Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, we have, unfortunately, entered a period of our history when our political rhetoric has become hyperbolic, just as our political views are becoming increasingly irreconcilable. We would all be well-advised not to continue down this road.

``America, love it or leave it,'' is not a new sentiment nor a radical sentiment, and it certainly is not a racist sentiment. It should remind us of commonly-held and enduring founding principles that ought to be uniting us as a free people: Respect for the rule of law, and for the uniquely American principles of individual liberty, constitutionally-limited government, and personal responsibility that have produced the happiest, most productive and most powerful Nation in the history of the world.

Every nation has a right to protect its culture, traditions, institutions, and principles. This fundamental consensus is what binds us together and unites us as a free people, and it is what makes possible all of the compromises and accommodations required by democratic self-government.

We have entered an era when that consensus is breaking down. We have seen a growing hostility to our American Founders, our American founding principles, and our proud American heritage.

Legal immigration, immigrants who come to our country by obeying our laws, respecting our Nation's sovereignty, and bringing with them a sincere desire to embrace our Constitution and the principles of liberty that animate and inform our form of government, is integral to this process.

Some of the most patriotic Americans I know are legal immigrants who obeyed our laws, who waited patiently in line, who did everything our country asked of them.

Some of the most unpatriotic Americans I know were born here and have enjoyed all of the blessings of liberty, without ever appreciating or even understanding the principles that produced our Nation's greatness and its goodness.

Socialism and slavery spring from the same principle--in Lincoln's words: ``It is the same spirit that says, `you work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it.''' He reminded us that ``A house divided against itself cannot stand.'' He said: ``I do not expect the house to fall--but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.''

He understood that freedom and slavery were antithetical; and though they might be held together in a temporary accommodation, they could not coexist for long.

Today, we face the same conflict between freedom and socialism, and it is time to choose.

Now, I wish the President were more temperate in the words he sometimes uses, and I agree that the tone of his recent remarks was unnecessarily provocative. But his central point is irrefutable. There is no requirement for those who hate our country to remain here when there are so many other

countries with different principles and values to choose from and that have, in turn, produced very different results.

This is as true of those born here as those who have come here from abroad. The President spoke not of race but of patriotism, American patriotism. And to call that racist fundamentally misunderstands and misrepresents the question before our country today.

Mr. Speaker, there is a reason for the abusive rhetoric from the left. For 2\1/2\ years, they peddled a monstrous lie that Donald Trump is colluding with a hostile foreign government. They concocted it with a phony dossier commissioned by the Clinton campaign and promoted by the highest officials in the FBI, our intelligence agencies, and the Justice Department, first in a failed attempt to interfere with the 2016 Presidential election and then to undermine the constitutionally elected President of the United States.

Now, despite spending $25 million on an outrageously biased team of partisan zealots assembled by Mr. Mueller, which initially included the now-infamous Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, and using some of the most abusive prosecutorial tactics ever employed in this country, they could find no evidence to support the lie.

So what to do?

They had to think up another lie and think it up quick. So now we hear cries of obstruction and coverup. Good luck with that.

Coverup of a crime that never happened?

Obstruction, by turning over every document Mueller requested and even waiving executive privilege to allow the White House counsel to testify?

Now, Mr. Speaker, you compare that to Hillary Clinton's willful destruction of 30,000 emails under subpoena and you get a sense of the double standard involved here.

This is a desperate scavenger hunt to salvage their false narrative, and their time and the Nation's patience is running out. The other shoe is about to drop. Broad investigations are now well underway and will soon reveal how this lie was perpetrated and promoted. Two governments interfered in our elections, the Russians through ham-handed propaganda, and the Obama administration by turning the most terrifying powers entrusted to our government against our political process.

The reckoning is coming. As Longfellow said:

The wheels of the gods grind slow, but they grind

exceedingly fine.

Madam Speaker, as we dither and posture and virtue signal here today, our southern border is collapsing.

The border patrol warns that before this year is out, they will have apprehended over 1 million illegal aliens making a mockery of our sovereignty and our asylum laws. Unless Congress acts, these illegals will have to be released into our country; that is the population of the cities of Atlanta and Sacramento combined.

Now, instead of taking simple measures necessary to secure our borders and reserve our asylum laws for the truly persecuted, the House meets today to grant blanket amnesty to roughly 2.5 million illegal aliens, encouraging millions more that they, too, can violate our borders with impunity.

Now, the Democrats have long-advocated free services for illegals: free healthcare, legal counsel, education, food, housing--all paid by American taxpayers.

Now, they deny they support illegal immigration; yet, they heap rewards on those who illegally immigrate.

Many have gone so far as to advocate abolishing the agencies that defend our borders.

Democrats long ago ceased to call illegal immigration for what it is--illegal. They have supported allowing illegal aliens to vote in our elections and opposed visa tracking of foreign nationals entering our country.

They have even enacted sanctuary laws that require dangerous criminal illegal aliens to be released back into our communities rather than to be deported, as Federal law requires.

Now, the real tragedy today is that there are hundreds of thousands of

children who were brought here illegally and, in effect, stranded here without a country.

They have no legal status here, yet little familiarity with their birth country. And there is broad bipartisan support to remedy this situation today, but we cannot do that until we first fully secure our border and fully enforce our immigration laws. Otherwise, we simply encourage more children be brought here illegally, producing yet another generation who will come to us in a few years with the same demands that we hear today.

We could address both issues right now, right here and now. If full funding of the border wall and reform of our asylum laws were to be combined with legalizing the status of children who were brought here and raised here, through no fault of their own, this bill could become law in a matter of days.

Within days, we could bring these young people out of legal limbo and restore the integrity of our borders--within days.

But by forcing the completely one-sided partisan approach, the Democrats end up with precisely nothing.

This is not legislating. This is farce.

And history is screaming this warning at us that nations that either cannot or will not secure their borders simply aren't around very long.

Madam Speaker, let that not be the epitaph of the American republic.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, there are some fundamental principles that we all ought to be able to agree on: Don't hurt other people; respect the right of doctors to do no harm; respect the right of parents to protect their children.

Now, the bill before us today could have affirmed the right of every adult to declare their own gender consistent with these principles. Unfortunately, it violates these principles in the most fundamental ways. And this isn't speculation. Many States have already adopted similar laws, so we can see, firsthand, the result of them.

This bill harms people in so many ways: destroying safe spaces for women, undermining women-owned businesses, intimidating the free exercise of conscience. But let me concentrate on one aspect, the destructive impact it has on women's sports.

Wherever these laws are imposed, biological males have begun to dominate women's competitions. Listen to 16-year-old Selina Soule of Connecticut. She tells the story of qualifying for the prestigious Middletown Invite.

She says this: ``Eight of us lined up at the starting line . . . but when six of us were only about three-quarters into the race, two girls were already across the finish line. . . . What just happened? Two boys identifying as girls happened. Fair is no longer the norm. The chance to advance, the chance to win has been all over for us. . . . I missed the chance to compete in the New England Championship this past season because of this.''

And she goes on to say: ``The CAAC won't listen to my voice, but I hope Congress will. . . . H.R. 5 will endanger women and girls of all ages by opening up every sports team in the country to any male who self-identifies as female. This policy will take away our medals, records, scholarships, and dreams.''

And we know this will happen because it already has. And we know it is the intent of the bill because Congressman Steube offered an amendment: ``Nothing in this act may be construed to require a biological female to face competition from a biological male in any sporting event.'' The Democrats voted it down on a party-line vote.

Sorry, Selina, but if you are looking for fairness from this majority, you have come to the wrong place.

Now, this bill could have protected the professional judgment of doctors, but it doesn't. At our hearing on May 1, Mr. Cicilline said: ``What H.R. 5 does is to ensure that transgender people, including young people, are not denied care because of their gender identity.''

Well, what is care for gender identity? Cross-sex hormones, puberty blockers, and surgery. Refuse to provide it on the self-diagnosis of a child and you have just broken the law.

Indeed, Johns Hopkins University, which pioneered sex reassignment surgery, stopped the practice because they saw the long-term harm it did to their patients.

And we know that is the intent of the bill as well, because I offered an amendment: ``Nothing in this act shall

be construed to require healthcare providers to affirm the self- professed gender identity of a minor,'' and the Democrats voted it down on a straight party-line vote.

Listen to one anguished parent, Elaine, tell her story. She says: ``Let me explain to you how this works. If you take your child to a clinic to seek help, affirmative care means the . . . professionals must accept a child's professed gender identity. . . . Under `conversion therapy' bans, questioning a child's professed gender identity is now illegal. So, if a little boy is 5 years old and believes he is the opposite sex, affirmative care means going along with his beliefs. Parents are encouraged to refer to him as their `daughter' and let him choose a feminine name. Teachers are told to let him use the girls bathroom at school. Therapists will reassure parents that social transition is harmless and reversible. Is it really harmless to tell a child who still believes in the tooth fairy that he is of the opposite sex? . . . If a 10-year-old girl is uncomfortable with her developing body and suddenly insists she is a boy, affirmative care means blocking this girl's puberty with powerful drugs.''

And we know this will happen because it already has. And we know this is the intent of the bill because Congressman Mike Johnson offered an amendment: ``Nothing in this act or any amendment made by this act may be construed to deny a parent's right to be involved in their minor child's medical care.'' And the Democrats voted that amendment down on a party-line vote.

Elaine goes on to say: ``I am speaking out because I love my daughter. And it is because of her that I know what I have told you is true. She has been a victim of `gender affirming' medical procedures, and I was powerless to stop doctors from harming her.''

I am sorry, Elaine. The House majority doesn't care, and it isn't listening. This is the brave new world that House Democrats propose under the name, ``equality.''

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko).

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from Arizona an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, control the remainder of my time.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record the following release which includes the statement by Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, the President-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, regarding the designation of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, the President-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, described the inclusion of the suppressive Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) in the State Department's list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO) as a long-standing and rightful demand of the Iranian Resistance, an imperative for Middle East security, peace, and stability, and an urgent and necessary step to end war and terrorism throughout the region and the world.

``This action, which was long overdue, should now be completed by designating the Iranian regime's Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS),'' Mrs. Rajavi added.

The Revolutionary Guard Corps, which does not even carry Iran in its official name, constitutes the pillar of the velayat-e faqih regime

(absolute clerical rule), is the main apparatus of repression, the primary driver of war and export of terrorism, and responsible for pursuing nuclear weapons and missile projects. The IRGC also controls the lion's share of Iran's economy.

It is no wonder that the religious fascism ruling Iran, its apologists and mercenaries have become terrified of IRGC 's designation.

Mrs. Rajavi emphasized that if the disastrous policy of appeasement had not provided so much freedom of action to the mullahs and the Revolutionary Guards over the past decades, the Iranian regime could not have caused so much bloodshed in Iraq, Syria. Lebanon, Yemen and Afghanistan.

She emphasized that in the interest of the Iranian people as well as regional peace and security, the European Union must designate the Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist entity, adding that the ultimate solution to rid the world of the ruling theocracy in Iran is for the Iranian people and the Resistance to change the illegitimate caliphate, cloaked under the veneer of Shia and Islam.

On behalf of the Iranian Resistance which has called for an arms and oil embargo on Iran's religious dictatorship since 1981, Mrs. Rajavi reiterated the need to take the following measures:

1. Recognizing the right of the Iranian people and the Resistance to overthrow the ruling religious fascism and to establish freedom.

2. Placing the Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) and other organs of suppression and export of terrorism and fundamentalism on State Department's FTO list as well as on the EU's terror watch list.

3. Expelling the agents of the MOIS and the terrorist Quds Force from the United States and Europe.

4. Referring the dossier on the Iranian regime's human rights violations and the massacre of political prisoners to the United Nations Security Council and the International Court of Justice.

5. Expelling the illegitimate clerical regime from the UN and recognizing the Iranian Resistance as the true representative of the Iranian people.

6. Evicting the Iranian regime and its forces from Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon and Afghanistan.

Madam Speaker, for 43 years, the President of the United States has had the statutory authority granted by Congress to declare a national emergency and to reprogram unobligated military construction funds to meet that emergency. Fifty-eight times previous Presidents have invoked this authority to address such matters as civil unrest in Sierra Leone and Burma.

Only when this President invoked his authority for the 59th time to address the most serious national security risk our country has faced in our lifetime--the collapse of our southern border--do we now hear protests from the left and its fellow travelers.

Madam Speaker, under our Constitution, the Congress appropriates money but cannot spend it, and the President spends money but cannot appropriate it. He spends it according to laws given to him by Congress. In this case, Congress appropriated funds and delegated to the President precisely the authority to spend those funds that he is now exercising.

Now, whether Congress should have delegated this authority is a separate question that no one has raised in 43 years. But while that authority exists, the President has both a right and a duty to use it to defend our country.

We also hear protests that the President's act will divert money from other military projects. Listen to what these people are saying. They care more about defending the Iraqi border than defending our own. Such people should not be entrusted with the defense of our country.

I stand with the President, who is acting within our Constitution to defend our Nation, and against the radical left in this House who would dissolve our borders entirely if given the chance.

History warns us that nations that cannot or will not defend their borders aren't around very long. Let that not be the epitaph of the American Republic or the Constitution that created it.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, consent of the governed is the cornerstone of our democracy. In America, the people are sovereign, and we govern through the votes that we cast. At the very core of this process are fair and free elections.

Every citizen should be free to express themselves and to vote, and no citizen should ever be muzzled or have their legitimate vote canceled out by a fraudulent one.

By definition, one side is always going to be disappointed with the outcome. That is why it is essential that both sides are confident that they were treated fairly.

Democracies die when one party seizes control of the elections process, eliminates the safeguards that have protected the integrity of the ballot, places restrictions on free speech, and seizes the earnings of individual citizens to promote candidates that they may abhor.

That is precisely what this bill does today. It destroys the bipartisan composition of the Federal Election Commission and places a partisan majority in control of every aspect of our Federal elections. It imposes limits on free speech, and that has earned the opposition of the American Civil Liberties Union. It matches a contribution of $200 given to a candidate with $1,200 taken from others who may oppose that candidate.

Worst of all, it undermines the integrity of the ballot and opens the floodgates to fraud. The purpose of registration periods is to allow parties to canvass the rolls and challenge improper registrations, while ensuring candidates know exactly who is going to be voting.

The reason we require election day voting at a polling place is to ensure voters cast their ballots in secret after they have heard the entire debate and after verifying their identity to their neighbors. This bill sweeps away these few remaining vestiges of ballot integrity.

Democracies die by suicide, and we are now face-to-face with such an instrument.

Madam Chairman, we all deplore and mourn the monstrous, despicable, and evil massacre in Charleston. But that terrible crime was committed 67 days after the perpetrator applied to purchase the firearm.

As Mr. Collins said, this was preventable if, under current law, it was a failure of the FBI and not of the law.

This bill is not about public safety. Most gun predators already get their firearms illegally. A recent Johns Hopkins study found that California's universal background check had no effect on gun violence.

Their true objective is to make gun ownership by law-abiding people so legally hazardous and so bureaucratically time-consuming that people simply give up. This bill cleverly and, I believe, insidiously sets up a potentially never-ending bureaucratic review process.

As Mr. Collins said, a background check is only good for 30 calendar days from the day you apply. But this bill sets up a 20-business-day delay process. Now, what that means is, if a single holiday falls within that window, or the store is closed on weekends, or you slip a single day on that timetable, your background check is no longer valid, and you have to start all over again in a perpetual cycle of Kafkaesque proportions.

Now, would a bureaucracy be so abusive as to play this game? Well, of course it would. Just ask Lois Lerner.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 8 is brought to us by the same groups and politicians who have made no secret of their desire to ultimately strip law-abiding citizens of their right to defend themselves. Now, they can't do that outright; they know that. So they do it through cynical measures like this, which weave a web of laws so intricate, that, sooner or later, everyone can be caught up in them.

This law affects not just transfer of ownership, but any transfer of weapon for any period of time. Suppose you exchange shotguns with a friend on a hunt and then separate for a period of time, or you loan a gun to your next-door neighbor of 20 years who is being victimized by a stalker, or you give a gun to your stepson or your great-grandson. Under any of these innocent scenarios and countless more like them, you are guilty of a Federal crime.

These flaws were all pointed out to the bill's sponsors, and none were addressed. Why not? I think the reason should be obvious.

Last October, a 10-year study by Johns Hopkins and UC Davis concluded that California's universal background check law had no effect on gun homicides or suicides--none.

The purpose of this bill is not public safety. That is just a deceptive facade. Its true purpose is to make gun ownership so legally hazardous, so fraught with legal booby traps and draconian penalties, that no honest and law-abiding citizen would want to take the risk of gun ownership.

Most criminals already get their guns illegally and are unconstrained by laws like this. Make no mistake, this is aimed squarely at law- abiding citizens, moving us closer to a society where decent people are defenseless and armed criminals are kings.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the President's decision to temporarily resolve the shutdown was the correct one. The Democrats' refusal even to discuss a path forward had created a crisis of governance, in addition to our ongoing crisis on the southern border.

The President had offered many compromises to the Democrats. He reduced his funding request, altered the design, and added nearly $1 billion of humanitarian aid. Yet, the Democrats spurned all of these good faith overtures.

When the President invited congressional Democrats to the Oval Office to hear their views, they refused to go. They had plenty of time to vacation in Puerto Rico with 100 lobbyists during the shutdown, but they couldn't seem to fit a simple meeting with the President into their busy schedules in order to resolve it.

Based on their past behavior, I am skeptical their position will change over the next 3 weeks.

They tell us there is no crisis. Well, the facts speak for themselves. Between 16 million and 29 million people now are living illegally in the United States, costing American taxpayers well over $100 billion a year to support. Sixty thousand more are illegally crossing our border every month. In 2017, illegal aliens murdered 1,800 Americans and violently assaulted 48,000 more.

The congressional Democrats who oppose the President's wall insist that they support border security, but they say a wall is a costly and ineffective way to stop illegal immigration. Well, it is hard to take either of their claims seriously.

These same politicians have long advocated for providing a wide range of services for illegal immigrants, ranging from healthcare and legal counsel to education and housing, all at taxpayer expense. It is hard to believe they want to discourage illegal immigration while they reward those who illegally immigrate.

The Democrats long ago ceased to call illegal immigration what it is: illegal. Many have gone so far as to advocate abolishing the agencies that defend our borders and enforce our immigration laws. They have enacted sanctuary laws that protect dangerous criminals from deportation. They have opposed mandatory employment verification to hold employers accountable for hiring illegals. And they have opposed visa tracking of foreign nationals entering our country.

They tell us that walls are medieval and what we really need are sophisticated cameras. Well, we don't want to watch them crossing our border; we want to stop them.

Walls have been used for thousands of years to impede unauthorized entry for one reason: They work, and they still work. When Israel built a 143-mile wall to protect its southern border, illegal immigration fell 99 percent. The cost of building a wall is a fraction of the cost incurred by American citizens every year to support the illegal population already in our country.

It doesn't address the whole problem, but a wall would be a tremendous force multiplier for border enforcement agencies. It would protect them from the violent attacks to which they are constantly subjected and allow them to apply their slender resources more efficiently and effectively.

If the Democrats continue to oppose serious measures to defend our borders and enforce our laws, I urge the President to use the authority Congress granted in 1976 to reprogram already appropriated but unobligated military construction funds for the defense of our Nation. What is more fundamental to national defense than the security and integrity of our own borders?

Some argue that this would divert money from other Defense Department projects. Well, it is an odd logic that argues that defending the Iraqi border is more important than defending our own.

Others have worried that a Presidential order would provoke a protracted legal challenge. Isn't that true of any course the President could take?

Others worry that leftist activists would misuse this precedent. Well, let me ask you: When have such activists

ever relied on precedent to expand their power?

Using this authority would not only build the wall, it would avoid the need to meet any demands to further diminish or dilute our current immigration laws.

If the next 3 weeks produce the unreasonable demands and intransigence that we have come to expect from the Democratic leadership, I strongly urge the President to use his existing authority. Countries that either cannot or will not enforce their borders simply aren't around very long. Let that not be America's epitaph

Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks after the 2016 election, I warned on this floor that the greatest obstacle to the success of the Republican Congress and the Trump Presidency was the Senate's cloture rule.

Cloture is the Senate rule that requires 60 votes before a bill can be considered. It was originally designed to protect the minority's right to debate, but it has now degenerated into a very effective way for the minority to prevent any debate. Today, it gives minority Democrats in the Senate the power to summarily reject almost every measure brought to the Senate.

In 2016, the American people elected a Republican President and Republican majorities in both houses of Congress with a simple plea: Make America Great Again. As a practical matter, this meant reviving the economy, balancing the budget, securing our borders, and rescuing our healthcare system. Having given us all the necessary tools, it had every right to expect action.

If the Republican Congress had proven worthy of this trust, history would have looked back on the last 2 years as the turning point when America reclaimed its greatness and entered a new era of prosperity, solvency, and security. The new 116th Congress would be taking office with a clear mandate to build on that success.

Well, the American people got action from the President. They also got action from this House. We sent the Senate over 1,300 bills, fulfilling every promise made to the American people. The Senate acted on fewer than 300.

Now, did the Senate, which absurdly boasts to be the greatest deliberative body in the world, carefully and meticulously deliberate over these measures and ultimately reject them? No. The greatest deliberative body in the world never took them up at all--all for lack of cloture.

That is not the fault of Senate Democrats, who radically abused this rule as part of the resistance. It is the fault of Senate Republicans who let them.

The only major accomplishments were due to rare instances when cloture could be bypassed. The appointments of Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court occurred only after Senate Republicans changed this rule, but only for Supreme Court nominations.

The landmark tax reform bill could be taken up and passed in the Senate only by misusing a budget process called reconciliation, which avoids the cloture rule.

Reconciliation is a once-a-year bill designed to control spending. It isn't subject to the 60-vote requirement, but it can only change laws to conform to spending levels set by the budget.

Even then, this proved a mixed political blessing for Republicans. The limits on deducting State and local taxes were all placed in the bill, solely to conform to reconciliation requirements. Republicans got clobbered in the high-tax States where these provisions proved so unpopular.

The tax cuts triggered such dramatic economic growth that Federal revenues increased, yet the deficit continued to widen. Why? Well, spending exploded, in part because House leaders hijacked reconciliation, the most potent tool to control spending, in order to get around the Senate's cloture rule.

Cloture turned healthcare from a winning to a losing issue for Republicans. House Republicans had proposed comprehensive healthcare reforms that rescued Americans from the bureaucratic labyrinth of ObamaCare, restored their freedom of choice, protected those with preexisting conditions, and provided a supportive tax system to guarantee an affordable health plan for every family.

Yet cloture made a comprehensive bill DOA in the Senate, forcing the House to concoct a hodgepodge measure that could fit within the narrow rules for budget reconciliation. This mangled product that resulted couldn't even muster a Senate majority. Since the replacement bill was never enacted, Democrats could portray it any way they wanted. The same story can be told of border security and funding for the long-promised border wall.

Though majorities in both houses favored funding, cloture gave Senate Democrats the power to run out the clock toward a government shutdown and produce the impasse that we now face today.

Ironically, the political demographics of Senate elections allowed Senate Republicans to increase their majority, while voter frustration decimated their House colleagues.

The 115th Congress now passes into history as Democrats take control of the House and end any chance to fulfill the hopes of 2016. All that is left is Whittier's sad lament: ``Of all sad words of tongue and pen, the saddest are these, `It might have been.' ''

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 3456) to redesignate Hobe Sound National Wildlife Refuge as the Nathaniel P. Reed Hobe Sound National Wildlife Refuge, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, S. 3456 would rename the Hobe Sound National Wildlife Refuge, located in southeast Florida, after Nathaniel P. Reed, who passed away on July 11, 2018, at the age of 84.

Nathaniel P. Reed was a prominent conservationist who served as an Assistant Secretary of the Interior from 1971 to 1977 and later returned to Florida to form an advocacy group to help preserve and restore the Everglades. He also joined forces with former Senator Bob Graham to launch the Florida Conservation Coalition.

Renaming the Hobe Sound National Wildlife Refuge, which is located near his home in Florida, in honor of Nathaniel P. Reed is a tribute to his legacy of conservation and public land stewardship.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 6287) to provide competitive grants for the operation, security, and maintenance of certain memorials to victims of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6287, sponsored by Congressman Tom MacArthur, authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to award grants through a competitive process to nonprofit organizations to operate, provide security, maintain, and increase visitation at U.S. memorials to the victims of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. This bill passed the House by voice vote on September 12.

Throughout our Nation's history, Congress has supported public- private partnerships with nongovernmental organizations for the operation and maintenance of memorials and museums of national significance. Such partnerships exist at the Oklahoma City National Memorial and Museum and the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, for example.

The Senate has amended the bill to remove the Flight 93 site in Pennsylvania from the program at the supporting foundation's request.

This bill will ensure that our Nation's other 9/11 memorials are maintained and preserved for future generations to visit, learn, and reflect. May we never forget the nearly 3,000 Americans we lost that fateful day.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge concurrence in the Senate amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Randy Hanvelt for his devoted service as a Tuolumne County Supervisor.

Supervisor Hanvelt was first elected to serve the 2nd District of Tuolumne County in 2010 and has worked incessantly on behalf of his constituents ever since.

In his years of service, Randy Hanvelt has transformed the job of a County Supervisor. He has relentlessly pursued a better way of life for the residents of Tuolumne County; never missing an opportunity to share his message, express his passion, and inspire others to advocate for rural issues.

In addition to serving on more than a dozen regional committees and commissions, Supervisor Hanvelt was elected Second Vice Chair to the Rural County Representatives of California in December 2016. He served as both the Second and First Vice Chairs during his tenure as Tuolumne County Supervisor. In July 2018, Supervisor Hanvelt was appointed chair of the National Association of Counties' Public Lands Policy Steering Committee. In 2017, the California Forestry Association awarded Randy the title of ``Conservationist of the Year.''

Supervisor Hanvelt has worked tirelessly on behalf of his district and the entirety of Tuolumne County. He has advocated locally and nationally for full funding of Payments in Lieu of Taxes, the Secure Rural Schools Program, and Forest Health projects, including Rim Fire Recovery and the County's Master Stewardship Agreement with the U.S. Forest Service. Randy has also been an instrumental leader in developing programs and securing funding to eradicate dead and hazardous trees.

Supervisor Randy Hanvelt has truly been at the forefront in making Tuolumne County a more prosperous place. He has set a new standard for local leaders and his service to the community is incomparable.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6602) to reauthorize the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route was authorized by Congress in 1988, and it runs along the entire eastern coast of New Jersey.

The National Park Service, the State of New Jersey, the Pinelands Commission, and other local organizations have partnered to promote recreation and appreciation of New Jersey's coastal areas along that route. The route links wildlife refuges, historic sites, and natural areas to tell the story of New Jersey's role in shaping U.S. history and in providing important habitat for birds and other wildlife. The coalition's efforts to enhance public enjoyment and access bring more visitors to these special places from New Jersey and beyond.

H.R. 6602 will reauthorize the Secretary of the Interior's authority to co-manage the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route through 2025 and to provide technical assistance. This authority expired in 2011.

Congressman Frank LoBiondo should be commended for his support for his constituents and for the Coastal Heritage Trail, and I am pleased to move this legislation before his retirement from the House.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, Congressman LoBiondo is going to be retiring from this House after many, many years of distinguished service at the close of this session, and it has been my distinct honor and pleasure to serve with him.

Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor and pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).

Mr. Speaker, I join Mr. Grijalva in asking for the support of this Chamber of this measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.