Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the gentleman has just said about those challenges and threats, along with the undermining of our national security, but it is further at risk this week by our own hand; that is, the Congress of the United States.

The Department of Homeland Security will not be funded. There are 230,000 people who work at that Department, and 30,000 of them, mostly administrative personnel, will be laid off. The others, known as critically important--essential employees who are on the front line-- will work, but they won't get paid.

We can lament what others have done to undermine our national security and share--I think in a bipartisan way--the conclusion that we ought not to further those enterprises, but as I said, Mr. Speaker, by our own hand we are about to shut down the Department of Homeland Security. We have but 4 days to pass a bill continuing its funding.

I will say with all due respect, Mr. Speaker, to my friends on the other side of the aisle, shutting down the government is a strategy they have employed on a number of occasions. In 1995, we shut it down twice, for almost a month, maybe a little longer.

Just a few months ago, we shut it down again as a strategy--not as a happenstance, but as a strategy.

Again, Mr. Speaker, there are those who are saying in this House: Well, it won't matter if we shut down the Department of Homeland Security. Some of the folks are funded on fees, others will be required to work anyway, so let's just keep playing this Russian roulette with America's security and the safety of Americans.

Mr. Speaker, we are approaching the eleventh hour, and the House has not yet been given the opportunity to vote on a bill that, essentially, was agreed to by the Republican Appropriations Committee and reported to this floor, and we essentially passed it, but we passed it for a short period of time.

There was no debate on funding levels, Mr. Speaker. There was no debate on whether this provision and that provision should or should not be in the bill. We passed it.

Then the Republicans, Mr. Speaker, to accomplish another objective, have done what they said in the pledge to America they would not do, and that is put two different issues in the same bill. Well, they have put a poison pill in this bill.

If we fail to act and send the President a bill he can and will sign, a bill free from partisan policy riders, then thousands of our Homeland Security agents will be furloughed, and almost--as I said--200,000 others will be forced to work without pay.

Is that what America has come to? Surely not--the impact on our border security, law enforcement, and homeland security will be serious and make our country more vulnerable to threats.

I came to the rostrum after a gentleman on the other side of the aisle correctly expressed concerns about the threats that confront us. I would hope he would join me in advocating and urging the Republican leadership to bring to the floor a clean--and by clean, I simply mean a bill on which both parties have essentially agreed.

Chairman Mike McCaul, the Republican who leads the House Committee

on Homeland Security said yesterday--Mr. Speaker, this is the Republican chairman of the Homeland Security Committee: ``I fully believe we should not be playing politics with the national security agency like the Department of Homeland Security, particularly given the high threat environment that we're in right now.''

What American would say it makes sense to play politics with Homeland Security in light of what the gentleman has just referenced and which all of us know to be the case?

We have people who want to harm us as a people and as a nation. Mr. Speaker, this body has a responsibility to the American people to do everything we can to make them as secure as we can and to make our country as secure as we can.

Senator Lindsey Graham, with whom I served in this body who now represents South Carolina and is a Republican Member of the Senate and an expert on national security, he told his Republican colleagues this--and, again, I quote: ``The worst possible outcome for this Nation is to defund the Department of Homeland Security, given the multiple threats we face to our homeland, and I will not be part of it.''

None of us ought to be part of it. 435 of us ought to vote to fund the Homeland Security Department starting on Friday. I urge the Republican majority to heed this advice of Mr. McCaul, of Mr. Graham, and, frankly, countless other Republicans in the Senate and some in the House to do the responsible thing and let this House work its will on the single subject of our national security.

If a clean Homeland Security appropriation bill were to come to the floor, I am confident--and I tell my friend and the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, every Democrat will vote for it. We are 188 strong.

Surely, there are 30 responsible Republicans who care more about our national security than their politics who would join us in voting for that bill--I am confident of that--many more, I think, than 30, but at least 30 would be needed, with 188, to get to the 218, and we would fund the Department of Homeland Security, and we could do it tomorrow.

We could probably do it today by unanimous consent--well, no, I don't think we could do it by unanimous consent because there are some who continue to play politics with our national security.

If the majority is dissatisfied with our immigration policy which they articulate and legitimately can have an alternative view to express and to try to enact, that is the democratic process.

Offer a bill to change that which they do not like, not hold hostage the Department of Homeland Security until hopefully, from their standpoint, the President is bludgeoned into signing a bill that he does not agree with and he does not believe is good for our country and believes is bad for our economy.

If the majority is dissatisfied, bring a bill to the floor. Former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, also a Republican with whom I have served when he was a Representative from Pennsylvania, subsequently the Governor of Pennsylvania and then our first Secretary of Homeland Security, I want to quote him as well as I have quoted the other two Republicans that I have quoted.

``Political folly'' and ``bad policy,'' that is Tom Ridge, former Republican Governor and mentioned for President. He went on to say: ``I think the political repercussions could be severe. And, on top of that, the men and women of Homeland Security deserve better.''

Who wants to work for an employer that simply takes them hostage every few months and says to them: You may or may not get paid, you may or may not be able to come to work, you may or may not be able to do your job. It depends upon whether or not our political ends are served.

I urge Republican leaders to keep the pledge they made to the American people to consider issues one at a time. Bring a comprehensive immigration reform bill. If you don't like what the President has done, bring a bill that changes that. We have the power to do that. Do it.

We can work in a bipartisan way to change our immigration policies through legislation and fix what everybody in this body believes is a broken system.

Bring a clean appropriation bill to the floor to fund the Department of Homeland Security, and then, as well, bring a bill to the floor on comprehensive immigration reform or the bill that our Republican friends think is the appropriate bill to fix a broken system, and we will vote and debate on that.

But let the Department of Homeland Security do its job for America, for Americans. Let's exercise responsible, adult legislating this time.

The ranking member didn't write my speech, so I am not sure what my answer to the distinguished gentleman's comments is, but I will say this to my friend, I am not for 1 year. I may vote for 1 year, but that is not what we ought to do. It ought to be paid for if it is 1 year, 2 years, permanent. There is no free lunch.

You are in the automobile business. People come into your automobile store, and they would say, I would like to have that car for $10,000.

And you say, Now, look, I paid $20,000 for that car. I can't sell it to you for $10,000.

There is no free lunch. Unpaid tax cuts are a free lunch, a pretense that somehow it is just free, but I will tell my friend it is not free.

The chairman, who was the chairman of the Budget Committee, offered a budget which cuts food stamps $125 billion. This bill is called the Fighting Hunger Incentive Act--$125 billion cut in food stamps. I tell you my friend voted for a $40 billion cut in food stamps in the farm bill.

I am not for free lunches. I am for a lot of these tax cuts, but I am not for taking it out of the mouths of children, I am not for taking it out of NIH, and I am not for taking it out of our national security. We have got to pay for what we buy, and I vote that way.

The chairman and I were one of 18 people one time that voted against a very popular bill that had to do with Social Security. We thought it was not paid for and not fiscally responsible, and he and I were one of 18 people in this House that voted against it.

I don't have much time, but maybe we can get some more. I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I used to have a magic 1 minute. I don't have that now. I would be glad to participate in debate. We have had bad policy, I tell my friend.

Terrible policy.

I don't know about you, but I am for Simpson-Bowles. The problem with Simpson-Bowles for some people is it paid for what it did, just like the Camp bill. The Camp bill made tough choices, and it was a zero-sum game in the sense that it cut taxes and it paid for them--a zero-sum game--just like you had to run your business because, if you didn't run your business that way, you would have gone bankrupt.

Now, I fought for that for a very long period of time and voted that way, as I say, one of 18 with my friend from Wisconsin, but I tell my friend, yes, we are following bad policy.

This bill, you can argue for the merits. I get that. The next bill, you can argue for the merits, and the bill after that and the bill after that and the bill after that, and you have then caused $600 billion in deficit spending that your kids and my kids will have to pay for because we are too old to be around long enough to pay for it.

So I rise against this bill not because I am against fighting hunger. Everybody ought to be against fighting hunger.

But when you talk about fighting hunger, don't cut food stamps $40 billion. Don't suggest the way we pay for this tax cut is to cut $125 billion from food stamps over the next 10 years, as the chairman did.

I disagree with that policy, and I respect the chairman.

No, I can't yield any more because I am running out of time.

Mr. Speaker, this is one of two bills that we are considering on the floor this week to make tax cuts permanent, and it is unfortunate that neither of these bills is paid for 1 year or permanently. Together, they would increase the deficit by $93 billion. Nobody is suggesting we are going to pay for that, so our kids will pay for it.

Democrats support extending many of the preferences we are talking about, but we are also deeply concerned about America's fiscal future. And I voted that way, not just talked that way.

I hear a lot of talk from my friends in the majority about the debt, but

that talk too often fails to translate into fiscally responsible policy. It didn't in 1981 when we cut taxes deeply and increased the national debt from the time I came in under Reagan 189 percent, more than any President that has been President during my term in the last 34 years.

We have seen these two tax bills before--when Republicans brought them to the floor last Congress, along with several other permanent tax cuts, which, together, would have ballooned the deficit by more than $600 billion. That is twice what we will spend on medical research at NIH and 10 times what it would cost to expand community college access.

I also hear a lot of my friends on the other side of the aisle talk about a broken tax system. I tell my friend, that system is going to remain broken. That system is going to remain broken unless we do what Camp did.

Did I agree with everything that Camp did? No. But I respected him for putting together a package of tax reform that gives what Mr. Ryan says we need, and I agree with him--certainty. People need to know. These ought to all be permanent. The R&D tax credit ought to be permanent so people can plan.

America's businesses and families deserve the certainty that comes from tax reform, not partisan piecemeal reform bills that undermine--undermine--tax reform. That is what Roy Blunt was talking about.

Roy Blunt has already been quoted, so I won't repeat the quote. But what he said is, as long as the Finance Committee feels there is an opportunity for overall tax reform, I think you are not going to see a quick response to individual bills coming over.

That is why this is bad policy; because you are not going to get from here to there unless you have a comprehensive bill that makes the tough tradeoffs and summons the courage of this Congress to pass meaningful, permanent, paid-for tax certainty for our citizens.

Will the gentleman yield?

No, I have done longer when I had the minute, believe me.

I want to tell the gentleman, in all sincerity, I look forward to being able to support a bill that is comprehensive, paid for, and gives our citizens and individual taxpayers the certainty they need to have the confidence they need to grow our economy.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the Congress has 5 legislative days left until February 27. We have 5 days to meet and send the President an appropriations bill that he can sign to keep the Department of Homeland Security from shutting down.

The Republican leader in the Senate says the House ought to act. The Speaker says the Senate ought to act. Somebody needs to act. Somebody needs to act like an adult. Somebody needs to fund the security and safety of the American people. Their own Senate colleagues disagree with their strategy of holding national security hostage to their political goals on immigration.

We face, as all of us know, very real threats, which is why we cannot let the Department's funding lapse. If Republicans want to debate immigration policy, then bring an immigration bill to the floor. Don't hold our security hostage.

I ask my Republican colleagues to end their games and instead work with us to keep America safe.

I will say to my friend from Michigan, today we are all members of the Congressional Black Caucus, one people with one commitment and one idea.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill, of which I am a cosponsor, honoring the brave men and women who marched in Selma.

This will be my 10th year participating in the Faith and Politics Institute's pilgrimage to Selma with my friend from Georgia, John Lewis.

I thank the gentlelady from Selma for leading this debate.

Those folks who marched across that bridge on March 7, known as Bloody Sunday, were met with the power of the State to prevent them from voting.

This Gold Medal would be a tribute to John and to all those who marched alongside him and all those who marched along 2 weeks later with Martin Luther King, Jr., those thousands who walked that 5-day journey from Selma to Montgomery. We ought to pass it unanimously. I hope we will.

But Martin Luther King, Jr., would not be happy with us if we just looked back in awe and reverence and did not look at today--I tell my friend from Michigan--for he would say that Congress should go further than simply honoring those who fought for their rights a half a century ago. We should pay tribute to their sacrifices and the scars they still carry by restoring the full protections of the Voting Rights Act, which the Supreme Court weakened in 2013. Martin Luther King, Jr., was about principle, but he was also about ensuring that protections would be in place.

I hope that this House will allow bipartisan legislation to restore these protections, which is cosponsored by the gentleman from Wisconsin, Jim Sensenbrenner, the former chairman of the Judiciary Committee on the Republican side, and the gentleman from Georgia, John Lewis, a hero of Selma. These protections should move expeditiously through the House once the legislation is introduced.

I thank the gentleman from Michigan for giving the gentlewoman a minute to yield to me.

I thank Representative Sewell for her leadership in making sure Congress honors those who shook the conscience of our Nation through their courageous actions in Selma 50 years ago and in so many other places--where many fought, some were badly injured, and, yes, some died--to redeem the promise of America that all of us are created equal, endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. And certainly in a democracy, one of the most important--if not the most important--rights that we have is to vote, to select our representatives, to select the policies under which we will live.

I thank the Speaker and the majority leader for getting behind this effort. And, again, I thank the gentlelady from Selma. How proud she must be of her hometown and of the history that was made there, not just for African Americans but for all Americans.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the information he has given us. I have some questions on that information, but before getting to the bills that we are going to consider next week, I note the absence of the Homeland Security bill.

That continues to, unfortunately, be mired in controversy, Mr. Speaker. It is a bill that I would remind our Members, Mr. Speaker--and I know the majority leader knows this--has been agreed to, essentially.

There really is no controversy with respect to the funding of the Homeland Security Department. There are no amendments being offered to change the numbers or anything of that nature.

There is, however, the holding hostage, Mr. Speaker, of this bill for the purposes of overturning the President's actions which, in our view, he was forced to take because of the inaction of this body after over a year of even considering the comprehensive immigration reform bill that the Senate passed by over 60 votes, with almost two-thirds of the Senate, Republicans and Democrats, voting for that bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned and the American people are concerned that a bill which is so critically important for the defense of our borders, for the security of our country, and the security of our people is languishing, notwithstanding the fact that we have agreement on the underlying bill. There is no disagreement in my view.

The Homeland Security bill, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, would pass with over 400 votes if it were brought to this floor, but for the fact that it is being held hostage to force the President to do something that the Senate clearly has indicated they are not going to approve.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge the majority leader to bring to the floor a clean bill. By clean, I mean the Republican-reported bill--not our bill, but a compromise bill--a Republican-reported bill in December, conferenced--conference may overstate it because it was the four leaders, Republicans and Democrats meeting--and they brought out of that meeting to this floor a Homeland Security bill that could pass overwhelmingly.

Every day that we delay puts us closer to the February 27 deadline that was set in December for the funding of this bill, taken out of the omnibus appropriation bill that we passed, put on a short-term leash, putting our homeland security at risk.

Mr. Speaker and Mr. Majority Leader, I would ask you: Is there any plan at some point in time to say we are not going to snatch defeat from the jaws of compromise?

The leader knows. The leader is very astute. He understands this body very well and knows full well that the underlying bill has consensus.

If there is anything that is frustrating the American people, it is that when we have something that we agree upon, we turn it into something that we can't agree on.

I yield to my friend, Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of telling me what his view is as to when we are going to be able to pass an appropriation bill to ensure

that the Homeland Security Department can operate in an effective, efficient manner to protect America and Americans.

I yield to my friend.

I appreciate the gentleman's comments, Mr. Speaker, but, frankly, the American people ought not to be confused. There is a bipartisan agreement. We did not send, however, the bipartisan-agreed bill to the Senate.

We did, as we so often do, add to a bipartisan agreement something that does not have agreement, and that undermines the ability of this Congress to work on behalf of the American people in an effective way.

Very frankly, Mr. Speaker, the majority leader knows that. He knows it because I have had discussions with him. He knows it because, publicly, the President has said, Democrats have said: We don't agree with the provision you're adding to something that has been agreed upon in a bipartisan fashion by the Senate and by the House.

The majority leader knows full well that if we sent a clean bill that has already been agreed upon by the Appropriations Committee in the House, by the Appropriations Committee in the Senate, by Republicans and Democrats on the Appropriations Committee in the House and by Republicans and Democrats on the Appropriations Committee in the United States Senate, already agreed to--now, let me, Mr. Speaker, read you some comments by someone who I had a great opportunity to serve with in this Congress.

Secretary Tom Ridge--the first Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, a Republican--and Michael Chertoff, who was also a Republican Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, joined with Secretary--now president--Napolitano. The president wanted great educational institutions in our country; she was then Secretary and former Governor of Arizona.

All three of them said:

Funding for the entire agency should not be put in jeopardy

by the debate about immigration.

Again, I remind you that this is Secretary Ridge, former Republican Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the former Republican Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; and Michael Chertoff, former Republican Secretary of the Homeland Security Department; as well as Secretary Napolitano.

They said:

It is imperative that we ensure that the Department of

Homeland Security is ready, willing, and able to protect the

American people. To that end, we urge you not to risk funding

for the operations that protect every American and pass a

clean Department of Homeland Security funding bill.

I agree with Secretary Ridge. I agree with Secretary Chertoff.

When my friend says, ``Oh, it's the Senate,'' I disagree with my friend. It is the Senate who has not passed a bill. Of course, complaining about the 60-vote requirement after having required the most number of cloture votes in history in the last Congress by the current majority leader of the United States Senate when he was minority leader is a little difficult to understand. I choose my words carefully on that.

The fact of the matter is we are putting at risk the security of the American people. We have seen in Canada, we have seen in France, and we have seen in the Middle East horrific terrorist acts. This Department was created to prevent such acts.

By God's grace and their work, America has been very fortunate since September 11, 2001.

The Secretaries are saying don't put that at risk.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would urge once again not only the majority leader but the majority party in this House to accept the fact that we do not have agreement on immigration.

I accept the fact that they believe the President has acted incorrectly. What I do not accept, Mr. Speaker, is that they are holding hostage the budget for the Department of Homeland Security in order to make their point on immigration. I would hope that the majority leader would urge his side of the aisle to not do that.

I close on this particular issue with this quote. When asked what was going to happen when time ran out on February 27 on this funding of the Department of Homeland Security, John McCain, former Presidential candidate on the Republican side of the aisle, former Republican Member of this body and now the Republican chairman of the Armed Services Committee in the United States Senate, said this when asked what was going to happen on February 27. He said: ``Your guess is as good as mine.''

What do you think our adversaries think when, on the Department of Homeland Security, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee says: ``Your guess is as good as mine''?

He goes on and says this: ``I believe in one fundamental principle; that is, we cannot shut down the Department of Homeland Security.''

Unfortunately, the Republican whip, my friend, observed that, well, we maybe just can do that.

Now, the theory is, Mr. Speaker, that because it is funded out of fees and because they are critically important employees, that we won't shut down the Department in one sense. But in another sense, we will preclude it from being empowered by the bipartisan bill passed out of the House Appropriations Committee and the Senate Appropriations Committee, and which we considered in December, to perform its duties.

I will yield to my friend, Mr. Speaker, if he wants to make an additional comment. If not, I will go on to some of the other legislation that needs discussion.

I appreciate it.

I am glad to hear the majority leader will not stand for it.

Over a year ago, the United States Senate passed, overwhelmingly, a comprehensive immigration reform bill. The reason they are holding hostage the Department of Homeland Security, Mr. Speaker, is because they don't agree.

But the majority leader has just said, Bring it to the floor. Let us vote. Let us offer amendments. We have asked that the Senate bill on immigration reform--which the House Republicans apparently don't agree with but on which the overwhelming majority of Americans in polling are saying yes, they agree with it.

So the majority leader complains about a bill not being brought to the floor. The minimum wage bill is a very, very important bill that the overwhelming majority of Americans support. In five States on which it was on the ballot, it was passed, in some red States and, yes, some blue States, mostly red States, by the way, and there is a refusal to bring it to the floor.

So, Mr. Speaker, when I hear the majority leader complain about not letting that bill come to the floor, the majority leader knows, and everybody in this body knows, that if that bill should squeak by the Senate, it would be vetoed by the President. And I guarantee the majority leader, that veto would be sustained here.

I would remind him the reason the Secretaries say bring a clean bill to the floor, your Secretaries, as well as one of mine on our side of the aisle, the reason they say that is because they know that what I say is absolutely correct.

So, Mr. Speaker, I tell the majority leader, who is my friend and whom I have great respect for, that complaining about not bringing bills to the floor, we all need to look in the mirror, because if the issue is comprehensive immigration reform and you don't like what the President is doing, bring a bill to the floor.

Show us what you want to do. Let us vote on it. Send it to the Senate, see what they do, and then if they pass it, send it to the President.

But don't hold hostage the Department of Homeland Security. Don't put Americans at risk. Don't turn a bipartisan consensus agreement into partisan gridlock, which the Americans hate, and which puts them at risk.

I will go on to other matters, unless the majority leader would like me to yield to him one more time.

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman.

Is the gentleman prepared to bring a comprehensive immigration bill to the floor?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for that information, but I would observe that we have spent the first 4 weeks considering an awful lot of legislation that didn't go to committee at all--no hearings, came right to the floor through the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am confounded by the representative of the majority party complaining about what the Senate Democrats have done and saying we are not for this bill when, more than at any other time in history, his party did that in the last Congress.

Mr. Speaker, there are other pieces of legislation I am concerned about. Let me ask the leader, if I can, with respect to the apparently seven bills which the Ways and Means Committee has considered, are those bills going to be considered, Mr. Leader, seriatim, one by one? Or is the expectation, as apparently I think I am reading in the comments you made, going to be packaged? And if so, does the gentleman know how many bills are going to be in which package and how many packages there are going to be?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for that comment and the information.

There are six or seven bills. Does that mean we will consider each one of those individually?

I yield to my friend.

In the two packages.

I know that it is usually the practice in both bodies, or in both parties, not to have open to amendment. Is that your expectation, that neither of the packages will be open to an amendment?

I yield to my friend.

Same question, same answer

When I get an answer, I will stop asking. How about that, Mr. Speaker?

In terms of the deficit, I know your side is very concerned about the deficit. My side is very concerned about the deficit, and I certainly am very concerned about the deficit, as the gentleman knows. I have worked in a lot of ways to try to bring this down.

One of my propositions is that we need to pay for things. Whether we spend money or reduce revenues, we need to offset that.

Does the gentleman know whether there is any intention to offset that so we do not exacerbate, make the deficit worse?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman. I can't help but observe, however, that this President inherited the deepest recession that you and I have experienced in our lifetime and, as a result, we had to respond to that. We responded to it vigorously.

Unfortunately, it made the debt worse, but what it also did was grow our economy better and faster than any other economy on Earth. We now have an economy that is growing, creating jobs, 58 months solid.

We have increased, however, the debt by about 70 percent--too much. I will tell my friend, he may not know this. That is a percentage of GDP that--under Ronald Reagan, who could have vetoed every spending bill, the debt increased by 189 percent, almost three times as much.

Now, in real dollar figures, it is easy to say that, like saying $7.25 is much higher than the minimum wage of 1968, when actually it is reduced to 46 percent of its purchasing power.

So the numbers, per se, but as a percentage of our wealth, as a country, this President has increased the debt, having to respond to the deepest recession since the Depression, almost about a third of what Ronald Reagan saw in his Presidency, the increase of our debt as a percentage of the GDP.

I would tell my friend, Mr. Speaker, that we ought to come together, work together to make sure that this country is on and remains on a fiscally sustainable path, and I look forward to working with him toward that end.

But if we pass tax bills, as we did in 1981, 2001, and 2003, and pretend they are going to pay for themselves, it doesn't happen. We know it doesn't happen. And we look at it, and it doesn't happen.

Frankly, many of us on this side are for a number of the bills that are going to be in these packages. Some of us will be constrained to vote ``no'' because we don't want to make the deficit worse.

If the gentleman has a comment, I will yield to him.

I thank the gentleman.

Just so that the American people are clear on the record, Mr. Speaker, Ronald Reagan, about whom the gentleman spoke, didn't get to 5.6 percent unemployment until his eighth year as President of the United States. And he did not confront nearly as deep a recession as this President inherited from his predecessor, in which 4 million people had lost their job in 2008 and 878,000 people lost their job when he took office in 2009. So it has been a tough time.

But the good news is--not the bad news--that we have increased our economy faster, better, and more sustainably than any other country on Earth. That is good news, and we ought to tell the American people that is good news.

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

This bill is about restoring choice not to have insurance, not to have the assurance that if you get sick, you are going to be able to not go bankrupt. That is what this bill is about.

Mr. Speaker, this House is about to hold its 56th vote to undermine or repeal the Affordable Care Act, which came to us, by the way, by route of The Heritage Foundation, as I think probably most of you recall.

But this vote is different than the previously full repeal votes for one significant reason. Since the last repeal vote, the health insurance marketplace has opened and is working. Over 9\1/2\ million Americans have signed up through these marketplaces for health care coverage for 2015 so far. That means that with today's vote, Republicans are choosing to take away health care coverage from millions of Americans.

This vote will also remove patient protections and cost savings reforms. To make matters worse, today's vote would also defund the bipartisan popular CHIP program that helps States cover uninsured children. So it abandons children as well.

In 2011, when House Republicans voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act, they included language that said they would replace it with something else; and I say to my friend, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding that, they have not done so. However, they still have failed to give us an alternative.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The reason I wanted him to yield is because I want to thank him. I don't know that there is any Member of this body or, frankly, the other body who has spent more time talking with the American public to let them know how focused we are on making sure that Americans can Make It In America. And the middle class, of course, is critically important.

I will tell the gentleman from California, he and I have both traveled outside this country--I think I have been to probably 60 nations--and every nation has its rich people, and every nation has its poor people. America's genius and success was posited, however, on the broad middle class that we had, that made America. They are the ones whose work and intellect and creativity and innovative spirit and entrepreneurial energy made America what it is and what it has been.

I want to congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi) for the fidelity that he has shown over the years to this critically important objective of making sure that the middle class, working Americans have the ability to make it and to increase their standard of living over that of their parents. That has always been the genius of our country. It needs to continue to be. And the President, of course, has offered, as the gentleman points out, an agenda that is focused on working men and women in this country, making sure that they have the ability to live quality lives and have their children pursue education and do even better than their parents; and as they do so, their country, this great country of ours, will do better as well.

So I wanted to rise to thank the gentleman for his, as I say, fidelity to this objective, which is, after all, the critical agenda for our country.

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.

I thank the gentleman for his information. The last bill he says will be on the floor, I presume that it will be on the floor on Wednesday. Is that accurate?

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman for that information.

As the gentleman knows, in the last Congress the Homeland Security Committee, chaired by Mr. McCaul, passed out of the committee a bipartisan bill that was supported--as a matter of fact, I think it was reported out by voice vote, and it was supported by Chairman McCaul and Ranking Member Thompson, as well as Republicans and Democrats from the committee.

As you know, so far this month in January we have spent time, frankly, recycling what we perceive to be partisan bills from the last Congress. Unfortunately, it appears that we are going to do the same thing next week, and I ask the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, we have a bipartisan bill that just months ago was supported by Democrats and Republicans, reported out of committee, not brought to the floor, unfortunately, but reported out of committee I think unanimously, or at least without voiced opposition, and now instead of taking that bill up, which we know has broad bipartisan support, we have a bill that is now going to be reported to the floor without going to committee, without being marked up--excuse me, it was marked up yesterday. I am corrected. It was filed and marked up within hours of one another, no considered judgment, no hearings. It may have been marked up, but no hearings, no notice to the public that the bill was pending, no opportunity for the public or Members to look at it. As I understand it, the committee was organized yesterday at 10 a.m., and this bill was considered at 2 p.m. or some time in that timeframe.

But my concern, Mr. Leader, is that we continue to go down the path of having bipartisan agreements worked out in committee, and now at the beginning of this Congress we are simply seeing partisan bill after partisan bill.

I understand that your side had a victory in the election and expanded your membership. However, the President, as he pointed out, is still in office, and in order to get something done--we are all for border security. That is why the committee reported out the bill in the last Congress. We had agreement on it. I lament the fact that we didn't bring the bipartisan bill, which would have gotten overwhelming support, in my opinion. Substituting that on Wednesday, where we are going to come in at

9 and go out at 12, we will have a rule on that, maybe the rule the day before. There will be a very short time to consider this.

We are bringing a partisan bill that is going to engender a lot of opposition on our side. It is going to be opposed by Mr. Thompson. It is so unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that having achieved bipartisan agreement on a priority item, that is, border security, that within hours yesterday we turned that into a partisan bill on which there is neither consensus nor widespread agreement.

I am sure the gentleman had the opportunity to hear a quote about the first 3 weeks of this session from one of his Republican Members, Mr. Dent, who talked about week one being, of course, the Speakership election.

Then week two, we got into a big fight over deporting children under DREAMers, which I thought we had a consensus on, but we got into a big fight about that.

And week three, we talked about rape and incest and, frankly, a partisan bill on a very, very important subject which did not have significant consideration and was substituted at 9 p.m. last night, no committee hearing, no committee input, no testimony available for that bill.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, we understand there are going to be differences between the Republican side and the Democratic side on issues, but repeatedly, Mr. Speaker, I hear the Speaker and the majority leader and others talk about a transparent Congress. I hear them talk about regular order and how they are going to return to that, and how they are going to have consideration of bills. The majority leader himself was quoted a number of times saying we are going to have 72 hours.

The bill that we just considered on this floor had less, frankly, than 12 hours before it was brought to this floor out of the Rules Committee. I would hope, Mr. Leader, that if you are going to go through with this border security bill--we will have an argument about it, and it will be largely a partisan vote on it. That is unfortunate, because we ought to be coming together, working together, creating consensus on making sure our borders are secure, as happened in the last Congress but is not repeated here.

I will be glad to yield to my friend.

I don't know whether this is going to be a closed rule or not. If I were betting, though, based upon the first 3 weeks of this session, I would bet it is going to be a closed rule or a structured rule with very, very few amendments, given the timeframe available to us.

I would say that we are very concerned on this side of the aisle, Mr. Leader, I will tell the Speaker that we are concerned about the closed processes that we are going through, the partisan processes that we are going through, and the lack of transparency and consideration that is being given to the bills that are coming to this floor.

I yield to my friend.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I am not sure I heard. Do you think it is going to come up on a closed rule or a structured rule? I am sorry. Did you mention that?

I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I would find it shocking if a bill ever came to this floor that precluded all debate. The gentleman is telling me it is going to come up and there will be time for debate. I don't know that I have ever been here where a bill came up that had no time for debate, so I assume that, Mr. Speaker, to be the case.

The question is: Will there be an opportunity for Members to offer amendments so that perhaps we can get back to the bipartisan bill that was reported out of the committee and leave the partisan parts of that bill for further discussion, debate, and amendment? We would like to have the opportunity to vote on such an amendment.

I ask my friend again, there is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that I believe there will be time for debate. It won't be very much time, I presume, but I presume there will be time for debate.

But will there be time to offer alternative views and provisions to that bill as it is debated?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman--I don't know the answer, but I thank the gentleman for his observation.

I would observe, though, he mentioned a heroes bill. That was obviously overwhelmingly a bipartisan bill. You didn't hear me complain about that or anybody else complain about it.

Right.

The Keystone bill, however, which I think is a very important issue, was made partisan. The 30- to 40-hour workweek was made partisan.

The Regulatory Accountability Act, as the gentleman mentioned--excuse me, the Financial Services--that bill was changed. It was changed without a hearing. It was changed without public testimony, as I had a personal discussion, Mr. Speaker, with the majority leader about the change that occurred from the House bill that was passed.

So that bill was made, again, a partisan piece of legislation. Unfortunately, it could have passed on suspension, I think, as it did the year before, had it not been changed.

On the pipeline permitting legislation, again, not a bipartisan bill. This bill that we just considered, obviously very partisan, but no hearings and a closed rule.

Again, very important issues brought up and, I would suggest to the gentleman, nontransparent. He mentioned the bill that was filed last Friday, the border security bill, which is coming up Wednesday. The committee organized at 10. This bill was passed sometime shortly after 2--or thereafter. Debate started at 2.

When we talk about transparency, when we talk about regular order, very frankly, on pieces of substantive legislation, regular order, I would suggest,

Mr. Speaker, to the majority leader, is not introducing a bill, then we are off for 3 days, coming back, and the day after organizing the committee without hearings, without any testimony, then passing the bill, and bringing it to the floor, when clearly it is a partisan difference.

We will move on, Mr. Leader. I know you are happy about that.

As the gentleman knows, after next week, we have two 4-day weeks scheduled in February prior to the President's Day recess.

Can the gentleman give me a sense of what legislation will be on the floor in February, again, Mr. Speaker, so that Members can have some knowledge of what might be brought to the floor, so that they can prepare and the public knows what legislation is going to be considered?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman and, again, would emphasize that the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, has made it clear in his statements, both in a book that he and two others coauthored prior to their taking the majority, but he has said numerous times since then about his commitment to transparency, openness, 72-hour rule, which has been 3- day rule--it used to be 72 hours, now 3 days.

Three days, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, can be 26 hours. That is the last hour of the third day and the first hour of the third day. I understand that, but that is not regular order. We have all breached that. We all understand that.

Having said that, this Congress has started with closed rules, no hearings, and anything but regular order. I would urge, Mr. Speaker, that the majority leader try to adhere to that.

As he has observed in the past, if we do that, I think we will have better legislation, greater participation by Members, and reflect better the voice of the American people.

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman.

I don't want to be very cynical, but talk is fine. Performance--as Ronald Reagan said: ``Trust, but verify.'' We can read the talk, we can read the assertions, we can read the promises, but if it is not carried out, the American people are going to be--and continue to be, as they were when the gentleman appealed to them in his book--they are going to be cynical about our actions.

I think Mr. Dent observed it correctly. For the first 3 weeks, we have gone through a partisan practice. Hopefully, we can, Mr. Speaker, skew that in the future, give notice, make sure everybody has the opportunity to participate, make sure that we have the ideas from both parties and the American people, given opportunity to be expressed and, yes, to be included.

Next week, we will bring to the floor, as we have in the past, a bill that skews and abandons bipartisanship, which was achieved in the last Congress through the same committee for a partisan bill on which there will not be agreement. That is unfortunate for the security of our country. It is unfortunate for the due process of this institution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Lemon Henry Moses, Jr., a distinguished community leader in Maryland's Fifth District who passed away on December 10, 2014. He was 94 years old.

Lemon Moses made history as the first African-American to serve as Chairman of the Charles County Liquor Board. All of us who knew Lemon saw how deeply devoted he was to his family, his community, and his country. He gave so much of himself to all three, and he will be fondly remembered by the many whose lives he touched across Charles County and Maryland.

After growing up in Savannah, Georgia, Lemon moved to Pittsburgh in his youth and was a singer and tap dancer in a local Vaudeville troupe called the `Kandy Kids,' where he befriended Gene Kelly before he became famous. Attending Howard University in Washington, DC, Lemon studied mechanical engineering, and when World War II broke out, he joined the U.S. Navy and served his country as a sailor in the Pacific Theater of Operations. When the war ended, he began a career with the U.S. Postal Service that lasted forty-four years, where he served in a number of leadership positions.

Lemon became involved in the Civil Rights Movement in 1947, when he worked to integrate his local school district while serving as president of a parent-teacher association. In the Postal Service, he held the role of Eastern Region Vice President for the Postal Service Supervisors and made equal rights a focus of his work there. President Lyndon Johnson later appointed Lemon as an Equal Employment Opportunity Specialist to handle discrimination complaints in Congress. In 1974, he moved to Waldorf, in Charles County, where he became very active in the County's chapter of the NAACP. In addition to a trailblazing service on the Charles County Liquor Board, Lemon also spent five years on the board of directors for what is now the University of Maryland Charles Regional Medical Center and was active in Chapter 3885 of the AARP.

Lemon was a devoted husband, father, grandfather, and great- grandfather. He is survived by his wife of seventy-three years, Elaine Moses, as well as his daughter Yvonne Beatrice Buford and her husband Walter; and his son Mike Moses and his wife Delores. In addition to them, four grandchildren, and eight great-grandchildren, Lemon is survived by a community to which he had devoted so much of his time and energy both before and during his retirement. He was an active member of St. Peter's Catholic Church in Waldorf, where family and friends bade farewell in a moving funeral mass on December 18, 2014.

I join in expressing my condolences to Elaine and to the entire Moses family, and I

thank them for sharing Lemon with all of us for the many years in which he did so much good for the people and communities of Charles County and for our country. As I remarked at his funeral, Lemon Moses was no lemon--he was a peach, a pear, and an apple, and all of our lives were made sweeter because of his.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the life of David Lawrence Levy, a pioneering children's rights leader and advocate for joint parenting, who passed away last month. A longtime resident of Hyattsville, MD, which is in the Fifth District, David had battled cancer for several years with tenacity, determination, and infectious optimism. Sadly, he lost that battle on December 11, 2014, when he passed away at the age of 78.

David co-founded the National Council for Children's Rights--now called the Children's Rights Council--in 1985 and served as its CEO until 2008 and President of its Board until 2009. During that time, he fought for policies at the local, state, and federal level that promoted shared parenting with joint custody of children after divorce and encouraged courts to place the needs and well-being of children first. The title of a book David edited in 1994 summed up well the mission of the organization he had built: ``The Best Parent is Both Parents.'' He oversaw the creation of the Children's Rights Council's access and visitation centers--including its flagship center in Prince George's County--which provide neutral locations for separated parents to drop off and pick up their children and a place where supervised visitation can take place. In October 2009, David was named as one of the ``25 Most Influential People in our Children's Lives'' by Children's Health magazine, alongside Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, Melinda Gates, and Taylor Swift.

David was a native of New York and received his undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Florida before settling in Hyattsville, which is in Prince George's County. Early in his career, he spent several years working as a copyright lawyer at the Library of Congress. David was also an accomplished author, having published several works ranging from fiction novels to articles in the Washington Post and other papers. He served as President of the Beth Torah Congregation in Hyattsville and later was an active member of Tifereth Israel Congregation in Washington, DC., where family, friends, and local community leaders gathered on December 14 to pay tribute to David at his funeral service.

David is survived by his wife Ellen, their daughter Diana and her husband Danny, his son Justin and his wife Ilana, and his granddaughter Corina. He also leaves behind many friends, neighbors, and extended family who will fondly remember David for his warmth, his sense of humor, and his enthusiasm for life. I join in offering my condolences to his family, in mourning this loss to our community and our country, and in celebrating his extraordinary life.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee for the work that he has done on this bill. I want to thank the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations and Mr. Price for working on this bill.

This bill is an appropriation bill. This bill funds the Department that is charged with the responsibility of keeping America safe and Americans safe. This bill is an appropriation bill. It is against the rules of the House of Representatives to put legislative language on an appropriation bill.

Now, frankly, having served there 20, 30 years, I know that that rule is not always followed; and you, therefore, need a waiver from the Rules Committee in order to effect this end. This is not, therefore, regular order.

We just had another demonstration of the clear and present danger to which every citizen in the free world is subject. We saw it in France, and 17 people lost their lives.

We, of course, lost over 3,000 lives on 9/11. This is an issue on which there ought to be no difference among the 435 of us who have the privilege and honor of serving in this country and in this Congress.

Mr. Hensarling raised his right hand to preserve and protect, yes, the Constitution and laws thereof, but also to preserve and protect the general welfare of all of our people. That is what this bill seeks to do.

Mr. Chairman, there are many compelling reasons why the House must pass a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security without delay. I have spoken to some of them. We saw one of those reasons all too clearly last week, as I have said. Our Homeland Security agencies are hard at work every day to prevent incidents like those from occurring here in the United States, and how extraordinarily successful they have been since 9/11.

Again, Chairman Carter and Ranking Member Lowey, I want to congratulate you for coming together and agreeing on a bill, agreeing on funding levels, and agreeing on the objects of expenditures to keep Americans and America safe. But with only a continuing resolution to fund it, as has happened in December, the Department does not have the full flexibility necessary to respond to every threat to the best of its ability. This leaves us vulnerable at a time when we cannot afford to be vulnerable. That is why it is so unfortunate that House Republicans have chosen to play political games.

If this is, in fact, unconstitutional, the courts are set forth, in article III, to resolve this issue. If you feel so strongly that you are right, that is where relief should be sought. But let us not hold America's national security and the safety of our people hostage to that political difference. In doing so, you have managed to snatch partisanship from the jaws of consensus. We have agreement. The underlying bill before us will have the support of over 400 Members.

Over 400 Members would support the underlying bill. Wouldn't it be wonderful to show to the American public that we come together not in a partisan way, but as Americans to make sure they are as safe and secure as we can make them? But, no, we have denigrated this debate to a political debate about a difference between the President and the Congress. Now, that is a significant debate to have, but not on this bill, not where we have consensus, not where the American security is at risk if we fail.

Two of the amendments are solely designed to undermine the executive actions President Obama took to address our broken immigration system. We think they are appropriate; you don't. That is fine. That is a political difference. Do not defeat consensus because we have differences on an unrelated issue.

You will say it is related because this is, after all, the agency that deals with immigration and border security. I get that.

I thank the gentlewoman.

Mr. Chairman, we will vote against these amendments. But the sad truth is you know, all of you, that if those amendments are put on this bill, the President of the United States will not sign it, and you will therefore have to take it him to court. And I see my friend back there--who is my friend--saying, yes, that is great, he won't sign it, and we will blame him for undermining Homeland Security.

In other words, you are going to hold hostage the security, and if he doesn't do what you say, security be damned. That is not the way we ought to be running America, particularly on this issue. Americans expect better of us. More importantly, and as importantly, we ought to expect better of ourselves.

The Appropriations Committee has agreed. The Senate and the House have agreed. There is consensus here. Americans are so frustrated by all of us grabbing defeat, obstruction, and disagreement from the jaws of consensus.

Vote against these amendments so that all of us can vote to pass this important, critical bill.

I thank the gentlewoman.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say to my friend, as I observed, I think there is a legitimate question here. No one wants to see you silenced. Everyone thinks you have the right. You are a party, and you individually and collectively have the right to bring up this issue. What we urge you not to do is put at risk the passing of a Homeland Security bill which gives funding for a year's period so there will be stability and the ability to manage the national security of our country while, at the same time, on a parallel basis, raising legitimate questions that you want to take. So no one denies or wants to preclude you from the opportunity to do so.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of our own, Joe Strickland, the Chief Reporter of Debates, on his retirement from the House after more than 21 years of service.

Joe Strickland is a native Texan. He came to the House in 1993, 2 years after graduating from court reporting school. He quickly distinguished himself not only as an excellent court reporter but as a very capable manager. In 2000, the Clerk of the House promoted Joe to Deputy Chief Reporter and made him Chief in 2005.

Joe has participated in seven State of the Union addresses by three Presidents, and he has developed a global reputation as a leader in reporting parliamentary debates.

Joe has represented the House abroad on several occasions, Mr. Speaker, including participating in the World e-Parliament Conference in Johannesburg.

Here at home, Joe has addressed the national convention of the National Court Reporters Association three times, and he has served on the board of the Greater Washington Shorthand Reporters Association.

Mr. Speaker, the House has lost a great resource and role model for the 43 dedicated professionals Joe manages. One of the reporters, of course, is on the floor reporting this now, and we thank her, and we thank all of those who have to listen to us and report what we say. That is a tough job. But I know that Joe will continue to inspire those who serve in the reporting office.

I join, and I know all of my colleagues join, in honoring Joe Strickland, thanking him for his service to this House. We wish him a very happy retirement, full of time spent with his husband, Tom, and their son, Kevin. I thank him for his service to the Congress and to our country.

``No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty-five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

``The actual enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come. So at this point, I am pleased to yield to my friend from California (Mr. McCarthy), the majority leader.

I thank the gentleman for the information he has given us.

First, Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the majority leader for bringing to the floor in a timely fashion the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, which we passed overwhelmingly in a bipartisan fashion. I think that it was very, very important that we got that through the House early. As the majority leader knows, the Senate has already passed that bill, and it is on its way to the President. That, obviously, will raise the confidence level of those who are going to create jobs and enter into construction projects. It is very important for our economy and for our communities. So I thank the majority leader for his quick action and leadership on that issue.

Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful the majority leader can inform us of what form the Department of Homeland Security appropriation bill will come to the floor. And what I mean by ``what form,'' the committee bill, obviously, will be supported almost unanimously on both sides-- certainly on this side of the aisle unanimously--if, in fact, it is the funding levels that resulted from the agreement between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party and passed overwhelmingly, known as the Ryan-Murray budget numbers.

The committee marked up its bill, reported it out. It was included in the omnibus. But it was included, as the gentleman knows, only until February 27.

Can the gentleman tell me whether that will come to the floor as reported out of committee? And when I say ``committee,'' I mean the House Appropriations Committee. Or when reported out, will it be considered under a rule? And if considered under a rule, will that rule allow amendments?

And I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman.

I am pretty sure I understand exactly what the gentleman said. Therefore, those amendments will be offered on the floor and will not be incorporated in the base bill?

I thank the gentleman.

When will the hearing on the rule be held so that our Members can know; so that if they have amendments they would like to offer, they can appear at the Rules Committee?

And I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for that, and I will make sure that our Members know that.

Mr. Speaker, I know the Speaker just held a moment of silence--and I will be saying something in a few minutes--on the tragic events that have happened in France, the loss of life in the initial incident, in the hostage-taking, and of the law enforcement officer. Clearly this was in France, but we know that we are all vulnerable in all of the free world.

I would urge the majority leader to ensure that the Homeland Security bill passes this House in a bipartisan fashion. And what I mean by that is, I know there are going to be amendments offered. I know his side of the aisle is very concerned and believes--and he has asserted--that the actions taken by the President were unconstitutional. We do not share that view, as the gentleman knows, that they were unconstitutional. We believe the executive was within his authority and prosecutorial discretion on the executive side of the government. But we also know that that issue is going to be an issue of substantial debate, discussion, and I am sure other legislative actions.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge the majority leader to--I think it is in the best interest making sure the Homeland Security bill is passed so there is no doubt as to the resources that the Homeland Security Department will have to protect all Americans, to protect our homeland, and to coordinate extensively.

Secretary Johnson has made statements this week that the failure to have full funding for the Department of Homeland Security has already impeded his ability and the Department's ability to act fully on behalf of the security of this country.

So, Mr. Majority Leader, I know that all 435 of us are committed to making sure that we do everything we can to keep our homeland safe and our people safe. And I would hope that we would have nothing included in the bill which would be very controversial, reflecting our differences, when the underlying bill, I think, is not controversial, when the underlying bill is something on which we can almost unanimously, I think, agree and is something that ought to be passed and ought to be signed by the President and ought to give the Department of Homeland Security the full resources it needs to keep America safe.

And I would be glad to yield to my friend, the majority leader.

I thank the gentleman.

I look forward to working with him next week to hopefully achieve the passage of a bill that will not prove controversial in the Senate or with the President of the United States so that this can be effective, as the gentleman observed, as quickly as possible. I appreciate him bringing it to the floor, and I also appreciate the fact that the amendments are going to be considered separately. And I would hope that we

could join together in opposing amendments which will undermine the bipartisanship of the legislation.

We have 3-day weeks coming up now. We will have a couple of short weeks when the Republicans go to their retreat, their issues conference, and then when the Democrats go to their issues conference.

I would ask if you could give me a sense of the legislation that will be on for the remainder of the month.

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman.

And lastly, Mr. Leader, if I could ask you about the border security bill. It is my understanding that the border bill could be coming to the floor this month. And I know that the gentleman from Texas, Chairman McCaul, has said that Republican leaders are getting close-- and I am quoting--to having a separate border policy bill ready to go. I know they, referring to the Republican leadership, want Homeland appropriations on the floor next week, as we have already discussed. So what is going to be tied to that is unclear at this point, but we are working on a border bill right now.

Now, as you know, Mr. Leader, the McCaul border bill passed out of committee either on voice vote or unanimously, with both parties agreeing. And, in fact, the Democrats in the last Congress, in the comprehensive immigration bill that we introduced, included dropping the Senate border security bill and putting in the McCaul bill, as the gentleman undoubtedly knows, because we believed that was the better approach.

Can the gentleman tell me, will the McCaul bill, as passed in the last Congress, be the border bill that will be reported? Or does the majority leader know that at this point in time?

I thank the gentleman.

And I hope that we can, as we did in the first iteration of the McCaul bill, have a unanimous bipartisan agreement because all of us want to make sure the border is, in fact, secure again, as we want to see that the Homeland Security Department has its full complement of resources to protect the American people.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise, as I know all Americans would rise if they were here, to express our solidarity with, our sympathy to, and our convictions for a strong alliance with the people of France.

The despicable and tragic murder in Paris on Tuesday of journalists and those who protected them ought to be a reminder that we cannot and must not take for granted the freedoms we enjoy living in a democracy.

The men and women who were targeted in Paris on Wednesday were cartoonists whose job was to use humor to make people question their leaders and their most cherished principles. Freedom of speech, protected in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, which was read today on this floor, means nothing if that speech can be intimidated and shuttered by violence.

The principles that we speak of were part of a long tradition in France and in this country of bringing the loftiest of people and ideas down to Earth through the power of satire.

Freedom of the press and free expression of ideas are a necessary check against tyranny and oppression. They are as much a part of democracy as the right to vote and due process in court.

Mr. Speaker, in attacking these journalists, the terrorists made their target clear, and that is freedom itself--freedom in America, freedom in France, freedom throughout the world, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and freedom of dissent.

The taking of innocent hostages at a kosher market today further demonstrated the terrorists' utter disregard for the ``liberty, equality, and brotherhood'' that are the foundation of the French democracy and the American democracy.

The democratic nations of the world must continue to stand up to those who wish to stifle the basic freedoms that all people deserve. I know that all 435 Members of this Congress are united in that conviction. I join with all of my colleagues in offering my condolences to the families of the victims and to the French people.

Mr. Speaker, in that regard, I articulate what has just been demonstrated by all by standing in silence, just as President Kennedy declared, ``Ich bin ein Berliner,'' and newspapers around the world after 9/11 read, ``We are all Americans.''

Today, all freedom-loving people around the world join together in solidarity to say, ``We are all Charlie''--``Nous'' sommes tous Charlie.''