Kevin McCarthy

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, last month, I proudly introduced legislation, H.R. 2695, to name Success Dam, located in Tulare County, California, after Mr. Richard L. Schafer, a longtime Tule River Water Master. Last week, I was pleased to see this bill pass the House of Representatives by unanimous consent. For decades, Mr. Schafer has demonstrated unparalleled commitment to ensuring our families, farms, and communities get the water they need to live and work. A major part of this commitment includes this yearlong persistence to enlarge Lake Success. Doing so, would increase flood protection to communities and farmlands that are below the dam. But as California knows, more water storage means more security for the inevitable times of a drought that put a strain on our lives. The good news for Tulare County is that, in 2018, the Army Corps of Engineers fully funded work to raise the dam. I stand here today to state with confidence that, without Mr. Schafer's leadership, this project might not have been approved. This is because no matter how contentious water issues can get--and if you are in California, you know that can be quite contentious--Mr. Schafer has always been the consummate professional, always remaining even-keeled, results-focused. It is only appropriate and fitting that Success Dam be named after Mr. Schafer. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues in this Chamber for coming together and acknowledging the individuals who work hard and make our communities better. Most importantly, I want to thank Mr. Schafer for his continued leadership and service to our community. This is a much-deserved honor.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Chairwoman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 3055, which is included in the en bloc amendment. The intent behind my amendment is straightforward. It is to encourage the VA to complete construction of medical clinics that the Congress authorized 10 years ago in public law. Unfortunately, veterans in my district have now patiently waited for the new community-based outpatient clinic in Bakersfield to be built for more than a decade. Of the 15 new clinics authorized in 2009, a decade ago, the Bakersfield clinic is the only facility that has not been built or opened. That means that thousands of veterans in California's 23rd Congressional District must continue to depend on a very outdated clinic. This is unacceptable. In 2015, our constituents and I were informed that a new VA clinic was set to be built, only for that to be derailed by the now-failed California high-speed rail project, condemning the property the new clinic was supposed to be built on. This forced the VA to start all over again, further delaying building our new clinic. Now, last October there was this great excitement in the community. I welcomed it. It was the long-awaited news that the VA announced that it finally awarded the contract for a new 30,000-square-foot medical clinic in Bakersfield on Knudsen Drive. This new clinic would be state of the art, and it would be able to care for the rise in female veterans and the homeless veterans out there as well. It was the modernization that we have all been yearning for. Unfortunately, something happened. The new clinic has been subject to several, what I would call, dilatory actions. Most of them have been resolved or dismissed, which only furthers the delay. Now, you can protest. Here is a dirty little secret we should all learn: You can have the lease on an outdated clinic, bid for the new one and lose it, but then you can protest. Do you get punished for protesting? No. Do you know what happens? Our government rewards you. Because you go beyond the lease, they now pay the outdated clinic more money than they paid before, and, lo and behold, they are the ones protesting because they didn't win the contract. That is unacceptable. Our veterans have fought too hard to wait too long to get this job done. So the VA must move forward and be consistent with the application of law and regulation. Let's build this clinic on Knudsen Drive that won the award, and let's treat our veterans to a new, modern facility that works for those who really are in need of care, from mental health to a new growth in women veterans, to, even, veterans who are homeless. Let's show that we will never forget the acts that they did for us and how they worked so hard for all of us.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, Special Counsel Mueller officially ended his investigation several weeks ago. His office is closed. Because of Attorney General Barr, his report is public. And his findings are very clear: No collusion and no obstruction. This is the bottom line of the Mueller report. But, Mr. Speaker, Democrats refuse to accept it. Mr. Speaker, even the chairman of the committee refuses to go read the portion that he is allowed to read, only six lines. He refuses to read it, but he wants to come here today. They continue to believe their worst conspiracy theories about the President, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Mr. Speaker, it is even reported in newspapers that, in the campaign to become chairman of the Judiciary Committee, one said he campaigned for the position because he would be the best with impeachment. Mr. Speaker, even on the floor of this House, there were more than 60 Members on the other side of the aisle who voted for impeachment before the Mueller report was ever presented to the public. At its core, H. Res. 430 is just a desperate attempt to relitigate the Mueller investigation. That is why I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution. It does not strengthen Congress' oversight powers, contrary to what you may hear from the other side, Mr. Speaker. Fundamentally, it is an impeachment effort in everything but name. Mr. Speaker, just look at the unnecessary contempt citation against Attorney General Barr. Less than a month after Barr received the Mueller report, Mr. Speaker, Chairman Nadler issued a subpoena that would have required the Attorney General of the United States of America to break the law. That is not my opinion. Let's be very clear whose words those are: Jonathan Turley's. Mr. Speaker, probably everybody in this body not only knows who Jonathan Turley is; he has, probably, the utmost respect. He is one of the most respected legal scholars in this country. Now, he told the committee, Mr. Speaker: You have to tie your request carefully to your authority to demand information . . . if Bill Barr had actually complied with the subpoena as written, he would have violated Federal law. If he would have complied, he would have violated Federal law. Mr. Speaker, that is why we are here. Not only, Mr. Speaker, does the chairman of that committee ask the attorney general to break the law or he will try to hold him in contempt; he won't even go read the report. On May 8, only a few weeks after the first subpoena was issued, House Judiciary Democrats voted to hold A. G. Barr, the Attorney General of the United States, in contempt. Why would they vote to hold him in contempt? Because they were so angry that the Attorney General wouldn't break the law. They wanted him to break the law; then he won't be held in contempt. In a May 24 letter to the Attorney General, Chairman Nadler offered, for the first time, to negotiate and narrow the scope of his subpoena request. Then, you know what? He changed his mind. Yesterday, the Department of Justice reached an agreement with the Judiciary Committee to turn over documents related to the Mueller report. Now, if the public is watching, this just looks so disorganized. You wonder, from that committee, Mr. Speaker, wouldn't they know better than to ask the Attorney General to break the law? Mr. Speaker, wouldn't you know that, when you get to this point in a career, you wouldn't be so upset that someone just doesn't do exactly what you want--and you ask them to break the law--that you would vote to hold them in contempt and force your side of the aisle just to vote that way. That is not how it has happened in this body before. If the public wants to see a good example of congressional oversight, then let's look at something that is comparable: the House's contempt vote against Attorney General Holder in 2012. The House Committee on Oversight and Reform took two important actions before suing in Federal court. First, it negotiated with Attorney General Holder in good faith for 15 months--not a few days. It never asked him to break the law either. After narrowing the scope of its original subpoena, and only after extensive back-and-forth negotiations failed, did it vote to hold him in contempt. Second, it got the full House to vote on it and approve--you know what--a bipartisan contempt. Now, I am not sure why the Committee on the Judiciary, Mr. Speaker, would not know this, but I did a little research because I was here during that time. You know why they didn't realize it was the best way to do it and it was bipartisan? Because, Mr. Speaker, a lot of them stormed outside of the Chamber. Yep. You heard me right. Even though 17 Democrats voted in favor of the criminal contempt resolution against Holder and 21 voted to enforce civil citation, a number of them stormed outside and protested, took their ball and ran home. Mr. Speaker, I guess, to the public, it looked like they had just thrown another fit. Now, that is pretty significant. As many of you remember, it was contentious. I remember, Mr. Speaker, watching then-Minority Leader Pelosi, Minority Whip Hoyer, and Congressman Nadler lead 100 Democrats off the House floor to protest the vote. Mr. Speaker, you won't see that on our side. We believe in the rule of law. Mr. Speaker, we would have done the exact same thing the Attorney General did, that Jonathan Turley said, that you would have had to break the law to try to appease somebody's own personal vendetta. The idea, Mr. Speaker, that someone would run for a position to say that they would be best to impeach somebody and even vote to impeach without even having a report and then, when you get a report and you could go down and read just those six lines that you want to complain about, but you won't--the same person, Mr. Speaker, that would run outside and say: I got elected to Congress, but I am going to pout and I am going to go outside. Mr. Speaker, that may be the same person that would want to bring this to the floor today. But what is so different about today than all the others? Well, we are doing something we have never done before. We are doing something that is going to take the power away of every Member in this body and give it to a select few. Mr. Speaker, if this vote passes today, Members of this body are going to say: Don't bring it here and let me represent my own people and vote about going to court. Let's just give it, really, to three people. Let's give it to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer, and to the majority whip. Because that is what BLAG is. I know the courts are going to sit there and say that is not what Congress is supposed to do. Congress has never done that before. But, you know what? If this new majority thinks all they want to do is make an attorney general break the law, I guess they could break every rule, every history, every point of representation there is inside this body. Did we wonder if this would happen? Do we wonder why you wouldn't take the months, as they have shown in the time before, and actually come to a bipartisan conclusion? I think the plan was already written. I don't know if people can talk about the word ``patient'' because, Mr. Speaker, I remember Congressman Hank Johnson of the Rules Committee--this is the Speaker's committee, so everybody understands correctly, that is just appointed by the Speaker on the majority side--said, Mr. Speaker: ``Donald Trump will stand for reelection again in a very short period of time, and we don't have 400 days to wait. . . .'' So, don't care about the rule of law. Don't care about asking him to break the law. Just break every historical trend and try to take the power away from millions of Americans and from the Members of Congress who represent them here. I didn't know today would come. Mr. Speaker, I didn't know if someone would go this far. I didn't know, just because someone, Mr. Speaker, despises somebody else, that an election didn't turn out the way of the desire--Mr. Speaker, I have been on losing sides before, but I would never think I would break the law just because of losing an election. I would never think of asking somebody in as high an office as the Attorney General of the United States of America to not give due process, to come to the floor and strip the power of 430 Members and put it in a select few. Mr. Speaker, I have to be honest. I don't put anything past what this new desire is about. Mr. Speaker, Democrats say we are in a constitutional crisis, and they are right, but not because of Attorney General Barr. The constitutional crisis is this: When Democrats can't win, they change the rules. I just heard it on the floor, Mr. Speaker, that, yes, from the other side of the aisle, said this has never been done before, and, yes, this is nothing this House has ever desired to do. But it is also no way to govern. The American people deserve a majority that is serious about coming up with solutions, not subpoenas. There are plenty of important challenges that we can be working on to solve. Just yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I opened The New York Times. It is not a paper that I think I always agree with, but it had an editorial not for the first time, but for the second time, and it was talking about the crisis on the border. As I read this editorial, I found myself agreeing with it greatly. When I read it, it talked about the border, talked about Washington needing to stop dithering and do something about it. I looked and wondered what committee would be most responsible for this challenge? Lo and behold, it was the Judiciary. So I turned it on in hopes that I would see a hearing, maybe I would even see a markup. No, Mr. Speaker, who did I see? I saw John Dean. John Dean, who pleaded guilty in Watergate. The same individual who has put more than 900 tweets out against the President, many before any Mueller report came forth. He was the expert witness--the same individual who is paid by CNN, the same individual who said the Presidency of George Bush was worse than Watergate. I guess this new majority will go to no end. It doesn't matter if the facts don't go where they want; just change the rules. I wonder, all these new freshman Democrats, Mr. Speaker, when they swore in to uphold the Constitution, does that mean trying to make the Attorney General break the law? Does that mean giving their power away to a select few? There is a crisis on the border. The New York Times knows it. The country of Mexico knows it. I think almost everybody in America knows it except, Mr. Speaker, I guess, this majority. The committee of responsibility is more concerned about bringing somebody in who pleaded guilty in Watergate, who makes their money off, Mr. Speaker, writing books claiming every Republican President there is is worse than Watergate and then asking the Attorney General to break the law. That is not a legacy I would be proud of. It is not a legacy I would want to be a part of. But, Mr. Speaker, I will say on this floor: I will vote against taking the power away, even the power away from people on the other side of the aisle. I won't lead a protest, and I won't go outside, and I won't take my ball, and I won't run home. I believe in the rule of law. Mr. Speaker, I had the responsibility and the opportunity to go read the redacted portions of the Mueller report, just as some on the other side of the aisle could. It is just six lines. Not that I think it was just my responsibility, but as an elected official I thought it was a responsibility, so I went. But, Mr. Speaker, the people leading this today, they have not. They think they know better. I don't know if they know better, but one thing I do know: They are changing the rules of the House simply because they cannot win. That is not the American way. Those are the reasons why we stand up. Those are the things that America unites behind, the rule of law. This will not be a day that is proud. This will not be a day that, when they look back in history, the individuals who vote for this will talk about. It is one when they get asked the question later in life, Mr. Speaker, is there something they regret, they will regret that emotion overtook them. They will regret their own personal dislike drove them. I am not sure if they are proud of the day when they storm out of the building, even though there is a bipartisan vote here. But I guess that same emotion, the same, Mr. Speaker, lack of ability to actually look at the rule of law and work toward something instead of just changing the rules because you can't have your way, that is what today is about. The worst part of it all is removing the power of individual Members and putting in a select three. But then again, Mr. Speaker, when you study history and forms of government, that is what socialism is all about.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor David Reese, an educator and principal at Bakersfield High School, who will be retiring this August after 35 years of service to the students, parents, and teachers in Bakersfield, California, which I represent. David was born in Dodge City, Kansas in 1958 and moved to Bakersfield with his family in 1965. David graduated from Foothill High School and earned several accolades as part of the Foothill High School basketball team, including winning the California State Boys Basketball Championship in 1976 when he was a senior. David stayed in our community for college, earning his Bachelor's degree from California State University, Bakersfield (CSUB) and then obtaining his teaching credential in 1984. David returned to Foothill as a teacher and coached the boys basketball team, guiding the team to a championship in 1988. In 1992, David became the Dean of Students at Foothill High School, a position where he continued to excel at serving the needs of his students. He quickly rose through the ranks at Kern High School District--the largest 9th through 12th grade school district in the State of California--and became Principal of Bakersfield High School (BHS) in 1999. As the BHS principal, David oversaw the largest and oldest high school in the community, which has a student body of almost 3,000 students. A principled and passionate educator, David made it his top priority to raise graduation rates and ensure his students were prepared for college. During his tenure at BHS, he prioritized innovative academic programs, making the school the first to start Project Lead the Way, an academic program designed to foster student interest in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields through hands-on experience and visiting local STEM-related businesses around the community. I know that he is proud of the multiple national championships that BHS students won in Virtual Business, a competition where students learn how to start, operate, and market a new business. In addition, David helped promote the Earl Warren Cup, a civics competition for government students designed to test their knowledge of American history and politics. An avid supporter of the BHS Drillers athletic program, David can often be seen cheering on student athletes at basketball, baseball, football, softball, soccer, and volleyball games, golf, tennis, and wrestling matches, and track & field, cross country, and swimming meets in our community and at state championship tournaments. In recognition of all his work at BHS and for our community, CSUB inducted David into its Alumni Hall of Fame in 2017. And, as this year's BHS seniors graduate, David will have presided over 19 graduation ceremonies, having the honor of personally handing out diplomas to over 13,000 students. On behalf of the 23rd Congressional District of California and the thousands of students he helped educate during his time at Foothill High School and Bakersfield High School, I want to thank David for his work and dedication in molding the minds of our community's next generation of leaders, helping them to acquire the skills and education during one of the most important and formative times of their lives. I also want to thank his wife Abby, his daughter Becky, and his sons Tyler David and Tyler Thomas, for sharing David with us in the community, including the many late nights and early mornings at work. While it may be bittersweet for David to leave the school that he so loves, I am sure that he is looking forward to the next chapter of life and spending more time with his wife and family. I know that David will never leave the BHS community because, as the saying goes, ``Once a Driller, always a Driller.''

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the University of California, Los Angeles, which has distinguished itself as one of the finest institutions of higher learning in the State of California and across the country. In the past 100 years, 14 Nobel Prize winners, 13 MacArthur Fellows, 9 National Medal of Science winners, 3 Pulitzer Prize winners, 1 Field Medalist, 2 Turing Award winners, and 38 Academy Award winners have called UCLA home. Every year, UCLA receives more applications for admission than any other university. It is for these reasons and more that UCLA was ranked this year as the number one public university in the country by U.S. News and World Report. The influence of UCLA and its impact on California is wide-reaching and expansive. Even in my district, two hours away from Westwood, thousands of constituents call UCLA their alma mater. UCLA's influence in my district cannot be overstated. For many students who are unfamiliar with the challenges of applying for college, UCLA provides mentorship and a tangible path to higher education, actively organizing workshops and school visits to guide them. UCLA does not limit itself to just educating the next generation of leaders; it has tracked groundwater loss in my district and throughout the Central Valley, demonstrating the need to expand our current water storage and infrastructure. As many people know, UCLA's Ronald Reagan Medical Center provides world-class care for countless individuals, but it also directs clinical trials back home in my district--ensuring that the residents of the 23rd District receive cutting-edge treatment and care. On behalf of California's 23rd District, I am proud to congratulate UCLA on 100 years of great accomplishments.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Virginia DeAngelis for her life of work and service to our community. Jinny is stepping down as the Chief Executive Officer of Desert Area Regional Training (DART), an organization that advocates for, and employs, people with disabilities in Ridgecrest, California, which I represent. Jinny was born and raised in Wisconsin, graduating cum laude from the University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point, and later obtained her Master's degree and Doctorate in Business Administration, with an emphasis in Organizational Leadership. After all those years in the cold Midwest, Jinny wanted warmer weather, eventually bringing her to the community of Ridgecrest. She taught at the Sierra Sands Unified School District, educating future generations and inspiring them to become the next leaders of our community. In 1993, she started as a Case Manager for DART, and through her hard work as an industrious champion for people with disabilities, she was deservedly appointed CEO in 2003. As an executive, Jinny continued to dedicate her energy to serving our local community, managing and guiding the development of DART's mission and facilities, all while simultaneously advocating for people with disabilities. DART has managed and operated a thrift store, providing an opportunity for employment for many people with disabilities in Ridgecrest. Because of the generosity in our community, DART recently had to open a new, bigger location that allowed for more space in the shop and greater work experience. Jinny's presence in our community has been prolific; she serves on multiple boards and volunteers her time for many local organizations, including the Rotary Club of China Lake, Girl Scouts USA, and Ridgecrest Mayor Peggy Breeden's Special Committee on the Handicapped for the City of Ridgecrest. Jinny is a true believer in the power of education and has lent her expertise to others in Kern County through her work with the Autism Task Force in Kern County and the Kern Community College District Adult Education Consortium. For her service and dedication to people with disabilities, she has received many awards, including Rotarian of the Year in 2014, 2015, and 2016. On behalf of the constituents of the 23rd Congressional District of California, I applaud Jinny for her over 40 years of dedication, hard work, and service to educating and advocating on behalf of people with disabilities. I wish her well as she embarks on the next chapter in her life.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Before I begin, I want to thank both sides. I want to thank the chairman and I want to thank the ranking member, not for the bill that is on the floor today but for the bill that was put out of committee. When we look across the country, we see division. Very seldom can we ever find a bill that gets every Democrat's and every Republican's support, but that is what we look for, that committees can work together. The whole reason bills go through committees before they come to the floor is this is where the expertise is, this is where the debates happen, this is where it is combined together. But now I want to apologize to the chairman. I don't know what the gentleman's leadership did or why. But why would they change the moment that we have for the country to see something that they haven't seen in a while? Why would they do something that a chairman and a ranking member and every member on that committee, regardless of where they come from across this country, regardless of party, agreed to? Special interest has power. Special interest is more powerful than the members who are in that committee with the expertise. Special interest is more powerful than Members of Congress finding common ground. Special interest is more powerful with the leadership on the other side. They should not treat their Members this way. They should not treat America this way. So let's talk about this bill. Because what it really goes to is, how powerful is this special interest, and who are they hurting? Many parents choose to use a 529 savings account to help them save money for their children's education. We all agree on each side of the aisle that the most important thing that happens when you have a child is the opportunity that they will have. It is no longer about what you will become; it is what your children's opportunities will be. We all agree that education is the great equalizer. It doesn't matter where a person grows up or what side of the street they live on, but education will give everybody that opportunity. As a Republican leader, when I watched this committee work, I was proud. I was proud of both sides. I was proud that they were able to come together. And where they came together was on 529 accounts. These plans allow them to invest in a tax-free account, incur interest, and spend it on educational expenses like tuition. For many years, these accounts only applied to college-related expenses, but, today, thanks to the Republican-led tax reform law in 2017, families can now use those funds to pay K-12 costs too. Because why would we want to hurt somebody? Maybe they were in a bad school district or have other reasons. We want everybody in America to have that opportunity. That was a big win for all families--Republican, Democrat, Green Party, didn't matter. Under current law, 529 savings accounts cannot be used for K-12 book costs, tutoring expenses for when kids fall behind and we want them to be able to catch up, fees for college admission exams--anybody that has a child at that age knows how much is spent on all of the exams--or to pay for educational therapy for students with disabilities. Wouldn't everybody want to help that child with disabilities? I believe so. The action of the committee proved that. Every Democrat in the committee said that, and every member on the Republican side said that. I was proud of that. But, unfortunately, special interest has more power. This is why, to me, I have real concerns on this bill. The official bill report is fantastic, what came out of committee. But when it got to the Democrat leadership, I guess they had different plans. Now, I shouldn't be shocked, because I was sitting in this well last week with the same dilemma. Another committee, Energy and Commerce, was dealing with a really important issue, much like what we are dealing with today, prescription drugs. And what happened was that both sides agreed on how to make prescription drug prices lower and give Americans more options, and they all voted for it. But it went right through that leadership, Madam Speaker, on the other side, and special interest won again. They put a poison pill in, so that will never become law. Madam Speaker, because special interest pressured this leadership to change this bill, it says something. To me, it says three things very clearly. It seems to me that the Democratic leadership is not the same Democratic leadership that I knew in the past. There are people on the other side of the aisle who call themselves Socialist Democrats. It seems to me that they want institutions, not individuals, to be focused on education funding. They want partisan interests, not parents, to decide how children learn. And they want the Federal Government, not families, to have control over their money. But that is not what the American people want. The American people want exactly what happened in that committee, exactly the power that brought all the Republicans and all the Democrats together. They don't want special interests to continue to run this House. The committee proved they could stand up. Whom did they stand up for? Those who need it the most: the parents of children with disabilities, leveling the playing field so every child has an opportunity when it comes to education. Of all the issues that could divide us, Madam Speaker, I don't understand why the leadership did that to the Ways and Means Committee. I don't think that is right for the work that the chairman and the ranking member put in. We deserve better. We displayed that we could be better. Unfortunately, special interests won over the parents, and that is wrong.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Chair, I thank the Speaker for yielding, and I thank her for her words. I want to join the Speaker in thanking the chief. Three decades, 34 years--it is not a job; it is a way of life when you become a police officer. Your job is a little different, and we see it each and every day. Think of the complexity of being a Capitol Police officer. It is not just the safety of the women and men who serve in here; it is the thousands of visitors who come every day. But it is also the responsibility of keeping a government by the people, for the people, and of the people open. Every day we see it, and we all have felt it. It is not just protecting us when it is inside this building. We saw it just a short time ago on a baseball field. We are reminded of the number of Members' lives your officers saved that day. We are reminded of the number of times, just in a building that the majority leader room has, of the officers giving the ultimate sacrifice inside these Hallowed Halls to save the others. So we thank you for your work, but, more importantly, we thank you for the force. We thank you for all the officers. We know last week was National Police Week. They were here in the Capitol and throughout Washington, D.C. We know every day that we hear the other lives that were lost protecting us throughout the Nation. We thank you for your service, and on behalf of a very grateful Congress, thank you for your decades of service, and we wish you all the best in retirement. Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Burgess

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Michelle Vance, who will be leaving as District Manager of the Tehachapi Valley Recreation and Park District after more than 10 years of service to the community of Tehachapi, California, which I represent. Michelle earned her Bachelor of Science at California State University, Bakersfield, in Public Policy Administration. After obtaining her degree, Michelle worked as the Executive Director of Main Street Tehachapi, a business advocacy group focused on creating a friendlier environment for Tehachapi's businesses, while recruiting new businesses to open up in the city. She then served as a Field Representative for the 2nd Supervisorial District for the County of Kern, where she acted as a liaison between the people of Tehachapi and the County Board of Supervisors. Her next job, Economic Development Coordinator for the City of Tehachapi, combined her experiences working for the County and the nonprofit world. During her time in Tehachapi, Michelle helped bring new businesses into the region and focused on revitalizing the downtown core, as well as the Greater Tehachapi Area. And most recently as Direct Manager, spearheaded the Tehachapi Gran Fondo, a hundred-mile bike ride through the mountains of Tehachapi, something our community is very proud of. Michelle always fought for the people of Tehachapi and will be remembered throughout the community as someone who stood up for their economic interests and helped make our community the thriving, robust, and vibrant place it is today. Michelle will be remembered in Tehachapi for her tireless work ethic, her can-do attitude, and her fervent belief in the community she called home. As Michelle starts a new chapter in her life, I want to thank her for her service on behalf of the 23rd District of California, and wish her well in all future endeavors.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I want to spend 1 minute and thank my friend, Congressman Walden. I know the work that he puts in when it comes to healthcare for America. Mr. Chairman, I know of a bill that Mr. Walden has in to protect preexisting conditions. We have asked many times to mark it up or bring it to the floor--no, not brought. It is talked about a lot, Mr. Chairman, but no bill to bring it here. I know your care when it comes to not just healthcare, but the type of treatment one is able to get, the quality of care out there, because, Mr. Chairman, there are people out there who will run health facilities for the seniors but don't do a very good job. The quality is not there. People have lost their own healthcare within there. People have been fined by the way they have treated individuals and seniors. People have lost eyes just because the treatment had been poor. Mr. Chairman, we are here today on this floor because we all know that drug prices are too high. That is why the Energy and Commerce Committee worked tirelessly to pass three healthcare bills unanimously to address that. Now, how often is that said on this floor? Not very often. It was a moment that I heard from almost every member on that committee, a moment of pride. We could have legislation passed in a bipartisan fashion today. We could take it from that committee and bring it to the floor, and we would have the exact same thing happen. We could have the Republicans and the Democrats coming together to lower the price of drugs. You know who wins? All of America. Sadly, however, these good faith efforts have been unnecessarily thrown into a partisan and senseless attempt to bail out pieces of the Affordable Care Act. Now, I don't say that--but I guess I just did, Mr. Chairman. I knew it because I happen to be a Member of Congress. I watched it because I watched the committee work together, find common ground in a place where it is really difficult. But when I looked at The Washington Post, it was very interesting. This is what they said. They actually put it best. Democrats are putting a ``political pothole''--yeah, that is what they said--a ``political pothole'' in the way of real drug pricing reform. You know, if you ever spend time back in your district or across this country, I would promise you one of the top three issues you will get is the price of drugs. I think everybody in this body was looking forward to this day, prior to the Democrats playing with political potholes. Make no mistake, the drug pricing component of H.R. 987 is very strong. The three drug pricing bills in this legislation get to the heart of the problem, the lack of competition in the generic drug market. Increased competition for generic drugs would lead to lower prices and make medication more accessible. Two things, I think, anybody in America would desire. Just think for a moment. You would get more competition, more choice, and lower prices. We were so close. We got out of committee. The Members on both sides said yes. The only step you had left: Go to the Rules Committee and come to the floor. But as you pass through that committee to get to the Rules Committee and get to the floor, I guess it had to go through leadership. Leadership made a choice: Politics before people. These reforms would have removed barriers to generic drugs entering the market, making healthcare more affordable for patients. It is a real change. That would have been a positive moment we all could have celebrated. But you know what is going to happen here? It is going to be a partisan vote and a bill that goes nowhere. It is going to be a pothole that most people will say elected officials are supposed to fix, not create. It is the opposite of what elected officials are supposed to do. They are supposed to fill in the potholes, not dig them. But if you read The Washington Post, they will tell you exactly who created them--the Democrats. There are a lot of things that happen on this floor that at times are reckless, irresponsible, and just downright embarrassing. Mr. Chairman, this is one of them. Why at a time when both sides say they want to lower the prices of drugs and give people more options? It goes to the core of the individual, of their own health. Well, it goes to the core of what the Democrats want to do. They don't want to make law. They love playing politics. You know what happens when they play politics? Not only do keep drug prices high, but they break another promise. I happen to have been in this body, Mr. Chairman, when I heard those words, that if you like your healthcare, you could keep it. I thought those millions of Americans who lost their healthcare that time, that that would be the end. But no, Mr. Chairman, the Democrats took the majority again. I thought that was enough. Had you taken enough health policies away from millions of Americans? The answer was no. They had a few more to go. Mr. Chairman, 1.5 million, the Congressional Budget Office says. So think, tomorrow when Americans wake up, there was a moment the prices could be lower. But, no. Would they ever think that not only are you not going to lower them, but you are going to take my healthcare away? That is exactly what is going to happen here today. That is the poison pill they added to the bills. Mr. Chairman, 1.5 million Americans will lose their plans. Now, if you listen to the other side, they say, no, no, it is net neutral. You know what it is? The CBO says, no, it goes down to 500,000. I have heard them use the Congressional Budget Office thousands of times, Mr. Chairman, on the floor. I haven't heard them use it today. Mr. Chairman, if you read books about politicians, if you read ``The Prince'' and you read Machiavelli, it is interesting, the ends justify the means. That is what it says. You see, it is about control. It is really about who can control what you can have. There was a moment there that you would have greater options and lower prices. No, we will tell you what you need and what you can have. There was a moment there that you would have even greater options when it came to healthcare. No, that is not going to be. We are going to take that away from you. And you know what? It is going to cost you more when we do it. Mr. Chairman, I would say I would be shocked that this was going to happen. I can't say I am shocked anymore because, Mr. Chairman, on one side of the aisle in this Chamber, half of the entire majority party has cosponsored a bill, Medicare for none. Not only are they taking more than 1.5 million Americans' plans away today, but they also have a plan to take more than 150 million Americans' plans away. They are going to bankrupt Medicare. They are going to deny you if you have private healthcare now. But that is okay. The ends justify the means. Why? Because they have control. That is exactly what happened here, Mr. Chairman. You had a committee that worked in a bipartisan manner. It is really irresponsible that the Rules Committee or the leadership would undercut their own chair of that committee to put a poison pill on three bills that came out in a bipartisan manner, with an idea that they would work in good faith, with an idea that they would put people before politics. When you study history, and they talk about elected officials, they will tell you even from the most local places you get elected, the jobs you are going to have are filling in potholes. I never heard someone say your job as elected officials is to create potholes, but that is what we witnessed today. It is a sad day for this House. We could do so much better. We did in committee. Is it just, Mr. Chairman, that the majority doesn't want to solve a problem? Because, Mr. Chairman, I have searched. They have been in power for quite some time, and I have not found one problem they have solved yet. I found a few potholes they created. I think we have enough problems. When we have that moment that we can come together inside of a committee, could we just keep it a little longer so it can get to the floor? Mr. Chairman, there will be an option. There will be an amendment in this body that gives you an opportunity. If you were in that Committee on Energy and Commerce and you voted on these bills without the poison pill, it will be your moment of truth. It will tell a lot to America, Mr. Chairman, whether you serve your constituents or you serve your leadership. That is what we will be watching. That is what America will be wondering. That is what we all hope will happen.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. It is an honor to be with you. A lot of you I have admired greatly. Some of you I have never gotten to meet. But part of the reason I ran, I watched you in public service, and it is an amazing occupation, and we should honor it every chance we get. There are days when we honor our democracy, so I am just going to tell you a quick story. If any of you have time and you want to come by my office--it is no longer in the majority side, but it is in the minority side over here. At one time it was the Speaker's office, whom some of you served, so you can find where it is. In there I put paintings, and there is a reason why each painting that I put in there is from a different artist. I put my favorite Presidents, Lincoln and Reagan, and then I have the one of ``Washington Crossing the Delaware.'' And this is the story I will tell you today. When I look at the paintings, I always wonder what advice Lincoln would tell us. If you think about it, he was a Member of the House. My favorite part whenever I give a tour is to go to Statuary Hall, stand right where Lincoln's desk is, and have my guests look back at the clock. I ask them to tell me what time it is because it is the exact same view and the exact same clock that Abraham Lincoln looked at. I am sure he did, and that is an opportunity to have. But what would Lincoln tell us today? Lincoln would tell us to believe in the exceptionalism of this country; that we are different than any other country before us. And the reason why I believe that is, is the Gettysburg Address. You all know it. ``Four score and seven years ago our Fathers brought forth on this continent a new Nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.'' There has never been another country like ours. Conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that we are all equal. There is something about democracy that that brings forth. When you think about the world today, Saudi Arabia just now allows women the right to drive, and it makes you think about where we have come from. But the painting that I want you to look at, and some of you have served with me and you have been in that room, is ``Washington Crossing the Delaware.'' You know of that painting. You know that it hangs in New York, but did you know the history of who actually painted that picture? It wasn't even an American. His name was Emanuel Leutze. He had lived in America. He was an immigrant. He lived here for a number of years and went back to Germany, and painted a picture based upon the belief that he wanted to inspire the Germans to have a revolution because he believed America was more than a country, that America was an idea. And he wanted the revolution in Germany to inspire the idea of freedom and democracy. So he doesn't get it historically correct, but we don't blame him, right? The Delaware looks like the Rhine, but he is German, so we live with that. He puts 13 people in a row boat. Why would he put 13? 13 colonies, right? But he only shows you 12 faces. He gets it historically incorrect, because people will tell you Washington either crossed in a Durham boat or on a barge, but he just makes it a row boat. But he puts Washington in a ceremonial uniform, standing up, crossing the Delaware on Christmas, at night. We think that probably is not true, but when you look at Washington, you would say, ``I bet that man has never lost a battle.'' Well, history tells us he had not won yet; that was our first victory when we surprised the Hessians, right? But what I want you to do when you look at the picture, I want you to see who is in the boat. And this is the story of why democracy matters. If you look at the second person, he is wearing a beret; he is Scottish. If you look at the person directly across from him in the denim jacket, he is African American. You come down the boat to the midsection, in the red is a woman. And in the very back, is a Native American. I don't know if they were in the boat that night, but this young immigrant, that is who he believed--having lived in America--would have been in that boat. But the second to last person is a farmer, and he has hand across his face. It is the hand of the 13th person nobody sees. And what the young artist was saying, Here we are as a young nation-- not even a nation yet, but an idea for a nation--an idea that we can self-govern, an idea about democracy, that we are willing to risk everything, having never won before, and do it on our holiest of nights: Here is a hand. Would you get in and join us? I believe that is as true today as it was then. It is not guaranteed, you have to earn it through each generation. And the service that you have provided actually passed the torch to the next. I came here in 2007. I admired an individual, Connie Morella, who I watched stand up. She belonged to my party. And the part that I looked at is, I grew up in a family of Democrats, but I was a Republican based upon belief. And my belief was that an individual can govern themselves. And I watched Connie stand up not only to things she disagreed with, but to things even within her own party. And she inspired people. People would say she inspired a lot of women; she also inspired me. And the idea that after she left this House she continued to work for democracy says a lot about who she is and why she was elected in the first place. So it is an honor for me to be here today to say thank you for your service. And thank you, all of you, for what you contributed to this country.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Chairwoman, I thank Congresswoman Kay Granger for yielding me the time, and I thank the gentlewoman for offering this amendment. You will see me vote for this amendment. Madam Chairwoman, I rise to ask a simple question to this body: What is our mission? Are we here to make positive change for our fellow Americans, to solve problems, to respond in times of hardship, or are we here to message? I would say, collectively, together, the answer should be we are here to make the change to help those in hardship. These are the moments in time when people do not ask if you are a Republican or a Democrat. When Houston was flooded, I was down there that week touring with Members from both sides of the aisle, and nobody was arguing from either side. When Puerto Rico was hit, it was then, as I was the majority leader and Congressman Steny Hoyer, at the time, was the whip, now the majority leader, that we put a codel together with the Republicans and Democrats. We just didn't go to the Keys. We went to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands together to work to help to make sure we rebuilt. When California had the devastating fire, one of the worst we have ever seen, I flew with the President. When we landed, we were met by the Governor of California and the Governor-elect. Not only did we tour together and were of different parties, but we talked about how to rebuild. We flew down because California has more than just one devastation and one fire. We talked and we bonded on the basis of how we would work together. That is what America expects. The bill that we will have on the floor today does not meet the criteria of both of us working together, and that is just not right. But yesterday, with the work of Congresswoman Kay Granger and the others in the Appropriations Committee, we put together one in working with the Senate Republicans on Senate Appropriations and made an offer to the Democratic side. I want to publicly say that to everyone. I know we can do better, and I know we can solve this. I made a commitment to the majority leader, Steny Hoyer: let's work together and be right back here next week and get this solved. This has gone on too long, too much hardship, and we could rise to the occasion. The information I have gotten back from the majority leader is that, yes, he wants to work with us; yes, they want to move this bill today. But I don't want to move a bill for the sake of saying I moved a bill. I want to make law and help those in need. I have spoken to the President, and I have spoken to the leader on the Senate side. I believe we can solve this all by next week. So today when this vote is done, and the messages are given, let's not stop. Let's put our committee together, and let's work through this weekend and the beginning of next week. I know the very best of us will rise to this occasion, and we could be right back here not with a debate of partisanship, not with a vote that defines pretty close to how we are registered inside this floor, but one united vote that will become law that the President will seek to sign. We know the outcome of the bill that we will vote on today. The President said he is not going to sign it. People are hurting. He wants to solve those problems, too. We want to make sure that even the money that we have already voted on to deliver gets delivered to the areas that need it the most. We want to make sure that we make the corrections so that the fires and the floods will not come back as severe as they were before from any ability that we have to do to stop that. I will make this pledge to everyone in this House, all partisanship aside, let's do this together. Let's show America that when it comes to a time of need that we all put partisanship aside and that we put people before politics. So, yes, carry on the vote today, but I am not going to be voting for it. I want to you know where my heart is. We will be back here next week. We will make law, and we will solve this. Just as the offer went across the aisle, I know we can do better.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Chuck Haddad, who passed away on Tuesday, April 16, 2019 at the age of 85. The namesake of the Haddad car dealerships in Bakersfield, California, Chuck was an esteemed local businessman and philanthropist and most importantly, a friend to many in our community including myself. Chuck's life story is a true embodiment of the American dream. Having grown up in Lebanon, he moved to the United States to attend Wabash College in Indiana. However, as Chuck soon found out, the Midwest gets a bit colder than the Mediterranean climate where he was raised. Fortunately, he found a suitable alternative in the great state of California, where he moved shortly thereafter to attend Stanford University in Palo Alto. It was here that Chuck's automobile career began when, while shopping for a car of his own, the dealer was so impressed with his bargaining skills that he offered Chuck a salesman position on the spot. Within a year he was the dealership's General Manager. Chuck went on to open his own dealership in East Los Angeles in 1973, followed by Haddad Dodge in Bakersfield, California in 1974. Chuck and his family owned the Dodge dealership, Haddad Kia, and have ownership stakes in Nissan of Bakersfield, BMW of Bakersfield, and Bakersfield Chrysler Jeep FIAT. Outside of his dealerships, perhaps the professional accomplishment Chuck was most proud of was winning a landmark court case against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). In Bakersfield Dodge Inc. v. The IRS, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that car dealerships have the right to allocate certain financial resources for tax purposes, benefitting automotive dealers across the country. Anyone that knew Chuck would be unsurprised to hear how proud he was to have been able to help others. In fact, Chuck helped countless people in the Bakersfield area by his generous contributions to charitable causes such as research for juvenile diabetes, arthritis, heart disease, cancer and leukemia. He also provided leadership and guidance on the California State University Bakersfield's business advisory panel, the Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce, and the Kern County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, just to name a few. But Chuck was most proud of the great love story of him and his late wife, Inger. Together as parents to James and Lisa, John and Meredith, and Jeff and Tina, and grandparents to Michael, Ryan, Allie and Ryan, Jacob, Joshua and Maci, their lives were filled with many memorable moments. As a husband, father, grandfather and friend, we will always remember Chuck's devotion to family. As a philanthropist, Chuck's commitment to community was evident through his many civic contributions as well, most notably through the National Automobile Dealers Association. Through the association, he was dedicated to fostering relationships with our local, state and federal elected officials recognizing the importance of effective leadership. Chuck held true to his conservative principles as was evident in his support of helping candidates who shared these values pursue successful campaigns. As a member of the Kern County Republican Party, he received the 2016 Republican of the Year Award, where his tireless efforts on behalf of a grateful party were recognized. The measure of a man's life can be found in his character, in his optimism, in his joy and humor, in his courage and passion for what is good and right and in his love for family, neighbor and country. This was the life of Chuck Haddad. On behalf of the 23rd Congressional District of California, we remember my friend, Chuck Haddad, and extend our most heartfelt condolences to the Haddad family.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Fred Starrh, Sr., who passed away on April 16, 2019 at the age of 89. Fred was a renowned farmer in California's Central Valley whose career spanned nearly seventy years. He was also a devoted family man, philanthropist, follower of Jesus Christ, and my dear friend. Born to a family of cotton farmers at the onset of the Great Depression and having come of age during the Second World War, the value of hard work and the importance of serving one's country were instilled in Fred at a young age. In fact, Fred answered the call to serve when his draft number was selected during the Korean War. Stationed in Fort Lewis in Washington State, it was there he met his first loving wife of 54 years, Nancy Johnson, who passed away in 2009. Fred then fell in love with and married Linda. Fred returned to his roots after the war, managing the 35-acre family cotton farm in Shafter, California, that his father founded in 1935. The operation quickly expanded and diversified under Fred's guidance, with an additional location in Buttonwillow, California, and the production of specialty crops, including pistachios and almonds. Today, the Starrh Family Farms operation spans over 9,000 acres. Fred was also a staunch advocate for Kern County and Central Valley farmers and the farming industry generally. For instance, when the U.S. Department of Agriculture closed a research facility in Shafter, California, that was doing critical research on a cotton disease, Fred, through the San Joaquin Valley Quality Cotton Growers Association, stepped up to the plate and led the charge to keep the facility open and in operation by partnering with Kern County and the local community college. Throughout his 68-year career, Fred also advanced agricultural interests by serving on countless boards and councils, and joining numerous associations. Among these, Fred was particularly proud to sit on the Kern County Water Agency Board of Directors. In this capacity, Fred played a critical role and was a key decision-maker advancing commonsense water policies in Kern County and California. For those of you who know California water politics, things can get heated quickly, but Fred, the consummate gentleman, could draw on his vast experience and detailed knowledge to find common ground to bring people back to the table to get solutions--all without raising his voice. Fred also served on the Kern County Farm Bureau's Board of Directors, was a Director for the California Farm Bureau Federation, and was appointed to serve on the Cotton Agricultural Trade Advisory Committee and the Cotton Marketing Committee by then-Secretary of Agriculture Ed Madigan, where he advised the Secretary and other officials at the U.S. Department of Agriculture on the landmark 1990 Farm Bill. Fred further served his beloved Central Valley community on the board of the Kern High School District for 17 years, and was a founding member of the Shafter Recreation District, where he both supported and participated in local music and arts programs. Fred held unwavering faith in the goodness of God. As a member of the Shafter Congregational Church, Fred could always be found singing in the choir with his family and friends. Fred is survived by his wife, Linda, his four children, Fred Jr. and his wife Cris, Larry and his wife Shana, Carol and her husband Jay, and Anne and her husband Dale, his seven grandchildren, two great- grandchildren, and an entire family that loved him deeply. Fred Starrh was truly a larger-than-life personality, and when I would seek his counsel on any issue big or small, he always had sage advice. I am honored to have been able to call Fred one of my close friends. On behalf of Kern County and our friends and neighbors throughout the 23rd Congressional District of California, Judy and I extend our deepest condolences to the Starrh family as we remember and honor the life of Fred Starrh, Sr.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Mr. Ernest ``Ernie'' M. Bell Jr., who retires this year after an extensive career in education from his position as the Superintendent of the Sierra Sands Unified School District (SSUSD), which serves the Indian Wells Valley in my congressional district in California. Born and raised in Ridgecrest, California, Ernie graduated from Sherman E. Burroughs High School and attended Bakersfield College before receiving a degree in Biology from the University of California, Davis, and a Masters of Arts in Educational Leadership and Administration at California State University, Bakersfield. He then returned home to Ridgecrest, beginning a career in education at Murray Middle School, where he taught and coached for ten years, then served as the school's Vice Principal for four years, and finally as Murray Middle's Principal for ten years. Throughout his career as an educator, Ernie achieved extensive knowledge of the interworking and importance of education through his participation on SSUSD leadership committees and peer review panels. And it was by tackling issues critical to the district, such as student safety, collective bargaining, budgetary issues, and accreditation, that Ernie seamlessly transitioned from the classroom to SSUSD administration. In 2014, Ernie accepted the position of Superintendent of Sierra Sands Unified School District, a position that capped a lifelong career dedicated to education in the Indian Wells Valley. As Superintendent, Ernie led and successfully pushed to renovate and modernize Murray Middle School and Burroughs High School, and spearheaded the effort to secure funding for the construction of Richmond Elementary School. Ernie's legacy will be defined not only by his esteemed career as an educator to countless students, but by the fruits of his tireless advocacy for quality education in the Indian Wells Valley on future generations of students. I know Ernie Bell as a man of his word and as a public servant who tirelessly advocated for the needs of our community's students and teachers better than almost anyone. I know that despite his retirement, he will remain just as active in the Ridgecrest community as ever. On behalf of a grateful community, I wish Ernie, his wife, Deanne, and their children, Jacob, Zachary, and Rebecca, all the best as they begin this new chapter of his life.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask a simple yet important question, a question more and more Americans are beginning to ask: What have the Democrats done with their majority? This Friday marks the 100th day of the new Democratic majority, 100 days of Democratic disappointment. Today, we were supposed to debate the Democrats' shell budget, but Speaker Pelosi pulled it. So here we are, debating another bill that is dead on arrival in the Senate. The numbers speak for themselves. At this point in the last Congress, Republicans had passed 141 bills out of committee and 132 out of the House. We all believe in accountability, so what do the numbers say now? By contrast, Democrats have passed 68 bills out of committee and 97 out of the House, considerably fewer bills out of this House than before. But think about this: Democrats have passed more bills out of the House than they have out of the committee. So much for doing the job of the people's House. No. It is whatever leadership decides. Mr. Chairman, we have been lectured countless times by Speaker Pelosi over the years, and you all know the comments: Show us your budget, show us your values. It hasn't been said once, it has been said hundreds of times: Show us your budget, show us your values. The Speaker and I have disagreements, but I agree that passing a budget is the fundamental responsibility of the majority. That is not what we are doing today. Unfortunately, it looks like we will never know the true values of this majority because there is no budget. Mr. Chairman, the problem goes beyond the Democrats' lack of results. As a majority, the Democrats have focused on three principles above all else: resolutions, radicalism, and resistance. One in five votes in this House that has been taken since the end of January were nonbinding messaging resolutions. Just last week, we wasted time debating a symbolic resolution on healthcare. Imagine for a moment if we had instead spent one-fifth of our time actually working to lower premiums, expand choice, or improve quality. Imagine all that we could have achieved. Right now, we have a humanitarian crisis along our southern border. What if we spent one-fifth of our time working to improve border security and fix the loopholes in our immigration system? No, Mr. Chairman. Democrats would rather consider another nonbinding resolution. I have never known anybody who has run for office who was asked to make sure you go to Congress to waste time on votes that do not matter. They send us here to deliver solutions, not resolutions. Mr. Chairman, the American people deserve better. Perhaps the Democratic majority is so focused on resolutions because they don't want the American people to understand the consequences of their radical, extremist policies. The Wall Street Journal wrote: ``Democrats are embracing policies that include government control of ever-larger chunks of the private American economy.'' Or, as I like to say, if you like the welfare state, you will love the Democratic agenda. Take the Green New Deal. Under the guise of fighting climate change, it will lead to government control over nearly every element of our lives. What it wouldn't do is make housing more available or even energy more affordable for hardworking families. How about Medicare for All? How do you like a one-size-fits-all healthcare system where government bureaucrats, not consumers, decide what benefits you are going to receive? Mr. Chairman, do you know that more than 100 Democrats in the majority have cosponsored this bill? So not only do they support it, they crave it to come to the floor. What would it do? It would end private insurance. That means 158 million Americans would lose their insurance. And everybody on Medicare Advantage? Gone. That is what they worked on these first 100 days. Your doctor? Gone. Your hospital? Gone. Your healthcare plan? Gone. On issue after issue, Democrats seem to have but one solution: more spending, more bureaucracy, and more government control. Mr. Chairman, the American public deserves better. Finally, you can learn a lot about this majority by seeing the bills they refused to consider these first 100 days. After spending weeks unwilling to condemn anti-Semitic remarks, you would think House Democrats would rush to schedule real legislation. We have a bill sitting at the Speaker's desk right now that would take concrete steps to counter the growing boycott, divestment, sanctions movement against our greatest ally in the Middle East, Israel. You would think that, Mr. Chairman, but that would be wrong. You would think that after the Virginia Governor made comments that seemed to support infanticide, House Democrats would rush to schedule the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. Remember, this bill simply ensures that all babies, regardless of when they are born, receive the medical care they deserve as human beings. Yet for the 31st time--no exaggeration, 31 times we have asked on this floor for unanimous consent to bring that bill up--Democrats have refused. That is what they spent 100 days on. They refuse to defend newborns from infanticide because they are beholden to the most extreme factions of their own party. Mr. Chairman, the American people deserve better. The only unifying theme of the Democrats' 100 days has been their nonstop resistance to President Trump. For 2 years, Democrats insisted that the President colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election. Their own chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the one who is supposed to see and protect us, told the American public in 2017 that there was more than circumstantial evidence to prove it. Yet when the Mueller report found no evidence of collusion, Democrats refused to accept the conclusion. They refused to do anything to Adam Schiff who had lied to the American public for the last 2 years. They didn't apologize for misleading the public either. No, without missing a beat and aided by the liberal media, they simply opened up new investigations. That is what they did for their 100 days. Who pays for these endless investigations? You, the hardworking taxpayer. The Democrats are happy to continue to run up the tab and never bring a budget to the floor to show their values. Mr. Chair, the American public deserves better. Today, the Democrats are leaving for their Member retreat and then a 2-week spring break. Let's hope they come back with more than a tan. Let's hope they come back with a new game plan. Let's hope they come back ready to work for the common good, not simply to appease their extremist, radical base. Now, we are ready and eager to work with Democrats. We are ready to work with Democrats to secure our border. We are ready to work with Democrats to upgrade our infrastructure. We are ready to work with Democrats to lower the cost of prescription drugs and address the opioid crisis. We stand ready to work with anyone to solve the problems our country faces, in the next 100 days and beyond. After 100 days, please, Mr. Chair, let's get to work. The American people deserve nothing less.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, will the majority leader schedule S. 1, a vote on this floor with his commitment to Israel and his commitment to ending BDS?

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. McCARTHY. First, the gentleman did not answer my last. But this one, Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. McCARTHY. The minority only has one ability to bring something to the floor in an MTR. This body wants to have a vote on S. 1. Will the majority leader schedule on this floor a vote on BDS?

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I thank Congressman Walden for his sobering words, for his actions. He has a bill that will protect preexisting conditions. The difference about that to today: It is actually a bill; this is a resolution. I always thought, when you ran for Congress, you would want to do more than a press release. Apparently, it is different with the new election, Madam Speaker. ``Show me your budget, show me your values.'' It has been said so many times on this floor. Those were the words that have been recited by Speaker Pelosi quite frequently. You could have a whole ring of videos of her just saying those exact words. But, of course, that was before the newly minted Democratic majority quickly decided they won't be introducing a budget. Madam Speaker, I wonder if America will question the values. It appears they won't be sharing their values with the American people. But if we had questions as to what those values were, this week removes all doubt. Madam Speaker, we are celebrating 40 years of C-SPAN, but I wonder if those who are watching today understand what is happening. You see, on this floor, they learned early on, even from a childhood of ``Schoolhouse Rock,'' I'm just a bill on Capitol Hill. This is not a bill we are talking about. This isn't even a resolution that goes to the Senate. This will never end up with the President. This will do nothing for your healthcare. What will it do? It will make a great press release. The difference, Madam Speaker, in one election is what happens on this floor. The difference is: Do you really want to protect people with preexisting conditions? Because, Madam Speaker, there is an individual who has a bill that is filed, that has cosponsorship, that is sitting in committee, that the Democrats control. They didn't mark it up. They didn't talk about it. They wrote a resolution. To those who are watching on C-SPAN, I know what they have watched on this floor before. I know what they watched in the last Congress, that we sat and talked about not a resolution for children's health, for the CHIP program, but we wrote a bill. We extended it longer than anyone has ever dreamed possible, a full decade. Yes, Madam Speaker, we had to do it with one side of the aisle, because the majority on the other side of the aisle didn't even write a press release supporting it. They voted ``no.'' To those who are watching on C-SPAN and questioning what has gone on in this House, yes, they watched it the last Congress. When we had an opioid epidemic, we wrote a bill. We didn't write a press release, and we didn't write a resolution. Or when the National Institutes of Health, where you could really care about an individual with healthcare and solve a problem, we didn't write a resolution about giving them more money. We actually voted for it. We actually moved it through committee, and we had a bill and we funded $3 billion more. To those who are watching on C-SPAN, don't change the channel. Don't wonder about the words that were used before, ``show me your budget,'' ``show me your values''; there is no budget, and you are probably going to question their values. Show me the bill and show me your values. I guess that is the new line we should ask, because what does a resolution do? Maybe we can all get together and go to the Rayburn Room today and have a press release. What? Let's go further. Let's have a press conference. Let's get really serious about a problem, and let's write a resolution for the floor, because that problem will still exist. A lot of people put a lot of effort into running for office. A lot of people make a lot of promises, and Americans expect legislation to solve them, not a resolution. You know what is most ironic today? If they wanted to solve the problem, there are options there. If we are worried about a lawsuit, if we are worried about preexisting conditions, go to Congressman Walden's bill. Let's bring that to the floor. It is not a resolution. We will have to vote for something different. We will have to actually vote for a bill. It is interesting that, on the other side of the aisle, Madam Speaker, I heard people were concerned the Republicans were concerned about what ObamaCare has done, that premiums have risen, that the promise we were given that, if you liked your healthcare, you could keep it. For millions of Americans, that proved to be a lie and false. We are not the only ones who believe that has been a failure. If that were not true, why do half the Members on the other side of the aisle cosponsor a bill that says Medicare for All? They must believe it is not working either. Or maybe they want to take more healthcare from individuals. I am not quite sure. The way I look at Medicare for All, it has got a great name. Anybody who is 65, they should get Medicare, and I will stand with them. But they shouldn't take away 158 million Americans' private health insurance, because that is exactly what they do. Why don't they make another promise to the American public and deny them their healthcare? Or why don't they even go further? For everyone who is on Medicare Advantage, that goes away as well. Or for everyone who is on Medicare itself, you are going to bankrupt it. You have got that in legislation. That is not a press release. Why don't we bring that to the floor or committee? Why don't we debate that? And, Madam Speaker, when I sat on this floor and I heard the words used from the other side of the aisle, from the leader of that side of the aisle to say Republicans don't care about Medicare, that was a lie. Medicare part D; you know, when you talk to seniors, you know what they are most concerned about? The price of prescription drugs. Or for those C-SPAN viewers who have more than 40 years to watch it, Republicans were in the majority. Do you know what they did? They didn't bring a press release down with a resolution. They brought a bill. They created Medicare part D to lower prescription drug prices. It has been one of the most effective programs around. And do you know what we had to do? We had to do it alone because we passed legislation. We didn't pass a press release. Madam Speaker, shame, shame on an individual who would lie to the American public about their own healthcare, lie about another side, but, more importantly, say they care about Americans' health and bring a resolution. I want to see everybody go home this weekend, go back to their constituents and tell them what they did about preexisting conditions. They passed a resolution when they could have passed a bill. I happen to be the leader of the Republicans, and I stand here in this well, in this body, and tell you we support preexisting conditions. I tell you to bring his bill up, Congressman Walden's, and we will support this bill on this floor. We won't support shams. We won't support press releases, because we care about Americans' health. And we will not support kicking 158 million off their healthcare. I know half the body on the other side has cosponsored that. That is even further than I have seen before. They want to end Medicare Advantage. When are they going to say that to the seniors? And that is not a press release. That is something they are really going after. If they are serious about their words, if they believe they care and are concerned about a court case because maybe they wrote a bill that isn't constitutional, they could have solved it today. You know what we could be talking about today? They own the majority. They control the floor. What is most interesting, the majority of bills that they brought to the floor in this new majority--they have brought more bills and resolutions to the floor than even passed the committee, but they sat here and told us it is for the people. They are about to have 100 days, but it is 100 days of disappointment. I have never thought a majority would want to claim how many press conferences or how many resolutions they could pass on the floor, but they are setting a record. They are setting a record while they are failing the American public. Do you know what they could be doing right now? If they really cared about fixing our healthcare system and protecting Americans with preexisting conditions, they could do one of the three things in the face of this lawsuit. And let's not lie to the American public. They could repeal the individual mandate. Boom, the lawsuit is gone. They could reimpose the penalty. They voted for it before, so why don't they vote for it again? Or they could put a bill on the floor that explicitly protects preexisting conditions. The difference is that is a bill, not a resolution. Maybe if they had a lot of power, maybe if they really felt strongly about this, make a resolution that even goes to the Senate so the Senate can talk about it, too. Or if they really care, make a bill. Write a bill. Don't write a press release. Don't lie to the American public. They are smarter than this. You know, the words I have heard today, the line that will sit up to speak, not one of them will use the term of a bill; not one of them can look the American public in the eye and say they are protecting preexisting conditions. But what they can say, Madam Speaker, is they are denying a bill that would protect preexisting conditions to come to the floor because the Republicans offered it. This is an honorable floor. This is a floor that makes history. This is a floor that has changed and shown the values of America to lead the world, but it has not done that by doing resolutions. It is a shame that we are trying to put a resolution on the floor. Is this why you ran? Is this why you craved to become the majority? I didn't hear any of my constituents say, ``I want you to go there''--because I heard this language. I heard this language on the other side, Madam Speaker, just from the last speaker: We will fight in court. We will fight on the floor. We will fight in the public's opinion. Do you know what fighting means if you want to succeed? Put a bill. I didn't know fighting was writing a press release. Don't take America's time and don't waste it, because that is exactly what they are doing. Do you want to tell stories? Go tell the stories to the individuals who are concerned about this. Go tell those individuals you did nothing to solve it. Go tell those individuals you denied a bill to come to the floor that could solve the problem. Be honest, but stop wasting our time. And if you don't want to lead, get out of the way, because we will definitely solve it.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Speaker for yielding, and I also want to wish her a very happy birthday. Madam Speaker, I rise to celebrate a milestone in the history of open and accessible government. Now, many of us here and across the country were first introduced as a child to how government works through our Saturday morning cartoons in Schoolhouse Rock's ``I'm Just a Bill on Capitol Hill,'' but giving life to the animation, C-SPAN has taken the education and turned it into experience. Over the last 40 years, C-SPAN has ensured the country experienced some of the most consequential and memorable moments that transpired right here in this body. On the 50th anniversary of the Selma civil rights march, John Lewis reminded us of the quiet dignity of the 600 Americans who put their lives on the line that this Nation might live up to the promises made in its founding documents. As John Lewis said, Our country will never, ever be the same because of what happened on this bridge. C-SPAN was there. At the height of the Iraq war, Sam Johnson, a Vietnam veteran and POW, gave a powerful salute to our soldiers and taught us an important lesson about patriotism and service before self. We are better as a country because of the example Sam Johnson set. C-SPAN was there. Throughout these 40 years of experiences that have changed the culture of history, from the Contract with America to the election of the first woman Speaker, even capturing the lighthearted moments of humor that can make their way in to times of very serious debate, C- SPAN captured it all. This is important because the rise of the internet and the new media environment has only reinforced the need for C-SPAN's unfiltered coverage and unbiased programing. Now more than ever people must be able to form their own opinions. They need objective coverage, access to balanced analysis, and the opportunity to debate their views with others in good faith. C-SPAN does just that. Madam Speaker, James Madison believed that representative government did more than cater to individual interests. He said that one of its key advantages was that it refined and enlarged the public view about the common good. For the last 40 years, C-SPAN has been an irreplaceable tool for accomplishing Madison's vision. I know I speak for the whole House in congratulating C-SPAN for four decades of coverage.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 100th anniversary of Urner's Home Appliance Store. From his humble beginnings selling cookware off the back of a bicycle in the 1910s, founder David E Urner's entrepreneurial dreams were realized when he opened Urner & Janes in the summer of 1919. With a company mantra of ``providing an easier way of living,'' Urner & Janes quickly became the premier store in the Central Valley for modern appliances In fact, Mr Urner was the first person to offer innovative appliances like electric refrigerators and the ``wonder'' machine--an automatic washing machine years ahead of its time--for commercial sale in Bakersfield His vision and relentless work ethic truly laid the foundation for Urner's to become the fixture in the community it is today. When you look at family-owned companies that survive the test of time, one trait they all share is their adaptability, and Urner's is no exception. Largely unable to acquire metal-based appliances during World War II because of the war production efforts, Urner's had the foresight to begin selling toys and offering an appliance repair service. Fortunately, this knack for understanding the market extended well beyond David, and the company, now managed by the fourth generation of Urners, who have experienced so much success that they were forced to move from their original downtown location into a larger 52,000 square foot superstore to keep up with demand. Urner's also recently expanded to the mattress market, opening two Z's Please Sleep Center locations and becoming their flagship mattress destination for the entire state of California. Even more noteworthy than Urner's commercial success is their boundless care and support of the Bakersfield community. From championing local organizations to simply treating every person that passes through the doors of one of their stores with kindness and respect, Urner's is the quintessential example of how a family owned and operated business should be run. On behalf of the 23rd Congressional District I want to congratulate Urner's on its 100-year anniversary, and I look forward to another 100 years of Urner's prospering in the Bakersfield community.