Establishing a Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis as a select investigative subcommittee of the Committee on Oversight and Reform.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), my good friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 8.

Madam Speaker, a rules package is one of the most consequential things we will consider in this entire Congress.

As we stand here in the opening days of this Congress, I am proud that the reforms before us represent a collaborative process that began many months ago. We asked Members on both sides of the aisle for ideas; we listened to our many caucuses and coalitions; we spent hours in the Rules Committee listening to input during our Member Day hearing; and we spoke with the outside groups that study these issues.

Weeks and weeks of thoughtful discussion got us to this point. That process made the final product an even stronger one--not for one party or the other, but for this institution and for all those Americans counting on us to represent them; not the special interests or the monied interests, but our workers and those struggling to get ahead.

This is a rules package that encourages us to tackle the most pressing issues facing our Nation today, like climate change, through the continued work of the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis.

I want to thank Chairwoman Castor for her leadership, along with Chairman Pallone and Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez, who have encouraged us to think big when confronting the threat of climate change.

We are confronting the pandemic without any waste or fraud. That is through the ongoing work of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, under the stewardship of Chairman Clyburn.

It makes reforms to our budget rules so we can deal with these dual challenges through an all-hands-on-deck approach, while maintaining fiscal responsibility.

I want to recognize the many Members, especially the Blue Dogs, the Progressives, and the New Democrats, who worked together to make this compromise happen.

We are also focusing on those who have traditionally been left behind through the creation of a new Select Committee on Economic Disparity and Fairness in Growth.

I want to thank Speaker Pelosi for her commitment to making sure that our policies lift up every single American.

This new select committee will sharpen our focus on the income and wealth disparity crisis that plagues our Nation today.

This package honors all gender identities by changing pronouns in the House rules so they are gender neutral.

Look, we made this change for the sake of inclusion, not exclusion. But I have got to be honest with you. I heard the distinguished minority leader say that this rules package was canceling Mother's Day. I mean, are you kidding me?

He also claimed that these rules make it so Members can no longer say ``father,'' ``mother,'' ``son,'' or ``daughter.'' Madam Speaker, has he even read these rules? That is just not accurate. That is not how this works.

And, by the way, our Founding Fathers are still our Founding Fathers.

Madam Speaker, maybe this is meant as a distraction. Maybe if we can create a controversy, then we are not talking about the ongoing pandemic, from which over 350,000 people have already died due to mismanagement and incompetence, or maybe we are not talking about the attempted coup being planned down at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. But the bottom line is what has been said is just not accurate.

I love this. Someone just handed me this. A Member on the other side from, I think, Arizona, for instance, tweeted:

If I stand up and I say that I am a proud husband of my

wife of almost 40 years now, then they would say that I

violated the rules because you can no longer use any version

of husband or father or gender reference between man and

woman.

I don't know what the hell he is talking about, Madam Speaker. Oh, my God; that is my response to this.

I mean, Madam Speaker, this is why people really are frustrated with Congress and with Washington. I think we, in this Chamber, need to hold ourselves to a higher standard when it comes to facts and reality. Unlike the White House, this should not be a fact-free zone; we ought to focus on facts.

If my Republican friends want to disagree on policy, we can disagree on policy. There are lots of issues that separate us, and we should debate those issues. That shouldn't be a radical idea. But people shouldn't make things up just to create a controversy. Accuracy matters, and it should come before saying whatever helps you get another hit on FOX News.

Anyway, Madam Speaker, for those who insist on trying to disparage what we have done in the written rules, I want you to bring the bill to the floor and show me where it says, in writing, that we are canceling Mother's Day or that you can't refer to yourself as a husband or father or mother or grandmother.

Give me a break. Enough is enough. We have to stop this. We have to focus in on solving the problems that face the American people.

This rules package also requires that oversight plans from committees include how they intend to combat race, gender, and other inequities. It makes the Office of Diversity and Inclusion permanent. This will commit our institution to creating a diverse workforce for many years to come.

As we tackle these issues, Madam Speaker, this rules package creates a more transparent process for ideas to be considered. It makes permanent the requirement that all bills that come before the Rules Committee get a hearing and a markup first. It preserves the motion to recommit, while making reforms so that it can no longer be used to hijack the legislative process for political gamesmanship.

We are also continuing temporary rules changes that have ensured we completed the people's work as safely as possible during this coronavirus pandemic. I am impressed with how this Congress was able to adapt and find a way to function in the midst of this worldwide health emergency. During the pandemic in 1918, Congress was not able to adapt, but we did.

I would just say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that we need to listen to the Speaker's recommendation that we all continue to follow the best and most current health and medical guidance.

Madam Speaker, we acted. While we can and we should do much more for Americans struggling today, I am proud of what we were able to accomplish in the last year. It is no small part due to the implementation of remote voting by proxy and the development of virtual committee proceedings.

Admittedly, Congress isn't always known for being on the cutting edge of the digital world. This rules package, however, seeks to change that even further. It contains many reforms designed to help us better embrace technology so that we can get our work done as efficiently and as transparently as possible.

Congresswoman Eshoo and the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress, under the leadership of Chairman Kilmer, were instrumental in these new changes.

Madam Speaker, now, I just want to speak candidly for a moment.

As important as these reforms are and as proud of them as I am, I know there is something even more important, and that is the foundation that they are built upon.

Ethical leadership must be the bedrock principle of this and every Congress. If the American people do not begin to trust their fundamental institutions again, then division, conspiracies, and mistruths will continue to fester.

This body, each of us, must do our part. No matter what side of the aisle you are on or who you vote for, we must hold ourselves to the highest standard of leadership. People can and should question our positions on the issues, but we should never act in a way that invites anyone to question our motivation. That is why this rules package doesn't just tinker at the edges, it breaks new ground through transformative reforms.

It removes floor privileges for formers Members convicted of crimes related to their House service or election. This will ensure that we can do our work here without the undue influence of law breakers. We task the Ethics Committee to come up with a bipartisan plan to handle ``deepfakes,'' because we need to stop the spread, intentional or unintentional, of manipulated media that is created to mislead the public.

I will note that we initially plan to go even further, amending our Code of Conduct with this rules package, but we heard some of our colleagues' concerns. We agreed to take a little bit more time to get the language just right, and we will do that through our bipartisan Ethics Committee.

Thanks to the leadership of Congresswoman Porter of California, we strengthen Truth in Testimony disclosures for witnesses that testify before Congress. Now the public and all Members will have more information about those who appear before congressional committees.

Our rules will further protect whistleblowers. This package prevents retaliation. It also makes permanent an office dedicated to ensuring congressional offices know how to handle whistleblower complaints in a responsible and secure way.

I want to recognize the tremendous work of many people, from Majority Leader Hoyer and Congresswoman Speier to members of the Progressive Caucus that made these reforms a reality. In short, we are holding ourselves to a higher standard, Madam Speaker, not by changes developed in a vacuum just among ourselves. We also spoke with outside groups and experts and included their feedback. This is how the package was developed, through conversation, collaboration, and consultation.

My Rules Committee colleagues, including Ranking Member Cole, offered input that was invaluable. Our committee chairs and their excellent staffs worked with us early in the morning and late at night as this package took shape. I am deeply grateful for the work of all of our caucuses, including the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the Congressional Black Caucus, the New Democrat Coalition, the LGBTQ+ Equality Caucus, the Congressional Asia Pacific American Caucus, and the Blue Dog Coalition.

The Problem Solvers Caucus was, once again, involved with crafting this package. I always appreciate the chance to work with Congressman Gottheimer and Congressman Reed. We even got to work with a new member of the Problem Solvers this Congress, Representative Van Taylor. And I could go on and on.

Input from the nonpartisan staffs across this institution made this package stronger. That includes those with the offices of the Parliamentarian, the Congressional Budget Office, the Clerk, the General Counsel, the Congressional Research Service, the Sergeant at Arms, and the Chief Administrative Officer, just to name a few. Many staffers worked through the holidays on this, and I am deeply grateful for their efforts, especially the incredible staff on the Rules Committee.

Democrats have been entrusted by the American people to lead this institution, but the rules package is about more than party. It is about making this Chamber work at its best for the people we represent. These reforms will do that. They will hold us to a higher standard so we can get it done for them and in a way that makes the public proud.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support in passing this package, and let's implement real reforms so we can quickly get to work on behalf of the American people.

Before I reserve the balance of my time, I just want to take one second, Madam Speaker, to thank my Republican colleagues on the Rules Committee. We don't always agree on everything, but they are up in the Rules Committee diligently at every meeting making the case for their side of the aisle.

I especially want to thank my ranking member, Mr. Cole, who cares deeply about this institution. And while we probably will not agree on this rules package, we agree that we need to make this a better place, and we need to hold it to the highest standards in terms of integrity, and to make sure the American people have trust in what we do here.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments, I will put him down as undecided on this package.

I am sure we will hear more about the motion to recommit throughout this debate, but I do just want to point out for the record, to be historically accurate, that the motion to recommit has had many different forms since its first inception. In fact, it was very, very different when I first ran for Congress.

But having said all that, I would tell the gentleman that if those who initiated the motion to recommit way back when saw how it was being used today, I think they would object very strongly to it. They didn't see it as a tool to play political gotcha games to undermine legislation.

Madam Speaker, I would also remind the gentleman that, you know, quite frankly, most of the motions to recommit that passed, all the Republicans voted against final passage of whatever bill it was. So the issue is not one of being a constructive legislator. It has turned into a political gotcha game.

I think that we all talk about reading the bill. The problem with the motion to recommit is you don't get to see what it is you are proposing until a few minutes beforehand. I just want the Record to reflect that.

On the issue of paygo, I would just remind the gentleman that when the Republicans were in charge, they had this thing called CutGo, and they exempted all kinds of things from CutGo. They exempted efforts to gut the Affordable Care Act. They exempted tax cuts for billionaires and corporations.

So I think what we are talking about is a modest exemption for two international emergencies, the COVID pandemic and the climate crisis. Most people, except for a few in Washington, actually believe that it is not only a national emergency, but an international emergency.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crist).

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a section by section of the changes H. Res. 8 will make to the standing rules of the 116th Congress and the separate orders taking effect for the 117th Congress.

H. Res. 8

Adopting the Rules for the 117th Congress

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Plaskett).

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands.

Madam Speaker, if the gentleman is interested in honest debate, I hope he will inform us where in the rules package it says that you can't refer to yourself as a father, a son, a grandfather, a wife, I mean, whatever. There is nothing in the rules package that says that. This is not reality.

I would also remind the gentleman that when he was in charge, this was the most closed Congress in the history of the United States Congress.

And if we are worried about protecting our democracy, I hope the gentleman and others will join with us in protecting the will of the American people, the millions and millions of voters who cast their votes for President-elect Joe Biden and Vice-President-elect Kamala Harris, and vote to make sure we have a smooth transition to the next administration.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Madam Speaker, I don't even know where to begin.

Look, let me repeat, what we are doing is building in an exemption to deal with two worldwide emergencies: one is the coronavirus pandemic, which, unfortunately, this White House mismanaged terribly; the second is to deal with the issue of the climate crisis, which everybody but a few Members in this Chamber believe is a crisis.

Madam Speaker, I will remind the gentleman that he has voted for exemptions when it comes to tax cuts for billionaires and corporations; he has voted for exemptions when it comes to taking people's healthcare away from them. So, obviously, we don't share the same values here, but I am very proud of what is in this package.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Florida.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I appreciate the admonition here, and I wish the distinguished minority leader would have remained because he talked a lot about debate, and then he gave a speech and ran off the floor.

But I would be careful, I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, about using words like ``hypocrisy'' because I was here when you were in the majority. You presided over the most closed Congress in the history of our country, more closed rules than any other Congress.

The motion to recommit, arguably, is a procedural motion, but when you closed rule after rule after rule after rule, any substantive amendment, you blocked. But my friends had no problem with that at the time, and now, all of a sudden, they do.

Again, I would just say to the distinguished minority leader, who keeps talking about mind control and people banning him from being able to say that he is a father or a son, I don't know what he is talking about. Please show me in the rules package where he can't say all of those things. There is nothing--nothing--in the rules package.

I would just urge my colleagues--as I said at the beginning, I get it. The White House is a fact-free zone, but we have to aspire to be different. We can have our policy disagreements, but we shouldn't be making things up. I mean, I would like to think we are better than that, no matter how much we disagree on substantive issues.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who is the majority leader.

Madam Speaker, let me just refer the gentleman to the Office of the Attending Physician to get the most up-to-date medical guidance.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I think this is a good rules package. As I said at the beginning, it reflects consultation with Democrats and Republicans; almost every caucus that you can think of was consulted on this. I think the end product is a quality product.

I am particularly proud of the ethics reforms banning Members who have been convicted of corruption, protecting whistleblowers and making sure that their identities can't be revealed.

I am proud of the creation of the Select Committee on Economic Disparity and Fairness in Growth. One of the things this pandemic has demonstrated is that there are great disparities in this country, and those disparities existed even before the pandemic. We need to address that issue.

In terms of the exemptions for paygo, I mean, we are talking about two international, worldwide emergencies: the coronavirus pandemic and the climate crisis. I think every country in the world has recognized that they are emergencies, that we need to think big and boldly in how we deal with these issues.

The unfortunate thing is we have had an administration that has not handled the pandemic appropriately, and as we gather today, well over 350,000 people, fellow citizens, have perished.

Let me just say, also, Madam Speaker, that I was also inspired by the remarks of our Republican colleague Don Young, yesterday, when he talked about the need to work together. I was dismayed by the tone of the minority leader's comments on the opening day. In all of my years here, I have never heard anything quite so negative and combative.

But here is the deal: We need to figure out a way to work together to get things done. You don't have to agree on everything to agree on something. The something we agree on, we ought to move forward. We can fight about the other stuff.

If we are going to get things done, facts have to matter.

I have got to be honest with you: In listening to the critiques of this rules package, one of the things that I found particularly disheartening was the distortions and, quite frankly, the falsehoods with regard to getting our rules language to be more inclusive. I don't understand why it was necessary for some to try to make things up. It does not entice the kind of collaboration and the kind of cooperation to get that something done.

I am a great fan of my ranking member, Mr. Cole. This will probably get him in trouble, but I think he is one of the finest Members of this institution. We work together very well in the Rules Committee, notwithstanding some very, very difficult debates. But at the end of the day, I know he cares deeply about this institution. I know people like Don Young care about this institution, and there are good Members on the other side who care about this institution.

We have a slim majority here. If we are going to get anything done, if you are going to get anything done, we are going to have to find a way to work things out. But we have to all agree that we want to get things done.

So it is in that spirit that I hope that this rules package will cultivate the kind of atmosphere in which we can get some important things done. Whether it is on the climate crisis, whether it is on economic disparity, whether it is fighting to end hunger in this country, whether it is to make sure we can expand healthcare protections for people, whether it is about justice and fairness in this country, we have a lot of work to do.

I hope, with the new administration coming in, that maybe there will be a different tone. Maybe it will be less combative. Maybe the discussions will be based more on fact. I hope and I pray that that is the case. But we have to come together, and we have to get things done for the American people.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged resolution.

Madam Speaker, I move that the motion to postpone consideration be tabled.

Madam Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

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

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the time allocated to me be controlled by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the chairman of the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, I will continue to address my remarks to you notwithstanding the fact that you ruled against me just a little while ago on a vote, which excited some.

I am an institutionalist. I believe in this body, I believe in democracy, and for your information, I believe in the free enterprise system.

Madam Speaker, I listened to the remarks of the minority leader. I listened to the outrage that he expresses. I share the view of the Rules Committee chairman that he was a principal leader in the most closed Congress in which I have served, which was, of course, presided over by my Republican colleagues. He talked about free speech. Nothing in this rule undermines the free speech of any Member in this House-- nothing.

When they had closed rules, I didn't get up and say: You are muzzling my speech.

You muzzled my ability to make legislation, but you did not muzzle my

speech. The First Amendment is sacrosanct, hopefully for everybody in this body. But I will tell you I have been in this body when Republican Members, Madam Speaker, rose to their feet demanding that people do something in the galleries.

Madam Speaker, I am going to show hypocrisy--not from me. The gentleman, the chairman of the Rules Committee, Madam Speaker, mentioned that the minority leader mentioned hypocrisy. I presume his assertion was that somehow we were being hypocritical. I intend to speak a little bit of time and I intend to show hypocrisy.

First of all, the gentleman is wrong in his facts. The motion to recommit was taken from the British Parliament and was present at the first Congress in 1789. Interestingly enough, the motion to recommit was used to correct something that had not been included in the bill and was considered a friendly amendment and remained that way for a very, very long time.

In 1934, it was ruled that instructions in a motion which were present from time to time was not necessary, and that is the way the rule maintained essentially for the next 20 years--actually, excuse me, 60 years, until 1995.

The gentleman is correct. When the Republicans took office for the first time in a very long time under the leadership of Newt Gingrich, Madam Speaker, they changed the rule. They said that you have to have a motion to instruct, as if they were giving us something, as if they were giving us something. Remember that phrase because I am going to show it meant nothing. It was an illusion. It was a pretense.

Madam Speaker, I am going to first go through, of 34 examples, about 10 of the examples of what our Republican friends, Madam Speaker, said about the motion to recommit.

First of all, the minority leader--I read from the Wichita Eagle of May 12, 2013: ``The political book on McCarthy is that he does a good job at counting votes, of knowing where the 233 House of Representatives Republicans are at any given time. He points out that Republicans, unlike Democrats in a previous Congress, haven't lost certain procedural votes''--procedural vote. Let me underline procedural vote. Not substance of the First Amendment and not substance of free speech. Procedural vote--``called a motion to recommit, that are a test of floor control.''

That is what the minority leader was bragging about: floor control. He was not in the minority at that point in time. He was in the majority. I believe he was the whip.

A subsequent--or previous to the present minority leader, Eric Cantor went on to amplify the Republican perspective on the motion to recommit. Majority Leader Eric Cantor publicly went on the defensive about an MTR, stating that the MTR was simply a gimmick. Eric Cantor, the majority leader of the Republican Party in 2012.

Mr. Bishop, one of the ranking members, he is no longer here. He left. He retired last year. Referring to an MTR, he said: ``Mr. Speaker, this is a procedural motion.''

Madam Speaker, Mr. Bishop went on to say that it is just ``another delay tactic.'' Just a delay tactic. He didn't say anything about the First Amendment. He didn't say anything about substantive consequences of the MTR. He said that it was a delaying tactic.

Referring to the MTR, Representative Conaway said: ``To come in here now and pull this procedural trick. . . . When we are in the minority, we do it.''

He is correct. When we are in the minority, we do it.

Madam Speaker, very frankly, I will tell you--and you can take my words down for the future--if this never came back, ever, it wouldn't bother me because it is a charade of substance. It is a pretense of legislating.

Representative Goodlatte, who was then-chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I believe, or at some subsequent point chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said: ``This is simply a dilatory tactic. . . . `'

That is what the chairman of the Judiciary Committee--I am not sure if he was at that point in time in 2015. I think he was.

Madam Speaker, a dilatory tactic is what the chairman of the Judiciary Committee on the Republican side of the aisle called the MTR. It ``seeks to distract from the urgent needs. . . . `'

Representative Lamborn said: ``Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is a procedural motion. . . . `'

Madam Speaker, I am sorry the Chamber is not full. It can't be full. I would have liked to speak to all the Members of the Congress, and they can judge on the hypocrisy of the arguments that are being made.

This motion to recommit is a procedural motion designed to slow down consideration of this important bill. It is purely, purely procedural. Not a little bit procedural and a little bit substantive; it is purely procedural.

Representative Olson, in 2019, referring to it, said: ``It fits a pattern of delay and obstruction that we simply can't afford.''

Hypocrisy. He didn't say anything about its having to do with free speech. A motion that we were offering as an MTR that we thought, like you think--excuse me, Madam Speaker, as the Republicans think, is a gotcha amendment. It is politics on both sides. It is not substantive and it is not about free speech. It is about politics and gotcha. Yes, I am an institutionalist and, yes, I think we ought to not be doing gotcha in a nonsubstantive way.

Madam Speaker, obviously, we disagree on issues. And when we offer an issue and they don't vote for it, we think that is politically helpful to us because we think it is for the people. They do the same thing and they think it is for the people. So no party is free of its gotcha actions. Mine is not, nor is theirs.

Representative Upton, one of the institutionalists in this body, former chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Republican from the State of Michigan, being kind, as Fred Upton is kind, said: ``I appreciate the motion to recommit, and I would just say to all my colleagues: Our side certainly views that as a procedural issue, not a real amendment.''

Madam Speaker, I would say to the ladies and gentlemen of the Congress: Who is hypocritical? Who is hypocritical when their Member, a valued senior chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, says that this is a procedural issue, not a real amendment?

My goodness gracious, the Rules Committee is taking away not a real amendment.

Isn't that horrific?

How could they do that, Madam Speaker, when the Republicans say that it is not a real issue, it is not substantive, it is a gimmick, and it is a delaying and obstruction tactic?

Now, let me say that the Republicans uniformly vote against the MTR.

Mr. Woodall was a member of the Rules Committee. He is no longer here. He is from the State of Georgia. Mr. Woodall said, after being here for about 10 years of the motion to recommit, that he was told by the leadership when he started in this body that it is a procedural motion aimed to obstruct and delay, we always vote ``no.''

Now, let me tell you, Madam Speaker, what they always vote ``no'' on. On April 7, 2011, an MTR was offered, a motion to recommit that would ensure that our troops would get paid. The Republicans defeated that motion overwhelmingly. Only one person on the Republican side voted for it, Walter Jones. He is no longer in the Congress. He was pretty iconoclastic when he was here, and he did what he darn well pleased irrespective of the directions of the leadership who said: Always vote ``no'' on the MTR.

So what they are complaining about, Madam Speaker, is the preclusion of doing something they always opposed. And, very frankly, when they won those MTRs from time to time--very few--they then voted against the bill. There was no substance.

A little while later, about a month later, the motion to recommit that we offered ensured that our top priority in funding our intelligence services is the campaign to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaida and affiliated organizations.

Raise your hand if you are opposed to that. Madam Speaker, not your hand. But our colleagues ought to reflect on whether they are opposed to that premise. Not a single Republican voted for that MTR--this substantive assertion that our campaign and intelligence services ought to be not disrupted in their fight against al-Qaida and affiliated organizations.

A short time later we offered another MTR. The motion to recommit provides our troops with a $100 per month increase in combat pay.

As you sit in your chairs in this House, or you are watching these proceedings on television, I want you to say to yourself: Am I against $100 for our troops who are at risk?

Because if you are, voting against the MTR was justified. Every Republican save--except--one more time--Walter Jones, voted against that amendment, that substantive amendment that we are stealing away from them, which they say we never vote for.

Madam Speaker, if Mr. McCarthy were here, I would ask him: Have you ever voted for an MTR?

I ask him rhetorically. Perhaps, at some point in time, he will tell us. Maybe he was against the substance of all of these amendments that I am speaking about.

In 2012, the following year, the motion to recommit would prohibit the issuance of leases to any entity that is in violation of the Iran Sanctions Act or the Syrian Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act.

Madam Speaker, not a single Republican voted for that amendment. The substantive amendment that they are so aggrieved--and by the way, energizing their party to be more partisan than they ought to be doing. We ought to all praise Don Young, the dean of the House. He served here longer than anybody else. He said yesterday that we ought to come together and reach out our hands to one another and make this place work for the people.

Another motion to recommit would prohibit export of helium from the Federal Helium Reserve to Iran, North Korea, and Syria.

Madam Speaker, not a single Republican voted for that MTR. Why? Because it is procedural. It is a gimmick. It is obstructing. That is what we are taking away that you are so aggrieved at.

Now, I have about 35 or 40 of these. The good news is, I am not going to read them all. But in 2014, the motion to recommit would ensure that the intelligence community continues to protect the United States--hear me--from Chinese and other state-sponsored computer theft. I am sure all of you will say, ``Well, I am against that. That is an awful thing to do.'' But everyone on that side of the aisle in the Congress today voted against that amendment. Our new Members didn't vote against it, obviously, but people who were here, every Republican that was here, voted ``no'' on protecting ourselves from the Chinese, the theft of our computer technology.

Madam Speaker, the next year, 2015--and I am just taking a couple from each year--the motion to recommit would deter terrorist cyberattacks, homegrown terrorist attacks, and strengthen America's cybersecurity by increasing prevention efforts to stop the recruitment and travel of homegrown terrorists by ISIL, al-Qaida, and other terrorist organizations.

Now, I know you are going to be shocked because you are probably thinking, ``Oh, of course we voted for that.'' Not one. Not a single Republican voted for that MTR.

So, this aggrieved rhetoric that we hear about taking something away, the only thing being taken away is their gotcha opportunities and ours.

Now, in the majority, you don't have the motion to recommit. I get that. But we may be in the minority at some point in time. Don't give it back to us because it is a political game that undermines the integrity of this institution, and it is covered as a gotcha game, for the most part, by the press and media that knows what that is--a game.

Madam Speaker, in 2015, the motion to recommit would require the Department of Homeland Security to prioritize protection and technical assistance to stop cyberattacks on critical infrastructure, such as the electric power grid and nuclear power plants.

By now, you know what I am going to say. Only one Republican voted for that. It won't surprise you that it was Walter Jones because Walter Jones really did treat it as a substantive piece of legislation.

But the party that is so aggrieved today instructs their Republican freshmen and all of their Members: Vote ``no'' on the MTR.

Madam Speaker, I am available to yield to anybody who is going to tell me that is not the truth. Nobody has propounded that question to me.

In 2015, again, a month later, the motion to recommit would protect troop pay, guaranteeing a pay increase of 2.3 percent for our servicemembers and ensuring no lapse in troop pay in the event of a government shutdown. And there was my friend, standing tall--Walter Jones, alone but standing tall. Not a single other Republican voted for that.

Just three left.

Madam Speaker, in 2017, I am bringing you up to date because this has been a consistent pattern. This is not some ``one person said this; one person said that.'' It is a consistent pattern of Republicans dismissing the motion to recommit as not of substance, only a delay tactic, a gimmick, if you will, according to Mr. Cantor.

The motion to recommit, in November 2017, to ensure rural communities have adequate funding for educational services, conservation projects, and fire prevention programs.

Madam Speaker, now, Walter Jones got a friend on this one, Rod Blum, who is no longer here. And, tragically, Mr. Jones died too early. They are not here, but they thought that was a good idea. No other Republican thought that was a good idea.

In 2018, just 2 years ago, the motion to recommit would amend the underlying bill to prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from chartering a private plane or flying any class above coach. That was because a couple of Secretaries clearly did not meet their responsibilities to the American taxpayer in the expenditures of moneys in their Departments.

Again, Mr. Blum and Mr. Jones thought that was a good idea, but the Republican leadership had instructed them, you will recall, according to Mr. Woodall, to vote ``no'' because this is just a delaying tactic. This is just a game. Vote ``no.'' It is procedural. It is not substance.

Lastly--and people are now saying amen--the motion to recommit would ensure, in this case, that we would: protect students and children from a person who has been convicted of a sex offense against a minor; secondly, prevent domestic violence; thirdly, prevent rape or sexual assault; or four, require criminal background checks for schools or other employment.

Rod Blum and Walter Jones stayed true to themselves and did not follow the instruction: This is a game. This is an obstruction. This is a gimmick. This is a way to delay and defeat.

Madam Speaker, I have taken some time to discuss this because I don't like hypocrisy. I don't like wasting time. I don't like not respecting one another and playing a gotcha game to see if you guys are afraid of this amendment. And then when we adopt the amendment, if we adopt, a very few--vote against the bill because, after all, it was just a political game. We don't like the bill, no matter what you have in it.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. Madam Speaker, the people who are watching this debate may not have the knowledge that all of us have. Almost invariably--almost invariably--this is a partisan vote. The Republicans will vote against our rule, and we will vote against their rule. And, invariably, we will find some problem with it that we can rationalize our vote on.

Madam Speaker, I regret that we are starting this Congress--and I am going to look at Mr. Ryan's speech. I am going to look at Mr. Hastert's speech on the opening day. I am going to look at all the Speakers with whom I have served and see what their comments were on the opening day.

I regretted the minority leader's opening statement. I regretted it because, as Don Young said, we need to come together. We are at a time of pandemic. We are at a time of economic distress. We ought to be acting not for ourselves, not for our politics, but for our people.

Madam Speaker, I would urge every Member to vote for this rule. And as they do so, be assured they are not denigrating or denying anybody's free speech any more than the Republicans denied free speech in the most closed Congress in our history just a few years ago.

Madam Speaker, I really think that my good friends in the majority need more time to present a fair rules package. So I move to postpone consideration of H. Res. 8 until January 5, 2021.

Motion to Table

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts, my very good friend, Chairman McGovern, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes; and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, we are here today to address the majority's proposed changes in the Rules of the House of Representatives for the 117th Congress.

These changes are some of the harshest and most cynical that I have experienced during my time in Congress. Democratic leadership is suppressing minority rights and paving the way for the Green New Deal by intentionally removing budgetary checks that have been in place for over a decade.

The most egregious of these changes is the complete gutting of the motion to recommit. The motion to recommit, or the MTR, is the minority's right to propose a final amendment before moving passage. This is a right that has been guaranteed to the minority for well over a century.

With today's changes, the majority is seeking to silence views they are afraid of with no regard for this institution or the American people's trust in our constitutional responsibility to govern and govern well. They are taking away the ability to debate a motion to recommit and the ability to offer a motion to recommit with instructions. This completely guts the minority's ability to offer a last amendment on the floor prior to passage of legislation.

I would remind my colleagues that during the many years Republicans were in the majority, we never even thought to deny the minority this motion. And the only reason Democrats are doing so today is out of embarrassment. They are embarrassed that the

Republicans were able to pass eight motions to recommit in the 116th Congress. But rather than acknowledging that Republicans sometimes have good policy ideas that should be incorporated into legislation, the majority is instead seeking to completely cut off this key right, and that, Madam Speaker, is simply reprehensible.

Madam Speaker, the motion to recommit has been around since the beginning of the House as an institution, and it has been in its present form since 1909. In fact, in 1919, Representative Abraham Garrett of Tennessee, noted that ``the motion to recommit is regarded as so sacred it is one of the few rules protected against the Committee on Rules by the general rules of the House.''

And when Speaker Pelosi was herself in the minority, she equated the motion to recommit with the right of free speech enshrined in our Constitution. How this majority can now decide that a procedure that is so important it is on par with the guarantee of free speech must be eliminated is beyond my understanding.

Madam Speaker, it is simply shocking that Democrats are so afraid of Republican ideas that they feel the need to rig the system against us. They don't want the House to work its will. They only want the Speaker's will. And we all know why that is. It is because the majority cannot effectively defend its policies against competing ideas.

Eight times in the last Congress a majority of the House agreed that the Republican policy idea had merit and should be included in the final bill. But that state of affairs is evidently so embarrassing to Democrats that they can't stand it, and now they have to completely shut down minority rights lest they be embarrassed further, especially after the November election dealt them a harsh blow and they lost seats in their own ranks.

Madam Speaker, I want to offer my friends on the other side of the aisle a word of warning: Majorities do not last forever. If there is one certainty we can take away from the history of American politics, it is that the party in power in the House of Representatives today will not hold that position forever. I can also guarantee you that your efforts to shut us down will not shut us up.

So instead of having bills that pass with slight improvements made through an MTR, bills will fail here on the House floor. And for that reason, among others, I am sure Democrats will regret making this egregious change in the very near future. Republicans are proud to debate our policies and proposals, unlike the majority today, whose record of promised openness and fulsome debate is an abject failure.

Now, Madam Speaker, while gutting the MTR may be the worst piece of this rules package to many, I want to applaud my friends for removing an almost equally egregious piece of this rules package. When the majority released this package over the weekend, there was a particularly noxious provision that would have empowered the Speaker of the House to censor the free speech of Members and employees of the House. What is worse, it would have empowered the Speaker to act as the sole judge, jury, and executioner, and included no clear guidelines for how this would be enforced. This proposed rule was downright un- American.

Fortunately, my friends on the other side of the aisle have listened to reason and removed that provision from this package. I wish they had further listened to reason and removed the provision taking away the minority's right to an MTR, which is why I offered a very reasonable motion to postpone for one day.

Madam Speaker, I could go on all day about the MTR, but there are other changes in this rules package that need to be highlighted. Slipped into the package is another change that will effectively eliminate the paygo rule. Paygo is a useful budgetary control measure that essentially says that we can't spend money that we don't have. But if the majority gets their way, paygo will be eliminated for a broad category of topics, including for measures relating to climate change. This is doing nothing more than removing a key barrier to the Green New Deal and other liberal tax-and-spend policies.

But never before has the majority tried to lift budgetary rules on something as absurdly expensive as the Green New Deal, which is estimated to cost as much as $100 trillion over the next decade, should it be enacted.

It is clear that the majority doesn't even want to have a conversation about the cost of the Green New Deal, and instead wants to ensure that the American people never find out about the cost of their extreme plans.

There are other measures in this rules package that are just as absurd. Not content with having investigated President Trump throughout his Presidency and subjected him to pointless impeachment, now Democrats are including provisions allowing them to send subpoenas to former Presidents, former Vice Presidents, and former White House staff, long after their administration has ended.

This provision is a continuation of the Democratic majority's obsession with investigating President Trump and his administration, and ensures they will be able to keep their investigation gravy train rolling along long after the President leaves office.

There is a similar provision which will allow certain committee chairs to reissue subpoenas prior to the committee organizing for the 117th Congress, thus ensuring that existing investigations into President Trump, no matter how silly or pointless, will not have to slow down or even let the new Congress consider their current merits or legislative justification.

Allowing a chair to issue subpoenas without any consultation with membership or with the minority is nothing less than an abuse of power. But I suppose I should not expect any less given the other provisions in this package.

Madam Speaker, despite my affection for my friend on the other side of the aisle, I have to tell him that this package stinks. It is deeply cynical and deeply short-sighted. It tramples on minority rights and it ensures a power grab by Democratic leadership. It will change the nature of this institution, and not for the better.

Madam Speaker, today, I call on all Members to vote ``no'' on this rules package. I ask all of my colleagues, regardless of party, to reject these radical and, at times, ridiculous changes. I call on all my colleagues to protect minority rights. The future of this institution depends on it.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to my friend.

I remind my friend that you accepted eight MTRs, or eight were approved, because Democrats decided the Republican proposals were good proposals and made the bill better. We couldn't have done it on our own. So, you are actually limiting the choices in front of your own Members.

We might not feel so strongly about the MTR if we got more amendments approved anyway. We only get about 18 percent of the amendments. When we were in the majority, we gave you 45. We got 38. You now get 68. So, you are taking a tool away that is important to us.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis), my very good friend and the distinguished ranking member on the House Administration Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), my very good friend and the distinguished Republican whip.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to quickly respond to my friend.

Ms. Scanlon said the eight MTRs that passed this House were poison pills. By definition, they weren't. They passed the House. Democrats voted for them. Things like fighting against anti-Semitism is hardly a poison pill.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), my very good friend.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse), my very good friend and a former member of the Committee on Rules.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith), my very good friend and ranking Republican member of the Committee on the Budget.

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished new Member from the great State of Texas (Ms. Van Duyne), who will be making her first address on the House floor.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

If we defeat the previous question, Madam Speaker, I will offer an amendment to the rule to immediately amend the rules package to strike the complete gutting of the MTR. My amendment will restore this sacred right to the minority to offer a final amendment to the bill.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the distinguished Republican leader, to discuss this critical amendment in more detail.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Obernolte), one of our new Members.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), my very good friend.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), my very good friend and the distinguished ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Posey).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

In closing, I want to urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rules package. The majority's proposed package will only continue the ongoing assault on minority voices.

The changes in this package completely gut the MTR. With all due respect to my friends, we disagree on that. I am sorry you have a hard time handling it or getting your Members to where you want them to go, but the fact is, eight times in the last Congress, Democrats joined with Republicans in deciding that the Republican proposal improved the bill. It is that simple.

We shouldn't be taking that away, particularly when the record, I think, is so bad in the last Democratic Congress in granting amendment opportunities to the minority.

I remind my friends, when we were in the majority, you got 45 percent of all of the amendments made in order in the Rules Committee; the Republicans got 38 percent; the remainder were bipartisan. Last time, you got two-thirds of the amendments, we got 18 percent, and the remainder were bipartisan.

When you are removing the MTR, on top of not giving us very many amendments to begin with, we look on that as an effort to limit our ability to participate openly and effectively in debate. This rules package moves us in another direction.

I am sorry that the traditional rules of the House that have been here over 100 years are inconvenient to the Democratic majority. Sometimes it is good to be inconvenienced when you are in the majority.

You are limiting our ability to participate. Frankly, it will find other outlets; it always does. I think that is a tragic mistake I think that you will live to regret.

In addition to that, obviously, we disagree in the proposed rules package with eliminating paygo in some critical areas. We think you could drive a truck through those. It is a critical budgetary tool, and we do think it will be missed, and its absence will be used to pave the way for the Green New Deal.

In addition, the desire to continue to subpoena Presidents, Vice Presidents, and White House staff that are no longer in office strikes us as clearly an effort to just continue to harass the departing administration. I regret that. I think you will, too. I think people want us to look forward, not backward.

So we don't see much use in that, nor do we see the automatic ability to resubmit subpoenas from the last Congress as a good thing. Again, it is looking in the rearview mirror.

Madam Speaker, I urge rejection of the package, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, we can amend the rule to save the right of every American to be heard on the floor of Congress.

Madam Speaker, a tenet of socialism is to silence all opposition. The right to speak your mind and question your leaders are often the first casualties of socialist governments throughout history; not far behind are other important freedoms, including the right to defend yourself and the right to earn a living, which are impossible to protect without the freedom of speech.

Our Constitution lists the freedom of speech as its very first freedom, and for our Founding Fathers, the reason was self-evident, as Benjamin Franklin once said: ``Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without freedom of speech.''

The very first action of this majority is to take it away.

From the very beginning of this institution, we had the motion to recommit to protect the minority. If you listen to Benjamin Franklin, tell me how the 117th Congress can have any wisdom or any public liberty or any freedom, because you deny us speech.

Benjamin Franklin was right then, and he is right now. But I have noticed the dangerous trend against free speech in recent years, a trend that betrays everything our Founding Fathers lived, fought, and died for.

It began in our schools on college campuses where our students are taught the absurd notion that free speech is about privilege and power, not open debate and rational deliberation.

Then it jumped to the mainstream media and social media giants who used their power to protect their liberal friends and censor conservatives, including during the last election and throughout the pandemic.

Now, with today's vote, the same socialist ideas have found their way onto the floor and into the rules of the U.S. House of Representatives, which will shape every law this Chamber tries to make in the next 2 years, taking the same idea that the socialist governments have taken before, the fear that you might lose based on an idea, so take their voice away.

Whose voices are those? The constituents of millions of Americans. These changes will stop American voices from being heard, primarily by revoking the motion to recommit, the minority's longtime right to offer the last amendment to legislation.

I see my good friend, the majority leader, across the aisle. He and I have switched jobs before. I was the majority leader. For 8 years, never once was it ever debated that we would deny the minority the right to an amendment on a bill. Never once. I know the majority leader will stand up later and say: Well, this has been changed time and time again. Only by Democrats.

I know my friend is an institutionalist. I know he believes in this body, but he cannot believe about taking this away.

Why would you want to? You cannot pass a motion to recommit on the floor unless you have a majority of the people in the body to vote for it. Are you so afraid that you can't hold people that you want to take it away? Are your constituents better than somebody else's?

To again quote Ben Franklin, free speech is a necessary tool for exposing and keeping in check narrow thoughts and narrow men. That is what the MTR is all about. For our constituents, taking it away means freedom of speech is silenced and good ideas are stifled.

While House Democrats have slowly chipped away at this right in the past, today's vote truly represents the nuclear option. It will prove once and for all who is truly an institutionalist in this body.

Is it no wonder that your majority is so thin that you try to take away the MTR? Was the Speaker vote too close?

I can't imagine casting that vote as your very first action. Additionally, these rules mirror the misplaced priorities of the last Congress. Democrats' 45-page resolution strips all mention of the words father, mother, son, daughter, brother, mother-in-law, daughter-in-law. I am a proud father. I am an extremely proud son. But we are going to strike them from the rules. First, we take your speech away. Then, we take away what you can say.

Already, in their race to wokeness--I listened to your opening prayer yesterday. They changed the word ``amen,'' which has nothing to do with gender.

Today's vote is about more than organizing Congress. It is about the American people's right to be heard by their government. This vote is important. It might be the most important vote we take after the vote for Speaker. It signals our priorities, our vision for the entire 2 years.

The fact that this is the Democrats' first course of action as a majority in the new Congress speaks volumes to the lengths they will go to silence the people's voice.

I almost thought it would be the opposite. I know what you thought the day, the weeks, the months before the election. You wondered if you would have enough seats in here for how big your majority would be. I listened to the Speaker say she wasn't going to

only win the majority; she was winning it for the next two or three elections because they were going to gain so many seats. My dear friend predicted a 15-seat gain by the Democrats. But that is not what the American people told you.

I probably would have reversed and said: Oh, my gosh, if we are doing everything that the American people do not want, maybe we should change course. But you actually took the opposite approach.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Let's deny people to even say more because they don't like what we are doing.

I have watched this happen in other parts of the world, but I never thought, in the fundamental belief of the very first amendment of America, of the very belief of this body where we debate, where the voices of America are supposed to be heard, where an MTR has been around from the very beginning of this Nation, of this body--but you will be the individuals, you will be the slim majority, that took it away. You will cast that vote. You will have the history written about you.

The fact that this is your very first course of action, you are setting the tone for the next 2 years. The political and moral stakes are high, and the American people know it.

If censorship replaces open debate on this floor, serious deliberation of the most important issues confronting our country will become impossible. More importantly, Congress will continue to waste time on unnecessary distractions that have nothing to do with the needs of the American people. This damage will be immediate and long-lasting.

But Republicans will never give up our right to fully represent our constituents' voices here in Washington. Democrats' small thinking may limit how we can do what is right for our constituents, but it won't stop us from doing what is needed. Maybe we need a little history in modern history.

You had the ability to control this body for 40 years before Republicans ever won in 1994. You had tried to shut it off now and then based upon certain bills. The very first thing that Republicans did when they had the chance to write the rules and be in the majority, they guaranteed it for the minority--for you, when you were in the minority. They were not afraid.

When we narrowed the majority, much to the same numbers we have today, was it removed then because Republicans were in power? It was not. It was guaranteed. My good friend was here during that time. The Speaker served during that time.

When we, the Republicans, took the majority again and had it for 8 years, not only did we never touch it, we guaranteed it again. You have been in power for 2 years. You lost seats based upon what you did on this floor. Instead of changing course, you now deny people their voice.

That is the history that will be written today. That is the legacy you will live with. I will promise you this: Two years from today, when you are no longer in the majority, we will correct the course of history because we are not afraid of ideas. We believe it makes us stronger. We know it makes this country stronger.

This choice will shape everything we do in the next 2 years and beyond. We have big challenges. We are going to have to work together. But if you deny us, you are going to have a hard time working with us.

Madam Speaker, you and I travel a lot back to our districts. We often fly on the same planes. We see our constituents, and I see you listen to them. I see you talk to them about issues. I have watched you work across the aisle on some of the biggest issues, even when you were not in the majority.

I want you to think one moment, Madam Speaker: What if those constituents you talk to--and you say you will bring their voice to the floor--what if you were going to be denied that? You never were denied that when you were in the minority.

But I just ask every Member of this body, before you cast this vote, you may think a tough vote goes away. Oh, no, it won't. I will make you this promise: You have given me the passion to fight harder for my constituents. You have given me the passion to find a better opportunity for more of their voices to be heard. And you have given me the passion to win back the majority so I can win back the voices on this floor that they won't be denied. And they might not be my constituents. They may be the voices of your constituents because it is the right thing to do that has been here the entire time this body has been here.

Madam Speaker, there are times we will disagree, but there are very few times I have ever been this embarrassed of this body, the hypocrisy of what I am about to see, the hypocrisy of what you think you will defend, everybody in this body knows it is wrong. But you feel you can grip power a little harder. You feel you can hold onto it a little stronger.

I will tell you this: The power of free speech is so much stronger than the power of somebody trying to grip and hold onto the majority.

Madam Speaker, I strongly urge defeat of the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to strongly object to this Soviet-style rules package. If you look at some of the things that are being laid out here, it is all designed to take away the voice of 48 percent of this House Chamber.

This is the people's House. It is one of the great things that we celebrate about serving in the United States House of Representatives, a privilege for each of us who took that oath yesterday to represent roughly 750,000 people, to bring their ideas, their hopes for America, to this House floor, to debate the things that they believe in, that we believe in, that we want to fight for.

We don't always agree. We don't always see eye to eye on what that is, but the beauty is we get to bring those ideas here, have that debate here. Yet, the rules package is attempting to strip that away, to yank away more rights for hundreds of millions of Americans to be represented on this House floor.

That is not who we are. That is not what the House of Representatives is all about. Yet, that is what will be voted on in this rules package.

Just look at the motion to recommit. Now, if the majority were allowing us, Madam Speaker, to bring amendments to the floor on a regular basis, you might not need a motion to recommit. But less than 20 percent of all amendments allowed on the House floor in the last 2 years were Republican amendments, less than 20 percent when we represent almost 49 percent of the Members of this body. That is not what an open, democratic institution is about. That is unbecoming of the House of Representatives. Yet, taking away that ability shows that the majority wants to shut down the debate of the other side, wants to shut down the voices not just of us but of the millions of people all across this country we represent.

Think about the move to get rid of paygo, pay as you go, which had been a hallmark of Speaker Pelosi's majority. She gets rid of that on things like debating the Green New Deal. What does that tell you? That tells you that, number one, they plan on bringing the Green New Deal to the House floor, but they also know that it would have devastating consequences on American families. The hardworking people--in fact, the ones who would be hit the hardest by it--are low-income families who would end up paying thousands of dollars more in household electricity costs. They want to hide that so they get rid of paygo so you don't have to show what the cost to hardworking families would be for radical ideas like that.

This is not who we are. I am a proud husband, a proud father of a son and a daughter. They don't even want you to be able to say that anymore.

Let's open up the people's House to real, honest discourse and debate. Let's debate our differences and settle them here on the House floor, not try to hide the views of 48 percent of this country.

I oppose this Soviet-style rules package.