Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1097 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), 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 for unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, today the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1097, providing for consideration H.R. 903, the Rights for the TSA Workforce Act under a structured rule. It provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Homeland Security. It self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairman Thompson, makes in order eight amendments, and provides for one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 2499 and H.R. 5129 under structured rules. It provides 1 hour of debate for each equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor. It self-executes manager amendments from Chairman Scott to both bills. It makes in order 8 amendments and 17 amendments respectively, and it provides for one motion to recommit for both bills.

The rule provides en bloc authority to Chairmen Thompson and Scott.

Further, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 7691, the Additional Ukraine Supplemental Appropriations Act, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairwoman DeLauro and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule also deems passage of H. Res. 1096, a resolution, Recognizing Congressional Workers' Right to Organize.

The rule also provides recess instructions, suspension authority, and same-day authority through June 10.

Finally, the rule postpones requested roll call votes on suspension bills considered on May 10 and May 11 through May 18.

Madam Speaker, the rule contains five essential points of action.

H.R. 903, the Rights for the TSA Workforce Act of 2021: This legislation seeks to afford TSA employees similar rights, protections, and benefits afforded to most other Federal workers across the country in order to improve the agency's operations, workforce retention, and morale.

H.R. 2499 is the bipartisan Federal Firefighters Fairness Act of 2022. This legislation establishes a science-based list of diseases for which an automatic presumption of work-related illness would apply for Federal firefighters who get sick, provided that they are employed in fire protection activities for at least 5 years. It also establishes a process for adding other diseases based on scientific data and analysis going forward.

H.R. 5129 is the bipartisan Community Services Block Grant Modernization Act of 2022. It reauthorizes and improves the popular and effective community services block grant program to help reach even more Americans, provide more community development across the country, and further reduce poverty.

The rule also contains a resolution recognizing the right of congressional staff to unionize.

Finally, it includes H.R. 7691, the Additional Ukraine Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2022. Madam Speaker, generations to come will look back at this moment to ask: What did our generation do when Vladimir Putin and his army invaded the sovereign nation of Ukraine and tried not only to crush its democracy and violate the spirit of its people but vaporize and annex the entire nation?

Well, today, let future generations observe the Biden administration and a bipartisan Congress has not only already provided more than $4 billion in security assistance to Ukraine, almost all of it coming after the February 24 invasion, but today, we are voting to provide nearly $40 billion to address the immediate and near-term security, economic, and humanitarian needs of the Ukrainian people that are urgent and desperate.

We will provide $6 billion for training, equipment, weapons, logistics support, supplies, salaries and stipends, and intelligence support; $4.35 billion in emergency food assistance, medical equipment, and other humanitarian aid; and billions more for humanitarian relief for the millions of refugees displaced by Putin's violence and bombardment of communities in Ukraine.

The aid that we vote on today will come with the fervent solidarity, admiration, and love of the American people. We are in awe of President Zelenskyy, the Ukrainian people, and their army. They have been hanging tough against terrible odds and terrible violence in a splendid display of democratic patriotism for their country. Their resolve is heroic, and it is breathtaking to behold.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. Spanberger).

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

Madam Speaker, the gentleman asks us to justify the use of American resources in supporting our democratic allies in Ukraine.

How would we justify the use of these resources?

Well, let's start with this. The Ukrainian people and President Zelenskyy have asked for our help. They have asked for these resources, and they need these resources in order to beat back a brutal, bloody, and illegal innovation by Vladimir Putin, who is violating the laws of war on a daily basis.

They have killed thousands of civilians, they have killed more than 150 children, murdering them, and his Army is raping and killing women, leaving their corpses in the street.

So we have a democracy trying to defend its sovereign borders against an autocrat who wants to rebuild the Russian empire, Vladimir Putin, the former chief of the KGB, who said that the greatest catastrophe of the 20th century was the collapse of the Soviet Union.

We were hoping that we would have a unanimous, bipartisan statement today in favor of aid to the besieged people of Ukraine. Instead, we get more voices of defeatism, pessimism, and gloom.

We have heard it before. We heard Representative Cawthorn who said: Remember that Zelenskyy is a thug, remember that the Ukrainian Government is incredibly corrupt, and is incredibly evil and has been pushing woke ideologies.

We heard from Steve Bannon who said: No Republican should vote for any money for Ukraine, zero dollars for Ukraine.

We are hearing it from other candidates around the country, J.D. Vance, who says: I have got to be honest with you; I don't really care what happens to Ukraine one way or the other.

Madam Speaker, the democratic world is under siege by Vladimir Putin and his filthy army, which is murdering children, raping women, killing civilians. Which side are we on?

The Biden administration is rallying the democratic world, rallying the NATO countries. We should be standing on a unanimous, bipartisan basis with the people of Ukraine.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

Madam Speaker, here is a formula for the destruction of democracy: Repeating Putin's propaganda and disinformation and appeasing imperialist assaults on sovereign nations.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Madam Speaker, the very distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado called the President of the United States, or likened him to, I think she said, a lying, dog-faced pony soldier.

We obviously could have taken those words down, but we have serious business to do here, and unlike some of our colleagues on the other side, we are not interested in censoring other people's speech. We want the whole world to see how the gentlewoman from Colorado speaks in public as a Member of Congress. We want everyone to look at that.

Meantime, we have come here tonight, Madam Speaker, to fight for the rights of the TSA workforce. More than 50,000 workers. We are giving them the same rights that other Federal workers have. We came here to fight for the rights of Federal firefighters, tens of thousands of them, who will be able to benefit from this legislation if and when they get sick from illnesses caused by their work as firefighters.

We came here to expand and improve the Community Services Block Grant Modernization Act of 2022, a bipartisan piece of legislation. Despite what was said about it on the other side, I believe there were eight Members of the minority who voted for it in the House Education and Labor Committee.

We are here to recognize the right of congressional staff to unionize, and we are here most significantly, Madam Speaker, on the Additional Ukraine Supplemental Appropriations Act.

It is for that act that the antics and the diatribes of our colleagues are so profoundly disappointing to those of us who have come here to support President Zelenskyy and the heroic people of Ukraine who are resisting a brutal, illegal aggression by Vladimir Putin and his army.

And we were hoping that we would have a bipartisan, unanimous support for this legislation to render the military and strategic economic and humanitarian aid that our democratic allies need, and they are asking for and deserve, to fight off this illegal criminal aggression by Vladimir Putin, who is not a genius but a war criminal and a mass murderer. That is what he is.

We are very proud of the work that President Biden has been doing in unifying the democratic world against the autocrat Vladimir Putin and his naked, bloody aggression against the people of Ukraine, which has cost the lives of thousands of civilians already. We have seen the war crime of rape spread at the hands of Russian's filthy soldiers, and we have seen them kill children, blow up schools and hospitals.

We don't see anything remotely like the seriousness and the solemnity that we would expect of Members of the United States Congress. Instead, they put up profanity, they mock the President of the United States, they make a disgrace of their own party by the way they behave on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Madam Speaker, Vladimir Putin and his cheerleaders all over the world thought they would make quick work of the people of Ukraine and President Zelenskyy. They only had supplies for less than a week. Everybody thought it was just going to be game over, as some of our colleagues have said; that Vladimir Putin would just cut right through them.

But you know what they weren't counting on, Madam Speaker? They weren't counting on the spirit of a democratic people, the noble people of Ukraine who have heroically resisted every criminal aggressive act by Vladimir Putin and his autocratic cheerleaders around the world.

So today, 2\1/2\ months later, President Biden, having rallied the democratic world, having unified NATO, comes back to us and asks for nearly $40 billion in aid to support the strategic needs, the security needs, the economic needs, the humanitarian needs of a population that is reeling from the war.

Madam Speaker, we say the American people are here to support the Ukrainian people. That is what we are doing here tonight.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Our colleagues don't seem to want to talk about the chaos and the violence and the bloodshed that has been unleashed on the people of Ukraine. I am really shocked that they don't want to talk about it, but they want to talk about free speech.

Great. Let's talk about free speech in Russia.

More than 15,000 people arrested and detained as they crush the antiwar movement in Russia, as he jails political opponents in Russia. And they haven't said a word about that.

Have they said anything about the opponents of the war in Russia who have been thrown into jail? No.

They are talking about a board in America that I wasn't even aware existed--I am not sure it does--that has never thrown anybody in a jail.

How do they feel about Russian critics of the war being thrown into jail? How do they feel about more than 8 million Ukrainians who have been displaced by the war, who are living in the homes of the Polish people who have heroically opened their doors to them? They say nothing about that.

Do they think that Vladimir Putin is the leader of a democracy?

Is there any one of them who will stand up and say that Vladimir Putin is an autocrat, an authoritarian, a would-be totalitarian?

Do any of them remember that Vladimir Putin was the head of the KGB?

Is that their ideal model for civil liberties? Vladimir Putin, who said that the collapse of the Soviet Union is the greatest catastrophe of the 20th century?

Is this Abraham Lincoln's party we are hearing today? Or is it a cult of Donald Trump?

Madam Speaker, we have to decide which side America is going to be on. The democratic world has risen as one to support the people of Ukraine, and yet, our friends don't seem to want to talk about that. They don't want to seem to support this effort, which is extraordinary to me, as the people of Ukraine are doing whatever they can to fight this naked, illegal aggression, this unilateral war of aggression; unprovoked, unjustified, a violation of international law in every way.

Madam Speaker, it is incumbent upon us as the leader of the democratic world, if that is still what we want to be, to support democracies under attack by authoritarian regimes.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her remarks. We were interrupted by a motion to adjourn a few moments ago.

Ukrainians are being slaughtered by Putin's army as we speak. Schools, churches, and hospitals have been bombarded, and yet I think 188 of our colleagues voted just to pack it up and to go home instead of acting to provide the people of Ukraine and President Zelenskyy with the military and humanitarian assistance that they need. I am very glad, and I thank the bipartisan majority that rejected that approach, and I want us to make sure we are sending a message of hope and solidarity to the people of Ukraine.

Mr. Speaker, if we have isolationists in the House, I hope that they don't flatter themselves to think that Vladimir Putin is some kind of civil libertarian. Vladimir Putin is no civil libertarian for those people who have found the cause of civil liberties today. Vladimir Putin is no civil libertarian.

He is shutting down the freedom of speech and blocking his people's access to social media. He has thrown thousands of people into prison for protesting against his war in Ukraine. He just signed a new law to impose 15 years in prison on anyone who publishes or broadcasts what Russian Government censors consider false information about the invasion of Ukraine.

In fact, it is against the law in Russia now to even describe the invasion of Ukraine and the war against Ukraine as an invasion or a war. You can't describe it. Talk about Orwellian.

Why did we hear nothing from our colleagues about that?

Do they actually think that Vladimir Putin is fighting for civil liberties in his bloody and filthy invasion of Ukraine and his attempt to demolish a country?

Mr. Speaker, the American people in every public opinion poll we have seen stand strongly with the people of Ukraine. They understand illegal aggression when they see it. We know that Vladimir Putin is trying to crush the sovereignty of the people of Ukraine.

America stands with the NATO countries. America stands with the democratic governments and peoples of the world. America stands with democracy all over the world. That is who we are. That is who we are. We will never forget it, and we will never let go of it. We will not fall prey to Putin's propaganda, his disinformation, or the conspiracy theory that tries to blind us to the reality of what is happening in Ukraine today.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the House Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1065 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from 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 have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee met yesterday and reported a rule, House Resolution 1065 providing for consideration of S. 3522, the Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act under a closed rule.

The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. The rule provides for one motion to commit.

The rule extends recess instructions, suspension authority, and same day authority through May 13, 2022. Finally, the rule deems H. Res. 1035 as passed.

Mr. Speaker, Vladimir Putin's criminal war of aggression and atrocity against the sovereign nation of Ukraine has dismembered the second largest country in Europe. Putin's soldiers have killed more than 2,700 Ukrainian civilians and more than 100 children in Ukraine. They have raped and murdered untold numbers of women, leaving their bodies in the street. They have wounded thousands of civilians. They have displaced 10 million Ukrainians, creating the largest exodus of displaced persons since the Nazis rampaged through Europe. They have traumatized a nation.

It is a sobering thing to canvas the damage today, which is Holocaust Remembrance Day. Putin's invasion is intended to deal a fatal blow to democracy in Ukraine and around the world. Putin's lurch into fascist aggression has actually unified and galvanized the democratic world, the democratic nations, and peoples and movements of the world.

I concede that Putin still has his cheerleaders for his homophobia, his corruption, and his white nationalist racism around the world. I concede that some people, even in this body, continue to chant the filthy words ``Russia hoax'' to describe what we know from our own intelligence community of Putin's unceasing efforts to subvert democracy all over the world. I concede that Vladimir Putin has been called a genius by a former twice-impeached President for his assault on a sovereign democratic nation.

The vast majority of Americans and vast majority of democratic societies around the world reject Putin's atrocities against democracy. President Zelenskyy and President Biden have rallied the world against Putin and in defense of the heroic people of Ukraine standing strong against this aggression--people who have more courage in their pinky than Vladimir Putin and his thugs will ever be able to understand.

Mr. Speaker, NATO members have sent or promised at least $8 billion in weapons to Ukraine. The billions we have sent from the United States of

America has made a key difference in allowing the people of Ukraine to defend themselves. The people of America paid for anti-tank and anti- air systems, for helicopters, for drones, for grenade launchers, for 50 million rounds of ammunition, and more.

Today, the Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act of 2022 comes before Congress as an important part of the effort to defend Ukraine. This act is rooted in the lend-lease program of World War II, which President Roosevelt proposed in January of 1941, which allowed our government to lend or to lease war supplies and equipment to any nation whose security was defined as vital to the defense and the security of the United States.

Passage of that act enabled Great Britain and Winston Churchill to keep fighting and to survive the fascist Nazi bombardment until the United States could enter the war.

President Zelenskyy has said that Ukraine needs weapons to sustain themselves, and President Biden has answered that call with billions in military assistance since Russia's full-blown invasion began on February 24, a day that will live in infamy in the freedom-loving world.

On April 21, last Thursday, President Biden announced that we will be sending an additional $800 million in military aid to Ukraine, the eighth such installment, which will include 72 howitzers, 144,000 artillery rounds, 72 tactical vehicles, and more than 121 Phoenix Ghost tactical drones. Today, I understand President Biden has asked for an additional aid package for the next several months.

But S. 3522 will streamline current legal authorities under the Arms Export Control Act that allows our government to lend defense articles needed to defend civilian populations. We will eliminate red tape to make it easier for our government to lend or lease necessary military equipment in this struggle to defend Ukraine.

The legislation requires the Biden administration to establish expedited procedures for delivering military equipment to Ukraine and other affected Eastern European countries to defend populations made vulnerable by Vladimir Putin's aggression. It also facilities the provisioning of loaned and/or leased defense articles to Ukraine, easing a myriad of administrative regulations and processes.

Mr. Speaker, I urge everyone to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear from my friend from Pennsylvania that he supports S. 3522, the Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act. This is a moment of grave emergency in Ukraine as Putin's army continues to bomb hospitals and schools, rape and assault women, and murder the civilian population.

I am, of course, disappointed that even when we agree, the minority caucus insists upon disagreeing and bringing up matters that are utterly extraneous to this resolution. But my friend mentioned authoritarian lockdowns, oppressive procedures, and dangerous and radical policies. I didn't know if he was referring to Vladimir Putin or to the prior President whose dangerous, radical appeasement of Vladimir Putin empowered and emboldened him as Vladimir Putin has tried to undermine NATO; and the last President did everything in his power to undermine NATO and to weaken NATO. But at this point we have the opportunity to rally the democratic world, the democratic nations of the world, the democratic societies, peoples, and movements against Putin's bloody, imperial invasion of Ukraine.

That is what is on the table right now. That is what is on the table in the world today. That is where democracy is on the line.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

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

Mr. Speaker, I think that all of these efforts to distract us from the issue at hand are meant to cover up the very clear pro-Russian and pro-Putin faction at the heart of their side of the aisle.

Last month in March of this year, the very distinguished gentlewoman from Georgia went on a radio show called the ``Voice of Rural America,'' and she followed Donald Trump's sickening appeasement of Vladimir Putin and blamed Ukraine for the situation.

She said:

You see, Ukraine just kept poking the bear and poking the

bear which is Russia, and Russia invaded. There is no win for

Ukraine here. Russia is successful in this invasion.

When Members of Congress are cheerleaders for Vladimir Putin and are voices of nothing but defeatism, fatalism, and pessimism for democracy in Europe, then they try to distract us with a lot of phony rhetoric about other issues.

She also said:

NATO has been supplying the neo-Nazis with powerful weapons

and extensive training on how to use them. What the hell is

going on with these NATO Nazis.

Mr. Speaker, we have to decide which side we are on.

When Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt and Americans looked at what was happening in Europe during World War II and they saw Nazis marching down the street, they did not see very fine people on both sides of the street. They did not start cheerleading for Mussolini, Hitler, and Franco. Yet we have people here who go out and speak on the side of Vladimir Putin and on the side of Russia.

Let's pass this Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act to show where America is. We are not cheerleaders for Vladimir Putin. We are not going to follow the Trump-Putin axis down the road toward autocracy and kleptocracy and sedition and insurrection and corruption and coups in the United States. That is not where we are going.

This is the land of the free, the home of the brave. We stand for democracy here, not Vladimir Putin.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find this astounding. We are here to talk about aid to Ukraine, how to streamline and expedite aid to defend the people of Ukraine, and they will talk about anything but.

I was willing to believe that the distinguished gentlewoman from Georgia and several other Members were isolated in their Conference. Now, I am starting to think that maybe they are speaking for the whole Conference.

I wonder if my good friend from Pennsylvania would explicitly repudiate some of these statements made by the gentlewoman from Georgia.

Does the minority Conference agree that NATO has been supplying the ``neo-Nazis in Ukraine'' with powerful weapons?

Does the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania support or dissociate himself from the argument that the aid that we send to Ukraine falls ``into the hands of Nazis,'' a statement made by the gentlewoman from Georgia, echoing Putin's filthy claim that his war on the sovereign democracy of Ukraine is, in fact, an attempt to denazify the country?

Of course, we hear distinct echoes in everything that we get from the erudite gentlewoman from Georgia.

Does the minority agree that Putin invaded because Ukraine repeatedly poked the bear?

I mean, I can't understand why they won't talk about defending Ukraine. That is what this legislation is about. That is what this rule is about. They want to talk about anything other than that.

We can debate all of those other important issues in other contexts at the right time. This is how the House of Representatives works. But why are they covering up for the pro-Putin faction within their Conference? I would like them to dissociate themselves from the people who are blaming Ukraine for Russia's bloody imperial invasion and war of human rights violations and atrocities against the people. Please do that.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the United States of America just witnessed the most astonishing spectacle. We are here to debate aid to the people of Ukraine defending themselves against a massive invasion by Vladimir Putin and his army. Then, the minority puts up the distinguished gentlewoman from Georgia, who does not mention Ukraine once.

She does not mention the thousands of Ukrainian civilians who have been slaughtered by Putin's army. She does not mention more than 100 Ukrainian children who have been shot and killed by the Russian army. Instead, she talks about a massive invasion at the border, a massive invasion, which their own speakers have said, today, hundreds of thousands of people have been apprehended in.

That is very different from a military invasion, the one in Ukraine. Of course, the gentlewoman is not going to talk about that. She had a lot to say the other day when she heckled me continuously. When I came to the floor, it was like ``The Rocky Horror Picture Show'' in here with her chanting about the Russia hoax and Russia this and Russia that.

Now, she had the opportunity to tell the world what her views about Russia are. I put them out there, exactly what she has said. She said that the aid that the taxpayers of America are sending to the people of Ukraine to defend themselves against Vladimir Putin and the Russian army falls into the hands of Nazis.

I want to see her proof.

Where is her evidence?

She talks about NATO Nazis. Does the minority believe that our allies in NATO, who are trying to defend the people of Ukraine, are Nazis? Has it come to this?

The gentlewoman talked about massive invasion. We had a massive invasion of our own Chamber. * * *

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the offending remark.

Mr. Speaker, the House rules do forbid engaging in personalities. I accept the advice of the Parliamentarian that I used unparliamentary language to make my point, and I certainly respect the necessity for parliamentary decorum.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close when my friend from Pennsylvania is prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Pennsylvania suggests that this is something that we didn't actually need to bring to the floor, that it could have been done on a suspension vote. And yet, I am certain that my dear friend is aware that a number of suspension votes on things as simple as post office renamings have been voted down by the minority.

There was a distinguished judge who a post office was going to be named after and that was sabotaged on a suspension vote. There have been multiple votes like that.

In fact, we have a resolution that we put forward to affirm support for NATO and its democratic principles. And that was rejected by 63 Members of the minority caucus; 63 Members voted against a resolution expressing unequivocal support for a strong NATO and for the democratic principles underlying it.

Mr. Speaker, I would love if it were as simple as he was suggesting, that we could all agree to this, but they are not agreeing with the things that we are putting forward about the need to unite for democracy around the world. That is why we are precisely in this situation we are in.

Even when we are trying to talk about the importance of this new lend-lease expediting program to allow the U.S. Government to lend military equipment, to lease military equipment to Ukraine and to get it done quickly, it seems like our friends keep on wanting to change the subject to talk about anything other than that.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what to say other than I wish we were unified in supporting this rule for the legislation that we are bringing forward to make it a lot easier to get support to the people of Ukraine, the support they need to fight off the bloody military invasion being conducted by Putin's army.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for his service, of course, and also for his clarification about his particular vote.

The House Resolution we are talking about is 831, calling on the United States Government to uphold the founding democratic principles of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and establishing a center for democratic resilience within the headquarters of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Of course, everyone in the majority voted for it. I think the vast majority of the people on the gentleman's side of the aisle voted for it, but there were 63 Members who did find this or that clause objectionable and, therefore, voted against it. But that is precisely my point.

My good friend from Pennsylvania takes me to task for saying, Why didn't we just do this on a suspension vote basis, just bring it up here and let it glide through. Because nothing is simple when we are talking about these issues.

There are some people who are out there on the radio calling NATO Nazis and saying that the money that Americans are putting into Ukraine is going

to support Nazis. I haven't heard anybody renounce or repudiate that point of view.

Then there are others who find far more substantive and defensible problems with what we are doing.

In any event, they have been voting against it, so we were not able to do a suspension resolution. So we bring it up to have a discussion about Ukraine to see if we can get unity and then they take us off in 50 other directions.

It is a sad thing to see that when President Zelenskyy and the people of Ukraine have demonstrated democratic courage, bravery, and valor to the entire world, and democratic societies are trying to get together to mobilize behind democracy to oppose what Vladimir Putin and his gang of thugs in Moscow and their allies in different places, like Orban in Hungary and--well, I don't want to get into the whole rogues' gallery of tyrants and bullies that they have gathered to support them.

We have got to be building the democratic forces. We should be together on this. We should be able to think about this in a far broader way than just talking points for the next election.

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

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

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

I thank my friend for our lively discussion today. And I am glad to hear, again, that he supports the Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act of 2022, S. 3522. I wish we could have focused on the meaning of this legislation, rather than for them to fight about the rule and to raise subjects that are not part of this legislation.

More than 10 million Ukrainians have been forced out of their homes; have been forced to flee in the worst mass exodus of refugees since World War II. Thousands of Ukrainian civilians have been killed. More than 100 Ukrainian children have been murdered by Putin's Army.

And I have heard the word authoritarian uttered on the other side of the aisle today, and it applies to whom? Not Vladimir Putin. They used it to apply to Nancy Pelosi, to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, because they disagree with some interpretations of the rules of the House.

Well, this is a serious moment for people who are serious about democracy in the new century. If allowed to continue, Vladimir Putin will spread his rampage beyond Ukraine into neighboring countries in Eastern Europe, and then other authoritarian and autocratic leaders around the world will decide they will be able to do to their neighbors what Vladimir Putin was allowed to do to his neighbor.

This legislation is named after what President Roosevelt made happen during World War II, the Lend-Lease program that, without declaring war, America would come to the aid of its allies by lending and leasing military equipment to our allies in order to secure the democratic world. And that is where we are again.

So we need to streamline all of the red tape. We need to expedite the delivery of equipment to our allies in Ukraine. And I hope we will hear the end of the constant statements of defeatism and pessimism and surrender that we get from so many people who are out there and continue to take the position of the former President Trump

that Vladimir Putin is some kind of genius for invading his neighbor. He is not a genius. He is a mass murderer. He is not a genius. He is a human rights violator, and he is a perpetrator of war crimes.

The world needs to know where America stands. And we should stand, if we could, unified, for the people of Ukraine, for democracy in Europe, and for democracy all around the world.

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 1065

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the

House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the

bill (H.R. 471) to prohibit the Secretary of Health and Human

Services from lessening the stringency of, and to prohibit

the Secretary of Homeland Security from ceasing or lessening

implementation of, the COVID-19 border health provisions

through the end of the COVID-19 pandemic, and for other

purposes. All points of order against consideration of the

bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All

points of order against provisions in the bill are waived.

The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the

bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without

intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally

divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority

member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce; and (2) one

motion to recommit.

Sec. 5. Clause l(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H.R. 471.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize April 21 as national ``Autism After 21 Day''. As many of my colleagues know, April is Autism Acceptance Month, so it is fitting and crucial that we take a moment today

to acknowledge the unique challenges faced by adults with autism after the age of 21.

The transition to adulthood is challenging for many young people. However, this transition period can be especially difficult for autistic young people, who often face a formidable challenge--the so- called ``services cliff''--as they age out of the school system. Federal support services drop off, and young adults with autism and their families often struggle to find meaningful educational and job opportunities, face challenges in obtaining essential support services, and experience what can feel like an overwhelming loss of their community.

In light of these pressing challenges, Madam Speaker, I want to recognize the important work being done to support adults with autism in my community. Two extraordinary constituents of mine, JaLynn Prince and Dr. Gregory A. Prince, founded the Madison House Autism Foundation, which works to improve the health and wellbeing of autistic adults throughout their lifespan. The Madison House Autism Foundation is expanding choices and opportunities for adults with autism through housing initiatives, employment partnerships, and many other innovative efforts, including the Autism After 21 movement.

Madam Speaker, we must continue working to achieve a more inclusive and enlightened society that provides equitable opportunities to autistic individuals of every age. This month, as we celebrate the contributions of so many adults with autism and their allies, I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing April 21st as national ``Autism After 21 Day''.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1023 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from 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 may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

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

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1023. The rule provides for consideration of the resolution accompanying House Report 117-284 under a closed rule if the report is called up by direction of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided among and controlled by Chairman Thompson, Vice Chair Cheney, and an opponent.

Mr. Speaker, if 90 percent of success in life is just showing up, then 90 percent of acting in contempt of Congress is not showing up by failing to respond to multiple subpoenas you have been lawfully served. The rest of contempt is not turning over documents you have been ordered to produce and acting with open disregard and scorn for the rule of law, Congress, and representatives of the American people.

Neither Dan Scavino nor Peter Navarro has shown up in response to repeated congressional subpoenas. They have blown us off completely.

Neither Mr. Scavino nor Mr. Navarro has produced a single document or offered 1 minute of testimony in response to the subpoenas sent by the House of Representatives.

While more than 800 Americans have come forward voluntarily or properly responded to congressional subpoenas, which are orders under penalty of law, saying you must show up to testify under oath and invoke any asserted privileges in person, Scavino and Navarro have followed Steve Bannon and are acting as if they are way too busy and way too important to bother with the mere United States House of Representatives. They think that having worked for a former President of the United States excuses them from complying with lawful orders.

This is clearly false; this is clearly wrong; and we must make an emphatic statement about it today.

Mr. Speaker, I ask America to consider this: If your son or daughter were subpoenaed to come testify before the Congress of the United States, would you advise them to sit home on the couch and blow it off? I know I wouldn't.

Every year, thousands of Americans are held in criminal contempt for ignoring their legal obligations to comply with a lawful subpoena issued by courts or legislative bodies.

Here in the District of Columbia, you can be sent to jail for 6 months and fined $1,000 for acting in contempt of a subpoena and not showing up. We have checked on multiple days and found, on any given day, 7, 8, 10, or a dozen people are being found guilty of contempt in the courts of the District of Columbia.

That is the exact same criminal offense that Mr. Scavino and Mr. Navarro committed, and that is the exact same penalty they are facing for their misconduct.

Each of these witnesses was given ample and repeated opportunities to comply, opportunities that continue to this day. Yet, they openly and brazenly flout the authority of the Congress and mock their own personal duty to comply with the rule of law.

Legal contempt exists for those who act with open disregard or disobedience of the law, especially when acting with scorn for the authority of government. It exists precisely for cases like this.

Here is what has happened with Mr. Scavino. In September of last year, the committee issued its first of three subpoenas. We asked him to come testify before us on October 15, 2021, last year.

When he could not be found to actually accept service of the first subpoena, we issued a second subpoena, asking him to appear before the committee on October 28, 2021. He told the committee that wasn't enough time for him; he needed 1 extra week.

We generously gave him a week, and we set a third deposition date of November 4, 2021, but he didn't come on November 4 either. Instead, he requested another extension.

Bending over backward to accommodate this witness, we set a fourth deposition date of November 12, 2021. Still, that wasn't enough time for him.

We acted in good faith again, and assuming he was acting in good faith, we set a fifth deposition date of November 19. When that day arrived, did he finally show up to do his civic duty? No, he did not. Instead, he waited until the eve of the deposition and then, for the first time, challenged the service of the subpoena.

Out of an abundance of deference and caution, and to make every effort to demonstrate the respect for the rule of law that Scavino was not showing, we issued yet a third subpoena inviting him to come testify before us once again on December 1, 2021.

Finally, with Scavino completely out of excuses and the committee out of patience, his final deposition date of December 1 arrived, and he simply did not show up.

Six times this committee invited Scavino to testify, and six times he stood us up. He stood the American people up. He refused to testify before Congress about what he knows about the most dangerous and sweeping assault on the United States Congress since the War of 1812, which was by a foreign power.

But even after he failed to show up in December, the committee held an open door for Mr. Scavino to come in and

testify. But in the more than 6 months since the committee's first subpoena was sent to him, he has never once come in to speak with us. He has not given us a single document, Mr. Speaker.

It is the same basic story with Mr. Navarro. On February 9, we issued him a subpoena to produce documents on February 23 and to testify on March 2. There have been repeated evasions and contortions by the witness since then.

Generous accommodations have been offered by the committee, all of it leading to nothing but his open contempt and mockery for this process and for the rule of law. He never showed up, and he never produced a single document.

When more than 800 Americans have voluntarily testified and complied with the subpoenas rendered by our committee, the witnesses have nothing but excuses for their noncompliance, excuses you would not accept from a teenage child.

Navarro says he wants us to send him written interrogatories, and he will answer his questions in writing. Wouldn't that be nice? Any witness to a car accident, a murder, an assault, or an insurrection in the land would love not to have to answer actual questions under sworn oath, but that is not how our system works.

The word ``subpoena'' means ``under the penalty of law.'' ``Sub'' means under; ``poena'' means ``penalty of law.'' Under the penalty of law, you show up and you answer questions in the United States of America. If you think you have a legal privilege excusing you from answering questions, you assert your privileges under oath, at the time of questioning that you show up, to specific questions, whether it is the attorney-client privilege; the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, which a number of witnesses have asserted before our committee, as it is their legal right to do; the priest-penitent privilege; or the executive privilege.

The Court has been clear. The Supreme Court has been clear. If you think you have one of these privileges, you show up and you assert it to the specific questions being asked to you. But the privilege against self-incrimination, the executive privilege, the marital privilege, none of these is a magic wand that you can wave from your sofa and not show up under a subpoena to a lawful proceeding.

But Navarro continues to mutter the words ``executive privilege,'' as if it is some kind of magic wand that would keep him from ever having to testify about anything, like Harry Potter's invisibility cloak. He even says, repeatedly, the executive privilege is not mine to waive, which is high comedy, Mr. Speaker, because it is not his to waive, which means, by definition, it is not his to invoke in the first place.

We know it is not his to invoke. The Supreme Court has been clear about this, too. The executive privilege belongs to the President of the United States of America, the actual President. President Biden has specifically decided not to invoke executive privilege in Navarro's case or in Scavino's case.

Yet, Navarro says the executive privilege here belongs to ex- President Donald Trump, which is not only extremely dubious but totally irrelevant.

It is dubious because the Supreme Court just rejected a claim by Donald Trump himself, in Trump v. Thompson, that his materials were protected from disclosure to the January 6th Select Committee in Congress by executive privilege.

Even if Trump were still the President, the Court essentially said there is an overwhelming public interest in these materials that dwarfs whatever dubious interest in executive secrecy may linger. So the claim would fail, even if President Joe Biden were himself here to assert it on behalf of Navarro and Scavino.

But Navarro's attempt to stand above the law by mentioning Donald Trump's name is also completely irrelevant. Why? Everyone, please take note of this: Because Donald Trump has never even asserted the executive privilege to cover Peter Navarro, not once. We have received no communication from Donald Trump, either directly or indirectly from Navarro, showing that Trump is trying to exercise an executive privilege claim, which is doomed to failure anyway under the logic of the decision just rendered by the Supreme Court.

Mr. Speaker, so what do we have? Two guys in the District of Columbia blowing off a congressional investigation and subpoenas into a deadly insurrection, which caused multiple deaths; inflicted brutal, savage injuries on 150 of our officers, who ended up with broken jaws, necks, vertebrae, noses, traumatic brain injuries, post-traumatic stress syndrome; and interrupted Congress from executing its constitutional duties of counting electoral college votes for the very first time in American history--oh, yes. And it nearly succeeded in overthrowing the 2020 Presidential election and toppling the peaceful transfer of power, perhaps for all time, as United States District Court Judge Carter wrote in a blistering opinion last week, rejecting this exact same and equally ridiculous claim of John Eastman, who helped cook up the absurd legal camouflage for this attempted coup in the first place against the American constitutional system of government.

The gentlewoman, I think, said something about the Russian hoax or Russian collusion. I accept the heckling, Mr. Speaker. That is all right because if she wants to continue to stand with Vladimir Putin and his brutal, bloody invasion against the people of Ukraine, she is free to do so.

We understand there is a strong Trump-Putin axis in the gentlewoman's party. If she wants to continue to stand with Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, that is her prerogative, but please do it on her own time forthwith.

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

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

This is not a partisan investigation. We were created under House Resolution 503 after, I am afraid, the gentleman and his colleagues voted to thwart a totally bipartisan, independent outside commission made up of five Democrats and five Republicans with equal subpoena power simply because Donald Trump exercised his veto within the Republican Party; the same Donald Trump who calls the madman, mass murderer, Vladimir Putin, a genius, but we know we have some people echoing all of Trump's complicity with Vladimir Putin from the Georgia delegation back there.

This is a bipartisan committee. It is the only committee I am aware of that has a Democratic chair in a Democratic-controlled House of Representatives and a Republican vice chair, Ms. Cheney, who was the head of the GOP Conference. She was the head of the House Republican Conference, now the vice chair of this committee, and they call it a partisan exercise.

The second point I need to make is that executive privilege must be asserted by the President. This one isn't even asserted by the former President. It is just somebody going in and saying, ``I have got an executive privilege.''

Is that really the precedent that my colleagues want to set, Madam Speaker? I mean, that is pretty astonishing if that is the position that they are taking.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), my very distinguished colleague.

No, I don't yield for that purpose, which is an extraneous and irrelevant distraction from the resolution. All time yielded is for the purposes of debate only.

I am sorry?

Are you yielding?

You have not been heckled by any of our Members, while I was heckled by----

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

More than 800 Americans have come to testify before our committee, the minority leader should be notified before he leaves the Chamber. Four of them have categorically refused and blown off the subpoenas of the U.S. House of Representatives.

The minority leader attacks our committee as partisan and political, as some of his colleagues do. Well, we are a bipartisan committee with a Democratic chair and Republican vice chair.

But today, the minority leader gave the game away as he boiled over with rage toward our committee. He gave the game away. He is very upset that the former chair of the House Republican Conference has been telling the truth about Donald Trump's big lie, his incitement of violent insurrection, and the attack on American constitutional democracy.

And that is why he is in the very embarrassing position of having supported, offered, and pressed for an independent, 9/11-style commission about the January 6 attack. And as the minority leader, he asked for five Republicans and five Democrats. He asked for equal subpoena power on both sides, equal staff on both sides.

And Chairman Thompson, who now chairs the January 6th Select Committee and chairs the Homeland Security Committee, he agreed to it. A lot of Democrats were upset about that. They said, we are in the majority. Why should we agree to have everything 50/50, right down the middle? But he agreed, and the Democrats agreed, because that is what the Republicans offered.

Great. We were going to have a 9/11-style independent commission.

And then you know what happened? You know who vetoed it? The fourth branch of government, Donald Trump, who some of their Members slavishly report to like sycophants.

And Donald Trump said he didn't want any investigation into the attack on this body, the Congress of the United States. He didn't want any investigation at all.

And you know what the minority leader did? He walked it back. They pulled the plug on the independent commission, and that is why we ended up with the January 6th Select Committee in the House of Representatives, which the Speaker has made sure is bipartisan and has operated, in my experience, Mr. Speaker, as the most bipartisan committee I have ever been on.

Why? Because we don't spend an hour at the beginning of each meeting with a bunch of empty partisan gimmicks and stunts; the kind we just saw, wasting the taxpayers' money and time; 20 minutes of that nonsense going nowhere; at the same time that there is an actual hearing taking place in Cannon 310, right now, by the Committee on Homeland Security, on the question of the border.

But instead of attending the hearing, I counted at least five or six different Members who were in that conga line. I will be interested to know whether they are even going to go to the hearing afterwards. Instead, they come and participate in that empty, absurd ritual, wasting the time of this body.

But the minority leader comes here and, amazingly, attacks our committee, when he sabotaged his own idea. But this committee is closing in on the truth, and that is why we get all these circus antics and all the attempts to distract the American people.

Mr. Speaker, if I had been dealt the hand that my friend from Pennsylvania has been dealt today, as a lawyer, as a Member of Congress, I suppose I would have done everything in my power to distract the House of Representatives also from the business at hand.

We have two people who are flagrantly, brazenly defying the authority of the House of Representatives of the United States in order to avoid coming here to tell the truth. They are acting in contempt of Congress, and we must hold them in contempt of Congress because of that.

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

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

I wanted to go back to something else that the minority leader said in echo of the minority floor leader's points.

They cling to the suggestion that there is no valid legislative purpose being conducted by the January 6th Select Committee; and they also say it is unlawfully composed.

Well, that has been rejected by several courts. In fact, all of the arguments that they are making have been rejected by the courts. I don't think they have won a single case in court yet.

But check out Budowich v. Pelosi with Judge Boasberg, or Eastman v. Thompson, where these courts said, not only is there a valid legislative purpose, but this is the quintessential legislative purpose; that is, guaranteeing the preservation of democratic self- government. If it is not a valid legislative purpose to investigate violent attacks, insurrections, and attempted coups against the government of the United States, then what is a valid purpose? The courts have said, the courts have got that right. They have written opinions.

I guess we are going to have to send a copy to the minority leader because he is apparently oblivious to it.

But even without the courts slapping down everything they are saying over there, just think about it. Would they really want to say that if there are violent attacks taking place against the Capitol we can't investigate it?

The Eastman decision also rejected the claim that we are somehow unlawfully composed.

I have got to say something on behalf of Representative Liz Cheney, who I probably disagree with on 90 percent of the issues we vote on here. But she was just maligned and castigated by the minority leader in an utterly unfair way.

She has operated with nothing but patriotism for this country and constitutional patriotism for the rule of law and the processes that define us. And they can overthrow her as the head of their caucus because she doesn't bow down on the altar of Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin the way that the gentlewoman from Georgia was heckling me does. And they can attack her because she thinks for herself and doesn't act like a cult member.

But we won't do that, even though we disagree with her on a lot of issues, but she is a constitutional patriot, and I feel she is owed an apology.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, before the gentleman goes, I want to tell the gentleman from Texas that I would never accuse him of performing a stunt. I was referring to the people who should have been in the Homeland Security Committee hearing actually dealing with the issue they profess to be talking about here on the floor under completely different auspices.

Let me go back to the questions offered by my distinguished friend from Pennsylvania who said, well, if they really did have a valid legislative purpose, as all these courts are saying, then they would be talking to the former Sergeant at Arms--well, we have--and we would be talking to the National Guard--we have.

Somebody is going to have to dust off the talking points over on that side because we have heard from more than 800 people who were involved.

This has nothing to do with any kind of ideological witch hunt; this has to do with an assault on American democratic institutions.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, before the gentleman leaves, I want to say a word about the distinguished gentleman from New York. We are all blessed to have Mr. Katko as a colleague. He is a brilliant lawyer and a man of exceptional character and honor.

He was the one who had been tasked by the minority leader to negotiate with the majority about creating an independent commission to investigate the assault on American democracy that took place on January 6. He was given very specific instructions, and he came back a winner. He had gotten an agreement for five Republicans and five Democrats, equal subpoena power right down the middle.

Alas for his caucus, alas for this Congress, alas for the country, the leadership pulled the rug out from beneath him.

We are going to be very sorry to see Mr. Katko leave Congress at the end of this session. We will all be impoverished by his absence.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I do want to thank my friend from Pennsylvania. Sometimes when I hear him in the committee, I think about another great Republican who served in the House of Representatives from Pennsylvania, Thaddeus Stevens. But today, my friend let me down a little bit because Thaddeus Stevens was a great enemy of insurrection and rebellion. He led the forces in this Congress who insisted upon accountability for the people who would dare wage war against the Congress of the United States and against the Union and the people who were all elected to serve and to represent.

Justice Kavanaugh, of course, was not ruling in the case that my good friend cited before. He was just opining. There was no ruling there. So that was one Justice's opinion.

My friend cuts me to the quick when he says that we don't care about the separation of powers. I think I am going to have to turn that insult around and say that they don't care about the separation of powers because the executive privilege of the Supreme Court has repeatedly held, going all the way back to 1953, in a case called the United States v. Reynolds that the executive privilege may be invoked only by the President of the United States.

And this President of the United States, who represents the Article II branch, has said he is not invoking it on behalf of Scavino or Navarro. He has rejected it.

The funny part is that the former President they talked about hasn't even shown up to try to invoke it. And what they are talking about doing could never be the subject of executive privilege anyway because it is political activity, which is a crime under the Hatch Act. It is criminal activity. It is a crime to engage in insurrection and coup.

How could executive privilege--even if you had a President who wanted nothing more than to try to drape the activities of Scavino and Navarro in executive privilege, how could that President ever prove that it applied? Navarro's job, for example, was the trade adviser. This has nothing to do with trade. He was engaged in trying to overthrow a Presidential election, as Judge Carter said last week.

Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of the utmost solemnity and seriousness to the American people. We are talking about the survival of American democratic government. For most of human history, people have lived under people like Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, the kings, the queens, the dictators, the tyrants, and the bullies whom some people would want to flatter.

But we have something else going on here in America. We have got a project in democratic self-government. Lincoln knew how tenuous it was. He asked whether government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall last or shall perish from the Earth.

That is the question facing us, too. So let's deal with all the issues and controversies we want. But couldn't we get together and all stand up for the institutions of the country?

We are doing that in our committee, which is bipartisan. I fear that sometimes we are moving into a Democratic/Republican caucus in Congress and a Trump caucus. There are those of us, like Ms. Cheney, like Mr. Kinzinger, and like Mr. Thompson on the committee, who want to work together to get to the bottom of this and then to deal with the problems of the country. And then there are those, like the minority leader, who will follow the will of Donald Trump if he says he doesn't want any investigation at all.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but that is where we are today. These two witnesses have acted with contempt towards Congress and the American people. We must hold them in contempt of Congress and the American people.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to underscore first the point that was just made by Ms. Cheney. The distinguished ranking member of the House Administration Committee was appointed to this committee, or the appointment was accepted by Speaker Pelosi, but it was withdrawn by the minority leader. It was not rejected by the majority; it was rejected by the minority.

Madam Speaker, we are here in the broadest sense to defend American democratic institutions and the rule of law. And our colleague said before that if this investigation were valid, then we would be talking to officials from the Sergeant at Arms Office and the National Guard.

Well, I have got good news for my friends. First, every court that has looked at their claim that this is an invalid investigation either because of its composition or because it was intrinsically flawed in its pursuit of the facts about January 6, has rejected those arguments. Every court that looked at it has rejected the precise arguments our colleagues are floating on the floor today.

But I will go even further than that. We have, in fact, interviewed precisely the people that they set up as a test for the validity of our investigation from the Sergeant at Arms and the National Guard. And as patriotic public officials living out their oaths of office and not bowing down to the humiliating cult of Donald Trump, they didn't need a subpoena from this committee; they came voluntarily. They not only understood their legal duty to testify, a duty our colleagues, like my friend, the gentleman from Ohio, clearly understands when they wield the gavel, but they have come forward and said that it is a patriotic honor for them. It is not just a legal duty, it is a patriotic honor for them to render truthful testimony on this horrific attack against America, which interrupted the counting of electoral college votes for the first time in American history.

This is mandated in the 12th Amendment to the Constitution, which says that the House and the Senate must meet in joint session in order to count electoral college votes the first week of January, on the Wednesday following a Presidential election.

What is remarkable to me is that the caucus that is now so drenched in the Trump-Putin propaganda is not just trying to denounce the Democrats for searching the truth right now. Today, they have begun the utterly cannibalistic process of vilifying and castigating Republicans just because they disagree with the orthodoxy, the dogma handed down by Donald Trump.

Ms. Cheney is the former chair of the House Republican Conference, and it is left to Democrats to defend her against the vilification and the castigating that we hear.

It is up to us to defend Mr. Kinzinger and to defend Ms. Cheney, because if you don't go along with what Donald Trump says, if you don't act like you are a robot, or a member of a religious cult, they will attack you, they will vilify you, they will denounce you.

These people, Mr. Kinzinger and Ms. Cheney, are constitutional heroes, and they don't deserve your contempt. The insurrectionists and the lawbreakers deserve your contempt because they are acting in contempt of the rule of law and the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud today to stand for this legislation with the party of democracy and freedom for the people, rather than the party of Big Brother and failed drug authoritarianism.

Do you know that 150 million Americans have used marijuana? Half of the country. That is just the people who are being honest about it. Half of the country has used marijuana, but you can still be denied a security clearance and government employment for having once used marijuana. That is plainly stupid, wrong, and unfair.

We are disqualifying tens of millions of qualified and excellent job applicants for Federal Government employment, our fellow citizens, our constituents. In Democratic districts and Republican districts, we are disqualifying those people from being Federal Government employees solely because they have used marijuana.

My amendment is one that every Member of the House should support. It says that Americans should not be denied a security clearance simply because they have used marijuana.

The longer I spend time in Congress, Mr. Speaker, the more I realize that in America, change comes from the States. It comes from the people. That is how we got child labor laws. That is how we got women's suffrage. That is how we got direct election of U.S. Senators, and now, so too with our draconian, obsolete, and failed marijuana laws.

Look at what is happening out in America. Eighteen States, plus Washington, D.C., have now passed laws allowing adult use of marijuana. In other words, they have accepted the antiprohibition principle that is in our Constitution. It is not that alcohol is so great for everybody in every circumstance, or marijuana is so great for everybody in every circumstance. It is that criminal prohibition and criminalization of large parts of our own population don't work.

It is legal in 18 States. In 27 States, it has been decriminalized. In a majority of the States, it is no longer criminal. In 36 States, the vast majority of America, more than two-thirds of the States, medical use of marijuana has been approved. In other words, it is legal in the vast majority of States of the country to use marijuana for medicinal purposes.

What a massive outbreak of common sense in America against the GOP's failed authoritarian war on marijuana that depends on paranoid tropes from the 1970s. It is like they saw ``Reefer Madness'' in middle school and never got over it.

I concede our party is not for the kind of cocaine-fueled orgies that a freshman Republican Representative bragged about this week, but we do understand that their marijuana prohibition laws don't work for our people.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, we can all agree that we should not be denying our constituents the opportunity to serve in Federal office by denying them a security clearance simply because they have used marijuana.

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

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

I think the distinguished gentleman seems to concede the general principle that we should not be denying the opportunity of Federal employment to half of the country because they have used marijuana before.

So, his argument seems to be: We have denied so many people that this would be an imposition on Federal bureaucrats to go back and tell people when they have been wronged in the past simply by telling the truth and saying that they have once used marijuana.

In fact, most of these agencies don't even require that there was any kind of criminal prosecution or conviction. They ask you, ``Have you used marijuana?'' If people say, ``Yes, I used it once in college,'' or whatever, they can't get a job. That makes no sense. We are doing that to our constituents.

Yes, let's go back and see how many people we have denied the opportunity of Federal employment to because they have used marijuana, which is lawful in most of the country now, either on a medicinal basis or on a recreational basis for adult consenting individuals who decide that is a decision they want to make.

Let's grow up as a country about this, and let's stop discriminating against our own people.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for pointing out that my amendment would apply not only to people who have sought public employment in the past and been denied because they have been honest enough to admit that they have once used marijuana but to private contractors. We are denying people the opportunity to do business with the government if they tell the truth about that.

I am urging all of my colleagues, wherever you are in terms of your particular State, let's stop discriminating.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize one of my remarkable constituents, James Caponiti, on the occasion of his retirement from the American Maritime Congress and for his unwavering service of nearly half a century to the U.S. Merchant Marine.

James' multi-decade career spans an extraordinary period which he began as a newly minted analyst at the Department of Commerce and which he concluded as Acting Deputy Administrator of the Maritime Administration. From the Nixon administration to navigating today's challenges of declining U.S. shipping, James worked to bolster the U.S. Merchant Marine's invaluable role in upholding our national security interests. For example, when he served as a Commerce Fellow on the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, James provided instrumental insight and guidance in crafting legislation that implemented the Maritime Security Program. As the Chairman of NATO's Planning Board for Shipping, he led efforts that emphasized the immense value of a robust domestic merchant fleet to our European allies.

He also served as the Executive Director and President of the American Maritime Congress, a non-profit and research education association dedicated to supporting the U.S. Merchant Marine. As Executive Director and President, James provided over 38 years of industry knowledge in showcasing the important nature of maritime services to policy staff in Congress and the White House. He also spearheaded efforts to revitalize the U.S. fleet, increase the share of food-aid required on U.S. flagged vessels, educate shareholders on Export-Import Bank mandates, expand diversity and inclusion within the U.S. Merchant Marine and promote sustainability efforts to mitigate the effects of climate change.

James faithfully dedicated himself to the best interests of his country. His unshakable commitment to improving the quality of life of all mariners and strengthening the security interests of our country embodies true American patriotism.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring the remarkable service and wonderful legacy of my constituent, James Caponiti.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 912 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from 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 have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, we met in the Rules Committee and reported a rule, House Resolution 912, providing for consideration of two different measures; first, H.R. 3076, the Postal Service Reform Act of 2022, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Reform. It makes in order a manager's amendment and provides for one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 6617, the Further Additional Extending Government Funding Act, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations and provides for one motion to recommit.

Finally, the resolution adopts H. Con. Res. 69, which provides for a joint session of Congress to receive a message from the President, and the rule restricts former Members' access to the House floor during the joint session.

Mr. Speaker, the Postal Service Reform Act is a major update and improvement to what is going on with our post office. Even in this increasingly digital world, Americans rely on the U.S. Postal Service for access to lifesaving prescription drugs and other essential items of living.

In the ongoing pandemic, the Postal Service has been critical in helping tens of millions of Americans vote safely and securely.

The Postal Service is processing an astounding 5,000 pieces of mail each second and is responsible for processing and delivering 46 percent of the world's mail.

It is no surprise that first class mail used to send things like letters and bills is on the decline in the digital environment we live in. Still, the Postal Service remains a critical lifeline, especially for people who live in rural areas and Tribal communities and for people with disabilities.

The Postal Service adds a million new delivery points each year. That means that the Postal Service is delivering a little bit less mail but to a lot more places.

This act addresses the financial needs of the Postal Service, ensuring that we can continue relying on it for generations to come.

The decline in first class mail, increasing expenses, and the requirement that the Postal Service prefund retiree health benefits have all contributed to some financial instability in the Postal Service.

H.R. 3076 puts USPS on a far more stable financial footing. Specifically, it requires future Postal Service retirees to enroll in Medicare, saving the Postal Service $22 billion over the next decade. While retirees have paid into Medicare their entire careers, a quarter of retirees choose not to enroll, requiring the Postal Service to pay for higher premiums.

Similarly, the legislation also eliminates the uniquely arduous requirement that USPS prefund retiree health benefits for a period of 75 years. No other company or governmental entity has this requirement, which has resulted in significant financial losses for USPS.

The Postal Service Reform Act also strengthens transparency and requires 6-day integrated delivery, ensuring high-quality mail service for at least 6 days a week to all Americans. It requires USPS to develop an online dashboard detailing weekly national and local-level performance data to promote compliance with on-time mail delivery.

Mr. Speaker, the consideration of this measure gives us the opportunity to celebrate the remarkable successes of the post office in our history. The Founders created the post office even before they signed the Declaration of Independence, and they named, of course, Benjamin Franklin as the first Postmaster General for the emerging Nation.

It was the post office that unified 13 divergent and quarreling Colonies into a nation as it created a great communications network that brought the news of the day and the news of public events to the doorstep of every fledgling American citizen. It was an idea that scandalized and horrified the European powers that, of course, always wanted to keep the people in the dark under the monarchies and aristocracies of Europe.

The post office also created the transportation system for America, which is why so many of our towns and cities have streets and roads called Post Road or Postal Road or Old Post Road running through the center of town.

The post office, of course, was an explicit delegation of power to Congress in the Constitution, as well as the power to build postal roads under Article I, Section 8.

The communications and transportation network created by the post office gave rise to the democratic political infrastructure of the Nation. This is how the committees of correspondence met that created the political will for the American Revolution and developed the political philosophy of our revolutionary forebearers.

The post office also gave rise to America's glorious free press. That is why so many of our newspapers, again, bear the name The Washington Post, the Buffalo-Courier Express, the Richmond Times-Dispatch. They were named after the postal operation that made the mass media possible in the country.

The post office has done wonders for American commerce and business, and continues to do that right up to today, so this legislation will help the post office grow and meet our needs in the new century.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his kind words for the bipartisan leadership and initiative taken in the Postal Service Reform Act, H.R. 3076.

Unfortunately, I have to take exception to the suggestion that this is somehow unique on our part. The gentleman may remember the bipartisan infrastructure act that the Democrats brought forward but we incorporated lots of Republicans in the process and we passed it on a bipartisan basis. That is more than $1 trillion invested in the roads, the highways, the ports, the airports, broadband, and cybersecurity.

That was something I remember was talked about during the last administration. I never saw a bill partisan, bipartisan, or otherwise come from that side of the aisle, but within the first year of the Biden administration that bipartisan infrastructure act was moved through Congress. We brought lots of Republicans in. I know a lot of them voted against it, some of whom are claiming credit for it back in their districts now.

But, in any event, this is not new for us. It takes two to tango. So I am glad that the gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognizing what we are doing here, but it is hardly unique in terms of the leadership being offered.

Mr. Speaker, speaking of bipartisan leadership, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), who is the chairwoman of the Committee on Oversight and Reform.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her very lucid remarks.

One other historic breakthrough of the post office, I am recalling now, is the fact that it was the first Federal public institution to provide for the hiring of women, African Americans, and other minority groups. So I am glad, again, that we have got bipartisan support for this really critical measure to reform the post office in different ways in order to make it viable in the new century.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, a quick note on the gentleman from California's points. He concedes that our bipartisan legislation does a lot of good things, but he says that it doesn't do everything.

He makes the point that the post office is not making a profit. That is true. It is not making a profit. Of course, our offices don't make a profit. There are very few Federal entities that make a profit. That is not what government does. Government serves the people. We want to be as efficient as possible in doing that, but the post office serves people from Alaska to Hawaii to Puerto Rico to Florida to Texas.

Everybody gets mail, and we want to do it as efficiently and as effectively as possible, but the point is to make sure that we are all connected and that everybody gets the benefit of being able to get their prescription drugs, that small businesses are able to send out their parcels, that consumers are able to receive what it is they are ordering, and so on.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), who is a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I do want to add one point to Ms. Scanlon's excellent delivery.

This legislation, the Postal Service Reform Act, requires the Postal Service to develop an online dashboard that will detail for all of us weekly national-and local-level performance data to promote compliance at every level with the on-time mail delivery expectations that we all have.

I too have spent time in a lot of neighborhoods of mine in Frederick County, Carroll County, and Montgomery County making sure that the Postal Service is getting on time delivery and making it happen. This new tool will allow all of us to monitor exactly what is going on in our particular communities.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6617, of course, extends funding for the Federal Government until March 11, 2022.

We eagerly anticipate the success of bipartisan negotiations for the full omnibus package.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for those excellent remarks and note that I think she speaks for millions of postal workers across the country who are excited about this legislation and the reforms that it is going to institute. This has the endorsement of the American Postal Workers Union, the National Association of Letter Carriers, the mail handlers, and a number of other organizations that are invested in this. So we are excited about this bipartisan investment in making the Postal Service work for the people in this new century.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The Washington Post this morning has an article about how a number of Governors--California Governor Gavin Newsom, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy, Delaware Governor John Carney, and Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont--have all announced changes to indoor masking requirements because of changes of where we are in the disease.

I certainly hope that my colleagues are not saying that we never should have worn masks, although I know some of them have said that and some of them have opposed masking guidance from the very beginning. Need I remind my colleagues that we have lost more than 900,000 people, including a lot of children, to this terrible disease. We have faced an epidemic of denialism from the beginning. Of course, the former President of the United States was out hawking quack medical cures and denying the virulence of the disease for a long time saying it would just disappear at Eastertime. Maybe everybody should just be injected with bleach.

We have come a long way from then, and President Biden has led us in an aggressive scientific effort, including masking where it was appropriate, in order to beat the disease, and we are making great progress. Now the States and localities are able to drop the masking requirements. So I see that they want to get on top of the wave and somehow claim that they are responsible for that when it was the President from their party who presided over an historically reckless and irresponsible approach to COVID-19, one that gave us a leading position in the spread of COVID-19.

So in any event, I haven't seen the bill that they have just introduced yet. I know that the Biden administration has used the post office to ship 500 million coronavirus test kits to people across the country, which, again, underscores the importance of the legislation we are really here to talk about today.

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

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

The gentleman from Pennsylvania doesn't have to take it from me. He can take it from President Trump's own Coronavirus Response Coordinator, Deborah Birx.

Dr. Birx said the first 100,000 deaths were perhaps inevitable, but the hundreds of thousands that came after it were avoidable and were the cost of the failure to undertake the public health precautions that were required. So, I would direct him to Dr. Birx.

Of course, when the virus was out of control and President Biden came into office, he was doing everything in his power to try to reverse the damage done by the lethal irresponsibility of the prior administration.

But in any event, Madam Speaker, we are here to try to get beyond all the wreckage at this point. We are here to fund the government through March 11. We are here to make these substantial reforms to the post office, on a bipartisan basis, that will make the post office far more efficient; that will guarantee 6-day service to our people all over the country; that will end that uniquely difficult and punitive policy of making the Postal Service alone have to prefund everybody's healthcare for the next 75 years, which explains a lot of its financial problems. That is what we are here to do today.

We are making progress for America, and we are trying to do it on a bipartisan basis. It seems strange to me that my colleagues would try to pick a fight about COVID-19 in this context when we are just trying to recover from the wreckage left by the prior administration.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Someone just tuning in right now might be a little confused and think that we are somehow debating COVID-19. We are here to talk about bipartisan legislation on the Postal Service and to keep the government open until March 11.

I would just point out to my good friend from Pennsylvania, who I am afraid seemed to disparage science on our side or the professional credentials of Dr. Deborah Birx, who was the former President's coronavirus coordinator; she went to Penn State medical school. I don't think the gentleman from Pennsylvania meant to disparage her educational credentials, certainly as a graduate of Penn State.

Look, we don't need the Federal Government dictating to the States and the localities what their policies are going to be about masking. I just read this morning about a bunch of States--I think they have Democratic Governors; New York, California, Delaware--that have pulled back on their masking policies because the virus, today, has dramatically subsided.

Are we going to pass a Federal bill every time the virus goes up or the virus goes down and tell them what their rules are going to be? Come on. I thought that we were all champions of federalism. But instead, they want to dictate it from up on high.

Remember, what this legislation is about--and I wish we could focus more on it--is reform of the Postal Service.

We have bipartisan support now for this. I am delighted to learn that it is not just the postal unions that I invoked before, but we have a bunch of postal associations for it. We have the American Postal Workers Union, the National Association of Letter Carriers, the National Rural Letter Carriers' Association, the National Association of Postal Supervisors, the National Active and Retired Federal Employees, the National Postal Mail Handlers Union, the Package Shippers Association, the Major Mailers Association, the National Newspaper Association, Coalition for a 21st Century Postal Service, Publishers Clearing House, American Catalog Mailers Association, and the National Retail Federation.

We have both the workers in the Postal Service and then big businesses and small businesses across the country, underscoring the fact that the Postal Service remains the central nervous system of commerce in America as well as our public life. That is something that we should be celebrating rather than picking an unnecessary fight, which is completely irrelevant to this legislation, about what is going on at the State and local level in other places.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

I want to say a word on behalf of Stacey Abrams, who was the target of some rhetorical attacks over there.

There is a picture of her without her mask on in front of a bunch of kids who did have their masks on, and it was being denounced by the speaker from North Carolina momentarily and also by the floor leader, who didn't have their masks on, standing in front of a whole group of people who did have their masks on.

In other words, they were in exactly the same position Stacey Abrams was, because the rule of reason we have adopted according to medical advice, I think across the country, is where masks are recommended and indicated, people wear them unless they are speaking. To turn that into a political football to denounce a fellow public servant seems to be a little bit beneath the dignity of this body.

But in any event, we are very excited about our postal reform legislation that we are moving through to guarantee excellent 6-day service to everybody, to have an online dashboard so we can all keep track of where the mail is in different parts of the country, and if there are problems, we can address them quickly.

I am glad we have bipartisan legislation--at least I hope it is bipartisan--to keep the government open until March 11.

As for COVID-19 policies, I think we should trust the States and the localities to deal with the manifold questions that come up as we continue to address this public health crisis, which was, of course, set into motion by a President who denied it, avoided it, said he would refuse to wear a mask even when it was indicated, who got it, who had dozens of doctors at his beck and call, who flew in a helicopter to get himself served.

Look, we need to get back on track in America. That means the government has to work for everybody. We have got to stop fighting about public health. We have got to work together for public health, just like we have got to work together for the post office, a great American institution which we improve and we advance today in the 21st century.

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

Amendment to House Resolution 912

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the

House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the

bill (H.R. 6619) to prohibit the Secretary of Education from

providing Federal funds to a local educational agency unless

in-person instruction is available to all students and

parents may opt out of student mask mandates, and for other

purposes. All points of order against consideration of the

bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All

points of order against provisions in the bill are waived.

The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the

bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without

intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally

divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority

member of the Committee on Education and Labor; and (2) one

motion to recommit.

Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H.R. 6619.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. I salute our colleague, Congresswoman Bustos, for introducing what will certainly be the most important piece of pro-labor legislation to pass out of the 117th Congress. Our Constitution guarantees our people the right to a jury trial, but forced arbitration in the workplace brutally cheats victims of sexual harassment and assault in the workplace out of their right to a trial before a jury of their peers. And by stripping women of this right, forced arbitration is creating corporate cultures of pervasive and severe sexual harassment all across the country, like the one Eliza Dushku faced in Hollywood where she got fired for objecting to constant sexually degrading and humiliating treatment in the workplace.

We heard testimony from women sexually harassed and raped by repeat offenders who have been made proud and contemptuous because their conduct is consistently buried and hidden in regimes of coerced, closed-door arbitration. We have created monsters out of repeat- offender sexual harassers across the country.

Let's throw the doors open and let's let the sun shine in. Let's restore the full constitutional rights of women in the workplace. Let's pass this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize one of my remarkable constituents, Tufail Ahmad, who passed away on January 13, 2022. Tufail dedicated his life to civic engagement and public service. His unwavering dedication to building a better future for his family, neighbors, friends and community is a true testament to the values we cherish as a country.

Tufail was born on March 4, 1938 in the small village of Allahabad, India. As a young man, he earned a Bachelor of Arts degree and Master of Arts degree in Commerce from Allahabad University before emigrating to Pakistan. While in Pakistan, Tufail worked as an assistant professor and then as the Deputy Auditor General for the Pakistan Audit and Accounts Services. Tufail later travelled to the United States in 1968 as a member of the Pakistan audit team at United Nations Headquarters in New York City. After formally emigrating to the United States in 1973, Tufail briefly worked at a shipping firm before he proudly founded his own international trading firm, Euro-America Shipping and Trade Inc.

After 27 years at the trading firm, Tufail went on to volunteer community service and served as a board member of the Committee for Montgomery, Progressive Maryland and the Upcounty Citizens Advisory Board. Tufail was also well known for his outstanding active

involvement in state and local politics, including serving as Precinct Chair and D15 Caucus Chair. He was later recognized as Precinct Official of the Year in 2004 and in 2018 was inducted into the Montgomery County Human Rights Hall of Fame.

In 2003, in what has become his enduring legacy, Tufail co- established the Montgomery County Muslim Council where he spearheaded efforts to boost civic engagement in the Muslim community. He also co- founded the Montgomery County Muslim Foundation, an organization that aspires to a hunger-free and hate-free society for all people, regardless of their faith, race or gender. Under Tufail's determined leadership, the Montgomery County Muslim Foundation became one of the largest nonprofit charitable foundations in Montgomery County.

Tufail devoted his life to providing for, and sharing with, all of our people. His unshakable commitment to improving the lives of his friends, family, neighbors, and community embodies true American patriotism.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring the remarkable life and wonderful legacy of my constituent, Tufail Ahmad.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Morton Abner Mintz, a World War II veteran and legendary investigative reporter who turned 100 years old this week. And what a century it has been for this great and modest man of exceptional gifts.

Born January 26, 1922, in Ann Arbor, Michigan, Mr. Mintz enlisted in the Navy after graduating from the University of Michigan. He served as Communications Officer and then Commanding Officer in World War II on USS LST 505, which supported troops in the D-Day Invasion of Normandy from June 6 to June 25, 1944; the Invasion of Southern France from August 15 to September 25, 1944; and in the Pacific Theater during the assault and occupation of Okinawa from May 29 to June 10, 1945, and subsequently in China.

Married for 68 years to the lovely Anita Inez Franz until she passed away in 2015, he has two daughters, Margaret and Roberta, and a son Daniel, 10 grandchildren and a great-grandson. Following his service in the Navy, Mr. Mintz became a newspaper reporter and editor in St. Louis, then moved to Washington, D.C. to work at the Washington Post in 1958. He was to become one of America's most independent, highly respected, and public-interested reporters. For decades he was a first- class investigative journalist and peerless muckraker.

Widely recognized by his peers for his relentless focus on protecting the public against both corporate and governmental abuses of power, the prodigious Mr. Mintz covered a wide range of topics, including anticompetitive business practices, automobile safety, air pollution, the tobacco, pharmaceutical and medical device industries, waste and fraud in military contracting, the corrupting power of the campaign finance regime and the corrosive influence of lobbying and large corporate donations on elected officials. He knew much could be learned from covering seemingly obscure congressional hearings and reading the fine print in legislation and administrative rulemaking processes.

Mr. Mintz' dogged investigative work repeatedly exposed corporate actions undertaken to

increase profit at the expense of consumer safety, leading to significant government regulations that curbed corporate misconduct and saved lives.

In 1962, he broke the story of how FDA scientist Frances Kelsey had discovered the dangers of the drug Thalidomide, which led to the last- minute banning of the drug from entering the US market and likely avoiding thousands of horrifying birth defects as were experienced in Europe. In the late 1960s, Mr. Mintz chronicled the inadequate testing of the original birth control pills and, years later, tracked the story of how a pharmaceutical corporation willfully ignored the safety hazards of the contraceptive Dalkon Shield, causing serious injury to thousands of women. He broke the extraordinary story of General Motors' corporate surveillance of Ralph Nader, the automaker's biggest public critic. He wrote about how profit driven decisions in the infant formula business led to great harm in impoverished populations with limited access to safe drinking water. And he reckoned with difficult and indigestible truths, such as in a 1983 exclusive interview with Assistant Secretary of War John J. McCloy, who had served in the Roosevelt administration, where he revealed some of the story behind the refusal of the United States during World War II to bomb the rail lines transporting Holocaust victims to the Birkenau or the Auschwitz concentration camps.

Following his retirement from the Washington Post in 1988, Mr. Mintz continued his work as a journalist and media critic. In 1993, he exposed the failure of the American Civil Liberties Union to inform its members that it accepted money from the tobacco industry and, under the guise of defending free speech, also actively opposed legislation that would ban or limit tobacco advertising and promotion. In 1999, he wrote media criticism for Tompaine.com. ``Mort Wants to Know,'' and posed questions that the press should be asking of presidential and congressional candidates in the 2000 national elections. A Senior Advisor to the Nieman Watchdog Project for many years, he also contributed commentary to niemanwatchdog.org on vital topics including military spending, congressional ethics and oversight, single payer health insurance, pharmaceutical pricing, executive pay, corporate welfare and the corporate shield that protects executives from punishment for their decisions to market products known to be harmful, as well as tough questions that reporters should be asking legislators and corporate executives. He served as chair of The Fund for Investigative Journalism for three years and on the board of Project on Government Oversight (POGO).

Mr. Mintz was an active member of the Washington-Baltimore News Guild. His bestselling book ``America, Inc.: Who Owns and Operates the United States,'' written with the late Jerry S. Cohen, demonstrated the pervasive and often hidden influence of corporate power. Mintz and Cohen later co-wrote ``Power, Inc.: Public and Private Rulers and How to Make Them Accountable,'' continuing their investigation of the pernicious impact of unaccountable power in the interlocking corporate and government realms. Mr. Mintz's other books include ``The Therapeutic Nightmare,'' ``By Prescription Only,'' ``The Pill: An Alarming Report'' and ``At Any Cost: Corporate Greed, Women, and the Dalkon Shield.'' He received many prestigious journalism awards including Nieman Fellowship 1964, the Worth Bingham, Heywood Broun, Raymond Clapper and George Polk Memorial Awards, the Columbia Journalism Award, The Playboy Foundation's Hugh M. Hefner First Amendment Award for Lifetime Achievement, (More) Magazine's A.J. Liebling Award, the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild award for Public Service and for Distinguished Writing and the Association of Trial Lawyers of America Special Literary-Public Service Award.

I have known Morton Mintz since the seventh grade when his son Daniel became one of my closest friends. As kids, we all marveled at Mr. Mintz, an old-fashioned gentleman with a golden pen, rock-ribbed integrity and sparkling intelligence.

I commend Mr. Mintz for his splendid commitment and service to the public interest always--whether the subject be consumer safety, corporate and government accountability, or the truth about humanity's wars--through his many decades of extraordinary investigative reporting, I am proud to share a small piece of his story with my colleagues and the nation.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing Mr. Morton Mintz on the occasion of his 100th birthday for his exceptional service to our nation, both as a patriot in uniform and as a crusading investigative reporter in love with the truth.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record the following letters of support for the Senate Amendment to H.R. 5746.

Democracy 21,

Washington, DC, January 13, 2022.

Dear Representative: Democracy 21 strongly supports and

urges you to vote for the House Amendment to the Senate

Amendment to H.R. 5746, the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis

Act and for the rule to bring it to the House floor.

The right of every eligible American to vote and have their

vote properly counted is the cornerstone of our democracy.

This fundamental right and our democracy are at grave risk

today.

In 2021, Republican-controlled state legislatures across

the country enacted a wave of unprecedented voter suppression

and election sabotage laws in the name of ``election

integrity.'' More are expected to be enacted in 2022.

The state laws stemmed from the Trump Big Lie that the 2020

presidential election was stolen from him, even though there

was not a shred of evidence to support his demagogic claim.

Trump's own top government security officials found that the

2020 election ``was the most secure in American history.''

The Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act would override the

state voter suppression laws for federal elections and combat

the state election sabotage laws that empower partisan

election officials to rig the results of federal races. The

Act would also prevent partisan gerrymandering and provide

essential campaign finance reforms.

The Act would protect the right of every eligible American

to vote and preserve our democracy.

Democracy 21 strongly urges you to vote for the Freedom to

Vote: John R. Lewis Act.

Sincerely,

Fred Wertheimer,

President.

Mr. Speaker, our colleagues object to guaranteeing the peoples' right to vote through the vehicle of a NASA bill of all things. A quarter of a century ago Republicans changed Texas State law to permit astronauts to vote absentee from space. They want to make it easier to vote from space, and they want to make it harder to vote on Earth.

In the last election, tens of thousands of citizens in Texas waited in line for 6 hours to vote and an astronaut on the International Space Station could have orbited planet Earth four times in the 6 hours that Texas forced some of its citizens to wait in line to vote.

Across the country it is voter suppression, GOP gerrymandering of our districts, rightwing Supreme Court packing and judicial activism to destroy the voting rights in cases like Shelby County v. Holder and Brnovich and deployment of the filibuster to block voting rights legislation--the whole matrix of GOP democracy suppression today.

It is time to protect the right to vote here on Earth. If it takes a NASA bill to do it, then I invite my GOP colleagues to boldly go where none of them have ever gone before--to planet Earth on a mission to defend the voting rights of the people.

Madam Speaker, I characterized the sender of a November 4, 2020 text message to Mark Meadows as a Member of this body. The specific text message I was referring to was actually not sent by a Member of this body, but by another political figure.