Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I thank my dear friend and fellow member of the Rules Committee, Mr. DeSaulnier, for giving me the opportunity to speak for just a moment.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule that would allow us to consider the INVEST in America Act.

This long-overdue infrastructure legislation will prioritize direct Federal investments in roads, bridges, transit, and rail, while also leveraging modern and innovative approaches to reliable and sustainable infrastructure investments.

As we continue our recovery from the pandemic and seek to revitalize our communities, we know an essential part of that is strengthening our local infrastructure. Modernizing our infrastructure helps to meet growing mobility demands, create jobs, and grow the economy, all while creating stronger and more interconnected communities.

I am thrilled that this legislative package lays the groundwork for major investments across the country while also supporting opportunities to strengthen our local infrastructure through targeted priorities.

My own community of Rochester, New York, will only grow stronger through the enactment of the INVEST in America Act, and I look forward to seeing this critical legislation passed into law.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to have helped move this transformative bill forward, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of the rule and the underlying bill. And I call on our partners in the Senate to join us in making this investment a reality.

Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman DeFazio for his tireless work on this effort, and my dear friend, Mr. DeSaulnier, for yielding time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Ranga Dias, for his discovery of the world's first high-temperature super-conducting material, carbonaceous sulfur hydride. Because of their potential to change the world as we know it, such materials have been sought by scientists for more than a century. I couldn't be more proud that this discovery by Dr. Dias, and his collaborators, was made in my district. I also want to acknowledge the incredible support from the National Science Foundation and Department of Energy Office of Science that made this work possible.

Dr. Dias is a professor of Mechanical Engineering and Physics and Astronomy at the University of Rochester and an internationally recognized scientist in the field of high-pressure physics and high energy density science. Since announcing his discovery this past October, Dr. Dias' work has been extensively reported in popular press, including the New York Times, NPR, and the BBC. Dr. Dias was named to the 2021 Time 100 NEXT list that highlights 100 emerging leaders who are shaping the future and was recently awarded a National Science Foundation Faculty Early Career Development, or CAREER, award. CAREER is the NSF's most prestigious award in support of early-career faculty and is intended to help them build a firm foundation for a lifetime of leadership in integrating education and research.

Professor Dias' research focuses on materials under extreme pressures where their properties are altered in fundamental ways. At these incredibly high pressures, individual atoms are forced into close proximity, in a similar manner as when they are cooled to very low temperatures, allowing them to exhibit a range of interesting quantum behaviors, including super-conductivity. This approach is a paradigm shift that has allowed Dr. Dias' team what no one else has. To say this is the stuff of science fiction would be an understatement.

To create this material, the team placed a mixture of carbon, hydrogen and sulfur in a microscopic niche carved between the tips of two diamonds and then subjected them to laser light and squeezed them at 2.6 million times atmospheric pressure at sea level. The result was a new record: a material that exhibited superconductivity at about 58 degrees Fahrenheit. The hope, which I share, is that with further research, this team of talented scientists will find a way to make these, or similar materials, stable at ambient temperatures and pressures, unlocking a wide range of potential applications that will literally transform our world, including ultra-efficient computers and electronic devices, essentially loss-less energy transmission and storage, and new forms of propulsion and industrial power transmission without friction. With this approach, it may even become possible to create unique materials whose properties are tuned to particular applications that we have not yet dreamed of.

Of course, translating this advance into practical applications and realizing these breakthroughs still require additional research and development that will take some time. However, the phenomenal achievement of Dr. Dias and his team have shown us what is possible and, thanks to federal support for science, we are closer now than we have ever been. I congratulate Ranga on his accomplishments and wish him the greatest success with his future research.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Dustin Froula, the recipient of the 2020 Ernest Orlando Lawrence award from the United States Department of Energy. Dr. Froula is Senior Scientist and Leader of the Plasma and Ultrafast Physics Group at the Laboratory for Laser Energetics and Associate Professor of Physics in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Rochester in my district.

Professor Froula joined the University of Rochester in 2010 from the National Ignition Facility Inertial Confinement Fusion Directorate at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. His research interests lie in the fields of experimental plasma and laser physics and covers the many areas relevant to inertial confinement fusion and high-energy-density physics.

The E.O. Lawrence award was established in 1959 in honor of a scientist who helped elevate American physics to world leadership and recognizes U.S. scientists and engineers in nine fields, at mid-career, for exceptional contributions in research and development supporting the Department of Energy and its mission to advance the national, economic and energy security of the United States. Dr. Froula received his award in Fusion and Plasma Sciences for innovative research in laser plasma physics including pioneering spatiotemporal pulse shaping techniques, focused laser plasma instability research, and novel high- resolution Thomson scattering methods.

In addition to the Lawrence award, Dr. Froula has been previously recognized with the 2007 Department of Energy's Outstanding Mentor Award for his work with undergraduate and graduate students and the 2019 American Physical Society's John Dawson Award for Excellence in Plasma Physics Research, ``for innovative experiments that demonstrate turbulent dynamo in the laboratory, establishing laboratory experiments as a component in the study of turbulent magnetized plasmas, and opening a new path to laboratory investigations of other astrophysical processes.'' In addition, he was selected as a fellow of the American Physical Society in 2017 for the ``development and application of Thomson scattering to understand thermal transport and the onset of laser-plasma instabilities in indirect- and direct-drive fusion experiments.''

Dr. Froula's research addresses long-standing questions in plasma physics, including building a better understanding of how laser beams propagate through and interact with plasmas during laser-based experiments. His exceptional contributions have made him an internationally recognized expert in the theory and utilization of Thomson scattering, including co-authoring the definite reference text, ``Plasma Scattering of Electromagnetic Radiation: Theory and Measurement Techniques''. He helped pioneer the development of using Thompson scattering as a measurement tool, and it has evolved from a rare and challenging experimental technique to a common and routine experimental diagnostic capability in fundamental plasma physics.

Additionally, Dr. Froula has recently opened a new field of optics based on the concept of ``flying focus,'' a technique that enables researchers to better control the intensity of lasers over long distances. The technique has the potential to help researchers design the next generation of high-power, laser-driven particle accelerators, and light sources with novel wavelengths for studying complex materials and molecules.

His work to date has been tremendous and his contributions to science, leadership and mentoring epitomize all the qualities that E.O. Lawrence strived for in his lifetime. In summary, Dr. Froula's colleagues and students know him as an outstanding, innovative scientist and mentor who inspires and involves graduate students in world leading plasma science research. I am proud to have Dustin as a constituent and awed by his numerous scientific achievements, including this very deserving award.

Madam Speaker, rise today in recognition of Mr. Lou Spiotti as he retires from an outstanding career as the Athletic Director at the Rochester Institute of Technology, a career spanning four decades of unwavering commitment to his student-athletes both on and off the field.

Mr. Spiotti arrived at RIT in 1974 as head football coach, after six years he was chosen to lead the athletic program. Under his leadership, RIT athletics experienced unprecedented success and growth. From an original fifteen programs, Mr. Spiotti oversaw the expansion to twenty- four programs totaling well over 600 student-athletes and staff. During his forty-one-year tenure, RIT secured forty-one Division III conference championships--including ten consecutive league titles by the men's lacrosse program and women's basketball playing in three straight NCAA Tournaments. Mr. Spiotti's decades of service make him the longest-tenured intercollegiate athletic director in the nation--a remarkable accomplishment.

Academic success was always as important to Mr. Spiotti as athletic success. During his career, the athletic department's cumulative grade point average regularly exceeded that of the overall student body. Additionally. Mr. Spiotti spearheaded multiple athletic facility upgrades including the completion of the 4,300 seat Gene Polisseni Center. For his body of work as a leader, coach, and administrator Mr. Spiotti has earned the respect and admiration of the RIT community. He leaves behind a culture of integrity, character, and class.

Madam Speaker, I respectfully ask that you join me in extending congratulations on Mr. Spiotti's well-deserved retirement and in expressing our appreciation for his years of service to the RIT community.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 486 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

Madam Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 486, providing for consideration of H.R. 2062, the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination 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 Education and Labor. It self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairman Scott and makes in order five amendments. The rule provides for en bloc authority to Chairman Scott or his designee and for one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 239, the Equal Access to Contraception for Veterans Act, under a closed rule. It provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and provides for one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 1443, the LGBTQ Business Equal Credit Enforcement and Investment Act, under a closed rule. It provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services and provides for one motion to recommit.

The rule further provides for consideration of S.J. Res. 13, S.J. Res. 14, and S.J. Res. 15 under closed rules. It provides the Committees on Education and Labor, Energy and Commerce, and Financial Services each 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by their respective chairs and ranking minority members. It also provides each joint resolution one motion to recommit.

Finally, the rule deems passage of H. Res. 485 and provides the majority leader or his designee the ability to en bloc requested rollcall votes on suspension bills considered on June 22 or 23. This authority lasts through June 25.

Madam Speaker, the House is set to take up a number of critical bills and resolutions in this rule, but I would like to begin by saying a few words about H.R. 2062, the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act.

Instances of age discrimination at the workplace, including being passed up for a promotion or forced to retire early, are far too common across the country. A recent survey conducted by AARP found that nearly two out of three workers 45 years and older have seen or experienced age discrimination while on the job.

Importantly, we can expect this problem to be exacerbated in the coming years by the continued growth of the number of older workers in America, which is outpacing the growth of the overall labor force.

Discrimination against workers is not only unfair and morally wrong; it creates a major drag on the U.S. economy. According to a recent report, the economy missed out on an additional $850 billion in GDP in 2018 all because older workers aged 50 years and older were not given the opportunity to remain in or re-enter the labor force, switch jobs, or be promoted within their existing company. Clearly, age discrimination not only harms older workers; it harms the country as a whole.

Despite the enormity of this problem, the Supreme Court in 2009 made it much more difficult for age discrimination lawsuits to be successful. The Court's ruling in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. imposed a much higher burden of proof on plaintiffs alleging discrimination than previously required under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act passed by Congress in 1967.

This new standard from Gross requires plaintiffs to prove that age discrimination was the decisive, determinative but-for cause for any adverse employment action taken by the employer. The new sole-factor test replaced decades of precedent allowing that employees need only show that their age was a key factor, potentially among other factors, in the employer's adverse employment action.

The Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act simply restores the pre-2009 evidentiary threshold, allowing individuals to show a discriminatory motive was merely a key factor for the adverse employment action, which is consistent with the standard for other workplace discrimination claims based on race, religion, sex, or national origin. This legislation ensures that older workers can pursue their livelihoods and hold employers accountable for age discrimination.

This rule also sets up consideration of three Congressional Review Act resolutions, all of which overturn harmful rulemaking implemented by the Trump administration.

S.J. Res. 13 overturns a rule finalized by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that provides employers with significant unfair advantages during the informal conciliation process, which allows parties to settle a charge of employer discrimination without going to court.

S.J. Res. 14 overturns efforts by the Trump EPA to gut a 2016 rule finalized by the Obama administration, which placed critically important limits on methane emissions from the oil and gas industry sector.

The last CRA resolution overturns the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency's true lender rule, which makes it easier for predatory lenders to launder loans through out-of-State banks that are not subject to State interest rate caps. Prior to this rule, the ``true lender'' in partnerships between banks and nonbank financial service companies was whichever entity had the primary economic interest in the loan. This harmful OCC action changed the test for the ``true lender'' to be simply whichever bank is listed on the loan origination documents, making it extraordinarily easy to create a rent-a-bank relationship between nationally chartered banks and nonbanks, allowing nonbanks to avoid State interest rate cap laws where they are actually doing business.

Especially during the midst of a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic and economic crisis, it is astounding that the Trump administration chose to focus on making it easier for predatory lenders to take advantage of Americans in need.

Finally, the House is also set to consider two additional bills. The Equal Access to Contraception for Veterans Act, H.R. 239, prohibits the Department of Veterans Affairs from requiring copayments for contraception coverage, bringing the policy in line with the Department of Defense and the private sector. The second bill, LGBTQ Business Equal Credit Enforcement and Investment Act, H.R. 1443, requires financial institutions to collect the sexual orientation and gender identity of the principal owners of small businesses, in addition to existing requirements that institutions collect data on sex, race, and ethnicity.

Both of these bills should be noncontroversial. Although Members of the House Republican Conference inexplicably blocked these bills from passing under suspension last week, I am pleased that we will not further delay passage of this critical legislation.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this rule, the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act, three CRAs to overturn harmful administration actions of the previous administration, and commonsense legislation to support women veterans and the LGBTQ business community.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate very much the comments from my friend and my colleague on the Committee on Rules, Mr. Burgess.

I do want to just note that when it comes to discrimination, the standard that we use for discrimination in the workplace that relates to race, religion, sex or national origin, is that

those factors are a key motivating factor in an employment decision that allows a claimant to come forward. That is what we wish to make the standard for age discrimination for older Americans.

What is being suggested by my friends on the other side of the aisle, however, are two different standards. In this case, when it comes to age discrimination, that it needs to be the sole factor. Prior to the 2009 Supreme Court case, indeed these were on par. The same standards would apply, the same criteria that it be a key motivating factor.

And frankly, when you think about it, if you are an older American and you are being denied a promotion, you are being denied a pay raise, and your employer suggests, well, you are a little older, and oh, by the way--and lists a couple other things. Well, because it is not the sole factor that they articulated, you don't have a cause for a claim. And we believe that there shouldn't be two different standards when it comes to discrimination. If it is a key motivating factor, which it was up until the 2009 opinion, that is how it should stand. And we should make certain that the law of the land when it relates to employment discrimination is the same, whether or not it is because of race, religion, sex, national origin, or age.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Brownley).

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

Madam Speaker, I want to just talk for a moment about H.R. 239, the Equal Access to Contraception for Veterans Act, which is actually before us today. Although some might want to make this debate about other issues, it is not.

Comprehensive healthcare for women, including access to contraception, is critically important. Access to contraception is an economic issue. It helps people stay in the workforce, earn wages, support stronger families. It has even been shown to lift women out of poverty.

Even relatively small copays have been found to be a barrier to accessing contraception. Costs associated with contraception result in women foregoing it completely, choosing less effective methods, or using it inconsistently.

Congress eliminated copays for contraception as part of the Affordable Care Act. And, as I said, for members of the Defense Department, for people in military service, there is no copay. It is time we did the same for those brave women who entered armed services and now are veterans.

We also want to make sure that we have equal access. Women represent the fastest growing subpopulation of veterans in the Nation, yet they lack access to the basic preventative healthcare needs like contraception.

So I want to make sure that we focus on what is before us, the bills before the House, what this conversation is about, and not to be distracted by things not before us and part of an extreme agenda.

This is a simple issue. It has passed by voice vote in the last Congress, and it is not clear to me what has changed. This is an important issue for women all across America, and we owe that to our veterans to make sure that they don't have additional barriers to contraception that no one else in American has.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I just note that we have in front of us two CRAs. We have two important bills: The LGBTQ Business Equal Credit Enforcement and Investment Act, as well as the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act of 2021.

And we are not talking about any of those. So I am prepared to talk about those, which are actually before the House, whenever my friends choose to.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I do want to thank the gentleman, Dr. Burgess, a colleague and friend on the Rules Committee. I always appreciate hearing from him.

I think there are compelling issues here in this rule and the reasons that the House should adopt the rule.

The Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act is a critical tool for so many Americans who are discriminated against in the workplace. It deserves our support. I am confident that it will pass the House, but we should remember how important it is, not only to those workers, but to the U.S. economy.

H.R. 239, the Equal Access to Contraception for Veterans Act, makes sure that women who have served and are veterans have the same rights that every other person in America has to not have to pay copays in order to receive contraception from their healthcare policy.

We also take up critical legislation regarding LGBTQ businesses, to make sure they get equal access to credit and equal access to investments. H.R. 1443 would require lenders to start to gather information on those businesses that are owned by LGBTQ individuals.

The CRAs, in my judgment, Mr. Speaker, are all well-informed, and they do focus on the policies, policies which, frankly, we don't agree with here in the House and which the Senate didn't agree with. The Senate has passed these on to us in bipartisan fashion, so these aren't simply questions of whether or not we approve of the previous President. This is about the policies themselves, and they have found themselves here to be voted on because our colleagues across the corridor in the Senate agree with us that these rules ought to be overturned using the CRA process.

This is an important rule. It affects millions of Americans in so many ways.

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, I rise today to acknowledge the significant struggles facing working families across America, struggles that have been exposed and exacerbated by the COVID pandemic.

That is why, through the American Rescue Plan, we took action to expand the child tax credit, helping to uplift families and reduce poverty. In my community, more than 40,000 households will receive an average benefit of nearly $3,000 that will begin being disbursed in just a few short weeks. This is projected to lift 8,200 children out of poverty in my district alone.

When we talk about transformative investment to support working families, this is exactly what we mean, and it is why we need to make the expanded child tax credit permanent, to put kids and parents on the path to success, because when we ease the financial burden on families, they have the security and flexibility to contribute to the workforce, strengthen our economy, and set our children up for a stable and successful future.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the distinguished service of Mr. Eugene Dollard of Hamlin, New York. On June 9, 2021, Mr. Dollard was presented with the Legion of Honor Medal, an honor given to those who demonstrate unparalleled courage and patriotism in the face of mortal danger and France's highest accolade conferred for military bravery and service. In 1943, when he turned eighteen, Mr. Dollard enlisted in the United States Navy. A year later, on June 4, 1944, Mr. Dollard participated in the largest naval invasion in history, D-day. On that fateful morning, Mr. Dollard sailed with the U.S.S. Henrico under the command of Rear Admiral John Hall. Departing from Portland, England, the Henrico crossed the English Channel transporting the 16th Regiment of the First Infantry Division. Under heavy fire, the Henrico delivered the infantry to Omaha Beach. During the fighting, Mr. Dollard manned twenty-millimeter machine guns while under attack from German artillery and aircraft. Then, under continued fire, he landed on the beach and administered first aid to the wounded. As the fighting raged on, Mr. Dollard did what he could to assist the wounded soldiers who were taken back to the Henrico. After D-day, he moved on to the Mediterranean theatre serving his country honorably in Morocco, Algeria, and Italy. Mr. Dollard was then transferred to the U.S.S. Chilton in the Pacific where he fought in the Battle of Okinawa. During a Japanese bombing raid, he was sheltering in a bunker when he spotted shadowy figures moving on the beach. Crawling out into the darkness, he tackled a Japanese General. Although unarmed, Mr. Dollard was able to overpower the General and capture him, eventually turning the Japanese General over to the Military Police. After three years of service, Mr. Dollard was honorably discharged from the United States Navy in 1945. Returning to Hamlin, he has lived a full life: running a business, raising a family, and leaving his mark on the world for generations to come. Mr. Dollard is an extraordinary example of commitment and selfless service.

Madam Speaker, please join me in honoring Mr. Eugene Dollard.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize Military Appreciation Month.

Serving in America's Armed Forces is one of the most courageous and selfless decisions citizens of this country can make. It is a decision we should never cease to honor and celebrate. Too frequently, however, our Active Duty servicemembers and their families do not receive the essential care and support they need and deserve.

Force readiness is contingent on a servicemember's ability to be confident that their family is kept safe when they are called to serve. Too often we find that these families aren't safe. They are living in homes with toxic mold and no recourse. Their drinking water has been poisoned by years of chemical dumps with no recourse.

It is simply unacceptable. As a new member of the House Armed Services Committee, I will always stand up to ensure that those who have so bravely defended our freedoms have access to the essential resources and support they need to thrive.

Military families serve too, and it is time we recognize this and act to show them the appreciation they deserve.

Madam Speaker, I regrettably missed Roll Call vote 86 H.R. 1620 The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2021 on March 17, 2021. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA.

Madam Speaker, I regrettably missed Roll Call vote 86 H.R. 1620 The

Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2021 on March 17, 2021. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 179 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, today, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 179, providing for consideration of H.R. 1, the For the People Act of 2021, under a structured rule. It self- executes a manager's amendment by Chairperson Lofgren and makes in order 56 amendments.

The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on House Administration and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 1280, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021, under a closed rule. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary and provides for one motion to recommit.

The rule also deems as passed H. Res. 176, which directs the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make a correction in the engrossment of H.R. 1319, and H. Res. 177, which authorizes candidates for election to the House and Members of the House to file statements with the Clerk regarding the intention to participate or not participate in the small donor financing system for such elections created by H.R. 1.

Mr. Speaker, the House will be considering two pieces of critically important legislation this week that are a long time coming.

H.R. 1, the For the People Act, will expand voting rights, limit partisan gerrymandering, improve election integrity, and revise rules for political spending and government ethics. The 2020 election brought out unprecedented turnout, even in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic. Thanks in large part to voting by mail, more than 159 million Americans voted, the largest total vote turnout in United States history.

What followed was the most heavily scrutinized election in modern history, with our airwaves filled with horrific and dangerous lies that fundamentally damaged many people's faith in our democracy. Yet, through that entire ordeal, not a single shred of evidence of any systemic fraud was ever discovered--none at all.

Voting in this country, however, is far from perfect. Many people, particularly Americans of color and those from low-income families, face tremendous barriers to making their voices heard, from long lines at the polls to discriminatory ID laws.

I believe, and the Democratic majority believes, our national effort should be aimed at eliminating barriers to the ballot. We believe true participatory democracy can only be achieved when everyone--everyone-- is afforded the opportunity to vote. We believe it is better for America that every voice be heard here in Washington, in State capitols, and in city, town, and village halls across our Nation.

It is better for all of our citizens when each and every citizen has a stake in what their government says and what their government does. And we believe it is better for us on the world stage when our democracy shines as a beacon of hope and success for others to emulate.

It is becoming increasingly clear that not everyone believes our national interest is served by greater voter participation. It is held in some quarters that, rather than seeing greater participation as a sign of our democracy's enduring strength, it is instead seen as evidence of a dark, sinister plot. Or perhaps, more cynically, they express that view because suppressing votes, particularly of those with whom they disagree, will improve their chances for electoral success, even though it weakens our democracy.

Rather than trying to build on the successes of record voter turnout, many of my friends on the other side of the aisle would rather turn their backs on those successes and begin an organized effort to change the rules because they didn't like the outcome.

The minority has put forward a narrative that suggests we must choose between two separate paths, accessibility and security. But that is a deliberately false narrative. We can, and we must, achieve both. H.R. 1 is the vehicle to advance both.

The For the People Act places a significant emphasis on election security, in everything from voter registration to ensuring all voting systems are secure with paper ballots and robust election result audits.

The outrage we have heard from Republican leaders in Congress demonstrates how out of touch they are with their own voters. More than two-thirds of likely voters, including 57 percent of Republicans, said they would back the proposals in H.R. 1. Americans want more accountability from their leaders, not less.

They want the influence of money out of politics. They want an end to gerrymandered districts. They want voting to be a celebration of our civil duty, not a constant battle to overcome administrative hurdles.

We owe it to those Americans to create the ethical and accessible democracy that they so richly deserve.

The House will also take up H.R. 1280, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. This legislation represents the work of hundreds of legislators and millions of American advocates who have fought for decades for a more equitable future.

This fight is especially personal for me, as my own community of Rochester, New York, has grappled with two recent tragedies that underscore just how necessary police reform truly is.

Just one block from here, on the west pediment of the United States Supreme Court, is a promise to every American: ``Equal justice under law.''

Sadly, we know that for too many Americans, that promise is an empty one. It was an empty promise for Daniel Prude, who, while naked and unarmed, faced a mental health crisis in the streets of Rochester when police arrived on the scene last March. He needed a warm blanket and treatment by a mental health professional. He got neither and died in police custody just days later.

It wasn't true just a month ago for a young girl in my community, who was forcibly restrained and pepper sprayed as she called out for her father. She is 9 years old. A police officer on the scene, impatient with her pleas to see her dad, urged her to stop acting like a child. Her response: ``I am a child.''

It would be laughable if it were not heartbreaking.

Equal justice under law was an empty promise for George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Jacob Blake, and for countless others in every corner of America and for countless more still to come unless we take bold, decisive action.

Indeed, it is up to each of us to make the changes necessary to finally fulfill the promise of equal justice.

The time for incremental change has passed. It is clear that we need a cultural paradigm shift and massive reimagining of our public safety protocols, and that starts with the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.

The bill prohibits religious, racial, and discriminatory profiling by every police department in America, supported by improved training for officers and comprehensive data collection and tracking to ensure departments are following the law.

It will save lives by banning dangerous police practices, like choke holds and no-knock drug warrants. It will ensure that law enforcement uses deadly force only when absolutely necessary and only after exhausting deescalation tactics.

This legislation would limit the transfer of military-grade equipment to State and local law enforcement because peace, safety, and community trust cannot--cannot--be realized with weapons of war.

The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act will create desperately needed accountability by expanding the use of body-worn cameras and dashboard cameras and eliminating the qualified immunity protections that allow bad actors in law enforcement to stay on the force.

As a whole, this legislation addresses police misconduct, creates greater transparency, and affords victims meaningful avenues for redress. With these policies, we can build trust and we can begin to build cooperation between law enforcement and the communities they are supposed to serve and protect.

We passed both the For the People Act and the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act in the previous Congress, and it is my hope that this year represents a real opportunity to move both bills forward to the President's desk so that we can build stronger democracy and justice for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this rule and to support both underlying bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, just a brief comment. As much as it pains me, because I have nothing but incredible admiration and respect for my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Oklahoma, but when it comes to the question of voting in the United States, the fact is that States right now are working--many of them overtime--to restrict ballot access. That is why it is necessary for the Congress to step forward, as is given us, the power in the Constitution, to make sure that we pass laws that fulfill the dream of voter access for all Americans.

I do also note that I think it would be much easier for us to believe that there is good faith on the other side of the aisle to negotiate some of these items and to perhaps reach compromise, but I find it hard to believe--and I stated this in the Rules Committee--given what happened over the last several months, that we would be in this position, that there is any ability to have a belief in good faith.

It is hard to imagine 60 lawsuits were brought against decisions made by States--not the Federal Government, but States--on the electoral college. Two-thirds of the members of the House Republican Conference-- two-thirds--objected to the results of the electoral college, and, in many cases, States that had Republican leadership and Republicans serving as secretaries of state or as elections commissioners.

So I would suggest that since--for the first time since 1800, when John Adams turned over the keys to the White House to President Jefferson and we observed the first peaceful transfer of power from one party to another, that since that foundational moment in American history over two centuries ago, this is the first time that people in this House have objected so strenuously and systematically to the results of the free and fair election of the American people.

So we are for the people. We want to continue to expand ballot access, and we want nothing more than those wishes of the American public to be respected by their elected officials.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), the chair of the Committee on House Administration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Oregon an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from Illinois, and I may not agree with him very much on this subject. But I really disagree if he thinks the Committee on Rules today was fun. He must be a heck of a cheap date.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), my good friend, and distinguished colleague from the Committee on Rules.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I do want to again just note, although it has been said ad nauseam for the last several months, that while we clearly respect States' roles in these elections and that it is the States who run elections and organize them, we do have the power in the Congress given to us in the Constitution. But more importantly, this year, while the voters in Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Arizona cast ballots in free and fair and open elections, and those were certified repeatedly despite an onslaught of lawsuits brought by the former President and his advocates, all of which were denied going all the way up to the Supreme Court, our colleagues didn't respect those States' elections even though they were certified and even though, as we all met on what will be one of the darkest days in American history on January 6 to accept and certify those results given to us by the States, my colleagues and friends objected to them.

I am not sure what that says about their respect for State elections since they didn't respect the results of those elections, in many cases run by Republicans in their respective States.

Mr. Speaker, I must say I find this a most curious discussion. If we are not going to abide by the results of elections, and if we are not going to trust those various States to submit elections unless they agree with the outcome that we want, why we would be arguing so strenuously for the continuation of State control and no involvement by the Federal Government, despite the fact that the Constitution clearly vests that power here in the Congress?

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

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

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated when I began my comments this evening, I have nothing but the greatest admiration and respect for the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee.

I don't want to be argumentative, but I would note that I think there is a significant and substantial difference between a symbolic objection made by one or two Members to the electoral college results of a single State versus the objection of 140 Members of this House, particularly as it follows a violent, unprecedented attack on what I consider the sacred cathedral of democracy, the United States Capitol.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much, as always, the thoughtful comments by my colleague and friend, the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Mr. Speaker, as it relates to the question of matters before us here, we do have significant differences in how we view access to the ballot.

I would note that, historically, parties change. They evolve. Typically, because this is in keeping with American democracy, we evolve to reflect the needs and concerns and wishes and results of American elections and their expression of the will of the people of this country.

Mr. Speaker, what I find troubling right now is that friends across the aisle seem to be focused not so much on learning the lessons given to us by those voters, by the American public, as expressed in the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

But instead, conscientious, by-design work to limit those who would want access to the ballot so that they can choose the voters, as opposed to the other way around--disenfranchising those, and setting up barriers, as we see happening in State capitals across the country, is troubling indeed. And, I think, it demonstrates the clear division between the two parties on this particular issue.

We seek, and we will always seek, to expand access to make sure that every single American, every single citizen who wants to participate in our democracy has the right, because that is how we end up with a better America, and we fulfill the promise of moving toward a more perfect Union.

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), my colleague from the Committee on Rules, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

General Leave

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why we are moving ahead today?

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

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

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

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

Why are we moving ahead today?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I often reflect on the wise words of Margaret Mead: ``Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world: Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.''

Never has this proven more true than when women of all ages and circumstances gathered in Seneca Falls in upstate New York 161 years ago this week and changed forever the course of history.

These thoughtful, dedicated, passionate women stood up and declared to the world that all men and women are created equal.

The convention sparked a fire in women across the country, formally birthing the women's rights movement and eventually paving the way for women's suffrage.

We hear the echoes of their voices today as we continue the fight they began so long ago. Let this anniversary reinvigorate us as we carry on its legacy, fearlessly committed to securing equal rights, equal pay, and the fundamental right of every woman to choose what happens to her body.

Mr. Speaker, my district in Rochester, New York, has the second-highest rate of childhood poverty in America.

Children in poverty face overwhelming barriers to academic success because it is impossible for them to learn when they are hungry or suffering from family trauma. These barriers are exacerbated in the summer when children lose access to educational opportunities, causing them to fall further and further behind academically.

Low-income children lose 2 or more months of reading achievement every

summer. By the fifth grade, children without summer learning opportunities are 2 years behind their peers.

Students need a safe, stable place to learn over the summer. That is why I am so proud to have introduced legislation to help close the achievement gap and reduce food insecurity.

The Summer Meals and Learning Act will help fund summer reading programs at schools that already serve as summer meal sites, providing the support and stability at-risk youth need to grow and thrive. Every child deserves the opportunity to achieve their goals. It is my hope that this legislation will help students stay on the path to success.