Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to an individual who, at great risk to her own life and safety, has been standing up for democracy and freedom in Venezuela. Maria Corina Machado, a Member of the National Assembly and a leader of the opposition, has taken a courageous stand against the repressive regime of President Nicolas Maduro, speaking out on behalf of those whose voices have been silenced by fear of arrest or violence.

Since the death of former President Hugo Chavez, the Maduro regime has maintained Venezuela on the path of suppressing democracy, silencing protest, preventing press freedom, and intimidating political opponents like Ms. Machado. In one instance, Maduro supporters physically assaulted opposition Members in the National Assembly chamber, and Ms. Machado was beaten and had her nose broken. None of the perpetrators were brought to justice.

Over the past several months, Venezuela has seen a number of mass protests by those seeking greater democracy. These are not part of a `coup d'etat,' as President Maduro has alleged, but a result of his oppressive regime. The Venezuelan people deserve the chance to build a free and democratic nation and choose their own future course, free from fear. As democracy continues to come under assault by the Maduro regime, Americans will continue to look to Venezuela with a deep concern for the safety of its people and solidarity with those seeking to restore their freedom.

Maria Corina Machado has helped draw international attention to the ongoing repression in her country, and for her work she will be honored by the International Foundation for Electoral Systems with its annual Charles T. Manatt Democracy Award on October 1. This annual award recognizes individuals who have demonstrated a commitment to advancing freedom and democratic values in their nations and around the world.

I will continue to monitor the situation in Venezuela closely, and I will continue to highlight the work of courageous pro-democracy activists like Ms. Machado, who have faced death threats and been accused of treason by the ruling regime. The United States is watching what takes place in Venezuela with great interest, and Congress will be paying particular attention to the safety and security of Ms. Machado and other opposition figures who have dared to speak out for the rights of the Venezuelan people.

I congratulate Ms. Machado on being chosen for the Charles T. Manatt Democracy Award, and I stand with her and other peaceful supporters of democratic reform as they seek to build a brighter future for all Venezuelans.

Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to hear the debate. I wonder if the gentlewoman believes the analogy she made in terms of the cost of living applies to the minimum wage as well, and if she does, I would ask her to urge her leadership to bring the minimum wage bill to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill, which takes from those who have little in order to give to those who have more.

For many working families, the child tax credit helps parents keep their children and themselves out of poverty. It is a program that Ronald Reagan liked, it is a program that works, and it is a program that we ought to reform and expand.

Sadly, this Republican bill would allow provisions that most directly support low-income working parents to expire, while expanding the credit to families making up to three times what an average household brings home--how perverse, how predictable.

It will do so by adding $115 billion to our deficit. In a time of economic recovery, Mr. Speaker, we should be doing the opposite, providing a leg up for struggling families while paying for what we buy.

Members on both sides of the aisle agree that the right way to do this is comprehensive tax reform. The chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Camp--again, I commend him for putting on the floor--or putting on the table at least--a comprehensive tax reform bill.

He showed courage and good sense. That was done just a few months ago. It showed the difficult choices that are necessary. This bill makes no choices. It just borrows more and puts us more in debt while hurting families.

I don't agree with all of what was in Mr. Camp's bill, but it was a starting point that, through a bipartisan process of amendment, could provide a path to where we all know we need to go. This bill shirks that responsibility.

This bill, this bill shirks that responsibility, adds $115 billion to the deficit, and will make the children of low-income working parents less economically secure--how sad.

Reject this bill. Vote ``no.''

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

I thank the gentleman for that information.

As the gentleman knows full well, we have 3\1/2\ days next week. We have, I guess, 9 full days and 3 half days scheduled in September and the first couple of weeks in October, assuming that we meet in that last week of September.

There have been some rumors. My Members have been asking me about whether or not there is serious consideration being given to not using the last week scheduled in September. Does that have any credence?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman.

In any event, as the gentleman knows, in the very short period of time that we have left before the election--and there is a lot of very substantive work that, in my view, still needs to be done and that we feel very strongly about on this side of the aisle--the gentleman posits that we have four endangered species bills on the floor. Frankly, they probably could all be done by suspension on Monday, but I understand it is going to be under a rule.

In addition to that, we have legislation which is designed to authorize a suit against the President of the United States for trying to do things when we can't get the Congress to act on them, so that there can be some movement forward on behalf of the American people.

Does the gentleman believe there is any possibility of bringing up comprehensive immigration reform--either a comprehensive immigration reform bill that the majority supports, individual bills which are passed out of committee, border security which is passed out on a bipartisan way out of your committee here on this side of the House--on this side of the Capitol, or legislation which we believe would have had a direct effect on the crisis to which the gentleman refers may be addressed next week?

It is not scheduled. I understand that the majority leader's party is divided on the issue of what ought to be done to meet this crisis, but there is no doubt, Mr. Leader, that there are going to be additional resources necessary to meet the challenge that we are confronting now.

The administration has requested, as the gentleman knows, some $3.7 billion. The Senate, as I understand it, is suggesting $2.7 billion. Part of that, of course, is to meet the needs of fighting wildfires. In the Senate bill, there is also money for Iron Dome--to beef up Iron Dome in Israel, but we don't have any language, if language is contemplated.

So I am hopeful that language will not be included in any effort that is made next week on meeting this. You referred to it as a crisis. Whether you refer to it as crisis, challenge, whatever, we know that resources are needed. Everybody seems to agree on that.

Unfortunately, we have not had that bill on the floor now, so we can get it over to the Senate and get it to the President before we leave. We are at risk, in my view, Mr. Leader, of leaving here without addressing this issue.

Furthermore, last week, as the gentleman knows, I suggested that if we included legislative language on that bill, it would be almost impossible to get to the administration the resources it needs to comply with the law and to meet the challenge that has been presented.

Does the gentleman have any expectation that we will consider a comprehensive immigration bill that has resources and will be Senate- passed? We have a bill here, as the gentleman knows, that we introduced many, many months ago, which is a bipartisan bill. All the provisions have been supported in a bipartisan fashion--some in the Senate, some here in the House committee--unanimously.

Does the gentleman have any belief that we will consider next week a clean funding bill at such level as is necessary, at least until the end of the fiscal year, and/or some comprehensive immigration bills which will meet the issue and establish a process, the lack of which clearly is causing people to take actions which we do not approve of and not agree with, but are manifesting the frustration of a broken system remaining broken?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for his response.

Does the gentleman contemplate that that bill will include substantive changes in law or will it simply be restricted to additional resources necessary to meet the crisis that confronts this country?

I yield to my friend.

I understand the process will come from the Rules Committee. There is no text, Mr. Leader. We have seen no text to apparently amend legislation which was adopted overwhelmingly by this House and signed by President Bush.

We need resources today--and we will certainly need them next week-- and we are going to go on a 5-week recess work period, at which point in time we will come back here and meet for a very brief period of time, and we don't have any text in this very substantive, very consequential area of the law, which obviously was adopted overwhelmingly, and we have no text.

I understand the process in the Rules Committee. There have been no hearings, no debate in committee, no subcommittee, no full committee hearings on any legislation.

As I suggested to you last week, Mr. Majority Leader, if you put legislation out there, you and I both know that inevitably that legislation will not be able to pass within the timeframe necessary to meet the crisis.

So the responsible thing, I suggest to my friend, the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, is to provide the resources necessary to meet the challenge right now. And then, if hearings show substantive changes in the law are needed or further show what substantive changes ought to be made and can be considered in a thoughtful, effective fashion, we can then move forward at some point in time, perhaps as soon as September, on that legislation. But to do otherwise will put at great risk the ability of the administration and this country to respond consistent with the law that we passed and that was signed by President Bush.

I yield to my friend if he wants to comment further.

I thank, Mr. Speaker, the majority leader for that information, and I am glad that he brought up the processes that are going to be followed.

I want to quote to him something Speaker Boehner said on January 5, 2011, when he took the gavel:

But you will always have the right to robust debate in an

open process that allows you to represent your constituents,

to make your case, offer alternatives and be heard.

The gentleman has told me now three times that the Rules Committee hearing is going to be open and they will decide the process under which a bill is going to be considered. Apparently, I am presuming the gentleman does not know what the substance of that process will be. I don't know the substance. I don't know any language that is being proposed. No Member on our side of the aisle knows what language is being proposed. Maybe Members on your side of the aisle know.

So what you are apparently telling me is that we will have the Rules Committee solely for the purpose of learning what substantive changes are suggested in the law. And I suggest to the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, that if that is the case, we will not be able to thoughtfully debate it, we will not be able to have a process that is open, and we will not have a process which allows us to make our case, offer alternatives, or be heard.

I would predict, as has happened 67 times to date, this is going to be a closed rule. One of my staffers, by the way, suggested that perhaps open rules ought to be included in the endangered species bills that we are considering. We are doing so many closed rules, open rules seem to be an endangered species.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the leader to please report if we are going to consider, as I think we should, a supplemental next week that gives our country the resources to meet the crisis to which you referred?

It is our responsibility to consider it. It is our responsibility to give the resources. We passed the law, which is being implemented by the administration. We passed it overwhelmingly. It was sponsored by a gentleman who just spoke on this floor a short time ago to try to prevent and ameliorate human trafficking.

A number of bills we passed this week on human trafficking were passed unanimously. That bill that passed overwhelmingly was also about human trafficking. And I tell my friend, we need the resources. It is the responsibility of the majority party and the minority party to join together to give the administration the necessary resources to respond to carrying out the law that we passed.

If we want to change that law, that is also our responsibility. But I tell my friend it cannot be done in the timeframe that is available to us. We have delayed this so long, there is no time. And the gentleman keeps responding to me that the Rules Committee will decide the process.

The Rules Committee normally does not decide the substance of legislation. It decides the process under which we will consider the substance. Authorizing committees, as my friend so well knows, decide the substance of that legislation.

But we will have no opportunity to see that, apparently, until perhaps this

weekend, at the earliest, or next week. That does not give us time to debate it and it certainly, as everybody knows, does not give it time to go to the Senate and be debated. I think they will disagree, perhaps, on the language that is suggested. I don't know what it is, but there is a high probability of disagreement. Conference will have to occur, and then it will have to get to the President. And both the Senate and the House are leaving next week for their district work period.

I would urge the majority leader to make every effort with his party to bring what I think ought to be our obligation: a bill which provides the resources necessary--and we may differ on that number--to carry out our responsibilities to implement the law that we passed.

If the gentleman wants to respond further, I yield. If not, I will go on.

Mr. Speaker, we have five appropriations bills which have not been brought to the floor. The Ag bill was on the floor. It was pulled. It has not been brought back. The Labor, Health and Human Services bill, the Interior bill, the Homeland bill, and the Foreign Ops bill have not been brought to the floor, nor has the gentleman indicated any of those are going to be brought to the floor next week.

Can the gentleman tell me whether or not there is any plan to bring those bills to the floor in the 3 weeks that we will be back in September?

I yield to the majority leader.

I thank the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, but that does not give me any clarity in terms of the five appropriations bills. The supplemental appropriation bill, of course, is not a part of those bills, although, obviously, Health and Human Services is being put under a great deal of pressure by carrying out the terms of the law that we passed in 2008 signed by President Bush. They need resources. The supplemental is to give them the resources.

This is a scheduling conference. It is not just now, in my view, limited to next week, because we are not going to be here for 5 weeks thereafter, and Members want to know what they should anticipate as substantively going to be on the agenda in the 3 short weeks that we will have left, essentially, before the election.

So I can't tell from the gentleman's answer, Mr. Speaker, whether or not any of those five appropriations bills--I know seven have passed-- are intended to be brought to the floor.

I yield to the majority leader.

Maybe I can just print that out and I will just read it, Mr. Speaker.

We have an Export-Import Bank that is going to expire very shortly. It is of great concern to many people on both sides of the aisle. Forty-one Republican Members, Mr. Speaker, have signed a letter urging that this be brought to the floor. It is a very timely, critical issue for the competitiveness of our country. It has been twisting in the wind for this entire year. I worked, Mr. Speaker, with the leader's predecessor to see whether or not we could get this bill to the floor.

I know what the schedule is for next week, so he doesn't need to repeat that for me--and I thank him very much--but does the majority leader have any idea whether we are going to consider the Export-Import Bank before the election?

I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to ask the majority leader any more questions because I am not going to get any answers.

The American people have a right to those answers. The American people need to have transparency, which was going to be brought to this body, frankly, by the young guns, and they need a right to debate, right to anticipate, right to participate, but the answer I get is, It's not scheduled for next week.

Mr. Speaker, I know it is not scheduled for next week. Critical legislation was not scheduled last week, the week before that, the week before that, the week before that, the week before that, and every week before that--critical legislation supported by the overwhelming majority of the American people.

I am simply inquiring of the majority leader: Is there any contemplation of bringing that legislation to the floor before this Congress leaves for the election so the American people who are going to either reelect this Congress or seek new leadership have an opportunity on which to make an informed decision, which, of course, is what the Speaker said we would have?

Certainly, we ought to have equal consideration for the American people as well so they have the right to robust debate and an open process and so it allows them to understand what we are doing.

I regret that the majority leader in critical issues, like the Export-Import Bank, which relate to the competitiveness of this country, and like Make It In America legislation that we defeated last week on suspension, which we agreed upon--the majority leader voted for it and I voted for it. I presume--I will ask him anyway. I said I wasn't going to ask him: Is there any contemplation of bringing that bill, which got 260 votes on this floor, back to the floor, under a rule which provides again for America's determining whether or not we can find additional rare earth, which is so necessary to be competitive in international markets?

I know it is not on the schedule, so he doesn't have to repeat that litany to me, because I get it. I have heard it now four or five or six times. I get it that it is not on the schedule for next week.

So the question I ask is: Is there any contemplation of bringing that bill, which has 260 people who voted for it, back to the floor, under a rule, so we can provide for a better opportunity to make it in America and to be competitive internationally?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Mr. Speaker, the majority leader and I have worked together, and we have sat down for lunch. We agree on the bill that I mentioned, Mr. Swalwell's bill, to try to make America more competitive by producing more rare earth here in this country--so essential in the electronics industry and in other places.

I can't control the Senate, Mr. Speaker. The majority leader cannot control the Senate. What the majority leader and I can do is control what we do here in this House to which we were elected. We can control either urging or, in the majority leader's case--and as the former majority leader of this House, I can tell you I could put a bill on the floor if I thought it was important for the American people and in the best interests of our country. I think the Export-Import Bank falls in that category. I think minimum wage falls in that category. I think comprehensive immigration falls in that category. I think jobs bills fall in that category. I think make it in America--the Swalwell bill-- fell in that category.

We cannot control what the Senate does, but we can control what we do. We can move in a responsible fashion, which the American people, Mr. Speaker, expect us to do and not blame some outside group, whether it is the administration or the United States Senate, for our lack of addressing important issues.

TRIA is an important bill, Mr. Speaker. It is not on the schedule. I presume, if I asked the majority leader about TRIA, he would tell me it is not on the schedule next week. That would not come as a news flash to me, Mr. Speaker, because he has told me that now seven times.

I believe, if the House is going to act in a collegial manner and in a constructive manner and in a manner that the American people want us to act, that we will exchange information not just on what is on next week--there is not much on next week, Mr. Speaker. I know that. There is, in my opinion, a political bill to sue the President of the United States. The American people don't think that is a very good idea. That is on the calendar. So we are using the few short minutes that we have available to do the people's business on four bills, to send a message, that we could pass in, frankly, a very short period of time on Monday night on endangered species. We are filling time. We are treading water, Mr. Speaker.

I will conclude with this. You have put the possibility that we are going to have a bill on the floor next week dealing with the crisis-- your word--at the border. When will we see text of that legislation that might possibly be on the floor?

I yield to the majority leader.

When it is available. That was the answer to my question. We don't know when it is going to be available. We don't know what it will be. We don't know, really, whether it will be considered, because the majority leader tells me, Mr. Speaker, that it may be on the floor. We know that it hasn't gone to committee. We know that there is no subcommittee hearing that has been held. We know that there is no committee hearing that has been held.

The gentleman talks about thousands of pages. We can get into that debate at some other time. I know which he refers to, a bill that had literally more consideration than any other bill I have seen considered by the Congress of the United States--the Affordable Care Act, which is having, in my view, a very positive effect. We don't need to debate that today.

I would tell the majority leader, if the crisis were going to be addressed, the first step is having the resources necessary to carry out the law, then, if the law needs to be changed, deciding how it should be changed, having debate on that, bringing it to this floor out of committee, and considering that legislation. There are differences of opinion on that. I recognize that. The gentleman has pointed that out. That would be the way to do it. That is the regular order of which you spoke and you promised.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that that could be followed. There are many of us who believe it is not being followed, and that is to the denigration of not only this body but to the American people's ability to see what we are doing, how we are doing it, when we are doing it.

Unless the gentleman has something further to say, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I think it appropriate that one of us rise to recognize the sacrifice made by Detective Gibson and Officer Chestnut. Detective Gibson was in the office of Tom DeLay. Officer Chestnut was at the memorial door allowing visitors to come in. He was shot in the back of the head. Detective Gibson was trying to protect not only the then-Majority Leader DeLay but also other members of the staff and of the public. They did what we expect them to do, and they paid for that with their lives.

All of us, I know, express our deep gratitude to the members of the Capitol Police force, who every day get out of bed and strap on a gun, put a badge to their chest or in their wallet or on their person, and come to this Capitol to defend not only the Members and the staff but the millions of people who come to visit the Capitol of the United States regularly. They allow us to have confidence that we can do the people's business in safety and security.

So not only is it appropriate, Mr. Speaker, that we pay tribute to Detective Gibson and Officer Chestnut, but also to give thanks to those who serve daily that this Capitol might operate on behalf of the American people.

Madam Speaker, I rise today, alongside my Republican colleague from Illinois, Representative Aaron Schock, who is here to speak about the Full-Service Community Schools Act of 2014, which we will be introducing later today. This is an issue that I have been working on, Madam Speaker, for several years, one that will help us close the achievement gap that too many of our children face.

Our bipartisan bill creates a competitive grant program to expand the full-service community schools model across the country. Full-service community schools are an innovative approach to help students and their parents access a full range of critical services all in one place. Let me emphasize these are services that are currently available but that are not as accessible because they are not centralized. We will encourage communities to put together the services that they already

provide in an accessible way for children and their families.

For low-income parents who are working multiple jobs as they send their kids to school, finding time to provide them with adequate medical checkups and dental screenings is often very difficult. The full-service community schools model locates these services at their children's schools, along with nutritional counseling, financial literacy education, and adult classes--services that in most communities are already offered--to make it easier for both students and parents to access these services under one roof. It also helps ensure parents have the tools they need to support their children's learning--so critically important to the children's success. Studies show that when children are healthy they learn better and have a better chance at academic success.

Maryland has been employing this model for several years now in the form of Judy Centers, named for my late wife, Judy Hoyer, who was an early childhood administrator in Prince George's County. The Maryland State Department of Education has found that children accessing services at Judy Centers perform better than their peers who did not when tested for kindergarten readiness. I know the gentleman from Illinois has similar evidence from a full-service community school program in his State. In his district, in fact, his university from which he graduated partners with that full-service school, Bradley University in Peoria.

The results are clear that the full-service community schools model has the potential--and in fact, in our own State, we have realized that potential--to help millions of low-income families across the country ensure that their children can do well in school and have a better shot at being college or career ready when they graduate. This is good for America. It is good for the children. It is good for their families. It is good for our competitiveness. This legislation, Madam Speaker, is an example of what is possible when we set differences aside and work together.

Now, Aaron Schock is a good friend of mine. He is a Republican and I am a Democrat, and some say, well, that doesn't really happen in Washington--but it does. Outside of the ambit of this bill, Aaron and I have worked on a number of pieces of legislation, and I am proud of the fact that we are working on this legislation together on behalf of children, on behalf of families, on behalf of our country. This legislation is an example of what is possible when we set our differences aside, as I said. We work together across the aisle to make progress for those who are trying to make it in America for themselves and for their families.

I want to thank Representative Schock for partnering with me on this effort, and I hope this Congress can come together, as the two of us have done, and work in a bipartisan fashion to pass this bill without delay.

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

I thank the gentleman for his information.

He mentioned, in closing, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act. As the gentleman knows, that bill did not come to the floor this week as we may have thought it would. We think this bill is a very, very critically important bill that needs to be addressed before it expires at the end of this year.

As the gentleman probably knows, the Senate is expected to vote on the passage of their bill, as I understand it, today. I expect it to be a bipartisan vote, as TRIA has been a bipartisan vote in the past. I hope that we can follow suit with that quickly, so I am pleased to see that the gentleman says that that may well be on the agenda for next week. I don't know whether the gentleman wants to make any further comment, but we believe that is a very, very important piece of legislation for us to move.

I yield to my friend.

Again, I hope that we can do that as soon as possible. To the extent that we pass it before the August break, I think that will give confidence to the construction industry and confidence to municipalities in areas around the country. Hopefully, we can do that, as I said, sooner rather than later.

There is another matter that is critically time sensitive, in my view, Mr. Leader. As we all know, we have a humanitarian crisis on the border, and addressing this crisis is very necessary for us to do in a timely fashion. I think almost everybody agrees on that. The supplemental is not on the schedule for next week, but I am wondering whether or not you contemplate that supplemental. The Speaker had said we ought to do something before the August break. We have 3 weeks left to go, and I am wondering whether you could give us some insight into the progress of that supplemental that the President has requested.

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for that news. That is good news. Hopefully, we will be able to move on this next week because it is very important that we get this done as soon as possible because the crisis is posing immediate demands on our resources.

I would say to the gentleman, can he illuminate at all whether or not that supplemental will be limited to the resources necessary to confront the crisis?

I have heard some comments that there may be changes in the underlying law with respect to how individuals at the border are treated depending upon where they come from. While I think that both the administration and others have indicated that that matter ought to be considered, there is no doubt that it will be more controversial than, I think, the supplemental will be.

Can the gentleman tell me whether or not he expects the supplemental to include attempts to amend existing immigration law, or whether or not we can consider changes to immigration law in a more either comprehensive form or in an individual bill form and, perhaps, in conjunction with the border security bill that has passed out of the Homeland Security Committee in this House, as I understand it, on voice vote? I don't know whether it was unanimous, but I don't think there was opposition to it.

I yield to my friend.

Again, I would just reiterate that I think we both feel that we need to act on this, but I would urge the gentleman to urge his committees and his side of the aisle to bring the supplemental--and I talked to Mr. Rogers about bringing the supplemental--whatever that supplemental may entail, on the resources necessary to deal with the crisis and not to try to also deal with the legislative issue, which, I think, is a substantive issue. As you point out, on both sides of the aisle, people have raised this issue, but there is no doubt that that will slow down considerably the passing of a supplemental for the emergency money that is necessary today.

So I would hope that he would keep that in mind and that he would, hopefully, urge his party and his committee--the Appropriations Committee--to report out a clean bill at whatever levels they believe are appropriate for whatever objectives they believe are appropriate and let us deal with the resources now and the policy in a more considered way after hearings. I will be glad to yield if you want to respond.

Lastly, Mr. Leader and Mr. Speaker, we have talked about a Make It In America agenda. As the gentleman knows, there are some 70 bills that we have suggested as part of that agenda. We believe this House needs to focus on jobs, and it is still the main concern of the American people.

I know the gentleman, in telling us the schedule, indicated there are some bills on there that are trying to deal with jobs. It is my understanding that Representative Swalwell's bill will be on the calendar next week as a suspension bill. I want to thank the gentleman for putting that on the suspension calendar, and I hope that I can work with him.

Mr. Cantor and I had discussed some of the Make It In America bills, and I hope that I can work with him on these bills, which I think are bipartisan. Every Member of this Congress wants to see more jobs created and more stimulus to create jobs provided.

There is a particular bill that was going to be on the suspension calendar some months ago, and it has not yet made it. The gentleman and I have discussed it. Mr. Lipinski has a bill which deals with a plan for making America as competitive as it can be. That bill passed out of the last Congress unanimously out of committee, and it passed this House with over 350 votes. It has again passed out of committee overwhelmingly. I don't know whether there was a recorded vote or not, but it

overwhelmingly came out of committee, and I would hope that the gentleman would, with his staff, review and consider adding that bill as well to the suspension calendar at some time in the future.

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman, and I appreciate his comments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in solidarity with our good ally and friend, Israel, as it defends its people from Hamas' deadly rockets.

Every nation, Mr. Speaker, has the right to defend its citizens; indeed, it has a moral obligation to do so. And no people ever ought to live in constant fear that their homes, schools, businesses, places of worship, and hospitals might be the target of terrorists' rockets.

Mr. Speaker, there is a town in southern Israel whose name is Sderot which has been the target of over 6,300 rockets since 2007. Mr. Speaker, I have been to Sderot, and I have talked to some of the families there. As the rockets fall, they gather their children in bomb shelters and sing them songs. I have been in the recreational gymnasium. It is itself a bomb shelter. Preschoolers learn to run for cover before they learn to read and write.

If American communities were subjected to what the residents of Sderot--and now cities even as far north as Tel Aviv and Jerusalem-- have had to endure, I doubt very seriously whether we would show as much restraint as Israel has shown.

There are two major challenges I hear to Israel's exercise of its legitimate self-defense, and I want to address both of them. First, undertaking this necessary response was not an easy choice for Israel, nor was the decision to agree to a cease-fire on Tuesday. Israel abided by the cease-fire without any commitment from Hamas, and Prime Minister Netanyahu even fired--removed--his deputy defense minister for questioning that decision, so committed was the Israeli Government to trying to reach a cease-fire and cessation of danger to Israelis and to Palestinians.

Tragically and appallingly--but I suggest not so surprisingly--Hamas not only rejected the cease-fire, but continued to rain missiles upon Israeli communities even while Israel had unilaterally stopped its defensive strikes. Secondly, Israeli forces have continued to do everything possible to prevent civilian casualties as they strike Hamas' leadership and its rocket launchers.

Mr. Speaker, it is shameful that Hamas' reign of terror extends not only

to Israelis, but to their own people, the Palestinians in Gaza, where Hamas continues to use innocent civilians as human shields while firing rocket after rocket after rocket after rocket at Israel.

Prime Minister Netanyahu summed up his country's struggle earlier this week in the following way:

We (meaning the Israelis, and I am quoting Prime Minister Netanyahu) we are using missile defense to protect our civilians, and they are using civilians to protect their missiles.

We are using (the prime minister said) missile defense to protect our citizens, while Hamas is using its own citizens to protect its missiles.

How sad. Just today, while Israel was observing a 5-hour cease-fire to allow humanitarian supplies to reach Gaza, we have seen news reports that Hamas continued firing mortar shells into Israel, in violation of that truce.

This week has seen bitter tragedy for both Israelis and Palestinians. You have to listen carefully to the words of Rachel Fraenkel, the mother of one of the three murdered Israeli teenagers. When she learned of the brutal killing of a Palestinian teenager, Mohammed Abu Khedair, she said this:

There is no difference between blood and blood.

Of course, what she meant by that was the loss of her son and the loss of the Palestinian young man was an equal tragedy. He was gunned down by angry people motivated by the acts of terrorists to seek revenge on innocent noncombatants, in this case on children.

Mr. Speaker, Hamas has the power to end this violence. I call on them to do so before more innocent blood on both sides is shed. The United States, of course, will continue to stand by its ally, Israel, and we will continue to hold in our hearts all of the families, including Rachel Fraenkel, and the family of Mohammed Abu Khaber, who are grieving the loss of loved ones as a result of Hamas' reprehensible and criminal actions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize an anniversary that all the Members of this House surely ought to celebrate. On July 18, 1914-- one hundred years ago this Friday--the Congressional Research Service came into being. Ever since, it has provided Members on both sides of the aisle with important analysis, research assistance, and expertise on virtually every topic relating to our work on behalf of the American people.

The Congressional Research Service, known as the Legislative Research Service for its first fifty-six years, was the brainchild of Senator Robert LaFollette Sr. and Rep. John Nelson, both from Wisconsin. In the Progressive Era, reformers like Sen. LaFollette and Rep. Nelson sought to make government

more responsive by providing Members of Congress with greater access to the latest in scientific research and analytical tools. For a century, that is what the Congressional Research Service has done--and the men and women who work there have proven beyond a doubt the merit behind Sen. LaFollette and Rep. Nelson's proposal.

After World War II, as Congress's work expanded to meet the needs of a growing nation and economy and America's role as a military superpower, the Congressional Research Service adapted by hiring experts to provide briefings and answer Members' questions. So many Members and their staffs have come to rely on the timely responses from Congressional Research Service personnel on pending bills, legislative history, and issue tracking. Those who work at the Congressional Research Service continue to play an extraordinarily important role in Congress's work.

In my thirty-three years in this House, the Congressional Research Service has provided me with absolutely essential research on the legislative interests I have pursued. My work on the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act, the 2002 Help America Vote Act, the 2008 ADA Amendments Act, federal employee and civil service issues, and a wide range of constituent questions have all been aided immeasurably by Congressional Research Service reports and analysis.

As it begins its second century, the Congressional Research Service is adapting to new technologies to improve the way it keeps Members of Congress informed. Through social media, online research tools, and reports accessible by internet twenty-four hours a day, it continues to carry out its mission in a way its founders never could have imagined-- but for which they would surely be proud.

I hope my colleagues will join me in thanking the Congressional Research Service's diverse workforce of over 600 researchers, analysts, attorneys, support staff, and information professionals for their tireless work in service to our nation.

Those were the good old days, I tell my friend Mr. Rahall, when I got an unlimited 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, there is some good news. The good news is this committee is chaired by someone who wants to invest in America, grow jobs, and expand our economy. I speak of my friend Bill Shuster, and I thank him for that. The other good news is that our ranking Democrat, Nick Joe Rahall, has a history of making sure that America invests in its infrastructure.

The bad news is that this bill does not give what Mrs. Capito suggested it gives, and that is certainty. It gives a temporary, inadequate response to what is a long-term problem. I won't ask him the question, but I believe that Mr. Shuster absolutely agrees with me. We ought to find a fiscally sustainable funding source for our infrastructure and highway system.

Mr. Speaker, a well-maintained highway structure supports the growth of our economy and the creation of good jobs. That is why I have been advocating for a long-term, sustainable fix that makes investments in our roads and bridges and provides the certainty that needed repairs will be completed. I am for a big deal, not just for certainty in infrastructure but for certainty in the investment in our economy. I will continue to advocate that.

This bill, unfortunately, does not do that. It is better than doing nothing, but it does not do what we need to do. In fact, by implementing a short-term fix only until May, this bill promotes uncertainty for construction firms and other businesses that rely on projects paid for by the highway trust fund, which support American jobs. It also puts Congress in the position of having to deal with this issue next May, as next year's summer construction season is about to begin, without any certainty of what we will do.

Democrats would prefer to work with Republicans to pass a long-term fix now or, if we cannot do that, to reauthorize it for a few months so that we can return to this issue after the November elections and pass a long-term fix, but we cannot take the risk of allowing this fund to run dry this summer.

The highway trust fund supports the infrastructure improvements that enable manufacturers to move their products to market faster and help attract businesses and jobs from overseas. It helps us to Make It In America--manufacture it, grow it, sell it here and around the world. If we allow it to go broke, according to the Department of Transportation, our economy could lose as many as 700,000 jobs.

This bill, I think, will get some significant support from our side of the aisle but not because it is our choice, not because it is the right way to go. In my view, as I said, I don't want to hurt him with his party or with anybody outside of this Chamber, but I think Mr. Shuster agrees that we need a long-term solution. I urge my colleagues to work together in a bipartisan fashion to get a long-term, confidence-building resolution of this stop-and-jerk, or go-and-jerk, funding process that we are adopting.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my dear friend from New York (Mr. Serrano) for yielding.

I rise to speak on this bill, but not to offer an amendment. I don't offer an amendment because, to offer an amendment, I would have to identify an offset within the body of this bill. This bill is deeply and harmfully underfunded. Therefore, I will not seek to take from an object that already is underfunded to fund the elimination of the Election Assistance Commission.

At the outset, I want to say that I served on this subcommittee for 23 years. I know a little bit about the subject of this committee. Not only that, I was the sponsor of the Help America Vote Act with Bob Ney, my friend from Ohio. That bill overwhelmingly passed with over 350 bipartisan votes. Unfortunately, too frequently, bipartisanship eludes us in this body today.

I voted against Ryan-Murray because I said at that point in time it did not provide sufficient resources to meet the responsibility this Nation has to stay strong, stay free, and to grow our economy and grow jobs for our people.

As I said, I was the sponsor of the Help America Vote Act. Within that bill, we created the Election Assistance Commission. Again, it was overwhelmingly supported by both sides of the aisle and the United States Senate and signed into law by President Bush. The offices and programs covered under that program were focused on trying to assist States and local governments to ensure the appropriate administration of elections.

Is there anything, I ask my colleagues, more important in a democracy than ensuring that elections are well run and that every voter's vote counts? I suggest to you there is not.

The Election Assistance Commission, established by the Help America Vote Act in the aftermath of the 2000 Presidential election debacle, to be specific, had 357 Members of this body vote for it. The appropriations bill on this floor today, however, would essentially eliminate that commission.

I am not surprised because, frankly, when the Republicans became the majority in this House, it was at that point in time they started focusing on the elimination of the Election Assistance Commission, as I said, designed to make our elections more efficient, fairer, and more honest.

Initially, my Republican colleagues suggested that the duties of the Election Assistance Commission would be done by the Federal Election Commission, which has a totally different responsibility, and that is a responsibility to make sure that the funding of elections is done appropriately and within the law.

I am going to vote against this bill not simply because of the zeroing out of the Election Assistance Commission. Very frankly, I am chagrined and disappointed that my Republican colleagues too often are trying to undermine America's right to vote, undermine America's incentive to vote, undermine the facilitating of Americans voting. Frankly, I don't understand that.

The Election Assistance Commission, for the first time in history, said that for over 200 years States and localities had run Federal elections. They were concurrent with State elections and local elections. But they ran our elections with no assistance from us--for President, Vice President of the United States, United States Senators, and Members of the House of Representatives. We did not participate.

Under HAVA, we have contributed a substantial sum of money so that they could update and make efficient the election systems that they had. But recently, the Republican Party, Mr. Chairman, has refused to recommend appointments for the Commission, and now they want to eliminate the Commission.

Mr. Chairman, in a country that looks at the right to vote and the exercising of franchise as central to our democracy, I would urge us to defeat this bill, to re-fund this critically important agency, and to do what we ought to do as Americans and as Members of this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the schedule for the week to come, and I am pleased to yield to Mr. McCarthy, the majority leader-elect. I appreciate his stance. We had the opportunity to have lunch. I am hopeful that we can have a very productive relationship, as I am sure this House and the country is.

I am pleased to yield to my friend, Mr. McCarthy, the majority leader-elect.

I thank the gentleman for his information.

We have now completed six appropriations bills. The gentleman has announced we will have a seventh--Financial Services--on the floor next week. Does the gentleman anticipate doing the balance of the five remaining appropriations bills before the September 30 end of the fiscal year?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman.

I know he has this expectation also, but I hope that we would pass the appropriations bills individually in the manner that we have considered the previous bills on this floor.

I note that the Labor-Health bill has not been marked up in subcommittee, and I would simply ask him, in light of the fact that has not moved through subcommittee yet, if that would be one of the bills that he would anticipate bringing to the floor before September 30.

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman.

That, of course, from our perspective--and I am sure his--is a very, very important piece of legislation.

The highway bill that is coming to the floor, we know that that is critically important. It passed out of committee I think on a voice vote, although, as the gentleman knows, there was substantial disagreement on the length, the term of that. We are disappointed that we haven't either done a short-term or a long-term bill, giving confidence to contractors and jurisdictions around the country. We find ourselves in a situation now where more than 100,000 transportation projects could be delayed.

We look forward to working to not only move this process forward in the

short term, but we would like to urge, notwithstanding the fact it appears it is going to be a longer term--until May of next year--that we continue to focus on a long-term, confidence-building, economy- growing effort at a longer term reauthorization of the highway program.

The gentleman doesn't need to comment on that. I just wanted to make that comment to him, unless he wanted to say something on that.

I thank the gentleman.

We passed, as the gentleman knows, the tax credit for investment in equipment, or the depreciation allowance. We passed that today. That was a $287 billion cost.

I would call to the gentleman's attention, as I have with Mr. Cantor, that we are still concerned on this side of the aisle--and I know the gentleman knows this--that the unemployment insurance bill that lapsed in December of 2013 has still not been funded. There are some 3 million people who have fallen off that.

As part of your new responsibilities, you will be focused on scheduling legislation, and I would urge the majority leader to consider very seriously bringing that unemployment bill to the floor for a vote.

We believe that it does have the votes on this House floor. That is 3 million--and it is growing by thousands per month--who have run out of unemployment insurance, which is slowing our economy, but it is also, from their perspective, giving them no support to support themselves and to help support their families.

So I would urge the gentleman to look again at the unemployment insurance status originally proposed to be done retroactively. Even if we look prospectively, we would hope the majority leader would look at moving forward on the House floor.

I yield to my friend.

I appreciate you not only keeping us posted, but focusing on that to see whether we might do that.

The gentleman has announced that TRIA is going to be under consideration. We believe this is a very important piece of legislation. However, it passed out of committee on a party-line vote, as the gentleman knows, and there are still concerns that need to be addressed. I would hope that we could work on those before it comes to the floor.

Does the gentleman know whether that will come under a rule and whether or not that rule will provide for an open amendatory process?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman.

As the gentleman knows, we only have 12 days remaining of legislative days that we will be in session before the August break and only 22 days before the end of the scheduled session prior to the election. The scheduled date is October 2 for us to adjourn.

We believe this legislation is critical--again, for the economy and for confidence in the marketplace--to be passed. And so we would hope that to facilitate that we could pass it through this body in a bipartisan way, which would make it easier for the Senate to facilitate passage and to get that bill to the President because we think it is very important.

So I look forward to working with the gentleman to see whether or not we might overcome the partisan vote that came out and replace that with a bipartisan vote and make some accommodations on both sides to accomplish that objective. I appreciate his being willing to work on that.

Next to last, the Export-Import Bank. I know there is work being done on the Export-Import Bank. I know the gentleman indicated that he thought that this was not ready, at least for passage, but we know that this expires at the end of the year. We are very concerned about the adverse impact it will have.

Will the gentleman give me any information on where he thinks the consideration of that bill may be at this point in time.

I yield to the gentleman.

Again, I do understand that it is not coming up next week, but the reason I mention time is we have so few legislative days left, that we are going to need to plan to address some of these issues that, I think, are going to be very important to our economic growth.

I know the gentleman is very concerned about that. We are very concerned about it on our side, and his Members are very concerned about that. We believe that the Export-Import Bank is an economic growth and an economic confidence-building measure, and we would hope we could address that.

There are also, as the gentleman knows, 41 House Republicans who have signed a letter urging that that be passed and indicating their support of it. We believe every Democrat on this side will vote for that. That is almost 200 people, and with the 41, it clearly makes a majority of this House.

We think it could be passed on this floor, and we think it would have a very positive effect on the economy, so we would urge the gentleman to consider very carefully with his colleagues whether or not we could move forward on that.

Lastly, I would say to the gentleman that we are very concerned about the children who are coming to the border. We are concerned about the process of making sure that this humanitarian crisis is dealt with in a constructive, positive way for the children, but also in a way that gives clear notice that America cannot have borders which are simply open, but must be able to authorize people to come into this country and not have them come in, in an unauthorized fashion.

In that respect, I don't know whether the gentleman had an opportunity to see The Wall Street Journal editorial today, but they made it very clear that one of the problems is that, because the system is broken and because we have not passed comprehensive immigration reform--and the gentleman, of course, based upon where he lives, obviously will probably be one of our more knowledgeable Members on this issue--that people cannot come across the border and then return in a fashion which will provide for work here by them and also for their not only coming here, but then leaving without an expectation they will ever be able to visit or work again--either family members or for the purposes of work.

We continue to believe that the passage of comprehensive immigration reform would be a solution and ameliorate the present crisis that we see at our borders, and we continue to hope that comprehensive immigration reform will also be an item on the agenda.

Although we have 22 days left between now and our October 2 projected adjournment, the expectation, I think, of all of ours is that we will come back in a postelection session--a so-called lame duck session. Either before that, in the next 22 days or in the session after the election, we believe it is critically important to address the immigration issue.

The gentleman and I have had some opportunity to discuss this over the

last number of months, and I know he is very knowledgeable about this issue and sensitive to this issue, and I would hope that we could work together to see whether or not we could put a bipartisan bill on the floor sooner, rather than later.

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for that response, and I would hope that the supplemental--because it deals with a humanitarian crisis-- would not be a partisan issue. We obviously need to deal with the immediate problem.

I was talking, of course, about the longer-term problem, but I appreciate the gentleman's observation with reference to the supplemental. I am a supporter of that supplemental.

Obviously, the Appropriations Committee needs to review it with respect to the proper levels of funding, but there is no doubt that we, right now, have inadequate resources to deal with the humanitarian crisis that confronts us immediately, and those funds are necessary.

I am pleased that the gentleman brought it up, and I look forward to working with him on it.

Unless the gentleman wants to make further comment, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, before the gentleman from Virginia leaves the floor, I want to say to the majority leader that I thank him, as well, for his leadership. The majority leader and I have discussed the SKILLS Act for a number of months, perhaps as long ago as when this bill passed the House.

This bill passed the House on a partisan vote. The majority leader observed numerous times--and I agreed with him--that this should not be a partisan issue. The good news today is that it will pass on a bipartisan vote. The system works today. And the American people are going to be advantaged. And all of those whom the majority leader spoke of will be advantaged as well.

The fact of the matter is, we passed a bill through this House. The Senate passed a bill. We went to conference. We worked out an agreement. And we are now going to support that in a bipartisan fashion. That will be a positive for our country.

So I am pleased to rise, Mr. Speaker, in support of this bill. It is an example of how Democrats and Republicans can work together to reauthorize important programs that support a strong economy and a growing middle class. We have an agenda on our side we call ``Make It In America.'' Everybody in this House is for Americans making it in this country, succeeding.

This bill will provide job-seekers with the in-demand skills and training they need to get hired for the jobs that pay well and provide access to opportunities. In short, it will help more of our people make it in America.

While House Democrats were disappointed that Republicans passed a partisan bill last year, I am glad that a spirit of compromise has now prevailed. The Republicans agreed to work with us and the Senate to craft a bipartisan bill that incorporates key provisions of the Democratic alternative to last year's bill, which was part of House Democrats' Make It In America plan for jobs and competitiveness.

This bipartisan legislation will continue to ensure that adults, youth, and dislocated workers can receive the assistance they need to succeed in the job market. It will focus resources on essential programs that most effectively serve job-seekers while eliminating less effective ones. This is the kind of legislation that we ought to be passing.

I applaud the ranking member. I applaud the chairman of the committee for bringing this bill to the floor. And I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I submit the following essay which was delivered by Mr. Tucker Jameson at the Southern Maryland Veterans Stand Down event on May 16, 2014. Tucker is a freshman at St. Mary's Ryken High School and is a member of the Stars and Stripes club. He lives in Mechanicsville, MD. He wrote:

Stand down. In military terminology, this term is used when

commanders wish to halt operational progress. It could be due

to mission completion, safety, or the elimination of a

threat. In some situations, a stand down is an opportunity to

ensure that the unit is in the most complete, efficient, and

advantageous position that it can be before it proceeds with

its mission. Sometimes the momentum of our operational tempo

and our desire to complete the mission blinds us to one of

the oldest of tactical blunders--haste. We take this

opportunity today to stop and remember the tradition that we

hope to carry on, and that tradition lives in our veterans.

A cornerstone of our development at St. Mary's Ryken high

school is our service to others. As a part of the Stars,

Stripes, and Service club I have had the opportunity and the

honor to focus my service on veterans. From assisting with

the Veteran's Day parade, visiting Charlotte Hall Veteran's

Home, and raising money for the Wounded Warrior Benefit, we

have been able to put our words into action in showing our

brave servicemen and women how much we care. Recently, we

coordinated an item drive for homeless veterans in the D.C.

area through Pathways to Housing. The response from our

community was incredible and it fills me with pride to hear

that our first donations went to a post 9/11 veteran who,

along with her 3 children, are no longer living in their car

and can look forward to a bright future. Although we are

making progress, we still have a long way to go.

Our efforts exemplify how important it is, not only to

ensure veterans are appreciated, but that they know they are

loved and needed. As our armed forces fight the enemy

overseas, we must fight against the intangible enemy of

disconnection and emotional disengagement, against

unemployment and homelessness. This Veteran's Stand Down is a

time to stop and remember that it is our duty and obligation

to live the principles our servicemen and women sacrificed so

much to preserve.

Nobody who fights for America overseas ought to have to fight just as hard to find a job, to keep a roof over their head, or to access quality health care once he or she returns home. I was pleased Tucker was able to participate in the event and remind us all of the moral obligation we have to ensure our veterans have the support and resources they need to transition to civilian life after serving our nation so courageously. I thank him and all who participated from throughout Southern Maryland for coming together for the Stand Down event.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise for two reasons. First of all, I want to express my agreement with Mr. Moran and with members of the committee--perhaps on both sides of the aisle--with respect to our continuing Guantanamo policy.

Guantanamo Bay continues to weaken, in my view, America's standing at a time when we need every tool necessary to protect America's interests around the world, which include promoting democracy and the rule of law.

Our courts, in my view, are more than capable of trying and convicting even the most hardened terrorists--and

have shown themselves fully able to do so.

Civilian courts have convicted 533 individuals on terrorism charges, compared to eight convictions in military commissions; yet on the floor of this House, we continue to deal with this issue as if, somehow, it is keeping Americans safer. At the same time, it undermines American values.

That is not a good policy. Hundreds of terrorists are being held securely in maximum security prisons here in the U.S. I won't list them, but I will include them in the Record at a later time.

Keeping these detainees at Guantanamo makes no financial sense. One of my Republican colleagues mentioned a cost of $500,000 per year, per detainee. At a time when we want to be efficient and effective in our use of resources, that seems not to be either.

I now want to speak to a broader issue that concerns me that we have not dealt with in this bill and we did not deal with in the authorization bill.

We need--as a Congress, as a country, as a people--to have the courage to come to grips with rationally passing a defense appropriation bill consistent with the advice of our military leadership and consistent with our willingness to pay the price for what we buy.

I have been in this body 33 years and have always supported funding our military at necessary levels to maintain our security and our freedom, and I will continue to do so.

I have worked with the ranking member for almost all those years. He hasn't been here quite as many years, but almost all those years.

I congratulate the chairman. I am proud of the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, my friend, Mr. Frelinghuysen. I had the opportunity of serving with him for a number of years on the committee. He is a responsible, patriotic, good Member of this House, and will chair this subcommittee in a very responsible fashion. I congratulate him for that.

I have great respect for my dear friend, the ranking member, for his intellect and for his focus and hard work on behalf of making sure our country is strong.

Madam Chair, the ladies and gentlemen of this House and Mr. and Mrs. America should know that we cannot and will not be able to continue to maintain the security of this country if we continue to pass bills with the pretense that we can pay a lot of attention to acquisition and not nearly as much attention to manforce and training and equipping, unless we want to jettison the sequester.

We have to stop pretending that national security, education, infrastructure, or health care can somehow be magically created and maintained without having a physically sustainable overall policy or that we can pretend, both in this appropriation bill and in the authorization bill, that we can simply fund that which the Department of Defense says we don't need and is no longer relevant; but yes, it has consequences for every one of us, including me, if we cut those programs.

So I would urge us, as we pass this bill--and I will vote for this bill--to do so in a context of committing ourselves to having the courage and the wisdom in the years to come to propose and to pass rational security bills.

Madam Chair, I rise for two reasons. First of all to express my agreement with Mr. Moran and with members of the Committee, perhaps on both sides of the aisle, with respect to our continuing Guantanamo policy.

Guantanamo Bay continues to weaken, in my view, America's standing at a time when we need every tool necessary to protect America's interests around the world, which include promoting democracy and the rule of law. Our courts, in my view, are more than capable of trying and convicting even the most hardened terrorists and have shown themselves fully able to do so.

Civilian courts have convicted 533 individuals on terrorism charges, compared to eight convictions in military commissions. Yet on the Floor of this House we continue to deal with this issue as if somehow it is keeping Americans safer. At the same time, it undermines American values. That is not a good policy. Hundreds of terrorists are being held securely in maximum security prisons here in the U.S. I won't list them, but I'll include them in the Record. They include: Faizal Shazhad, the Times Square bomber; Richard Reid, the shoe bomber; and Zacharias Moussaoui, the convicted September 11 conspirator.

Keeping these detainees at Guantanamo makes no financial sense. My Republican colleagues mentioned the cost of over $2 million per year per detainee. At a time when we want to be efficient, effective in our use of resources, that seems not to be either.

I now want to speak to a broader issue that concerns me that we have not dealt with in this bill and we did not deal with in the authorization bill. We need as a Congress, as a country, as a people, to have the courage to come to grips with rationally passing a defense appropriations bill consistent with the advice of our military leadership and consistent with our willingness to pay the price for what we buy. I have been in this body thirty-three years and have always supported funding our military at necessary levels to maintain our security and our freedom. And I will continue to do so. And I worked with the Ranking Member for almost all those years. He hadn't been here quite as many years, but almost all those years.

I congratulate the Chairman. I'm proud of the Chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, my friend, Mr. Frelinghuysen. I had the opportunity to serve with him for a number of years on the Committee. He is a responsible, patriotic, good member of this House and will chair this Subcommittee in a very responsible fashion. I congratulate him for that. And my dear friend, the Ranking Member, for whom I have great respect, for his intellect and for his focus and hard work on behalf of making sure our country is strong.

But Ladies and Gentlemen of this House, Mr. and Mrs. America, Mr. Speaker, should know that we cannot and will not be able to continue to maintain the security of this country if we continue to pass bills with the pretense that we could pay a lot of attention to acquisition and not nearly as much attention to man-force and training and equipping unless we want to jettison this sequester. We have to stop pretending that national security or education or infrastructure or health care can somehow be magically created and maintained without having a fiscally sustainable overall policy. Or that we can pretend on a basis both in this appropriations bill and in the authorization bill that we can simply fund that which the Department of Defense says we don't need, is no longer relevant, but, yes, it has consequences, for every one of us, including me, if we cut those programs.

So I would urge us, as we pass this bill--and I'll vote for this bill--but, as we do so, we do so in a context of committing ourselves to having the courage and the wisdom in the years to come to propose and to pass rational security bills.

Mr. Speaker, before I inquire of the majority leader about the schedule for the week to come, I want to say, at the outset, I have now and have had great respect for the majority leader.

The majority leader is a person of significant intellect. He cares about this institution. He cares about our country and works hard on behalf of the principles which he believes in and which his party believes in, and I have enjoyed having the opportunity to work with him. We obviously, as people have seen from the colloquies from time to time, have not always agreed on what we ought to be doing.

The gentleman from the State of Virginia (Mr. Cantor) served in his House of Delegates, in his general assembly, for 8 years. He served there with distinction and then was elected to the House of Representatives in 2000, succeeding a good friend of mine, the former mayor of Richmond, Tom Bliley, who Mr. Cantor chaired his campaign for at least three cycles--obviously successfully.

He has served in the House of Representatives since 2001 and was selected early on as the chief deputy whip and then became the whip; and then after one Congress serving as whip, his party took the majority, and he was elected as the majority leader.

It has been my experience during that period of time that he has worked hard, has been attentive to his Members, and attentive, also, to the interests of our country.

Again, because we do not agree with one another on how to get to a destination, it does not diminish in any way the commitment of either side to the welfare and best interests of their country and the people that we serve.

So I wanted to say at the outset that I have enjoyed working with Mr. Cantor, and at times--not always--we have worked very productively and in tandem with one another for the interests of our country.

I want to say to the Members of the House of Representatives that I expect Mr. Cantor to continue to be, over the next 5 months, an influential and effective Member of the Congress of the United States.

I want to say to my Members, to his Members, and, Mr. Speaker, to those who might be listening, that I intend to continue to work over the next 5 or 6 months with Mr. Cantor on things that he and I can agree on because I believe that he will remain an influential and effective Member of the Republican Conference and a person dedicated to the best interests of this country.

I want to also say to his wife, Diana, it is tough being a spouse. I lost my spouse, Judy, 17 years ago; and the gentleman from Virginia is blessed by having an extraordinarily wonderful wife, not only extraordinary in terms of her partnership with Mr. Cantor, but also extraordinary in terms of her own talents and intellect and successes that she has had in business and in life.

They have three wonderful children who follow in their parents' success: Evan, a recent graduate of the University of Virginia, he could have gone to the University of Maryland, but he chose Virginia-- such is life; Jenna, who is a senior at the University of Michigan; and Michael, a second-year student at the University of Virginia.

I know that their father will be continually successful, as he has been thus far in life, and will continue to contribute to his country in whatever capacity he might serve.

I congratulate him on his service in this House. I thank him for the opportunity to work with him as a partner from time to time and as a respectful opponent from time to time, always realizing that there are 435 of us elected around this country by our people.

They elect us because they have some faith and trust that we will represent their views and the best interests of their communities, our States, and our country. So I thank him for his service.

I am now pleased to yield to the gentleman from Virginia, the majority leader.

Reclaiming my time, the gentleman mentioned his staff. I am not going to mention them by name because I would leave out somebody, perhaps, but I will say, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Cantor's staff and my staff--no matter what the differences might have been--have been able to work together in a collegial, effective, and productive manner on behalf of this House, I think.

I want to thank the members of Mr. Cantor's staff for that. They have always been receptive to our discussions. We haven't always agreed, as no one would expect, but they have always been cordial and effective and have worked closely with my staff, and we appreciate that, and I appreciate that.

I will now yield to the majority leader for the schedule.

Mr. Speaker, this is the last colloquy that I think I will be having with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), which is why I spent the time to recognize him, because the American public, I am sure, thinks that we are all at one another's throats all the time, and that is very discouraging and very depressing for them.

Frankly, it is a problem for us here in the House because we don't like that atmosphere, either.

But I wanted him to know that there is respect on each side, I think, for the other in many--in most instances. I hope that is the case. But I do have respect and appreciation to Mr. Cantor for his service.

But because it is the last colloquy, not for the purposes of necessarily debate or discussion, but simply I want to articulate some of those things that I know we need to address and I hope we address in the coming weeks before the August break. We clearly need to fund the highway trust fund with a sustainable funding source. Running out of money--I think every Member of the House does not want that to happen, does not want to have Governors around this country shutting down the letting of contracts for needed infrastructure improvement.

We need to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank. We still believe very strongly that we need to pass comprehensive immigration reform, which we think will be a positive for our economy and the morally right thing to do. We are still very concerned, Mr. Speaker, with unemployment insurance and the minimum wage. The Senate has passed an Employment Non-Discrimination Act that we would like and hope would be considered on this floor. The terrorism risk insurance will

expire in the not-too-distant future. We think both for our economy and for the private sector's growth we need to pass that. And, of course, we want to complete the appropriations bills before the end of the fiscal year.

Lastly, let me say, Mr. Speaker, we will celebrate next week the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And we will celebrate this summer with that which is being called Freedom Summer to celebrate that move towards a freer and more just nation. We are very hopeful that we can pass in the not-too-distant-future the Voting Rights Amendment Act, which will deal with ensuring that all people in our country not only have the right to vote but have access to voting and are facilitated in casting their vote.

Again, we don't need to debate those issues, but I did want to set them forth, Mr. Speaker, because this is our last colloquy before our July Fourth break.

Again, I want to close, unless the gentleman wants to say something, with thanks to Mr. Cantor for his service and for his working together when we saw that as possible, and when we disagreed to disagree as coworkers on behalf of this country.

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