Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would point out that the gentleman from Georgia is absolutely correct. I did raise that concern, and I thought it was appropriate to raise the concern that the way the majority meant the term ``ObamaCare,'' as applied at the time, was intended to be pejorative. Then President Obama embraced the term; so we evolved because President Obama decided that he liked that his name would be associated with making sure that 20 million people who now have health insurance but who didn't before would be associated with his name. That is all that the American Library Association and the Library of Congress are asking with regard to the people who are labeled as ``illegal aliens.'' The gentleman from Georgia, it would be understood, is not someone who is labeled that way, so, perhaps, it is understandable that he would not understand why that was offensive. The American Library Association and the Library of Congress have recognized that the evolution beyond using a term that has been determined to be pejorative is essential. That is called progress. That is called tolerance. Unfortunately, the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill, through the reference to title VIII in the United States Code, requires, in this bill, the Library of Congress to continue to use the term ``illegal alien.'' It is inappropriate, unfortunate, and it should be deleted. We should have had an opportunity to debate an amendment to have allowed that to happen. The majority chooses to hide the fact. I mean, I wish they would have just owned up to it. Mr. Chair, they should have just put it right up in the bill. I don't know why they didn't. If they think it is the right thing to do, they should have just put that term right in the bill and spelled out that they expect the Library of Congress to continue to use it. Hiding behind title VIII of the U.S. Code shows that they don't have, necessarily, the courage of their convictions to stand up for that term. Why? Because there are a whole lot of people in this country who think it is offensive, including me and the Members of my party. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. What I suggested was that, because the majority realizes that the term ``illegal alien'' is not something that is appropriate to continue to use as a subject heading, if they had spelled it straight out in the bill rather than hiding what their true intention was behind the reference to the U.S. Code, they probably would have had to have answered a little bit more closely to the fact that they were making this effort. Now we have been able to at least have this discussion, and I am intentionally using most of my time to be able to shine a spotlight on the fact that the majority wishes to continue to label people as ``illegal,'' wishes to continue to politicize the legislative branch appropriations bill to inject the immigration debate into the funding of the legislative branch, and to set themselves up as the word police with regard to subject headings. This is what we need our colleagues to wrap their minds around, Mr. Chair--requiring the Library to continue to use an offensive term in their subject headings so that researchers can't use the term that the American Library Association has deemed more appropriate and not offensive. Instead, they insist on continuing to use an offensive term. That is unacceptable. It is inappropriate. We are going to continue to insist, and I will not be able to support this legislation as a result of the insistence of the majority on labeling an entire group of people ``illegal'' and politicizing this bill when the Library of Congress should be allowed to let the process work that works for thousands of other changes to their subject headings. I will also point out, Mr. Chairman, that we do embrace evolution of terminology here. Just in May, a few weeks ago, we finally deleted the last vestiges of the terms ``Oriental'' and ``Negro'' from the United States Code. So we do have a process by which we take legislation like that that has been introduced by Congressman Joaquin Castro, and we allow it to move through the process. That is the appropriate way that we deal with discussion about changes in terminology in the code. We don't do it in the legislative branch bill. And that is exactly what the majority is doing by insisting that the Library of Congress continue to use that offensive term ``illegal alien.'' I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chair, I support my colleague's amendment. The aim of this amendment is to create an office of good jobs for the House within the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer. This office would help ensure that the House makes contracting and employment decisions, encouraging the creation of decently paid jobs, implementation of fair labor practices, and responsible employment practices. As the legislative branch, we ought to be setting an example for the Nation when it comes to contracting decisions. Members of Congress who are committed to creating good-paying jobs and supporting workers have a chance with this amendment to see those values reflected right where we work. This office will help guide the legislative branch in making responsible contracting and employment decisions and do right by the countless men and women who help us perform the people's business each and every day. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment by voting ``yes.''

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I would ask that you remind the chairman to do so, please.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. I think it is unfortunate that myself and my colleagues on our side of the aisle don't feel that we can lend our support to this legislation for a variety of reasons. First, there has been an overwhelming injection of politics into what should be an otherwise solid piece of legislation in which we have done a lot of good work to make sure that the functions of the legislative branch are able to make sure that we can exercise our roles and responsibilities as Members of the legislative branch. Unfortunately, due to the funding of the select committee on Planned Parenthood, which continues the witch hunt into an organization that simply exists to provide millions of women access to quality health care, in which there has been absolutely no evidence whatsoever that there was any wrongdoing, the majority continues to insist on funding the witch hunt that is designed to prevent women from getting access to quality, affordable health care. It also continues funding for the Select Committee on Benghazi, an investigation in which the majority has actually admitted that they found absolutely no wrongdoing. Yet they have not disbanded the committee, and they continue to provide funding for it in this bill. Lastly, as we have been able to spend a few minutes debating here on the floor, this bill tragically sets the legislative branch up as the word police and Members of Congress as the watchful sentries over the uses of the terms and subject headings at the Library of Congress. I am glad that we are really carefully protecting the card catalog in the Library of Congress to make sure that we can continue to use offensive terms when researchers look them up in the Library of Congress, like ``illegal alien.'' This bill makes sure that, instead of evolving, instead of moving forward, instead of letting professionals who work in libraries decide what terms should be used in their subject headings, Congress is going to establish ourselves as the word police, politicize something where we should not inject politics, and label people as ``illegal.'' Again, I will reiterate that there should have been an opportunity for us to debate this issue separately. I am glad we have had an opportunity to discuss it here and to expose the majority for wanting to continue a bigoted, offensive term as the subject heading in the Library of Congress. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Is it not appropriate for the ranking member and the chairman, when we are debating, to go through the Chair when we are having that debate?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I join the chairman in supporting the gentleman's amendment. This amendment would add approximately 30 lactation rooms to the Capitol complex. Working mothers rely on these rooms--and I can speak from experience--to ensure that they can continue to work while breastfeeding their children. This amendment rightfully recognizes that Congress must lead by example to ensure that women can be both moms and leaders in their field. In fact, my own office right now is serving as a lactation room, and that is because one of my wonderful staff is a nursing mom. While I am happy to do that, it is our responsibility to maintain an environment where all of our employees feel comfortable, including working mothers. Our staff deserves to feel welcome and secure when they are ready to return to work. We should be doing everything we can to encourage working moms to return to the workplace, and it must start here on Capitol Hill. As we all know, the offices in which we work are inadequate for moms to pump. Our staff is many to an office with open-air cubicles. Having lactation rooms is mandatory, essential, if we want to keep talented women in the workplace. I want to thank the gentleman for offering this amendment. I urge its support and appreciate the chairman's support.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment, as it takes a meat-ax approach to cutting this bill by $31 million with an across-the-board cut of 1 percent. The amendment exempts the Capitol Police and its buildings, as well as the Sergeant at Arms. It does not exempt our staff, including the offerer's own staff because it would cut the Members' Representational Allowance. It would also cut the Congressional Research Service, the Government Accountability Office, the Congressional Budget Office, committees of Congress, and the Office of Compliance. The Legislative Branch bill, Mr. Chairman, has been flat for 3 years. And this bill finally provides a modest overall increase of 2.1 percent, but because we have not kept up with inflation, each year we are buying less and less for our dollar. The Congressional Research Service, for example, is still below FY 2010 levels and reports it has lost 13 percent of its purchasing power. We can't continue to do more with less. There is a reason the perception of Congress is damaged. We are damaging our ability to write and analyze legislation and have serious debates because we take the politically expedient route, like the across-the-board cuts, because they play well during town halls. But if we bothered to explain the brain drain within the halls of Congress and the need to boost funding for staff to do oversight, I have the belief that our constituents would understand that. If Members want a strong legislative branch to ensure oversight of the executive, this amendment should be defeated. The cut to the MRA is one of the most egregious that would result from this amendment. I happen to think my staff contributes to the well-being of my constituents and are worth every penny we can afford to pay them after years of cuts to the MRA. The MRA is $97 million less than it was in fiscal year 2010. This amendment would cut $5.6 million more. Mr. Chairman, you get the government you pay for, and I fear that this amendment would do nothing more than hurt the service we are able to provide to our constituents. I urge defeat of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill is a total of $3.481 billion--$72 million above the fiscal year 2016 enacted bill. I thank our full committee chairman, Mr. Rogers of Kentucky, for understanding the challenges posed by years of cuts and providing an allocation to begin rebuilding the capacity of Congress to do the people's work. Chairman Graves funded critical investments with the additional allocation. He knows that if we were only discussing funding today, I would be with him in protecting the good work of the subcommittee. Specifically, I am pleased with the critical investments in the Copyright Modernization Project and the Historic Buildings Revitalization Trust Fund. The bill provides the Copyright Modernization Project with a 17 percent increase. This critical funding will enable the Copyright Office to hire the necessary staff to begin to make technological advancements to improve the way they do business. It is unacceptable in the year 2016 that copyright users have to make certain requests via paper in the 21st century. That is inefficient and a drag on commerce that is dependent on the copyright system. There is also report language included that makes it clear that the Library of Congress shall continue to defer to the Register of Copyrights on all copyright-related issues. While the Copyright Office is within the Library of Congress, it has unique functions that make it necessary to have a strong leader that can answer to Congress and the copyright community when issues arise. The Register of Copyrights should have the freedom to make decisions and be responsive to the copyright community. I am also happy to see increased funding for the Historic Buildings Revitalization Trust Fund. This is the same fund that we used to save for the downpayment on the Cannon Building Restoration. This bill provides $17 million for the fund, which is $7 million above fiscal year 2016 funding. I thank the chairman for working with me to sustain this important program. We started the trust fund after the construction of the Capitol Visitor Center. That project was over budget by fourfold, and its management was, frankly, an embarrassment. It was an example of ballooning government projects that pull resources away from other worthy initiatives. The trust fund was created to avoid the pitfalls of the CVC project by creating a reserve of funds that can be used for future large-scale projects. We must put on our forward-thinking caps and look 10 to 20 years down the road so that we save appropriately for large-scale projects. This long-term thinking will ensure that our smallest appropriations bill--the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill--does not have to absorb such large projects to the detriment of other worthy programs. While there are many positives in this bill, Mr. Chairman, there are also issues that must be addressed as we move through the process. One particularly troublesome issue is that the report accompanying this bill includes language seeking to influence the Library of Congress' process to change its subject headings related to immigration. The Library of Congress decided in March of this year to begin using the terms ``noncitizens'' and ``unauthorized immigration'' for cataloging purposes. They did so after being petitioned by Dartmouth College in 2014--a petition they turned down initially--and then again by the American Library Association earlier this year. In January of this year, the American Library Association adopted a resolution calling on the Library of Congress to change the heading ``illegal aliens'' to ``undocumented immigrants.'' Now, these are search terms. The Library of Congress uses subject headings to help researchers be able to find topics based on what they are appropriately to be called. The Library did not adopt the term ``undocumented immigrants'' but chose to begin to use the two phrases ``noncitizens'' and ``unauthorized immigration.'' These new subject headings are still in the process of being considered, as the public will have 60 days to comment on them. The fact that this project is ongoing makes the inclusion of report language even more problematic. How can the Library of Congress be expected to go through a fair and open comment period with this language included in the report accompanying the appropriations bill? My side of the aisle could have certainly pushed to have the Library of Congress reconsider its decision after the Dartmouth petition was turned down in 2014 because many Democrats and Republicans believe that the term ``illegal alien'' labels a group of people based on a misconception that an immigrant's presence in our Nation is a criminal violation, but we allowed the process to work because the Library of Congress is in the business of language and nomenclature and should be free to make these decisions without political interference. Congress should not be setting ourselves up as the word police. Let's be clear: this puts the Library of Congress front and center on one of our Nation's most contentious and emotional political issues. Over the years, as ranking member, this is certainly not the first time I find myself in disagreement with the chairman on a particular issue. However, I have been able to work closely with the chairman of this subcommittee to move the bill and the process forward. And though I have been committed as always to resolving our policy differences, the politicization of the Library of Congress in order to perpetuate a misconception about immigrants in our country is simply an issue on which my principles will not allow me to bend an inch. This language is not necessary, it is not appropriate, and it jeopardizes the work of our Nation's oldest Federal cultural institution and the research arm of this body. The Library of Congress makes thousands of changes to its subject headings every year. At one time, ``Negro'' was a subject heading, but when it became pejorative, they changed it to ``Afro American,'' and eventually the term used today, ``African American.'' The chairman and other Republican members emphasize that they are the Library of Congress--emphasis on Congress--and we should dictate to them what terms they use in their subject headings. Well, I ran for Congress, not word police. We should leave search terms for researchers to the experts and not politicize this bill that simply funds the legislative branch. I am also concerned that under this bill, the Capitol Police budget increases by $325.3 million. This would increase funding for the Capitol Police by 5 percent, above the 8 percent increase they received in the current fiscal year. We value and respect the officers on staff, but I think many Members will join me in raising a skeptical eye when they realize this bill would add 72 new officers and bring the total number of officers to close to 1,900. Just as mayors and city councils across the country have to balance law enforcement with other city services like repairing aging infrastructure, so must Congress. In the near future, the congressional leadership and committees of jurisdiction will need to have a serious discussion about the appropriate size of the Capitol Police. The officers I speak to don't complain about not having enough officers, but, rather, about decisions on how the officers they do have are deployed by police leadership. It is fiscally irresponsible to grow the police at this rate. Also, as Member and committee budgets have been cut, Congress has had to rely on support agencies to fill the gaps in staff expertise. One of those agencies, Mr. Chairman, is the Congressional Research Service, or CRS. CRS was funded in the bill at $107.9 million, $1 million above the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. At the level included in the bill, CRS remains $4.6 million below the fiscal year 2010 levels. According to CRS, recent funding levels have led to a loss of 13 percent of its purchasing power since 2010. The $1 million increase provided by this bill will not cover mandatory pay for CRS' current staff. CRS' budget request sought to rebuild the agency. They asked for two defense policy staff, five health policy staff, three education policy staff, two budget and appropriation staff, four technology policy staff, and two data management and analysis staff. None of those staffs will be funded under the bill before us, therefore, denying Congress of an unbiased analysis of these critical policy areas. Before concluding, Mr. Chairman, I also want to join the chairman in acknowledging the loss of our beloved Chuck Turner. I had the privilege of working with Chuck when I was the chairman of this committee, and he has served both sides of the aisle with integrity, commitment, and love of this institution. His loss was tremendous for the entire appropriations family, and he will be greatly missed on both sides of the aisle. I also want to issue a big thanks to Liz Dawson, the majority clerk and her staff, Jenny Panone and Tim Monahan. Many thanks as well to Jason Murphy with Chairman Graves' personal office. Thank you to my team, Shalanda Young on the committee's minority staff who has worked tirelessly on those issues. Last, but certainly not least, thank you to my personal staff, Rosalyn Kumar and Sarah Arkin. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will point out that title 8 of the U.S. Code specifically references the term ``illegal aliens.'' The purpose of referencing it that way in this legislation is specifically so that the majority can require the Library of Congress to continue to use the term ``illegal alien'' in their subject heading. We are being a little too cute by half here, and we are simply not going to let the majority get away with it. I will also point out that Congressman Joaquin Castro is the sponsor of legislation that would do exactly what the chairman just suggested. He has legislation that would change the term ``illegal alien'' in title 8 of the U.S. Code. Instead of dealing with a political issue in the midst of an unrelated appropriations bill, we should allow the legislative process to work under regular order and have that bill move through the process. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. What is the term that is referenced in that section?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to acknowledge the presence of Chairman Graves' lovely daughter, because it is always nice as a parent to have your children with you while you are doing your work. So welcome to the House of Representatives. I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), our ranking member of the full Appropriations Committee.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will point out that it is not a criminal act to be in the United States as an immigrant. The suggestion in the 21st century that the term ``illegal alien'' is an appropriate one is similar to suggesting that we continue to use the term ``Negro.'' We evolve in this country, and it is understandable that someone who was not a member of a group of immigrants wouldn't understand that that term could feel pejorative. So we, as a responsible body, should evolve as society evolves. To continue to insist that the Library of Congress by law use a pejorative term that they have been petitioned to change by the American Library Association so that researchers can search for the appropriate term when they are doing research is truly unbelievable. To be so committed to racist and bigoted terms that really have no place in the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill is outrageous. That is why this language should have been deleted. I think it is truly unfortunate that the majority did not have at least the courage to allow my amendment and Congressman Castro's amendment to be made in order so that we could have a proper debate on this subject on the floor of the House of Representatives. I will point out and remind the chairman that my amendment that would have done just that only was defeated in the Appropriations Committee by one vote. So this is not a slam dunk when it comes to your side of the aisle either. It would have been nice to give your colleagues an opportunity to have had that discussion. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I thank the gentleman. Will the gentleman point out to the House of Representatives what is referenced in the U.S. Code to which the report refers?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chair, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Before we passed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act in the 1960s and when we had the Jim Crow laws, which were an unfortunate stain on our history, there were plenty of people who said that the laws that were in place were doing a favor to Negroes, which is the way they were referred to at the time. For the chairman to suggest that we are doing the Library of Congress a favor by requiring them to continue to use a term that they have been petitioned to stop using, ``illegal alien,'' is insensitive, inappropriate, outdated, and political. This is the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill. We are supposed to be discussing how to fund the functions of the legislative branch, and we have just spent an extraordinary amount of time debating the immigration debate that has been raging in this country for far too long. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the majority believes that we should continue to label people as ``illegal.'' People aren't illegal. Acts that are committed are illegal, but people are not illegal, Mr. Chair. That is, simply, why the American Library Association, the umbrella policy organization for libraries across this country, has petitioned the Library of Congress to change the use of the term ``illegal alien.'' What the majority is doing here, as I said, is setting Congress up as the word police. Where are we going to stop? There are thousands of subject headings that they change at the Library of Congress every year. I can't imagine how many pages this bill will be when we start referencing and spending time arguing over what they call each of those. It is inappropriate; it is unacceptable; it is a complete waste of time. It injects politics into a bill that usually and, most often, doesn't have it. It is unfortunate that the funding of the Planned Parenthood select committee and that the funding of the Benghazi Select Committee have continued to politicize a bill that should, simply, be an effort for us to make sure that we can sustain the most significant beacon of democracy that the world has ever seen. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I have, and it refers specifically to the term ``illegal alien.'' That is how it is referenced in the United States Code.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to take meaningful action to address the public health crisis that the Centers for Disease Control recently called scarier than we originally thought, and to support the President's request for supplemental funding for the Zika virus as outlined in H.R. 5044, the FY16 Zika supplemental appropriations. I thank Appropriations Ranking Member Nita Lowey and Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Subcommittee Ranking Member DeLauro for their ongoing leadership to help protect our constituents. More than 120 Floridians now have the Zika virus, including 36 pregnant women. Last week there were an estimated 157 pregnant women in the continental United States and 122 more in the territories who have contracted Zika. The House must take real action to protect our citizens. It is an outrage that we are not adequately responding to the calls of public health officials at the Federal, State, and local levels who are clanging the alarm bells, imploring Congress to act. Last week the House approved a Zika bill that is absolutely unacceptable. The bill the House passed would raid existing public health accounts, a dangerous precedent to set for appropriately responding to public health crises. This is an approach that Dr. Fauci of the National Institutes of Health, the so-called Zika czar, has called illogical. Furthermore, it only authorizes use of funds through September 30th. Let me assure you that mosquitos carrying the Zika virus do not adhere to a congressional calendar. The Republican bill does nothing to specifically help Puerto Rico where Zika is wreaking the most havoc and where close to 1,000 people have been infected. We need more funds now to equip our local health centers with testing kits. We need to assure the National Institutes of Health that there is sustained funding to develop a vaccine as well as a cure, and we need to protect our constituents. That is our responsibility. It continues to baffle and frustrate so many of us that the majority wishes to address this crisis, this public health crisis, by combatting Zika through robbing Peter to pay Paul. That is irresponsible. It is immoral. And the majority will have to look in the eyes of the mothers who have contracted the Zika virus beyond the point of which we will have lost control of the ability to contain this virus and this public health crisis, look those mothers in the eye and explain why they did nothing to ensure that their babies were not born with birth defects. It is unconscionable, and we need to act now. I urge the House to support the full request for funds and vote ``no'' on the previous question.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to recognize the remarkable career of Lauren Morris Schulman. After more than 13 years, Ms. Schulman is retiring as the Florida political director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, AIPAC, the largest pro-Israel advocacy organization in the country. Lauren began her political career 26 years ago and served in a variety of positions with the late Congressman Bill Lehman, E. Clay Shaw, Jr., Florida State Senator Gwen Margolis, and Miami-Dade County Commissioner Sally Heyman. Lauren has adroitly mobilized and engaged Florida's pro-Israel community. She has led our citizen activists in building relationships with Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, key to the success of the pro-Israel movement. Lauren has helped all Floridians understand how, against all odds, Israel has become a prospering democracy whose groundbreaking contributions in technology, medicine, and environmental innovation have benefited the world. Lauren's commitment to our community and the State of Israel is exemplary, and I am proud to call her my constituent and good friend. Our loss is her husband Cliff's and her family's gain. I wish a hearty mazel tov to Lauren and thank her for her invaluable work.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank my ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York, for her leadership on this issue. I join my colleagues in urging Congress to vote down this wholly inadequate legislation and take meaningful action to address the public health crisis the Centers for Disease Control called ``scarier than we originally thought'' and support the President's request. My home State of Florida leads the Nation in confirmed cases of the Zika virus, with 113 people infected already and counting. Florida health officials declared a state of emergency in February. As we head into mosquito season, as well as high travel season, we know the risk of Zika will rise. We have seen the heartbreaking images of babies born with microcephaly. As researchers are continuing to learn more about the different ways that Zika can be transmitted, it is critical that Congress provide the funding needed to thoroughly tackle this virus now. I am proud that we have transcended partisan lines in Florida at least. Senators Nelson and Rubio as well as Governor Scott have all been outspoken advocates in support of the President's request to fight this disease, which he made nearly 3 months ago. I have heard many of my House Republican colleagues acknowledge the devastating effects of this disease and the need for serious proposals to combat it. Sadly, the only serious part of the bill before us is how far it is from meeting our Nation's needs in overcoming this public health crisis. The bill that the Republican leadership has introduced will not provide meaningful support to my constituents or constituents affected by this across the country. Among its many other shortcomings, this bill would raid funds from accounts designated for Ebola, which, as many public health officials have testified already, is still a threat. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is irresponsible. It also fails to provide any specific resources to Puerto Rico, where Americans are suffering the greatest burden of what Dr. Thomas Frieden, the Director of the Centers for Disease Control, recently called an epidemic. It continues attacks on a woman's ability to make her own reproductive health decisions, and, perhaps most astonishingly of all, this bill only provides these limited and borrowed funds until September 30, when they will then expire. Let me assure you that mosquitoes and diseases do not follow the congressional budget calendar. I urge the entire House to quickly pass legislation that I have introduced along with my colleagues, Ranking Member Lowey and Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro, which would support the President's request of $1.9 billion. We cannot simply watch more people get infected with Zika as we dither over how we fund critical investments into vaccine research, prevention strategies, and finding a cure. This is a mosquito-borne and sexually transmitted virus. Mosquitoes don't know whether they are biting a Republican or a Democrat, and we should not politicize this serious crisis. The National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Department of Health and Human Services have repeatedly provided plans that clearly detail the need for these funds and how they would be spent. Our local public health facilities, particularly in Florida, the Gulf States, and Puerto Rico need added resources, as do our local mosquito control programs. We need more investments into vector control and mosquito eradication. We need more public education, and we need more resources to ensure that people are able to protect themselves. I will quote my colleague from the Senate, Senator Marco Rubio, that we must--and I agree with him--we must get out in front of this. We will only have ourselves to blame if we dither and don't do so. So I say to my colleagues, we must act responsibly, we must respond appropriately, and we must do it quickly. This bill does not come close to doing that, so I will cast my vote against it in hopes we will reach an agreement that actually appropriates the amount of resources that address this burgeoning crisis. My constituents cannot wait and neither can yours.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Benjamin Cohen, son of Nicole and Adam Cohen, on the occasion of his Bar Mitzvah. Benjamin, a political enthusiast and true active citizen, will be called to the Torah on May 29, 2016. I offer my heartfelt wishes as he begins this next stage in his Jewish life, passing on our Jewish traditions from generation to generation (l'dor v'dor). It is with great pleasure that I honor Benjamin and his family in the Congressional Record.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Zackrie Gordon of Davie, Florida for receiving Broward County Public Schools' Best in Class Award. With perfect attendance throughout elementary, middle, and high school, Zackrie has demonstrated a sincere dedication to his studies, a passion for learning, and a commitment to his school community. It is with great pleasure that I honor Zackrie in the Congressional Record and wish him all the best as he graduates from Western High School

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life of Dr. Frederick V. Miller of Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Dr. Miller was an inspiration to all those who knew him-- From his selfless and passionate work on behalf of our society's most vulnerable people--critically-ill newborn and premature infants; To his service in the United States Army; To his business career that helped care for South Floridians; He truly lived a life of public service, with a vigor and spirit that lifted up every person he knew. I had the distinct pleasure and privilege in the Florida Legislature to work with Dr. Miller to pass the ``Drive Thru Baby Bill'' which mandated that insurance companies cover the care after a birth that new mothers need--not the middling coverage they received before Dr. Miller lent his voice and service to our efforts. Recognizing a problem with too many newborns being born with hearing challenges that went undetected, Dr. Miller worked with me to pass the Newborn Infant Screening Act to ensure that all newborns in the State of Florida had their hearing checked soon after birth. I will always remember him as a man of science; A kind man who cared deeply for his patients and; A man who worked tirelessly to better the lives of mothers and children. My thoughts are with his wife Sharon; his sons Harrison and Sterling; and their entire extended family.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We need to make sure that we hold Speaker Ryan's feet to the fire and make sure that he keeps his promise to the American people that this body will pass a budget, which we have yet to do. Our Nation's working families are working hard to keep their fiscal house in order. It is long past time for the House Republicans to do the same, while also making sure that we protect American consumers. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how we got into the worst economic crisis and nearly crashed the banking system in the first place. If we leave policymaking to the Republicans who are in the majority here, they would take us back to a time when we had a Wild West of regulation that left consumers twisting in the wind and banks to be able to make any decision they wanted and run over consumers all across America. We saw how well that worked out in 2008. Now we have come through the worst economic crisis we have ever had since the Great Depression--73 straight months of job growth in the private sector. We need to continue that progress, not go backward.