr. Leader, in recent history, if not history. We have had 85 closed rules. Zero, not a single open rule have we considered.

Over 2,000 germane amendments have been blocked by the Rules Committee. Mr. Speaker, that is amendments that are in order, and they have been blocked. In fact, 194 Republicans--Republicans--have been refused the opportunity to move forward on their amendments.

Now, I know that the leader's schedule is such that we can conclude this debate. I have other things to say. But I am hopeful that, frankly, whatever we bring to the floor, bring it on a rule that provides for full consideration, bring it that reflects facing the tough issues, bring it so the House can work its will on these bills, including the farm bill, including an immigration bill that protects the Dreamers, and including other legislation so critical to this country. Let the House work its will through the amendatory process.

Mr. Speaker, unless the gentleman wants to say something, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, first, let me say I heard the gentleman from

Georgia's argument that this money wasn't needed. I heard that argument a month ago; Ebola money was not needed. Guess what? Ebola money was needed.

I rise in opposition to this rescission bill, Mr. Speaker, which I think is a sham, period. It is a shameless attempt by the majority to gloss over the tremendous deficits that have been incurred by its tax law.

Republicans are hoping they can fool the American people with a pretense of phony fiscal responsibility, but the American people can see right through it. They can see more than $1 trillion a year in deficits for the next decade and a future for our children and grandchildren mired in debt. And for what? To give tax breaks to the wealthiest while raising taxes on many in the middle class.

We have before us, Mr. Speaker, a bill that the majority hopes will make it appear fiscally responsible. But the CBO says it would just save over $1 billion. Now, that is a lot of money, but guess what? In the next bill, without any committee hearing, the majority has added $1 billion. So they have already spent their savings of outlays of $1 billion.

The CBO says that it would save just over that amount, compared to the $1.8 trillion deficits that Republicans incurred with their tax laws. I wonder if the majority intends to bring another 1,800 bills to this floor just like this one, because that is what it would take to make up for the tax bill they passed without a single hearing and without any citizens having the opportunity to testify.

In fact, this bill rescinds less funding than Republicans just added, as I just said, to their Military Construction bill without a single vote being cast in the full Appropriations Committee, Mr. Speaker.

But this bill is also dangerous and irresponsible for another reason. It is based on the glib assertion that these funds will never be used and no one will be hurt if they are taken away. But we have already seen that to be a false promise.

The previous package, as I just said, cut funding to combat Ebola. I was told by the majority leader that we don't need those funds, which Republicans, however, now admit is very necessary to protect public health.

The same goes for children's health, I would suggest to you. Just because we haven't used these funds yet does not mean they won't be needed. It is a contingency to make sure that children aren't left out in the cold.

Oppose this rescission package.

Mr. Chair, I thank the ranking member, Mrs. Lowey, for yielding.

I rise twice today in sadness. As a member of the Appropriations Committee, albeit on leave, I have great respect for this committee, but I rise to express my concern with this minibus legislation.

Republicans brought it to the floor through a closed process and without an agreement on funding levels. Doing so, of course, shuts down debate, limits opportunity for Members to amend an appropriations bill, and sets the House up once again to shortchange important domestic priorities like healthcare and education.

And let me say to my friends on the majority side, who regularly and strongly and somewhat sanctimoniously attacked putting bills together, not considering them one at a time, and have now repaired to this `bus system, they are putting America under the bus. And they are putting regular order under the bus. And they are putting the ability to consider bills under the bus.

This minibus includes problematic cuts to funding for renewable energy programs, changes to gun safety rules, and a weakening of environmental protections. So if you are for MILCON and you are for the Leg bill, you ought to vote for the stuff you don't like. That is what this process does to all of us.

I am also particularly concerned with the title funding the legislative branch. Most people won't talk about this, but, yes, I am known as a person of this institution, and I am proud of it. I am also proud that I have fought for Members for over two decades as a leader.

As many of my colleagues are aware but few Americans might be, the people's Representatives have been asked to do more and more each year with fewer and fewer resources. The Members' Representational Allowance exists in order to ensure that Members and their staff can serve their districts and constituents in the most effective and responsible way possible.

For example, my office--and all of yours--uses its resources to help veterans navigate the VA system, help seniors collect their Social Security benefits, and to advocate for our district's critical military and civilian installations.

Sadly, Mr. Speaker, the MRA is often considered the low-hanging fruit of discretionary cuts, a political messaging freebie that has no constituency to advocate on its behalf.

As result, the MRA today has shrunk to 85 percent of what it was 8 years ago. Meanwhile, the population of the United States has grown by an estimated 19 million people. Less service for our people.

That is why I wrote the Appropriations Committee and asked the MRA be funded at least at 2010 levels, 8 years ago. I am disappointed that was not done.

At the same time--and, Members, hear this, because most of you won't say it because you are afraid that somehow your constituents will make you pay the price--we have once again frozen the cost-of-living adjustment as the costs go up in Washington, D.C.

I don't ask for a raise for Members, but I do ask that they be kept at the same level. We ought to stop all this hair-shirting in this body and treat Members with the respect that they deserve.

Mr. Chair, I will vote against this bill. I will vote against this bill because it is bad process and bad product and lets the American people down.

Mr. Speaker, on May 9, I came to the Floor and spoke about the March For Our Lives on March 24 and the nine extraordinarily poised students in Morristown, New Jersey, who spoke at the rally there, which I attended. I include in the Record remarks by Danilo Lopez. I hope my colleagues will read them and internalize the sense of fear in which our nation's students are living every day--and our responsibility as Members of Congress to do something to address this crisis of gun violence.

March for Our Lives' Remarks by Danilo Lopez

Hello, my name is Danilo Lopez, and I am a junior at Dover

High School. I would now like to read a list of those who

lost their lives in the terrible shooting in Parkland,

Florida, February 14, 2018: Alyssa Alhadeff; Scott Beigel;

Martin Duque Anguiano; Nicholas Dworet; Aaron Feis; Jaime

Guttenberg; Chris Hixon; Luke Hoyer; Cara Loughran; Gina

Montalto; Joaquin Oliver; Alaina Petty; Meadow Pollack;

Helena Ramsay; Alex Schachter; Carmen Schentrup; and Peter

Wang.

Let us hope and pray that they are in a better place, and

we will always remember. To honor the victims, I would now

like us to all have a moment of silence.

Mr. Speaker, on May 9, I came to the Floor and spoke about the March For Our Lives on March 24 and the nine extraordinarily poised students in Morristown, New Jersey, who spoke at the rally there, which I attended. I include in the Record remarks by Raniya Madhi. I hope my colleagues will read them and internalize the sense of fear in which our nation's students are living every day--and our responsibility as Members of Congress to do something to address this crisis of gun violence.

March for Our Lives

(By Raniya Madhi)

Hi everyone, my name is Raniya Mahdi, and I'm a junior at

Ridge High School in Basking Ridge, New Jersey, and I'm

participating in this march to honor the lives lost at

Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, where we

lost seventeen of our school companions and teachers to yet

another mass shooting in this country.

Today is March 24. Millions of people are marching for

their lives across the country to demand change so that no

student, teacher, or parent has to fear for their or their

loved ones life while they are receiving an education at

school. When I heard about this shooting, I had mixed

emotions. I was shocked, shocked, that we had to lose

seventeen more innocent kids to another senseless killing,

and yet some of us haven't even addressed this issue that is

killing our kids day after day. I was upset, upset to think

about how their families must be feeling, that they will

never get to kiss their kids goodbye ever again. They will

never ever be able to see their loved ones, maybe in another

world, but not this one. This world, this country, has made

it impossible for us to be able to feel safe in our own

schools. We should never have to think about the possibility

of being shot by someone who can easily break through our

defenseless walls and enter our school like an ordinary

person, until they whip out their AR-15 and start firing at

students and staff without a care in the world. The ones who

we lost should not have been taken away. Why did they need to

suffer because of the inaction and stagnance of our

congressmen? I thought to myself: These innocent kids came to

school, on Valentine's Day, like any normal school day, yet

they did not live to see their families and friends the next

day. This is horrifying to me, that countless school

shootings like this have happened over the years, but no

change.

Picture this: A nineteen-year-old walks into a liquor store

and lawfully be denied any sort of alcohol. Now picture how

is it that a nineteen-year-old cannot legally buy a beer but

can legally buy an AR-15 assault rifle at this age? And how

can our country allow a person to take the lives of fourteen

fellow students and three teachers? We have to unite as one

and urge our congressmen to take action. This is why we are

participating in this peaceful protest, to pressure our

congressmen, senators, representatives and the President to

make changes to the existing laws. Ban bump stocks! Ban

assault rifles! Increase background checks! We deserve to

feel safe in our schools! We may just be students, but this

kind of revolution has never happened before, where us kids

are taking the reins. Look around you. Look at how many

empowered students there are standing up here and around you.

This is what determination and unity looks like. With these

two things, we can be the generation that ends gun violence.

Most of us here are just teenagers. We should be worrying

about doing well on our AP tests and finals in the end of the

year, not about being shot by someone who can enter our

schools. There have been eighteen school shootings this year

alone, and we are only in March. This country's problem is

that we do not learn from our mistakes. In Australia, there

was a mass shooting in 1996, when a gunman killed thirty-five

people in Port Arthur. Only weeks after the tragedy,

Australia banned all rapid-fire guns and offered to buy the

remaining weapons that some individuals possessed. Since that

day, there has not been a single mass shooting. Not one in

the past twenty-two years.

Whereas America? After Columbine, Sandy Hook, San Bernardino,

Orlando, Vegas and endless others, this country remains numb

to any shootings of any kind, no matter how extreme the death

tolls are, this country has made it seem like those who died

and those who are living aren't even worth putting any sort

of restrictions on the weapon that brutally ended their lives

and a weapon that could potentially end ours if we do not do

something about it.

America needs to wake up and address the major problems

here: gun violence and school security. We cannot let more

innocent lives be taken away. Again, we may not be able to

pass legislation, but we have a voice and we are strong and

will continue to use it until something is done. Let's unite

as one and support the brave survivors in Parkland that are

speaking out for their rights and let's stand together and

fight through this hell of an uphill battle. This is not the

end of our fight, it's only the beginning.

Mr. Speaker, on May 9, I came to the Floor and spoke about the March For Our Lives on March 24 and the nine extraordinarily poised students in Morristown, New Jersey, who spoke at the rally there, which I attended. I include in the Record remarks by Benjamin Douglas. I hope my colleagues will read them and internalize the sense of fear in which our nation's students are living every day--and our responsibility as Members of Congress to do something to address this crisis of gun violence.

March For Our Lives Remarks by Benjamin Douglas

Mass shootings have been becoming a more and more common

part of our society for years now. By the time I became aware

of this, many ordinary people had already begun to work

toward change. One such person was a close friend of mine who

took part

in and introduced me to the Sandy Hook Ride on Washington

also known as Team 26. Team 26 is an organization of twenty-

six cyclists and activists who every year, ride together from

Newtown, CT, to Washington, DC, in order to honor the twenty-

six lives lost in the Newtown School Shooting, raise

awareness of gun violence, and the ever-growing need for

common sense gun legislation. His participation in this ride

and my discovery of it opened my eyes to many things

regarding the topic of gun violence.

Firstly, it got me thinking about my own town's

vulnerability to this ever growing issue. I had grown up

believing that my town was immune to the epidemic of gun

violence. But with my new outlook on the conflict, I found

that it has become increasingly difficult, almost impossible

to still confidently say this. I realized that no town in our

country is more or less likely to experience these types of

tragedies.

Also, I thought about how gun violence and other forms of

mass violence had affected my childhood. Seemingly endless

lock-down drills, news stories of `another shooting,' and

hearing my peers discuss what they would do if they were ever

in a scenario such as a school shooting. I knew that no one

should need to worry about their safety or think about how

they would react in public places during an avoidable tragedy

like this. I felt strongly about this and wanted to make a

difference.

Through watching the men and women who rode their bikes

from Newtown, CT, to Washington, DC, stop along the way to

hold rallies, call people to action, and spread hope wherever

they went, I saw ways I too could make a difference. The

following year, I rode with Team 26, and I witnessed the

rallies at which many of the family members and friends of

people who had lost their lives to gun violence spoke about

their experience.

During our rally in Trenton, we heard members of Mothers

Demand Action speak about the loss of their sons and

daughters, we learned exactly how it felt to have someone you

love so dearly taken from you forever due to a strangers ease

of access to a firearm.

Here, in Morristown, we met and rode with a mother whose

life was turned upside down by a man who discharged a firearm

in a mall, seriously hurting her, and killing her fifteen-

year-old daughter!

Listening to these people speak helped me discover the real

reason I was there.

I was riding with Team 26 to be a messenger.

We were listening to these people speak first-hand about

when their loved ones were taken by another person with a gun

and how it felt and affected their lives.

We took these peoples' experiences and stories to the

elected officials in the states we visited and in our

nation's capital to educate them on what is really going on

in their country.

It is so easy to be unaware of how often shootings occur as

most shootings go unreported and therefore are quickly

forgotten by those not involved. But for the friends and

family whose friend, child, or sibling had been taken from

them, any of these occurrences are life changing.

We ride to ensure that no life gets forgotten.

We ride to educate our lawmakers about gun violence beyond

the statistics, to show them not only the numbers, but who

those numbers represent and the heartbreak and sorrow they

live with.

We ride to encourage these lawmakers to begin making

change.

To urge their peers to stand up with them against gun

violence.

To vote for common sense gun laws such as mandatory

background checks, banning assault rifles and bump-stocks,

and helping to make mental healthcare more accessible and

accepted nationwide.

Team 26 shares many of its goals with the hundreds of other

organizations and groups who are currently battling the

nationwide epidemic of gun violence now more than ever. We

all must now come together as one group and refuse to be

silenced.

We must continue to organize these events and never stop

making noise until our representatives get it.

Until they understand that gun violence is not a problem

that is going to fix itself and that the citizens they

represent are relying on them to become part of the solution.

In order to convince our representatives that the voice of

many is more powerful than ever, we must never give up and

become an active part of our society. You can do this in

countless numbers of ways.

If you are seventeen or older, make sure you are registered

to vote.

If you are eighteen or older, make sure that you do vote.

No matter what your age is, you can get involved and make

your voice heard. In fact, you already have by attending this

event and hopefully attending more in the future to show that

we will never go away.

Unfortunately, it is unlikely this will be the end. But we

must all make a continuous effort to keep the pressure on and

to fight for what is right. Without the power of the people,

this conflict will never have a solution.

So we must press on, ride on, never give up, and pledge to

being the generation that will create the place where this

will never happen again.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Ms. Titus, and I thank the chairman for bringing the bill to the floor. I rise in strong support.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor every year that I have the opportunity to introduce this resolution and to support it on the floor.

I just heard the remarks of the gentlewoman from Nevada. I thank her very much for her support, and I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his remarks.

This is the 77th year our region's Soap Box Derby will be a fun and educational event that brings families together. It will be held on Saturday, June 16, as I am sure has already been said, and you will see soap box racers from ages 8 to 17 compete in three divisions: stock, super stock, and masters.

The winner from each one of these divisions, Mr. Speaker, will go on to compete at the national All-American Soap Box Derby, held each year in Akron, Ohio.

I was very proud of last year's winners from Maryland's Fifth District, 11-year-olds Ian Jameson in the stock class and Ryan Jameson in super stock. These twin brothers are from Hollywood, Maryland, the county in which I live, which is the most southern county in our State. They worked hard on their soap box racers, as did all the other young people who participated.

Ian Jameson went on to win fourth place at the All-American Soap Box Derby in Akron. Maryland's Fifth District has been home to several Greater Washington Soap Box Derby champions in recent years, including the winners from 2007, 2008, 2009, 2012, 2013, and 2014.

Is there any doubt in any Member's mind why I am so supportive of the Soap Box Derby? We do very well in the derby. Our racers even won national championships in 2007 and 2008.

I feel confident that the Fifth District racers will continue to shine this year.

Soap box derbies have been called the greatest amateur racing event in the world. They have a long tradition in our country, and many Americans carry fond memories of building soap box racers with their parents or other relatives when they were young.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in strong support of this All- American activity that will happen right here on the Nation's Capitol Hill.

Mr. Speaker, I am constrained to say that the gentlewoman mentioned the progrowth administration. We had some 98 months of growth following the worst recession she and I have experienced in our lifetimes under the policies of the Bush administration.

Mr. Speaker, in the wake of the worst financial collapse since the Great Depression, the Congress enacted, over the opposition of our friends in the Republican Party, mostly, the Dodd-Frank reforms to safeguard our economy and safeguard consumers.

When we passed Dodd-Frank in 2010, no one believed it was perfect. No legislation is ever perfect. There is nothing wrong with evaluating Dodd-Frank 8 years after it was enacted to determine what is working well and where we might improve.

Many Democrats, myself included, support providing regulatory relief to community banks, and we ought to do that in a bipartisan fashion-- not just a few bipartisan participants, but in a bipartisan fashion.

I have talked to the ranking member. She has indicated that that is something that she supports as well. However, the bill on the floor today goes much further and would weaken the rules that Dodd-Frank put in place.

It would undermine the regulatory framework for all banks. This would roll back parts of the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, stress tests for large banks, and bank capital requirements.

It would also, as has been noted, raise the threshold for the automatic designation of systemically important financial institutions from $50 billion to $250 billion.

The changes that are proposed risk making our Nation's financial system vulnerable to another crisis that would require yet another taxpayer bailout.

Mr. Speaker, because of that and because I would like to see a truly bipartisan bill supported overwhelmingly on both sides of the aisle to make sure that our community banks are not impacted in a way that was never intended nor should it be intended by the Congress, I therefore urge opposition to this particular piece of legislation, and I thank Ranking Member Waters for her hard work in making its consequences clear.

Mr. Speaker, on May 9, I came to the Floor and spoke about the March For Our Lives on March 24 and the nine extraordinarily poised students in Morristown, New Jersey, who spoke at the rally there, which I attended. I include in the Record remarks by Luna Aguilar. I hope my colleagues will read them and internalize the sense of fear in which our nation's students are living every day--and our responsibility as Members of Congress to do something to address this crisis of gun violence.

March For Our Lives Remarks by Luna Aguilar

Every month, every week, every day we hear about a hate-

filled person, usually a white-supremacist man, getting a gun

to kill others without mercy. We are here today because the

shooting at Stoneman Douglas high school in Florida hurts all

of us, and we will not take this anymore!

The students who were murdered in Florida, and many more

who are killed by gun violence throughout our country, had

dreams to fulfill in the rest of their lives. They were

robbed of their dreams because our country allows nineteen-

year-olds to legally own weapons of destruction, and we let

one man kill seventeen innocent lives. Teachers and faculty

at schools across the country have given up their lives to

protect their students from mass murderers, and now that is

their legacy. But they should not have to be mourned as

martyrs. They should be remembered as teachers, heroes who

educated the future generation.

We, as a nation, have decided that we value gun ownership

without adequate background checks, without limits, more than

the lives of our youth. But we, the youth, the future of our

country, are deciding, right here, right now, that our lives

are worth more than the right to own an assault weapon.

This same outrage should have pushed a change of policy on

guns after Columbine, Sandy Hook, Orlando, and Las Vegas.

This outrage should have supported the victims of excessive

police force in Ferguson. Stephon Clark was shot twenty times

in his grandmother's yard while unarmed just two days ago.

Are we speaking up for him too? This outrage should be heard

in response to the deaths of immigrants at the hands of

border patrol agents. African Americans, Latinos, immigrants,

members of the LGBTQIA community are all subject to gun

violence in our neighborhoods, and we must speak up for them

too. This will not be an exclusive fight. We are targeted

because of the color of our skin, because of our religion,

because of who we are. Undocumented immigrants already fear

having their families torn apart by ICE, and they also fear

of dying at the hands of an extremist. Marginalized women

also fear for their lives. We will not live in fear any

longer!

We must not succumb to fear and make our schools into

prison-like settings. We cannot arm our teachers. We cannot

fill our schools with officers that feed the school to prison

pipeline! More guns and more oppression is not the answer. I

am trained in Alternatives to Violence. This is an

international program that started right here in New York

state prisons to address violence in a compassionate way. In

our youth program with Wind of the Spirit Immigrant Resource

Center, we learn nonviolent communication and restorative

justice. If we taught this in our schools, and in our

communities, we would increase the level of safety for

everyone. If we had more social workers in our schools, we

would be healthier, safer. We should invest our resources

into the well-being of students so no one ever feels the need

to hurt others. We need social workers, not police. Why are

we as a nation so violent, so hateful? Restorative justice is

proven to work, and we are more than capable of implementing

this into our school systems.

Other countries have one occurrence of gun violence, and

they act on it immediately. Thoughts and prayers are welcome

in these devastating times, but they must be followed by

action, legislation, and prevention measures. Why has our

government refused to act? AR-15s should not be in the hands

of any civilian in this country. Congress needs to ban these

machines that serve no other purpose than to kill as many

individuals as possible within a matter of seconds. Our

nation must raise the age of owning a gun to twenty-one.

Thorough background checks that bar individuals with a

violent history, particularly those with domestic violence

histories, must be part of the process of owning a gun. We

must enforce red-flag laws, laws that allow for the removal

of weapons from people who have been flagged for past

violence.

I've been to marches to support undocumented immigrants. I

participated in the vigil for Heather Heyer, who was murdered

during the Charlottesville protests. I've been to the Women's

March to fight against sexism and to stand up with my fellow

sisters of all backgrounds. I stand here today denouncing gun

violence because marching and demanding change works! We are

a youth-led movement and we will not stop until we succeed in

keeping guns out of the hands of murderers.

I am only sixteen, and I am already tired of standing up

for what is right while legislators sit and do nothing! When

will it be enough? Why must I continue to scream at Congress

and at our society to prove that I matter? Why are

legislators responding to the gun lobby instead of us? What

will it take for us to see each other as human beings that

are worth more than property or profits? This march is just

the beginning of long-overdue conversations, and of work too

long left undone. We must continue to fight, and to fight for

everyone.

We must speak out. Say it with me so that our legislators

in our towns, in Trenton, and in Washington, DC, hear our

call: I'm going to say: shatter the silence. And you respond

with: stop the violence. Shatter the silence. Stop the

violence. Shatter the silence.