Reopen Schools Act

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 188 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota, 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 be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, today, the Committee on Rules met and reported House Resolution 188, providing structured rules for consideration of H.R. 842, H.R. 8, and H.R. 1446.

For H.R. 842, the rule self-executes a manager's amendment by Chairman Scott, makes in order 19 amendments, and provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking member of the Committee on Education and Labor.

For H.R. 8 and H.R. 1446, the rule makes in order eight and four amendments, respectively, and provides 1 hour of debate for each bill equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

The rule further provides en bloc authority and a motion to recommit for each bill.

The rule also adds an additional minority member to the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis.

Finally, the rule provides for recess instructions, suspension authority, and same-day authority from March 13 through April 22, and activates the Consensus Calendar.

Madam Speaker, this is the first time I have been able to be on the floor and present in almost a year. A year ago, as some of you know, I had an accident and proceeded to spend 6 weeks in the George Washington University Hospital intensive care unit, 4 of those weeks on a ventilator.

My sons came from California to be told by the doctors in a windowless room at George Washington that I had about a 10 percent chance of survival. The next day, they got a phone call, expecting to hear that their dad had died. Instead, the doctor told them that I was doing better.

Madam Speaker, I know that you know how grateful we are to have the wonderful gift of life, to share it with our children, and to be here in this sanctum sanctorum of American democracy. I am grateful. I am grateful to my staff, to the providence of our creator, and to my family.

Madam Speaker, our Nation is struggling, and not only because of the coronavirus pandemic. Our Nation needs bold, meaningful changes to make a real difference for average Americans. That is what the three bills before us today do. Each addresses its own epidemic: gun violence; inequality; and, unfortunately, an ugly part of human nature, greed.

Madam Speaker, nearly 40,000 people died from firearm injuries in the United States in 2019. History would show that enacting smart, evidence-based policies based on public health premises reduces this sad phenomenon.

Madam Speaker, 22 percent of U.S. gun owners acquired their most recent firearm without a background check. That means that millions of Americans got millions of guns with no questions asked. Approximately 80 percent of all firearms acquired for criminal purposes are obtained through private party transfers, which currently do not require background checks.

Ninety-six percent of the inmates surveyed, who were prohibited from possessing a firearm at the time they committed their crime, had obtained their firearm from an unlicensed private seller, avoiding the background check altogether.

In California, where I am proud to live and serve, all private gun sales must be completed through a licensed firearms dealer, requiring a background check--a universal background check and a mandatory waiting period. Not coincidentally--and the public health experts will let us know through their evidence-based research--California has the ninth- lowest rate of gun violence across the United States. Gun killings in Connecticut, similarly, fell by 40 percent after it required a mandatory background check and a gun safety course before the purchase of a gun.

We know what we need to do to help protect millions of Americans. Universal background checks are supported by decades of evidence. The Bipartisan Background Checks Act, H.R. 8, institutes universal background checks.

Additionally, the Enhanced Background Checks Act, H.R. 1446, ends the arbitrary rule that if a background check hasn't been completed in 3 days, the gun can be sold regardless.

I proudly support these bills because the evidence is clear that they will make our communities safer and save lives.

Madam Speaker, next, the rule will allow us to consider the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, or the PRO Act. The rise in inequality in this country has coincided with a decline in union membership. By most estimates, declining unionization accounted for about one-third of the increase in inequality--one-third--from 1980 through the 1990s through today.

If you watch the data over the years, as States move as a group toward less union coverage, those same States have much worse income inequality. You cannot address inequality without increasing access for working people to representation. Unions do not only raise wages for the workers they represent, but they have also been shown to moderate the compensation of executives.

On top of the obvious benefits you think of that are associated with the labor unions, like higher wages, safer workplaces, some of the others that come along with union membership also help address the inequities in our society.

Union workers are more likely to receive paid leave, are up to 28 percent more likely to have employer-sponsored health insurance, and are up to 54 percent more likely to be enrolled in employer-sponsored pensions. Not only do workers have better access to pensions, but their employers contribute an average of 28 percent more toward those pensions, retirement security for Americans, than nonunion employers.

As the chairman of the subcommittee of jurisdiction, I know that the PRO Act simply updates labor law to ensure that workers in today's economy are able to create and join labor unions to receive the same kinds of protections they see in other sectors. Nothing more.

As President Eisenhower once said during the largest expansion of the American economy in history, when labor unions had one-third of the workforce: ``Only a fool would try to deprive working men and women of the right to join the union of their choice.''

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the distinguished chairwoman of the Committee on Appropriations.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an article published in the March 3 USA Today titled: ``Congress renews gun safety push with background check bills.''

[From USA TODAY, Mar. 3, 2021]

Congress Renews Gun Safety Push With Background Check Bills

(By Amanda Becker)

Congressional lawmakers this week revived an effort to

enact significant gun safety laws for the first time in more

than 25 years by introducing bills to establish a universal

background check system that has broad support from the

public.

The bills introduced Tuesday in the House and Senate would

extend current federal background check requirements to

transactions conducted by unlicensed and private sellers.

Legislation was reintroduced in Congress to extend

background checks to transactions conducted by private and

unlicensed gun sellers.

The gun safety group Giffords estimates that 22% of U.S.

gun owners purchased their last firearm without completing a

background check. Polling shows that more than 90% of

Americans support a universal background check system.

The measures are what gun safety advocates predicted would

be a first step in pursuing new gun laws now that Democrats

control the White House and both chambers of Congress. In

recent years, gun safety bills stalled even when they had

bipartisan public support, in part because Republican

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell did not bring them up for

votes when he led the Senate from 2015 to 2021.

Rep. Mike Thompson, a California Democrat who chairs a

congressional gun violence prevention task force, on Tuesday

reintroduced bipartisan House legislation that would require

background checks for all firearm sales. The House first

passed the bill in 2019, one year after a mass shooting at

Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida,

left 17 dead.

``Time and time again, we have seen that the American

people want universal background checks, in fact public

polling shows that the majority of people, Democrats,

Republicans and independents, support this,'' Thompson said

in a statement.

The Senate is evenly split between Democrats and

Republicans, and the measure would have to pick up bipartisan

support to pass that chamber given that most legislation must

clear a 60-vote threshold.

``This Congress we will finally bring common sense gun

reforms up for a vote in the House and the Senate, and the

single most popular and effective proposal we can consider is

universal background checks,'' Murphy said in a video about

the effort.

When the House passed background checks legislation in

2019, the bill ran aground in the then Republican-controlled

Senate, where McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, did not bring

it up for a vote.

``Now, with Senate Democrats in the Majority, we have the

opportunity to act on this overwhelmingly popular, lifesaving

legislation to protect American communities,'' Senate

Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement on the

bill's introduction.

Advocates for new gun safety laws have hoped that with

President Joe Biden in the White House and Democrats

controlling the House and Senate, there is an opportunity for

action. The NRA is also grappling with multiple crises: New

York's attorney general is investigating whether its leaders

misappropriated more than $60 million for personal use, and

the NRA filed for bankruptcy in January. Its remaining

officials insist the organization remains solvent, and it

plans to reincorporate in Texas.

``This is the moment,'' said Shannon Watts, the founder of

Moms Demand Action, a grassroots organization started in late

2012 that now has nearly 6 million supporters.

``We have a trifecta and they have a mandate to act on

this. We have a grassroots army to support them and the NRA

is weaker than they've ever been,'' she added.

Already this week, Rep. Jim Clyburn, a key Biden ally from

South Carolina, reintroduced a bill that would close the so-

called ``Charleston loophole'' that allows firearm purchases

to move forward after three business days, even if a

background check has not been completed. It is named for the

2015 mass shooting at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal

Church in Charleston, South Carolina, where nine died after

the gunman was able to purchase a firearm when the three-day

window expired.

Last month, to mark the third anniversary of the Parkland

shooting, Biden called for the passage of ``common sense''

gun safety laws. He cited a background checks bill among his

top priorities.

The last major law passed to curb gun violence was the

Federal Assault Weapons Ban enacted by Democratic President

Bill Clinton in 1994. But even that had a 10-year sunset

provision that has since expired. Several attempts to renew

it, including by President Barack Obama in 2013 after Sandy

Hook, all derailed in a Republican-controlled Senate.

Groups pushing for gun safety measures told The 19th

earlier this year that a background check bill would probably

be the starting point early in the Biden administration

because it has broader bipartisan support than other

measures. President Donald Trump acknowledged in 2019 that

there was a ``great appetite'' for such a proposal after mass

shootings in Ohio and Texas, as did McConnell, though he did

not go on to bring it up for a vote.

A ``red flag'' bill giving courts the power to temporarily

confiscate firearms from individuals deemed at risk or anti-

gun trafficking legislation could be taken up next, the

advocates said.

Biden advisers Susan Rice and Cedric Richmond met last

month with gun safety groups that included Everytown for Gun

Safety, Moms Demand Action, Giffords and Brady to discuss

background checks, the proliferation of so-called ``ghost''

guns (homemade firearms or those with serial numbers removed)

and violence intervention programs, the White House said.

Biden has also pledged to work with Congress to reauthorize

the Violence Against Women Act, which he worked on as a

senator in the 1990s. In 2019, the House approved a VAWA

provision to close the so-called ``boyfriend loophole'' that

allows current and former unmarried partners convicted of

abuse and stalking to continue to purchase firearms. That

effort also stalled in the Senate. Democratic House leaders

said this week they will be taking up VAWA reauthorization

later this month.

Madam Speaker, more than 90 percent of Americans support a universal background check system. Passing this legislation is simply common sense, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague and friend on the Rules Committee that we should enforce existing laws. In States like California where we have universal background checks, we have seen that gun violence has gone down, as I said in my earlier remarks. We have also seen that 30 percent of the guns used in criminal activity are actually imported into the State from other States.

To the previous comments that we need a national standard, that is why we need a national standard. It doesn't mean that States like California, Connecticut, and Massachusetts can't do these things, and it is a good laboratory, as Justice Brandeis said, that States should be the laboratory for innovation. We know these things work. So I would agree that we should enforce and get the revenue, the existing law.

But clearly, eliminating the background checks loophole would help make Americans safe.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I have one comment. The idea of opinions in the interpretation of the Second Amendment, there are 13 States, as I understand it, right now, who have universal background checks. All of them are working consistent with upholding the Second Amendment. Californians who have a universal background check can go out and legally buy a gun. It just decreases the number of deaths and injuries when you have this kind of law, Madam Speaker.

So I agree with the gentleman who spoke and said it shouldn't be about opinion. Neither of us decides what is constitutional in this instance. The courts do, and the courts have allowed local and State governments to implement these commonsense laws.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, a correction. The bill doesn't say indefinitely for the background checks. It says 10 days with the availability of an additional 10 days for a maximum of 20 days. So it is not indefinite.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just like to point out that having a gun in your home actually makes you more likely to be a victim of gun violence.

Of the over 40,000 Americans who lost their lives from gun violence in 2018--the last year we have up-to-date statistics--two-thirds of those were by suicide. This is one of the big contributing factors to what are the so-called diseases of despair which happen everywhere in this country right now in these difficult times, and it has gotten worse under COVID. But the proximity to the guns actually leads to more of an opportunity for people to be the victim of gun violence.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a February 18 Washington Post editorial titled: ``Maryland just closed a gun loophole. The state is safer for it.''

[From The Washington Post, Feb. 18, 2021]

Maryland Just Closed a Gun Loophole. The State is Safer for it.

(By Editorial Board)

Given America's lurid history of gun violence, it is

confounding that buyers can purchase firearms in some places

without background checks. It's even more astonishing that it

remains the case in a liberal stronghold such as Maryland,

which suffered its own recent trauma owing to a deranged

gunman bent on mass murder.

Lawmakers in Annapolis last week finally closed a loophole

in state law that waived background checks for buyers who

make private purchases of shotguns and rifles. Sales of

handguns as well as shotguns and rifles from licensed dealers

in Maryland have long been subject to mandatory checks

through a federal database, but long guns were exempted when

the transaction took place through private dealers, including

those at gun shows.

The Democratic-controlled legislature pushed through the

change this month by overriding a gratuitous veto cast last

year by Gov. Larry Hogan, a Republican, who made no public

argument to defend the loophole beyond the fact that he had

not proposed closing it. The change takes effect next month.

Gun rights advocates and their Republican allies in the

legislature characterized the legislation as an assault on

rural Maryland's way of life and a burden for hunters. In

fact, whatever (probably slight) inconvenience some sportsmen

might undergo because of the new law is outweighed by the

obstacle it may pose for buyers who have no business owning

firearms.

It does not take a feat of imagination to foresee an act of

gun violence carried out by someone who, stymied by a

background check conducted by a licensed dealer, turns to a

private seller instead. Less than three years ago, a gunman

nursing a grievance massacred five people and injured two

others on a rampage through the newsroom of the Capital

Gazette newspaper, in Annapolis. He used a shotgun. As it

happens, he passed a background check when he purchased it; a

previous conviction, in 2011, for criminal harassment, was a

misdemeanor, not serious enough to forbid the sale. Yet even

if he had been convicted of a felony, he might still have

obtained a weapon easily by seeking out a private dealer--

through an online inquiry, for instance. The chances that

such a gunman would now succeed are diminished in Maryland.

No legislative measure is foolproof, and none will reliably

defeat a determined gunman. The idea of gun control, rather,

is to build a matrix of laws that deter and detect

individuals who, were they to obtain a firearm, would pose a

threat to themselves or others. Maryland's new law advances

that cause.

Madam Speaker, this isn't about taking away the rights of law-abiding Americans. Those claims are nonsense. This is about protecting the lives of all Americans.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to point out to my friends and colleagues that, again, even Justice Scalia, in the Heller majority decision, said that local and State governments could enact reasonable gun violence protection laws.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Just a brief comment. In that same decision of Justice Scalia that I mentioned earlier, he said that Second Amendment protections are not unlimited, and that is the point of this bill. They have been done. They have been done constitutionally, as I said, by 13 States. And they statistically work.

I, too, have been robbed at gunpoint, but I didn't have to have a gun to survive. That was providence and the San Francisco Police Department.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

On the last point, I would just say that in California, in particular, in my district, having had multiple conversations with teachers, their labor representatives, and superintendents, we are getting schools back open, but we are doing it in a way to make sure that it is done efficiently and safely for everyone, the students, most particularly, their families, and their teachers.

We have come so far in this country, those of us who have listened to the science and the Centers for Disease

Control. We just want to make sure it is done right, in the most efficient, effective way for the kids.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague. Nicely done.

First, on the gun bills, of course, we are all respectful of the Speaker pro tempore's courage and the experience that she has had. For those of us who have had family members who have lost their lives because of gun violence--my dad is buried over at Arlington. He is a combat veteran from World War II who, a little over 30 years ago, took his own life.

As we know, the tragedies of homicide, as the Speaker pro tempore knows personally, and losing a loved one, as I know from losing a loved one to suicide--suicide is two-thirds of the total of people who die-- both are awful.

All we are trying to do, at least in my mind, is listen to the research, listen to the examples of other developed countries and other States, and implement public health policy. It informs us that if we do it, we will save lives and injuries, and we will save billions of dollars that all of us pay for.

All of us respect the Constitution. We took an oath to it. All of us respect the Second Amendment. We might not have all agreed if we were there, but it is the law. The courts have allowed us to implement these laws, and they work.

I really don't understand, and maybe it is because of my own personal belief and also from my experience as a city council member, a mayor, a member of the California Legislature, and now in Congress, why we don't follow the research and the evidence that it saves lives, out of respect for all those people who have lost their lives to gun violence.

Then, on the PRO Act, as a former member of a Teamsters union, that job helped me to get through college when my dad had lost his job. I loaded trucks. It was that union that provided me protection and enough for myself and my coworkers.

When I moved to San Francisco, I didn't have any money. I got a job in a hotel restaurant business, and I was in that local. Then, I was able to save enough money to go open my own businesses.

There have been some comments that somehow this bill would hurt small businesses. The reality is that people organize in environments where their employer is not treating their employees appropriately.

We know the inequality that Ms. DeLauro talked about, this historic inequality that is strangling our country and hurting so many working Americans, destroying the middle income that we have all benefited from, that opportunity to move up and to give to our kids something better than we had. That is the legacy of this country, and labor unions are a big part of that, and entrepreneurs and individual business owners are a big part of that. But it is the balance between these two.

As John Kenneth Galbraith said a long time ago, and he wrote a boring book about this, but it is interesting: Wages and capital have to have countervailing institutions. They have to balance each other.

As my friend from Minnesota said, it is a balance. Right now, after 50 years of attacks, starting with President Reagan, the working people in this country don't have the voice they once had. That not only hurts them and their kids; it hurts all of us.

When you have a robust middle class, and you have workers represented appropriately and proportionately, the country grows; there is more money to spend in businesses like mine; and there is a camaraderie, having teamwork. A good employer knows that, whether they have a unionized workforce or a nonunionized workforce.

Your employees are what make your business work. That is what gives you goodwill. That is what Americans took so much pride in, in the 1950s and 1960s, after World War II, after we had come to the great country we were after World War II, with a middle class that no one has ever seen on this planet. Since then, we have eroded that middle class.

The one most important thing to improve our economy is to give working Americans a voice. Let them join together. Let it be fair. A good employer will respect that and work with that.

As Eisenhower said, as I quoted in my opening, only a fool would try to keep a working American from organizing into a union.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 147 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman and my colleague from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), 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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 147, providing for consideration of H.R. 5, the Equality Act, under a closed rule. The rule provides 90 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary and one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 803, the Protecting America's Wilderness and Public Lands Act, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources and self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairman Grijalva. It also makes in order 29 amendments, provides en bloc authority to Chairman Grijalva, and provides one motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to debate the rule for two critical pieces of legislation, H.R. 5, the Equality Act, and H.R. 803, the Protecting America's Wilderness and Public Lands Act.

This is a historic day for Congress and for equal rights. Over 45 years ago, Congresswoman Bella Abzug introduced the first version of the Equality Act, a bill that will provide full legal protections to LGBTQ people all across our country by extending the protections of the Civil Rights Act to them and making clear that we must respect, defend, and celebrate the dignity innate of everyone in our communities, including--and perhaps especially--those who are perceived as different or non-binary.

The version of the Equality Act that we consider today is the result of years of careful legislative drafting and amends existing civil rights laws to provide protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in key areas of public life: employment, housing, credit, education, public spaces and services, federally funded programs, and jury service.

Additionally, the Equality Act updates the public spaces and services covered in current law to include retail stores and services, such as banks, legal services, and transportation. These important updates would strengthen existing protections for everyone.

The journey to this final version of the Equality Act was led by a dear colleague who is a historymaker in his own right, co-chair of the LGBTQ Equality Caucus and my colleague on the Judiciary Committee, Congressman David Cicilline of Rhode Island. Congressman Cicilline worked with lawyers and advocates from the left and the right, religious groups, and a host of civil rights groups to make sure the language of the Equality Act achieved full legal equality while protecting existing civil rights for other marginalized groups.

The resulting bill is supported by 130 of the largest employees in the country, our largest labor unions, and the hundreds of organizations including, to name just a few, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the NAACP, the National Women's Law Center, the Episcopal Church, the Union for Reform Judaism, and the United Church of Christ.

And, most importantly, it is supported by a clear and overwhelming majority of the American people. Seventy-one percent of Americans support this legislation, including majorities of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans.

The clear majority of both the House and the American people recognize that for too long LGBTQ people have faced discrimination with no Federal legal recourse. It is beyond dispute that LGBTQ people-- especially transgender people and, even more so, transgender women of color--face discrimination across this country.

To echo other speakers, this issue is deeply personal for me. It has been personal since my baby sister came out to me almost 40 years ago. For many people all across this country and across this House, that is when this fight hits home.

It gets personal when someone whom you love says: This is who I am.

It gets personal when you know and value that person and you want to do whatever you can to make sure that your loved one can live their life to the fullest, free from hate and discrimination.

I am sad to say that my home, Pennsylvania, is one of the 30 States that defies the will of its people by not having legal protections for LGBTQ people. The idea that my sister--someone who put her life on the line for our country when she served in our Armed Forces--could drive across State lines and lose protections is heartbreaking.

The Equality Act ends the patchwork of State laws and creates uniform, nationwide protections. LGBTQ people won't have to worry that being transferred to another State by their employer or needing to move home to take care of ailing parents will cause them to lose civil rights protections. From sea to shining sea, LGBTQ people will have the security and stability that comes from knowing that, if they face discrimination, they have legal recourse.

It is also important to note what the Equality Act does not do. The Equality Act does not impinge on religious freedom. Religious liberty is a cornerstone value of our Constitution and our country. Religious organizations are currently able to prefer their own members and their version of morality in hiring for religious positions, such as ministers and schoolteachers. The Equality Act does nothing to change that. The Equality Act does not force anyone to perform or obtain abortions in violation of their religious beliefs, and it does not strip girls of their title 9 protections.

The Equality Act does clarify what has long been held: That religious freedom laws do not create an exemption to civil rights laws.

Just like a person can't use a claim of religious freedom to refuse to sell a house to an interracial couple, under the Equality Act LGBTQ families will be protected from discrimination regardless of its motivation.

Consider the stakes facing LGBTQ people too often all across this country. A same-sex couple walks into a restaurant. Having hired a babysitter to look after their young children, they are hoping to have a relaxing night out. But, instead, when they are seated and looking at the menu, the manager comes over and tells them that they have to leave. They aren't welcome.

This kind of insecurity and humiliation occurs on a daily basis across this country, and in 30 States the couple would have no legal recourse. Often, humiliation is just the tip of the iceberg. Same-sex couples are far more likely to be denied housing; qualified and high- performing transgender people are more likely to be fired from their jobs; and LGBTQ young people face rejection and discrimination in school, which can deny them an education.

These injuries compound and lead to poverty, homelessness, and violence. The impact is felt the hardest by transgender women of color, who confront racial discrimination, sex discrimination, and gender identity discrimination. The intersection of these forms of discrimination is all too often deadly.

The protections provided by the Equality Act give LGBTQ people an equal chance at the American Dream. While discrimination and rejection has ended the lives of too many transgender people, many are succeeding despite discrimination.

We are talking here about the civil rights of our friends, our family, and public servants. In Pennsylvania, Dr. Rachel Levine, a transgender woman, served in the Governor's cabinet as Secretary for Health, and has recently been nominated by President Biden to serve as Assistant Health Secretary.

Mara Keisling, a Pennsylvania native, is the founder and Executive Director of the National Center for

Transgender Equality and a pioneer for civil rights protections.

Sarah McBride was recently sworn in as the first transgender Senator in the State of Delaware.

And of course, Pete Buttigieg was recently sworn in as the U.S. Secretary of Transportation, becoming the first openly gay cabinet member to be confirmed by the Senate.

Opponents of the Equality Act keep trying to pit cisgender girls against transgender girls, when really this legislation is about strengthening opportunity for all girls and women. Whether it is women's sports, single-sex colleges, or homeless services for women, the Equality Act simply prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in these areas. It doesn't undermine these institutions or prohibit them; it simply ensures that they are inclusive of all women and girls, including trans women and girls.

Support for this legislation is overwhelming and deserves an overwhelmingly positive response from this body. I encourage all of my colleagues to support the rule and underlying legislation, and further encourage the Senate to swiftly act to pass this bill so that we can finally provide firm, statutory protections to the LGBTQ community.

Next, Mr. Speaker, is H.R. 803, the Protecting America's Wilderness and Public Lands Act. This is a package of public bills from the Natural Resources Committee that will designate more than 1.5 million acres as wilderness areas, and more than 1,200 river miles into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

The bill would also withdraw more than 1.2 million acres of public land from new drilling and mining, ensuring that iconic landscapes like the Grand Canyon and Colorado's Thompson Divide are permanently protected for future generations to enjoy.

Few things in the United States are as universally cherished by Americans as are our public lands. Our country is home to more than 111 million acres of designated wilderness, and these lands help us combat climate change, provide for an array of ecological diversity, and offer recreational activities to Americans young and old.

As we continue to endure the devastating effects of climate change, providing for millions of additional acres of wilderness will allow for these areas to continue to serve as critical ``carbon sinks'' to capture and mitigate carbon dioxide in our atmosphere.

A similar version of this legislation passed the House last Congress, but this version includes a critical new piece from Natural Resources Committee Chairman Grijalva, the Grand Canyon Protection Act. This bill would permanently ban new mining claims on approximately one million acres of public land surrounding Grand Canyon National Park, while helping to protect the clean water resources critical to the livelihoods of local Tribal communities.

The Grand Canyon Protection Act was developed by Chairman Grijalva in close consultation with all of the relevant stakeholders in his district and serves to protect one of the most cherished places in the United States.

You may hear my colleague from Pennsylvania argue that this bill is nothing but a land grab, an attempt to subvert private industry. Of course, this couldn't be farther from the truth.

Mining, like every other industry, is subject to the whim of the free market. Historically, when the demand for these minerals has dropped, mining companies are all too prepared to skip town without cleaning up any of their mess.

This bill isn't about whether or not nuclear energy and its inputs will be part of our clean energy future, but if we want to ensure that it is, then I would recommend that we first start by supporting effective regulations on new and existing nuclear plants and their capabilities. The best way to ensure demand for a product is to similarly ensure that its user won't decide it isn't worth pursuing or is unaffordable.

The merits of nuclear energy aside, you can't deny that its use in this country is on the downswing or, at the very least, stagnant. This isn't due to over-regulation; it is due to under-regulation. It is due to massive cost overruns and incompetent government oversight.

The U.S. has had only one new nuclear reactor become operational in the last 20 years. This isn't because a mining company or two hasn't been afforded the opportunity to desecrate our national resources, but because the U.S. has not yet proven we can responsibly operate a nuclear plant that, from start to finish, is safe and has the trust of the American people.

Public lands do not belong to those only in the Congressional district in which they are located; they belong to all of us. Wilderness areas in the great State of Colorado belong to you and me as much as Independence Hall belongs to a native of Colorado. We all have a role to play in protecting these lands and seeking carveouts for mining companies is not the right way forward.

I want to especially thank my colleague, Congresswoman Diana DeGette, for her tireless and bipartisan work in getting this legislation to such a great place.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would just note for the record that over 20 States already have versions of this law, the Equality Act, with respect to participation in sports, as do the Olympics, and we have not seen the kind of behavior that has just been suggested.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. Speaker, I would just restate that this act does not take away any of the religious freedoms that are already enshrined in multiple laws. It does not change those laws.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the gentlewoman's question, with respect to the language in question, it has long been held by our courts that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act does not apply to civil rights laws.

The Equality Act looks to treat discrimination against LGBTQ individuals the same way as other forms of discrimination, including racial discrimination. So, these arguments just don't hold water.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would just note that what we saw in Texas this past week was a truly astonishing, unusual snowstorm with frigid cold conditions that are not normal--as the Speaker knows--in Texas, and that happens because of climate change.

Because we haven't done enough to protect our wilderness and to protect our environment, we end up with extreme climate events like we just saw, and this bill is a step toward redressing that imbalance.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

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

I would just note, as a parent, a former school board member, and education advocate, of course, we all want what is best for our students and what is best for our schools.

But I would also suggest that a one-size-fits-all, everybody has to go back in person to schools does not serve anybody well.

We have seen around the country--first of all, our schools in Pennsylvania are not closed. They are open. Some are virtual, some are hybrid, some are in person. But each community is doing what it needs to do in response to the conditions that are present at this time.

So I agree with my colleague on the Rules Committee that we absolutely need to get our school districts and our State and local governments the money they need to safely reopen schools, and we are looking forward to doing that with our reconciliation bill on Friday.

Mr. Speaker, I just inquire whether the gentleman from Pennsylvania is prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, today, we are moving forward on two pieces of legislation whose timely consideration is long overdue. And I would note that H.R. 5 did pass last Congress with a bipartisan majority.

So we are looking forward, at long last, to passing the Equality Act through both Chambers and removing the burden of discrimination that can move us closer to a country where members of the LGBTQ community have an equal opportunity to achieve the American Dream.

The Equality Act isn't going to be the end of our long journey toward full LGBTQ equality, but it will bring our laws into line across the country with values that our country was founded upon.

We must continually take steps to make our country more perfect. Acknowledging in law the challenges that actually face LGBTQ people and taking concrete action to correct them brings us another step closer.

Mr. Speaker, we will pass the Protecting America's Wilderness and Public Lands Act in order to ensure that the sacred lands that all Americans share equally cannot be tarnished for the benefit of a few.

We have a long way to go in addressing the myriad problems facing this country, but the two bills before us today are a strong and necessary start to helping our Nation live up to its full potential.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Reschenthaler is as follows:

Amendment to House Resolution 147

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 6. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the

House shall resolve into the Committee of the Whole House on

the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.

682) to encourage local educational agencies to resume in-

person instruction at elementary and secondary schools, and

for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be

dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of

the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the

bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and

controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the

Committee on Education and Labor. After general debate the

bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute

rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill are

waived. When the committee rises and reports the bill back to

the House with a recommendation that the bill do pass, the

previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill

and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening

motion except one motion to recommit. If the Committee of the

Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution on

the bill, then on the next legislative day the House shall,

immediately after the third daily order of business under

clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole

for further consideration of the bill.

Sec. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H.R. 682.

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

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 101 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), my colleague from the Committee on Rules, 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 be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

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

Madam Speaker, today, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 101, providing for adoption of S. Con. Res. 5, setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2021 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2022 through 2030.

Madam Speaker, I am, once again, on the floor today to urge my colleagues to adopt the rule and to support passage of this budget resolution.

Across our Nation, Americans are facing a dire crisis. Many have lost loved ones. Even more have lost livelihoods. Small businesses are shuttering their doors, hospitals are being pushed to their limits, and students are falling behind.

In the past year alone, Congress has taken steps to respond to the needs of struggling Americans, but I know that each and every one of my colleagues can agree that we have a long road yet to travel.

Passing this budget resolution is a necessary step to fast-track essential COVID relief, the American Rescue Plan.

I know the gentleman from Texas and many of his colleagues on the other side of the aisle have aired complaints about the process begun earlier this week. If these were normal times and if we were dealing with more mundane issues, I would share their concerns. I am a strong believer in bipartisanship, in compromise, and in regular order in the House and Senate. But these are certainly not normal times, and we are not dealing with mundane issues. We face the greatest crisis in our lifetime. Americans are counting on us, relying on us, and we have a moral imperative to save lives and families from destitution.

As of yesterday afternoon, 454,272 Americans have died from this tragic disease, a disease which has ripped a hole in millions of hearts that can never be repaired.

The victims of this disease have left spouses, children, grandchildren, parents, friends, neighbors, and people who needed them, who relied on them, and who loved them. Nothing we can do now will fix that. But we face the prospect of losing thousands more, and we can and must fix that.

This isn't just appropriate, this isn't just wise; this is a moral imperative.

Even families who have not lost a loved one have faced the disastrous consequences of the pandemic. Nearly 11 million Americans are unemployed, more than double the number before the spread of COVID-19. As a result, one in three American families have faced difficulty covering their regular household expenses, an estimated one in five adults are behind on rent, and 10.3 million homeowners are behind on their mortgages.

This isn't just desirable, this isn't just sensible; this is a moral imperative.

Parents in my district and in so many communities are struggling to put food on the table for their family. Nearly 24 million people, or nearly 11 percent of all adults in this country, have reported that their households sometimes, or often, didn't have enough to eat in the past 7 days. Before the pandemic, the Department of Agriculture found that number was fewer than 3.5 percent over the full 12 months of 2019.

This isn't just advisable, this isn't just constructive; this is a moral imperative.

So let's talk about what we are going to do to rise to this challenge. We are moving forward with the budget reconciliation process to ensure that Congress can pass meaningful coronavirus relief without delay or partisan gridlock. The budget resolution before us provides a framework for reconciliation with a target of up to $1.9 trillion. It is designed solely to respond to the ongoing crisis and to deliver critical relief as quickly as possible.

This will enable us to finally beat this virus and continue on the path of a national economic recovery. We will mount a national vaccination program, setting up vaccination sites in communities across the country. We will invest in reopening schools and provide direct housing and nutrition assistance to families in need.

The American Rescue Plan will also provide direct assistance to Americans, stimulus payments, including assistance for dependents. We will also provide crucial support for the hardest hit small businesses, as well as first responders and frontline workers, who have done so much to turn back the tide of this virus.

But without the reconciliation directives in this resolution, any bold action could languish indefinitely in the Senate, putting the health and well-being of millions of American families at risk.

For those concerned about the national debt or possibility of future inflation, I urge them to heed the advice from Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, a Republican appointed by President Trump to the Federal Reserve chairmanship, when he warned us to be more worried about falling short of a complete recovery and losing people's careers and lives and the damage that will do to our economic future.

Moving forward with budget reconciliation does not preclude a strong bipartisan agreement on a relief package that can gain wide support in both the House and the Senate. In fact, there is no need for partisanship on this issue.

While it seems we may be divided today in this Chamber, the American people clearly are not. The overwhelming majority, including a majority of Republicans across this country, support passage of emergency legislation, including stimulus payments, vaccine funding, and other pandemic responses in this plan.

This is not a partisan issue because it is not only red or blue families, but families of all political persuasions that are struggling, and I am certain my colleagues in the minority know that all too well.

I urge Members of this House to support this budget resolution so we can immediately get to work on this desperately needed American Rescue Plan. It is our moral imperative.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Just a couple of brief points. First, as it relates to the amount of discussion about this, we debated this resolution with few changes earlier this week on Wednesday. We had a lengthy conversation. We are discussing it again now.

If we are successful in passing this resolution, it will go to the appropriate standing committees for their markup on the various allocations in this resolution, and then it will come back here for passage again.

So I think it is fair to say from a process point of view that we will have plenty of opportunities to make our arguments in front of the American public and let them decide on the appropriateness of our actions.

But I would hardly say that there isn't going to be ample time to have these conversations and make these distinctions if that is what we choose to do.

Just a brief word on the minimum wage. I hope we come back to it. I had the privilege of leading the debate on the rule when we increased the minimum wage in this House last year. If you make the minimum wage in the United States--the Federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. So if you work an entire 40-hour week you will make $290 gross. If you work 52 weeks out of the year at that level, you will make $15,080 for a year gross income.

So do we think Americans who work 40 hours a week for 52 weeks a year should make more than $15,000 a year? Yes, we do. Guilty as charged. And we can have that conversation either in reconciliation, should that be the desire of the committees and the Senate, but we will certainly have it again on this floor because it is part of what we believe and the values that we hold dear as the majority in this House.

As it relates to the bipartisanship, we have said before, I said it earlier, Chairman Yarmuth said it repeatedly, we are happy and want to have a conversation about a bipartisan agreement. But whether we have a bipartisan agreement or not, we are going to move forward.

President Biden met with the 10 members of the United States Senate just earlier this week to talk about compromise. He has signaled repeatedly his willingness to do it. But we are going to do it with or without a bipartisan agreement because leadership is what this moment requires.

I dare say, I imagine there are not many families in America who really at the end of the day care more about how we put this deal together than they care about getting a stimulus check to pay their rent; that they care about their children being safe when they go back to school; that they care

about unemployment benefits, if they happen to be one of the nearly 11 million Americans who was out of work through no fault of their own but because of a deadly virus which doesn't care whether you are a Democrat or a Republican.

So we are going to provide leadership and, frankly, I think it is probably surprising to some to see a President engaged in the daily activities in the life of his government and the life of our country, someone who cares deeply about the future of America, who cares about the families who are in need, who cares about those who are sick, those who are dying.

So that may be surprising. It is a little out of the norm in recent years, but we have a President who is fully engaged. Bipartisanship is what he has asked for. Bipartisanship is what he has talked about. It is what we seek here. But absent it, we will lead because too many Americans are suffering and in crisis.

With that, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Oregon an additional 1 minute.

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

I first welcome the gentlewoman from Florida to the House, and I look forward to many opportunities to work together in a bipartisan fashion. I would note that one of the very first things we did in this House was the bipartisan passage of Public Law 117-1, which was paving the way for an historic appointment of Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin. So we have worked together, and I think we will find common purpose on so many things facing the American public. And I certainly hope we find commonality and purpose in this work that we will do over the next several days to work on support, in the most difficult of times, for American families.

Because I have heard this now said so many times in the last few days about a trillion dollars that the Biden administration has not spent, I would say, first of all, if anyone in a period of 2 weeks could spend a trillion dollars, I would find that remarkable.

The second is, this is in the pipeline. And we don't wait for every dollar to be spent and then think about having another debate about further support.

There is nothing about this that I find extraordinary. What I do find extraordinary is that you point out that money that has been appropriated, is earmarked, and is moving out the door in appropriate ways and going through the proper channels, and that would be a point of debate and argument.

This is necessary. We have heard it from so many leading economists around this country. We have heard it from the American public. So I think the case is clear, and I look forward to further discussion on this.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the great State of New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. To the new Member, I also welcome her to the Chambers and I look forward to working with her on important issues, such as education.

It should not need to be said, but I will say it: This package has billions of dollars that will support education and schools. So pass this resolution. There is no need to substitute it.

I would look just to my home State of New York, which has lost $15 billion in revenue as a result of this pandemic. And I know a little bit about this. I served in that State legislature for many years. The State of New York provides the highest level of support per capita of a State to its local school districts of any State in the Union. So not helping local school districts, not helping our States provide lost revenue in support, damages, irreparably, the children in our K-12 across our country.

So pass this resolution. Work with us to make sure that we can provide support for our local school districts.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from the State of California (Mr. Bera).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker of the House.

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

Madam Speaker, I would note, and I am sure the gentleman knows this, he mentioned appropriations in this bill. Obviously, there are no appropriations in this bill.

This sets up a reconciliation process, and we would certainly welcome his input and welcome the support and partnership of Members on his side of the aisle.

But I do want to make clear this is a process resolution. It begins the process. We will come back and have conversations in the standing committees and, certainly, again on the floor as we move forward.

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 from Texas. Though from time to time we may disagree on questions before the House, I always find him very thoughtful, committed American. I am pleased to serve with him on the Rules Committee and pleased that we have had an opportunity to have this conversation this morning.

Madam Speaker, budgets are not exclusively about numbers or process. They are, most importantly, a statement of our priorities and our values.

Our priorities are clear. Stop this virus. Help our families. Our values are to respond to the critical needs of the American people, and that is what we do today.

We will continue to work through this over the next several weeks, and I very much appreciate all of my colleagues for their words in support of the rule before us today.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and a ``yes'' vote on the previous question.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 85 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), my 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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, today the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 85, providing for consideration of H.R. 447, the National Apprenticeship Act of 2021, under a structured rule.

The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Education and Labor. The rule self-executes a manager's amendment by Chairman Scott, makes in order 26 amendments, provides en bloc authority to Chairman Scott, and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of H. Con. Res. 11 under a closed rule. It self-executes a manager's amendment by Chairman Yarmuth. It also provides 3 hours of debate with 2 hours equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget and 1 hour equally divided and controlled by Representatives Beyer of Virginia and Schweikert of Arizona, or their respective designees.

The rule also provides that H. Res. 73 is hereby adopted. The rule updates the process by which Members can appeal fines for refusing to wear a mask or for taking photographs or recording audio or video on the House floor to align with the Ethics Committee appeal procedures established in H. Res. 73.

Finally, the rule extends standard district work period instructions, same day, and suspension authority through March 12, 2021.

Mr. Speaker, the National Apprenticeship Act is critical workforce development legislation that will invest $3.5 billion to create nearly 1 million new apprenticeship opportunities over the next 5 years. This is a history investment in workforce training, and I am so pleased to support this effort.

Skilled workers are the backbone of our economy. And apprenticeships provide a unique opportunity to grow and expand access to this workforce.

Not only do apprenticeship programs provide pathways to meaningful and sustainable careers, they are critical to expanding our Nation's skilled workforce. When I meet with local businesses in my district in Rochester, New York, I regularly hear that their greatest challenge is finding skilled labor to fill positions and keep their businesses thriving.

Apprenticeships provide an invaluable pathway to engage workers, establish connections with high-demand industries, and set workers on a path to a rewarding and sustainable career.

I note that as the son of an individual who dropped out of high school at the age of 16, my dad, after service in Korea in the United States Army, came home and got involved in an apprenticeship for the Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 13 Union and had a long, long career where he retired at the age of 70 after having supported a family of seven. What was directly responsible for that was the apprenticeship program and his ability to build that sustained career.

I am particularly proud that a bill I introduced with my colleague, Congresswoman Trahan, has been included in the text of the National Apprenticeship Act. Our bill helps scale up participation among populations not typically engaged in apprenticeships, particularly small- and medium-sized businesses, and together we can create new opportunities in high-demand industries.

Now, more than ever, these programs are critical to grapple with the long-term economic impacts of COVID-19.

This week we will also begin the next phase of addressing the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic through H. Con. Res. 11, a budget resolution for fiscal year 2021. Passing this budget resolution is a necessary step to fast-track essential COVID relief, the American Rescue Plan.

This plan will deliver the direct support the American public needs, including a national vaccination program, direct aid to individuals and families, housing and nutrition assistance, and expansion and extension of unemployment insurance, small business assistance, and resources to protect first responders and frontline workers.

Our Nation has endured an unprecedented health and economic crisis which has now claimed the lives of nearly half a million Americans. After 11 months, far too many Americans are still barely scraping by or falling further behind, through no fault of their own, as they lose jobs or see smaller paychecks. We need immediate, bold action to change the course of the virus and stabilize our economy.

Beginning the budget reconciliation process does not preclude a strong bipartisan agreement on a relief package that can gain wide support in both the House and the Senate. Let me repeat that. It does not preclude a strong, bipartisan agreement on a relief package that can gain wide support in our House and across the building in the Senate. But it does ensure that Congress will be able to move forward without becoming delayed by partisan gridlock at a time when so many lives and livelihoods are at stake.

The budget resolution before us provides a framework for reconciliation with a target of up to $1.9 trillion, allocated across 12 congressional committees. The resolution instructs these committees to report legislation consistent with their targets to the Budget Committee by February 16. The Budget Committee will then combine the legislation--without substantive revision--and prepare it for floor consideration.

The 2021 budget resolution is not a comprehensive blueprint for the next 10 years. It is designed solely to respond to the ongoing crisis and to deliver critical relief as quickly as possible.

Once we have finished the work of passing a complete COVID response package, I look forward to continuing our work on the Budget Committee to craft a complete forward-looking budget resolution for fiscal year 2022.

We have already lost so much time. Passing this resolution ensures that relief can get to Americans in need, who cannot wait another minute for help.

Mr. Speaker, I would also take a moment to recognize that, less than 1 month ago, this Chamber was besieged by antidemocracy extremists who intended to harm this institution and even kill some of our colleagues.

The rule provides penalties for any Member of the House who endangers colleagues by violating the rules of this Chamber. Members are not, under any circumstances, permitted to bring firearms on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. That has been in law and regulation since 1967.

As President Ronald Reagan said: ``Trust, but verify.''

Mr. Speaker, with that in mind, there should be no problem with requiring Members to walk through metal detectors into the Chamber, ensuring that everyone is following the same rules, ensuring the safety of each and every Member of this body, and ensuring that many members of our staff who work here day in and day out are protected.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this rule and H. Con. Res. 11 and the National Apprenticeship Act.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I first want to say to the distinguished gentleman, my friend: These are not partisan priorities; these are American priorities.

I doubt very much that most Americans care about the process we use as they struggle to feed their families or as they struggle to pay their rent each month, when they face unemployment that could be extended. But here is an opportunity for us to work together. This is the beginning of the process, and we will continue to encourage bipartisan discussion on a budget resolution that provides meaningful relief for millions of Americans affected by this virus.

As it relates to the National Apprenticeship Act, I would also suggest that this is a bipartisan bill. I can name the Members of my colleagues across the aisle: Mr. Fitzpatrick; Mr. McKinley; Members Bacon and Bost; my friend, Rodney Davis, from Illinois; John Katko, whose district abuts mine; Andy Garbarino, my friend from New York; Representatives Stauber, Kinzinger, Stivers--all Republicans who support and sponsor the National Apprenticeship Act. So this is a bipartisan bill, and I will continue to advocate for its passage.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will admit that there are few people I respect more than my distinguished colleague and friend from the Rules Committee, the ranking member, Mr. Cole.

But I think as it relates to the budget, as I understand it, the Budget Committee chair, Mr. Yarmuth, has continued to extend an invitation to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to work together.

And we do want to work together. We want to forge a bipartisan agreement. This today begins a process, however, that can move us toward reconciliation because we understand that the American people are in crisis. America is in crisis.

So while we need to move ahead, and we would like to move ahead with a bipartisan agreement, we cannot sit idly by in the instance that progress is not made.

I think it was President Kennedy in his inauguration, nearly 60 years ago, who said, ``Sincerity is always subject to proof.'' So prove to us your sincerity. Let's work together. And in the interim, we are going to move ahead with this resolution with the support of the Members, and I certainly hope that they will do that.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, to the gentleman's point, I appreciate the passion with which the distinguished ranking member of the Budget Committee makes his argument, but why are we moving ahead, he asked.

Why we are moving ahead today?

The President ran on this very relief agenda and won the popular vote in the United States by more than 8 million votes. We are moving ahead because elections do matter, and the argument that President Biden made is that this country needed swift, significant, and robust relief. That is why we are moving ahead.

Now, I will continue to say--and I am sure my colleagues will continue to say--that the Democrat majority invites bipartisan conversation. We would invite all the Members on the other side to come together in a meaningful way to talk about unemployment insurance for the millions of Americans who are out of work, through no fault of their own--millions.

Hundreds of thousands are filing every week for the first time. Millions of Americans don't have enough food on the table. One out of every eight Americans are saying they don't have enough money for food to put on the table.

This is for the millions of Americans who don't have enough money to pay their rent or pay their mortgage, and for the millions of small businesses--or the tens of thousands of small businesses struggling every single week, again, through no fault of their own.

Why are we moving ahead today?

Because there is no more time left on the clock. We need to move ahead in order to provide the substantial relief.

I would also suggest that those who will say that this is too expensive, you only look to find economists all over this country beginning with the head of the Federal Reserve, Jerome Powell, who was appointed by the President to his position, who has consistently said that the worst thing we can do is make too small of an investment. We must

make a robust investment. It is what President Bident talked about repeatedly through this campaign.

There is no hidden agenda here. This is, in fact, the agenda that was talked about repeatedly throughout the campaign. The American public resoundingly responded to the package that the President has now put forward, the package which we would like to take up. We would certainly like to do it with our brothers and sisters on the other side of the aisle, but we are prepared, if not, to respond to the needs of millions of Americans who are in crisis.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Once again, I just say that those Americans who are watching what we do here today and over the next several days, they are going to be asking the question: What are you doing in Washington that will help the average man or woman and child who suffers the ravages of this disease and the economic fallout?

When I talk to people in Rochester, New York--and I am sure when each of us goes back to our home districts--people aren't asking about the nuance of legislative procedures. They are asking about what the government is going to do for them as we face the greatest pandemic in a century and the greatest economic challenge in nearly a century both at the same time. We have so many other challenges as well, but the House of Representatives is going to move forward. This resolution does that. It says that we will certainly encourage bipartisan agreements, bipartisan conversations, and bipartisan action.

The President's conversations with members of the Senate yesterday indicate his willingness to do that. But we cannot wait. We have waited far too long. Too many Americans have died and too many families have faced the crisis of their lifetimes because of the inaction here in Washington. So we must move ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their support of the rule before us today. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and a ``yes'' vote on the previous question.

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

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 198 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), 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.

Madam Speaker, today, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 198, providing for a motion to concur with the Senate amendment to H.R. 1319, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021.

The rule provides 2 hours of debate on the motion, equally divided and controlled by the chairs and ranking minority members of the Committees on Budget and Ways and Means.

Madam Speaker, a once-in-a-century pandemic brought us the need to act, and a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President have seized the moment, not as a chance to help big corporations or the already well-off, as those on the other side have done over and over again, but as an opportunity to invest in our workers, our students, our communities, and the very people who need help the most.

More than 18 million Americans are receiving unemployment benefits today. Nearly 24 million adults are going hungry. Roughly 12 million children are living in households with food insecurity. Up to 40 million people cannot afford to pay rent and fear eviction. Over 2 million women have been forced to leave the workforce. Eight of 10 minority businesses are on the brink of closure. That is what COVID has wrought in America today.

This is more than a Band-Aid; this is a lifeline, Madam Speaker. It will put more vaccines in arms, put more kids back safely in schools, put more money in people's pockets, and put more people back to work. It is hard to overstate just how important this is.

This bill, Madam Speaker, attacks inequality and poverty in ways we haven't seen in a generation. This legislation makes the biggest investments in our workers and our middle class that I have seen in my two-and-a-half decades of service here.

Make no mistake, I am disappointed to see the cut in the unemployment insurance made over in the Senate, and we are going to keep fighting to raise the minimum wage so that no one who works full time lives in poverty. We are going to keep focusing on the hunger crisis in this country until we end it once and for all. These should be fundamental priorities of the wealthiest nation on the planet.

But let's be clear. Today, we are on the doorstep of history. We are about to send the most sweeping and progressive economic investment in modern times to the President of the United States: $1,400 in direct payments, a historic child allowance, school infrastructure, an expansion of the Affordable Care Act, student loan relief, billions in rental assistance, aid that will cut child poverty in half, and I could go on and on and on.

Everything included in this final package is necessary to crush the virus and revitalize our economy.

As I have noted, I have been in Congress for more than 20 years, but this, Madam Speaker, this is among my proudest moments.

I want to thank our distinguished Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and my fellow committee chairs who worked so hard on this bill. I want to thank Budget Committee Chair Yarmuth and all of my colleagues here in the House for getting us to this point.

Democrats on both sides of the Capitol, together with the Biden administration, have crafted something historic. In 1 day, with a single vote in favor of this bill, we will change the lives of millions of Americans for the better.

For all of our important work, day in and day out, we don't get many chances like this. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in voting for this rule and the underlying rescue plan.

Let us rise and meet this moment, and let's send this historic bill to the President's desk for his signature.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an article that appeared in Politico entitled, `` `Check Partisanship At the Door': Biden finds GOP allies for rescue money.''

[From Politico, Mar. 5, 2021]

`Check Partisanship at the Door': Biden Finds GOP Allies for Rescue

Money

(By Kellie Mejdrich)

Republicans in Congress attacking President Joe Biden's

plan to pour hundreds of billions of dollars in pandemic

relief aid into local governments are facing resistance--from

GOP-run states and cities.

Republican mayors in Texas, Arizona, Florida and Oklahoma

are among those backing Biden's state and local government

funding plan as part of the $1.9 trillion coronavirus aid

bill that's before the Senate, defying GOP lawmakers in

Washington, who are broadly resisting the spending.

``In a crisis and an emergency, you check partisanship at

the door, and you get through the crisis,'' said John Giles,

the Republican mayor of Mesa, Ariz. ``You can get back to

playing politics when the crisis is over. And so this is one

of those times.''

The clash between local and national Republicans is a rare

public division in a party that has generally been united in

opposition to policies being pushed by Biden and Democrats in

control of Congress. It's a breach that Biden and House

Speaker Nancy Pelosi have gone out of their way to exploit as

the coronavirus legislation enters the final stretch.

Lawmakers including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell

of Kentucky, Sens. Rick Scott and Marco Rubio of Florida, and

Ted Cruz of Texas have been among the most vocal national

Republicans in rejecting the aid, calling it a ``bailout'' of

what they say are poorly run Democratic states and arguing

that state budgets fared much better than expected during the

pandemic. They also say that a good chunk of the money doled

out to the states by Congress last year remains unspent.

McConnell slammed the relief package in his opening remarks

Friday, calling it ``an ideological spending spree packed

with non-Covid-related policies'' and panning the $350

billion targeted for state governments as a ``massive cash

bailout for mismanaged state and local governments.''

But Giles and other mayors say their residents are locked

in a struggle to fill pantries with food as municipal

reserves and other dedicated funds are running dry.

``There has been an overwhelming backlash from our

Republican congressmen and senators because of how much money

is in this bill,'' said Arlington, Texas, Mayor Jeff

Williams. ``For us, the reality is the need is very much here

for cities.''

Williams said that when he talks with his counterparts in

Washington he tells them ``we have seen the great economists

of our country all come together'' in support of these

additional funds for state and local governments.

He also draws on comments by Federal Reserve Chair Jerome

Powell. While Powell hasn't taken a specific position on

state aid or the coronavirus legislation itself, he has often

spoken of the drag on the economy from the loss of more than

a million state government jobs during the pandemic.

Biden underlined the conflict within the party by inviting

a bipartisan group of governors and mayors to the White House

last month to discuss local funding issues. Pelosi late last

month said Republicans in Congress were choosing to ``mock''

the aid package despite its broad support, citing a

bipartisan letter signed by mayors across the country

requesting more aid--including signatures from more than 30

Republicans.

Miami Mayor Francis Suarez, a Republican who attended the

White House meeting, told POLITICO, ``We're hoping that it

doesn't become a partisan punching bag.'' He said he hoped

that ``hearing from local officials that are on the ground,

day in and day out, will be something that motivates elected

officials from both parties'' to support the funding.

GOP lawmakers say that a surge in tax revenue for most

states following last year's massive aid packages makes more

help unnecessary now. But while the financial picture is

brighter than many officials projected, some of the states

hardest hit by the pandemic are represented by these

lawmakers.

A recent report from Moody's Analytics showed that five of

the 10 states with the biggest budget shortfalls are

Louisiana, Oklahoma, Alaska, Florida and Kansas. They were

among 19 states where Moody's identified looming budget

shortfalls even after accounting for federal aid and local

reserves. Ten of the 19 are represented by at least one GOP

senator.

``It would be a dereliction of duty for me not to try to

fight for $116 million that would allow us to restore our

police, fire and other core services,'' said Oklahoma City

Mayor David Holt, a Republican.

City and county leaders are amplifying calls for support

because the new bill sets aside more than $100 billion for

municipal and county governments--just over $120 billion in a

``local fiscal recovery fund,'' according to the latest

Senate version of the bill.

So while just 38 cities got funding in the first round in

March, the United States Conference of Mayors estimates the

new formula expands eligibility to 19,000 cities, towns and

villages. That's why more than 30 Republican mayors signed on

to the letter in support of the package last month that

Pelosi touted, with Giles, Holt, Suarez and Williams among

them.

Giles said the city of Mesa was lucky enough to get $90

million in the first round of aid, but added, ``We could have

turned in twice that much in receipts that were tied to virus

relief; our expenses have gone higher.''

``Because we're in the food bank business, we're in the

buying laptop computers for school business, we're in the

rent, utility business. We're doing all of these things that

we weren't doing a year and a half ago,'' he said.

Even some Republican governors have publicly vouched for

the plan, including Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas and Larry

Hogan of Maryland, citing the financial stakes ahead.

Meanwhile, 22 Republican governors in a statement issued at

the end of February criticized Biden's funding plan--but only

because their states will see a smaller share of the direct

grant funding compared to what Congress sent them in March.

``The new stimulus proposal allocates aid based on a

state's unemployed population rather than its actual

population, which punishes states that took a measured

approach to the pandemic and entered the crisis with healthy

state budgets and strong economies,'' read the statement,

whose signatories included Republican Governors Ron Desantis

of Florida, Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma and Doug Ducey of

Arizona.

Many of Florida's tourism-dependent cities have taken a

financial beating, and the state faces a big shortfall for

the coming budget year. Local media reported last month that

the state deficit was estimated at $2 billion.

Yet the same day that Miami's Suarez traveled to Washington

to discuss local funding with the president, Republican Sen.

Scott slammed Biden's proposed aid package for the states in

an editorial, saying the money would be used to ``bail out

fiscally irresponsible governors in New York and Illinois.''

Rubio, Florida's other Republican senator, has also spoken

critically of more local aid, saying that some states ``see

this as the latest opportunity to get bailed out.''

But even with better outcomes for states overall, state and

local government employment still hasn't recovered from the

pandemic downturn. The latest Bureau of Labor Statistics data

show that they are still down about 1.4 million jobs from a

year ago--about 1 million of which are in education.

Teryn Zmuda, chief economist of the National Association of

Counties, said states do need the help.

``Local government specifically is down 1 million of those

10 million jobs that the nation is short right now,'' Zmuda

said. ``So, aid to local governments will get those 1 million

workers back in the workforce.''

Madam Speaker, I raise that because the only place where this bill isn't bipartisan is here in Washington. Republican mayors and Republican Governors all across the country want this bill. Seventy percent of the American people want this bill. But here in Washington, my Republican friends think they know better than their constituents. They have what we call Potomac fever or they have gone Washington on their constituents.

The bottom line is people back home need help. People back home are struggling, businesses back home have been devastated because of this pandemic. This is a bill designed to help the American people.

Before I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut, we are about to be treated to a little bit of theatrics, and I understand that they want to delay the passage of this bill and bring up an alternative, a bill that they claim is going to help our schools but provides no new funding.

What we are doing here, Madam Speaker, is we are not only providing funding to help our schools reopen safely, we are also providing money to help those who are unemployed, to help those who are hungry, to help our cities and towns that are on the verge of laying off first responders.

In a moment, everybody in this House needs to stand and be counted; and on this side of the aisle--and I hope some of my Republican friends will join with us--we are going to stand with the people. We are going to stand with the people.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the distinguished chairwoman of the Committee on Appropriations.

Madam Speaker, I will not yield for that purpose. All time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.