Kevin McCarthy

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, is it allowed to destroy a document of the House?

Mr. McCARTHY. But to be clear, it is a document of the House, much like any historical document that has been provided to the floor of this House.

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, no, the gentleman is correct. It was her intention.

Mr. McCARTHY. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, you clarified that is a document of the House. Can you clarify that is not a document for the Speaker, but a document for the House?

Mr. McCARTHY. Further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. McCARTHY. Did the Speaker have any history in past State of the Unions where that document provided to the Speaker has not been enshrined into the Record?

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in opposition to the House amendments to H.R. 550. Before I explain why, I need to address what has become an all-too- frequent occurrence in this esteemed body, the abuse of power by the Democrat majority. We saw it during impeachment, and we are seeing it again now. Today, Democrats are denying basic and essential floor rights to the Republicans as we consider these two flawed Iran measures. Specifically, by considering these measures as amendments to an unrelated, Gold Medal bill, the majority is intentionally using a partisan procedural gimmick to silence dissenting opinions. Even Ro Khanna recently admitted as much. He didn't want a vote on an amendment that could ``divide the caucus.'' Leader Hoyer did not respond to my letter that I recently sent him; the idea of eliminating a motion to recommit. We appealed to address these concerns and were rejected on the floor over and over again; 25 times, to be exact. And no Republican amendments were ruled in order, including my amendment with Ranking Member Cole that would have allowed the President to use force if there was an imminent threat against the United States or our ally, Israel. Democrats were too afraid to debate that. We can all agree that the decision to go to war is the most significant choice Congress can make, followed only by impeachment. And we could also agree, as Leader Hoyer recently said, that ``more Members from across the ideological spectrum need to have input into the work we do'' in the House. These measures should be withdrawn until the Republicans' rights are fully restored. This tactic purposely eliminates Republicans' last opportunity to amend legislation, the motion to recommit. Now, for 100 years, in this body, the motion to recommit has given the minority the right to--and let's quote--``have a vote upon its position upon great public questions.'' That is the definition of a motion to recommit. ``Have a vote upon its position upon great public questions.'' In other words, MTRs allow constituents whose Members are in the minority to have their voices heard. Certainly, I would think this issue before us would meet the standard of a great public question. As referred to earlier, I sent that letter to Leader Hoyer earlier this week, the procedural gimmick is not only wrong, it is in bad faith. The House has never debated matters of war and peace in such an irregular and restrictive manner. What's more, Speaker Pelosi gave her word that her majority would not govern like this. Just last May, she claimed to be ``a big respecter'' of minority rights. You know what is so ironic about all of this? The use of this is very rare throughout the history of this entire body, a body we all respect. What is most depressing is people talk a bigger game than they show in their actions. Let me show you a little research on how often this tactic has ever been used. It wasn't used ever on war, probably the most significant thing we would debate on this floor. But we are using a Gold Medal bill we already voted for, just for a gimmick. In fact, in the 110th Congress, 16 times House bills with a Senate amendment were considered, and there was not one MTR given to the minority. If I have to refresh your memory, in the 110th Congress, Democrats were in the majority. Compare that to in the Republican-led 109th Congress, which only debated one message, one time, under a rule like this. You know what the majority Republican-led Congress did then? They provided the minority with an amendment to compensate for the loss of a motion to recommit; something this majority has failed to do, again. There is a difference between our two parties, and there is no bigger example than the tactic used today. If Democrats will not withdraw these amendments, the House should vote them down immediately. This is a terrible time to be considering a repeal of the 2002 AUMF, a key authority to protect ourselves from the Iranian-backed militias in Iraq. The Soleimani strike delivered a clear message to Iran: If you kill a U.S. citizen, you will suffer the consequences. For the first time in years, deterrence has been reestablished. Yet, the threat of Iran and Iraq still remains and cannot be ignored. For the last 6 months, Iran has moved more and more military assets into Iraq. That is a fact. And though deterrence has changed Iran's calculus, it has not eliminated the timeless goals: One, to kick the United States out of the region by fraud or force; two, turn Iraq into a puppet state; and, three, take away the freedom of the Iraqi people, just as they stole the freedom from their own people. Let's not forget that Iran will seize every opportunity to undermine our interests in the region. The Lee amendment would have us repeat the same strategic failures of the Obama administration, whose rush to withdraw from Iraq on a political timeline led to the direct rise of ISIS. If passed, it would send a message of weakness and division to the regime in Iran. The Ro Khanna amendment is even more foolish and poorly-timed. The claim that it just prohibits an unauthorized war against Iran is totally false. The Members on their phones should take a moment and actually realize what they are going to vote on because there are consequences to this judgment. They may make it easier, where they do not have to have an amendment where they actually have facts before their eyes and be judged upon a vote that is so serious as war. Plainly, it abuses the power of the purse by proactively banning the use of force far short of war and makes exemptions only for direct attacks on U.S. territory or troops. Its effects are more constraining than the War Powers Resolution, which forces cutoffs in just 60 days. Consider a few scenarios that would be illegal under Ro Khanna's proposal. This is what you are voting for. Think, for a moment, if Iran plans catastrophic attacks against New York and Jerusalem. The intelligence is clear and undeniable. Under Khanna's bill, we couldn't use the military to protect ourselves or our allies. That is what you will vote for and have to answer to. U.S. citizens are kidnapped, and our government knows the location and how to save them. Under Khanna's bill, we could not use our Navy SEALs or any other part of our military to rescue those Americans. A U.S. merchant ship is in international waters and is being hijacked by the IRGC. Under the Ro Khanna bill, we couldn't come to their rescue. Any way you look at it, these amendments do not make Americans or our allies safer. But this is becoming a recurring, bad pattern for House Democrats. It is interesting, the more I listen on the floor from the other side, Madam Speaker, I hear blame America first, instead of protect America first. First, they had to be shamed by the Republicans into passing a resolution this week in support of the Iranian protesters. They rejected a Republican-led resolution just 2 weeks ago that would have given our total support. Now, Democrats refuse to stand for our troops or our allies against our enemies. Madam Speaker, the future of our policy in the Middle East will play a crucial role in determining the security of our citizens and the character of our Nation. Iran is watching what we are doing today. Its regime is looking for signs of hesitation and disagreement, just like the denying of standing with those college students who would not walk on an American flag. But Congress would not say a word that week. Its citizens--who are protesting in the streets for a free and accountable government--are looking for signs of assurance, poise, and support. They did not find that a few weeks ago. And today, they are going to hear a whole different message, once again. But they aren't the only ones watching. China and Russia are also closely studying our actions for signs. Our long-term competition with China, in particular, directly involves Middle East energy resources which are still essential for our allies in the Pacific, even though, we, ourselves, are energy-independent. Everyone is looking for signs about the future. Will it be a future we can be proud of or a future that we are going to be ashamed of? Well, the future is never clear, but this much is: If we abandon our commitments now, we will be saying that we lack confidence in our values and resolve in our mission. The world will say, and history will record that we lost faith in the American cause in the moment that it was needed the most. This is not the America I know and love. This is not the America you know and love. America is better than this. Americans are stronger than this. I see an unbreakable spirit in my fellow Americans, and I know that, whatever the challenges ahead, together, we are up to the task; which is why I am ashamed of the actions of many of my colleagues today which divide us instead of uniting us. If you truly believe in your position, debate it. If you truly believe in your position, stick with the 100-year tradition of allowing constituents to have a voice. You denied any ability to offer one amendment--one amendment. You are so sure in your position that, yes, when the American is kidnapped, they won't need the Navy SEAL to rescue them. You are so sure in your position that when we know the facts of the attack coming, you are so much smarter that you will tell Americans who die that we should not have stopped it. You are so sure in your position that you would change a century of history just so you wouldn't have to debate. Madam Speaker, that is not what the Founders devised this floor to be about; that the sheer, raw power of a majority would be used in a manner to deny a voice because they could not win a vote; because they wanted to drive a policy that made us weaker. Madam Speaker, the idea that we would blame America first, instead of stand with it, is not one I could support. Madam Speaker, it has been very clear from the administration, from the intel community, from our men and women in service, this is not what they expect of us. If you are proud enough, and you believe your policy brings people more freedom, why would you change 100 years of precedent? Why would you change, just to be able to think you can win in a corrupt manner? Madam Speaker, I hope all those examples I showed never come to fruition, because we could not look at Americans in the eye and say we had an honest debate; it was played by the rules; and everybody had an opportunity to make sure it was the best resolution passed. No. History will say there was a Gold Medal bill that everybody voted for, then we gutted it and amended it, so we denied people a voice. Because of sheer, raw power of being in the majority, we were willing to break a 100-year tradition. It doesn't matter what the language said or how open it would be. It doesn't matter that we were afraid to be challenged that our bill is wrong. We think we are so right that we will do anything to make America weaker.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I rise in remembrance of Congressman Mike Fitzpatrick who passed away 3 weeks ago after a 12-year battle with cancer. Mike was a public servant in the best sense of the word, a tireless champion who loved his community and always worked to improve the lives of his neighbors. His long list of accomplishments--from the conservation of public land as a county commissioner to the creation of the Washington Crossing National Cemetery where he now rests, are achievements that any Representative would be proud to have. But one cannot accurately capture Mike's legacy without talking about the kindness that motivated his 20 years of public service. Years ago, a county park officer called Mike about a homeless man who was living in the park and needed a place to stay. The shelters in town were full and the park officer didn't know what to do. But Mike Fitzpatrick did. He let the homeless man stay on his couch for the night until he found him shelter the next day. Not everybody here knows that story. But for those who know Mike, it comes as no surprise. Mike never stopped trying to help his neighbors, even after retiring from Congress and while battling a very terrible disease. He was focused on what the late columnist Charles Krauthammer called ``the things that matter,'' such as one's family and community. For Mike, politics wasn't a career, but public service was a never- ending commitment--a passion to do good that was rooted in values like patriotism and faith and was shaped by his upbringing in Levittown. Certainly, Mike will be remembered for his willingness to cross party lines. That is fitting. He believed the measure of a person went beyond their partisan label. His bipartisan spirit has united this body many times before, and it is uniting us once again today, even in one of the most divided times in recent memory. He did not apologize for being a Republican or a conservative. But in truth, those were not the titles that mattered most to him. It was titles like: ``father,'' ``Catholic,'' and ``brother'' that mattered. He was faithful and he was honest. He lived with integrity and honor. He turned the toughest moments in his personal life and career into examples of courage, grit, and grace. Most importantly, he never shied away from asking in the words of the old prayer: ``Lord, make me an instrument of Your peace.'' In this body, we remember people and their legacies by portraits, and I am sure there will be public memorials for him, but legacies of change last so much longer. In fact, it grows from generation to generation, like compounding interest or a snowball rolling downhill. Mike's legacy is right here in Congress and back home in Bucks County. They will be more than a tribute to one man. It will be an internal reminder of the values he stood for, the hard work, the faith in God, and never giving up. I want you to join me in expressing our deepest condolences to his family. His wife, Kathy, is here; his mother and father, Mary and Jim; and we all know his brother Brian, living in his legacy. May God bring us comfort and strength in this difficult time. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, back when this national nightmare began, Speaker Pelosi laid bare her intentions and purely partisan agenda. She told her Caucus that they needed to ``strike while the iron is hot.'' This was always an exercise in raw partisan politics, contrary to the warnings of our Founders. And over the last month, we saw the justification for running the fastest, thinnest, and weakest impeachment in American history crumble. Instead of sending the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate for trial, Speaker Pelosi held them hostage in a failed play to gain leverage that she did not--and would never--have. In terms of concessions, she got nothing: no control, no moral victories--in other words, another failed strategy. After a month of counterproductive and harmful delays, I have three questions for my friends on the other side of the aisle, the Democrats: What happened to impeachment being urgent? What happened to Congress being ``on the clock''? What happened to saying the House would be ``derelict in our duty'' if we did not act immediately? These were all the assertions Democrats made over the past several months. I guess it turns out none of them are true. These delay tactics were self-serving, hypocritical, and discrediting. But they made an important admission, some might even call it a concession. They proved a very big point: Democrats do not even believe their case was robust enough to win in a trial. Even the Speaker's allies admit the delays undermined their case. Some have gone as far as describing it as a ``failed'' strategy. These are those who are closest to her. Senator Feinstein, the senior Democrat from our State of California and the hometown of the Speaker, said: ``The longer it goes on, the less urgent it becomes.'' And Chairman Adam Smith, a confidant of the Speaker, said ``it was time'' to transmit the articles to the Senate. Both these statements were made last week, before the Speaker relented. They are significant because they were public and they were honest. I am disappointed these individuals did not have the courage to stand by their initial comments. If impeachment was truly as urgent as Democrats claimed, the majority should not have waited for the Speaker to choose a politically convenient time. Anyone could have recognized this ploy would not work. The House and the Senate are different institutions and, at this point in time, controlled by different parties. As James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers, the purpose of bicameralism is to guard against the dangers of encroachment and to stop toxic resolutions from taking effect. We saw separation of powers prevail against an abuse of power, just as the Constitution intends. The idea of withholding a sloppy impeachment case to force the Senate to change its rules is constitutionally and politically unheard of. Frankly, it is just ridiculous. In Article I, section 5, the Constitution clearly states: ``Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.'' It doesn't say the House may determine the rules of proceedings in the Senate. If anything, the Speaker's actions have only further persuaded Members of the Senate that the evidence of impeachment was neither thorough nor satisfactory. But do you know what? Let's be honest. This was never about persuasion. It was never about the rule of law. It was what Alexander Hamilton warned us, that one party would get control and, just because of their animosity, demean the process of impeachment. And by selecting this particular batch of managers, the Speaker has further proven she is not interested in winning minds and hearts or even following the Constitution. Let's take a look at the first three names Speaker Pelosi announced in her anticipated announcement earlier today: Chairman Schiff, a man who has already taken on the role of judge, jury, and fact witness throughout the entire House impeachment process. Chairman Nadler, someone who campaigned for the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee that is responsible for impeachment, beginning as far back as December 2017, before they were even in the majority, on the notion that he would be the best person to lead the charge on potential impeachment against the President. You see, you get a chairmanship by your conference voting for you. You campaign for it. You put your best ideas out there as to why you should be the chairman. In 2017, that was the campaign. Congressman Hakeem Jeffries, a Member who, almost 2 years ago to this date, voted in support of impeachment. That was more than a year before the Ukraine call even took place. Those are just some of the managers. If you think about the Members, there are people who, on the day they were sworn in to this body, told those who supported them that they were going to impeach him. As I have said in the past, there is an issue with fairness; but instead of looking to the Senate, Speaker Pelosi should be looking within her own Caucus. From the beginning, this investigation was marred by selective leaks to the media, a completely predetermined process. Yes, we have been through impeachment before, but it was much different. We believed in the rule of law back then: that you could face your accuser, that you could cross-examine, that the minority could actually ask for witnesses. The day that impeachment was asked to come forward, I sent a letter to the Speaker asking 10 items, none that were made up. Do you know what they were? The fair process we have always used in the past. The answer was no. Because they have been working on this for 2\1/2\ years, they could not let fairness determine the outcome. Any other prosecutor would be disbarred for such blatant bias, especially if that prosecutor was a fact witness in the case. The reason for this impeachment is the same reason it has taken Democrats 30 days to send the articles to the Senate: just spite. They wanted to stain the President's record without giving him a fair chance to clear his name. Last year, we saw House Democrats invert the burden of proof during their fair investigation. For every American watching, take, for instance, if this was your government, if they switched the burden of proof on you. We have Congressman Max Rose, a new freshman of the majority, who characterized it this way: ``The President says he is innocent, so all we are saying is `prove it'.'' God forbid the government accuses you of something as an average American and says you have to prove it. We just switched a fundamental belief of America, but only in this House do we do that. This ``guilty until proven innocent'' mentality was an admission that impeachment was not about upholding justice or protecting the rule of law. Now Democrats have invented an even more destructive standard: you are guilty because they say so. Our Founders feared this day. Alexander Hamilton warned us of this day. I hoped this day would not come. I would hope those that uphold the Constitution would believe in the rule of law, instead of the spite or the dislike of an individual. Like the kangaroo courts on college campuses where an accusation is enough for a conviction. Even as early as last Sunday in an interview, Speaker Pelosi made that point very clear to all of us. Asked what a Senate acquittal would mean, she said it didn't matter, the President is impeached forever. Is that what this is all about? Just a personality, just an abuse of power that you have within the House that we all feared this country would never do. You could almost see the Speaker smile as she spoke about this new standard. How incredibly solemn she was. Madam Speaker, when Americans look back on this sad saga, they will see a rigged process that forever damaged the remedy of impeachment. Speaker Pelosi got nothing from the Senate, but the American people got worse than nothing. They got stuck with the bill for a costly never- ending investigation. The old saying that you get what you pay for does not apply here. Congress wasted time and millions of dollars on partisan impeachment. In return, taxpayers get nothing. Democrats' misaligned priorities have cost the people solutions that could have improved the quality of their life. There is no greater contrast than what we are doing right here today than what is happening down Pennsylvania Avenue, the President sitting down with a leader of another country and signing a trade agreement-- something people said we could never get done--to make this country stronger, to make the next century in America ours. But what are we doing here? We are doing what this majority has worked their entire time for. Before they were even sworn in they campaigned for the position of chairman for this moment, for this time, for the millions of dollars that are spent so they could say the President is impeached. That is a lofty history. Those are lofty goals that you now have authored more subpoenas than you have created laws. Thank God we have got a President in the White House that does not sit back. Yes, the President got the United States-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement done with, our top two traders. He is signing a trade agreement with China today, but think about how much stronger his hand would have been had that agreement taken place earlier, when he got it. No, it was held. Why? Because we were impeaching. That is an amazing agenda, but you promised people you would do it. This is not a moment this body should be proud of. If Speaker Pelosi likes to say impeachment is a national civics lesson, let's use this blunder as a teachable moment. I will make this promise to the American public, because the day will come that the majority will switch. We will uphold the Constitution. We will listen to the words of Alexander Hamilton. And just because somebody else is in an office that we may not like, we will not change the rule of law. We will not accuse them of breaking it and say they have to prove it. We believe America is more than a country. America is an idea, an idea that, yes, would make students in Iran rise up for the freedom of what they know America to be. That the rule of law was so powerful. This is a moment and a civics lesson we should learn. This is a moment that will teach our grandchildren that, yes, more than 200 years ago the Founders crafted an amazing country, but they warned us what abuse of power would look like. The sad part is we are witnessing it. What a contrast in a day and time. Moving forward, we must not redo these same mistakes in Congress, and my promise to you is: if power were to change, the rule of law would come back. We would have an agenda focused on people, not politics. We would have a voice that you are innocent until proven guilty. We would not abuse our power just for the sheer sake of politics, to say you are impeached forever because I dislike you. We are better than this. It is a sad day, but the great thing about America, it will all change because the people have the voice.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 19.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Harold Meek, a community leader and devoted family man, who, sadly, passed away on December 24, 2019. To many of us, Harold was more than a neighbor. We considered him family, and his legacy will live on through those who knew him. Harold had a wonderful life with his wife, Kay, and recently celebrated 48 years of marriage. He will be dearly missed by his loving wife, Kay; children Mark, Joi, and Vivienne; and grandchildren Cody, Clint, Jordan, and Julia. Harold moved to Bakersfield in 1958 to work with his brother, Leo, in what would be the beginning of a lifelong career in the automotive industry. After 17 years working at his brother's dealership, Harold joined Three-Way Chevrolet, which later became Three-Way Automotive Group, in 1973. Under Harold's leadership, the Three-Way Automotive Group experienced years of prosperity, gaining national recognition and receiving multiple industry awards. Known as one of the greats among Bakersfield car dealers, Harold led Three-Way to various accolades, including seven consecutive titles as the number one retail volume Chevrolet dealer in California, as well as being named the top retail Chevy dealer in the world in June and July of 2005. Harold was also recognized with the 2003 Time Magazine Quality Dealer Award, a true testament to his commitment to exceptional sales performance and customer service. This welcoming attitude extended to his personal life and philanthropic endeavors. He was involved in more than 250 civic and charitable organizations, including the American Cancer Society, the Bakersfield Women's Business Conference, and Make-A-Wish Foundation, just to name a few. A dedicated Republican, Harold was also active in local, State, and national politics. He served on the steering committee of numerous Gubernatorial and Presidential campaigns in California and managed campaigns for city council, county supervisor, and State assembly candidates. After retiring, Harold enjoyed cheering on his Oklahoma Sooner football team, Friday night dinners with his close-knit family, afternoons with his granddaughter, and watching NASCAR races on television with his son. Harold truly embodied what it means to be a community leader and, above all, a family man. On behalf of California's 23rd Congressional District, Judy and I extend our deepest condolences to the Meek family, and we join them in honoring the life of Harold Meek.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, over the weekend, the world saw powerful images coming out of Tehran. Iranian protestors, many of them students, braved gas and gunfire to gather in the streets and speak out against their oppressive government for lying to its people. We saw video footage of people putting their personal safety at risk so their fellow citizens and the countries of the world could know the truth about what was going on inside Iran. The Iranian protesters are showing incredible courage, standing up to a government that kills and brutally silences its own people. To get a sense of how brave their actions are, think about this: When Iranians took to the streets to protest late last year, many of them were shot and killed by their own country's security forces. Death tolls show Iran's Government killed 1,500 people during the 2-month demonstration. According to experts, this is the bloodiest crackdown on protestors since the Islamic Revolution of 1979. It came after the Supreme Leader of Iran gave a chilling order to ``do whatever it takes to end it.'' Sadly, attacks on innocent civilians have been all too common in Iran. This is just another horrifying chapter in their long history of harming their own citizens. What is happening in Iran is a reminder that here in the United States there should never be any hesitation to stand with people in their calls for freedom. From the beginning, America has been a shining beacon of hope for those seeking a free society. Our task is to embrace that identity and the responsibility that comes with it. Especially now, we cannot shrink from the sources of our national greatness. That is why I stand here today: to ask you to lend freedom your voice and unconditional support. The resolution I introduced yesterday accomplishes three things: It condemns the Government of Iran for shooting down Ukraine International Airlines flight 752, which killed 172 innocent civilians; It expresses unequivocal support for the Iranian protesters; and It calls on the Iranian regime to not use force against its own people, as it has done so many times before. This resolution sends a strong message that the United States stands with the Iranian people and we are with them in their demands for free and honest government. But the resolution also intends to amplify the voice of the Iranian protestors. It does not call for anything Iranians have not already demanded themselves. This is an issue on which Congress should and must speak with one voice. We already passed similar measures supporting Hong Kong protesters by substantial bipartisan margins. It should not be difficult for us to pass this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I have been thinking a lot about what the Iranian protests mean today and in the future, and two things come to mind: a story and a quote. The story is a small one. It happened a couple days ago at a university in Tehran. It is about a group of students and two big flags. The Iranian Government had painted large American and Israeli flags in the middle of the street, as a sign of disrespect expecting people to walk over them. But a group of Iranian students courageously defied the regime's wishes. They would not walk on the flag and booed those who did. Some reported that the students were chanting ``our enemy is in Iran, not America.'' There are moments in time of history that the craving for freedom gets displayed, be it a young, lone man standing in front of tanks in Tiananmen Square, or be it some students in Tehran with fear just a few months before of being murdered, but not willing to walk on the American flag. A small moment with big meaning, for the students, for Iran and for us. It reminds me of the Hong Kong protestors who waved American flags and sang our national anthem. The quote I have been thinking of comes from an anthology of speeches that Frederick Douglass read as a young man. The quote is this, ``Let it be remembered, there is no luxury so exquisite as the exercise of humanity, and no post so honorable as his, who defends the rights of man.'' Mr. Speaker, America is more than a country. We are an idea, an inspiration for those who yearn to be free and have the ability and dignity to determine their own destiny. So many times in this body as these moments rose around the world, be it the shipyard workers of Poland, be it the craving of the Berlin Wall collapsing and becoming one, be it those in Hong Kong that want just freedom of speech. Let us not be the Congress that misses the opportunity. Let us not be the Congress that takes 1 week earlier and sends a message to the Iran Government that is much different, that we are divided, that we would not stand up if they murdered their own people again, or we would not stand up if those who are young students who rose and would not walk across an American flag and booed those who would, those who would stand up in Iran and say ``the enemy is in Iran, not in America.'' Let us not be that Congress. Let us take this moment in time where history has shown that we are right when we stand with anyone who craves freedom. This resolution is the right way to amplify the call for freedom in Iran. It is not just those on C-SPAN who are watching, it is the world who is watching. The world is much smaller today than at those other times. We will not have to wait for days or hours for the news to come across. It will be in a tweet, it will be in a text, or it will be in an Instagram. There are important issues in this Nation, but there are none more important than whether we stand for freedom. I do not want this Congress to walk in shame that they missed this window. I do not want historians to look back in a few decades and see civilians were killed because they stood for freedom and America stood quiet. That is why I am asking that we vote ``no'' on this PQ. This resolution deserves to be heard, but more importantly, the world deserves to hear this Congress act. Do you agree that America is more than a country; that America is an idea, that it could be so great of an inspiration, it would move the students to crave what we fought for? Let's take this moment in time to tell them we hear them, we stand with them, and this America will always defend freedom here and around the world.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. The United States and our allies are safer with Qasem Soleimani gone. President Trump's decisive leadership was justified, and it was right. Soleimani had the blood of over 600 American servicemembers on his hands. For more than 20 years, he attacked our troops, established a brutal reign of terror across the Middle East, and was directly responsible for the death of thousands of innocent civilians, including in his own country. And he had more terror planned. As President Trump said, this strike was done to prevent a war, not start one. In yesterday's address, he was true to his word. He was confident and restrained. Even as he underscored our strength and resolve, he extended the people of Iran our hand in peace and friendship. President Trump's decision to embrace the Reagan doctrine of peace through strength in dealing with Iran has worked. Those who criticize President Trump for Iran's dangerous foreign policy should actually spend a few moments to review their history. It is Iran that is responsible for escalating tensions by creating chaos to spread fear and accumulate power. In the decades since 1979's revolution, Iran has become the number one state sponsor of terrorism in the world. More recently, it shot down an American military drone and seized a British oil tanker. On December 27, Iranian proxies crossed the line by killing an American. For the first time since 1988, we have an administration willing to strike back. From most of the media reports, many may know him only as an unnamed U.S. contractor killed in Iraq, but he was more than that. His name was Nawres Hamid. He was a husband. He was the father of two young sons. He was a resident of California. Before Nawres became a citizen, he was valiantly serving alongside our troops as a linguist. All of our hearts break for his wife and children, who are left mourning his death. There are some in this Chamber who seem to be downplaying his death, but his death matters. It matters to his family. It matters to his countrymen. It matters to the President. It matters to me. His death was unnecessary, unprovoked, and it deserved justice. That is why my next statement carries even more meaning. Red lines should mean something. In this administration, they do. Killing Nawres was a red line. Planning to kill Americans is a red line. I am confident that the right decision was to take out the man responsible for Nawres' death and the death of hundreds of other Americans. Iran responded earlier this week by sending missiles to U.S. bases in Iraq. I believe we are all relieved and grateful that there were no American casualties. Iran appears to be pulling back from its strategy of provocation in the face of firm American determination. Iran seems to understand that deescalation is right for them and the world. Now is the time for our country to come together and speak with one voice, not as Republicans, not as Democrats, but as Americans. Instead of working with this administration to continue to work toward shared goals, Democrats are using this moment to continue their hatred toward the President. As my colleague and former CIA officer Will Hurd said, he never thought he would see the day that the Iranian Government would be able to manipulate Members of Congress, Democratic Presidential candidates, and the Western media, yet here we are on this floor today. If President Trump's instinct is to put America first, his critics' instinct is to blame America first. The words of my Democratic colleagues, including the Speaker of the House, blame the United States for attacks Iran has been initiating for the past four decades. Now, they want to limit the President's ability to defend America. That is just dangerous. I want to clear up some news, Madam Speaker, that I actually even recently heard on this floor. I would probably consider it fake news that Democrats have told the American people. Contrary to their claim, the resolution before the House today is nonbinding. It is called a concurrent resolution. This resolution, if passed, won't go to the President's desk for signature. It won't have the power of law. Madam Speaker, I heard the chairman try to claim that this had power. I know we have three coequal branches of government. Madam Speaker, I think the chairman should actually look at what the Supreme Court ruled in the Chadha case, that concurrent resolutions are unconstitutional as a means to limit the executive branch. I think I may need to read it twice, so let's do that. In fact, the Supreme Court ruled in the Chadha case that concurrent resolutions are unconstitutional as a means to limit the executive branch. The purpose of a concurrent resolution is to deal with mundane housekeeping matters in Congress. Now, I want everybody to know and understand what we have used concurrent resolutions for--it is very important: to authorize the use of the Capitol Grounds for the Soap Box Derby, to use the rotunda to present a congressional medal to Jack Nicklaus, and to host a birthday party in the Capitol Visitor Center. But the new majority decided to use it for something different. For a party that wants to claim they care about the Constitution, Madam Speaker, Democrats may want to brush up on their facts. If they did, they would realize their actions today are shameful and embarrassing, even by the low standards they set in their impeachment inquiry. They seem to have forgotten that we are not the House of Resolutions. We are, actually, the U.S. House of Representatives. Our job isn't to debate feelings. Our job isn't to make recommendations. We are, actually, elected to make law. But that is not how we are spending our time today. This resolution has as much force of law as a new year's resolution. It is nothing more than a press release to appease their socialist base. What message is it sending to Iran? That we are strong, determined, and united as a country, or that we are divided, shortsighted, and weak? Madam Speaker, ``In war, resolution,'' and, ``in peace, goodwill.'' Winston Churchill wrote those words after he led Britain to victory in the Second World War. They describe what he believed were the right actions for great leaders to take at history's defining moment. We should keep Churchill's words in mind today. President Trump clearly has. Because of President Trump's leadership, the United States and our allies are safer today than we were exactly 1 week ago. Petty politics are wrong for the country, especially now. Not liking President Trump is not an excuse for failing to see that the President and his administration have a sensible and deeply American strategy for dealing with Iran. Madam Speaker, I imagine we will continue to hear from other Democrats defending Iran for their escalation and the death of an American. Madam Speaker, I imagine that the Democrats will try to claim a concurrent resolution is more than a Soap Box Derby, but the Supreme Court says otherwise. Madam Speaker, I imagine I will hear a lot from the Democrats today. I would like to hear a Democrat speak to the 600 Gold Star families whose loved ones were killed by Soleimani. I would like to hear them defend that. I would like to hear them defend Iran and their actions of burning an embassy, of killing an American, of killing thousands of civilians even in their own country. But they are going to take our time today with something that means nothing. Yes, they will run to the mikes. They will get on TV. They will tell a little more fake news, that it meant something today. The only thing that will happen today is it will make Iran believe they are stronger. It will make Iran believe they have allies in the House of Representatives. Today is a day that we will not be proud of. Madam Speaker, in light of the information that we have coming out of Iran, if it is true, of why an airliner was shot down, if that was the case, I would like to see a Democrat move to the floor and pull this concurrent resolution. If it means nothing else, I think we should have all the facts. I look forward to listening, Madam Speaker, to any Democrat who wants to speak to the Gold Star families about why they want to have a debate today and tell them that ``Soleimani is bad, but.'' It is not ``but''; it is ``because,'' because he killed Americans, because he killed thousands of civilians. That is why he was taken out, and the world is safer because of it. Madam Speaker, I look forward to hearing the defense from the other side.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Alan Tandy, a constituent and the long-time City Manager of the City of Bakersfield, California, which I represent. Alan is retiring from his current position after 27 years of dedicated service to our community. Alan earned his Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from the University of Oregon and received a Master of Arts in Municipal Administration from the University of Iowa. Before starting his tenure at the City of Bakersfield, Alan balanced budgets and learned best government practices in Montana, Wyoming, and Ohio. Alan is Bakersfield's longest-serving city manager and has been an integral part of numerous city projects. Some notable projects during Alan's tenure include construction of the Rabobank Arena and Convention Center and the adjoining Marriott Hotel, the McMurtrey Aquatic Center, and the Park at River Walk. Alan was always enthusiastic about his work and did what was in the best interest for the people of Bakersfield. His love for our city remains apparent; in the wake of his retirement, he ensured the projects he had helped plan were completed before stepping down. The Thomas Roads Improvement Program, a $1.4 billion collaborative project to improve transportation throughout Bakersfield will streamline transportation with new highways and bridges. During his tenure, Bakersfield transformed into one of the fastest growing cities in California and Alan's legacy of improving infrastructure and quality of life is visible in every part of Bakersfield. Alan's work as City Manager has earned him impressive awards and accolades, including the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award from the Government Finance Officers Association for 19 years. After years of service to our community, Alan's retirement is well- deserved and I know he is looking forward to spending more time with his wife, Kathleen, their children, Sarah, Jared, and Krista, as he begins this new chapter in his life. However, if I know Alan, I know that he will remain an active member of the Bakersfield community. On behalf of the 23rd Congressional District of California, I want to thank Alan for all his hard work and dedication over the past 27 years to helping make Bakersfield the city it is today.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Steve Gradowitz, who is retiring from an illustrious career as a radio personality in Bakersfield, California, which I have the honor of representing in this Chamber. Born and raised in Bakersfield, Steve graduated from East Bakersfield High School before joining the active ministry. Upon leaving the ministry in 1968 he began what would become a lifelong career in broadcasting. And after a brief stint working in Honolulu, Hawaii, Steve returned home to California with his wife Jan to begin their family. Despite being best known as Bakersfield's morning voice, Steve also has a successful entrepreneurial background. In 1975 he and Jan founded Christian Building Maintenance, a janitorial service; and sold the successful company in 1984 while he moonlighted at KAFY. They also became top agents for Century 21 Real Estate. In 1986 Steve began working at KUZZ, where he would go on to spend 33 years with the Buck Owens Productions station as Bakersfield's premier morning personality. As any member of the Bakersfield community will attest, we are tremendously lucky and grateful to have had Steve help us wake up and get going every weekday morning for so many years. His on-air excellence during his tenure at KUZZ earned him numerous accolades including: the Bakersfield Californian's reader's poll Favorite Morning Personality, the Billboard Personality of the Year, and the Academy of Country Music's Air Personality of the Year. I have had the pleasure of getting to know Steve over the years, and he is as good a person as he is a radio personality. In fact, in typical Steve fashion, when I asked him to emcee the Merle Haggard Post Office Declaration last April, he generously agreed. And as with anything Steve does, the event was better off with him being there. Steve's unique and insightful style of broadcasting will be greatly missed by his countless dedicated listeners, but I join legions of his listeners in wishing he and Jan nothing but the best in retirement. On behalf of California's 23rd Congressional District, I want to congratulate Steve on his admirable career, and thank him for his dedicated service to the residents of Bakersfield, California.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Madam Speaker, in sharp contrast to yesterday, today is the first time this Chamber can finally rally behind an overwhelming, bipartisan legislative win since the beginning of this Congress. More than a year ago, President Trump came together with the leaders of Mexico and Canada to sign a transformative trade deal that would revamp how we trade goods with our top two leading traders. Despite delay after delay from our Democratic colleagues, Republicans never relented. We understood months ago that the United States-Mexico-Canada agreement would deliver a much-deserved win for the American worker. Today is for them. It is for our hardworking farmers who have early mornings and long days maintaining their harvest and livestock. It is for our consumers who will be paying less money at the checkout for everyday goods. It is for generations of Americans that will be able to enjoy a more prosperous and financially secure future for decades to come. And because of that Republicans fought. We spoke to our constituents. We took to the floor to deliver speeches. I just did a report to see the number of times in the last year USMCA was mentioned on this floor. Ninety-one percent of all the times it was mentioned were from this side of the aisle and 9 percent on the other. I want to congratulate our members for never giving up. We spoke about the wins the USMCA would deliver any chance we got, and we stayed in close contact with the administration to ensure that it would be the right deal worthy of the American workers' legacy. Republicans also understood that the ratification of USMCA would only make the United States stronger as we continue to negotiate a trade with China. I am glad today is here, but it is a year late. Mexico is our number one trader. Canada is our number two. China is number three. For the last year we have been trying to negotiate an agreement with China. Our hand would only have been stronger if today happened months ago. I am glad today is here, but the delay has hurt us. As we move forward, another goal that President Trump continues to make progress on is our negotiations with China. Today will make him stronger and, hopefully, help his hand from the last year. Our economy is booming, exceeding expectations on a regular basis. Thanks to this President and Republicans in Congress pushing pro-growth policies, we are living through the best economy in a generation. Regardless, if you are a Republican or a Democrat, the strength of this economy is undeniable, and that is a fact worth celebrating. The ratification of the USMCA will guarantee that the trajectory continues to move in the same positive direction. After 25 years, a revised trade agreement was well past due. I know other Presidents had promised they would be able to do this. It is no small feat and not easy by any means, but it is another promise kept by this President, and we want to thank him for his work. When President Trump ran for office, passing the USMCA was a campaign promise. Critics said it couldn't be done, yet he made it happen. Another promise made, another promise kept. I also want to commend the incredible support he had from Congressional Republicans, especially our Ranking Member Kevin Brady and the entire team he has on the Ways and Means Committee. They never faltered, they never backed down, and they continued to work. Madam Speaker, they never let the Democrat pushback hold them back from delivering a major win for the American worker. Today is a day worth celebrating. It is a day this House, after nearly a year, finally checked their partisanship at the door to better the lives of the American people. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Lyle Martin, Chief of Police for the Bakersfield Police Department (BPD), who is retiring after 31 years of service with the department, the last three as its Chief. Lyle grew up in southeast Bakersfield, attended South High School, and earned his Master of Business Administration from the University of Phoenix. Throughout his career with the BPD, Lyle has served with distinction and been promoted over the years, including serving as a lieutenant in the Gang Unit, Assistant Chief of Police, and finally Chief of Police. When he is not saving lives, protecting our community, or leading our police force, Lyle can often be found serving many of the important causes in Bakersfield. He is a member of the Bakersfield Downtown Rotary, a member of both the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the California Police Officer's Association, and serves as Co-Chairman of the Mendiburu Magic Foundation Board, helping provide local children and their families with support as they battle life- threatening pediatric conditions. As President of the Bakersfield Police Activities League, Lyle has been a key leader in helping develop concrete plans to educate and benefit many of the at-risk youth in some of Bakersfield's most crime-ridden and poverty-stricken neighborhoods. I want to thank Lyle for all the hard work and long hours he has put in for the City of Bakersfield. I also want to thank his wife, Connie, and their five children, Karl, Warren, Lyle Jr., William, and Lia for their patience over the years as he protected our hometown. I am looking forward to his continued efforts in safeguarding the City of Bakersfield, and now greater Kern County, as he transitions into his new position as the Attorney Investigator for Kern County. I am confident that in his new position, Lyle will continue to work to make Kern County safer and stronger, and that he will continue to serve our community with the highest dignity and respect as demonstrated over his past three decades in law enforcement. On behalf of a grateful community and the 23rd Congressional District of California, I salute Chief Martin's service and wish him well as he serves the County of Kern.

Mr. McCARTHY

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

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

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I must warn you, I am about to say something my Democratic colleagues hate to hear: Donald J. Trump is President of the United States. He is President today. He will be President tomorrow. And he will be President when this impeachment is over. Madam Speaker, when they accept that, maybe this House can get back to work for the American people. But, tonight, I rise not as the leader of the opposition to this impeachment or as the elected Representative from the Central Valley of California. I rise as Kevin McCarthy, citizen, no better, no worse than the 435 Representatives who are in this Chamber or the 330 million Americans watching this institution make what I believe to be one of the worst decisions we have ever made. It doesn't matter whether you are Democrat or Republican, whether you are liberal or you are conservative, whether you are the first generation or the tenth, at our core, we are all American, all of us. We choose our future. We choose what kind of Nation we want to be. Here is our choice tonight: Will we let impeachment become an exercise of raw political power, regardless if it damages our country? Or will we protect the proper grounds and process for impeachment now and in the future? For months, Democrats and many in the media have attempted to normalize the impeachment process that would remove a duly elected President from office. After 3 years of breathless and baseless outrage, this is their last attempt to stop the Trump Presidency. Madam Speaker, Speaker Pelosi even recently admitted that Democrats have been working on this impeachment for 2\1/2\ years. Those were her words; they were not mine. Because they lost to him in 2016, they will do anything or say anything to stop him in 2020. That is not America. That is not how democratic republics behave. Elections matter. Voters matter. And in 11 months, the people's voice will be heard again. Impeachment is the most consequential decision Congress can make other than sending our men and women into war. Yet, 85 days ago, Speaker Pelosi chose to impeach the President of the United States. She wrote the script and created an artificial timeline to make the details fit. Why else are we doing this just hours before Christmas? If that is all it was, a rush to judgment, she could be forgiven. But before the Speaker saw one word, one shred of evidence, she moved to impeach. In the past, in this body, such a step demanded a vote from all of us from the start, but not only did she move to impeach before she gave this House and the hundreds of millions of people we represent a say in whether to pursue an impeachment inquiry, she threw out the bipartisan standards this House gave Presidents Nixon and Clinton. That is why I immediately sent Speaker Pelosi a letter asking her to follow the rules of history, of tradition, to follow those standards that have served America well. What did she say? She rejected it. She rejected it because Democrats knew a fair process would crumble their case. A fair process would have exposed to the American public what many already knew: Democrats have wanted to impeach President Trump since the day he was elected, and nothing was going to get in their way, certainly not the truth. Madam Speaker, Chairman Schiff said he had evidence, more than circumstantial, of collusion. That was false. In January, when we all stood in this body, we stood up, we raised our hands, and we swore that we would uphold the Constitution. A few mere hours after that, Congresswoman Tlaib said she was going to impeach the mothereffer. Those are not my words. A year before taking the majority, Chairman Nadler campaigned to the Democrats that he wanted to be chairman of the Judiciary Committee, where impeachment is, The New York Times writes, Madam Speaker, because he is the ``strongest Member to lead a potential impeachment.'' Congressman Raskin, a leading Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, one who the Democrats had represent them in the Rules Committee for these articles just yesterday, told a crowd he would impeach President Trump 2 days before he was even sworn into office. What we have seen is a rigged process that has led to the most partisan and least credible impeachment in the history of America. That is this legacy. Any prosecutor in this country would be disbarred for such blatant bias, especially if that prosecutor was the fact witness, the judge, and the jury. Madam Speaker, Democrats haven't just failed on process. They have also failed on evidence. I have heard a lot of debate on this floor today, but I haven't heard one Member of this body dispute this simple fact: President Trump provided lethal aid to Ukraine. It came before the call; it came after the call; and it continues to this day. President Trump provided Ukraine tank-busting bombs. The previous administration, they gave blankets. This is the truth. Meanwhile, the Democrat's case is based on secondhand opinions and hearsay. Simply put, there are no grounds for impeachment. As constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley--and I would challenge to say he is probably the most respected, and we all know it--a Democrat who did not vote for the President said, under oath: There was no bribery. There was no extortion, no obstruction of justice, and no abuse of power. Based on the facts, based on the truth, based on the lack of evidence, Turley called this the fastest, thinnest, and weakest impeachment in U.S. history. Such a definitive answer should be the end of all of this. But Speaker Pelosi is still moving forward with this impeachment, without evidence or facts or truth or public support. The Speaker says it is out of allegiance to our Founders. On this, I agree. I agree with the Speaker that we should listen to the Founders. If one does, it is very clear that this impeachment is unfounded and improper. In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton wrote there would always be the greatest danger that impeachment would be driven by partisan animosity instead of ``real demonstrations of innocence or guilt''-- that impeachment would be driven by partisan animosity instead of ``real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.'' James Madison, another author of the Federalist Papers, wrote the danger of legislative abuse ``must lead to the same tyranny as is threatened'' by executive abuse. The Founders did not want impeachment to be used for political or partisan battles. If my colleagues do not want to follow the constitutional high standards for undoing a national election, perhaps they could have followed Speaker Pelosi's standard, at least the one she promised to follow back in March. It was a very sensible standard. She said that ``impeachment is so divisive,'' the evidence must be ``overwhelming,'' ``compelling,'' and ``bipartisan.'' Not one of those criteria has been met today. Based on the facts, based on the evidence, based on the truth, this impeachment fails even that Pelosi test. Those who now say removing President Trump would protect the integrity of our democracy have it backward. By removing a duly elected President on empty Articles of Impeachment, Congress will erode public trust in our system of government. I understand they dislike the President, his beliefs, the way he governs, and even the people who voted for him. How do I know this? Because they say so, day in and day out. In 2016, they even dismissed his supporters, calling us ``deplorables.'' Now, they are trying to disqualify our voice before the 2020 election. They want to undo the results of the last election to influence the next one. As I said, President Trump will still be President when this is all over. But Congress will have wasted months of time and taxpayer dollars on impeachment rather than doing what the American people want us to do. It didn't have to be this way. Is this why we came here to serve, to trample on due process rights, to issue more subpoenas than laws, to appease the new Democrat- socialist base? That is not leadership. That is raw partisan politics, and they know it. By refusing to acknowledge the truth or follow the facts by substituting partisan animosity for real demonstrations of innocence or guilt, and by continuing a 3-year effort to undermine the President, this impeachment has divided this Nation without any concern for the repercussions. Moreover, politicizing this process has discredited the United States House of Representatives and could forever weaken the remedy of impeachment. To again quote Professor Turley, it is the Democrats' rush to impeachment on these grounds, with unfair procedures, that is an ``abuse of power.'' History will right that. Madam Speaker, as I said at the beginning, we face a choice. Do you trust the wisdom of the people, or do you deny them a say in their government? Fortunately, the people will have the opportunity to speak up and render their verdict in 11 months. To my fellow Americans, if you approve of the way this House has conducted their business, if you want to see your tax dollars go forward to endless investigations, support this impeachment. But if you want to restore a working Congress like the previous Congress that listened to you and worked to bring the best economy this country has ever seen and one that, once again, will work with the President to get things done for you and your family, then join with us in rejecting this baseless impeachment. That is what is wonderful about this system of ours. We are a government of, by, and for the people. Always remember, we work for you, not the other way around. Now, I will say this stronger and with more conviction than I have ever said it before: In this time of great trial and tribulation, may God bless America.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, but more importantly, I thank him for his work on this bill, and all the others, as well, in their committees. There is an urgent need to address the soaring cost of prescription drugs that burden too many American families. It is well past time that we offer a practical solution that actually lowers costs while ensuring new cures can reach Americans fighting disease and illness. This Congress in the past has spent a great deal of time making sure that we have cures for the future. That is why Republicans introduced this bill, Lower Costs, More Cures Act, and I urge all my colleagues to support it. The bill was written with a rule: each policy must be bipartisan. I know in this town and in this climate, that is not achieved very often, but for an issue as crucial as lowering the cost of prescription drugs for Americans, partisanship should be set aside. Later today, we will see which side and which bill is bipartisan. By drawing on the very best ideas, H.R. 19 makes crucial reforms that will lower out-of-pocket costs for Americans at drugstore counters. For seniors, it makes medication more affordable by capping their out-of- pocket costs. It increases the availability of generics and biosimilar drugs by prohibiting drug companies from delaying the start of their exclusivity period. It speeds up the FDA approval process. It provides greater price transparency by requiring insurance companies to make information about drug costs available in the doctor's office before a prescription is written. And for diabetics who have high deductibles in their plans, it allows insurance companies to cover the cost of insulin before meeting the plan's deductibility. While Republicans offer practical solutions, Democrats are catering to their progressive base by opening a door to a government takeover of our prescription drug market. Mr. Chairman, Speaker Pelosi's partisan plan, H.R. 3, will make our broken system worse by placing more barriers between Americans and their medication, including by reducing the number of new drugs on the market instead of helping them reach the patients. According to estimates from the Council of Economic Advisers, the Speaker's radical proposal could kill upwards of 100 new drugs over the next decade. Pause for one moment and think about that: 100 new drugs over the next decade will be killed by passing H.R. 3. That is one-third of the total number of new drugs expected to enter the market during that time. Moreover, the Council estimates that H.R. 3 would reduce America's average life expectancy by 4 months. Nearly a quarter of the projected gains in life expectancies over the next decade, simply because you want to appease the progressive base and have a partisan bill that denies us more cures and shortens our lifespan. But you will achieve one goal today: You will have one party vote for a bill that will not become law, but you will appease a base with this and impeachment. And it is not just the Council. The CBO reports that fewer drugs will be available because of the provisions in H.R. 3. The Democrat's plan is yet another example of how unnecessary government control harms the very people it claims to help. All of us have or know someone with a loved one who has fought a disease or an illness for which no cure has been found. Imagine how demoralizing it will be to cut off hope for a future cure. All of us have gone through this. My father never got to see the day I was elected because he lost his life to cancer. He battled it for 3 years. I would give anything to have found a cure for my father's cancer. But it is not just his. If we delay one cure, that is one cure too many. The best way to lower costs is not to lose the cures, even the loss of one. Mr. Chairman, Americans want their government to put the best available ideas into action. They deserve solutions, not political posturing filled with empty promises. The saddest part of today, we could have had prescription drug prices lowered on this floor even earlier in this year. There was a window of opportunity, a moment in time where you did not see the partisanship that we see today, a moment in the Committee on Energy and Commerce where every single Democrat and every single Republican voted on three bills to lower the price of prescription drugs. But as I learned as a child on ``Schoolhouse Rock,'' ``I am just a bill on Capitol Hill,'' at the time it goes from a committee and before it gets to the floor, it goes through leadership. And unfortunately for the Americans across this country, leadership changed that bill, not the Members in the House. They changed that bill so when it came to the floor it became partisan. And you know what? Our drugs were not lowered, the bill did not become law, and we are impeding the exact same thing today. You will have two choices: You will have a choice of H.R. 3, that, yes, had to be negotiated even this week with progressives on the other side to appease them to make sure this was as partisan as can be. It won't become law. It will be another talking point, a moment of time to try to explain why you wasted a majority on just investigations. But you will have another opportunity, a substitute. If you want to lower drug prices in 2019, vote for H.R. 19. You know why? Because every single provision in that bill is bipartisan. Can we not, with one issue, at one moment in one time put partisanship aside? Can we put people before politics? Can we expand our life expectancy? Can we find 100 more cures? Can we do that? I know you might upset a few in your party, but think about how many more lives we will save. There is always a moment in time that I have hope that this Congress will rise and keep the promises that I heard before an election took place, that we would be different, that we would govern together, that we would find bipartisanship. Today, on the floor, you will have that window. You will have a bill that has every single provision. You will have a report that says, No, we won't stop 100 new cures in the next decade. No, they will give hope to the American public that there will be opportunity to cure disease that you have today and live a long and full life. And you know what? It is the only bill on the floor today that could become law. So if you want to make a real change, you have a voting card to do it.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mrs. Linda Jay, a community leader from Tehachapi, California which I represent, who is retiring from her position as the CEO of the Bakersfield Association of Realtors after an illustrious, decades-spanning career. As a 30-year veteran of the real estate industry, she managed the Coldwell Banker in Tehachapi, served as President of the Tehachapi Area Association of Realtors, contributed extensively to the Tehachapi News as a real estate expert, and most recently held the position of CEO of the Bakersfield Association of Realtors, one of Kern County's largest trade organizations. Linda's community involvement hardly ends there. In addition to her real estate experience and leadership, Linda has long been an active member on numerous local boards and commissions, including the Tehachapi City Planning Commission, Habitat for Humanity Golden Empire, and the Kern Economic Development Corporation Board of Directors, to name a few. Linda's public service also extended to local politics, where she served on the Tehachapi City Council for twelve years and was elected Mayor of Tehachapi in 2009. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Linda met her husband Bruce through her work as a realtor when he came to the Bakersfield Association of Realtors in search of advice for a business he was starting. Since getting married in 2012, the Jays have become known as a local power couple heavily involved in all things Tehachapi and Kern County. When retired, Linda and Bruce are looking forward to more family time with their 6 children and 12 grandchildren, and plan to travel throughout the country in their RV coach. On behalf of the 23rd Congressional District of California, I want to congratulate Linda on a remarkable career, thank her for her dedicated service to the Tehachapi and Kern County, and wish her and Bruce all the best in retirement.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, it was only two days after the attack on Pearl Harbor when Joseph Robert Livermore chose to enlist in the United States Marine Corps. At just the young age of 19, he felt compelled to answer the call to serve in the second World War, a war that would take him across the globe to defend this great nation. Bob was a Private First Class and had been serving in the military for nearly two years when he arrived at the Battle of Tarawa. He and his division initially survived the fight; a presidential unit citation even lauded his unit's ``outstanding performance in combat'' Sadly, however, that same battle would eventually cost Bob his life when he was fatally wounded by an enemy bayonet. Bob was laid to rest with 1,000 brothers-in-arms on then Japanese- held Betio Island where he would remain for nearly 80 years. It wasn't until July 30th of this year, that through advances in technology and by the grace of God, Bob's remains were identified to be returned home. Though it has been nearly eight decades since Bob's passing, we must never forget that he is much more than a name inscribed on a memorial. He was a young man from Bakersfield whose deep sense of patriotism and love of country was instilled in him from an early age. He attended East Bakersfield High School where he was a star athlete of both football and track. He was President of his junior class. He was a loving brother and a thoughtful son. And perhaps most importantly, he was taken from this earth before his full potential could be realized. To Bob's family here in attendance, please know that we will never forget his sacrifice, and we humbly join you in celebrating his life today and commemorating his memory which will far outlive any of us. Bob's story is a meaningful reminder that tomorrow isn't guaranteed, and that we should be particularly grateful for our servicemen and servicewomen who willingly put themselves in harm's way to defend our freedoms. And to Bob, who I'm sure is smiling at us from above, at long last, welcome home. We've been waiting for him.