Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, every generation or so, our country is challenged with a fight. It is a fight in which we

invariably line up on the side of freedom, of liberty, of the right of all individuals to make their own decisions, to not be told by dictators or by mullahs or by totalitarians what to think, how to pray, or who will lead them--every generation.

My generation was 9/11 when we were brutally attacked by extremists who hated our way of life; my grandparents' generation was the Cold War in which we stood against totalitarianism and communism in Europe and elsewhere; my great-grandparents' generation was World War II in which we stood up to fascism--always on the side of freedom, always on the side of liberty.

While we don't always get it precisely right, and the cost in blood and treasure has often been horrendous, we are invariably there. We have stood against the odds for freedom and democracy.

Now we waver. This generation, now we waver.

Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago, something that we didn't imagine we would ever see again: Russia invades a sovereign country, crosses a border with tanks. Now we waver.

Our parents and our grandparents, who fought those wars and the Cold War against Nazism, are saying: What is wrong with you? What has become of the instinct to stand for freedom and democracy?

Mr. Speaker, we hear these objections about the border over and over again. My Republican friends are right about the border. We need to move.

By the way, we did move. We had a bipartisan agreement supported by Republicans in the Senate, and the Republicans in the House said no.

Do you know what, Mr. Speaker? This country, this body, can do more than one thing at the same time. We can stand for freedom and democracy and fix the border. Do not tell me that we choose between the two.

We hear that the objectives in Ukraine are unclear. The objectives are as clear as can be. We will sustain this fight until Vladimir Putin realizes it is too expensive for him to stay in that fight.

We hear that the Ukrainians are corrupt. We didn't hear that about our Afghan allies or about our Iraqi allies, but we hear that about the Ukrainians.

Meanwhile, China, North Korea, and Iran are watching. What they are seeing is that Republicans--forget about loss of life--if it is a little bit of money, we don't sustain the fight.

Do you think President Xi is not watching this moment carefully? Can you imagine what the implications are down the road for Taiwan?

Failure to respond to Russian aggression will be something that we pay the cost for in years to come. A leader of this body said it: A failure to respond to that aggression ``empowers other dictators, other terrorists and tyrants around the world, because if they perceive that America is weak or unable to act decisively, then it invites aggression in many different ways.''

That was Speaker Johnson, the leader of this body.

Mr. Speaker, in 1938, Neville Chamberlain, British Prime Minister, went to Munich, where a bunch of us just were, and he appeased. He came back to England and said, I have achieved ``peace for our time.''

Of course, that was not true; that was appeasement. As a result, the name ``Neville Chamberlain'' stands in history for the legacy of appeasement.

Is that the legacy that you want for yourselves? Do we want to abandon, for the first time in hundreds of years, our tradition of standing for democracy and freedom? I don't think so.

Maybe you do. Maybe you do because Donald Trump wants that to happen.

At least bring the bipartisan Senate bill to the floor so that those who are infused with the legacy of this country's fight for freedom, and not infused by doing whatever Donald Trump demands of us on this particular day, can stand up for what this American country has always stood for.

Bring the Senate bill to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the service of Master Sergeant Kevin Johnson, Sr.

Originally of Philadelphia, MSG Johnson enlisted in the Army in 1984, marking the beginning of his lifelong career in service to his country. After completing basic training at Ft. Jackson in South Carolina, MSG Johnson went on to Advanced Individual Training at Ft. Gordon, Georgia and later participated in the Home Town Recruiting Assistance Program where he helped to recruit 10 soldiers and prepare them for entry into the Army by assisting them to pass their ASVAB tests and improve their physical fitness.

MSG Johnson would go on to serve in several different posts including as a Station Technical Controller in Germany with the 581st Signal Company and as a member of the White House Communications Agency where he supported the critical Direct Communication Link between the White House and the Kremlin during an era of heightened diplomatic relations between the Soviet Union and United States.

Later in his career, MSG Johnson transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve, proudly serving with the 80th division for 25 years during which he dedicated himself to training new soldiers, first as a Drill Sergeant and then as a Senior Drill Sergeant with B Company in Suffolk, VA. Deploying with the 80th during Operation Iraqi Freedom, he served as a Platoon Sergeant for the 3rd Iraqi Army Division Basic Combat Training.

Holder of multiple professional certifications in IT and Telecommunications, MSG Johnson has spent his career preparing generations of soldiers for the tasks they face during deployment and building upon his own education to ensure his instruction is of the highest quality possible. Throughout his service, MSG Johnson received a number of awards including the Meritorious Service Medal, the Army Commendation Medal, and the Army Achievement Medal.

The proud father to Kevin Jr., Yasmeen, Courtney, and Kazmir I and husband to Tiniko Johnson, MSG Johnson is a shining example of dedication to service and patriotism. I extend my most sincere thank you to MSG Johnson and his family for their sacrifice and commend him for a career of selflessness.

Mr. Speaker, maybe I can help my confused friend from New York so that he might understand what is at stake here and why Democrats are going to vote ``no.''

I stand here with some trepidation because, for a decade and a half, I have stood here and proudly voted to support Israel, and Israel has been attacked. I know that we will pass Israel aid.

Make no mistake, what we are seeing today is a profoundly cynical political maneuver. For my friend from New York, let me explain it.

Mr. Calvert, Ms. DeLauro, and I were in the White House when the Speaker--all of 2 days as Speaker of the House--looked at the National Security Advisor and said that we will do border first, Ukraine, Taiwan, and Israel. He demanded that. The White House said, no, we shouldn't bind those things up because that creates the possibility that we don't get any of that done.

Then, we made very real progress. We have a bipartisan package that does all of those things. It counters Putin's murderousness in Ukraine, supports Taiwan, stands with Israel, and provides humanitarian aid. It offers a once-in-a-generation opportunity to do a border and immigration deal, an immigration deal that the Border Patrol union has endorsed.

My Republican colleagues trot out the Border Patrol every day and say, look at these poor guys.

The Border Patrol union has endorsed this bill. This should pass. It is a historic opportunity to stand up for what we believe as Americans, but then something happened. Donald Trump called.

Donald Trump called the Speaker, and the Speaker said it. He said, we know how he feels about Ukraine. He said, don't do the border deal, a border deal negotiated with one of the most conservative Senators in the United States Senate.

Mr. Calvert, Ms. DeLauro, and I heard Mitch McConnell say: This is a better deal than we get if Donald Trump is President and we have the House and the Senate, but Donald Trump called.

I need to put another name out there: Neville Chamberlain, 1938, ``peace for our time'' because he kowtowed to a dictator. That is what is at stake.

We will hang the legacy of Neville Chamberlain around our necks if we don't seize this historic opportunity to do a comprehensive security bill and reject this political cynical maneuver.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Jeffrey S. Ramer for his contributions to the Town of Greenwich and service on the Board of Estimate and Taxation (BET).

Jeff has been a trusted member of the Greenwich community for over 50 years. As a Board Member, Jeff spent countless volunteer hours on behalf of the Town of Greenwich. He served for 16 years on the BET, including 10 years on the Budget Committee as well as time on the Audit Committee, Law Committee and Policies & Procedures Committee.

Jeff's work on behalf of Greenwich included bringing the original federal court action to shut down the Cos Cob Power Plant. These efforts ultimately led to the Town's purchase of the property and the creation of Cos Cob Park that provides access to recreation and entertainment for all in the community.

Jeff has served as a distinguished public servant and member of the community. Outside of Town government, Jeff served on the Board of Directors of the Greenwich United Way twice over the course of 30 years and was a trustee of Greenwich Library, president of the Riverside Association, a PTA president twice and served on committees at First Congregational Church.

As Congressman for Connecticut's Fourth District, I have had the pleasure of working with Jeff and have seen firsthand how he has served as a leader and advocate for the people of Greenwich. As Jeff moves on from the BET, I thank him for all that he has done to improve our community for generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Laura Erickson for her contributions to the Town of Greenwich and service on the Board of Estimate and Taxation (BET).

Laura has been a trusted member of the Greenwich community for over 30 years. As a Board Member, she spent countless volunteer hours on behalf of the Town of Greenwich. Laura has served on the BET since 2019, where she was a member of the Budget and Audit Committees and served as the BET's liaison to the Department of Public Works, the Nathaniel Witherell skilled nursing facility, and information technology/cybersecurity.

Laura has long been a distinguished public servant committed to expanding educational opportunities for all. Prior to her time on the BET, she served on the Greenwich Board of Education for four years from November 2013 to November 2017, a tenure that included being Chair of the Board during two budget cycles. While on the Board of Education, Laura served on the New Lebanon School and MISA Building Committees and chaired both the Superintendent Search Committee and the Budget Committee. Laura is currently a board member of the Norwalk Community College Foundation and has previously served as a board member of the Greenwich Alliance for Education and the Greenwich United Way.

As Congressman for Connecticut's Fourth District, I have had the pleasure of working with Laura and have seen firsthand her leadership and advocacy for our community. As Laura moves on from the BET, I thank her for her dedication and public service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Miriam Kreuzer for her contributions to the Town of Greenwich and her service on the Board of Estimate and Taxation (BET).

Miriam has been a trusted member of the Greenwich community for over 13 years. As a Board Member, Miriam spent countless volunteer hours on behalf of the Town of Greenwich. She served for four years on the BET, where she was a part of the Investment Advisory and Human Resources Committees and served on the First Selectman's Havemeyer Committee, the Hamill Rink RFP Committee and as a liaison to Parks and Recreation.

Throughout her time as a distinguished public servant, she applied her deep knowledge of the financial markets to various important roles in Town government, including six years as liaison to the Retirement Board and 18 months as a member of the Town's Other Post-Employment Benefits Board, which oversees investments for the health care plan for municipal retirees.

As Congressman for Connecticut's Fourth District, I have had the pleasure of working with Miriam and I have seen firsthand how she has served as an advocate and leader for the people of Greenwich. As she moves on from the BET, I thank her for all that she has done to strengthen our community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today alongside my fellow U.K. Caucus Co-Chairs, Mr. Derek Kilmer of Washington, Mr. Joe Wilson of South Carolina, and Mr. David Rouzer of North Carolina, to recognize the invaluable service of Lina Dakheel, who has served as the Senior Congressional Advisor at the British Embassy in Washington, D.C. for the past five years. Throughout her tenure, Lina has personified the Special Relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom with her tireless work, diligent commitment, and dedication to public service.

As one of our key liaisons with the United Kingdom, Lina has facilitated bipartisan engagement with Congressional members and all levels of the British Government, from Prime Ministers to Cabinet Ministers, Members of Parliament, and members of the Royal Family. Through two Presidential Administrations and three Prime Ministers, Lina has led the British Embassy's Congressional operations, ensuring we in the United States remain well connected with our allies across the Atlantic. Lina has been steadfast in ensuring the highest diplomatic channels between our two countries remain open and well-used for the range of issues covered by the U.S.-UK relationship.

The Special Relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom remains special thanks to the work of public servants like Lina Dakheel. We in Congress will miss her work at the Embassy and wish her the best in her future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, I just reemphasize what the ranking member said. We had a robust conversation about 702 this week, and there should be more robust conversation. What is completely intolerable is the notion that the authority should be allowed to expire.

As ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, by God, let's reform it, but do not let it expire. If it expires, Americans and allies will die.

I rise in support of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2024 and congratulate the chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee for their constructive work on this legislation which advances our national security. The partnership between the Armed Services Committee and the Intelligence Committee is as strong as it has been during my time in Congress, and I believe that this contributes to enhanced oversight of the agencies charged with protecting national security.

Among the many provisions of the NDAA, I want to particularly highlight the Intelligence Authorization Act, which is incorporated as Division G of the NDAA. Under the leadership of Chairman Turner, the Intelligence Committee has worked collaboratively and effectively to advance the IAA. The conference agreement we have reached with the Senate advances our national security while supporting the brave men and women in the intelligence community.

The FY24 IAA includes numerous provisions, the vast majority of which were developed on a bipartisan basis. To highlight just a few, the IAA includes a number of proposals I developed jointly with Chairman Turner intended to accelerate the IC's adoption of cutting-edge technology, particularly artificial intelligence.

Our ability to leverage emerging technologies to the IC's mission will determine our ability to stay ahead of our adversaries in a world of great power competition.

The legislation also includes sweeping reforms to how the CIA handles allegations of sexual assault and sexual harassment. These reforms came out of a bipartisan investigation in which we found that too many CIA officers have experienced sexual misconduct and the agency's protocols for dealing with these incidents were often frustrating and not centered on victims. Our legislation would streamline those processes so victims know where to turn and what to expect.

Madam Speaker, there is no question we face dangerous and complex challenges around the world. The IC's unique capabilities are what will continue to give us the edge over our adversaries and keep Americans safe. I urge support of the NDAA and with the IAA, which is included.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for having this critical conversation today.

Just outside this Chamber, on January 20, 1961, a new young President by the name of John F. Kennedy said, ``We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and success of liberty.''

We would pay any price, bear any burden, and meet any hardship to ensure the survival and success of liberty.

What has happened to America that we shrink from our traditional role of standing up against tyrants, dictators, and genocidal maniacs in favor of liberty? What has happened to us?

Why did Kennedy say those words? He didn't say those words because he wanted to replicate the pain and tragedy of the world war in which he had distinguished himself as a war hero. He didn't say those words because he wanted young Americans to die in East Asia or around the globe in the service of liberty.

He said those words because he understood what he had learned in the 1930s and the 1940s, which is that brutal dictators don't stop; they are stopped. They are stopped by those with the moral fortitude and courage to stop them.

If we accede to where half of the Republican majority is today, which is that we are not going to support Ukraine in this fight, Putin will not stop. Soon, the United States will have no choice but to step in to stop Vladimir Putin.

We hear these excuses: There is not enough accounting. There is not enough oversight.

We didn't hear that when we were supporting the Afghani regime, which is profoundly corrupt. We didn't hear that about Iraq. We are only hearing that about Ukraine.

We hear that we would like to know what the plan is for victory in Ukraine. Did anybody ask Winston Churchill, the hero of World War II, what his plan for victory was? No, they did not because he wasn't sure. We stood by him because he stood for liberty and the moral clarity that this institution has now lost.

If we think for one moment that Putin is the only one who is enjoying this moment, think about what President Xi of China is learning; think about what the Iranian mullahs are seeing; and think about what the North Korean dictator is coming to understand: That this Congress, when faced with the demand that we fight for liberty and freedom, we cut and run. That is what is being learned. Anybody who reads an iota of history will understand the tragedy that is behind that.

It is time for this Chamber to find an iota of the moral courage and clarity that John F. Kennedy elaborated on just outside these doors. We do it because it is right. We do it because if we fail the Ukrainians, it may be the next generation of Americans and Frenchmen and British who have to stop Putin.

Be assured that we will have to do that later in far, far more tragic circumstances than we have right now to stop--as John F. Kennedy called us to do--the march of tyranny and stand up for liberty.

Mr. Speaker, it was in this Chamber on January 6, 2021, that I came to realize relatively late in life how fragile our democracy is. I realize that the words of the Constitution, to which we all pledge an oath, are important, and so are the concepts underlying those words, the concepts of a peaceful transition of power, the concept of the separation of church and state, and the concept of freedom of expression.

These are concepts that are hundreds of years older than the Constitution, but they are critical to our democracy, which I think we would all agree is currently a bit fragile.

For this reason, I am profoundly disturbed that this House has gotten into a frenzy of censure resolutions to censure the speech of Members of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, it is the second clause of the First Amendment to our Constitution that says that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Our Founders protected us, in particular, with another clause in the Constitution, the Speech and Debate Clause. Article I, Section 6, says that we will be protected: ``For any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned.''

Our Founders decided that we would not be sanctioned for the things that we say, yet there are at least four resolutions before this House--one from Ms. Jacobs, one from Ms. Greene, one from Ms. Balint, one from Mr. McCormick--seeking an official censure of Members of Congress for the things that they have said.

Mr. Speaker, this is what I mean by the erosion of the foundational principles on which our democracy exists.

I don't much like any of the speech that the Members who are accused of foul speech have engaged in, but the test of our commitment to freedom of expression is not how hard we fight in a moment for the rights of those that we agree with. The test is whether we are willing to stand up for freedom of expression for somebody with whom we don't agree.

To my Republican friends, I would say they have quite rightly, in many instances, objected to the cancel culture, which is too rampant in our universities and elsewhere. Why now? Why in this institution?

To my Democratic friends, I would remind them that every progressive, going back to Galileo right up through Cesar Chavez to Martin Luther King, has been tolled and tortured and sanctioned for their expression.

It is time for this to stop in this Chamber. It is time for us to stop trying to punish each other for the things that we say, no matter how abhorrent.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that we are more than just Representatives. If we were just Representatives, we would go back to our constituents and bring their ideas here. We are stewards of this institution, which is why we take an oath to the Constitution.

If you take seriously your role as a steward of this institution, vote to table every one of these obnoxious motions to censure. If they do come up and aren't tabled, vote against them. The freedom of expression upon which this institution is built demands nothing less.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember the life of a tremendously impactful leader and my good friend, Stamford's own Reverend Tommie Jackson. Dr. Jackson was born in Baltimore, Maryland, the third of 6 children. Dr. Jackson was raised in Baltimore City and was a product of the Baltimore Public School System. He graduated from Baltimore City College High School and attended the prestigious Morehouse University in Georgia. He later attended the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, where he met his wife, and life partner, Dorye Michelle Emory.

Dr. Jackson and Dorye were married in 1977 and shortly after moved to Houston, Texas where he attended Texas Southern University in pursuit of his Juris Doctor. The Jacksons would later return to Baltimore, Maryland where he completed law school at the University of Maryland Law School.

Dr. Jackson was enormously proud of his daughters, Erin Marie and Evinn Leigh. He answered his first call to Pastorship in 1990, at Calvary Baptist Church in Chester, Pennsylvania. While there, Dr. Jackson, Dorye and his daughters touched the lives of the community. Dr. Jackson's dedication to God's work then brought him and his family to Stamford, Connecticut in 1997, where he answered his second calling to Pastorship at Faith Tabernacle Missionary Baptist Church.

For 20 years, Dr. Jackson served as the Pastor of Faith Tabernacle. During his tenure at Faith, he spearheaded the expansion of his church. He served the Stamford community with a weekly food bank and held back- to-school drives to equip children and families with supplies. Dr. Jackson was a proponent of education and took the time to mentor and prepare students in the congregation and in the community for academic excellence. Upon completing his doctorate degree at New York Theological Seminary, he went on to become

part of the faculty, leading, guiding and mentoring aspiring faith leaders. Dr. Jackson served as a spiritual advisor and mentor for the congregation and for the community.

In 2018, Dr. Jackson founded the Rehoboth Followship Church. He was diligent in fostering this ministry and created a welcoming place of worship for all. He loved his Rehoboth family and was always thinking of ways to expand the ministry.

I was honored to join Dr. Jackson in his tireless work to bring together faith leaders, register and empower voters, combat the scourge of gun violence in our communities, remedy the historic wrongs of our criminal justice system, and inspire the next generation to seize opportunities to get an education and improve the world they will soon enter.

Whenever they needed something good for the community done, they didn't have to seek out Dr. Jackson. He was already there, and he welcomed them with open arms. Dr. Jackson was a tremendous advocate for his community, at the local and state level, and I was proud to call him my friend.

This world has lost a great leader. I dedicate today to mourning and remembrance as well as furthering Dr. Jackson's legacy of service and sacrifice and uplifting those who follow in his path. May we all be even half as successful as Dr. Jackson was at leaving the world a better place than we found it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California and my friend from Missouri, and I rise in support of this bill, H.R. 2812, the middle market IPO underwriting cost act.

I thank Chairman McHenry and Ranking Member Waters for considering these bills on the floor today, and this bill in particular, which we have been working on for a very long time.

This bill, H.R. 2812, grows out of the work that the Financial Services Committee has been doing for a long time around the JOBS Act, which did good work to reduce the cost and friction associated with a young company going public. At the time, the JOBS Act was estimated to save companies between $1 million and $2 million a year when and after they go public, but the actual cost of going public, except for the very largest companies, as the gentleman from California noted, has not changed at all in many, many years.

Over those years, middle-market companies, which arguably have less negotiating power than some of the very large companies that have been able to force down fees, have experienced a perfectly consistent gross spread of 7 percent. Think about that. The price of going public has never varied from 7 percent. That means that a young company raising a typical $200 million in capital, with a 7 percent gross spread, hands over $14 million to the underwriters. That is a lot of money for a young company.

From 2001 to 2022, 95 percent of U.S. IPOs that raised between $30 million and $130 million had a gross spread of 7 percent. From 1992 to 2017, more than 80 percent of middle-market IPOs had gross spreads of exactly 7 percent.

The cost of the technologies used during the underwriting process have come down dramatically over the decades, but the gross spread has not, so I strongly believe that this remarkably stable 7 percent gross spread is fair subject for scrutiny.

H.R. 2812 very simply asks the GAO, in consultation with the Securities and Exchange Commission, to examine the gross spread and other costs associated with going public to see if we can understand that remarkable stability, what drives it, and what might be done to try to make the market more competitive and, therefore, reduce costs for companies trying to access our capital markets.

Mr. Speaker, I again thank Chairman McHenry and Ranking Member Waters for bringing this bill to the floor today.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Arkansas, Representative French Hill, for all of his thoughtful feedback and suggestions on this bill over the last few weeks.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2812, and I again thank the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. Speaker, in 1 week, on June 1, the country and the world is going to witness something that we have never seen before.

There will be an office in the United States Treasury, less than a mile from here, in which a group of people will decide: Are we going to pay the soldier deployed in Syria to combat ISIS, or are we going to send out Social Security checks?

Are we going to pay air traffic controllers, or are we going to support the Medicare program that provides healthcare for retirees?

That is tragedy in and of itself, but the world is going to see something it has never seen before. It is going to see that the United States is no longer trustworthy; that we don't pay our bills; that we don't abide by the obligations that we freely took in this Chamber.

Even worse, Putin and Xi and the leadership of North Korea and Iran are going to say, look, democracy does not work. The supposedly greatest country in the world won't pay its bills.

Now, are we in this place because we don't have the money? Of course we are not. We have the money. We are the richest, most powerful country in the world.

We are in this place because my Republican colleagues have figured out that they have a perfect hostage situation; that if this Congress-- and make no mistake--it is the Congress' obligation to raise the debt ceiling.

It is not the President's obligation under the law. It is the Congress' obligation to raise the debt ceiling. They understand that if we don't raise the debt ceiling, catastrophe ensues.

They have a list of ransom demands, and we saw it because it passed in this House 2 weeks ago. It would require veterans with mental illness to work in order to receive food stamps.

It would reverse the historic measures that the Congress took to turn around the tragedy of climate change.

We know what the ransom demands are. Now, I happen to disagree with those ransom demands, and we have a mechanism by which the Republican majority could pass those.

Anybody who ever watched ``Schoolhouse Rock'' knows what that mechanism is. You pass it in the House, you pass it in the Senate, the President signs it, and you get your way.

Of course, they can't get their way because they understand that that list of ransom demands is deeply, deeply unpopular with the American people.

Instead, they are saying, unless you do this stuff, Mr. President, Mr. Schumer in the Senate, we are going to destroy the global economy and the reputation of the United States of America.

Now, am I being unfair and saying that it is a hostage situation? My colleague from Florida said yesterday: ``I think my conservative colleagues for the most part support Limit, Save, Grow''--that is, by the way, the ransom list--``and they don't feel like we should negotiate with our hostage.'' A Republican Member of Florida: ``They don't feel we should negotiate with our hostage.''

Now, Democrats, because we feel some sense of obligation and responsibility to the full faith and credit and the dignity of the United States, didn't do this under Donald Trump.

Three times Democrats acceded without a ransom list to a raise in the debt ceiling when Donald Trump was President.

Donald Trump, when he was President, said this about the debt ceiling. ``That is a very, very sacred thing in our country, the debt ceiling. We can never play with it.''

Let me quote the Speaker of the House yesterday. The Speaker of the House says, when he is asked, What do the Democrats get in this negotiation?

You get reversing climate change. You get work requirements for Medicaid and food stamps. What do the Democrats get?

The Speaker said, ``We are going to raise the debt ceiling.'' The quiet part is being spoken out loud. This is a hostage situation.

The implications here, and I try to make this case to my Republican friends, eventually we Democrats will learn from this level of irresponsibility.

The next time there is a Republican President, we will have a ransom list. Is this the way we want to legislate in the greatest country in the world? I don't think so.

To illustrate how corrupt this enterprise is, how corrupt the reasoning is, here is what is happening. The Republicans passed the Trump tax cuts, $2 trillion in deficit addition.

By the way, a quarter, a full quarter of the national debt was accrued under one President, Donald Trump. A quarter.

This country has a 245-year history. One quarter of the debt was accrued in the 4 years of Donald Trump. Here is what is happening.

We have a big old dinner. We order the appetizers. We order the hors d'oeuvres. We order expensive wine. We order four courses.

This is the spending and the tax cuts that this institution likes, and then we say, we are not paying the bill. My friends, that doesn't work. Let's get past this debt ceiling insanity.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of S. 619, the COVID-19 Origins Act of 2023. Along with my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner), I plan to support this legislation, and I urge the House to pass it. Let me stop now to compliment Chairman Turner on the efforts he has made narrowly to bring this bill to the floor, but more generally, to make sure that the Intelligence Committee operates in the thoughtful, constructive, and bipartisan manner which it must operate in if we are to protect this Nation's national security.

The COVID-19 pandemic has taken the lives of more than 1.1 million Americans, and millions more have died worldwide. The American people want to know as much as we can determine about where this pandemic started and critically how we can be ready for the next deadly disease, which will come.

Determining the precise origins of a pandemic disease with high confidence is challenging under the best of circumstances. In this case, our already difficult task is that much harder because COVID originated in China.

At every juncture, the PRC Government has obfuscated and obstructed legitimate inquiries and investigations into the origins of the disease. China's approach has been deeply irresponsible and dangerous to global public health.

It is against that backdrop that in 2021 President Biden ordered a 90-day sprint by the intelligence community to analyze the origins of the virus. In

August of 2021, the IC completed its initial work, and a few months later, a declassified version of its findings was made public.

In short, the intelligence community agencies could not come to an agreement on whether the virus originated from a lab accident or from natural exposure. Some individual agencies did reach a judgment--a narrow judgment--about which path was more likely, but they could not do so with high confidence simply because we don't have enough reliable information to draw those conclusions. There is a version of the IC's classified assessment that is available to all Members through the House Security Office.

Around 18 months after the completion of the IC assessment, not much has changed. The intelligence community remains focused on this question, and I hope that we will have a breakthrough that will allow us to answer these questions once and for all, but today we are not there yet.

I believe that the IC should make as much public as they can, consistent with the overriding need to protect sources and methods. Transparency is a critical element of our democracy. The factual grounding of the IC's analysis can be an antidote to the speculation, the rumor, and the theories that grow in the absence of good information.

It is important to note that the bill provides the authority to make redactions to protect sources and methods for a good reason, and neither the chairman nor I would be supporting the bill if that were not true. I trust the intelligence community and the administration will lean forward in making public as much new information as possible without endangering our ability to collect and analyze on these issues going forward.

Now, I would mention two important things before I recognize other speakers on my side:

First, the pandemic, which is really what is at stake here. Whether COVID-19 originated from a lab leak or natural transmission at a wet market, the next pandemic disease could originate from either source, and it could come from anywhere.

In 2022, the Intelligence Committee released a declassified report looking at how the intelligence community responded to COVID-19 and made recommendations for how we can be better prepared for the next pandemic disease, wherever it may come from.

Overall, the report recommended that the intelligence community increase resources for global health security and medical intelligence, and that it needs to move away from a culture that views health security as a lesser priority than so-called traditional hard national security threats; evidence the fact that it was this that killed over a million Americans.

Furthermore, we need to promote complementary efforts between the public health and intelligence communities. Public health professionals and their counterparts in the IC must work hand-in-hand if we want to maximize the odds of identifying a novel disease at the earliest possible stage and if we want to give ourselves the best chance of determining the novel disease's origins.

Let me turn briefly to another important thing that is really at stake here. Madam Speaker, democracy is rooted in the idea that the people govern, that it is their right to determine their own political destiny. With that right comes an obligation that we don't talk about or think about nearly enough, and that obligation is to be thoughtful, informed critical thinkers about the issues of the day.

That is not who we are today. Today, we have elevated--because of our political polarization, we have elevated confirmation bias to a secular religion. Even in this conversation about the origins of the coronavirus, what you believe is indicative of where you stand on the political spectrum.

For reasons I don't understand, some of our colleagues and many Americans are running around with a theory that somehow buttresses their political legitimacy. Maybe you do that with UFOs, maybe you want to believe that there are aliens at Roswell or whatever you want to believe; that is pretty harmless. But when we are talking about a pandemic or something as serious as a disease that could kill a million Americans, that is not okay, and we have to remember our obligation to be thoughtful critical thinkers. We cannot let our political hopes override the obligations we have to be thinkers.

Madam Speaker, I tell my colleagues, the chairman and I have seen all of the classified information on this, and we don't know--we don't know the origins of the COVID pandemic. Whatever is ultimately declassified, I would hope that my colleagues and the American people would approach that information with the intellectual humility that we need to approach something as serious as a pandemic and how we behave as citizens in democracy.

We don't know.

We need to think about whether we want confirmation bias. Our tendency to select just those facts which support our preexisting positions interfere with our duty as critical thinkers in a democracy.

At the end of the day, the American people will get the system of government that they deserve, and if we don't get back to being humble about what we know to being critical thinkers, our democracy will be at risk.

I close with a quote from a great Connecticut writer and humorist, Mark Twain. He said: ``It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It is what you know for sure that just ain't so.''

I am going to join my chairman in supporting this bill, and I hope it passes in overwhelming bipartisan fashion. I hope we take that information and use it for constructive purposes in the service of saving lives and buttressing our democracy.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bera), a member of the Select Committee on the Coronavirus Pandemic.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, we were doing pretty well there, but behind the discussion of ducks were some pretty aggressive accusations of lying of American Government officials, dishonesty, attributions of motives, which is really what I am and I think what we are all trying to avoid here.

I will say it again. As profoundly frustrating as it is, we just don't know. We are entitled to have theories. We are citizens, after all. We shouldn't be so certain in those theories that we are willing to impugn the character and motives of other Americans, especially if those Americans are in positions of responsibility that need to be trusted in the next pandemic. So I will leave that there.

I do want to characterize and substantiate my rather frustrating observation that we just don't know--with what the intelligence community believes is the latest assessment on the origins--again, I understand this is frustrating, but facts are important.

Here it is, and this is a publicly available document: Four intelligence community elements and the National Intelligence Council assess, with low confidence, that the virus was likely caused by natural exposure to animals infected with it.

One IC element assesses, with moderate confidence, that the first human infection most likely was the result of a laboratory-associated incident.

Then analysts at three IC elements remain unable to coalesce around either explanation.

That is a profoundly frustrating picture of organizations whose aggregate budget is tens of billions of dollars, who draw on all kinds of expertise, and yes, who are fallible, like any human institutions are. That is where they are and, sadly, that aggregates to, we just don't know.

We are entitled to speculate. We are entitled to have theories. I would just urge caution about impugning people's motives, impugning their character based on those theories which are necessarily rooted in uncertainty.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I will reiterate my support for this bill and my gratitude to the chairman and the Republican majority for moving it quickly.

This bill, fundamentally, is about something we haven't talked a lot about today, which is transparency. Transparency is a cornerstone of our democracy because without transparency, the American people can't make the decisions that they need to make responsibly as citizens of a democracy.

I am sorry that today we heard a little bit of accusations that the truth was hidden from the American people; that taxpayer funds were misused; that Dr. Fauci had a motive to cover himself; that there was government censorship. There is not one iota of evidence for any of that.

When we say those things without evidence, what we do is we reduce the American people's faith in their government and, eventually, when their faith in their government is reduced to nothing, we lose our democracy, or we see people breaking windows downstairs to get into the government's Chambers because it has been so discredited.

But I am going to set that aside right now because this is an important, bipartisan effort to bring transparency around something that is going to be pretty frustrating for the American people because no matter what is declassified, it won't be dispositive about the origins of the coronavirus.

This is a really important first step. I hope it will clear up some of the speculation, some of the rumors that are out there; and it is emblematic of something that the chairman and I care a lot about, which is, that unless there is a really good reason to keep something classified, the American people are responsible enough to have that information.

I thank again Chairman Turner for his work on this issue, for his commitment to bipartisanship.

Madam Speaker, I urge support from the whole House for S. 619, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, once again, this morning, thousands of Americans found themselves in airports staring at delayed and canceled flights. This comes barely 3 weeks after tens of thousands of Americans, and many of my own constituents, missed the holidays because of the catastrophe on the part of the airlines, the airlines that got billions of dollars in this Chamber from the American people barely 2 years ago. This is how the airlines repay the support that this institution gave to them so that they could get through COVID.

Now, the private markets will presumably address the failures of Southwest and other airlines. What happened this morning was a failure of government. The Notice to Air Missions is a function of the FAA.

I would like to point out that after last week, when we heard constant cries for cuts to the budget, understand, my friends, cuts to the budget means that we underinvest in the infrastructure that my constituents were relying on this morning. As we think about the budget in the next 2 years, let's remember what happened this morning.