Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate and recognize Jim Xinis and his twenty-five years at the helm of Calvert Memorial Hospital. Jim has been a tireless fighter to ensure the best service for the people of Calvert County and throughout southern Maryland.

Jim is an honest, confident, creative, and inspiring leader. He's been an effective manager and a visionary. His twenty-five years leading Calvert Memorial Hospital have been a period of growth and change that have increased quality, efficiency, and innovation for the benefit of patients and their families.

I will never forget how, in the summer of 2009, when the nation was engaged in a heated debate over passage of the Affordable Care Act, I asked Jim to facilitate a town hall meeting at North Point High School so I could hear from residents of the Fifth Congressional District on this important issue. It was quite a meeting with over 1,500 in attendance--and Jim displayed such grace and tact in keeping the meeting focused over several hours on the issues at hand and making sure everyone had a chance to weigh in. It was no easy task.

But Jim has never been one for easy tasks. Recognizing the challenge of rising health care costs and affordability, Jim created Calvert Healthcare Solutions, which serves the uninsured throughout the county. And under his leadership, Calvert Memorial Hospital has been the lowest cost hospital in Maryland for twenty consecutive years, with a reputation for providing a full range of services at a very high quality of care. At the same time, he has worked to preserve its warm community spirit, where patients can feel comfortable, cared for, and empowered. Jim's good humor and positive attitude have surely contributed to his effective leadership and his reputation for excellence.

I wish him well in retirement and thank him for his extraordinary service to Calvert County, to Maryland, and to our nation.

Mr. Speaker, the Anacostia Watershed Society, a nonprofit organization based in Maryland and Washington, DC tasked with restoring the Anacostia River for the health and enjoyment of its watershed communities, is celebrating its 25th anniversary this year. Since its founding, it has been cleaning the water, recovering the shores, and honoring the heritage of the Anacostia River for the benefit of all who live in its watershed and for visitors.

Founded in 1989 by Robert Boone, the Anacostia Watershed Society overcame early challenges as it sought to raise awareness of the deteriorating health of the river and its watershed after nearly two hundred years of urban settlement and industrial activity. Mr. Boone worked with local activists and attorneys to take steps to turn the situation around by working to relocate plans to build a new football stadium away from the river, to stop the Navy Yard from dumping toxic waste into the water, and to end the flow of sewage into the river--a project that will be completed in 2022 with the opening of underground tunnels built to capture and treat sewage overflows.

During this time, Mr. Boone and program manager Jim Connolly were also working to raise consciousness in the local community about the river. Mr. Boone and Mr. Connolly hosted trash clean-ups, tree plantings, and numerous public events to get Marylanders and Washingtonians engaged with the river and to promote it as a source of outdoor recreation. The programs and events they developed in the early days of the Anacostia Watershed Society set the stage for the many important activities the organization undertakes today.

Over the next twenty-five years, the Anacostia Watershed Society grew to become a powerful advocate for the river, its watershed, and the communities it benefits. The organization has expanded to include four departments essential to its success: Stewardship, Education, Advocacy, and Recreation. The Anacostia Watershed Society engages local residents of all ages in the cleanup and restoration of the river while involving the community in advocating for policies to reduce and regulate the pollutants entering its waters.

I have been proud to serve as an advocate for the Anacostia and its watershed throughout my time in Congress. My first association with the Anacostia Watershed Society was as a cosponsor of an Earth Day boat tour of the river, aimed at gaining attention in Congress for the Society's advocacy efforts. Later, I was proud to work in Congress to promote policies authorizing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to help restore the Anacostia. Throughout my involvement with the Anacostia Watershed Society, I have met many engaged and energized local activists who are deeply concerned about the future not only of the river but of our region as a sustainable place to raise healthy families.

The Anacostia Watershed Society's vision for the future includes a river that is fishable and swimmable--as per the Clean Water Act--and serves as an urban oasis and destination for those in Maryland, Washington, DC, and visitors from around the country. I congratulate its members on twenty-five years of service to the communities of our region, and I look forward to continue to work with them to advance the Society's mission for many years to come.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank the gentleman for his leadership. I thank Mr. McKeon for his leadership.

We will see today a bipartisan action, bipartisan action on behalf of America, on behalf of its security, on behalf of our international partners in confronting terrorism.

Madam Speaker, today, the House is fulfilling one of its most important responsibilities: to protect our national security and defend our interests overseas. Among those interests is to prevent the dangerous ISIL terrorist group from spreading and threatening American personnel, our allies, and innocent civilians.

The amendment before us will authorize the President to train and equip moderate Syrian opposition to degrade and destroy ISIL in Iraq and Syria. No sanctuaries, no place to hide. ISIL is already threatening Americans and our allies in the Middle East and Europe; and, if left unchecked, it will surely threaten us here at home.

This amendment is Congress' opportunity to demonstrate unity in support of the President's strategy and provide him with the authorization he needs to help train and equip our regional partners to go on the offense against ISIL. ISIL has already murdered and captured soldiers, innocent civilians, and journalists, including, of course, two Americans, and members of religious communities have been targeted, targeted for their faith. They are no more than a collection of criminal terrorists bent on imposing their fanatical objectives on others by force, violence, and barbarism.

ISIL constitutes a dual threat. They pose a counterterrorism threat to the United States and our regional partners and they represent a destabilizing force in the region.

Madam Speaker, we cannot ignore the challenge that ISIL presents to America and to the world. There is no question that there will be challenges. But we know empirically the cost of doing nothing is far too great.

The President was right to wait until a government had been formed in Iraq that is ready to move forward against ISIL. Americans don't want American women and men on the ground, but Americans do want ISIL confronted. Congress has an important role to play in this effort, and this amendment ought to be a strong and clear message to the world that the American people, through their elected representatives, will join those in the region to prevent the terrorist group ISIL from running rampant across the Middle East.

It is a message to our allies and regional partners that our Nation is prepared to train and equip those who are working to stop ISIL's advance. And it is a message to the world that we are united in our resolve to meet this threat. We clearly may have differences on this House floor, but we are Americans when it comes to defending our people and our country.

Madam Speaker, with regard to the underlying bill, the continuing resolution, let me make some brief comments.

House Republicans have chosen not to repeat their government shutdown from last year. I think they are making a wise decision.

There are things I would change in this bill, just as I know there are things my friends on the Republican side would change in this bill. That is compromise. That is the legislative process. That is what our Founding Fathers envisioned. That, in fact, is governing.

I am hopeful that this continuing resolution will give Congress the time it needs to complete work on appropriations for the fiscal year 2015 that meet our obligations to the American people and to America's future.

We need a budget that embraces fiscal sustainability while investing in job growth and competitiveness so that we can grow our middle class.

While it is important that Congress move forward with this 72-day funding bill, I am disappointed, Madam Speaker, that we are not extending the Export-Import Bank's charter for multiple years. Not doing so is another example of undermining our competitive position for the world and the competence of our job creators.

As CNBC pointed out last week:

At first glance, it might seem like a congressional deal to

extend the Export-Import Bank's charter through June would be

good news for the beleaguered institution, which supports

American exports with loan guarantees and other credit

assistance. In fact, it is the exact opposite. An extension

to June could be a death sentence for the bank.

I sincerely pray it is not.

Congress has a responsibility to make sure the bank's charter is extended beyond June. We need a multiyear reauthorization along the lines of the one proposed by Ranking Member Waters and Representative Denny Heck.

The Export-Import Bank is instrumental in helping small businesses access foreign markets, and uncertainty over its future has already cost American businesses lucrative trade deals.

I urge us between now and June to come together in a bipartisan way to move forward with legislation that achieves this goal. I believe if the House is allowed to vote, we will achieve that objective, as we have in the past.

While I oppose this provision, I will vote for the amendment and for final passage of the continuing resolution, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I think it is in the best interest of America, the best interest of our national security, and I urge this House to act in a way that will make our constituents proud and safer.

Madam Speaker, sadly, the majority is pressing forward later this week with two partisan messaging bills cloaked in the rhetoric of creating jobs and expanding opportunity, bills that actually do neither.

We will today and tomorrow, for the most part, I think, proceed in a bipartisan fashion, where we will have views on both sides of the aisle that agree and that disagree with the actions we will take on the continuing resolution and the amendment that will be considered to give authority to the President of the United States to train and equip those who are confronting ISIL. However, after we consider that, we will proceed again on the partisan messaging bills of which I spoke. This, unfortunately, has been the pattern throughout the 112th and the 113th, this Congress.

The American people are rightfully disgusted--in some cases, despairing--and certainly tired of the partisan games that lead only to gridlock that have made this Congress the most unproductive Congress in which I have served. This is my 17th Congress.

The American people are tired of watching the Republican majority walk away from their responsibilities to govern in a bipartisan way. They are tired of Republicans walking away from our middle class when they have refused to raise the minimum wage,

which has a majority of votes on this floor for passage.

The minimum wage today, if it were in 2014 dollars and 1968 levels, would be $10.77. That means those at the lowest ranks of earners in America have seen their buying power degraded by over 40 percent since 1968, and yet we won't even bring it to the floor. When I say ``we,'' the Republican majority won't even bring it to the floor for a vote, and it has a majority of votes in my opinion.

They won't bring a bill to the floor that ensures equal pay for equal work. Every woman in this House and every man in this House except for the leadership are paid exactly the same thing irrespective of their gender. Americans believe that is the right thing to do. We can't get a bill to the floor.

We need to make higher education more affordable. Student loans have the ability to be refinanced just as mortgages can be refinanced. We can't get such a bill to the floor.

They are tired of Republicans' obsession with undoing the patient protections and cost savings of health care reform. We spent 4 years pretending that we were going to repeal it as opposed to fixing that which could be made better on behalf of the American people.

They are tired of watching Republicans walk away from every opportunity to get our fiscal House in order, as they did with the Biden talks; the Boehner-Obama negotiations; the supercommittee, composed of an equal number of Republicans and Democrats; walked away from averting the sequester; shut down the government; and several missed opportunities to pursue fiscal sustainability.

The American people are, as I said, distressed, dismayed, and, indeed, angry at the Congress, all of us, because they see their board of directors of the greatest country on the face of the Earth not working.

They are tired of Republicans' failure to move forward with bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform. That, again, has the votes on this floor to pass, but they don't bring it to the floor.

The Republican Congress has made it clear that their message to America is: You are on your own.

You are not earning enough minimum wage? You are on your own.

You lost your unemployment insurance? You are on your own.

Sandy comes and visits the Atlantic Katrina visited. And what did we do on Sandy? We said, You are on your own. A majority of Republicans-- an overwhelming majority of Republicans--voted against helping those who were struck by Sandy.

Export-Import Bank. You are in a business that is trying to export goods. You are getting a little help. You are being competitive with the rest of the world. What does this Congress say? You are on your own. Yes, we are going to extend it for a short period of time, but there are a majority of votes on this floor to extend it for a number of years, which will give confidence to the economy and to exporters and lenders that it will be in place. But what did we say? You are on your own.

You want to buy a home? Well, the chairman of the Financial Services Committee wants to eliminate Fannie and Freddie and say, Yes, you are on your own.

You need terrorism risk insurance to build and get a loan for commercial construction? It is not on the floor. You are on your own.

The American people are upset with us--and rightfully so. I am upset with us. This Republican Congress has made it clear that it is about political messaging and nothing else. That is what they said to women when they voted against the Violence Against Women Act, an act which had passed overwhelmingly in a bipartisan fashion when it was adopted and when it was reauthorized, but this Congress could not get a majority of the Republicans to vote for it. It passed after 8 months of delay because Democrats voted overwhelmingly for it--what they said to small business owners when they voted against that Sandy relief, and it is what they told unemployed workers when they voted not to extend emergency unemployment.

While House Republicans are using September to continue sending messages to the American people, House Democrats are talking about lifting up the middle class, giving a jump-start to the middle class. This month will be one of sharp contrast and, yes, next month and, yes, November.

There are choices to be made, a sharp contrast. The overwhelming majority of the American people are for every one of the issues that I have just mentioned. Poll after poll after poll shows them to be so.

There will be a contrast between obstruction and progress--between Republicans who have said their number one priority is winning an election and Democrats who want to win the battle for economic equality and economic opportunity for the American people.

The American people deserve a Congress that is on their side. House Democrats are committed to doing what is necessary to jump-start our middle class, create good jobs, and open doors of opportunity for all Americans.

Jump-starting the middle class means helping more of our businesses make it in America and create jobs that pay well. We, by the way, passed yesterday ``Make It In America'' legislation--good legislation, bipartisan legislation. It was done on a voice vote. The reason it was done on a voice vote is because there was some concern that a large number of Republicans might vote against it. That would have been a bad vote for them, so we passed it on a voice vote.

It means equal pay for equal work and greater access to affordable child care. It means access to higher education, spanning job training and opportunity. It means enabling more Americans to own a home, save for retirement, and know with certainty their children will be better off than we are and that they were.

That, Madam Speaker, is what the American people expect us to do. It is so sad that we haven't been doing it. It is so sad that we cannot have the House work its will, which is, of course, what the Republicans said in their pledge to America. That is what the young guns told us they were going to do. We have had more closed rules than any Congress in which I have served. That means that ideas can't be put forward.

Madam Speaker, the American public will have a choice between a stark contrast of who is on their side. Let's hope the next Congress is a Congress of which the American people can be proud.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The gentleman and I have discussed this, and I believe he has taken the appropriate action in this instance, and we certainly support his determination.

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

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

Before asking him questions about the schedule for the week to come, I want to commend the gentleman. We had a meeting just a few minutes ago in which almost all the Members of the House rose in a moment of silence, Mr. Speaker, to remember those not only who lost their lives on 9/11 13 years ago, but also those who acted so heroically to save lives.

We certainly remember those brave individuals that knew what was going on and took that plane down in Pennsylvania that we believe was undoubtedly directed towards the dome of the Capitol to decapitate the symbol of the world's greatest democracy.

I want to thank the majority leader for leading us in that time of silence to remember that horrific event and to say, as he said just a few moments ago, we are still threatened by those who would use terror and barbarism to attack their own people and others around the world.

So I thank the gentleman for his leadership on that issue, and I also thank him for his comments about the fact that we came together on 9/11 not as Democrats and Republicans, but as Americans. We now are at a similar time where there is a great threat posed to us and to others.

The gentleman's suggestion that we would meet that with the same kind of bipartisanship is welcomed on this side of the aisle as well, so I thank the gentleman for that.

Now, with respect to the schedule, Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether or not--and it may not have been decided yet--whether or not the President's request to which the gentleman referred in his announcement and the CR would be considered together or separately?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman.

Let me ask further--and I know the answer to this question is that we will have to see, but I have put our own Caucus on notice, Mr. Leader-- if we may need to be here for the week after the break for the holy days. Is that consistent with your thought?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman.

With respect to the Appropriations Committee and the CR, it is our expectation that the CR is scheduled to have a date of December 11. I notice Senator Cruz has made another suggestion. To clarify, is December 11 still the date that the majority is looking for to run the CR through?

I yield to my friend.

Lastly, I would say that the majority leader and I have had discussions about this, and so he knows our strong conviction on this side of the aisle that we are still very hopeful that we could have a longer term extension of a reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. We believe that it is very important to give some stability and competence to the marketplace, to lenders and borrowers and manufacturers, large, medium, and small. I hope the gentleman would continue to consider with his caucus the possibility of having a longer term reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, which, as the gentleman knows, expires on September 30.

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, September should be a particularly important month for this House. It will be a month of contrasts. It will be a month in which the American people will be able to see that the Republican message to the American people is, ``You are on your own,'' while Democrats say, ``We are on your side.''

All right. Well, what does that mean? The Republicans' announced agenda for this month ought to be no surprise to anyone who has been paying attention to the gridlock in Congress.

Instead of focusing on the issues that matter--creating jobs, raising the minimum wage, fixing our broken immigration system--they are planning to reintroduce partisan messaging bills the House has already passed.

So we are repeating what we have already done, as little as that may be.

Mr. Speaker, it appears as if the Republican House majority in the 113th Congress will go out much as it came in: fixated on a single goal. The Republican chairman of the Rules Committee, Pete Sessions, summed up that goal late last year when he said--and I quote Congressman Sessions, Republican chairman of the Rules Committee: ``Everything we do in this body should be about messaging to win back the Senate.'' Not about creating jobs, not about making America more secure, not about energy, not about the minimum wage, not about immigration reform, not about making sure that women get equal pay for equal work, not about any of those things. The chairman of the Rules Committee that controls how we consider legislation on this floor said it is about messaging so we can take back the Senate.

All of us should remember that when Senator McConnell was asked a few years ago in the first term of the President of the United States, Barack Obama, he said, when asked, What is your major objective? his response was, To ensure that President Obama is a one-term President. Again, not about jobs, not about the economy, not about growing the middle class, not about making sure voting rights were secured, but making sure that President Obama only served one term. He failed in that objective, but the fact of the matter is they have stayed on that messaging and objective.

Central to achieving that goal Republicans believe is to repeal or undermine the Affordable Care Act. And it comes without a shock to anyone that this month will also feature--as a matter of fact, this week--the 53rd vote to do just that.

However, Mr. Speaker, the American people are obviously tired of partisan gridlock. All of us hear that and all of us on both sides of the aisle say we don't want partisan gridlock, but we have seen wasted opportunities in this House over and over again for Congress to make headway on the challenges that we face as a nation.

Many are asking what happened to the promise Republicans made in 2010 when, in their pledge to America, they wrote--and again I quote--in their pledge to America: a plan to create jobs, end economic uncertainty--by the way, they are the ones who threatened to default on the debt twice and who shut down the greatest government on the face of the Earth and the greatest country on the face of the Earth, shut down its government for 16 days at a cost of $24 billion. A plan, they said, to create jobs and economic certainty--it was uncertainty they created--and make America more competitive. They said that must be the first and most urgent domestic priority of our government.

That is what they said in the pledge, but Chairman Sessions said, of course, messaging to take back the Senate was their major objective; therefore, that was a promise forgotten.

Throughout September, House Democrats will be outlining how Republicans have failed to focus on the issues Americans care about and what Congress should be doing instead. House Democrats are ready to jump-start the middle class. That is not just a phrase.

We know the middle class is shrinking, and we know to the extent the middle class is shrinking, America will not be doing as well. We need to expand the middle class, giving opportunities for those who are not in the middle class to climb ladders of opportunity to get into the middle class. We need to move our economy beyond recovery and into prosperity. We are for raising the minimum wage and ensuring equal pay for equal work. The overwhelming majority of Americans are for that.

Poll after poll after poll shows that over 70 percent of America is for those two propositions. In my opinion, both have majority votes on this House floor. But Americans must be surprised that those two issues are not brought to this floor for action so that the people's House can speak.

Now, there may be differences of opinion. Many Republicans may want to vote against the minimum wage, but America deserves to have a vote on that issue, and it has a right to have a vote on making sure that women get paid equally to what men get paid for the same job. They do that in the House of Representatives. Women are paid exactly what men are paid. That is right. That is what ought to happen.

We need to fix our broken immigration system. My friend, Mr. Cantor, who is no longer with us, and I had colloquies, week after week after week, in which Mr. Cantor said, We understand the immigration system is broken. I said, We agree, it is broken. And we have done nothing to fix it.

The Republicans have passed some five or six bills to fix it. They haven't brought their own bills to the floor so that the House could work its will. I don't believe that is the kind of Congress, Mr. Speaker, that America wants. We need to fix that system in a way that secures our border and brings millions out of the shadows.

Mr. Speaker, we need to bring to the floor bipartisan Make It In America jobs bills designed to grow our manufacturing base, help our businesses to compete, and attract jobs that pay well and open doors of opportunity to workers and their families.

The Republican-led committee passed out a bill sponsored by Mr. Lipinski almost unanimously--I think it was on a voice vote--a bill that passed in the last Congress with over 300 votes. I have been asking for the last 10 months that that bill be brought to the floor. All it says is America needs to have a playbook, a plan, a strategy, if you will, to grow our manufacturing sector, create more middle class jobs and compete with the rest of the world. We cannot get that bill to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I don't believe that is the kind of Congress America wants.

These are the issues that the American people want Congress to focus on, not undoing the patient protections and cost savings that health care reform has brought, not rebranding an antiregulatory and antiworker platform as a jobs package that would add--Mr. Speaker, Americans are going to be astounded, legislation we are going to consider this week will add $560 billion to the debt. Now, we passed most of those bills and created a larger debt by more than that $560 billion already, but we are going to do it again--not wasting taxpayers' money and time on partisan lawsuits and investigations, not giving the American people the least productive, and least open Congress in modern history.

The pledge to America talked about transparency. We have had more closed rules in this Congress than any Congress in which I have served.

Mr. Speaker, Americans want leaders who are on their side, not ones who have broken their promises. They need and deserve a people's House that is truly on their side.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, in today's paper, there is an op-ed. It is written by the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the new majority leader. And in that op-ed he said: ``I have always believed that you must win the argument before you can win the vote. In Congress, committees act as idea factories for policies from both sides, and as majority leader, I will commit to the committee process and regular order.''

Apparently, he didn't start yesterday doing that. And we don't start today doing that. This legislation has not been considered by committee, subcommittee, and none of us have seen it at this point in time.

I heard the gentleman from Oklahoma say that the legislation is going to do this, that, and the other.

We haven't seen it. It is 10:15. We haven't seen it. No regular order. No exercising of responsibility. We saw irresponsibility rampant yesterday in the House of Representatives. We saw a few months ago, shutting down government if you don't do it my way.

I will tell the American people, Mr. Speaker, none of the leaders of the Republican Party have reached across to say, how can we do this in a bipartisan way. And so, because of their unwillingness to do that, Mr. Speaker, the Senate is gone. What we do today will be useless, a show, a form without substance, a pretense, a political message to their base of how hard they can be because they are moving in exactly the opposite direction of trying to create bipartisanship.

So I urge my colleagues, stand up for doing the right thing and giving the resources necessary to meet the challenge that America has and America ought to be meeting today and yesterday and the day before.

Mr. Speaker, we would like to work on that. As I said, no option has been given to us for that. Secondly, you are not following regular order on the legislation. What is needed now are resources. And the reason the Senate didn't act is because no Member of your party would support action.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, House Republicans have taken two bad bills that failed to meet the challenge of the humanitarian crisis on the border and made them worse. They are worse for children. They are worse for women. And they are worse for those who were brought here as children, grew up here, and know no other home than America. These bills do not reflect America's values and our highest ideals.

The bills that were put forward yesterday had no chance of seeing action in the Senate. Neither do these. In fact, Representative John Fleming is reported to have said that the supplemental bill is ``political cover'' and that ``not a single Republican in the House believes it'll be signed into law.''

I believe that statement to be absolutely accurate.

Chairwoman Granger, my friend with whom I served on the Appropriations Committee, said, just a few minutes ago, doing nothing is not an option. And I very politely suggest to her what we are doing tonight is nothing.

What we do tonight will not pass, will not solve a problem, will not change policy, and it will not give the needed resources that are necessary. Republicans have once again embraced their ``my way or the highway'' attitude, the same attitude that led to last year's shutdown, instead of reaching across the aisle and working with Democrats on bipartisan legislation that can address this crisis and be enacted.

We are debating a bill that is not only bad in substance, but that was brought to the floor in near secrecy in violation of the Republican majority's own 3-day rule. How ironic. How ironic that Majority Leader McCarthy said in an op-ed in the Washington Post today:

I will commit to the committee process and regular order.

This is neither the committee process nor regular order.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the House action tonight does not reflect those words from this morning's op-ed.

Mr. Speaker, we ought to have a responsible, bipartisan measure to provide the needed funds to address the border crisis, but we also must see this as a reminder of why we must pass comprehensive immigration reform.

Speaker Boehner, himself, said the House would act, saying last May:

The House remains committed to fixing our broken

immigration system.

This is not a fix. But tonight, we must address the crisis before us. Our Republican friends should work with Democrats on a solution that can pass the House--this probably can--pass the Senate--this cannot-- and be signed by the President. Nobody here, as Congressman Fleming indicated, believes that will be the case.

Tonight will be a loss for rational humanitarian action and a victory for partisan, negative policy. How sad. How wrong. How disappointing to the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank the majority leader for his service to this House and his service to this country.

When one of us leaves this body, it ought to remind us that all of us are here for a relatively short time, perhaps some longer than others, but all for a relatively short time.

Mr. Cantor and I have had the opportunity to work together. As he pointed out, we have not always agreed, as we do not always agree across the aisle. But we have an extraordinary honor bestowed upon us, as he pointed out. There are less than 11,000 of us in the history of this country who have served in this body. There are 435 of us who have been asked by our fellow citizens to serve on their behalf, on behalf of their families, and on behalf of their country.

Eric Cantor has done that well, not because I always agreed with him, but because I always knew that he had the best interest of his country, his State, his community, his family, and our neighbors in mind when he acted. I want to congratulate him and I want to thank him for his service, and I want to thank him for working with me on those areas where we could find agreement. In those areas, we acted in a very productive manner and created a large bipartisan majority on most of those issues in this House. I thank him for doing that.

As one who has also had the honor, Mr. Speaker, of serving as the majority leader of this House, it is a special honor that our colleagues have bestowed upon us. I want to wish him well. I know that he will not be leaving the public community, the public square, and his voice will still be a voice of influence and he will make a difference in whatever area he pursues. He will remain always a Member of this body. He will visit us from time to time. We will welcome him back. We wish him well.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I was going to ask my friend from Pennsylvania whether he had talked to the Senate and thinks this has any chance of moving this week; and the answer I think I would give is no, it does not. So I agree with him. It would be tragic not to act.

It is tragic that we are acting in a partisan fashion, which almost ensures inaction on this, the last day that we are going to be here. We should be acting in a bipartisan fashion, as I have urged the majority leader to do.

What is a bipartisan fashion?

A, considering the emergency need today and funding the resources necessary to respond to that; B, taking under consideration the substantive legislative changes that can be affected that will help this issue, will send the messages that the gentleman wants to send.

He is my dear friend and a good Member of this body, but I will tell you, this bill has had no hearings, no committee consideration. Yes, there was a partisan task force, but this has had no consideration in this legislative process.

The majority leader, last week told me that there would be no bill that did not get 72 hours' notice. The gentleman knows you have a bill on the floor, which is contingent, of course, on the passage of this, which has had a few hours' notice, at best. Last night, I think at 10 o'clock the Rules Committee met on DACA.

So I will tell my friend that, had we acted in a bipartisan fashion, A, at whatever level of funding we could agree, pass a bill to meet the immediate crisis, B, have hearings on the ramifications of the law that passed with only two votes in opposition--over 405 Members voted for the 2008 legislation. We are changing that without a hearing either in subcommittee, committee, or full committee. That is not the way we ought to be working. That is not good for our country. It is not good for this institution. It is not fair.

I would urge my colleagues to defeat this legislation.

I believe, once again, we find the Republican Party divided. Because they are divided, they are trying to cobble together some of their hardest-line Members so that they can get them to vote for this supplemental.

And they put on a bill which has had no notice to the American people or to Members of Congress. It is ironic that people are supporting this who demanded that we read the bills. There was no bill to read until this morning.

How sad for the American people. We have a humanitarian crisis that must be addressed without delay, and the way to address it without delay is to give the resources necessary and then pursue the legislative process, not together. It will slow it down, and I predict it will not pass the Senate. I think the gentlemen and ladies on this side of the aisle know that the Senate is not going to pass this bill.

So if you really think we ought to act now, do so in a bipartisan fashion, and then let us debate the legislation before us.

Mr. McCaul just said this is a real crisis. He just said it just minutes ago, Mr. McCaul, the chairman of the committee. This is a real crisis which demands action. The recommendation that has been made to us will undermine action by this body in the face of crisis. We should not pass this legislation. We ought to pass a very simple resource to the crisis now and legislation later.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

As I understand it, the DACA legislation is dependent upon this legislation. That was not filed 72 hours ago.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman.

We are going to have to call some Members back. They already left on the representation that this was the last vote of the day. I would imagine you have some Members that are in that category themselves.

Can the gentleman give me any idea of when we will have notice as to whether or not there will be further votes today?

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

I rise to bring up H.R. 851, the Bring Jobs Home Act. Surely, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida would want to yield time for that-- to jump-start the middle class--instead of this partisan, pointless lawsuit attacking the President of the United States.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I congratulate Mr. Miller, the chairman of the committee, and Mr. Michaud, the ranking member, for working together to get this done.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is the result of a bipartisan agreement. And while I have some serious concerns about a number of provisions of which I will speak, I am supporting it because it assigns resources to help cut down the waiting times for veterans to get the care they need and that we owe them. That must be our number one goal.

I remain deeply outraged, as so many of us are, by what transpired in Phoenix and at other VA facilities, where our wounded warriors were made to wait weeks, months to get an appointment and receive treatment, including for serious postdeployment mental health issues. That is not acceptable. This is more than unacceptable, however. It is unconscionable.

I think there is wide agreement on both sides of the aisle that any VA personnel who facilitated this wrongdoing or undermined veterans' health care must be held accountable.

However, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned with provisions in this bill regarding the removal of senior executive personnel. While this bill does improve on the House version by adding a 21-day period for appeals, it still undermines civil service protections that had been in place for decades to ensure a merit service, not a politicized, patronage service.

There are already strict rules in place that facilitate the swift removal of SES officials who do not perform their jobs responsibly, as there should be.

Those protections strike the right balance between giving agencies the authority to remove personnel without trampling on the due process rights of SES employees, who need to do their job without fear of political reprisal or arbitrary removal.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, this bill addresses major challenges at the VA. It provides resources to ensure that our veterans can access health care at private facilities if they face a very long wait or live in rural areas far from VA doctors.

I thank the gentleman.

And it makes health care services more available and accessible to veterans through additional resources for medical and other VA personnel.

This, of course, is not a perfect bill. But then again, I don't think I have ever voted for a perfect bill. But this is a good bill that moves in the right direction.

Again, I congratulate Mr. Miller and Mr. Michaud on their work on this very important piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I rise in opposition to the bill that is before us.

It is somewhat ironic that the Republicans want to sue the President for not enforcing a law that they want to repeal. How ironic. But it is, frankly, a demonstration of their frustration that they have been unable politically to attain the objective that they seek. They therefore repair to the wasting of time by this Congress and the wasting of the taxpayers' money on a hypocritical and partisan attack against the President, one that is meant to distract from the pressing issues of the day, like fixing our broken immigration system, raising the minimum wage, or restoring emergency unemployment insurance for those seeking jobs.

While the majority of Americans oppose this lawsuit gimmick, House Republicans continue to move ahead with it instead of acting on those policies and other critical legislation which the majority of the American public do support: Make It In America jobs bills, Export- Import Bank reauthorization, terrorism risk insurance, Voting Rights Amendment Act, continuing resolutions and appropriations bills. All of these the American people want to see us do.

But in polls, they show they don't want us to be doing this. They think it is frivolous. They think it is without merit. They think it should not be done.

All the bills that I referenced they think ought to be done. How sad it is that we come here and do things the American public thinks are a waste of time while not doing things Americans think are very important.

I tell my friend from Texas, and he is my friend, none other than Justice Antonin Scalia has made the point that the judiciary traditionally does not hear cases of political disagreement between the other two branches.

In fact, in United States v. Windsor, Justice Scalia said, a ``system in which Congress and the Executive can pop immediately into court, in their institutional capacity, whenever the President implements a law in a manner that is not to Congress' liking.'' Scalia felt that was not justified.

We believe this legislation is not justified. We further believe that the American people do not believe this legislation is justified. We do believe that the base of the Republican Party that tried to defeat President Obama in 2012, voted against him in 2008, and disagreed with him on the issues thinks this is what is available to them.

It is wrong. It is a waste of time. It is a waste of money. It is a distraction from the issues that are so important to our people. This lawsuit is nothing more than a partisan bill to rally the Republican base, and for some, it doesn't go far enough.

Under President Clinton, Republicans' playbook was shut down and then impeach. Under President Obama, Republicans said that if the Affordable Care Act were not repealed--not that they would sue him. They said they would shut down the government if they didn't get their way. They didn't get their way, and they shut down the government.

They threatened to shut down the government, and they shut down the government. And the American people said, that is not what we want done.

Again, they come to this floor because they cannot achieve, through their political process, the ends they seek. They have voted over 50 times to repeal or undermine the Affordable Care Act. They do not want it implemented. Now they want to sue the President because he is not implementing it fully, and now they are suing and refusing to say that impeachment is off the table.

In fact, their newly elected whip, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise) declined the opportunity to rule out impeachment on four separate occasions last weekend.

My friends, instead of wasting time and money on the lawsuit and what might follow, Congress ought to do what our constituents sent us here to do: create jobs, grow the middle class, invest in an economy where all of our people can work hard, and make it in America.

Reject this waste of time. Vote ``no'' on this unjustified, impractical, losing proposition for the suit against the President of the United States.