Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 38 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the 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 closed rule, House Resolution 38, providing for consideration of House Resolution 21, calling on Vice President Michael R. Pence to convene and mobilize the principal officers of the executive departments of the Cabinet to activate section 4 of the 25th Amendment to declare President Donald J. Trump incapable of executing the duties of his office and to immediately exercise powers as acting President.

The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary or a designee. The rule self-executes a manager's amendment by Chairman Nadler. The rule provides that the prohibition against engaging in personalities during debate, with respect to references to the President, shall not apply during consideration of House Resolution 21 or any special order of business relating to the impeachment of the President considered on January 13, 2021.

Finally, the rule authorizes and directs the Sergeant at Arms to impose a fine against a Member, Delegate, or the Resident Commissioner for the failure to wear a mask in contravention of the Speaker's announced policy on this subject for the duration of the pandemic.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to debate the rule for House Resolution 21, a resolution calling for Vice President Pence to invoke the 25th Amendment and declare President Donald Trump incapable of executing the duties of his office. We take this action solemnly and with grave concern for the safety and security of our Nation and its people, even in the final days of this President's administration.

Last Wednesday, a lawless mob breached this Chamber with the most evil and destructive intent. They were here to take the law into their own hands, to disrupt Congress as it counted the electoral college votes, and to overturn the lawful election of Joseph Biden as our 46th President.

As violent invaders broke windows and rammed doors, they chanted that they wanted to hang the Vice President and kidnap the Speaker of the House, and they brought the tools to do it. They beat one police officer to death, tased others, and tried to shoot one with his own gun. Another officer will likely lose an eye. Scores of others

suffered head injuries when they were beaten with pipes. Blood was spilled on the marble floor just outside this room.

Members, staff, and reporters were forced to take cover under furniture and barricade themselves in rooms, clutching gas masks and fearing for their lives as the President's MAGA supporters chanted and raged nearby. Journalists were specifically targeted and beaten. Explosive devices were placed nearby to divert the police from protecting the Capitol.

This was not a peaceful protest. These were crimes against our country and the people who go to work every day on Capitol Hill. Just this afternoon, the FBI announced that it expects to charge hundreds of people with crimes ranging from simple trespass to conspiracy and sedition, to weapons offenses, to felony murder.

Crimes like this do not occur in a vacuum. They must be planned. They must be led.

The attack on the Capitol was incited by this administration. For months, they told their supporters that if they didn't win the election, the election was rigged. When the majority of American voters decided they had had enough of this chaos, they declared that the election had been stolen. The administration invited the President's most rabid supporters to come to D.C. on January 6 for a wild protest. Then the administration whipped them into a frenzy and sent the mob across town to attack the Capitol and disrupt the counting of electoral college votes. But it didn't end there.

The President reportedly watched with excitement as the news media began streaming images of the terror at the Capitol through electronic devices in America and around the world. The President tweeted that the Vice President had betrayed him. And even after the violence was apparent, the President and his lawyer placed calls to allies on Capitol Hill, trying to persuade them to prolong their objections to the counting of the electoral votes. What the administration didn't do for hours was to lift a finger to call off the mob or to rally support to defend the government, the historic monuments in the Capitol, the police, or especially the people under siege in the building. Members here in this Chamber know that, for hours, the President refused to return their calls begging for help.

Mr. Speaker, in the days since, the administration has continued to claim that the election was rigged. It has denied any responsibility for the riot, and praised the rioters, all while reports proliferate that the administration's supporters are planning more violence in the weeks ahead.

This is why this President remains a clear and present danger to the country, so long as he continues to serve. The reality is that we all-- even the most loyal political supporters--know that this President is unfit for office. Any other President with an ounce of character would have resigned after seeing the bloody consequences of the actions on Wednesday. Any other administration would have invoked the 25th Amendment long ago.

I don't care if a President incites a riot against Congress on his first day or the last day of his or her Presidency. Such an act is a crime against our government, much less against the people who are terrorized or killed in the attack. If a President can refuse to acknowledge the will of American voters, then incite a coup to stay in power without punishment, then our democracy is lost.

Mr. Speaker, that is why it is vital for Vice President Pence and the Cabinet to do the right thing--to invoke the 25th Amendment. Otherwise, this Congress must remove Donald Trump from office.

I have heard the calls for unity, and I agree that now is the time to come forward in unity, to defend our country, not to defend a man who has proven himself incompetent to occupy the office of the President for another day.

I am grateful to those Members of the Republican Party who agreed that the time has come to put loyalty to country above partisan considerations. And we welcome their support in taking whatever actions are necessary to end this chaos, to defend our government, and to protect the American people.

I also find the cries of partisanship by the President's remaining supporters to be unconvincing. The whole world watched in horror on January 6 as the administration encouraged a mob to attack the seat of our democracy to disrupt the election of Joseph R. Biden and then stood by as rioters sacked the Capitol.

Many civic leaders from both parties have condemned the President's actions and called for his removal. So, no, this is not partisan.

But I invite the President's supporters in Congress--no, I beg them-- to join the American people in holding this President accountable for the violence we experienced last week and to prevent further chaos in the days to come.

Before I conclude, I want to take a minute to give my deepest condolences to the families of the Capitol Police officers who died as a result of this attack. I want to thank the men and women of the Metropolitan and Capitol Police forces who valiantly defended both our democracy and the people who work on the Hill and wish a speedy recovery to the scores who were injured during the attack.

I also want to thank our tireless facilities and custodial staff for putting the building back together after terrorists violated it and the members of the press corps who have been so abused by this administration and were specifically targeted by this mob but continued documenting the attack so Americans could see what was really happening.

Lastly, I want to thank our staff across the Capitol for their bravery and dedication to public service. I want to thank them for the work they do every day but especially for their heroism in returning to the floor last Wednesday night to help us continue the electoral college vote count, and I thank them for being back here with us today. We are indebted to them for their service to our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from Texas an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Mr. Speaker, we, of course, share the concern of our colleagues from the other side of the aisle that an incident like this never happens again. That is why we are urging the Vice President to invoke the 25th Amendment, because of the clear and present danger of continued violence under this administration.

While I believe there will be a time to talk about bipartisan efforts to have an investigation through this House, this is not the moment for it.

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

I would just suggest that sedition is inherently divisive, and it is difficult to unify before there has been accountability.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Suozzi).

Just to clarify, this provision about suspending the rule about personalities is so that we can have a full and frank discussion of just why the request is being made to invoke the 25th Amendment and just why this President should be impeached. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to describe the high crimes and misdemeanors and other misconduct which forms the basis of those requests if that rule were not suspended.

As I mentioned in my opening, we don't view this as a partisan resolution. We have Members from all sides of the political spectrum now calling for the removal of this President. Members might want to check their news feed to see the growing list of civic, business, and religious leaders from across the country who have said: Enough is enough. This President is a clear and present danger.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close. I would inquire if the gentleman has any more speakers.

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

Mr. Speaker, after the chaos and potentially--well, definitely criminal behavior that we saw here last week, there is no trust left between this administration and the majority of the American people.

The stability of our executive branch is a foundational piece of our democracy. This administration has failed or refused to uphold the most basic duties of protecting our Constitution and our national security or of respecting the coequal branches of our government.

Wednesday's bloody attack proved that this administration is an imminent and continuing danger to our country even in the waning days of this Presidency.

I am heartbroken for our country but more determined than ever to fight to preserve our democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I call on Vice President Pence and the Cabinet to do the right thing. I call upon our colleagues to do the right thing: to put our country before the interests of any one man and to join us in ending this failed Presidency.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the objection.

Madam Speaker, I started this day disheartened that our colleagues were going to drag us through this cynical political charade of objecting to duly certified electoral college votes, but I was ready and eager to defend Pennsylvania's elections and the will of Pennsylvania's voters.

Never did I expect to be answering calls from family and friends concerned for my safety or to have to barricade myself in an office. But most important of all, never did I expect to see our Capitol overrun by armed insurrectionists intent on disrupting our government at the urging of the President.

What happened here today has made me heart-sick for our country, but it only strengthens my resolve to uphold the rule of law and to protect the decision of Pennsylvania's voters.

Earlier this week, we raised our hands and swore an oath to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States. But, today, those who are blocking the counting of electors from Pennsylvania are showing that their allegiance lies not to the Constitution or to their constituents, and many would argue not even to the Republican Party, but to their own political fortunes and the outgoing President.

Pennsylvania's voters, not Members of Congress, are tasked with choosing Pennsylvania's Presidential electors, and particularly not congressmen from other States. The people have spoken, and Pennsylvania certified our electors. We must respect our oath here by rejecting this unfounded objection to Pennsylvania's electoral votes, and not substitute Congress' judgment for that of the people of Pennsylvania.

Legal challenges to elections are serious matters, and that is why there is a place to consider those challenges: In courtrooms before impartial judges.

And Pennsylvania's legal process has worked. The pseudo-legal arguments that are being raised by the objectors here today are not new. Over the past 2 months, the President and his allies have filed more than 20 lawsuits to challenge the Pennsylvania election. Those challenges have been rejected in Federal courts, State courts, appellate courts, and the United States Supreme Court. Challenges have been rejected by judges who are registered Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and who have been appointed by Democratic and Republican Presidents.

And why did they lose all those cases?

As Third Circuit Judge Bibas, a Trump appointee, wrote, ``Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.''

What the Court said points to an important distinction about when and how claims of election misconduct are made. It is easy to make wild claims of election fraud on cable television or Twitter, but those claims are not facts. And while there may be no immediate consequences for misleading the public with such statements, there is certainly a penalty for misleading the courts.

A lawyer faces fines, jail, and loss of his or her license for making frivolous or false claims. The lawyers for the Trump campaign never alleged widespread fraud or illegal voting had impacted Pennsylvania's elections because those claims are false.

When our colleagues indulge in this political theatre and endorse fringe conspiracy theories, they may think there are no consequences because they know that this time the majorities of the House and Senate will overrule them. But as the entire world saw today, their baseless claims of election fraud do have consequences. They undermine faith and respect for our elections and our government. They chip away at the foundation of our constitutional Republic and they take a sledgehammer to the peaceful transfer of power. It is our job to respect the rule of law and reject this political charade.

Finally, I want to offer my deepest respect to our Republican colleagues in both the House and the Senate who have withstood intense political pressure, and today honor their oath in the rule of law by rejecting these unfounded objections.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

In the 2 years that I have been here, every motion to recommit has been a poison pill, a gimmick designed to tank a bill or sow division between Members of Congress and their constituents.

Despite high-flung rhetoric here today, not once have I seen the MTR used to make legislation better. In fact, on those occasions when it prevailed, our colleagues voted against the underlying bill.

Since this legislative tool has not been used in good faith, it needs to be reformed.

But I also wish to speak in favor of the efforts that have been made to use gender-neutral language in the rules. As a female Member of Congress and a member of last term's Select Committee to Modernize Congress, I applaud the efforts to drag the rules package into the 21st century and make it more inclusive, as well as to make it streamlined. The text changes have allowed us to make the rules package more concise, and that is a good thing.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding, and I rise today in

strong support of the rule and underlying bill. I also want to thank Chairman Smith for his leadership on the bill and all the members of the Armed Services Committee for the work they put in to ensure that we have an NDAA that fully addresses the modern challenges facing our country.

This bill takes steps to address the threat of climate change, long identified by the DOD as a threat to national security, by requiring the Department to plan around climate vulnerabilities in future projects.

This bill also protects military families. In addition to the widow's tax issue, it protects low-income servicemembers by bridging the gap for those who need SNAP assistance. It upgrades military housing and provides support for childcare and education for military families.

It also promotes diversity in our Armed Forces by requiring DOD to issue a new diversity and inclusion strategy and address existing inequities.

This NDAA goes further to ensure that our Armed Forces are fully ready for the threats we face today and prepared for the threats we will face in the future.

Of particular concern to my district is the CH-47 aircraft, better known as the Chinook. Like the residents of my district who proudly build these machines, the Chinook is a workhorse that can always be relied upon to get the job done, even in the toughest and most unforgiving of conditions. This bill makes it clear that Congress has no intention of abandoning this vital program.

On top of being one of the most versatile and crucial aircraft in our Armed Forces, the Chinook program supports more than 20,000 jobs and 200 suppliers in 38 States. I am pleased that this program is in the bill, and I look forward to supporting its passage.

Madam Speaker, I am so glad that our colleagues across the aisle agree that the conditions at the border are intolerable, because they are.

A few months ago, I had the opportunity to go to the southern border, meet with Border Patrol agents and advocates on the ground, including a woman who had been separated from her children, and we toured detention facilities.

The humanitarian crisis then, in February, was undeniable, and it has only gotten worse. But the cause of this crisis has raised serious questions, particularly as to why it has escalated.

In addition to suspending critical aid designed to relieve conditions causing desperate families to flee their homes, the Trump administration is failing to use longstanding lawful processes and available resources to provide relief to children and refugees at the southern border.

The Trump administration's policies are not making our border safer, but they are worsening the situation, at the expense of the health and well-being of desperate children and families.

There are unused beds at facilities in my home State of Pennsylvania and in Texas, and many refugee children have sponsors, family members available here, but they are being denied access.

Prior to coming to Congress, I represented immigrants and asylum seekers who, by definition, lawfully enter this country seeking refuge. I can confidently say that international law is being violated on a daily basis by this administration, and it has abandoned longstanding legal norms for processing asylees, with the apparent purpose of exacerbating the crisis for political gain.

I agree that we need to send additional resources to relieve the inhumane conditions affecting refugees at our border. But we also have a responsibility to make sure that those resources are not misused to worsen rather than relieve this crisis.

Therefore, I urge that we support the border relief bill that is before us, which will provide resources to relieve the crisis and improve the health and well-being of innocent children, while allowing transparency and oversight.

It is important that we allow transparency and oversight on how those funds are used.

To our Republican colleagues in the Senate, especially Majority Leader McConnell, if you fail to work with us to address this humanitarian crisis, not only will your legacy be your legislative graveyard in the Senate, but the deaths of these children and families.

Madam Speaker, while I would love to rise in celebration of the first day of summer, the cold, hard fact is that, as temperatures soar, so does urban gun violence.

During a graduation party last weekend in my district in southwest Philadelphia, a gunman opened fire, claiming one life and injuring five other people.

Last weekend, 23 separate shootings claimed 32 victims and caused five deaths in just 2 days in Philadelphia--23 shootings and five deaths in one weekend.

What is infuriating is that there are proven, commonsense measures that will reduce gun violence in our cities, and the number one strategy is background checks.

115 days have passed since the House sent two bipartisan, commonsense gun safety bills to the Senate. They would have strengthened our background checks. And what has the Senate done? Nothing.

During those 115 days, 11,400 people have died from gun violence in the United States.

Senator McConnell likes to joke about his legislative graveyard, but countless families are actually burying their loved ones while he does nothing.

The American people deserve better. Our children deserve better.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment in the en bloc.

Mr. Chairman, my district is home to Chester, an economically distressed, majority Black city that has struggled for generations. As a result, major polluting industries have set up shop in Chester next to schools, hospitals, homes, and businesses. One of these polluters, a large municipal waste incinerator, was featured on a CNN report that aired just this week.

All day every day my constituents are breathing in carcinogens released by the incinerator like mercury, cadmium, and particulate matter that prevent them from working, learning, and leading healthy lives. At the same time, the Trump administration has failed to enforce Clean Air Act standards that could protect these citizens.

Fortunately, our Interior appropriations bill ensures that Clean Air Act enforcement is a priority, but this amendment makes clear that the administration cannot take these underserved communities like Chester for granted.

This Congress will not allow environmental injustice to go unchecked. We will fight for our constituents, and we will take meaningful steps to address the public health and environmental justice crises that lack of EPA enforcement has fostered.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, thank you for allowing me to speak in support of this amendment.

My amendment would increase funding for juvenile justice programs authorized by the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act.

The JJDPA, which was recently reauthorized under the leadership of my colleagues on the Education and Labor Committee, has been so successful, that 47 States and six U.S. territories voluntarily participate in its programs.

The JJDPA provides Federal funds to the States to decrease the incidence of juvenile delinquency and invest funds in diversionary programs to break the school-to-prison pipeline.

These programs have provided critical support to Pennsylvania's efforts to reform the juvenile justice system and advance evidence- based programs at the local level.

Too often, our most vulnerable youth have been caught in a vicious cycle of poverty and oppression, which can land them in the juvenile justice system, but well-funded, thoughtful juvenile justice programs can divert youth away from the justice system, ensure fair and equitable treatment, and protect incarcerated youth while keeping our communities safe.

In Pennsylvania, projects funded by the JJDPA have been used to train 425 officers in 67 counties in evidence-based, effective, and cutting- edge approaches to working with delinquent youth in ways that are equitable, fair, and targeted to their risks and needs.

Increased funding will allow Pennsylvania and other States to expand and enhance these important programs and help ensure that they are in compliance with updates to the law.

Madam Chair, I am grateful to my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for increasing funding for these critical programs, but there is still much work to be done.

My amendment would increase the total funding for these programs by $2 million, representing a modest step in the right direction, and affirming the important partnerships created by the JJDPA to protect children, keep youth out of trouble, and keep our communities safe.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and could not vote. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 305.

Madam Speaker, we all know that elections matter, so I would like to congratulate the students of Haverford High School for receiving the Governor's Civic Engagement Award. This award is given to Pennsylvania high schools that register over 85 percent of their eligible students to vote. Haverford High was 1 of 4 Philadelphia area schools and 1 of 23 schools in our Commonwealth to receive this noteworthy award.

At a time when some States are imposing restrictions on voting, we should all follow the lead set by the students at Haverford High. They worked to educate their peers and bring them into the electoral process. This Congress should do the same.

We need to ensure that our schools give students a thorough civics education so that they have the knowledge and tools necessary to fully participate in our democracy. We need to expand voting rights and access to the ballot, as we are doing with passage of bills like H.R. 1 and H.R. 4.

Again, Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the students of Haverford High School for their outstanding achievement and for being an example for all of us to follow.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of an amendment to require greater accountability from the Department of Health and Human Services with respect to the Affordable Care Act.

Time and time again, we have seen Republicans and the administration attempt to undermine the important work of the Affordable Care Act.

In addition to attempting to strip away protections for preexisting conditions or reducing coverage for Medicaid recipients, the administration is trying to depress coverage by cutting consumer outreach and marketing for the ACA. Not only does sabotaging the enrollment process make it harder for the American people to get health coverage, but it also drives up costs.

Unfortunately, this strategy has been working. We are currently at our highest uninsured rate in 4 years, with Affordable Care Act enrollment rates declining every year this President has been in office.

Everyday Americans, like the folks in my district in southeastern Pennsylvania, can't afford more barriers to healthcare. When their choice is often between putting food on their table or going to the doctor, it is important that people have more information and access to the Affordable Care Act marketplaces, not less.

My amendment would require greater transparency from the administration by requiring the Secretary of Health and Human Services to provide vital statistics on plan enrollment, outreach, and advertising, and the overall performance of the programs within the

Mr. Chairman, I would just, again, urge Members from both sides of the aisle to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, yesterday the House passed H.R. 299, the Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act of 2019. This long overdue legislation would finally provide disability benefits to veterans who served in the territorial seas surrounding Vietnam during the Vietnam war and were exposed to Agent Orange.

This change is long overdue but, sadly, thousands of brave Vietnam veterans have already suffered the consequences of Agent Orange-related illnesses.

A longtime resident of Media, Pennsylvania, John Bury, was a 22-year veteran of the Navy and a legendary advocate for sailors sickened by Agent Orange. He, himself, survived cancer six times related to Agent Orange, and knew firsthand the challenges of navigating the VA due to his service being on ships, rather than land.

John passed away in late 2016, but his memory and service will live on. Sailors like John are heroes and deserve to be treated as such by the VA.

I urge the Senate to quickly take up this legislation and send it to the President's desk so that thousands of others like John can get the care they deserve.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 377 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the 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

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

Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 377, providing for consideration of H.R. 5 under a closed rule, with 90 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by the Chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

The resolution also provides for consideration of H.R. 312 under a closed rule, with 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the Chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources.

Lastly, this resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 987 under a structured rule, with 90 minutes of general debate, 60 minutes equally divided and controlled by the Chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the Chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor. Twenty-seven amendments are made in order.

Madam Speaker, we are here today to debate the rule for three important pieces of legislation: H.R. 987, H.R. 312, and H.R. 5.

H.R. 987 is the Strengthening Health Care and Lowering Prescription Drug Costs Act, a package of several bills, many of them bipartisan, that went through the House Energy and Commerce Committee under regular order. This bill combines three key bills to lower drug costs by promoting generic competition and four key bills to strengthen healthcare, reverse the sabotage of the ACA by this administration with respect to marketing and outreach, and rescind the Trump administration's efforts to promote junk plans that lack the protections of the Affordable Care Act.

The American people are justifiably demanding action by Congress to make prescription drugs more affordable. Prices are so high that recent data show 24 percent of Americans didn't fill a prescription in the past year due to high costs.

My constituents have been vocal in demanding action on drug pricing, patients like Bill, a senior with diabetes who attends my church, parents like Sarah with children who have special health needs. Folks like these need help now.

This package would lower costs by banning anticompetitive practices that large drug companies employ to keep generics off the market.

This bill will also tackle many of the reasons we have seen enrollment

through the Affordable Care Act decline in recent years.

Since coming into office, President Trump has cut paid advertising and outreach efforts for healthcare exchanges by 90 percent. This wanton political decision to cut these efforts is but one part of the administration's attempts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act.

Furthermore, lack of transparency on the part of Health and Human Services around funding levels for outreach plan enrollment rates and other vital statistics has created an information vacuum on the performance of the ACA.

Greater transparency is required in order for Congress to hold the administration accountable for its efforts to defund education and outreach for the Affordable Care Act.

Second, we have H.R. 312, the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe Reservation Reaffirmation Act. This important bill recognizes and respects the Tribal sovereignty of the Mashpee Wampanoag, a Tribe that has inhabited New England for over 12,000 years and, in fact, welcomed the Pilgrims to the new world.

This legislation has strong bipartisan support in Massachusetts among other Tribal nations and with Tribal allies in Congress. Had President Trump not tweeted about this bill last week, it would have likely passed on suspension and been sent to the Senate for consideration. The members of this Tribe cannot wait any longer for recognition, and we need to pass this critical legislation without further delay.

Finally, Madam Speaker, this is a week that will be remembered in our history books because, at long last, this body is taking up consideration of the Equality Act. Forty-five years ago this week, the legendary Congresswoman Bella Abzug introduced the first version of the Equality Act, a bill that will give full legal protections to LGBTQ people all across our country.

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

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

The journey to this final version of the Equality Act was led by a man who is a history maker in his own right, co-chair of the LGBTQ Equality Caucus and my colleague on the Judiciary Committee, Congressman David Cicilline from Rhode Island.

Congressman Cicilline worked with lawyers and advocates from the left and the right, religious groups, and myriad civil rights groups to make sure that the language of the Equality Act achieved full legal equality while doing nothing to undermine existing civil rights protections for other marginalized groups.

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

Most importantly, it is supported by a clear and overwhelming majority of the American people. Seventy-one percent of Americans support legislation like the Equality Act to protect LGBTQ people against discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations.

Rarely does Congress have the chance to take up legislation so clearly supported by our constituents. That is probably why, since the day that Congressman Cicilline first introduced this version of the Equality Act in 2015, it has always earned bipartisan support and currently has Republican cosponsors in both the House and the Senate.

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

This is a personal issue for me. It has been personal since my baby sister came out to me about 40 years ago.

For many people in this country, that is when the fight hits home. It gets personal when someone you love says, ``This is who I am,'' and you know and value that person, and you will do whatever you can to make sure that your loved one can live life to the fullest, free from hate and discrimination.

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

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

It is also important to note what the Equality Act does not do. The Equality Act does not impinge on religious liberty. Religious liberty is a cornerstone value of our Constitution and our country. Religious organizations are able to prefer their own members and their version of morality in hiring for religious positions such as ministers, rabbis, or schoolteachers. The Equality Act does nothing to change that.

The Equality Act clarifies what has long been held, though, that religious freedom laws do not create an exemption to civil rights laws. Just like a person can't use a claim of religious freedom to refuse to sell a house to an interracial couple, under the Equality Act, LGBTQ families will be protected from discrimination, regardless of its motivation.

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

This kind of insecurity and humiliation occurs on a daily basis across this country. In 30 States, the couple would have no legal recourse. Often, humiliation is just the tip of the iceberg.

Same-sex couples are far more likely to be denied housing. Qualified and high-performing transgender people are more likely to be fired from their jobs. LGBTQ young people face rejection, homelessness, and discrimination in school, denying them an education. These injuries compound and lead to poverty, homelessness, and violence.

The impact is felt hardest by transgender women of color, who confront racial discrimination, sex discrimination, and gender-identity discrimination. The intersection of these forms of discrimination can even be deadly, as it was for Shantee Tucker, a transgender woman of color from Philadelphia who was murdered last fall.

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

In Pennsylvania, Dr. Rachel Levine, a transgender woman, serves in the Governor's cabinet as secretary for health. Mara Keisling, a Pennsylvania native, is the founder and executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality and a pioneer for civil rights protections. Danica Roem, the first transgender State legislator, serves in the Virginia House of Delegates. LaLa Zannell is fighting violence in New York City. Raffi Freedman-Gurspan was the first openly transgender White House staffer. Miss Major Griffin-Gracy, who was at Stonewall, has spent her life fighting to end

the over-incarceration of transgender people. The list goes on and on.

I am proud that the House will finally act to provide Federal protections to LGBTQ people with passage of the Equality Act. The fight for equal rights is far from over, but I am proud to be part of a majority that prioritizes equal treatment for all of its citizens, regardless of whom they love.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would just note that, with respect to H.R. 5, we had regular order. H.R. 5, the Equality Act, went through the Committee on the Judiciary. It had a hearing, and then we also had a markup. This is a new process, apparently, since the last Congress. And then, of course, we had the Rules hearing last night.

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan).

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

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record four letters, first, a letter from the National Partnership for Women & Families urging support; second, a letter from the Human Rights Campaign, also urging support for H.R. 5; third, a letter from the American Federation of Government Employees; and finally, a letter from several civil rights groups, all urging support for H.R. 5.

National Partnership

for Women & Families,

Washington, DC, May 14, 2019.

Dear Representative: The National Partnership for Women &

Families is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that has

fought for decades to advance the rights and well-being of

America's women and families. We work to foster a society in

which workplaces are fair, equitable and family friendly;

where everyone has access to quality, affordable health care,

including reproductive health care; and where every person

has the opportunity to achieve economic security and live

with dignity.

We write to voice our strong support for the Equality Act

(H.R. 5) and to urge you to vote YES on this groundbreaking

legislation. We also urge you to vote NO on any motion to

recommit that may be offered to undermine or alter the

Equality Act or otherwise harm civil liberties.

Despite significant progress, lesbian, gay, bisexual,

transgender and queer (LGBTQ) people still face considerable

discrimination and lack necessary protections across the

country. While some states have enacted laws that protect

against discrimination, the patchwork nature of these

protections means that millions of people continue to face

harassment, exclusion and uncertainty that negatively impact

their safety, their day-to-day lives, their families and

their ability to participate fully in society.

Part of achieving our nation's promise of equality, dignity

and fairness is ensuring that all people, regardless of

sexual orientation or gender identity, have equal opportunity

to succeed. No one should have access to services or doors to

opportunity closed because of outdated gender stereotypes

about how people should act, look or behave. This requires

stronger national nondiscrimination protections based on sex,

sexual orientation and gender identity.

The Equality Act is historic civil rights legislation that

would amend and supplement the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and

other key federal nondiscrimination laws that provide

protection from discrimination on the basis of race, color,

national origin or religion. This legislation would

strengthen protections from discrimination on the basis of

sex, and add critical new protections from discrimination on

the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

Specifically, it would provide clear, explicit protection

against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender

identity in education, employment, housing, credit, federally

funded programs and federal jury services. These protections

are essential in ensuring that LGBTQ people have the right to

live with dignity and equality.

While the primary focus of the Equality Act is on LGBTQ

people, the Act would also close longstanding gaps in federal

law and provide important new legal protections for all women

by, for the first time, prohibiting discrimination on the

basis of sex in public spaces and services and in all

federally-funded activities. This means that, for example,

when women experience harassment as customers in restaurants,

stores, hotels, taxis or airports, there will now be a

remedy. The law will also ensure that breastfeeding parents

aren't excluded from or treated less favorably in public

places just for feeding their children, and it will make

clear that pharmacies can't refuse to fill a woman's birth

control prescription.

The bill's provisions that would ensure that sex does not

stand as a barrier to full participation in federally funded

programs or activities will mean, for example, that a

developer with a federal grant couldn't discriminate against

women-owned businesses in its contracting. Women would also

have new tools to challenge a police department's

systematically inadequate response to sexual violence and

intimate partner violence, if the police department received

federal funds; and would be able to challenge denials of

reproductive health care where a federally-funded entity

otherwise provides comparable or comprehensive health care.

These protections against sex discrimination are a critical

step forward in advancing women's equality in this country.

As a leading national women's rights organization we also

feel compelled to state emphatically that the Equality Act's

protections for transgender and gender nonconforming people

in no way undermine the rights or protections afforded to

women and do not jeopardize women's safety or their ability

to participate fully or equally in sport or in any other

aspect of our society. Transgender women are women, and any

attempt to mischaracterize their gender identity or suggest

that they are trying to ``take advantage'' of protected class

status fundamentally misunderstands the reality of

transgender people's lives and experiences. Furthermore, it

causes real harm to the more than one million Americans who

identify as transgender, a population already subject to high

rates of violence and abuse, negative mental and physical

health outcomes, and experiences with discrimination and

stigmatization.

The Equality Act is a long-overdue step forward in

extending civil rights protections to millions of women and

LGBTQ people. Establishing clear protections is critical at a

time when vulnerable communities are

under attack. The Equality Act would provide a consistent,

national standard and ensure that everyone has the

opportunity to live safely and with dignity, to advance at

work, to provide for one's family and to thrive economically.

Sincerely,

National Partnership for Women & Families.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).

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

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a list of 364 organizations endorsing the Equality Act, as well as a list of companies supporting H.R. 5 who employ over 9.8 million workers in the United States.

Madam Speaker, today we will move forward on three pieces of legislation whose timely consideration is long overdue. We will move to protect Americans' access to health insurance; provide much-needed relief on prescription drug prices; provide Federal recognition to a Native American community; and at long last, pass the Equality Act, to remove the burden of discrimination and move us closer to a country where members of the LGBTQ community have an equal opportunity to achieve the American Dream.

The Equality Act will not be the end of our long journey towards full LGBTQ equality, but it will finally get

our laws in line with the values our country was founded upon. As was recognized in our founding documents, we must continually take steps to make our country more perfect.

Acknowledging in law the challenges facing LGBTQ people, and taking concrete action to correct them, brings us one step closer to that perfect union.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, in Pennsylvania, volunteer fire departments have long played a central role in the life of our towns and boroughs. In recent years, changing demographics and funding issues have seriously impacted the volunteer fire company tradition. However, it has also had one benefit of spurring recruitment of first responders from nontraditional quarters.

I want to take a minute to acknowledge the history made by two volunteers at the South Media Fire Company just last week. When an emergency call from a local middle school came in at 7:30 a.m. Wednesday morning, Ellen Yarborough, a schoolteacher, and Dora Giannakarios Preston, a local business woman, put their day jobs on hold to answer the call, unaware that they were making history. This was the first time in the 100-year history of the firehouse that an all-female crew had handled an emergency call.

To Ellen, Dora, the South Media Fire Company, and all of our volunteer firefighters, thank you for your service and for answering the call of duty to keep us safe.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the proceedings had during the recess be printed in the Record.