Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the majority leader, for the purpose of inquiring about the schedule for the week to come.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for that information.

First, I want to start by saying that the majority leader and I and four other Members of the House had an opportunity to visit both Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands last weekend since we had our last colloquy.

First, I want to thank the majority leader for organizing that trip and including me on it. It was an eye-opening trip. The majority leader and I have done an op-ed, which will be appearing sometime in the near term, on our observations.

One of the things, Mr. Speaker, that I know the majority leader and I had the opportunity to see, we were in Marathon, where you had housing that was built after Andrew and housing that was built before Andrew.

Now, the difference was, after Andrew, that extraordinary hurricane, the building code was changed. We saw the stark difference between housing that survived essentially Maria and Irma and housing that did not, and the difference was, of course, that the housing that survived was built to different standards after Andrew.

The majority leader and I discussed this matter, along with Mr. Bishop, who chairs the committee that oversees both Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, and I think all of us are convinced that it would be penny-wise and pound-foolish not to build back, as Florida did, to standards that can withstand storms of this type.

So I wanted to thank the majority leader for his leadership on this issue.

The majority leader took the extraordinary effort to climb down a river bank, go across the river--the river was very low at that point in time--and then up a very long ladder, because people were stranded on the other side. The majority leader went to see them and assure them that we would not forget them.

We were the first codel to go to the interior of Puerto Rico, as opposed to simply go to San Juan or another large city, so I thank the majority leader for his leadership on that issue.

Mr. Leader, let me ask you about tax reform. That, of course, has been the big issue for some period of time now, but now we have a bill that is not on the floor yet, but was released yesterday.

It is clear this bill will cut taxes, in our view, for the wealthy. I don't know the statistics yet, what the division is, whether it is 80/ 20, as the initial proposal was, or perhaps a little less than that that goes to those over $900,000 in income. But, in any event, it also eliminates tax preferences that the middle class families rely on, and, obviously, we think it is going to face hurdles in Congress.

What I wanted to ask was: When does the gentleman expect the bill to be marked up?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. He talks about IPAB. Of course, we add the $17.5 billion to the debt.

The gentleman did not mention the $1.5 trillion in additional debt that the passage of the tax bill will result in, but he did talk about some people who are going to be really advantaged.

So I would like to ask the majority leader: Will those people who will be advantaged or, for that matter, disadvantaged have the opportunity next week to testify in a hearing on the substance of this bill?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, he did not answer my question, however. Will people have an opportunity to testify on this bill? The answer is no. No American will have an opportunity to come to a hearing.

In 1968, the gentleman from California, the majority leader, was not here. I was here. We had hearings over months, both sides of the aisle. Over 450 witnesses testified not on tax bills that may have been offered at some time in the future, including the Camp bill.

When the Camp bill, Mr. Speaker, was reported--actually, it wasn't reported. When it was put on the table by Chairman Camp from Michigan, who is now retired, the Speaker's response was, when asked by the press, ``What are you going to do with that bill?'' he said, blah, blah, blah, blah. In other words, what he was saying was all talk. We are not going to do anything with that bill, and that bill never saw the light of day.

It was paid for, Mr. Speaker. It was tough love. I didn't agree with everything in the Camp bill, but I congratulate Congressman Camp for having the courage to put a bill on the floor that was paid for, not creating $1.5 trillion in additional debt that our children will have to pay. They are not here to testify either.

I don't want to really get into a debate on the specifics. We are going to have a lot of time to do that next week, and I intend to do it next week, but he talked about small businesses being reduced to 25 percent. They will be if they make over $500,000.

That is why the NFIB is not for this bill, Mr. Speaker, talking about small business. They are the spokespersons for small businesses, and they are not for this bill.

We will talk about the substance, but the process mirrors the process for the Affordable Care Act: no hearings, no witnesses, very, very little time for the public or the Congress to digest the substance of this bill dropped yesterday. It is going to be marked up on Monday. That is 96 hours to consider a bill well over 500 pages.

Mr. Speaker, I asked about process. The reason I asked about process and regular order is because regular order provides for input from the people we serve, the public, about whether the bill is good, bad, or indifferent and how it will impact them.

We are going to debate it here. We represent those people. But regular order is hearing from them before we act, not after we act.

Yes, we are replicating the Affordable Care Act: put on the table, quickly passed, jammed through, sent to the Senate. And it didn't work, Mr. Speaker. I don't think this will work either.

I was here in 1986, Mr. Speaker, when Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan, Bob Packwood, who was the Republican's chair of the Senate Finance Committee, and Dan Rostenkowski from Illinois, the Democratic chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, worked together with Jim Baker, the former Secretary of State but then Secretary of the Treasury, worked with us to

come up with a bill that could be passed. And it was passed, Mr. Speaker, with overwhelming votes from both sides of the aisle. It was the last time we passed tax reform. Since then, we have just passed tax cuts.

Under Ronald Reagan, we passed a tax cut in 1981. The deficit increased under Ronald Reagan 189 percent. Under George H.W. Bush, the deficit increased 55 percent in 4 years, 189 percent in 8 years. Under Bill Clinton, the debt increased 36 percent; George Bush, 87 percent after the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, and we were promised that they were going to energize the economy and dynamic scoring would come into effect and the country would be rolling in clover. Seven years later, we had the deepest recession anybody serving in this body has experienced, Mr. Speaker, and the debt exploded.

Barack Obama, just by contrast, inherited the worst economy any of us has seen--the worst economy--hemorrhaging 787,000 jobs per month in January of 2009. We had to bring the economy out of that deep recession, and we invested dollars. But even given all that necessity and the $700 billion bill that we passed, that George Bush passed, where two-thirds of Republicans were opposed and which kept us out of a depression, Barack Obama increased the debt by 1 percentage point more than George Bush.

I say to my friend, the reason for having hearings, the reason for having economic experts like Mr. Bartlett, who worked for Ronald Reagan, who said that tax cuts do not pay for themselves. They say $1.5 trillion. I guarantee you, Mr. Speaker--I may not be here when we can find this out--this is going to be far above $1.5 trillion in additional debt, and my children and my grandchildren and my great- grandchildren will be exposed to paying that bill.

It is a shame, Mr. Speaker, that we do not have extensive hearings on this bill in the House and in the Senate. My judgment is the Senate doesn't expect to have hearings on this either. They are just going to try to jam it through, Mr. Speaker, and that is not good. That is not good for this institution. Much, much more importantly, it is not good for the present generation or generations to come.

We will debate, Mr. Leader. I know you are passionate about the substance. You are very knowledgeable about the substance. We talked about it in private, and I admire the passion that you have and the information that you argue. I may differ with your information, but we will have the opportunity to debate that, I think, next week and the week after.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, we are going to debate the substance of the bill; we are going to debate it fully. We think it will not hold up well under that debate. Therefore, we will have a significant difference.

He is right. The best economy anybody in this House has experienced-- the best economy--was the last 4 years of the Clinton administration, period. Guess what we had? We had a little bit of a tax increase. We increased the gasoline tax, and we tried to pay to for infrastructure. We haven't increased it since then.

The Republicans said: You do that, oh, the economy is going to go down the drain. The best economy any Republican has experienced in their lifetime is under Bill Clinton. We balanced the budget 4 years in a row under Bill Clinton, the only President you can mention that balanced.

It never balanced under Ronald Reagan. It never balanced under George H.W. Bush. It never balanced under George Bush. As a matter of fact, as soon as they took office, they made sure we wouldn't have further balances because they cut taxes in 2001 and 2003, but they didn't cut spending.

He talks about President Obama. I know the majority leader will be interested in these statistics. I didn't count January of 2017 because, after all, that was the Obama economy. Trump had not done anything on the economy, but let's start with February 2017.

Under Donald Trump, 232,000 jobs were created. That is great. That is good. I would say that the Obama economy is still working.

Same exact month a year earlier, not 232, but 237,000 jobs were created under Barack Obama.

March 2017, 50,000 under Trump. March 2016, 225,000 jobs created under Barack Obama.

April 2017, 207,000 jobs. Barack Obama was a little down that month, 153,000 jobs.

145,000 under Trump, 43,000.

Then June of 2017, 210,000 under Donald Trump, 297,000 jobs under Barack Obama.

July of 2017, we are getting more recent. Under Trump--now he has been in

office a little longer--138,000. What was it under Barack Obama? 291,000 jobs--double.

August of this year, just a few months ago, 169,000 under Donald Trump; 176,000.

Last month we had hurricanes. I will give the majority leader that. We lost 33,000 jobs. Under Barack Obama, same month a year ago, 249,000 jobs created.

As a matter of fact, under Barack Obama, we created 11,773,000 jobs.

Under George Bush, 2 million--excuse me--lost under George Bush, private sector jobs, a loss, after the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, lost 1,159,000 jobs. The last 12 months of the George Bush administration, 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, we couldn't change economic policy. We were in charge for the last 2 years, couldn't change it, lost 4,568,000 jobs.

Now, as a matter of fact, I have done a little thing for 68 years. Over 68 years, we had 36 years of Republican Presidents and 32 years of Democratic Presidents. Under Republican Presidents, from Truman to Obama, there were 35,448,000 jobs created, Mr. Leader. Under Democrats, in 32 years, 62,669,000 jobs.

Now, I would like to go on to another subject, as we could go on debating this all day, but I will yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, you noticed that he didn't talk about any of the statistics I mentioned about job creation under Barack Obama. He didn't talk about the 62 million jobs that were created in 32 years, as opposed to the 35 million jobs, just half of what we did in less than 4 years than they had as President of the United States.

And what he didn't talk about was--he said: You know, we Republicans were in charge of the Congress the last 6 years of the Clinton administration.

That is right.

And what Bill Clinton said: Let's save Social Security first. Let's not cut out revenues that we need to invest in the education and the growth of our economy.

They weren't for that, but they couldn't do anything about it.

Then, guess what happened. They took the Presidency. They had the House and they had the Senate.

Why couldn't you do what was done under Bill Clinton then, when you controlled everything, I ask my Republican friends, Mr. Speaker? Why couldn't you, when you controlled every organ of government, do what you say was done under the Clinton administration, because you were in the minority, very frankly, or you were in the majority and controlled things? Why couldn't you do it when you controlled everything? Why did you leave us with 4.8 million hemorrhaging jobs as you came out of office, and your economic program was still in place that you put in place in 2001 and 2003, and the deepest recession you and I have experienced in our life times?

And I am older than you are. You didn't answer that. You continue to talk about what is going to happen.

I tell the story about the guy who comes in and he wants to be the left fielder for the Nats, and he says: You know, I am going to hit 350 next year.

I said: But you hit 260 last year.

He says: Well, yeah, I know, but this year I am going to hit 350.

And the other guy comes in and says: I would like the same job. I hit 325 this year and I hit 324 last year. Who do you think you hire?

The whole point is, Mr. Leader--I say to the Speaker--is that performance counts, not just talk, not just promises. Because I will tell you, Mr. Leader, I have been here a long time and I heard the same language in 1981 from David Stockman. He now says it was baloney. I heard the same talk in 2001 and 2003. It didn't work out so well.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am going to go on to another subject because we need to go to another subject, but we need to have this debate because it is critical for my children, my grandchildren, and my great- grandchildren, and for generations to come as to whether this country is, like we did it under Clinton, on a fiscally sustainable path where we are balancing budgets, or whether we are going to go back to the deep deficits.

He didn't respond, 189 percent increase in the debt under Ronald Reagan. One person in America, Mr. Speaker, can stop spending: the President. He can veto spending bills.

In my 37 years, we have never had a veto overridden of a President who vetoed a bill because we spent too much money; not once in the 37 years I have been here, Mr. Speaker.

But I want to go on to another subject that ought to be less controversial because I think the majority of Republicans and I think, unanimously, the Democrats want to see us do what the President, apparently, has asked us to do. And that is, protect the DACA students, the DACA doctors, the DACA teachers.

We have a Dream Act that has been filed. Every Democrat supports it. We want that to come to the floor in this transparent, open process, and I have talked to the majority leader about it.

The President, contrary to Speaker Ryan's advice, rescinded the protections for the childhood arrivals who arrived here through no fault of their own. He said to the Congress, it needs to be done in legislation. He didn't say it needs to be done in legislation with a lot of other things. And the Speaker has said we are going to take one issue at a time. I won't bring out that quote, but the majority leader has heard me use it before.

So I urge the majority leader because I believe he does not want to send these mostly young people who don't know any other country but America, who see themselves as Americans, who have

been educated in our schools, serving in our communities, positive participants in growing America like so many immigrants before them, a nation of immigrants. Send me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses.

We should have the DACA bill on the floor before we leave for this Thanksgiving. Mr. Leader, I said this with respect to the Export-Import Bank, that a majority of your party would vote for that if it came to the floor. We got it to the floor and, as I predicted, a majority of your Members voted for it.

I believe that very close to, if not all, a majority of your party will vote for this, and the overwhelming numbers in this House will vote for that bill.

I would urge my friend to bring it to the floor before we leave for the Thanksgiving break on the 16th of November. I would urge that because we are going to have some very messy 8 days after Thanksgiving, with great workload on our desks; not the least of which is how to deal with the sequester, how to deal with funding government for the balance of the year, what to do with flood insurance, and so many other issues; not to mention our supplemental that we need to do with respect to Houston and Florida and Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.

So I urge my friend to work with us to bring the Dream Act to the floor, or bring your alternative to the floor. But let us not leave these people, who the President says he loves, who are positive Americans in everything but paper, who have been here almost all of their lives. Some came at 2 or 3 years of age and know no other country. Let's bring a bill to the floor that we can end before we go on the Thanksgiving break, in a united way--we are going to be divided on the tax bill. We understand that--but in a united way on this, where even Rush Limbaugh says we are not going to send these kids home.

I would hope that you could do that, Mr. Leader. I believe you have it in your heart to do it, and I would hope that we could do it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, let me remind the leader that we passed the Dream Act through the House of Representatives. We brought it to the floor. We had a vote on it.

I know you and the Speaker said there was going to be a working task force on this issue, and it has been, I think, going on for nigh on to a month, but we haven't seen anything on the floor.

Mr. Leader, what I am saying is that I think we agree on this issue. Let us not confuse it with things on which we do not agree. Don't hold hostage these 800,000 young people who are positive--because if they are not positive they couldn't get into the Dream Act--I mean, they couldn't get into DACA. They had to have a sterling performance, be in school, be working, be in the Armed Forces. This is not a free pass to people.

We agree on this, I think. Maybe I am wrong on that, but it seems to me that we agree. The President seems to agree.

Wouldn't it be--as we have done in the past some bipartisan things, and we thought that was good for the institution and good for the American people to see us work in a bipartisan fashion. I think we agree on this issue.

Some of the things you want to attach to it, we are going to have disagreements on. Why don't we enact what we agree upon?

By the way, this has been pending for a long period of time, as opposed to your tax bill. I know you think we have had hearings on it, but, very frankly, that bill changed from Tuesday to Thursday of last week.

We think your bill is a pretty new bill and we would like to have hearings on it. But nevertheless, on DACA, I think we have an agreement. If you bring it to the floor, I think it will get a majority of the votes, a significant majority. I think it will get close to 300, if not over. So I would just urge my friend to see if he, as the majority leader--I was the majority leader--as the gentleman knows, I could bring a bill to the floor or I could keep it off the floor. This is a bill that ought to come to the floor. We ought to give peace of mind to these 800,000 of folks, and we ought to pass this bill and give the House an opportunity to work its will.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman does not want to say anything further, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have been here--this is my 37th year. This is the most reckless and irresponsible budget that I have seen in the 37 years that I have been here.

Today, we are considering the Senate's budget resolution, not because the House supports it, but because it is just a vehicle to get partisan tax reform--strike that--tax cuts.

On an issue as consequential as tax reform, the Congress should not be rushing to meet self-imposed political deadlines without enough time to read and analyze the effects.

More importantly, we should not be considering a bill to cut taxes that is partisan and that is as terrible as we are hearing the majority's proposal will be. I say that because we still haven't seen the full details of a bill that this resolution provides for Republicans to jam through on an expedited process; one they will reportedly introduce, mark up, and bring to the floor in the few legislative days we have left before Thanksgiving.

Is the sunshine too bright for you?

Even my friends on the other side of the aisle don't know exactly how bad it will be for their constituents. When asked about the details of the Republican bill, Representative Chris Collins, a Republican from New York, said: ``We don't know, we don't know, we don't know, we don't know, we don't know.''

That is a Republican Member of Congress who is saying he has no idea what this bill is empowering.

But we do know that, based on a nonpartisan analysis of their framework, it will raise taxes on 47 million Americans.

We know that 80 percent of the tax cuts--80 percent of the tax cuts-- will go to the top 1 percent.

And we know, as well, that nearly half of all taxpayers with children, 44.5 percent, will see their taxes go up. Those same children will be on the hook for a $2.4 trillion cost. This is the biggest debt explosion of any bill that I have seen.

Republican Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida summed up today's vote as being for a budget--hear this, my friends on both sides of the aisle. This is Matt Gaetz, Republican, Florida, summed up today's vote as being for a budget that ``nobody believes in so that we have a chance to vote for a tax bill that nobody's read.''

That is not what we should be doing. We ought to be working together to craft a bipartisan tax reform package that is revenue neutral.

It will be the height of hypocrisy to say that you are for fiscal discipline and to vote for this budget. Let's not risk our fiscal future and the economic security of our people. Defeat this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy) for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come.

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

Mr. Speaker, the majority leader announced that the CHIP bill will be on the floor next week. CHIP and community health centers have always been, as the majority leader points out, a bipartisan priority.

Unfortunately, this bill did not come out of the committee as a bipartisan bill, and negotiations were essentially not fruitful, and the committee reported out legislation to extend these important programs that included billions of dollars in partisan offsets.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the majority leader, does the gentleman know whether the $8.2 billion reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program, which serves nearly 9 million children from low- income working families, will be offset?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

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

First, let me say, as far as I know, the leadership didn't give any direction to the committee. The committee decided on its own that it thought that the cuts that were being proposed by the Republicans are very harmful to some very important programs in healthcare for seniors that the gentleman, in his previous remarks telling us what the schedule was, said were very important.

So the reason that we have concerns is we believe the offsets being proposed, Mr. Speaker, by the Republicans, and why we don't agree with the bill that is being brought forward is because we think it hurts the healthcare of millions of Americans.

Let me ask another question, Mr. Speaker, of the majority leader, and let me preface it with Mr. McCarthy said in response to my question about the CHIP program: Of course, it is offset.

Let me ask him a follow-up question.

Does the gentleman know whether the $7.2 billion for community health centers that provide primary care services to 26 million medically underserved Americans will be offset?

I yield to my friend from California.

Mr. Speaker, I am chagrined that I have stunned my friend, the majority leader.

Yes, we don't agree with some of those pay-fors. I happen to, by the way, agree. There is no reason why a lottery winner of millions of dollars ought to be on Medicaid.

I didn't yield yet.

I simply say to my friend, had I instructed or the leader instructed, that outcome may have been different. However, there are some really substantive issues that we had, we had for a long

time, we negotiated for a long time, and we didn't reach agreement.

My question to you was: Are they offset? I think your answer was, yes, they were offset, and then you proceeded to tell me what the offsets were.

Now, let me ask you a follow-up question to that.

Does the gentleman know whether the repeal of IPAB is offset? That is a $17 billion deficit creation item. Is it offset?

I yield to my friend.

Offset.

I thank the gentleman for that answer. Perhaps now he knows why I asked the first two questions.

Apparently, it is not the debt that is of concern, because if the debt were of concern, the $17 billion would be of concern.

That was put in the bill, as the gentleman knows, to try to pay for, as we paid for every nickel of the Affordable Care Act, and that was one of the larger pay-fors.

Now, many Members on your side of the aisle don't like that pay-for, and many Members on my side of the aisle don't like that pay-for. That pay-for said that we are going to decide, if we are exceeding expenditure caps, what needs to be cut.

As the gentleman knows, that board has never been appointed. But if it had been appointed, we would have had 30 days--30 legislative days or calendar days--30 calendar days in which to say, no, we don't agree with that. So the representatives of the people would have had that.

But my point is we are selective in what we want to pay for, and I think that is a concern certainly to me, and I am sure it is to others.

And the gentleman said: Of course, it is offset. The gentleman, here, says this is not offset.

Can I ask the gentleman, why is this not offset? Why is this $17 billion apparently not a worry for the debt and the other dollars for children are necessary to be offset?

I yield to my friend.

Reclaiming my time, the gentleman is correct. The gentleman has come to me. We tried to work on getting it bipartisan. We didn't reach that conclusion, and I regret that we didn't reach that conclusion.

The majority leader did, in fact, come to me in, I think, absolute good faith, and I wanted to try to get to a resolution. We didn't get there, and I regret that. We are where we are. But I want to tell my friend that I am going to continue to try to work towards that objective.

I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his response. I was going to respond later, but let me respond now.

This bill was not marked up in committee prior to its expiring, prior to the authorization ending. So when the gentleman talks to me about time, with all due respect, had it been an item of importance--which it is a bipartisan bill. We both want to see this get done. The gentleman is correct, this program exists. The gentleman is also correct that, until we fix this, there will be States that will be running out of money. That is a great concern to us. It will adversely affect millions of children.

We ought to get this done. We ought to get it done in a bipartisan fashion, and I am sorry that we didn't. I am sorry the committee didn't get it done so it didn't have to come to the majority leader or come to my attention or the leader's attention.

But having said that, that does not answer the question of the gentleman says IPAB doesn't exist. It certainly exists in scoring. As the gentleman surely knows, this is a $17 billion item that will have to be paid for at some point in time, and it will add to the debt if we don't pay for it. It may not exist right now. It may not exist for reasons that the gentleman probably points out, correctly, that a large number on his side and a large number on my side are not for it.

I want to tell the gentleman that I am for it. I voted that way. But a large number of the majority of my party, I think, are not for it. I agree with that.

But the fact of the matter is repealing this is not paid for, and, as a result, the costs will have to come from somewhere; but on CHIP we had to pay for it, and on community health centers we had to pay for it.

I agree with that, by the way, Mr. Speaker.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I believe I did. No? I am checking on it.

But I am saying here, publicly, I voted for the ACA. I think the ACA was good for the country, and one of the pay-fors we said we would pay for, and we did, one of the pay-fors was IPAB.

If we want to substitute some other way to pay for the healthcare that we are giving, fine. That will not increase the debt. But if we don't pay for repeal of this IPAB, it is going to increase the debt.

I yield to my friend.

I thought I said, and let me reiterate, I voted against repealing IPAB. I am for IPAB. I will say it again. I know it is politically very controversial. It is a tough thing to do, but it helps pay for what we buy. And the problem in this House and the problem that we just did on the tax bill is we are not paying for what we buy. It is not spend-spend or tax-tax. We do not pay for what we buy. It is easy to buy and it is hard to pay. Here we are with another example.

I yield to my friend.

I appreciate the gentleman's remarks and I appreciate the premise for which he stood. I look forward to having the Dream Act brought to the floor, which a majority of Members are for on this floor and will vote for. I believe my friend knows that to be the case, and I hope we would bring it to the floor.

Let me go to this, if I can. The majority leader did not mention whether Alexander-Murray was going to be on the floor next week. Obviously, as the gentleman knows, there is an extraordinary disruption of the marketplace in the healthcare insurance field.

Alexander-Murray, at the request of President Trump, was an effort by Senator Alexander, a Republican from Tennessee, a former Secretary of Education, and a former Governor of Tennessee, to respond to the President's request and, as the gentleman has just noted, working in a bipartisan fashion to come to an agreement to stabilize markets to ensure that people are going to have healthcare and particularly to ensure that the poorest among us can afford their healthcare. Alexander-Murray is bipartisan and has over 60 Senators supporting it.

Do you believe that that will be brought to the floor at any time in the near future?

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman, my friend, the majority leader, with whom I work in a constructive way on many, many items mentioned earlier about how children may lose their health insurance or some of our less well-off citizens who rely on Community Health Centers will lose access, and that, therefore, we need to get this bill done soon.

Millions, I suggest to the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, will be adversely affected if we don't pass a bill stabilizing it.

Yes, I understand you introduced a bill to repeal. You control the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. We are now 10 months into the year. That bill hasn't passed.

So what we implore, Mr. Speaker, the administration and the majority party to do is not to do indirectly, that is, destroy access to affordable, quality healthcare for millions of Americans, that which they cannot do directly, and they haven't done it directly.

So I would hope that we could bring at least a bipartisan bill, in light of the failure to pass a partisan bill, which has, I am told, 60 Senators who have indicated they support it, maybe more.

I would hope when it comes from the Senate, if Senator McConnell will put it on the floor, that we will consider it forthwith, because the instability that grips the system now is hurting millions, costing them millions, perhaps billions. So I hope that would be a priority item for us, along with the bill that we call the Dream Act.

We need to redeem the dream, Mr. Speaker, and continue a policy which the Speaker has indicated he thought was erroneously repealed by the President of the United States, which I think many Republicans with whom I have talked to think is a policy that ought to be pursued. I hope we can bring that to the floor as soon as possible, and certainly before Thanksgiving.

Mr. Speaker, unless the majority leader has anything further to say, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer my congratulations to former Prince George's County Fire Department Chief Steven T. Edwards as he prepares to retire as Director of the Maryland Fire Rescue Institute (MFRI) after twenty-four years. I've had the pleasure of working with him throughout those years, including in my capacity as Co-Chair of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus.

Steve is a fifty-year veteran of the fire services. He began his career with the Prince George's County Fire Department as a high school cadet. Over the years, Steve rose through the ranks and became Chief in 1989. After a four-year tenure marked by accolades for his leadership and citations for the Department--including the International Association of Fire Chiefs Award for Excellence--he stepped down to take on a new challenge leading MFRI. A world-renowned training institution for firefighters and emergency services personnel, MFRI prepares more than 38,000 students each year to enter the fire services. Under Steve's leadership, MFRI set high standards that help ensure that trainees are ready to face any emergency when they go out to serve in fire departments across the country. MFRI has been working closely with the Congressional Fire Services Caucus for more than a quarter-century, conducting training programs for Congressional staff. Steve has been instrumental in preparing these programs and making them so informative.

Steve has also contributed his time and talents to advancing the safety and health of fire service personnel at the national level. In 1997, he was named President of the North America Fire Training Directors, a forum for exchanging information and best practices among state fire training and education programs. In addition, Steve has served in leadership positions with National Fire Protection, the National Board on Fire Service Professional Certification, and the Congressional Fire Services Institute's National Advisory Committee. For the latter, he served as Chair from 2004 to 2006, and we worked closely together to ensure that Congress was providing fire departments with all the tools necessary to carry out their work safely and effectively.

I'm proud that Prince George's County has produced such a fine national leader for the fire services in our country. Throughout the years I've known Steve, I've seen him give all his passion and talents to the work of supporting firefighters and emergency services personnel and their families. I hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating Chief Steve Edwards on his retirement, and thanking him for his work on behalf of the fire services in Maryland and across this nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Rev. Jonathan Leslie Weaver on his thirtieth pastoral anniversary with the Greater Mt. Nebo African Methodist Episcopal Church in Bowie, Maryland. Throughout the past three decades, Rev. Weaver has been ministering to a growing community of worshippers in Bowie and the greater Washington metro area. I've been honored to know him, to call him a friend, and to work closely with him to strengthen our communities in Maryland's Fifth District.

Since 1988, Rev. Weaver has overseen both the expansion of his church and a plethora of charitable endeavors through more than fifty ministries serving its members and the wider community. These have included programs to prevent domestic violence, to empower families through economic literacy, and to combat hunger. Under his guidance, Greater Mt. Nebo A.M.E. Church members have participated in Christmas in April, Tools for School, and other social service projects. Rev. Weaver has also carried his ministry across the ocean, visiting Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Benin to engage in mission projects there for more than a quarter century.

As National President of the Collective Empowerment Group, Rev. Weaver has helped build a network of churches across seven states and the District of Columbia that host financial literacy seminars, educational programs, health care screenings, and homeownership clinics. The Collective Empowerment Group also partners with banks and local businesses to facilitate wider access to economic opportunities for those living in their communities. I have participated in a number of Collective Empowerment Group programs, and I can attest to the wonderful work the organization performs to help families reach for the American Dream.

Rev. Weaver holds degrees from Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri; St. Mary's Seminary in Baltimore, Maryland; and Harvard Business School in Cambridge, Massachusetts. When he arrived at Greater Mt. Nebo A.M.E., the church had 100 members; today, he has overseen its growth to more than 1,600 members. It is a testament to his vision, his inspiration, and his faith. Rev. Weaver also has overseen the construction of the community's present church building as well as its Christian Academy school and Family Life and Wellness Intergenerational Center assisted-living facility.

I hope all my colleagues will join me in congratulating Rev. Weaver and his wife, Pamela Lynn Weaver--who have two daughters and four grandchildren--on reaching this milestone. I thank them both for their work and spiritual guidance to so many in Maryland's Fifth District and for their friendship over the years.

Mr. Speaker, I'm proud that Maryland is home to some of the finest military installations in the country, where our nation's most dedicated service-members and civilian defense employees work to keep our country safe. Over the last eighteen years, they and their families and the communities that support our installations have had an outstanding advocate in Brigadier General Michael Hayes USMC (Ret.). Since August, 1999, after his retirement from a distinguished career as a decorated Marine Corps officer, Mike has led the State of Maryland's Office of Military and Federal Affairs as its first Director.

Under Mike's leadership, the Office of Military and Federal Affairs and the Maryland Military Installation Council have overseen efforts to bring community, academic, and military--as well as federal, state, and local--resources together to promote regional development and economic growth. I've had the pleasure of working closely with him over the years to ensure that Fifth District military installations--Patuxent River, Webster Field, and Indian Head--can continue to grow, serve our national defense, and bring jobs and opportunities to surrounding communities. Mike has played a pivotal role in these efforts, which have earned him accolades, including being named one of two national `Public Officials of the Year' by the Association of Defense Communities (ADC) in 2007 and becoming a member of the ADC Board of Directors in 2011.

Mike's service to the State of Maryland caps a long career as a Marine officer. He served on active duty during the Vietnam War, commanding artillery batteries during two tours. Later, he went on to command Marine units based in the United States, Japan, and Panama before serving as Chief of Staff to the II Marine Expeditionary Force during Operation Desert Storm. Following his return home, Mike served as Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Facilities and Services at the Marine Corps

headquarters before his retirement from thirty-three years of commissioned service in 1999.

A native of Wisconsin, Mike obtained his B.S. in Economics from the University of Wisconsin, and he holds degrees as well from the Naval War College and the National War College. I hope all of my colleagues will join me in thanking Mike for his long career of service to our nation and to the State of Maryland. I wish him and his wife Barbara, as well as their two children and three grandchildren, all the best.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I rise in support of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, millions of our fellow Americans in Texas, Florida, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands are looking to Congress and the administration to work together to provide aid and assistance in recovery and rebuilding.

I disagree with the President of the United States that we are going to leave Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands or any other American precipitously before we have done the job we need to do.

The recent hurricanes have left 3.6 million Americans in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands still without power, fuel, clean water, food, electricity, and access to medical facilities. That is unacceptable, I say to the administration.

We are witnessing a humanitarian disaster of historic proportions, and it will get worse if we do not come together as a nation and bring to bear the full force of the Federal Government to assist.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for bringing this bill to the floor to effect that end.

That is why I have called on President Trump to muster every Federal resource, to muster and ensure that aid and supplies can reach those who need them, and to work on restoring power, water, and communications. Because many are still out of reach, we do not yet know the full extent of the damage and loss of life.

Today's Washington Post has a front page story chronicling the tragedy that continues as of now to unfold in Puerto Rico, where nightfall brings complete darkness, and diseases are spreading by way of contaminated water. The island has been plunged into the 19th century. The Virgin Islands shares that status.

This supplemental must be followed in the weeks and months ahead by additional measures to provide disaster relief funding and financial assistance to bring the infrastructure of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands up to 21st century standards in order to prevent a repeat of what has occurred.

According to a letter sent to the congressional leadership on October 7, by the governor of Puerto Rico, Ricardo Rossello, the damage of that island is

estimated to cost as much as $95 billion, which is 150 percent of Puerto Rico's gross national product.

This funding package is an important step, though it fails to provide urgently needed Medicaid funding to help the 1.6 million in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands who rely on Medicaid for their healthcare.

Congress must do its part and ensure that the resources are available, but it is up to the administration to make certain that the resources we provide get to those who need them.

So I ask my colleagues to join me in passing this bill, and I call on the President again to take every necessary measure to address this humanitarian crisis affecting our fellow Americans.

Mr. President, do not send a message to any American that we will turn our backs on them. That is not fair, it is not right, and you ought to correct the statement you made this morning.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Mr. John Gabriel Smith, a constituent in St. Mary's County, Maryland, whose courage broke barriers and advanced the cause of integration and equality in our country. This Saturday, he will be honored at the homecoming game at Gonzaga College High School in Washington, DC, where he made history in 1954 as its first African-American graduate.

Along with his two sisters, Gabe--as he is known to his family, friends, and neighbors in St. Mary's County--learned hard work and diligence from his parents amid the turbulent times of Jim Crow as he grew up in the 1940's. He found comfort and calm in the teachings of his Catholic faith and in fellowship at St. Peter Claver Church in Ridge, Maryland. There, he served as an altar boy and met the Jesuit priest who would become his mentor, Father Horace McKenna. Under the guidance of Father McKenna, Gabe developed a deep desire to find God and pursue the priesthood. Asking his spiritual guide what he would need to do, he learned that he would first have to study Latin. However, none of the segregated schools in Southern Maryland offered Latin courses.

From Father McKenna, though, Gabe also learned that Gonzaga College High offered Latin and all the other subjects prerequisite to prepare for the priesthood--and then-Archbishop Patrick O'Boyle had ordered the desegregation of the schools within the Archdiocese of Washington in 1948. Thus, in 1951, Gabe walked into Gonzaga College High as its first African-American student, bravely breaking the color barrier and preparing the way for the more than 1,100 African-American Gonzaga College High students who have followed him.

At Gonzaga College High, Gabe witnessed less of the abusive conditions of segregation that he had encountered in Southern Maryland, and many of his classmates stood with him in solidarity against bigotry outside the school walls. But as a member of the school's Purple Eagle football team, he had to face opposing teams from still-segregated schools whose players and fans directed their ignorance and hatred in his direction. His coach, Joe Kozik, stood by him throughout and presided over a team that rallied around Gabe. He would never forget the support he found among his peers and from Coach Kozik, who became as much a mentor to him as Father McKenna had been.

When Gabe became the first African-American student to graduate Gonzaga College High in 1954, the Supreme Court reached its historic decision in Brown v. Board of Education and required the complete integration of America's public schools. Gabe and others who had already been trailblazers inspired other young African-American students around the country to be the first in their communities to desegregate their local schools as our nation struggled to achieve full enforcement of the Brown decision in the years that followed.

While Gabe never ended up becoming a priest, he nonetheless rooted his life strongly in faith and built a career as a pharmacist upon the foundation in Latin and the sciences that he studied first at Gonzaga College High and then later at Howard University. He worked in the field for more than four decades, retiring this past spring. For many years now, Gabe has been an active member of the Mt. Ennon Baptist Church's Men's Ministry, helping to inspire others to achieve and pursue their own dreams as he did his. I hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating Gabe on his retirement after a long and productive career serving the community in St. Mary's County and on being honored this weekend at his alma mater. I wish him and his wife of fifty years--Mrs. Jeanette Graves Smith--and their entire family well on this happy occasion.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy) for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come.

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

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

I would ask him, Mr. Speaker, will the supplemental that the gentleman mentioned--which is, as I understand, approximately $29 billion, which will take care of forest fires in the West; $16 billion, as I understand it, in debt relief, which will raise the borrowing level for FEMA; and then, of course, money directly for the victims of the hurricanes. Can the gentleman tell me whether or not there will be any, what I will call, extraneous matters that might be controversial, or will this be a straight supplemental without controversy? We all want to make sure that we have the resources to help.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his thought that there will not be anything in there that would make it a partisan bill. I think, as the President sent it down, it is, obviously, something that we need to do quickly and in a bipartisan way.

Mr. Speaker, the majority leader and I have talked about the Dream Act. Another week has gone by and, therefore, the 6-month deadline is closer, and the President has urged us to pass legislation.

Can the gentleman tell me what the expectations are to address the Dream Act?

As you know, Michelle Lujan Grisham, the chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, has filed a discharge petition on the bill sponsored by Lucille Roybal-Allard and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. Can the gentleman tell me what progress we are making on that?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

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

Let me, if I might, Mr. Speaker, simply suggest to the gentleman, we certainly understand, and this side agrees, we want to have secure borders. There is, obviously, a disagreement on the President's proposal of a wall, I think, frankly, on your side as well as on my side of the aisle. I would hope that we would not, in effect, hold hostage the 800,000 students, workers, and young people brought here as children who know no other country.

In my discussions with Mr. Ryan, and his public comments have indicated, he is sympathetic to making sure that we address that issue. He urged, as you know, President Trump not to rescind DACA. The President did anyway.

I am hopeful that we can deal with the DREAMers, which I think certainly has very robust support on both sides of the aisle, in my view, Mr. Leader. I hope we can deal with that without clouding it with an issue, i.e., the wall. Not security; security I think we can reach agreement on. But I am hopeful that we can do that.

The DREAMers are extraordinarily anxious. I presume you have met with some of the DREAMers. They are really very impressive people and are enhancing our communities and our country.

So I would hope that we could do that. I look forward to talking to you personally about how we move forward and, hopefully, move quickly. I would like to have done it by next week.

As you know, I said that it would be nice to do it in this work period, to lay to rest the anxiety of the 800,000-plus people who will be affected. But, if we can't do that, certainly I would hope that we could do it shortly after we get back after the next district work period.

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

Mr. Chairman, the Budget Act, adopted in 1974, requires that the House complete work on its budget for the next fiscal year by April 15. That is 172 days ago.

Yet we now have a budget resolution on the floor, already into the fiscal year for which the budget supposedly is planned. Some may ask why. The answer is a simple one.

This is, first of all, not a realistic budget which could or should stand as a budget resolution. No, this budget is not about putting our country on a sustainable fiscal path, and--this is indisputable--it is not a budget to inform the appropriators of budget priorities and constraints.

No, the Appropriations Committee will not be informed. Why? Because we have already passed the appropriations bills. This budget doesn't have anything to do with the appropriation bills. They are passed. they are gone. They are in the Senate.

This is merely a vehicle for achieving partisan tax reform of the kind that President Trump and Republican leaders in Congress outlined last week. Despite what this sham of a budget pretends, their plan is to push through tax changes that massively increase deficits--I call it the granddaddy of all debt increases--while shifting even more wealth from middle class and

working families to people like Donald Trump.

According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, 80 percent of the tax cuts in this proposal would go only to those who make over $900,000 a year. Hear me. The tax cuts mainly go to those making, in this Nation, over $900,000 per year.

Despite promises from President Trump and Republicans here in the House, their plan actually raises taxes--hear me--while cutting taxes on those over $900,000, it actually raises taxes on 1 in 3 middle class families who earn between $50,000 and $150,000.

Even though Republicans continue to assert the discredited supply-side mantra that tax cuts pay for themselves, no responsible economist believes that, not one--responsible is the operative word. The Tax Policy Center's analysis found that their tax cuts would add $2.4 trillion to deficits over the next 10 years.

The previous speaker said this balances the budget in 9 years. That is Alice in Wonderland balance. It will never happen. I have been here for 36 years; I have heard those comments all the time. It never happened.

But it is even worse, Mr. Chairman. The budget resolution also proposes to disinvest in job creation, pretends Republicans were able to repeal the Affordable Care Act--it hasn't been repealed, yet they pretend it has been repealed--to kick 23 million off their coverage and make those with preexisting conditions uninsurable.

It guts Medicaid and would end the Medicaid guarantee.

Furthermore, it would severely cut programs that reduce poverty and provide the kind of job training proven to get more people back into the workforce.

This resolution is a grab bag of all the worst Republican policies: partisan tax cuts for the wealthy that leave the middle class behind, the cruelty of TrumpCare, and draconian reductions in domestic investment. The product is just as bad as the sum of its parts; indeed, it is worse.

Instead, we ought to be working together to enact bipartisan tax reform that is fiscally responsible and focused on the middle class.

I urge my colleagues to defeat this resolution, and I ask Republicans, who believe that tax reform must be permanent and, therefore, bipartisan, to join us in doing so.

Only one person can stop spending; that is the President of the United States. He can veto spending bills.

The debt under Ronald Reagan increased 189 percent. Under Bush I, 55 percent; he had 4 years. Under Clinton, 37 percent; under Bush II, 86 percent; and under Obama, who was dealing with the deepest recession of our lifetimes, 87 percent.

A budget is supposed to inform the Appropriations Committee of how it ought to proceed. This budget comes after the fact, and it is only for tax cuts for the wealthy.

Mr. Speaker, Maryland was founded as a haven for freedom of worship, and our state is proud to be home to religious institutions and communities that enrich the life of our state and our country. One of those is the Har Sinai Congregation in Owings Mills. Founded on May 15, 1842, it is the oldest continuously operating Reform Jewish congregation in the United States. This year marks the 175th anniversary of its establishment.

Drawing on practices adopted by some of the first Reform synagogues in Europe, Har Sinai Congregation served a small community of immigrants first in Baltimore and later, as the community grew, in the suburbs. The synagogue's first leader, Rabbi David Einhorn, arrived in 1855 and became one of the central voices of American Reform Judaism in the nineteenth century. The `Olath Tamid' siddur he published in 1856 went on to become a template for the Union Prayer Book later adopted widely by Reform congregations across the country. Rabbi Einhorn also preached against slavery, a courageous act to undertake in a Southern state where that horrific institution was still practiced. His abolitionism eventually led him to flee to Philadelphia in 1861, escaping a violent, pro-Confederacy riot in Baltimore during the Civil War.

Among the clergy who followed in leading Har Sinai Congregation was Rabbi David Philipson, an American-born scholar and theologian who led the community from 1884 to 1888. A member of the first graduating class of the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati, he would go on to become one of the most prominent Reform rabbis of his age, authoring books on history, theology, and literature while speaking out against anti- Semitism and, in his later years, the rise of Nazism. Today, the congregation is led by Rabbi Linda Joseph, a native of Australia and the first woman to lead the community, having taken up the pulpit there last year.

Now a congregation of more than 400 families, and with more than 200 students in its religious school, Har Sinai Congregation has become one of Maryland's most active and dynamic synagogues. With the mantra of `worshipping together; caring together; working together,' its members are putting into practice the ancient Jewish precepts that call for social justice, charitable works, education, and community engagement. On Shabbat and holidays, congregants gather in worship and join in liturgical song, led by Cantor Robert Gerber, as they continue the traditions of American Reform Judaism that Har Sinai Congregation helped establish.

I join in congratulating the clergy, lay leadership, and congregants of Har Sinai Congregation on reaching this milestone in the community's history, and I wish all of them a Shana Tovah U'Metuka--a sweet and happy new year for 5778.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the majority leader for the purpose of giving us the schedule for the week to come.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield, however, to the majority leader, I want to join all of our colleagues in saying how very grateful we are and pleased we are with the return of the majority whip, Steve Scalise. All of us who sat here and heard Steve, our friend and colleague, give his reaction not only to the hateful, vicious action that took place as he was practicing for the charity baseball game where Republicans and Democrats come together to raise funds for young people and people who need help, and they do so together in a spirit of good will and common purpose, I think Steve Scalise, our majority whip, spoke movingly, and I am sure all Members were impressed with his courage and with his comments about that which is important.

He talked about his prayers having been answered and the prayers of literally millions of people around this country. And in talking about some of the world leaders who called him and expressed their concern, because they knew, as he said and as Leader Pelosi said: An attack on Steve Scalise was an attack on us all, and it was an attack on our democracy and an attack on peacefully resolving differences, no matter how strongly they may be held--a lesson for all of us.

I want to congratulate and thank Jennifer, his extraordinary wife, who shouldered a responsibility and a burden that she did not expect and, as Steve said, did it with great courage and great grace. His children, Madison and Harrison, and their entire family, I know, were responsible for Steve being able to be back here with us, and so we thank them.

He is back with us today, and we look forward to him being a vigorous, as he was and is, part of the deliberations of this House and of reaching decisions in a positive, constructive way.

Steve and I have a difference of opinion on whose crabs are better. We had a crab dinner not too long ago, my staff and his staff, and he brought some crabs up from Louisiana, I brought some crabs from Maryland, and it was a split decision as to which were the best. It will not surprise you who was for which crab.

Today, we are filled with joy to see him back on the floor and on the road to full recovery.

We also continue to be grateful for the recovery of U.S. Capitol Police Officers Crystal Griner and David Bailey. I want to join Steve, and I know all of our Members, as we rose and clapped to show our respect and our appreciation for those in the Capitol Police.

Some of us are privileged to, as Steve pointed out, have a detail, and they become family. We are so impressed with their commitment, their talent, the extraordinary training that they have received and display every day; and, of course, Crystal Griner and David Bailey responded and, in responding, were injured themselves. They put their lives at risk for not only Steve Scalise but for all the Members who were on the field at that point in time.

I want to join Steve, and I know all of our colleagues and the majority leader, in expressing appreciation and great respect for those who serve us in the Capitol Police.

I say to my friend, the majority whip--he has left the floor now--we are glad to have you back. I wrote him a note this morning saying whatever I could do to help him, I was available to do that. I am sure he took it that that did not mean I necessarily would vote the way he wants me to vote, nor did I think he would vote necessarily the way I wanted him to vote, but we will continue in this great institution we call the House of Representatives, but, as Steve called it and I call it and so many of us call it, the people's House.

Every 2 years, they send us back here to try to make policy to make their lives better and our country stronger, and, more than the public knows, we work together to accomplish that objective. They see the confrontations, but they don't always see the cooperation.

Now, at this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the majority leader, my friend--we cooperate more than people will see from time to time, I want to thank him for that--for the purpose of inquiring of the schedule for the week to come.

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

I thank the gentleman for the information on the schedule to come.

I want to speak to two things that are not on the schedule, Mr. Leader, but I know that both of us are focused on this and realize that we need to move and we need to move quickly.

First of all, I want to speak of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. The leader and I, Mr. Speaker, were scheduled to try to go to Key West and to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands this weekend. I am not sure that that is going to be able to happen, given some of the logistics on the ground, but whether that happens or not, Mr. Speaker, I know the leader and I are going to work very hard on this.

There is a humanitarian crisis that has confronted Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Key West, at least you can drive to Key West still, and we can get relief to Key West and to Florida and to victims of Harvey. Obviously, our fellow Americans who are residents of two islands, or actually more than two islands, but that comprise Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, are in life-threatening distress.

I talked today to Dr. Price, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, about the availability of dialysis on the island. There are people who have already died because they were not able to get to dialysis centers, and those centers don't have all the electricity they need, so there is a humanitarian crisis, as I pointed out, Mr. Speaker, and I know the leader appreciates this.

Mr. Leader, I know we don't have anything on the floor with reference to additional resources that might be and are necessary to meet this humanitarian crisis in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, but I would urge the majority leader, as I have done and I think he has done, to be in contact with the administration, be in contact with FEMA.

In particular, I was pleased to see that General Kim has now been appointed, as General Honore was for New Orleans and Katrina, to coordinate activities. We have extraordinary resources in the Armed Forces of the United States, and I would urge the President, as Commander in Chief, and the Department of Defense to allocate every resource necessary to get the American people who live in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands to a point where communications, the availability of food, the availability of water, the availability of medical services are up and running, hopefully, full bore by the end of this weekend. This is a crisis.

And I know the majority leader shares that view, and if he wants to make a comment on that, I yield to the gentleman from California.

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

Clearly, this is not a partisan issue when an American or a group of Americans or a large number--in this case, over 3.5 million people, all of them at dire risk. We want to act together, we want to act quickly, and we do not want to fail to deploy any resource that is necessary to help our fellow Americans.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring up an act, which although not the crisis that Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, in particular, confront us with, as did Harvey and Irma in Texas and in Florida, but, Mr. Speaker, I notice that the Dream Act is not a part of next week's schedule.

The leader and I have discussed the Dream Act, along with Speaker Ryan. I know that the President has said, if we pass the Dream Act, he has said publicly that he would sign the Dream Act. He is obviously concerned with security at the borders. We share that concern about security at the borders. But this is an item that, now, one-sixth of the time that was available has run, and we have 5 months left to go.

I will tell the majority leader that I am very hopeful. I know the majority leader and the Speaker have formed some task forces to look at this issue, but I am very hopeful, Mr. Speaker--and I ask the majority leader to perhaps comment on this--that before the end of this work period--there are another 14 days left after this week in this work period--that we might be able to bring the Dream Act to the floor.

A discharge petition has been filed. I would hope that the discharge petition not be necessary for either the rule or for the Dream Act itself. The discharge petition on the Dream Act itself will be mature as of October 5, and I expect a discharge petition to be filed on that, as well. But I am hopeful, Mr. Speaker, that that will not be necessary.

Given the fact that the President has said that he thinks DACA was issued beyond the authority of President Obama, we disagree with that conclusion. But whether that conclusion is correct or not, the President observed that we need to fix this legislatively.

So my question to the majority leader is: How soon does he believe that we could address this issue in regular order?

We continue to pursue a discharge petition, as we did, frankly, for the Ex-Im Bank, which, when it was called to the floor, had over 300 votes in favor of it, including the majority of the majority party voted for that bill.

We believe, Mr. Speaker, strongly, that if the Dream Act is brought to the floor, which over 8 in 10 Americans agree with, frankly, we believe large numbers on both sides of the aisle agree that these young people are not to be sent home.

Lastly, let me just quote Senator Orrin Hatch, who is a senior Member in the United States Senate and the chairman of the Finance Committee. He said: ``I've urged the President not to rescind DACA. . . .''

He did, and gave us 6 months to solve this, legislatively.

Senator Hatch observed that if DACA were rescinded, it would be ``an action that would further complicate a system in serious need of a permanent, legislative solution.''

He was referring then, Mr. Speaker, to a comprehensive immigration reform.

``Like the President, I've long advocated for tougher enforcement of our existing immigration laws. But we also need a workable, permanent solution for individuals who entered our country unlawfully as children through no fault of their own and who have built their lives here. That solution must come from Congress.''

And I agree that that decision must come from Congress.

Rush Limbaugh said--and I don't usually agree with statements that Mr. Limbaugh makes: ``Nobody's gonna win anything by deporting a bunch of kids that we let in, whoever did, Obama, whatever. If we can get the strict enforcement of existing immigration law . . . then the DREAMer thing may be an acceptable payoff,'' he went on to say.

I don't think this is a payoff. This is responding. And that is why the overwhelming majority of the American people support the Dream Act. As I say, over 8 out of 10 Americans.

So I ask the majority--and I know that was a relatively long statement. This is a critical issue, however, as I have expressed in private to the majority leader, because we have but 5 months left to go.

Hopefully, we could do this in this work period to allay the fears that these young people have, who are making such a positive contribution to America, to their communities, and to their families. So I am hopeful that we could resolve this issue as soon as possible.

I yield to my friend, the majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the majority leader's thought that he wants to do it sooner rather than later. I will support him, of course, in that effort.

I would say on his comment, Mr. Speaker, with reference to a comprehensive solution, we are for a comprehensive solution. We would like to see that because that is the only way we will stop this from coming back.

The Senate passed a comprehensive immigration bill 3 years ago. We have not seen that on the floor as of yet. Again, we think that that would have a substantial vote and, perhaps, I think, a majority vote. I am not as confident of that as I am with the Dream Act, which I think clearly would enjoy the majority of the House's support.

But I am glad that he wants to move this quickly. We will work with him to get that, I would hope, as I said, by the end of the work period, to allay the great fears and anxiety.

Very frankly, we have had some young people thinking of going back to a land they do not know, a language they do not necessarily speak, and a culture they have, as adults, never been exposed to and don't know.

This, for all intents and purposes, in anything other than having the paper that says so, is their country. They have gone to school here, they work here, and they have been positive citizens here. And, hopefully--as the President said, he loved these children--we could relieve their fears and, in effect, redeem the American Dream for them.

There are other issues, obviously, with which we have to deal, and I would urge the majority leader, as well, at some point in time, to make a path forward for comprehensive immigration reform, because it is a system we all agree is broken and needs to be fixed and is part of the problem.

Two more issues, Mr. Speaker. The majority leader mentioned the budget would be coming to the floor. This is the 2018 budget. This is obviously late, but, nevertheless, it is being brought to the floor, and we will be able to consider it.

Can the gentleman tell me: Will this include reconciliation instructions and, if so, what those reconciliation instructions will deal with?

I yield to my friend.

Mr. Leader, will it assume the repeal of the ACA in fiscal year '17 or fiscal year '18, either one of those years, which clearly has not seemed possible at this point in time?

I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader for that observation.

Obviously, we disagree, as he knows, on the success or failure of the ACA. As a matter of fact, every health organization in America, every major health organization in America opposed the repeal, a bill that came to the floor.

Senator McCain, I thought, gave a very powerful exhortation to all of us when he said, on July 25, we ought to do this in a bipartisan way.

We found, now, three efforts to repeal by the majority party, who control all three--the Senate, the House, and the Presidency--an inability to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I believe--and I would hope the majority leader would pursue efforts, and we would do the same on our side. We believe the ACA has been working.

We believe that 20-plus million more people are insured under the ACA than were insured before the ACA.

We believe people with preexisting conditions were able to get insurance. We believe seniors saved substantial money in purchasing prescription drugs as a result of that.

We believe that people did not have--we know they did not have the specter of being canceled because their expenses in any one year were above a limit and that their lifetime limits

would not be imposed when they get a serious critical illness.

So we think it worked.

The majority has tried to repeal it. They have not succeeded at this point in time, but they have created, Mr. Speaker, great anxiety and uncertainty in the marketplace.

And to the extent, for instance, that premiums have risen in our State, the head of Blue Cross/Blue Shield, the largest insurer in our State, said the reason for at least 50 percent was the uncertainty that had been created by the administration and by the debates that have occurred in this House and the proposals that have occurred in this House, which have undermined the market.

I talked to him the other day, and he said, in fact, if there were stability, he believes rates would come down significantly because insurance companies, providers, would have an opportunity to have a stable environment in which they could assess the cost of health insurance.

Did the majority leader want to say anything?

I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, we could go on, I presume, all day, and our friends who want to do a 1-minute or a Special Order would not be happy with us, and they are maybe not happy now, but the fact of the matter is that this is a critically important issue to our country. When he talks about providers, the providers said they didn't like any of these bills.

We have had three opportunities: one that was offered but not put on the floor; then one that came to the floor and passed this House and then went to the Senate, and the majority of the Senate has not agreed with any of the three alternatives; plus the alternative that Senator Graham brought forward along with the Senator from Louisiana.

The majority in the Senate has not agreed, and, Mr. Speaker, what that has done is provided the insurance industry, providers, doctors, medical authorities with total lack of confidence on what is going to happen tomorrow. Nobody in business believes that you can have proper pricing if you do not know the context in which you are pricing your product. So, yes, there has been a disruption.

What we ought to do, as Senator McCain said, is come together and make sure a system works. We believe the ACA is working--not working as well as it should right now, it is not working as much for the small market or people on the exchanges as it should. It can.

Almost every medical provider and the majority of the American people over these last 8 months has changed from not liking the ACA and not thinking it is good for them, to where the majority of the American people now support it, and 7 out of 10-plus want the ACA fixed, not repealed.

So in that context, it seems to me it is both good politics and good policy for us to come together and to create a system that works for the American people. We believe that is by fixing the ACA, and to that extent, we reflect the majority of the American people.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the last issue I want to bring up are two items that were not included in the FAA bill, but which are important programs. One is the Perkins Loan Program for students. We know that the cost of education has skyrocketed and that we need to extend that act. That bill, by the way, Mr. Speaker, has 226 cosponsors, so it is not as if there is not a majority of the House that already supports that extension.

The second thing that needs to be done: we need to deal with a comprehensive health system in our communities, the Community Health Centers. We need to deal with the teaching hospitals. We need to deal with the disproportionate share of hospitals.

So there are many things that we did not include in the bill that we passed today that need to be addressed and need to be addressed immediately. They are not on the schedule for next week.

Can my friend give me some idea when we might consider those, which, of course, expire on September 30?

So September 30 will come and go before we start next week's schedule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

I appreciate that.

You mentioned SCHIP. Can you refer to the Perkins Loan Program? Does the gentleman know whether that is also moving forward?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that SCHIP is on the committee's agenda for next week. Hopefully, that can be brought to the floor before we leave in this work period, perhaps just before or just after the Dream Act is brought to the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Margarida Curtis has been a longtime employee of the United States Senate and, as a result, an employee of the people of the United States.

Margarida, you have always done your work with great ability and clarity. We very much appreciate your service to the Senate, but also to this House, to the Congress itself, and to the American people. They are grateful for all you have done. God speed.

President Stearns and Vice President Frost, and Tom, who is going to tell you what to do, welcome back; although, I see a lot of you, from time to time, as you walk the halls and remind us of the good old days.

We have had quite a session so far, as I think you have noticed. You heard me talk before, and I am sure you have made this recognition already, we lost one of the great Americans with whom many of us have served, Bob Michel. Bob Michel passed away. Bob Dole is still with us, still with a great sense of humor, and, frankly, I miss those two Republicans dearly, and I miss a lot of you as well.

We can remember when we were much more collegial than we now find ourselves. We saw an election in Alabama which does not bode well for future collegiality in the United States Senate, I think. We will see what happens in that election. Obviously, that was the primary. We will see what happens in the general.

I think all of us have a responsibility to talk about the Congress that we have served in over the years. This is my 36th year in the Congress. I don't know that any of you served that long, and some people are asking why I am serving that long.

Nick Rahall, how many years did you serve?

Thirty-eight. So I have to run one more time at least. Right, Nick?

But in any event, I like to be with each of you every year that you come back here. As I say, I see some of you. And the Historical Society obviously does a wonderful job. I think that when I see you and we say ``hello'' to one another, it is in a different context in which we meet as people who have participated in a very important and historic way, have worked together, have respected the institution, have respected the process of the institution, and have differed, obviously, but, nevertheless, were able to come to a place where we agreed to disagree and to at least act on that on which we could agree.

I think that was very important for our country. As I have said before, and as you know, I continue to be very concerned about what we project to the country. The Congress now has single-digit approval. They don't believe the board of directors of the United States of America is working, and I think that is of great concern to all of us as citizens, as Americans, that we can't be successful as a nation if we have so little respect from the people who we represent, or confidence that we are doing the work that they want done.

I try to convey to them, and I want to tell you, as you know, the majority leader, Kevin McCarthy from California, and I get along well. We don't always agree, obviously. Roy Blunt, who is one of my best friends, as I think some of you know, is now a Senator from Missouri but was the minority whip, and was the acting minority leader and minority whip for a period of time. He likes to say, ``Connie, Steny and I always agree when there are at least 420 other people voting the same way,'' which is to say unanimous consent essentially we agree.

Roy and I didn't agree, but when we agreed, we made things happen in a bipartisan way. Kevin McCarthy and I do the same--not as often because we are more polarized than when most of you served in this Congress. When you served in this Congress, you remember, there were real confrontations. Some of us served in the Gingrich years, and they were pretty tough years, but even in those times when you served, there was an ability, I think, to work more closely together than now exists.

John Boehner is not in the Congress because he wanted to work together, and we did on some very significant things. And John finally said: Look, if I can't get 218 on my side, I am not sure I want to be Speaker. He wasn't pushed out. People who say John Boehner was pushed out are wrong. John Boehner decided to leave. He wasn't pushed out. He would have had the majority of support on his side of the aisle all the time. There was no doubt about that.

But I think John just got frustrated about his inability to galvanize a majority. I think Mitch McConnell probably empathizes a lot with John Boehner right now. Probably all of you think so as well.

But I like to come here, and I thank you for staying engaged, staying involved--raising the institution, as opposed to the partisanship, but the institution and what its role is in our democracy.

People talk about: Every 2 years, you really ought to change that. I am not sure that we ought to change it. The Founding Fathers were undoubtedly right, in my opinion. Does it cause us problems? Yes, it does. I tell my colleagues on my side: You cannot solve America's problems in 24-month cycles. What I mean by that, of course, is if all we have is thinking that goes from election to election, we won't be able to solve America's problems because they are not just subject to a 24-month solution. We have got to think longer term.

I am very worried about the debt, as I am sure some of you are, but we continue to do either spending or cutting taxes, and both sides that do that talk about how we need to balance the budget. We are not there.

I thank you for staying engaged. I thank you for continuing to communicate with the public, with my constituents and your constituents, your former constituents, and your broader constituents as your fellow American citizens, to try to encourage them. When people say: When are you guys going to get together? My response to them is: As soon as you do. And they look at me quizzically. I say: As soon as you elect, on both sides of the aisle--Nick, have I talked too long? Is that my signal? What Nick is saying is: You junior Members need to get off the floor.

I am about to end.

My point to you is we need to work together to make sure that our citizens do not believe that if you make an agreement with the other side you have sold out. I don't care which side you are on. Democracy is about compromise. Democracy is about working together. Democracy is about the creation of consensus. If we can't do that, we won't succeed as a country. Forget about Republicans and Democrats, we won't suceed as a country. I know you continue to do that, and, very frankly, looking at so many of you with whom I have had the honor and pleasure of serving, I know that when you were here, you worked at doing that. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Frost.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer my thanks to Kevin Chambers for over thirty-five years of dedicated service to the United States House of Representatives. Kevin will be retiring this Friday, September 29. He is a constituent in Maryland's Fifth Congressional District, living in Calvert County, and I am proud to represent him and his family in Congress.

Kevin has been the very definition of exceptional customer service that all Chief Administrative Office (CAO) employees strive to provide to the House community. His thorough leadership and oversight in assisting Members with setting up their offices and with relocations during numerous Congressional transitions has provided a template for success for many years to come. Kevin's extensive knowledge of House furniture and its history and his mastery of building and sustaining relationships with Members and staff has resulted in cohesiveness and joint partnerships throughout the House campus. He has also maintained strong relationships over the years with colleagues from the CAO and Architect of the Capitol offices. For all who have had the pleasure of working with him, Kevin has been an invaluable asset and will be greatly missed.

Kevin began his career with the House CAO on December 12, 1980 as a Laborer. In March 1987 he advanced to Assistant Warehouse Manager and became Warehouse Manager in 1990. In that capacity, he served as a point of contact between CAO staff and Members of Congress regarding service orders for office furnishings. In 2001, the CAO called upon Kevin to offer his expertise to the newly developed First Call customer service center as a Senior Customer Solutions Consultant. There, he provided guidance, advice, and assistance to House offices regarding the selection and purchase of office furniture, equipment, and supplies. Later, Kevin became a Senior Team Lead with the Modular- Transition office. In 2016, Kevin moved to the Manager role and led the team on House-wide projects, including the Cannon House Office Building Renewal Relocations effort. Over many years, Kevin has provided guidance to management as a subject-matter expert on House operations, and he has been an integral part of the CAO.

Among his many accomplishments over the years, Kevin supervised the CAO's Transition Office staff over the past eight Congressional transitions. He was always the first to arrive and last to leave. He provided the transitional move coordinators with the knowledge and support necessary to assist incoming freshman Members and participating returning Members effectively and efficiently. Not only has Kevin been thoroughly involved with Congressional Transitions, his extensive CAO and House knowledge put him in a position to become the Clerk's Office's main point of contact for all Congressional special elections.

Furthermore, Kevin has dedicated his career to making the CAO and the House of Representatives a better place to work and a place that runs as smoothly and efficiently as possible. He has passed along his many years of project management and customer service experience to staff and coworkers so they can continue the extremely high standards of quality service expected by the CAO. On behalf of the entire House, I extend congratulations to Kevin for his many years of dedication and outstanding contributions. I hope my colleagues will join me in wishing him and his wife Cynthia many happy years together in retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the Paul Hall Center for Maritime Training and Education, which is located in Maryland's Fifth Congressional District. It is one of the leading schools for merchant mariners in the United States and a major contributor to the development and maintenance of our nation's proud maritime traditions.

The Paul Hall Center, which was founded in 1967 by late Seafarers International Union President Paul Hall, runs the leading training program for unlicensed merchant mariners in the United States today. It offers more U.S. Coast Guard-approved training courses than any other school in the nation and has trained tens of thousands of mariners since its founding. The Paul Hall Center's apprenticeship program, which is registered with the U.S. Department of Labor, has been praised as one of the most effective apprenticeship programs in the country and was honored as an ``Innovator and Trailblazer'' by the Labor Department in 2012. Today, the Paul Hall Center provides students a world-class education, preparing new merchant mariners to take their places on vessels sailing in both foreign and U.S.-flag fleets.

It is critical that our country maintain a merchant marine capable of transporting a large share of the seagoing commerce of the United States. The Paul Hall Center's programs help ensure a sufficient number of well-trained, highly skilled merchant mariners to crew U.S.-flag vessels both for the privately owned merchant marine and for U.S. government-operated fleets.

To that end, I hope my colleagues will join me in recognizing the significant contributions that the Paul Hall Center for Maritime Training and Education has made to our economy, our homeland security, and our national defense through its support of the U.S. Merchant Marine. I hope they will also join me in congratulating the Paul Hall Center on reaching this fiftieth anniversary milestone. I'm proud to represent this wonderful institution in the United States Congress.