Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Peoria. Well, maybe not exactly Peoria, but Bradley University.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor one of the most decent, patriotic Americans with whom I have ever served in any legislative body. I had the great honor of being Bob Michel's friend, the great honor of being his colleague, and the great honor of believing that what Bob Michel represented in this Congress was the best of us, the most decent of us, the most considerate of us, and deeply committed to his country and

respectful of those with whom he served, perhaps differing with them, but, nevertheless, deeply respectful of his colleagues. He and Tip O'Neill were good friends. They could argue their side and their policies vigorously but be the best of friends after we adjourned that day.

I thank my colleague from Illinois for leading this tribute, and I rise to join in remembering this great man, a great American leader, Bob Michel.

Mr. Speaker, Bob's entire life was given to service to his country. From his time in the Army as an infantryman on the front lines of the fight for democracy in the Second World War to his long career in government, Leader Michel sought to make America and the world safer and to protect the American Dream for all of our people.

Mr. Speaker, I did not want to lose the majority in 1994, but when we lost, I lamented the fact that Bob Michel did not become the Speaker of the House of Representatives. In my opinion, if he had, America would be a more civil place today and this body would be a more collegial body than it is.

I want to congratulate the gentleman who represents Bob Michel's district now, succeeding in that office, his father, who is a very dear and close friend of mine. All three of them represented the best of that which America hopes would serve it well.

Bob Michel and I didn't always agree on policy, Mr. Speaker, but as colleagues, we worked together to reach consensus and achieve results. I remember in 1989 when Tony Coelho and I were working to pass the House's version of what would become the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act. It was Bob Michel who saw how important this legislation would be and asked my friend, Steve Bartlett from Texas to work with me, from the Republican side of the aisle, to achieve a bipartisan version that could become law. That is how Bob Michel operated.

This House would be a better House if we followed the example of Bob Michel. He saw a problem and looked for a way we could come together around a compromised solution, not focused first on confrontation. His decency and friendliness were as evident as his seriousness as a legislator.

As Republican whip and leader, he set an example of how to lead an effective opposition based not on obstruction, but on identifying ways to work together to achieve common goals. To that extent, and in so many other ways, as I have said, Bob Michel represented the best of us.

Now, Bob, Mr. Speaker, could be tough. He could be really tough. He knew how to defend his party's interests and advance its goals in the minority. But Bob believed strongly that we who are sent here by our constituents have, first and foremost, a responsibility to make policy, not to play politics. And that is how Bob Michel served--by always, always, always putting country first. Mr. Speaker, I hope his example will be an inspiration to all who serve today.

I join in extending my condolences to Bob's children--Scott, Bruce, Robin, and Laurie--and the entire Michel family. I join the people of Illinois' 18th District in mourning the man who was their champion for so many years. Illinois, this House, and our country lost a great light, but one, I hope, that will continue to shine through its reflection in those whom Bob Michel inspired. I was one of those. We will miss him. There aren't enough Bob Michels.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Speaker Ryan for yielding. He admonished us to be brief. So, Joyce, I will be brief.

Often I rise on this floor when we have extraordinary staffers retire on either side of the aisle, Republican or Democrat, and observe what an extraordinary difference they make to the comity that does, in fact, exist but is rarely seen by the public.

Joyce Meyer has been an extraordinary member of our family. Speaker Ryan says family is important to her. Family is important to all of us, and this is a family. It is sometimes a contentious family, but it is a family.

Frankly, the peacemakers in the family are largely the members of the staff, particularly the highest ranking staffers, and particularly those staffers who have been with each of us and many of us for a significant period of time. They understand the tensions that can be created, but they also understand that there is a responsibility to the American people. Every time I went across the aisle and talked to Joyce Meyer, I knew that she understood that and that she wanted to be a positive force in making this institution work better.

Let me say that Joyce Meyer now has an even bigger responsibility because she is going to the White House. May we all wish her the best in making that institution work better.

Joyce, God bless you and Godspeed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the schedule of regulations to come. I am sure we will have some discussions about that next week. In fact, we are going to have some discussions about all of these regulations which we believe reduce the protections, according to the American people, by a number of the regulations that are sought to be repealed.

However, first, Mr. Speaker, let me note that, first of all, we have another Ben in Maryland. He is the senior Senator, a former colleague of ours, Ben Cardin. He had a TV ad which ended with ``My Friend, Ben.''

I want to say hi to my friend Ben, who has--indeed, as all of you know, I think the staff that serve with us make such an extraordinarily positive difference, and they sometimes--or most of the time--rise above what might be the partisan confrontation that Members have and continue to try to reach consensus so that this institution will run positively and well for the American people. Ben Howard has been one of those people.

I know that Shuwanza Goff, who sits next to me and is my floor director, has worked very positively with Ben through the years and appreciates very much his working with us. Kelly also falls into that category.

But Ben, we are going to miss you. I am sure that wherever you go, you are going to advantage the enterprise that you associate with. Olney, Maryland, is one of our thriving communities in Maryland. We are always proud of our Marylanders, and they always do a good job.

So I will say to him, Godspeed. I don't want to wish Penn State a lot of success, but, nevertheless, I do want to wish you a lot of success, Ben. Thank you very much for your service.

Now let me move on to, perhaps, some subjects that we might not have as much agreement on as we do have on Ben Howard and his quality and the service he has given this institution.

One of the first acts of Congress, of course, as you know, Mr. Leader, which was the plan, was to begin the reconciliation process to repeal the Affordable Care Act. The budget resolution set a deadline of January 27 for committees to report legislation repealing the law. It is now the 3rd of February, and after voting 65 times to repeal the ACA, House and Senate Republicans, Mr. Speaker, do not have, as far as I know, and don't appear to have, a replacement and are, as I read in the papers, Mr. Speaker, divided on the path forward.

Repealing the ACA without replacing it immediately will not only cause 30 million Americans to lose their coverage, but it would increase the cost for tens of millions more and would, I suggest, disadvantage everybody who has insurance, and clearly those who do not and would not have access.

Mark Meadows, who chairs the House Freedom Caucus, said: ``We need to slow down the process so we can understand a little bit more the specifics and the timetable of replacement votes and reconciliation instructions. . . .''

That was in Politico on January 9 of this year.

Senator Bob Corker, in the Senate, said: ``There's more and more concerns about not doing'' repeal and replace ``simultaneously. You would think after 6 years, we would have a pretty good sense of what we would like to do.''

We have not seen a repeal and replace bill. The President said it ought to be done contemporaneously. Bob Corker and others have said it ought to be done contemporaneously. We haven't seen it. So my question, Mr. Majority Leader, is: Does the gentleman expect that if repeal does move forward, that a replacement bill would be considered simultaneously?

I yield to my friend.

I can clarify that for the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman.

We are not in agreement, Mr. Speaker. What we will be doing would be 180 degrees different. We would not be pretending that we are going to repeal an Affordable Care Act that has been a success.

We do not agree, Mr. Speaker, that having 30 million Americans insured that were not insured before the Affordable Care Act is a failure. We do not agree that people with preexisting conditions who can now get insurance is a failure. We do not agree that people who are 26 or younger being on their family's policy when they don't have a job or alternative insurance is a failure. We do not agree that Americans having the security that their insurance will not be canceled because

they reached an annual limit is a failure. We do not agree that Americans having no lifetime limit so that if they have a catastrophic illness they will still have coverage--that is not a failure.

What is a failure is to have pretended for the last 6 years that they wanted to repeal the Affordable Care Act and have no replacement as of this time. That was a failure.

The President says, Mr. Speaker, that his plan is going to make sure that everybody is insured, comprehensive coverage, and that costs will come down. He, of course, Mr. Speaker, has now offered a bill to effect that objective. We would welcome such a bill so that we can consider it.

No, Mr. Speaker, had the 3 million additional people who voted for Hillary Clinton more so than voted for Donald Trump prevailed--the Electoral College prevailed, but the majority of the American people that voted, the plurality, voted for policies to keep the Affordable Care Act as Mrs. Clinton said she would do if she were elected.

So, Mr. Speaker, the majority leader is in deep error on we would be having the same debate. But he is right; we had an outcome of a party and a President who said they were going to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

GOP Conference Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers stated: ``Let me be clear: no one who has coverage because of ObamaCare today will lose that coverage.''

The majority leader said something about the President saying, if you like your policy, you can keep it. In fact, the President was substantially right on that. Yes. Were there minimum coverages so that people weren't scammed by insurance companies saying you got insurance, but, oh, by the way, we don't cover that, by the way, we don't cover that? Have you seen those ads about, I bought a new car and I had a wreck a day later and, guess what, the insurance company wants to give me 80 percent, 90 percent, 70 percent less? That is what the insurance companies were doing. People thought they had insurance for something, and they didn't have it.

So Cathy McMorris Rodgers says you are not going to lose anything. Well, I don't know. If it was so bad, why don't you repeal it? Why don't you offer a bill to repeal it and to undermine all those factors of the Affordable Care Act that are now available to the Americans that I suggested?

President Trump--I said this, but I want to repeat it--said last month that Republicans were nearing completion of an ACA replacement that would provide insurance for everybody. Bring it on. Bring it on. Insurance for everybody. Let's see it.

He went on to say his plan would have lower numbers, much lower deductibles. God bless him. Bring it on. Let us see it. Let's vote on it. It is not on the floor, and I am not sure when it will be on the floor, but perhaps the majority leader could tell us.

My question to you is: When do you expect such a bill consistent with the President's representation to the American people of everybody having insurance and at lower cost and lower deductibles? When do we expect a bill like that on the floor?

I yield to the majority leader.

I thank the majority leader for his comments.

I don't think he wants me to delve very deeply into why we do not have a Secretary of Health and Human Services. It is because the Republicans have not produced nor has the nominee produced full disclosure, as the gentleman knows, of his financial dealings with respect to legislation that he introduced and supported. They want full information so that they can make a considered judgment. I won't go further into that deep well, however.

I will say to the gentleman that you don't need a Secretary to bring legislation to the floor, and this is not an issue that is new this year or that is as a result of the November election of last year. It is, frankly, after 65 votes on this floor, to repeal the Affordable Care Act without having an alternative.

I will tell my friend, the majority leader, with great respect, you have had 6 years. You can catalog all of the things that you think are bad. Obviously, you don't mention any of the things that are good except so many in your caucus--perhaps the overwhelming majority of the caucus--say we are going to keep preexisting conditions, and we are going to keep 26. Of course, we are not going to eliminate annual limits, because that will hurt people and force them into bankruptcy. I don't hear that discussion going on. But the fact of the matter is, Mr. Leader, you cannot get away from the fact that 6 years have gone by since we adopted the Affordable Care Act--6 years of complaining about how awful it is.

By the way, as the gentleman knows, the majority of people now have made it very clear they do not want to repeal the Affordable Care Act unless they see a replacement on the table that they can consider and look to for alternatives. And that, as you know, Mr. Leader, is the first time in the 6 years because people said, ``yes, we don't like the Affordable Care Act'' in a vacuum, but now, when it really may be repealed, they are looking at it much more closely, and they don't know what is going to replace it, and they are concerned.

I have, I will tell you, family after family after family--I had somebody come up to me in the grocery store two nights ago, at Harris Teeter--with tears in his eyes--who said: Don't let them repeal the Affordable Care Act. I have a son who has a dire illness; and but for the fact of the Affordable Care Act, he would not be covered, and we couldn't keep him alive--with tears in his eyes.

So, when I hear you cataloging some of the things, those cases aren't mentioned. The 30 million aren't mentioned. The preexisting condition isn't mentioned.

I will say to my friend that you don't need a Secretary of Health and Human Services to bring a bill forward.

Going to go to another subject, Mr. Leader, obviously, we are very concerned about the Affordable Care Act, but we are also very concerned--as we talked about executive

orders on this refugee ban that were issued, according to almost everybody, without much consultation with anybody other than within the White House--of an order banning Muslim refugees from coming into this country even after very strong vetting.

I know that the position is, oh, this is not a ban. The complication you have to that representation is the President keeps mentioning it as a ban, as he said he was going to do in the election, and he referred to it as a ban just a few days ago. But I would point out to you, Mr. Leader--and I am sure you know this--not a single terrorist act--not one--has been perpetrated by a refugee coming into this country from any one of the seven nations mentioned in the ban. We believe this is not only contrary to the Constitution but that it is contrary to our principles.

Let me make it clear, Mr. Leader, so that there is no confusion: nobody on this side of the aisle doesn't want to make America's borders secure, America's land and assets safe, and the American people safe. Every one of us on this side of the aisle wants to make sure that that happens, and we certainly want to make sure that the vetting is appropriate. As the majority leader knows, the vetting today is a very long and very careful process. We believe this ban alienates our allies and emboldens terrorists who are now saying: See, this really is a war on Islam.

That will not be consistent with the safety of our men and women whom we have at the point of the spear and will not be consistent to the safety and security of our allies in the Middle East.

Senators McCain and Graham have said exactly that.

They pointed out:

``Our government has a responsibility to defend our borders, but we must do so in a way that makes us safer and upholds all that is decent and exceptional about our nation.'' This is John McCain and Lindsey Graham. ``It is clear from the confusion at our airports across the nation that President Trump's executive order was not properly vetted.'' Senator Graham and Senator McCain, chairman of the Armed Services Committee and the gentleman from South Carolina.

They go on:

``We are particularly concerned by reports that this order went into effect with little to no consultation with the Departments of State, Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security. Such a hasty process risks harmful results.'' This continues to be a quote by Senator McCain and Senator Graham. ``Ultimately, we fear this executive order will become a self-inflicted wound in the fight against terrorism.'' Senator McCain knows something about increased risk.

He went on to say, along with Senator Graham:

``This executive order sends a signal, intended or not, that America does not want Muslims coming into our country. That is why we fear this executive order may do more to help terrorist recruitment than improve our security.'' They said that on the 29th of January, just 4 days ago.

At least four times this week, Mr. Leader, we asked for the consideration of H.R. 724, which rescinds and defunds the refugee ban. The Speaker said, when he took office initially--and he repeated this year--that we were going to have an open, transparent process and that we would consider the important issues of the day on this floor, with an opportunity for every Member of this House to offer alternatives.

I know the committee would not report it out, but this is a critical issue to our country, to our safety, and to our values; and I ask the gentleman:

Is there a possibility that you would bring to the floor next week or the week thereafter--preferably next week--H.R. 724 so that the Members of this House--the people's Representatives--could speak to this critically important issue consistent with the observations of Senator McCain and Senator Graham?

I yield to my friend.

I think that is an excellent quote, which I still agree with.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the gentleman from California to do something?

The advice that the gentleman gives to his children about taking a breath, perhaps before they tweet----

That is good advice as well.

Would you give that advice to the President of the United States and tell him to take a breath before he makes policy or before he offends our allies or before he creates great fear in those who hear what he has to say off the cuff?

Yes, I understand that rhetoric counts. You might talk to him about that as well. He is the one that calls this a ban. I know that everybody else is trying to clean it up, and I hope that

is the case. In fact, I have seen the head of Homeland Security, Secretary Kelly, trying to clean it up.

It is a darn shame that it wasn't cleaned up before. It was a darned shame that the time was not taken to do an order that would make sure that vetting was appropriate, as my quote and our legislation that you talked about urged.

It is good advice to your children and good advice to this President: Take a breath. Just don't, as immediately it comes to mind, tweet it and have the impact not known to you, your staff, or to the country.

Almost invariably, we have seen this has a negative effect.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comment. I think we have demonstrated over the years that we ascribe to that concept.

My point to you is, in the first 10 or 12 days of this administration, that concept has been put at great risk. I think the gentleman's advice is good, and we have pursued that.

I simply urge the gentleman from California to suggest to the President of the United States that he adopt that concept as well.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have always been a strong ally of the disability community and have paid close attention to the concerns many have had with this rule.

I'm proud to have been the lead sponsor of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990,

which opened doors of independence, access, opportunity, and equity for millions of Americans with differing abilities.

In Congress, Democrats have put forward commonsense gun safety laws that would prevent violent and dangerous individuals with mental disabilities from purchasing firearms. However, the Republican-led Congress would not allow even a vote on such legislation.

President Obama took a series of limited steps within his authority, one of which was this rule, whose aim has been to prevent those who shouldn't have guns from obtaining them. I believe that, absent action from Congress to enhance our background check system, this rule represents an imperfect but necessary step.

It is imperfect because it stigmatizes the disability community unfairly and needs a stronger appeals process to protect the rights of those who fall under its purview. I disagree with the premise that having a mental disability that precludes independent management of one's finances correlates with a heightened risk of violence. I have read the rule and recognize that it was written in a narrow way so that it applies only to those with severe mental illnesses.

I've had many discussions over the past several days with leaders in the disability community. I've grappled with the very difficult questions this resolution poses and ultimately decided that, given these circumstances, the best step right now is to oppose this resolution.

I look forward to working closely with the disability community and gun safety advocates to push for Congress to take up legislation that keeps all Americans safe from gun violence while protecting the rights of those with differing abilities.

Mr. Speaker, I rise out of deep concern for our country, our people, and those who serve us in uniform.

The executive order signed by President Trump on Friday has not only sown chaos and created a backlash being felt across the world, it is also endangering our people here at home and our troops overseas.

It bans refugees and is, for all intents and purposes, a ban on Muslims entering our country. It is a religious test. It plays right into the hands of ISIS, al Qaeda, and other extremist groups that mean to do us harm. It arms them. Their message in recruiting and propaganda has been that America is at war with Islam and that when we say we are tolerant and inclusive, it is a lie.

We must not let it be a lie.

Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, this order will do nothing to make America safer from terrorism. Our enemies will use this Muslim ban to their full advantage, broadcast to all of those who, for whatever reason, may be teetering on the edge of extremism, one image, one tweet, one excuse away from radicalization. And our Muslim allies are scratching their heads in disbelief and disappointment.

CBS News reported this morning, Mr. Speaker, that a senior Iraqi general who commands the elite counterterrorism force trained by the United States military was supposed to come here next week but is now banned from doing so. He told CBS news: ``I am a four-star general. I have been fighting terrorism for 13 years and winning. Now my kids are asking me if I am a terrorist.'' That general, Talib al-Kenani, has been coming here for over a decade meeting with senior U.S. military leaders at CENTCOM, but now he is banned from entering the country.

This policy is dangerous, counterproductive, and extremely unfortunate.

It is important to note, Mr. Speaker, that of the seven countries included in this ban--hear me, my colleagues--of the seven countries included in this ban, no refugee or immigrant from any of those nations has committed a terrorist act in the United States.

The President of the United States has a responsibility--a sacred and public trust--to do everything in his power to protect our Nation. We have that same responsibility. This Congress has a sacred duty to hold the President accountable and ourselves for doing so in a way that respects our Constitution and our values. That, Mr. Speaker, is patriotism.

So I urge my colleagues on both sides: Stand against this order. Stand up for America. Stand up for the Constitution. Stand up for our values. Stand against an act that does nothing but empower our enemies and erode faith in our highest principles in our country and around the world.

The Nation, Mr. Speaker, is watching.

The world, Mr. Speaker, is watching.

I urge us to action.

Representatives Lofgren and Conyers have introduced a bill to block this executive order. I have cosponsored it, along with 160 other Members of this House. This is a time when party should not be put before country. Party should not be put before patriotism. Party should not be put before principle.

Join me, and let us deny our enemies this potent tool and remind the world what truly makes America great.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and urge that we bring up H.R. 724, which would rescind President Trump's refugee ban on children, like a 5-year-old that came to Dulles Airport with another family. Her mother was waiting for her, and for 4 hours she was not allowed to see her mother. That is not good policy. It is not good for the safety of our troops. It is not good for the safety of America. Let's pass H.R. 724.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday President Trump issued an executive order. He imposed a hiring freeze on the Federal workforce. It was not only a freeze, but an attack on those serving our country and a misguided action that will achieve the opposite of what is intended.

For those who are listening in the Chamber, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I am proud to represent 62,000 Federal employees. Hopefully, all of us refer to them as working people. We all say we want to be supportive of working people. Some people, however, in this body and down the avenue exempt Federal employees as working people.

They are not only working people, but they are working for the American people. Let's not forget that two-thirds of Federal employees live and work outside the Greater Washington area. It is very nice to say ``all of those bureaucrats in Washington,'' but two-thirds of our Federal employees serve in every community around our country, serve in protecting them: FBI agents; agents around the world who work for the Central Intelligence Agency--117 of whom died in service, and the President spoke in front of their memorial the other day--employees of the Centers for Disease Control keeping us healthy as communities and as a country, protecting our children and our families from diseases that would attack us; Federal employees at the National Institutes of Health studying how we prevent and cure cancer, heart disease, lung disease, diabetes, autism, other afflictions that confront our country, both health care from a physical and mental standpoint; and, yes, nurses at our veterans hospitals. A freeze so that if a nurse leaves, you can't replace her or him; a doctor at a veterans hospital leaves, you can't replace that doctor, apparently; even at the IRS where we talk about making sure our tax system is fair and making sure that everybody pays their fair share, we undermine the ability to make that a reality; our Border Patrol to keep our borders safe; homeland security to keep our homeland safe--they serve the public in every State and every congressional district in the country.

This hiring freeze will not save us money or do anything to make the government more efficient. Should we do both? Yes. Will this policy do it? No. Its effect will be a reduction in the level of service benefiting the American people, greater difficulty in recruiting and retaining the most talented Americans to public service, and increased costs as a result of having to hire more expensive private contractors to do the work that still needs to be done.

That is something that the public doesn't understand, that, frankly, we exploded, in the early part of this century, the contracting out, which gave us less control and more cost. It is more expensive to contract out.

Already, our Federal employees have made significant sacrifices toward achieving a greater fiscal sustainability in this country. Now, let me give you the magnitude of that. Federal employees, over the last 10 years, have given up $159 billion in pay and benefits to which they would otherwise have been entitled, but we withdrew those resources from them.

Instead of continuing to vilify Federal civilian employees, as they have done for years--and when I say they, the politicians have done it, mostly on the Republican side of the aisle, but perhaps not exclusively--vilified our Federal employees. Republicans in Congress and in the White House ought to be thanking them for their hard work. I can't imagine any of us would treat our own employees, Mr. Speaker, in a fashion that said we are going to lay you off, we are going to undercut

your pay, we are not going to give you the benefits which we promised you, and think that they were going to keep personnel on board with high morale and highly motivated to do the job, not only for us Members but for the American people. No employer would think that they can mistreat their employees and expect the highest performance out of them. And certainly no employer would think that if I treat my employees the way we have been treating Federal employees that we could recruit and retain the best and the brightest to serve our country.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the President to rescind his order. That is not to say that executives in all of these agencies should not look at making sure that we have the proper number of employees on board and are acting efficiently and effectively and working hard to accomplish the objectives that we as a Congress, on behalf of the American people, have given them. That is the issue.

I urge my Republican friends, in this House and in the Senate, to speak out against it. And I urge all Federal employees and their families to speak up in their communities across our country to remind their fellow Americans of the important work they do and why this hiring freeze would be so harmful to our country.

Giving one another respect in America is not political correctness. It is the way we ought to treat one another. And we ought to treat our public employees who work for us and our country with the same kind of respect that we would want for ourselves. Frankly, respect of one another was a victim in this last campaign, but it should not be and must not be the norm.

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely disagree with the previous speaker. He is wrong. He is wrong on the facts. The fact is, the Affordable Care Act was on the table longer than any bill since I have been in Congress--which is 36 years--to read, to review, to analyze, and to make a decision.

Every American will be adversely affected if we repeal the Affordable Care Act. Millions of Americans with disabilities depend on access to quality, affordable health care and deserve to have their voices heard in the debate over our healthcare system.

In fact, only one in five Americans, when polled, think we ought to repeal the Affordable Care Act without having a replacement. There is no replacement. Sixty-four times they voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act. They still do not have a replacement.

According to the CDC, 53 million Americans live with some form of disability. Were the Affordable Care Act to be repealed, insurers would again be permitted to discriminate against them, denying coverage for increasing premiums based on their disabilities. Repeal would also allow insurance companies again to impose annual and lifetime limits on coverage for every American.

Do not repeal the Affordable Care Act. Show us the beef. Show us the alternative.

Mr. Chairman, every American will be affected by this vote, not just the 20 million people who will lose their insurance immediately. Thirty million, in total, will lose their insurance. Everybody's premium will ultimately go up. Preexisting conditions will not be available. Seniors will pay more for prescription drugs. 25-, 24-, 23-year-olds will be dropped from the insurance of their families.

The fact of the matter is--the gentleman from Florida that just spoke--there is not a better way that has been proposed. There is some discussion about across State lines. There is some other discussion about health savings accounts, which is great if you have the kind of salaries we have; but if you are an average American trying to support your family, getting additional funds to put into a health savings account is not available to you.

Mr. Chairman, this budget resolution is an abdication of responsibility and duty. Rather than showing Republican spending and revenue priorities, it is nothing more than a vehicle for expediting a repeal of the Affordable Care Act and taking insurance coverage away from 30 million people.

Again, let me remind you it is hundreds of millions of people that will be adversely affected.

Since taking the House majority, Republicans have held 65 votes on this floor to undo healthcare reforms that have brought the uninsured rate to its lowest in recorded history and banned discrimination and discriminatory practices, such as denying coverage to Americans with preexisting conditions or charging women higher rates than men simply because of their gender.

Now our Republican colleagues want to repeal the Affordable Care Act without immediately replacing it, contrary to at least 12 of their colleagues in the United States Senate--Republicans--saying that is not the right way to go. That is what this resolution would do.

By the way, they should have adopted this resolution last Congress by April 15. They didn't do so.

This is not a real budget resolution. This is simply a device so that they can jam through repeal of the Affordable Care Act in the United States Senate contrary to the existing rules. It would come at a severe cost to our economy and our budget sustainability.

In addition to the 30 million who would lose their insurance, tens of millions more, as I have said, would see their costs go up. A report by the nonpartisan Commonwealth Fund and Milken Institute found that the repeal would lead to the loss of 3 million jobs, and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget found it would add $350 billion to deficits over the next 10 years.

Let us be clear, Mr. Chairman, a vote for this budget resolution is a vote to take health insurance away from 30 million Americans and adversely impact the health care of millions more.

I urge my Republican colleagues who have serious concerns about our fiscal path and misgivings about repealing the Affordable Care Act without replacing it: let's lay down a marker that Congress should not rush headlong into this costly repeal not only in terms of dollars, but in terms of health security consequences for the American people.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the House to vote ``no'' on this dangerous and destructive resolution.

Mr. Speaker, every one of us who serves in this House relies on the talented and hardworking staff of ours and of the House itself. We couldn't do what we do without them. They not only serve us faithfully, but serve our constituents as well, and they often do so without recognition.

Today my colleagues and I want to recognize someone who has been serving the people of Maryland's Fifth District and our country as a senior member of my staff for a decade and, indeed, before that, on the Senate side for close to a decade as well.

Many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have come to know Mary Frances Repko. If you have dealt with the environment, if you have dealt with energy, or if you have dealt with the history of the Senate and the House on energy legislation and environmental legislation over the last 20 years, you know Mary Frances Repko.

Mr. Speaker, many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle know Mary Frances well and respect her deep intellect, her professionalism, and her sage counsel. When it comes to energy policy and environmental issues, there are few on this Hill who know more of the intricacies and complexities of the issues than she does.

I am very proud of Mary Frances because the leadership staffs on both the Democratic and Republican side engage her in order to ensure that all the facts and ramifications of energy and environmental legislation are known and considered.

Mary Frances has been integrally involved in every major energy and environmental legislative debate over the past 10 years.

I know Leader Pelosi is also a great admirer of Mary Frances Repko. Her staff and Mary Frances have worked very closely together, including on the Recovery Act, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, the Energy Independence and Security Act, the EPA Act of 2005, the Renewable Fuel Standard, the BP oil spill, flood insurance, Hurricane Sandy relief, the Water Resources Development Act, the Flint water crisis, the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, land conservation bills, transportation bills, and fighting partisan antienvironmental riders--an extraordinary history of deep and effective involvement on the issues.

She has also been my lead staff on Puerto Rico, working closely with the Resident Commissioner's staff to help the people of the island through a debt crisis and Zika. For the past 4 years, she has also been the lead staffer for House Democrats' Make It In America plan for investing in job creation and making opportunities more accessible to American workers.

When Mary Frances first came to the whip's office in 2007, I felt fortunate to have enticed her to leave the United States Senate, where she had served as a senior policy adviser for the Committee on the Environment and Public Works. Earlier, she had served as Senator Cantwell's legislative director, and as legislative staffer for former Senator Russ Feingold.

Now it is with a great sadness that we must wish her farewell and send her back to the Senate, where she will return to the Environment and Public Works Committee as its new deputy staff director.

I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I know that Mary Frances very much appreciates the words of Leader Pelosi. I know that the leader is absolutely correct: we are not sending her. She is going.

But I want to tell the leader and tell this House that I talked to Senator Carper, who is the chairman of the committee, and I said: Tom, I will not stand in the schoolhouse door, if you will, and not let her out of our office; but you must pledge that she will be available for our calls and for our questions on a regular basis.

Madam Leader, he assures me that that is the case. I thank the gentlewoman for the comments.

Mr. Speaker, our loss, though, is the Senate's gain. I have no doubt that Mary Frances will bring her talents, her wisdom, and her Michigan- bred can-do attitude to the important work the committee will undertake this Congress and in the years ahead.

I hope all of my colleagues and, indeed, the American people we serve will join me in thanking Mary Frances Repko for her contributions to the work of this House and to the service she has given to our country during her time as a member of the staff of the Senate and the House.

I hope you will all join me in wishing her great success in her new position, in which I can assure you she will not be a stranger to us in the House, but a crucial liaison to the work of the Environment and Public Works Committee just across the hall.

Thank you, Mary Frances. Thank you for a job well done and for your service and wise counsel.

Mr. Speaker, I rise out of a deep concern, not just for the 30 million Americans who will lose access to health coverage and the tens of millions of others who will see their costs rise if Republicans repeal the Affordable Care Act without a replacement, but as well for every American because the repeal will affect every American, including every American who has health insurance through their employer.

Let there be no mistake. Every American will be adversely affected by the repeal of the Affordable Care Act. The repeal and delay plan ought to be called repeal and deny, deny health coverage to tens of millions, deny tax credits to small businesses to help them cover their employees, deny those with preexisting conditions protection from high premiums and coverage denials, and deny parents from covering their children under age 26 through their own insurance plans. Every American will be adversely affected if we repeal the Affordable Care Act.

I heard recently through social media from a woman in my district whose family was able to save more than $1,200 a month because of the ACA marketplace. Another wrote to tell me that the ACA made it possible for her to sign up for coverage for the first time in years since she lost her job and her employer-based insurance. When she needed to be hospitalized this spring, having coverage saved her life.

Repeal and deny would be a disaster for our people and our economy. I urge my Republican friends to instead work with the Democrats to improve the Affordable Care Act.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Representative Hurd for his work, which has been an ongoing continuing work on this issue and on this particular program.

I rise in support of this bipartisan bill, which builds on the work that Majority Leader McCarthy and I and others in this House have been doing to modernize government technology and renew America's faith in government.

In 2016, exit polls showed that dissatisfaction with the government spanned the political spectrum. That is a shame because government is supposed to be a force for improving people's lives, keeping our country safe, and expanding opportunities for all Americans.

That is why I unveiled the House Democrats' Renewing Faith in Government agenda last summer. We must present bold solutions to reform our democracy and our government. Certainly, on both sides of the equation, that is what the American people were saying in the last election.

One of the goals of our agenda is modernizing government technology. Most Americans understand the transformative power of technology--the Majority Leader spoke of it in so many different aspects of our lives-- and how digitizing businesses makes them more efficient, transparent, and accountable. We have seen it in the private sector. Every day, millions of Americans shop on sites like Amazon or Etsy and catch a ride using Uber or Lyft.

Government technology is in terrible shape, and bringing the latest practices from Silicon Valley into government would make a huge difference in serving our citizens and streamlining the way government works for the American people.

Last year, I worked closely with the Obama administration and Tony Scott to advance one of its top priorities in this area: creating a technology modernization fund for the rapid upgrade of

the most outdated, costly, and insecure technology systems across the Federal Government. Mr. Hurd was involved deeply in that effort. The result was the Modernizing Government Technology Act, which the House passed overwhelmingly with the help of Chairman Chaffetz and Majority Leader McCarthy.

Last month, Majority Leader McCarthy and I expressed our bipartisan support for one of President Obama's most successful efforts at bringing Silicon Valley talent into the Federal workforce: the U.S. Digital Service and GSA's 18F program. In fact, I visited the 18F program in San Francisco and was extraordinarily impressed with the individuals who peopled that project and were giving of their time. I guess we were paying them a little bit, but, relatively speaking, they were giving their time.

Today's bill, the TALENT Act, would make permanent the precursor to both these programs: the Presidential Innovation Fellows. This program has a proven track record of bringing top talent from the innovation economy into the Federal workforce where it is sorely needed.

I hope the next administration will continue all of these innovative programs, which have begun to change the culture within our government.

I also hope that the talented individuals--many of whom, as I referenced, left high-paying jobs in the private sector--will stay on through the transition and continue to serve their country by improving government technology.

President Obama made real progress in this area, including with the launch of his Open Data Directive, his We the People petition platform, and his Cyber National Action Plan. More could have been achieved if Congress had agreed to his request to invest more in these areas. We have seen a dramatic example of why cybersecurity investment is so critically important for our country, not for Democrats, not for Republicans, but for all Americans. This is an effort toward that end.

I hope we can work together in this new Congress to unleash the transformative power of modern technology within government and help renew America's faith in our government. That is critical if we are to be successful as a Nation. I am sure it hopefully is what all of us want to do on a bipartisan basis.

I thank Representative DeSaulnier for his efforts, and I thank Representative Hurd for his leadership on this effort.

I am pleased to join with my counterpart, Majority Leader McCarthy, in strong support of this legislation.

Amendment X:

``The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.''

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the majority leader, Mr. McCarthy, for yielding.

I rise to thank and to pay tribute to Tim Berry.

Mr. Speaker, the American public sees us so often when we are confronting one another--disagreeing strenuously sometimes and disagreeing sometimes disagreeably. What they don't see is the staff working with staffs across the aisle in a constructive effort to reach consensus and to move democracy forward. What they don't see is the collegiality that is engendered through the years between staff who have the responsibility of ensuring not only that their Members have full knowledge of what is being considered and their advice and counsel, but also of assuring that there is positive communication across the aisle even when we disagree.

Tim Berry has been one of the most adept, most cordial, most positive, and most effective staffers in effecting that end. We Members sometimes mask how effective our staffs are. I am sure they will lament that from time to time.

Tim Berry, I want you to know--we are very proud--is from Silver Spring, Maryland. He grew up in Silver Spring and grew up in our State. Tim Berry is a proud son of our State. Yes, he is a Republican; yes, he has been on staff on the other side of the aisle; but he is an American first, who has cared about his country, who has cared about this institution, and who has cared about showing respect and concern for staffs on both sides of the aisle.

I have had a number of chiefs of staff, one of whom is Cory Alexander, now the vice president of UnitedHealth. Cory Alexander and Tim are good friends. They worked together very constructively when Tim was with Tom DeLay. Mr. McCarthy is in that office, and I had the privilege of using that office for 4 years. There was never a time when we walked down that hallway that we didn't think of Detective Gibson losing his life and Officer Chestnut losing his life outside that door. Tim Berry was there to serve. Tim Berry served, notwithstanding the dangers that were self-evident.

Lisa is in the gallery and his children who have been mentioned by Leader McCarthy. Young people, you can be extraordinarily proud of your dad. I know, Lisa, you are as well. He has made this institution a better institution. He has made the relationship between the parties more positive in times when it was greatly strained.

Tim, thank you. Thank you for your service to the Congress, thank you for your service to the country, and thank you for your service to each and every one of us. God bless you and Godspeed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reiterate the strong, bipartisan support for our ally, Israel, in the United States Congress.

Support for Israel has always been a bipartisan value, and it reflects the values of our country. Although we are entering a period of one-party government, bipartisan support for Israel remains a strategic asset, and those who support Israel need to be careful not to jeopardize that. I think none of my colleagues do that. I want to make it clear.

In supporting this House resolution, we are expressing our deep concern regarding the decision to abstain in the U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334. Some may point out that the decision to abstain does not veer from the actions of past administrations. They would be right. It does not. That may be true, but it does not justify, in my view, this particular vote.

Allowing a one-sided resolution, which I perceived the U.N. resolution to be, to be adopted at this juncture sends the wrong signal and emboldens Israel's and America's enemies.

The United Nations is notorious for its disproportionate criticism of Israel. As Ambassador Samantha Power said before the U.N. Security Council vote on Resolution 2334: ``As long as Israel has been a member of this institution, Israel has been treated differently from other nations at the United Nations.''

She also noted that, in 2016 alone, the U.N. adopted more resolutions critical of Israel than it did nations that brazenly violate international law and violate human rights--more than Syria, more than Iran, more than North Korea, more than South Sudan, more than Russia, combined.

A one-sided resolution that assigns exclusive blame to Israel for the continuation of the conflict--without addressing Palestinian incitement to violence, Hamas control of Gaza, or their continued insistence on the so-called right of return and refusing to accept Israel as a Jewish state--undermines prospects for a two-state solution.

Also deeply concerning is this resolution's reference of Israeli presence in East Jerusalem, including the Jewish Quarter of the Old City and the Western Wall, as illegal.

The only way to achieve a real and lasting peace that enables Israel to protect its security and remain both a Jewish state and a democratic one is a two-state solution, which I strongly support.

There are two parties to this conflict. Both have responsibilities. Both need to take steps toward peace. For Israel, this means not building in areas envisioned in the long term as part of a future Palestinian state; and for Palestinians, it means ending incitement, ending terrorism, and affirmatively accepting Israel's right to existence.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.