Kevin McCarthy

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. I appreciate the gentleman's going line by line, but if I can be very clear, I do not want to get in front of the conference. As soon as they get their work done, there will be plenty of time to notify all Members of what comes before the House, and we will notify them at that time.

Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman knows, I usually don't like to get ahead of the Rules Committee, but we will consider these bills separate but then joined together and sent to the Senate.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, at 7:22 this morning, 150 years ago, we lost one of the greatest leaders of our Nation: President Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln understood American exceptionalism. We know this for many reasons, but one great reason was his words at Gettysburg. He told the crowd that our Fathers had brought forth on this continent a new nation, one conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. It was his vision that this Nation would have a new birth of freedom; and, for that beautiful vision, many have fought and died. President Lincoln understood the cost of freedom. He was a Member of this, the people's House, for one term before he rose to become--what I believe--one of our greatest statesmen. He struggled and never gave up to pass the 13th Amendment, so that no one here would ever again have to endure the sin of slavery. He died for the dream that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would finally become more than just words, that it would be a promise kept to all. As we remember Lincoln as one of the greatest American leaders and the truest embodiment of American principles, our country still feels the mark of his great presence today. I thought it was important that we memorialize it here.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, first off, I will not be long. I know you have a number of Members who want to speak for this bill. Before I begin, I want to thank Financial Services Committee Chairman Hensarling for all the good work he and his committee have been doing not only on this bill, but on numerous bills this week. This whole week, the House will be voting on bills to promote a healthier economy, preserve consumer choice, and help people become financially independent. You know, Mr. Speaker, it is an ironic thing here in Washington when some laws that are passed hurt more than they actually help. I truly think everyone in this body wants to do what is best for the American people, but that is not how things always turn out. There are some in this body who, whenever a problem comes around, their gut reaction is to add more regulations, costs, and red tape. For some reason, they think paperwork can solve all of our problems, and that is exactly what happened with Dodd-Frank. Washington tried to solve a problem by regulating the big guys, but all they succeeded in doing is hurting the little guys. When you look around, who is getting hurt most by Dodd-Frank? It is credit unions and community banks. More importantly, it is lower income families who can't get the loans they need because one-size-fits-all regulations are blocking them. We need to give people in this country and the institutions that serve them space to live and space to grow. The Mortgage Choice Act and so many of the bills that we will see on the floor this week help open up that space. I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan, Representative Huizenga, for being a champion of this legislation to give the American people the room they need to achieve their dreams. So let's get behind the American people and help them reach financial independence by supporting this bill.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman, and I yield to my friend on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Hoyer.

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his words, and I hope all that are watching today see that this is a pattern of what works inside Washington. In Washington, Mr. Speaker, there is a common cycle: you have a problem, you kick the can down the road; you hit a cliff, then you rush to a short-term fix that doesn't actually fix the problem; then the cycle starts all over again. This isn't a good way to govern. With this cycle, problems usually get worse, and a lot of times the short-term fixes get packed with add- ons that increase the size of government and cost people more and more. We have seen this with this doc fix again and again, 17 times over the last decade. Every single year I have served in this body, less than a decade, that has been the solution, to kick the can down the road. But today the House will vote on a bipartisan bill to end the cliff for good, stop the cycle, and, most importantly, provide stability to the Medicare program for the seniors and their doctors. Mr. Speaker, this is a big moment for Congress, and I think we should all realize it. The bill before us today will, once and for all, repeal and replace the flawed Medicare physician payment system. It will move us away from volume-based care to care based on quality, value, and accountability. Everyone knows that we need to reform programs like Medicare to save it for the future, but for so long, nothing has been done in this House--that is until today. Today marks the first step of what I hope will be many more to save our safety nets from collapse and to ensure it for a future generation. These reforms are permanent, they are bipartisan, and they lay the foundation for a Medicare that lasts. We wouldn't be here to make all these big reforms without a lot of hard work. First, I want to thank the Doctors Caucus. There are many times I was in a meeting with frustration wanting to find a solution, and the first place to find a solution is policy. They spent their time together to find that policy. Then it was: How are we going to pay for it and how are we going to move forward? That is where the leadership of chairmen come through in Fred Upton and Paul Ryan. They not only helped build with the Doctors Caucus, they led their own committees. Today, when this vote is taking place, it is going to be different from others. People aren't going to sit and watch the sides to wonder whether it gets there and how close does it pass? People are going to watch how big the overall vote is going to be. After this vote today, we will go back to our districts. We will go back to our districts, hopefully in a different thought and a different time, that yes, we can solve a problem; yes, we can pick a problem that has lasted over a decade, that every Congress before it has kicked it down the road, but no, we found common ground. We found the ability to come together to solve something that many believed we could not. We hope the Senate will see the same value. Today is a good day, but today should not be the last day. We should look for the other problems--and there are many--and ways that we can solve them permanently like we will do today.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding, especially to Chairman Price, for his work. Budgets are never easy. Lots of times, some don't even bring a budget to the floor, and I want to thank you for your work, and thank you to everybody else. Also, I know the work is hard on the other side of the aisle. I may not agree with your argument, and part of me feels sorry for you that nobody else in your conference is down here to even join you, but you are making the fight by yourself very strongly, and I thank the gentleman for that. This is a body to debate, and I thank you for filling the time. Today, the House will adopt a budget. A budget is a vision for the future, and Republicans are making our vision very clear. In our vision, Washington lives within its means. In our vision, we don't raise taxes on the American people. In our vision, we set the stage for a strong American future. Our vision looks to the road ahead, not to the rear view behind us. We face many challenges here at home and abroad, but we can tackle those challenges and create a more prosperous America if we choose a better path. This budget is a better path. Today, we look forward to a simpler and fairer tax code. Today, we look forward to an end of ObamaCare. Today, we look forward to saving our children and grandchildren from reckless spending by balancing the budget in less than 10 years. Today, we start growing America's economy, not Washington's. That is the big contrast between what the Republican and Democrats have to offer. You see, the Democrats continue to call for higher taxes, more spending, and more debt. In fact, the Democrats' budget has all the same tax increases that President Obama's budget has, but I want to give them credit--at least they actually submitted a budget this year. You see, it was only in 2010 when the Democrats became the very first majority party since the Budget Act of 1974 had passed, when they didn't even offer a budget here, when they were in the majority, let alone get one out of committee. I think the American public saw their vision and made a change in who was the majority after that. At least the President has actually submitted a budget every year, eventually; he did that, but just like the Democrats' budgets, none of the President's budgets even balanced. They didn't balance in 10; they didn't balance in 100 years. His budgets, the President's, Mr. Chairman, has been so bad that altogether, on this floor, he has only gotten two votes in the House for his entire Presidency. I understand why my friend on the other side of the aisle has more difficulty with those coming down to join him. While Republicans are attacking the debt seriously, the President and the congressional Democrats are not. Their budgets, in my view, are propaganda, not a path to the future. To get a better future, Republicans understand that we have to make tough choices, choices today to create opportunities for us tomorrow. You see, I believe the best days are in front of us. We are an exceptional nation. We are too strong and too good to ever be kept down. Sometimes, we might have leadership in the White House that doesn't want to make the tough choices, but Americans are remarkably resilient, and America will always be better than our faults. America is an idea, and as long as we have the wisdom to listen, but the courage to lead, that idea will never fail. I ask my Members to join with me, and I hope my talk today helped my friend on the other side get some others to join him.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I always find it to be of interest listening to this debate. Do you know what is most ironic about this bill? It is about elections. Everybody in this body has an election. But do you know what is different? Everyone in this body knows when their next election is going to be held and knows how much time they have to campaign, so much so that we have rules on this floor when we cut off communication months in advance so you can campaign. I listened with interest to the minority whip speak on this floor his support for something different from what this bill does. I wonder, if he cared so much about what the NLRB is doing, would he apply those exact same rules to his own election? Would he care to not know when it is going to be and then when it gets called he has 11 days to campaign? I think his speech would be different. So why are we asking the rules for us to be different from every other worker across this country? The root of representation is to work for the interests of those you represent. Everyone in the House knows that. And unions, as representative bodies, should exist for the benefit of the workers. But I don't think anyone disagrees that it is the workers, not the unions, who know what is best for themselves. Workers are the best judges of whether they want to support union political activity or even if they want to join a union at all. Joining a union is a big choice. To make an informed decision, workers need time to decide what is best for them and their families, and they shouldn't be pressured or rushed. So if unions really care about workers, and if they are confident that the benefits of their union outweigh the costs, they will give the workers as much time as they need. That is the irony of the recent decision by the National Labor Relations Board, to allow unions to call rush elections, to ambush employees and employers. Ambush elections don't help workers; instead, they bully workers to accept unionization as fast as possible. That is not pro-worker; that is pro-union--and there is a big difference. What makes the situation worse is that ambush elections will soon be forced on workers not by an act of Congress, but by unelected bureaucrats in the NLRB. That is an affront to the separation of powers that this country was based upon. So here in Congress, Mr. Speaker, we are taking action. As our Senate colleagues have already voted to do, we are going to use the Congressional Review Act to send a resolution straight to the President's desk that blocks this antiworker and antibusiness rule. Now, I know the President has already threatened to veto this resolution, but I actually hope he will change his mind, because what does the President want to fight for? Does he want to fight for the workers? Does he want to fight for small businesses and jobs? Ambush elections don't help workers. They don't help employers. They only help unions. And no public official, not any Member of this House, and especially not the President, should ever support rules that allow special interests to strong-arm the hardworking American people. Mr. Speaker, nobody in this House should support a rule about an election they wouldn't put upon themselves, and I don't know one Member of this House that would sit back and say somebody can call an election and you only have 11 days to campaign. I would like to hear somebody vote for that on this floor and ask to be held to the same standards they are trying to hold every other worker to in this Nation.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his work. Mr. Chair, there is a wise saying that one of the best assets of a good leader is a good adviser. Nobody can know everything, and advisers step in to give opinions and provide different perspectives for those who have to make decisions. History is filled with people or groups that failed because they never had their assumptions challenged. Unfortunately, the same failure can be seen in our own government. Back in 1978, Congress created the EPA Science Advisory Board to provide independent scientific advice to the administration. Sadly, the independence has been compromised. Over the years, the Science Advisory Board has silenced voices of dissent, limited public participation in its decisions, and has shown potential conflict of interest. In fact, over half of the Board members have taken grant money from the EPA, the very Agency they are supposed to provide impartial analysis to. This isn't chump change. Since 2000, Board members have received roughly $140 million in taxpayer money from the EPA grants according to the Congressional Research Service, and the research they are reviewing is often directly related to the money they received. This isn't transparent; this isn't accountable, and this isn't right. Today we will consider a bill to set things right. We aren't telling the Science Advisory Board what to say; we aren't telling the EPA what to do, but we are demanding that the Board be transparent and independent, as it was originally intended. True science demands clarity and impartiality. The Science Advisory Board lacks both, and that needs to change. I thank the gentleman for his work, bringing transparency, accountability, and efficiency back to the Science Advisory Board.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, Members are advised that additional votes are now possible later this evening and maybe this weekend.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. McCARTHY. Gladly.

Mr. McCARTHY. As the gentleman knows, we dealt with this weeks ago and sent it over to the Senate. And as I just listed before, we will provide that information after the Rules Committee hearing tonight.

Mr. McCARTHY. Well, Mr. Whip, I expect that we will deal with the current schedule that we have before us, plus dealing with DHS.

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, Members are advised that the House is expected to complete its work for the week by tomorrow evening. Information on the legislation that will be considered and more detailed floor timing for tomorrow will be announced after the conclusion of the Rules Committee hearing tonight.

Mr. McCARTHY. I think it was--where is our Rules Committee chair? Eight o'clock.

Mr. McCARTHY. Gladly.

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I have been very clear about the schedule for tomorrow. We will end our work by tomorrow evening. This House has taken action to make sure that DHS is fully funded. We did our part. I yield back.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for her work on 529 and bringing this bill to the floor. Mr. Speaker, during the President's speech on the State of the Union, he presented what he called ``middle class economics.'' It didn't take long for people to realize that the President's plan meant taxing the middle class to pay for bigger government and pipe dream projects. Nothing demonstrated this anti-middle class agenda more than the President's plan to attack education opportunity for middle class families by taxing 529 saving accounts. Now, after families cried out against the President's plan, he dropped it, and I am happy about that. The President has rightly chosen to not do harm, but now he should work with the House to do some positive good. My wife and I have two children--Connor and Meghan. Connor is in college today, and Meghan is a senior about to enter college. When we found out, with joy, that we were to have children, we didn't have much great wealth, but we started putting away $50 a month. Why? Because we dreamt like every other American. It was no longer what you could become but what opportunities your children will have. Education has been the great equalizer in this country, and there is no greater way to do that than by allowing those who may not have great wealth but who have a great opportunity with their children to have a 529 account. But, like anything, we should modernize it because education changes just as technology has changed. Could you imagine today sending your children to college but telling them to learn without having a computer? Isn't that a part of the education system, too? That is what this 529 account will also expand to. So, today, when we talk on the floor, it is really about the future, but it is about the future of every single family from every walk of life. Now, Mr. Speaker, I differ with the President on many issues, and I would say the majority of this House differs with the President in that he would tax every parent or every grandparent who wanted to put away for a brighter future for their child or grandchild. Luckily, he turned back. Today is a chance to work with us, to work with us on a greater America with something that is stronger. What that means today is that we can all join so the 21st century can be even stronger, and we can keep the promise we made to every American--that every generation will improve on the generation before him. That is the opportunity that this 529 account gives us.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to thank more than just the gentleman for yielding. I want to thank him for his work as chairman on the Committee on Ways and Means, knowing where they are going. We have to reform the Tax Code if we are going to grow this economy, and our chairman we have today, that has been his life's work. There is no one better poised and in a better position of understanding to finally get this done, and I am excited about what the future brings. Today, we are talking about something much different. Today, we are talking about something that is already in the Code, something that helps bring job growth because it is about small business, and the worst thing about small business is to ever have uncertainty. So this Congress wants to be a new American Congress. They don't want to have uncertainty for small businesses. They are taking up an issue much earlier so you can plan for the future, so you can make that hire and grow. Now, why do I care so much about this? Many of you don't know, but I started my first business when I was 19. I got a little luck of winning a lottery. I was saving my money in summer. I took my money out of the stock market, and I took a big risk and took my time out of college. It is not easy opening a small business. I even built the counter of my business in my dad's garage, trying to save money, but the values I learned in that small business are the same values that every small business owner in America learns: you are the first one to work, you are the last one to leave, and you are the last one to be paid. The last thing a small business needs is more uncertainty from their government of changing the Tax Code or even whether it is going to go forward. Today is a day not to debate. Today is a day to invest in America's small businesses. As I have said a few times on this floor, these are things that should unite us, not divide us; but in this new American Congress, I think we have something different, Mr. Speaker, in the idea of putting veto threats from this administration. Just moments after we passed another bipartisan bill on the floor to help the food banks, the charitable giving, for those are the most vulnerable across our Nation, this administration offered a veto threat on helping small businesses. I take those seriously. As the majority leader, I want to understand. I want to work with anyone that wants to work with us, so I read the veto threat to understand where could we make something better, where had something gone wrong, because this was already in law. Mr. Speaker, the administration's veto threat, on the President's reasons why: first, he says that the House didn't pass a bill last Congress that he wanted; and, second, he said Congress might pass bills in the future that he doesn't like. How does that create any jobs in America? Mr. Speaker, that sounds more like a schoolyard argument than a debate on the floor of the House. I think it is time the people grow up, understand where jobs are created, understand what uncertainty does across America, not in my district, but in every district that is represented here today. As someone who is a former small business owner, knows the challenges, knows what he has to do to hire someone, I ask that we look in a new American Congress to put people before politics and pass this bill, so we can grow America's economy.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of a great American, a self-made man, a son of immigrants and founder of an agricultural colossus--Martin J. Zaninovich, who passed away on December 9, 2014 in Santa Barbara at the age of 91. Martin's father John left Croatia on the eve of the First World War as the Austro-Hungarian Empire teetered toward dissolution. In California, John married Mary, another Yugoslavian emigre, and found in the San Joaquin Valley the familiar arid climate and rich soils of his Dalmatian homeland. On a small farm outside Porterville the Zaninovichs raised grapes and children too, two sons and three daughters by 1940. Martin came first in 1923, and after attending high school in Porterville, he left the valley for the University of Southern California. The Second World War swept Martin into the United States Army and across the Pacific to the small island of Okinawa. Returning in 1947 to Delano, California, Martin married Margaret Surjak and co-founded Jasmine Vineyards with his cousin Vincent. The farm marked the beginning of Martin's rise in the table grape industry just as it began to take off. In 1961, production stood at 450 thousand tons. By 2003, output had swollen to 730 thousand tons as aggressive marketing more than doubled domestic per capita consumption. It was not an easy accomplishment. Facing weak demand in the late 1960s, Martin convinced his fellow growers to pool their resources and press the California legislature to pass the Ketchum Act, which elevated the table grape industry to parity with California's other agricultural commodities. Martin--who at various times chaired the South Central Farmers Committee, the California Fresh Fruit Association, and the Delano Grape Growers Products to promote and expand the market--accompanied the California Table Grape Commission he helped found on its first international trade mission to Japan in 1973. As a staunch conservative with a firm belief in individual enterprise and market economics, Martin constantly pursued policies and goals on behalf of valley growers. His work ethic went hand in hand with his philanthropy; Martin was one of the original founders of the California State University Bakersfield and a board member of Mercy Hospital. Martin is survived by his wife, Margaret, and their three children: Katina, Sonya and Jon. Today, Martin's family operates his vineyards with the same hard work and discipline he personified so well. The San Joaquin Valley has lost one of its champions, formidable and tireless, another of those citizens for whom the greatest generation was named. On behalf of our community, I ask my colleagues to join me in remembering the life and legacy of Martin Zaninovich, and offering our condolences to his family.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the 50th anniversary of the Junior League of Bakersfield. This milestone provides us the opportunity to reflect on the importance of civic responsibility and volunteerism, demonstrated so admirably by the Junior League of Bakersfield's five decades of outstanding service to the community. In 1952, a few women formed one of the first exclusively service- oriented societies in Bakersfield: the Community League of Kern County. This organization of mothers and daughters from around our community sought to organize for the good of their city as an all-volunteer association. And there was plenty of work to do. 1952 was also the year of the White Wolf Fault Earthquake, a 7.2 magnitude disaster which demolished downtown Bakersfield. In the aftermath, the League began immediately helping our neighbors. From its first days, the League concerned itself with the vulnerable in Bakersfield. Incorporating as a chapter of the Association of Junior Leagues of America in 1965, the Junior League focused its energies on assisting children and the elderly. While singlehandedly executing long-term projects, such as the construction of the 1966 Bakersfield Community House for Seniors, the Junior League prefers to partner with local institutions for joint projects. In the past fifty years, it has raised more than a million dollars and volunteered hundreds of thousands of hours to help those in need, including hospitalized children, teen mothers, the mentally and physically disabled, the addicted, the homeless, and the abused. Generous in its charity, judicious in its management, our Junior League has long been noted for the efficacy with which it directs resources to those whom would benefit most. In the years ahead, the League will concentrate on sustaining the Girls Achievement Program, an initiative aimed at protecting emancipated youth, for which they have already granted tens of thousands of dollars to local organizations. The Junior League represents the best part of Bakersfield's social conscience. On behalf of the Bakersfield community, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Junior League of Bakersfield on 50 years of accomplishments as we look forward to many more.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and the chairman for yielding. I have to pause for a moment. We debate a lot of things on this floor, and they are worthy debates, and they are interesting debates, but let's first, Mr. Speaker, tell the American people what we are debating today. Fighting Hunger Incentive Act, that is what we are debating. Lots of times, I question why we have debates on the floor certain times. Right now is one of them. I really wonder if the American people tuned in today and said: You were really having an argument against Fighting Hunger Incentive Act? Let me walk through what we are debating because, just a couple of days ago, I just went down the road here to the D.C. Central Kitchen. It is a nonprofit, feeds a lot of homeless, also helps people build jobs. You know how it was created? Because a small businessman saw people who were hungry, then he saw an inaugural for the 41st President of the United States and said: Should that food all be wasted? He took the leftovers and found someone who needed it. Then he went further and he goes: You know what, these people coming to eat, what they really need is they need a job, so why don't I create a culinary school? Ninety-nine classes have gone through this culinary school. And you know what? I met this young man who went through class number two. Early in his life, he did some things wrong, and he was incarcerated for more than 20 years. But you know what his life is today? He is the supervisor for 8 years. He has a 5-year-old daughter, and he has a college fund for that daughter. That is because the current Tax Code allows it to happen. Mr. Speaker, when I listen to the other side, you would think we are creating a whole new bill. We are taking a Tax Code and extending it, instead of having a problem when someone wonders: Will I still get that donation? So I asked them, I see how many people you feed here and the number of volunteers--if you want to volunteer at the D.C. Central Kitchen, you have to sign up, and the opening is in May because people want to give back. They say 60 percent of all the food they get is donated. They get fish that would actually go into a dump beforehand. But you know what? It is not easy, if you are a small farm somewhere else, to donate it. This incentive allows it happen. Why? Because one person saw a need-- he didn't go to government to do it, but he used the system to actually enhance and build it up. I don't have to just go to D.C. to see this. I see this in my own community. My wife and I go down to the mission in Kern County. I see lives changed. I see people fed. But you know what? I see all walks of life. I was down to feed the mission one day, and a person that was just a couple of lines behind it in there to get food went to the same elementary school as me and the same junior high and the same high school. That is the greatness of this country, that we are willing to help one another. Mr. Speaker, I just don't understand. If we are willing to help each other, why do we have to fight to make it allowed to do that? There are worthy fights on this floor, but this is not one. We are better than this, Mr. Speaker. I will tell you this: What I am most amazed and dumbfounded by, this bill has a veto threat. This bill to help hunger, to help the next Dawain, to help the next individual be fed, has a veto threat. You know what? I read the veto threat. The administration doesn't oppose the provision because it is already in law. So many times, people say: Why do you wait till the last minute in this House? Well, we are not now. We are taking it up early, so nobody has a problem. But you know what the administration, Mr. Speaker, the President said? He is threatening to veto this bill because Congress didn't pass other bills the President wanted and because the President might oppose future bills that the House could pass. Seriously? That is just wrong. Mr. Speaker, I believe in this country. I believe in mankind. I believe in the goodness of all of us. It is not about party. It is about helping one another. We are fighting for the incentive to end hunger and encouraging others to do it. We shouldn't have to debate about it. We should celebrate it. I look forward to this bill passing with a large majority and the President signing it and all of us, as Americans, coming together to help the most precious because it is in every single one of our communities, hunger. Let's put our political games aside, Mr. Speaker, and let's rise to what people expect of this House, to help the common good.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I do want to thank the authors of this bill, Congresswoman Roby and Congresswoman Sewell, for their work on this. I appreciate it. We are blessed in this Nation to enjoy the privileges of democracy and to exercise our freedoms without fear, but sadly, for millions of African Americans in our history, that has not been the case. James Cooper, author of American works like ``The Last of the Mohicans'' and ``The American Democrat,'' once said: ``The man who can right himself by a vote will seldom resort to a musket.'' The opposite is also true. People denied their rights might well resort to violence. It is not difficult to see why. With no established form of recourse, what choice do those denied their freedoms have? But the people we honor today chose a different path. These nonviolent civil rights activists did not take the road of hate. In their generation's quest for freedom, they didn't corrupt themselves with the sins of those who worked against them. They fought for the rights due to every person--not with weapons, but with the force of rhetoric and virtue of peace. I remember just a few years ago, I was walking with my friend Congressman John Lewis through Selma, Alabama. We walked on the same path of the Selma to Montgomery march that John led 50 years ago. We crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge in peace that day, but when John led the march across the same bridge in 1965, he was beaten by a mob of State troopers and deputized citizens. John cannot remember who carried him, but wounded and bloodied, as John told it to me, he was taken away to a church with a head injury. He did not know if he would even live. Those marchers at Selma demonstrated physical courage, but they also demonstrated the highest moral courage. Under the onslaught of brutality and uncertainty, they did not match violence with violence. No. They demanded peace in the face of war, solidarity in the face of division, and love in the face of hate. For all of America's shortcomings, these brave men and women demanded that the promise of America not be discarded but, instead, realized by being purified in practice. They held America to its promise. By doing so, they put their lives at risk, suffered ridicule and bodily harm, and yet in history they were vindicated. We are gathered today in honor of those civil rights activists who suffered violence while standing in peace. We honor them for holding our Nation to the highest ideals, ensuring the true existence of liberty and justice for all and making this country keep to its promise that all men and women are created equal.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman for asking. You asked a question similar to this last week. It is always my intention to yield to the Rules Committee their jurisdiction to decide on the format of the bill coming to the floor and the number of amendments, whether it has a structured rule or an open rule. That is their job, and as soon as they make that decision, I will notify all.