Kevin McCarthy

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, elections have consequences. Our fellow Americans used their vote to choose who will work for them. So I ask you all a simple question--especially to my colleagues: Is that what is happening here today? Are we gathered in these final moments, before we depart for a week, to fund our government or to pay our troops? Are we gathered today to approve a new trade deal? Or are we gathered to debate the critical national security issues regarding China or Iran? That answer would be unanimously ``no.'' We are not working for the American people. Those items would resemble the achievements of a productive Congress, a Congress that truly works for the people. But do you know what this Congress counts? This Congress' record is more subpoenas than laws. That is the legacy. It is not just devoid of solutions for the American people; it is now abusing its power to discredit democracy. By using secret interviews and selective leaks to portray the President's legitimate actions as an impeachable offense, Democrats are continuing their permanent campaign to undermine his legitimacy. For the last 3 years, they have predetermined the President's guilt, and they have never accepted the voters' choice to make him President. So for 37 days and counting, they have run an unprecedented, undemocratic, and unfair investigation. This resolution today only makes it worse. I have heard Members on the other side say they promise rights to the President, but only if he does what they want. That is the equivalent of saying in the First Amendment that you have the right to the freedom of speech, but you can only say the words I agree with. That is what you call due process, Madam Speaker. The amendment offered by my colleague, Mr. Cole, would help correct some of the transparency concerns we have witnessed over the last few weeks. But today is about more than the fairness of the impeachment process. It is about the integrity of our electoral process. Democrats are trying to impeach the President because they are scared they cannot defeat him at the ballot box. Those are not my words. Those are the words from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have offered impeachment three different times. This impeachment is not only an attempt to undo the last election, it is an attempt to influence the next one as well. This is not what Democrats promised when they entered the majority 11 months ago. In this Chamber, we heard from our Speaker. While we all sat here, we heard what the Speaker said when she talked about words of optimism and cooperation. It was said that we would work together to make America stronger, more secure, and more prosperous. We were told our mission was to return power to the people. In fact, our new colleagues on the other side of the aisle were sent to Washington with a mandate to do just that. So what has happened? There is nothing like that today. Not long ago, Democrats recognized that a partisan impeachment would put politics over people and harm our Nation. That exact same Speaker talked about cooperation and talked about and promised the American people that they would be different if you trusted them with the majority. Madam Speaker, you have failed in that promise. That Speaker said: ``Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there's something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan''--the word bipartisan--``I don't think we should go down that path, because it divides the country.'' What has changed since those words have been spoken? Alexander Hamilton wrote that: There will always be the greatest danger that the decision to use the impeachment power would be driven by partisan animosities instead of real demonstrations of innocence or guilt. This sham impeachment by Democrats has proven Hamilton right, and it betrays the Speaker's own words. I know emotions are high. I know Members would even run for positions of chair simply on the fact that they would be a better chair for impeachment right after the election. But when we all stood that day and listened to the words of the Speaker of cooperation, we all raised our hand to uphold the Constitution. Tomorrow is November 1. We are 1 year away from an election, not just for this House but for the highest office of Presidency. Madam Speaker, why do you not trust the people? Why do you not allow the people to have a voice? Why, in a process that America lends their voice to all of us, do you deny us the opportunity to speak for them? Has animosity risen that high? Has Hamilton been proven correct again? Madam Speaker, there is a moment in time that you should rise to the occasion. This is that moment. This is the moment that history will write. History will ask you, Madam Speaker, when you cast this vote to justify something that has gone on behind closed doors, I want you to ask the historian and answer the question: What do you know that happened there? Madam Speaker, have you read anything that took place that you just justified? What do you believe the definition of ``due process'' is? What do you think the First Amendment is, that you have the right to have a voice or only say the words that you agree with? Madam Speaker, you may get elected in a primary, but in a general election, you are elected to represent the people of America, not to deny their voice. This House is so much better than what is transforming today. I believe everyone who runs for this office runs to solve a problem. But when you go back to the American public with the achievement of more subpoenas than laws, that is not why you ran. That is not why we are here. That is why I agree with my colleague, Mr. Cole, who believes in the power of the people and people before politics, that we believe and know we can do better, that we believed the Speaker when she spoke about cooperation, we believed her when she said that if you trusted them with the majority then they would be different. Madam Speaker, I guess it is only fitting you take this vote on Halloween.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, Members of Congress have a solemn duty to work to keep our Nation safe, secure, and more prosperous than it was yesterday. We are expected to analyze sensitive information to gain a more in-depth understanding of the needs of the American people and the threats our country faces on a daily basis. That role is even more consequential for the members of the Intelligence Committee, who are entrusted with the privileged information that other Members cannot access. You would expect them to focus day and night on securing our Nation and promoting our national security priorities abroad, but that has not been the case in this Congress. Under the Democratic majority, the most basic responsibilities of the committee have been neglected. Instead, the House Intelligence Committee is using its time and resources to run a sham impeachment inquiry in secret. Members of this Chamber will be asked to take one of the gravest votes a Member could take before seeing a single transcript from a witness deposition. The information Members and the public hear is incomplete or intentionally distorted by selective leaks. Madam Speaker, at what cost does this impeachment effort come? As Democrats push forward with this sham partisan process, our Nation is losing its intelligence edge around the world, particularly against China. Not only are there significant intelligence gaps in order to accurately assess the Chinese threat, the Chinese are actually ahead of us when it comes to technological capabilities that are critical to national security. The Intelligence Committee's members are uniquely qualified to formulate our Nation's response, but they cannot address these challenges because of the committee's continued distraction over impeachment. The larger issue goes beyond what the Democrats are doing in one committee. It is what they have failed to do as a majority. Their trend of inaction strikes at home. They have failed to swiftly pass the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. In fact, they voted to prioritize impeachment over it earlier today. They have failed to address surprise medical billing. They have failed to secure our border or reform our crumbling infrastructure. They have failed to lower prescription drug prices in a bipartisan way. The House Democrats are failing to pass appropriations bills that would end the continuing resolution and fund the government. As a result, pay increases for our troops, disaster recovery funds, and NIH medical research funding are all at a stalemate. Each of these failures represent an enormous opportunity cost for the American people. Democrats have chosen impeachment over getting anything done, even though they previously warned of that exact problem. In August, Congresswoman Slotkin said: ``People in my district are wanting us to pass bills, and they fear that if we go down this path of impeachment, we're not going to be working on the things that affect their lives, their pocketbooks, and their kids.'' In September, Congressman Max Rose said: ``Impeachment will not fix our roads and bridges or lower the cost of drugs. . . . The truth is impeachment will only tear our country further apart, and we will see no progress on the enormous challenges we face as a nation.'' Democrats said their majority would be different. They promised the American public, if they entrusted them with the majority, they would act differently, that they would put people before politics. Madam Speaker, in the polls we see today, more people can tell you about the investigations but can't tell you anything that has been accomplished. They have broken their promise to solve problems, work for all Americans, and focus on passing legislation. Madam Speaker, there are 22 legislative days left on the calendar-- 22. In that brief time, we have a lot of work to do, but we cannot fulfill our responsibilities if Members in this Chamber continue to turn their backs on the promise they made when their constituents sent them to Washington. Madam Speaker, how much money was spent? How many ads were made? And how many promises were given that this majority would be different, how many things they said they would accomplish? And how much time have they wasted? We are 13 months from an election, but we have not accomplished a thing. We are better than this. Madam Speaker, if you only listened to what Members on the other side of the aisle said just in August and September, before the political pressure forced them to change their mind. Madam Speaker, if the Speaker had only waited 48 hours, we would not put America through another nightmare. We would not break the fabric of democracy of this Nation. Madam Speaker, this is the people's House. We have got 22 more days. We ask that you keep the promise you made to the American public and you stop this sham of an impeachment you call.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. I thank him for his words, and I thank the Speaker. We lost more than just a Member of Congress when we lost Elijah Cummings. As the Speaker spoke of his life, she talked about him bringing calmness. I want you to reflect for one moment, when have you ever served in this body that we have been this calm and this quiet and this reflective? Elijah's work is still good with us right now. Chairman Cummings had enormous presence. As many times he would be an adversary, he was a respected adversary because he was tough. He had such a presence on this side of the aisle and an impression that, when we would sit inside our steering committee--and maybe I am breaking the rule; we are never supposed to talk about what we say in there. When we would select a chair or a ranking member, this is the one committee we weighed who we went against. And every time we spoke of selecting an individual who can rise to the occasion, to be in debate with him, we would look for somebody who was strong. And every time someone was selected, they would come back to be a very best friend of Elijah Cummings. It is a tough committee. It is a committee of accountability. It is a committee of debate. I can't tell you how many friends would call me and be in fear because they got a letter from Cummings. But he was a man of fairness. You will know this because, in committees, at times, you have these debates. But when you are sitting as a chair and ranking member, what we would talk about is Elijah would share with us the life lessons, you know what he would say privately to the chair or the ranking member on the other side, what he would say to Jim Jordan, what he would say to Trey Gowdy. Trey shared with me today, he never stopped talking, even though he left Congress. Jim Jordan shared with me today that he was talking to Elijah just last week about committee business. Trey talked about a story. Trey was pretty tough on one person. And Trey is good; that prosecutor in him can get to the point. Elijah turned to him and said: She is not a government employee. She has a family, and she has children. You can be a little softer next time. And that hit on his heart. And what I fear in the world today, that when they look at us, they get this persona through cameras and social media, but it doesn't show our character. We are the only ones who get the window into one another's character of how we act. We are the ones who should share the message. Because he was so strong in his beliefs, I am afraid some people in America won't know what type of character he actually had, not as a Member of Congress and not as a political figure, but as a person, because that is how I knew Elijah. He was a fighter. So many times in his life people told him no, and he would say, yes, he could. He was a leader, but not in the sense that America probably thinks as a Member of Congress. His entire life he wanted to overturn racial injustice. A Member shared with me the first time he got to know him was on a codel down in Mexico. Most of the people on the bus were asleep because it was one of those long trips, and Elijah sat and talked to him. This Member was from the South, and he talked about how his grandparents were there, but his grandparents moved him away because they felt he would have a better chance just because of the color of his skin, that he would get a better education. Elijah was not upset by that. He felt this country gave him the opportunity. That is why he wanted to serve. So, all those who are here, it was an honor, a fortune, and a privilege to know him. If you are a freshman, I hope you took a few moments with him, because it didn't matter if you were a chair or a ranking member or if you were a Republican or a Democrat, he would spend that time with you. I feel I am better for having known him, and I want you to know, from this side of the aisle, no matter how hard of a debate we were in, I have only heard respect for how he carried out the business. We respected him because he was good. We respected him because he beat us many times. We respected him because of what he fought for, he believed in. Our deepest prayers go to Maya, because in those life lessons and in that window that we get to see, it is not the easiest to have a family in these jobs. We have a lot of things pulled on us, but we knew where his heart stood, where his family mattered, and what he continued to believe in. So, yes, today we lost more than just a Member, but I hope as the days progress, as the times change and our debate gets heated again, that we reflect on this moment of calmness, reflect on this moment of thinking of one another, and we reflect on the idea that, yes, television may give us a different persona of who we are, but, yes, you and I get to see the window of the character within each and every one of us. I think that is what Elijah would want us to do. So in his honor, let's find that tomorrow will be better than today and that this calmness will last longer than the next vote.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, we have the solemn duty to find the facts, to be stewards of the truth. It is the truth that must guide our work. When the truth is contorted, twisted, and disregarded, the American people lose. The fabric of the institution starts to erode. Sadly, that is exactly what is happening with the House Intelligence Committee under Democratic leadership. It should not have to come to this. On numerous occasions, as outlined in this resolution, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee has used his position to mislead the American people. But this resolution is about more than the actions of one individual. When false evidence is entered into the official record or communicated directly to the American people, the people's House loses the credibility it needs to function properly. If the credibility is not restored, if the American people cannot trust that the process will be fair and that the information will be honestly shared, they will lose trust in the soundness of our system of government. This is what this resolution is all about, and I want to thank Congressman Biggs for introducing it: to protect the integrity of our proceedings, which censure is designed to do; to restore a process that is fair, objective, and fact-based; and to reassure the American people that the stakes and intensity of our current debate will not overwhelm their government. We face a critical moment in the life of Congress in the history of this country. History will judge what happens on this floor. Mr. Speaker, it should not have to come to this, but it has. This is not a decision we take lightly, but it is the right thing to do. We serve on this floor as Americans, not as in a party. We have to stand for truth. We have to stand for a committee that many of us don't even have the capability or the opportunity to read what happens. We put a trust into those individuals to be honest with us and to the American public. Mr. Speaker, that is why I urge all of my colleagues to join me in support of this resolution: to bring integrity back to this floor and to this body.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House.

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House, and I send to the desk a privileged resolution.

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Nancy Wheeler-Nichols, who has been selected as the 2019 Person of the Year by the Kern County Fair, a county that I'm honored to represent in this Chamber. Nancy, a graduate of Bakersfield's Garces High School and the University of San Diego, first started volunteering with the Kern County Fair in 1989, almost 30 years ago, when she was painting faces, putting together buttons, and inspiring a new generation of leaders to become involved in Agriculture. Nancy was appointed to the Board of the Kern County Fair in 2003 and has been a consistent presence for over 15 years in the fair's operations. Her agricultural insights have taken her beyond the needs of my district, however, as she was recently appointed by then Governor Jerry Brown to the Board of Directors for California's Mid State Fair. Outside of her work with the Kern County Fair, Nancy has served our community through a variety of organizations, including the Junior League of Bakersfield. She has been a tireless and much-needed voice for children experiencing abuse and neglect as a Court Appointed Special Advocate, and also on the board of the California Living Museum, an animal rehabilitation facility in my district that specializes in nursing back to health many of California's most vulnerable species. In Kern County, agriculture is the lifeblood of our community, and the Kern County Fair has emerged as one of the biggest showcases of livestock and talent in our agricultural community. Although Nancy no longer lives in Bakersfield or Kern County, she is one of our own who consistently makes Kern County proud. Through her time and expertise, Nancy has made a tangible impact in our community and has made her a staple of the Kern County community. Kern County Fair Person of the Year is a well-deserved honor for Nancy, who has provided years of public service to our community and has contributed to countless events, successful animal shows, and old- fashioned family fun. A selfless leader, Nancy juggles her volunteer and board work along with raising horses, cattle, and her four children: Kelsey, Jake, Sawyer, and Tommy. On behalf of our community, the Kern County Fair Board, and the thousands of people who have benefited from her guidance, I want to thank Nancy and her husband Jimmy for all that they do, and congratulate her on being the Kern County Fair's 2019 Person of the Year.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Curtis Creel, the General Manager of the Kern County Water Agency (KCWA), whose steady hand helped guide our community and agricultural producers through some of the worst years of drought that Kern County and California experienced in recent history. Curtis was born in Lakeview, Oregon, but has spent most of his life in California. A graduate of California State University, Humboldt, in 1986, Curtis quickly found a position in California's Department of Water Resources (DWR), and eventually rose to the position of Chief of the State Water Project (SWP) Operation and Planning Branch. In March of 2005, Curtis was hired as the Water Resources Manager for the Kern County Water Agency (KCWA). The KCWA contracts about 25% of the water on the SWP system, which supports some of the most fertile and productive agricultural lands in the United States. Promoted to KCWA General Manager in 2016, Curtis recognized the strategic importance of planning for the long-term needs of our community. During negotiations on the California water-related provisions of the Water Infrastructure for Improvements to the Nation (WIIN) Act of 2016, Curtis' advice and counsel was invaluable. This bipartisan law provides increased flexibility to move water from northern California to the Central Valley and southern California to meet our communities' needs, while protecting fish and the environment. He has also played a critical role in increasing water supply reliability for our region through his support of new surface water storage projects and enlarging existing reservoirs. In addition, Curtis has served on the Board of Directors of the State Water Contractors Association, including as president. Most recently, Curtis played a major role in advocating for our community as various federal and state agencies work to update the regulations that govern water exports from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. His ability to draw on his more than 14 years of experience as a champion for the SWP at the KCWA, combined with his technical expertise from his time at DWR, has been crucial during this initiative. In California, they say that ``whiskey is for drinking, and water is for fighting over.'' I have always been impressed by Curtis' steady hand, his soft-spoken nature, and his continual focus on results, even when things get heated. In his office, there is a quote from President Theodore Roosevelt prominently displayed that says, ``Far and away the best prize that life has to offer is the chance to work hard at the work worth doing.'' Curtis loved working in water management and it was critical work worth doing. Although bittersweet to see Curtis leave, I know that Curtis is looking forward to spending more time with his wife, Traci, his son Michael, and his daughter Courtney and her husband Joshua. Curtis can rest assured that the planning and work he has done will continue to put the KCWA, farmers, and our community in the Central Valley of California in the best position possible. On behalf of the 23rd Congressional District of California, I want to thank Curtis for his dedication over the last decade as he helped lead our community through crippling drought and fought for commonsense reforms to federal and state regulations to ensure our community received the life-sustaining water it needs to thrive.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Lili Marsh, a constituent and community leader from Bakersfield, California. Today, Lili is being recognized as the 2019 Bakersfield Police Activities League Hometown Hero for exemplary service and leadership to the people of Kern County, which I represent. Lili earned her Bachelor of Arts from Wooster College and has been a longtime leader in the Bakersfield community. While she has committed herself to an impressive number of civic organizations, her most passionate work has been in service to Kern County's veterans. As Executive Director of Honor Flight Kern County, a chapter of the national organization she helped start, Lili organizes travel and accommodations in Washington for Kern County's heroes so that they can see the monuments built in their honor. Many times, Honor Flight marks the first visit to our nation's capital for these veterans, and Lili has been instrumental in giving these men and women the hero's welcome they deserve upon reaching their nation's capital. However, Lili's involvement with our veterans does not end with Honor Flight. Her most recent community improvement project has been the Portrait of a Warrior Gallery. This moving gallery is filled with portraits of today's generation of men and women in the Armed Forces who have lost their lives following the 9/11 attacks. The Portrait of a Warrior Gallery is a project born of passion, love, and admiration of those who defend America and her ideals. Having worked with Lili on Honor Flight and numerous other veterans issues, she has the uncanny ability to identify the needs of our veteran community and the determination to see those needs met. Along with being a businesswoman and an entrepreneur, Lili is many things to our community. But her passion and determination have enriched the lives of Kern County's veterans and helped ensure our community continues to recognize these heroes among us. I rise today to recognize Lili Marsh as a Hometown Hero award recipient who continues to positively influence our county through her character and leadership. A true signature of leadership is the generosity of time and talents that one gives on behalf to their neighbors and community. Lili exemplifies this time-honored tradition, and I would like to thank her and her husband, Troy, for their life- changing work. On behalf of a grateful community and the 23rd Congressional district, I recognize Lili Marsh's achievements and look forward to her many future successes.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the distinguished accomplishments and philanthropic work of Barbara Grimm-Marshall. Barbara has been an exemplary member of our community, and was deservedly recognized yesterday with the 2019 John Brock Award for her distinguished service to the communities of the 23rd District of California, which I represent. Barbara's co-owned family farm, Grimmway Farms, is the largest producer and exporter of carrots on the globe. Grimmway Farms has provided exceptional agricultural service to Kern County since 1981 and has since been a staple of the Bakersfield community. This past June, Barbara was appointed to the Agricultural Technical Advisory Committee for Trade in Fruits and Vegetables, a recognition of her expertise in agriculture. Through her knowledge and experience in the trade realm, her advice and counsel is unmatched and will be most valuable to the U.S. Department of Agriculture and our country. Beyond professional development and achievement, Barbara is a community problem-solver, and it is no surprise that she recently received the 2019 John Brock Community Service Award for her charitable efforts, particularly in the education realm. In 2017, I spoke in this Chamber honoring Barbara for her work and the establishment of The Rod & Bob Memorial Scholarship Fund, which provides higher education access to hundreds of prospective university students and bolsters the success of many underprivileged children in the congressional district I represent. Barbara's passion to see more children gain access to education resources did not end with a scholarship fund. She established the Grimm Family Education Foundation and Grimmway Academy for the purpose of educating underprivileged children in our community from grades K-8. Barbara's vision and goals for these programs has only expanded over time, as the Foundation now operates a vast network of educational institutions and partnerships throughout Kern County. Barbara's leadership in public service is an inspiration to our community and a model for effective problem-solving at the community level. Her philanthropy and work shows that solutions often depend on exceptional leaders up to the task of bettering their community, rather than sweeping governmental action that often proves ineffective. Barbara does not sit on the sidelines when she notices a problem, but instead works to find a way to find a solution. Our community is proud of the work she has done and I look forward to all that she will continue to accomplish in the future. On behalf of California's 23rd Congressional District, Judy and I want to thank Barbara, Darcy, and the entire Grimm family for their continued service to our community, and congratulate Barbara for being this year's recipient of the John Brock Award.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Republican leader of the Budget Committee for yielding. I also thank him for his work and his desire to see a budget in this Congress. I wish we had a budget in this Congress; then we would probably be in a little stronger position. But we work in a government that is designed to have compromise, a divided government. What we are talking about today is a compromise. It is not perfect by any means, but it secures important policy victories that no conservative can, or should, dismiss. Consider these priorities in the final deal: The Hyde amendment, perhaps the most important Federal protection for Americans' rights of conscience, cannot be attacked by Democrats' poison pills for 2 years. That means taxpayer money will not be used to fund abortions for the foreseeable future. Likewise, the Trump administration's Protect Life rule, it will be unimpeded by legislative antics. This vital rule stops organizations like Planned Parenthood from using title X money as their personal piggy bank. And here we build on what we started in the last Congress, rebuilding our military from the devastating cuts during sequestration. We watch a world that is more dangerous. I just read an article this week that, in the last 28 months, China has visited more ports than in the last 28 years. I read another article where China and Russia military planes entered South Korean air, which they have never done before, where shots actually had to be fired. You turn the news on, and you look at the Persian Gulf and where Iran is going today. To keep our men and women safe, you have got to make sure you have an investment, and that is exactly what we do. We build on the victory that we had before as we move forward. We also make investments into the future. I am one who believes, and I know our Republican leader of the Budget Committee believes, too, that the greatest threat to America is the debt. That is why our budget is so important. I understand the majority party can choose whether they want to do a budget or not. We chose to do budgets when we were in the majority. I guess the decision is not this year, so we are ending up here in a compromise. Now, I had wished in this compromise--but we are sitting in the minority, so, apparently, my vote does not count as much--we would want to offset any of this spending, find the savings in the waste, fraud, and abuse. It is not tough to find savings, so we offered more than $500 billion in offsets. Let that number sink in for one moment: $500 billion. Now, these were not draconian offsets that would have hurt the American public. I will give you one for an example. We could have reduced fraud and refundable tax credits simply by requiring a Social Security number on the application. That would save $38 billion itself. That is all we requested. Now, just two spending cut ideas alone would double the amount of savings that we need. But, unfortunately, in a divided government, and the other side is in the majority, they decided not. Their refusal to discuss any long-term reforms to the programs that are actually driving the debt causes problems. Now, as the gentleman knows, who is the leading Republican of the Budget Committee, when the Republicans took the majority in 2011 and we had to hand the gavel back--discretionary spending is what this body actually has the most control over, those 12 appropriations bills. When I had to hand the gavel back to the current Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, we were actually spending less than when she handed the gavel, in 2011, to John Boehner. That is a record I am proud of. But the real driver of our debt is something that, in our majority, we tried to do something about. We passed it, but, unfortunately, it failed in the Senate. We still have that same desire. When we were in the majority, we passed a budget that actually balanced. I know the first part was passing a budget. The law is actually to balance what we put forth. We said to the American public we were serious about this. When I look today, this gives us stability for the next 2 years. This helps build the military, and it gives the protections for those that the Republicans would care most about that are sitting in law today. So, no, it is not the bill I would write by myself--it is a compromise as we move forward--but it actually allows this process to work. For too long, the American public has watched a continuing resolution, after a shutdown, after a continuing resolution. One of the biggest goals that we had being in the majority was actually to get the appropriations process working again, and we did. We are proud of the fact of moving that forward. If I were to look at the appropriations process on the Democratic side, what they started to write without having a budget first and without having an agreement first, I knew those bills would never become law. It was a lot of time wasted. But if I looked at those bills, what passed on the floor, and look at what is in this compromise deal, it is spending less money. So did we succeed on turning it back some? Yes, we did, but not enough. Today is a movement forward, but we have much more work to do, and given the opportunity, if our friend, who is the lead Republican of the Budget Committee, became the chair, I know we would have a budget; I know we would have an appropriations process; and I know that budget would be balanced. But until that day comes, we will continue to watch to make sure we spend less, we build our military, and we make tomorrow better than today.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Before I walked out of my office, I first looked at my calendar. I knew it was July, but I wondered if it was back in February. It is another day on the floor, and it is like ``Groundhog Day'' all over again. Yesterday on this floor was a sad day. It is not a day about decorum. It is not a day about any of the issues that any of my constituents ask about. They ask me when I go home, and, Madam Speaker, I envision that they ask most every Member in this body: Have you done anything about surprise billing? Have you made sure preexisting conditions are protected like that bill Greg Walden has with so many cosponsors? Have you done anything to make sure the economy continues to grow? No, I go home, and I tell them: They had another resolution to attack President Trump or the administration. So we may be in July, but it is Groundhog Day all over again. Are we doing anything about a budget? Because, Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleagues when they say: Show me your budget; show me your values. And I know winning a majority is important, and I knew, Madam Speaker, when we were in the majority putting a budget out is not easy, but it is the fundamental responsibility of a majority. So, yes, I came to this floor hoping we would have that debate. But, no, no debate about a budget. I can't tell my constituents that the majority did a budget this year. When they ask me: Well, what about I read all these things about caps, that you have got to come into agreement to ever make something happen together. No, I am coming back down to the floor this time, and we are talking about contempt. They ask me, Madam Speaker: What contempt are you talking about? I said: Well, it is regarding the Census. Well, wasn't that all solved? Well, yes, that has already been solved and already been decided, but, Madam Speaker, this majority thinks it is another political opportunity. Then I listened and I heard this comment the other day. Madam Speaker, they said: I challenge you to find voters who can name a single thing House Democrats have done for their kitchen table this year, a single thing, challenging all voters to name one thing. And I wondered: Did my press operation put that out? No, it didn't come from my office. And then I wondered: Maybe it was another Republican inside this body. No, it wasn't. It wasn't one Member elected on the Republican side. This quote actually came from a chief of staff of one of the most prominent Members on the other side of the aisle. I agree with that chief of staff. Name me one thing that we have done for the kitchen table. Yesterday we did a resolution attacking the President, but we couldn't even get to that because, Madam Speaker, we couldn't even have decorum in this body. We set a record that we have never seen before based upon a Speaker's action. The very first page in Thomas Jefferson's manual talks about decorum. But not only did this body try to change the rules after the fact, they don't think everybody is equal, Madam Speaker. Because if your words get taken down, you don't have a right to speak that day. But, no, we should change that. We should show them. The majority should get what they want. Madam Speaker, I guess the majority doesn't want a budget. I guess the majority doesn't want to do anything about surprise billing. I guess the majority doesn't want to find, when it comes to our national defense to keep a 58-year history of bipartisanship, they broke that record, too. They made it partisan. And that is what we did last week. Well, now we are right back at Groundhog Day, and we are going to have contempt votes today. But that is not all we are going to do today. We are going to go for the third time on impeachment-- impeachment. Madam Speaker, I watched a crisis on the border. I listened to the other side, who asked the President if he would pause a court action so we could deal with it, and I patiently waited those 2 weeks to have a hearing on it because, Madam Speaker, I am not in the majority. I can't control these committees. The majority party can. They didn't have one hearing on it, but they have scheduled another one. They have got Mueller coming in. They even postponed it so they could have more time. I guess 22 months, $40 million, 13 countries, I guess that is not enough. Madam Speaker, I wonder if it is only one chief of staff challenging to find voters that can name a single thing House Democrats have done for the kitchen table this year, because when I am home, they don't come up to me and talk to me about party; they talk to me about what the House is doing. In their house, at their kitchen table, you know what they talk about there? They talk about their budget, because they do know their budget is their values, and they value having a budget. They will talk politics, but I don't think they get too petty. It is interesting, at the kitchen table in the House of Representatives, there are rules for different people. I thought the rule of law mattered in this country, and I was kind of excited when I watched a Problem Solvers Caucus stand up together, Republicans and Democrats, before there was a vote for a Speaker in this Congress, and they requested a Consensus Calendar. And what does a Consensus Calendar mean? It means, if a Member from any side of the aisle works really hard, that they believe in the issue, that they get 290 cosponsors--and you have to understand what that means. That doesn't mean walking up to a Congresswoman or Congressman and saying? Will you support my bill? Will you put your name on this? Do you believe this policy is so great you will put your name on this? It takes 218 to pass a bill, but that is not the number they put out--290, to get above politics. If you made that happen, your bill would come to the floor. Well, that was the rule. That is what we just put in. Madam Speaker, do you know what happened? There was this Congressman from South Carolina. He didn't get 290. He is up to 370. He followed the exact rule that the majority just put in. And do you know what happened the day that he was going to be the very first bill on a Consensus Calendar? And what was the topic that really brought people together? Survivor benefits for those who gave their life to defend this Nation. I was proud. I was proud that more than 370 people in this body did not play politics with that issue. But do you know what happened when that day came? The rules are not equal. The rules are not equal. They are written, but they are changed. They were changed last Friday. They were changed so he could not have his vote. So Congressman Joe Wilson could not come to this floor. Was it changed in a committee? No. They put it in a rule, self- executing. Yesterday, when I watched decorum on this floor, any other Member of this body would not have the right to speak if their words were taken down, if it were me, you, anybody else. But, no, the rules were changed once again, and everybody on one side of the aisle, Madam Speaker, voted to change those rules; they hold people who seem to be different, seem to be special, seems to be that they can break the rules. I guess the majority should get what they want, not what the people around the kitchen table of America want. I wonder, Madam Speaker, I wonder, when I watch people campaign and they talk about what they want to achieve here, how many said they wanted to have a week of contempt, of impeach and resolution, all after one entity, the President of the United States? I didn't have anybody on any side of the aisle ever ask me that question. I hold this job with a great deal of respect. There are less than 12,000 people who ever had the privilege to serve here. I travel a long way each week to have that opportunity. I spend a lot of time thinking about it. I spend a lot of time listening and talking to my constituents. Last night I went home and I did a telephone townhall. Thousands of people were on that call. Not one person asked me about the contempt of a Census form that is already going out. They talked about an earthquake. They wondered if they would have enough money. I said: I don't know; we don't have a budget. The hospital, because this community is not very big, Ridgecrest, about 30,000, the earthquake did damage to the hospital. People can get some surprise billings, not anything their fault, but we are not talking about it on this floor. We are not solving that problem. But we are holding another person in the administration in contempt. Is this going to go anywhere? Is this going to do anything for anybody's kitchen table? I know some people on the other side of the aisle, Madam Speaker, might get mad at this chief of staff, but sometimes you get upset when people speak the truth. Sometimes it hurts. What hurts more to the American public is more of this, if it is just going to be Groundhog Day every day that we serve here, because once we get done with this, we will debate impeachment for the third time. For the third time, we will debate impeachment. When we go home this week and we talk about what we achieved, I don't know what I can say. That is not why we ran. We are better than this. When I watched the decorum yesterday, I know we are better than that. But what is most disturbing to me is, when somebody did not abide by the rules of the House, the rules were changed to protect that person. America is more than a country. America is an idea, an idea of self- governance, an idea of rule of law, of respect. If you care so much to change the rule that you would have a Consensus Calendar, abide by it, not just because somebody on the other side of the aisle worked harder. If you cared so much that you said a budget matters, that it sets the tone of who you are, produce one. I understand there are winners and losers in elections, but, Madam Speaker, when I heard what a Member said of why they wanted to battle, they admitted to their colleagues they were using the Census investigation to gather information that, in his words, the courts could use in ongoing litigation. So are we really here because your constituents asked about it? Are we here because you just want to play a little more politics? Because I would tell you this: You have got another thing coming up right after they can play politics on it one more time. I would ask deep inside that, for once, let's put it aside. I know that election didn't turn out the way you wanted it, but at the end of the day, people expect us to find common ground. They expect us to give on both sides. I will guarantee you no one ever went to the polls to say: I want you to go there to spend a whole week just attacking an administration. I imagine the majority of people who voted for you had the same question as that chief of staff. They wanted you to change the kitchen table. So let's start focusing on the issues that the American public is talking about around their kitchen tables.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to table the articles of impeachment at the desk.

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, on page 1 of the original Thomas Jefferson Manual of Parliamentary Practice he writes that: ``It is very material that order, decency, and regularity be preserved in a dignified public body.'' Now, we all have the awesome privilege of serving in that dignified public body: this, the people's House. Our American democracy and its institutions are looked up to as an example for the entire world. Jefferson's emphasis on order and decency is just as important today is it was more than 200 years ago. Unfortunately, that was not the case today. Madam Speaker, today is a day that historians will write about. It is a sad day for this House, the people's House. Our rules of order and decency were broken today, and worse, the House just voted to condone this violation of decorum. Madam Speaker, I know there is frustration in this body. But it is our duty to focus not on retribution but on building a more perfect union. We can be doing so much more, and we should be doing so much better. Madam Speaker, I would ask that all Members take it upon themselves to uphold the dignity of this institution. Let us preserve and promote those ideals of order and decency that this body was founded upon and that this body will need if we are to address the many challenges facing our Nation. Madam Speaker, it is not just our Nation that is watching; the world is watching us. I hope we can rise to the occasion.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Chair, the NDAA has been a bipartisan bill for the last 58 consecutive years. In those decades, control of Congress changed hands many times, with Democrats in the majority and Republicans in the majority. Both parties maintained a consistent motto: The troops come first. The troops come before politics. We are making history this week because that all changed. But not in the Senate, where the National Defense Authorization Act, the NDAA passed with bipartisan support, not just Republicans, but Chuck Schumer voted for it as well; 86 Senators. But it is not being continued in the House, not under this majority. The NDAA was a test for this new majority. It was a test of whether they could put their radicalism aside and work across the aisle to do what was right for the country. The Democrats, or should I say, many call themselves socialist Democrats, failed that test. After weeks of infighting they brought yet another partisan bill to the floor. So this year's NDAA, at least the House version, will not and cannot be bipartisan. Now, let me give you a couple of reasons why: First, the bill is filled with poison pills and rife with flaws. Here are some of the most harmful ones. It makes it tougher to recruit and retain effective soldiers and negatively impacts military families. This bill cuts an astonishing $1.2 billion from the military personnel accounts. Terrorist attacks still threaten us and threaten the homeland, but Democrats would close GTMO and, against all common sense, bring some of the world's worst and most dangerous terrorists to the United States, instead of keeping them where they belong. Madam Chairwoman, it is going to be quite interesting history when you cast this vote, and when these terrorists come to the homeland, how you answer to your constituents that you cast that vote to make that happen. The humanitarian crisis on the southern border continues; so does the Democrats refusal to address it. They are working to stop construction on the border and, worse, placing severe restrictions on the military's traditional mission to support border security. Democrats have spent the last 2 years accusing President Trump of being a Russian agent and telling us how big a threat Putin is. But what does the NDAA do? It actually empowers Russia and China, gives them an advantage. Even when we worked with our NATO allies on what we would deal with when it came to nuclear weapons, they deny it inside this bill. When it comes to hypersonics, you cut it. When it comes to the future of this country, you just put us in a weaker position. Any way you look at it, this bill will not make America safer. But the problems here go beyond bad policy ideas. The Democrats' partisan process is egregious. Let's just look at the facts. This year, 439 amendments, a record, were made in order. You would think that would reflect bipartisan amendments. Why do you think it would reflect bipartisan? Because let's look at the last 2 years, and I can look at that because the gentleman on our side of the aisle who was chair at that time ran two NDAA bills. At the end of the day, the vote tally was way into the 300s, almost 400. But how do you build something in bipartisanship? First, you start in committee. Then when it comes to the floor with all the other Members, you allow their amendments to come. And those 2 years of those NDAA bills with Republicans in the majority, do you know who had the majority of the amendments on this floor? The minority party. The minority party had the most amendments on this floor. So of those 439, how was the minority party's voice heard in this new NDAA that now has become partisan? Fourteen percent. That is right. Fourteen percent of the amendments on this floor were allocated to the minority party, when history proves that we have done something different when somebody else was in charge. But the most egregious of all of this was how they treated the rules that we fought for inside this House, that we had this body open. We are a country of the rule of law. We believe this House should work the same way. So when I listened to the new Speaker talk about the changes in this body, one was a Consensus Calendar, that anybody who is elected to Congress, if they did their work, if they worked hard, if they were able to achieve more than 290 cosponsors on a bill, you should have a voice on this floor. I heard Members on both sides of the aisle say they could not vote for a Speaker unless somebody would agree to this. It was agreed to, and it was changed. So when the moment came when a Member had done the work, when it met that threshold--and we know that threshold is hard to meet. That Member's name was Congressman Joe Wilson. What did Joe Wilson put his effort, his sweat, and his tears in? What could he actually achieve by working on both sides of the aisle? It was the Military Surviving Spouses Equity Act. It would make it easier for spouses of servicemembers who died to receive military benefits. He did everything that the new rule said you had to do. And what did this new majority do after they quashed any ability for amendments on the other side? They changed the rule that they just created. My father would look at me. He would question my character if I gave somebody my word and I broke it. Not only did we give somebody our word, we actually changed the rules in this House. Joe Wilson has 365 sponsors--not just supporters, but cosponsors. That is nearly this entire House. It qualified for the Consensus Calendar that Speaker Pelosi promised to create so the floor would be open to the best, and most of us agreed with that idea. It turns out that was just another broken promise by the majority. I wonder if anyone on the other side will bring it up. I wonder if it will bother them that, in the moment that you told this body what the rules would be, and somebody achieved it for the military spouses, that you had actually changed the rule so it cannot be voted on. I have seen a lot of things happen on this floor; I have seen a lot of things that embarrass me; but this is probably one of the most shameful things I have ever seen a majority do. The Democrat Socialists stripped the language from Joe Wilson's bill, discarded his legislation, and stuck the language into their own partisan NDAA that our Conference won't support. They put it into a bill that Joe Wilson can't even support after he did all the work, after they made promises not only to the Members of Congress, but remember what promise you made to the American public. Our national security is not a game, but that is exactly how Democrats are treating it. Madam Chair, this majority has reached new lows this week. They seem determined to prove to the American people week in and week out that they are incapable of governing responsibly. They can walk out these doors; they can look down the hall; and they can see the Chamber on the other side taking up a similar bill that reaches 86 percent of the Senate voting ``yes,'' with the leaders on the Republican and Democrat side agreeing to it, with the majority in the Senate not changing the rules that they laid out for the American public to see. The NDAA for Fiscal Year 2020 will determine whether our military maintains its gains in readiness or languishes after years of progress. The stakes of this year's defense budget are too high to be left to the wild fantasies to the left. It is time for them to stop the partisan games and send a message to the world that America is serious about protecting its interests, supporting our allies, and shaping the future of the international order for generations to come. Madam Chair, I know what will happen on this floor today. History will be written about it. Fifty-eight years that this body has put troops first, this is not the history I want for this House. They will write about what happens today, but it won't be in a positive notion. What gets voted on today will not become law. Madam Chair, I don't get into conference fights and debates. You can have differences within, but why make the troops suffer? How difficult is it to put the troops first? There are moments for politics, and this is not one. This is not a moment to be proud. This is probably one of the lowest moments I have watched a majority use.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of John G. Giumarra, Jr., who passed away on June 30, 2019 at the age of 78. John was a well-respected businessman not only in Kern County, but throughout California. Born to a family that had been growing grapes in California since 1922, John joined the family business at an early age. John earned his bachelor's degree from University of California, Berkeley, and went on to earn his Juris Doctor from Stanford Law, working as the Book Review Editor of the Stanford Law Review. He initially moved to Newport Beach to work for a law firm, but the family business quickly drew him back to Bakersfield. There, John applied his legal acumen in assisting his father with the company that bears their family name--Giumarra Vineyards. Working as the in-house counsel, John played a critical role in developing contracts with other businesses, as well as playing a lead role in working with U.S. and foreign government officials to expand American grape exports. For years, John worked tirelessly, embracing an increasingly important role as the face of his family business. Through his dedication, John transformed Giumarra Vineyards into an internationally-known brand. A pioneer in viticulture, John imported Chilean grapes in the 1980's for use in Giumarra Vineyards products during the off season in the U.S., a move that bolstered the company's market share and served to enhance its rapidly-growing footprint. In 2015, John became President of Giumarra Vineyards. John was also extremely active in the grape industry; for 33 years, John served as both the Chairman of the Board of Directors and the Executive Chairman of the California Table Grape Commission. He served as the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the California Grape and Tree Fruit League, as well as on the Board of Directors of both the United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association and the Produce Marketing Association. In addition to his dedication to leading and growing the grape industry, John was also committed to raising money for education, serving as the Chairman of the annual California State University, Bakersfield Athletics Spring BBQ, raising millions of dollars since he was named chairman back in 1972. Those who knew John will fondly remember him as a great mentor, a consummate professional, tireless advocate for the grape industry, and a dedicated family man. I am proud to have known him and been able to call John a friend. I will miss his counsel and sage advice on the important issues facing the grape industry and agriculture in our community, state, and across the country. John is survived by his wife, Pamela, his five children, John III, Randy and his wife Barri, Juliana and her husband Clayton, Joseph, Jillian and her husband Morgan, and his 15 grandchildren. On behalf of Kern County and the 23rd Congressional District of California, I want to extend my condolences to the entire Giumarra family. John will be missed, but he leaves behind a legacy that will continue to serve as an inspiration and shape an industry for years to come.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, on July 4, a 6.4 magnitude earthquake hit Ridgecrest, California. A day later, our Ridgecrest community experienced a 7.1 magnitude earthquake. To put that in perspective, the Northridge quake that, 20 years ago, severely cost 60 lives and others and crippled Los Angeles was less than that. People felt this throughout southern California, but the epicenter of these earthquakes was located on the Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake. Hundreds of aftershocks have already occurred and are still occurring. The Navy announced that, due to earthquake-related damage, China Lake was not mission capable and that nonessential personnel had to be evacuated. This is significant because China Lake, along with neighboring installations, form a cornerstone of our national defense architecture that integrates all operational domains: air, land, sea, space, and cyberspace. The men and women who work here help test and develop the technology needed to equip our warfighters with the very best weapons and tools to ensure our military remains second to none. Now, my amendment, which I offered with Congressman Cook, was included in the en bloc package. It would authorize $100 million to help address China Lake's most immediate needs, and it requires the Department of Defense to develop a plan by October 1 to assess, repair, and modernize the infrastructure and facilities at China Lake and other installations in the R-2508 Special Use Airspace Complex that was damaged by the earthquakes. The extent of this damage is still being assessed, but we need to ensure that we are not only repairing this important base to address the threats facing our Nation today, but in the years ahead. Mr. Chairman, I want to be clear to my constituents in Ridgecrest, in Kern County, this amendment is just an initial step in helping China Lake and the communities I represent impacted by these earthquakes make sure they recover. Over the coming days, weeks, and months, I ask my colleagues in this Chamber and the U.S. Senate to join with me to ensure Ridgecrest, China Lake, and all communities impacted by earthquakes and natural disasters have our full support and are provided the resources they need to quickly rebuild and get back to normal. I also ask my colleagues to join me in thanking all the local first responders, the local, State, and Federal emergency response officials who have worked nonstop over the past several days to ensure our constituents affected in Ridgecrest were safe, have food and water and a place to sleep. Finally, I also want to thank the thousands of residents across our communities for their help, their actions, and their prayers for their neighbors in need. It is said adversity does not build character; it reveals it. Earthquakes can shake our foundations, but the residents of Ridgecrest should hold their heads high. In this time of adversity, their true character has shown and is an inspiration to all of us. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to remember the life and legacy of Mr. David Marcus, a larger-than-life personality, passionate supporter of our community, and a great friend to many, who passed away on June 28, 2019 after his seventh battle with cancer. A resident of Bakersfield, California, David will be remembered throughout our community for his contagious positive attitude, his dedicated faith in God, and his ubiquitous presence--he was known locally as ``Mr. Bakersfield.'' David was born on December 22, 1958 in Passaic, New Jersey, and later moved to Bakersfield. He developed his job skills working at the Bakersfield Association of Retarded Citizens and quickly found a career working at Albertson's, where he inspired everyone he met. David was often seen cheering on different high school sports teams, like his niece's Centennial Golden Hawks. With his can-do spirit and positive attitude, David quickly became known for being their biggest supporter, cheering on our community's student-athletes as they competed for championships. Despite his cancer diagnosis, David was constantly at games, events, and community celebrations, sharing the power of positivity with everyone he came in contact with. In recognition of this, he was announced as the winner of the 2018 Greatest Community Supporter Award, which was presented to him by the Kern High School District. David, a loud supporter of everything Bakersfield, would make friends anywhere he went as he cheered on and championed different events in the community. From welcoming home veterans as they returned from an Honor Flight to cheering on players with disabilities during the League of Dreams to attending our community's annual Relay for Life, David was someone our community united around. In fact, in just a few days, members of the Bakersfield community came together to raise money to ensure that he received a star on the historic Fox Theatre's Walk-of- Fame in downtown Bakersfield. For those of us lucky enough to call him a friend, it was not surprising to see that David never lost his vision of the power of positivity and prayer. David prayed for everyone in his family, our community, and even for the members of this legislative body, asking that we be given the wisdom to make the right decisions for our country. Despite battling cancer seven times, David never became angry or bitter. Instead his warm, positive personality shined brighter than ever as the battles got longer and tougher. He will be remembered as a warrior who never gave up and fought valiantly until the end. On behalf of California's 23rd Congressional District, I want to extend my most heartfelt condolences to David's family, including his sister Arlene and husband Virgil; his sister Debbie and husband George; his nieces Bee, Alexandria, and GloriAnn; and his nephews George, Gino, and Guy. David's life, actions, and love for his community will undoubtedly continue to inspire us, as will his words: Thumbs Up, Cancer Down.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, 58 days--58 days--is the amount of time since the administration asked and said there was a crisis on the border, that they needed funding. Madam Speaker, 18 times--18 times--we had the opportunity to take a vote on this floor, and we did not come to a solution, and it did not pass. Madam Speaker, two times--two times--The New York Times wrote editorials in those 58 days calling upon this body to put politics aside, that this crisis on the border was greater than the politics that we want to play. The Mexican Government realizes there is a crisis on the border and just sent 15,000 troops. We have seen the pictures. We have heard the words. On either side they talk of it. We were in this well just a few days ago having a debate. Many of us said: Why would we take this moment to do a political maneuver that will not go anywhere in the Senate? Don't take our word for it. Take the votes for it. The bill did not pass. There is a time for every season. The season to continue to play politics is over. The season to put people before politics is now. Don't take my word for it. Take the example of the Chamber that is just across the way. It is not far. You can see it if you look out those doors; you can walk it without taking much breath; and you can understand what bipartisanship looks like, Madam Speaker. The Senate took up a bill to take up this crisis. The vote was 84-8. Madam Speaker, 84-8. There has been historic legislation that was passed with much less, but there have been very few that have ever been defeated that have gone 84-8. But today, we are going to take hours to learn the exact same experience that we had just a few, short hours ago. The 84-8--when I listen to the other side and say that this--the Democratic Party, Madam Speaker, wants to do this. Let me read the names of some of those who voted for this bill to understand what bipartisan sounds like: Senator Chuck Schumer, Senator Dick Durbin, Senator Tim Kaine, Senator Patty Murray, and Senator Dianne Feinstein all voted ``yes.'' Every single member of the Senate Democratic leadership voted ``yes'' to end the crisis on the border. But why, Madam Speaker, are we on this floor now? Why does the Democratic leadership on this side want to continue to play politics when the Democrat leadership in the Senate says no? Fifty-eight days is enough. Eighteen votes over there are too many. But, yes, people are dying. But, yes, the money is out. We have all acknowledged it on this floor. Madam Speaker, it makes me begin to wonder, how can a few control so many? On that opening day, when we are on this floor, we all raise our hand individually. We all swear to uphold the Constitution. Our names are individually on the ballot when we are voted to come in here. This is not a moment to let somebody else control your name or your voting card. This is not a moment to say, my party tells me to go here, because that is not the case. Chuck Schumer is the leader of the Democratic Party. Dick Durbin is the leader of the Democrats when it comes to immigration. I have spent hours and months with Dick Durbin in a room trying to come to an immigration agreement, and we have seen places far, far apart. We have spent months trying to come to a conclusion. But you know what? We have this time. We have found a more perfect union when we found bipartisanship. But are we going to allow a few to continue to deny it? Fifty-eight days. You do not have more. The money is gone. The time is now. We all know that we are better than this. I do not accuse anybody on either side of what they truly believe about a crisis. I have heard. I have heard people on the other side of the aisle, Madam Speaker, that said they want to vote for the Senate bill. Can we allow them to vote for the Senate bill? Can we allow them to join with the 84 Senators out of 100 on the other side that said ``yes'' to it? Or do we have a few that control what can come to the floor? Now, I heard in this rule debate that there are some amendments; that somehow they are going to make it better. What makes it better? That we do not fund to pay any overtime costs for Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, or provide funding for the active duty of the National Guard troops working with them on the front line of the crisis at the border? Is that making it better? Is that really what you want to stake your political career on? Is that really what you want to stand up against bipartisanship for? Madam Speaker, I have heard a lot of names on the other side say they would vote for it. I think everybody in this body knows that that Senate bill will pass. I think everybody in their heart knows that is where we are going to end up. But do we have to go through it one more time? You do not have to worry about what the outcome will be. The leader of the Senate has already said what will happen; because I will promise you this, on this side of the aisle, we will stay here until this is done. We will not leave, and we will stand with the bipartisan vote in the Senate. If you are worried about getting to 218, do not worry. Put that bill on suspension, I promise you it will pass. I call upon all of our better angels for this one moment, for this one time, when America is watching, that we rise to the occasion; that we put the partisanship aside; that we have swapped; that the Senate has actually taught us, given us the adult supervision to show that, yes, we have had that fight; yes, you tried to make it and it didn't make it. But there is something better. There is a window, and there is an opportunity. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table H.R. 3401, with the Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Madam Speaker, it has been 56 days since the Trump administration asked for emergency funding to address the humanitarian crisis at our southern border, 56 days. The New York Times had two editorials--not one, but two. Mexico is now sending 15,000 troops to the southern border. But Democrats, Madam Speaker, have rejected a bill to provide the aid that is needed not once, not twice, not even 10 times, but 18 times. Madam Speaker, I was shocked when I actually heard from the other side of the aisle that someone said there is a crisis. I guess after 56 days, they read some of those editorials. Now, after weeks of doing nothing and denying that a crisis exists, they are offering legislation that is misguided and is purely political. They are, once again, taking what should be a bipartisan issue and inserting partisan poison pills. I would say I would be shocked, but this isn't the only issue they have done that on this year. Madam Speaker, they took a bill that had a 100 percent vote from Republicans and Democrats dealing with prescription drugs, and before it got through the Speaker's Office, Madam Speaker, it became political, a poison pill. They took a bill that was in Ways and Means that got every Republican and every Democrat to vote for it, but, again, before it came to the floor, another poison pill. I guess we might have to get used to this, but the American public should not. Madam Speaker, that isn't how it is being used on the other side of this building. In the Senate, they actually took up this issue. They passed it out of committee 30-1. I know my colleagues might be shocked because I said that went through committee. I know my colleagues might be shocked because I said it was bipartisan. I know my colleagues might be shocked because they actually let the Senators read the bill. Madam Speaker, when we were on this floor being sworn in, there were a lot of promises made, and a lot of promises have been broken. There was a rule change, 72 hours. It actually marked the number of hours. Last night, I watched the Rules Committee. They were going to come before the Rules Committee with a bill that we did not see in committee. But do you know what? They couldn't get the votes. So we had to say no to the Rules Committee. They will come back at 10. So I eagerly waited at 10. No, we could not come back. It is going to be at 11. I eagerly waited for 11. It did not happen. But, luckily, politically, they got in the back of the room and they were able to buy off some more, Madam Speaker, in a political nature and rush something to the floor. I wondered if they were going to keep that rule that they championed so hard about 72 hours. Well, I don't know, maybe 5 equals 72. I am not sure what math they keep nowadays. But let's talk about how they make this problem even worse, because I am not sure anybody has read the bill. I am not sure even if those on the other side know what is in it. Now, here is how it is worse. Departments of Homeland Security and Health and Human Services cannot share information about the sponsors of children. Think about that for one moment. They are making sure two departments cannot share information within their own government. Now, this is necessary to ensure that children are not placed with human traffickers or with predators. Maybe if they had a little time and maybe if they didn't care about politics, they would have allowed a little sharing of information for the children. Organizations like Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Department of Justice are underfunded. Requests for pay and overtime costs for Border Patrol agents are denied. Think about that. In the last month, 144,000 people were apprehended coming across the border illegally. These are unbelievable numbers that we have not seen in decades. So what do the Democrats rush? Deny overtime and deny the ability for those who are serving us the ability to work. Immigration judges do not get the resources they needed for additional staff or courtroom space or equipment. America is a country that believes in the rule of law, but I guess on this floor it is not the case. The majority wants to deny it. Now, I wonder that maybe, Madam Speaker, on the other side they say: Well, it is just a rush to judgment; it is such a big bill, I didn't get to read it. But do you know what? Earlier today, everyone in this Chamber had the ability to vote for more funding for judges just to deal with this crisis, because I have heard, Madam Speaker, on the other side of the aisle, they actually now use the word ``crisis.'' It only took 56 days, but, lo and behold, when they had that moment not to be confused, not to have a big bill but only that subject, every single Democrat on the other side of the aisle, except seven, said ``no.'' So the majority made sure they put in this political bill as well. Deny overtime during a crisis, because you said it was a crisis, but make sure nobody can work. You have a crisis, but make sure, Madam Speaker, that we can't have the judges down there, because somehow, I guess, maybe you don't believe in the rule of law; and additional funding to investigate human traffickers who you know are smuggling these children across the border is not included. Maybe, Madam Speaker, that is why you want to rush this bill to the floor. Maybe that is why you don't want to give people an opportunity to read it. How will you answer that? How will you answer that additional funding to investigate human traffickers who are smuggling children you do not want to include, Madam Speaker? Did you read the editorials? Is it wrong to prevent the administration from improving the welfare of unaccompanied children, as this bill will do? Democrats are far more interested in appearing to help children than in actually helping them. The pace and volume at which children have crossed our border over the last year have completely overwhelmed our existing resources. Madam Speaker, you are making sure that nobody could work overtime during this. In the first half of 2019, more than 56,000 unaccompanied children were apprehended by Customs and Border Protection. That is a 74 percent increase from last year and higher than the yearly totals for the last 5. Luckily, someone finally realized that is a crisis--but make sure there is no money to deal with it. Health and Human Services shelters are full and out of money. They cannot care for the children if Congress does not pass solutions. Now, HHS Secretary Alex Azar sent us a very clear message. Madam Speaker, this is what he said: ``I can't put a kid in a bed that does not exist and I cannot make a bed that Congress doesn't fund. Madam Speaker, to think that you would knowingly pass something that causes this problem. Madam Speaker, Democrats are proud that their bill, unlike the Senate, does not help our overstretched law enforcement officers. That is shameful to take pride in making sure they do not get the help. Border Patrol agents now spend half of their time processing claims and caring for families in custody, including making trips to hospitals and clinics. They are going beyond the call of duty every day and deserve our support, whether you like them or not. If the children who come across our southern border are to be properly cared for, Madam Speaker, Democrats' distrust of our national law enforcement officers must stop. Madam Speaker, it has been 56 days, but all Democrats threw together is a sham bill more than 3 hours ago. It does not adequately fund what needed to be funded and would only make the crisis worse. Democrats are holding another vote late in the night on legislation that has no chance of becoming law. Madam Speaker, we are better than this. Madam Speaker, it is not very far if you walk out these doors; you look down that hall; you will see the other Chamber. Do you know what happened in the other Chamber? They worked a bill through committee. They worked a bipartisan bill through committee. They didn't run it to the floor in 3 hours. They didn't tell the Rules Committee to be ready and wait and wait and wait and then quickly after, they cut a deal, on one side. They took something that is critical, something that is serious, and they acted that way. History will write about what happens on this floor. Madam Speaker, you may get emotional; you may be proud of your actions; but the question will be: Will history be kind to you? The question will be: When you voted that day, when you were sworn in, did you really mean 72 hours? Madam Speaker, when you stand on the floor and you speak of a crisis and you speak of caring for children, why would you not fund to make sure people are not trafficking them? Madam Speaker, when you spoke about there was a crisis on the border, why would you not fund the men and women who work for our government? Why would you try to deny them overtime? Madam Speaker, I know the Fourth of July is soon, and I know Members want to get out of here, but America is more than a country. America is an idea, an idea of self-governance, an idea that the rule of law matters. This is not one of our finest moments. This is not one that I am proud of. What is so shameful, Madam Speaker, is, just a few yards away, they are showing us an example. Are you rushing because you are afraid the Senate is going to send us something that is bipartisan? Are you rushing because you are afraid the Senate will actually make law? Madam Speaker, there are a lot of things we could play political games with, but I never thought children would be the one you wanted to use. We are better than this. There is a moment in time where you should stand up to your own leadership. There is a moment in time that you should stand up for this country. There is a moment in time, Madam Speaker, and this is it. Madam Speaker, you don't have to follow and be rushed. You can say: No, I watched what the Senate has done. I watched people with my own philosophical belief who belong to my own party work together with the other side and actually come with a bill that could become law. It is not perfect. It is not what I would agree with 100 percent. But do you know what? I understand our government is designed to find compromise. I don't know what compromise is in this. I don't know who ever worked with another side. I don't even know who rushed it to the Rules Committee just to do some manager's amendment because you bought off a few people. This is not our finest moment by far, but, Madam Speaker, there is a moment in time when individuals can stand up, and I am hoping that the moment is tonight, that we actually stand for what this country believes and what we will celebrate on the Fourth of July.

Mr. McCARTHY. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I appreciate that. I have spoken to the leader on the Senate side, and they will bring it up tomorrow. They had passed this bill in committee 30-1. I ask the gentlewoman: What would be the problem--and I know we have only had 3 hours with this bill. Why would we not take up the Senate bill when it is bipartisan and the President would sign it?