Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I thank the ranking member, Mr. Davis, for his support of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the Capitol Building is the wellspring of American democracy, freedom, and equality. We don't always live that out as perfectly as we would like, but it is that simple.

Every time I walk to the floor, Mr. Speaker, I pass sandstone blocks quarried and hewn centuries ago by enslaved Black Americans. It is a tragic irony that the people's House was built by Americans who were originally excluded from those extraordinary first three words of our Constitution, ``We the People.''

While we cannot remove the stones and bricks that were placed here in bondage, we can ensure that the movable pieces of art we display here celebrate freedom; not slavery, not sedition, not segregation. That is why I sponsored legislation, which the House passed earlier this Congress, that would have removed the statues of those who supported slavery and segregation from the Capitol as well as the bust of Chief Justice Roger Brook Taney from the Old Senate Chamber.

That bill was cosponsored by Mr. Clyburn, the Democratic whip; by Joyce Beatty, the chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus; and Karen Bass, who was then the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus and is about to be the mayor of Los Angeles.

That bill regarding whether ``all men are created equal,'' in his disgraceful Dred Scott ruling, Roger Brook Taney argued this: The general words above quoted, that is, all men are created equal, would seem to embrace the whole human family, and if they were used in a similar instrument at this day--which was 1858--would be so understood.

I want you to think about that for a second. He said that when they acted in 1787, they said that all men were created equal. Today, of course, we would say all people are created equal. But Taney observed in 1858 that those words said some 70 years prior to that would lock them into the bigotry and division. And so he interpreted not in terms of what they would believe in 1858 but what they believed in 1787.

He went on to say: But the enslaved African-American race were not intended to be included and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this Declaration.

His narrow-minded, orginalist philosophy failed to acknowledge America's capacity for moral growth and for progress.

Indeed, the genius of our Constitution is that it did have moral growth. It did have expanded vision. It did have greater wisdom. Taney's ruling denied Black American citizenship, upheld slavery, and contributed, frankly, to the outbreak of the Civil War. That is why I and so many others advocated for his statue's removal from the Maryland State House.

When I was sworn into the Maryland Senate in January of 1967, Roger Brook Taney's statue stood on the east front of the Capitol of Maryland in Annapolis. It has since been removed. Governor Hogan, a Republican, led that effort to remove it.

The Maryland legislature led by Democrats supported that effort. And

the irony is if you are on the east Capitol front, prior to his removal, you would have gone from Roger Brook Taney; if you had walked through the Annapolis State House, some 500 feet, come out on the west side, walked down the steps, you would have walked into the Thurgood Marshall Park.

What a historic vision of the growth of America, of the change of America, of the opening up and more equal America.

I advocated for this statue being removed in Maryland and for this bust to be removed from the entrance to the Old Senate Chamber.

I am glad that this is passing in a bipartisan fashion.

I am disappointed the Senate isn't ready to remove all the statues in the original bill. I am glad that we agree that Taney's bust needs to go immediately.

Mr. Speaker, I will continue to work with my colleagues next Congress to remove the other statues.

I look forward to advancing that mission with Democratic Whip Jim Clyburn, Chairwoman Barbara Lee, who I did fail to mention--she was the principal sponsor of this bill--and Chairwoman Joyce Beatty; all of them, along with former Representative Karen Bass.

They happen to be all Democrats, but there were Republicans, many, many Republicans, supporting this effort because they, too, stand for equality and justice. They played an important part in developing the prior versions of this bill and its reality.

Our legislation, as has been observed, would also commission a new bust for Justice Thurgood Marshall, not to be put outside of the Old Senate Chamber, because the historian rightly observed, he was not a member of the Old Senate Chamber, but it will be placed at some appropriate place in the Capitol as the first African American to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States.

As a towering civil rights leader, a defender of our founding principles, and the first Black Supreme Court Justice, Marshall is a Marylander worthy of a place of honor in these historic halls.

In removing Taney's bust, I am not asking that we would hold Taney to today's moral standards. On the contrary, let us hold him to the standard of his contemporaries: Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, whom the gentleman mentioned, and all of those of their time who understood that the enslavement of others has always been an immoral act.

Figures like Taney belong in history textbooks and classroom discussions, not in marble and bronze on public displays of honor. Yes, we ought to know who the Roger Brook Taney is, a man who was greatly admired in his time in the State of Maryland, but he was wrong.

Over 3 million people visit our Capitol each year. The people we choose to honor in our Halls signal to those visitors which principles we cherish as a Nation. For Black Americans who have grown up in segregation, faced racial violence, and still confront institutional racism, today, seeing figures like Taney honored here is a searing reminder that the past is present. It need not be, however, our future.

Just last year, the January 6 insurrectionists carried Confederate flags through the Capitol's corridors, desecrated the poster outside my office honoring my friend John Lewis, and screamed racial slurs at police officers as they protected the lives and defended our Capitol.

That was a modern manifestation of the hatred of our past. As our friend Elijah Cummings used to say, ``We are better than this.'' And it need not be our future.

Taney represents that which holds our country back: Exclusion, injustice, complacency, and prejudice.

Thurgood Marshall conveys that which drives America forward: Inclusion, equality, perseverance, and justice.

Every Member of this body, all 435, talk in those terms. Such a change would show visitors that America does not shy away from our past; we rise above it to seize a better future.

It would show them that only in America could a man use the same court that wrongly upheld the enslavement of his own ancestors to expand the Constitution's promise of the blessings of liberty. It would show them that ``We the People'' means all the people.

Vote ``yes'' to celebrate freedom and democracy and justice in this Capitol.

Vote ``yes'' to declare that the hatred of our past need not and must not define our future.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding. I would say that we are going to miss my friend who has been a person willing to work across the aisle on principles that this bill reflects, and I thank him for that. We will miss him.

I will remain here. I will not be majority leader, but I will remain working on behalf of the principles that are the best in our country. They are not Republican principles or Democratic principles; they are American principles. And that, I think, is what we all should, and most of the time, do.

Madam Speaker, I wish to honor a distinguished public servant and an inspiring resident of Maryland's Fifth District: Mary Ann Ullrich, Manager of the Office of Congressional Publishing of the Government Publishing Office (GPO). After spending 37 years in public service, Mary will begin her well-deserved retirement at the end of this year.

Equipped with typing skills, a high school diploma, and a good work ethic, Mary started as a Clerk Typist in the GPO's Personnel Office in 1980. Through her determination, talent, and dedication to GPO's mission, she will retire as the GPO's second shift Manager in Congressional Publishing.

As she advanced through the ranks, Mary helped the GPO navigate a period of great change and modernization as computers and digitization became increasingly common. She played an important role in the GPOAccess initiative, which made the Congressional Record, the Federal Register, and other key government publications accessible to the public online. Mary even received a prestigious Hammer Award in recognition of her crucial contributions to this project to ensure the transparency and accessibility of government information.

Similarly, during her time in the Typography and Design division, she typeset many prestigious products, including the card and program for President Ronald Reagan's lying-in-state ceremony, Colin Powell's Joint Force Quarterly magazine, and fine-art books such as the Senate Catalogue of Fine Art and Glenn Brown's History of the Capitol. Perhaps the most important project she worked on, however, was the 9/11 Memorial Ceremony Program. Upon learning of the attacks on the morning September 11, 2001, Mary worked for nearly thirty-two hours straight to ensure that all the programs were ready for the memorial service at the National Cathedral the following morning. First Lady Laura Bush was so grateful for Mary's work on that solemn day that she sent her a personally signed thank-you note. In the following years, Mary brought her same diligent and dedicated work ethic to leadership roles with GPO's Congressional Publishing team.

If you ask Mary, she will tell you how fortunate she felt every day to work at the GPO and how proud she is to be a career federal employee. Mary looked up at the Capitol every day from the front door of the GPO building and was proud to be a small part of the daily congressional legislative process and GPO's mission to `Keep America Informed.' Similarly, her district, state, country, and Congress take pride in her and in all those federal employees like her who work behind the scenes to make our government function For the People. That's why I ask that all my colleagues join me in congratulating Mary Ann Ullrich on starting her well-earned retirement after decades of loyal service.

Madam Speaker, on November 17 of this year, we lost a dedicated public servant and crucial advocate for disability rights: Bobby Silverstein. He served in the House of Representatives as counsel to the Education and Labor Committee's Select Education Subcommittee and later in the Senate as staff director and chief counsel for the Disability Policy Subcommittee of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources. I worked with him most closely when I was the lead House sponsor of the Americans with Disabilities Act and he was working as Senator Tom Harkin's chief aide. In that role, he helped craft the ADA and fought tirelessly to secure its enactment. Like so many others. I admired Bobby's intellect, strong character, and commitment to public service. I believe that my friends Katy and Ralph Neas articulated that admiration we all feel for Bobby perfectly in their remarks at his funeral service, and in honor of Bobby, I include in the Record their speeches.

[Nov. 22, 2022]

Remarks for Bobby Silverstein's Memorial Service

(By Katy Neas)

In 1987, Bobby was my boss. When I left the Hill in 1991,

he was my friend, and somewhere along the way over these 35

years, he and Lynne became family.

There are three things you need to know about Bobby.

No one was better prepared. Yes, he really did have a

binder for everything.

No one wanted to get to ``YES'' more than Bobby.

No one was more genuine, thoughtful, loving, respectful,

and patient, and he was fun.

I worked for Bobby on the original Americans with

Disabilities Act. One of his many gifts was his devotion to

bringing people together--the disability community, the

business community, Republicans and Democrats. He had endless

patience and wanted to learn from each individual's

perspective so that the ADA could be the strongest LAW

possible. One of the best parts of this time was a certain

individual from the Leadership Conference, Ralph Neas, who

was in our office almost daily to coordinate with Bobby.

Ralph and I were married in November of 1988 and spent the

next 20 months engulfed in the ADA.

During those months, I had many conversations with Lynne,

asking her about ``Bobby time''--meaning, what time did Bobby

come into the office. Her typical response was ``don't ask.''

What most people didn't know is that he would be in the

office around 3:00 a.m. every day so that he could leave by

6:00 p.m. to have dinner with Lynne and the boys. That was

his schedule for months.

Bobby at his ``Bobby-est'' when in conversation with

Senator Orrin Hatch. There were amendments that sought to

discriminate against people with HIV that Senator

Hatch was considering supporting. Bobby tracked him down in

the hallway to share with him an anecdote about a zoo in Ohio

that had requested a group of students with down syndrome

leave because their presence was upsetting to the animals.

Bobby explained to Senator Hatch that the fundamental

discrimination these children faced was the same

discrimination that people with HIV faced. In his sincere

Bobby way, he was the perfect messenger and Senator Hatch

ended up doing the right thing.

So on to the fun Bobby. Bobby and Lynne joined the Lowes

Island County Club as it was a club without gender-based

restrictions where Lynne could be the primary member and play

golf anytime she wanted. The club was purchased by the Trump

organization sometime later. Several times in that first year

of the Trump presidency, Bobby would call, using that golf-tv

announcer voice--to let me know that the President was on the

17th hole with a gazillion secret service agents--because I

was in desperate need of this important information.

So, while I won't ever pick up the phone to ``Hi, it's

Bobby'' again, I will carry him in my heart for all the days

of my life. And I will always ask myself in a tough

situation, what would Bobby do? And I would ask you do to the

same.

When someone treats you with disrespect or anger, think--

What would Bobby do? He would try to find out why they are

upset and to see if there is a way to reach consensus.

When life throws you a curve ball, think--What would Bobby

do? He would analyze the problem from every angle, go back to

his fundamental principles of right and wrong, and come up

with a solution.

And finally, when you are having a really bad day, think--

What would Bobby do? Know that he would envelop you in his

love, patience, and generosity and move heaven and earth to

support you. And if you do that for someone else, Bobby will

be on your shoulder cheering you on.

I am the most grateful person on the planet to have had

this incredibly intimate personal and professional

relationship with Bobby Silverstein. Every day since his

death last week, I've woken up crushed by sadness but

overwhelmed with the joy that comes with being Bobby's

friend. How can you think about Bobby and not smile? As I put

one foot in front of the other, I will think about what would

Bobby do, what would Bobby expect me to do, and how can I

advance his legacy. It won't be easy, but Bobby showed us

what's possible.

[Nov. 22, 2022]

Eulogy for Bobby Silverstein

(By Ralph Neas)

For 35 years, I have been in awe of Bobby Silverstein. The

reasons are many. High on my list, of course, are his notable

and numerous professional accomplishments, especially his

leadership role in the enactment of the historic Americans

with Disabilities Act.

But my role today is to discuss primarily the personal and

not the professional. I would like to share with you two

episodes in my life that demonstrate why no one could have a

better friend than Bobby Silverstein.

In early November of 2018, I was laying paralyzed on an

I.C.U. bed at Johns Hopkins University Hospital. For the

second time in my life, I had contracted Guillain Barre

Syndrome, a rare and usually reversible auto-immune disorder

that can sometimes lead to total paralysis and death.

After confining me to more than 100 days in hospital beds,

the syndrome had struck most of my body, but not my lungs.

However, it had become increasingly apparent, as breathing

and talking became more difficult, that my lungs were its

next target and a ventilator might be necessary to increase

my chances of survival.

At this critical moment, in walks Bobby, with his perpetual

grin, his sense of humor, and his trademark optimism. He had

learned from Katy that I was in really bad shape. Bobby

correctly figured out that I probably needed a close friend

to help Katy keep me company and my sanity. And very

importantly be my advocate when necessary.

He sure got that one right. And no one was better

qualified. Bobby understood how vital it was for a patient in

my condition to communicate needs and participate in

important decisionmaking. He realized that without

augmentative and alternative communication devices, those

goals would be impossible to achieve. Bobby and the

hospital's alphabet chart became an incredible team. Thanks

to them, my anxiety level dropped considerably.

But soon it was clear that if I were to live, I had to be

put on a ventilator. Bobby was the last nonmedical person I

saw before the medical procedure and the first one I saw as I

regained consciousness. And Bobby and the alphabet chart

remained my constant companions until I was out of the woods.

Bobby had been the indispensable friend we all need when the

stakes are the highest.

Fast forward four years: Bobby is battling cancer and my

communications with him are by email or phone calls. I told

Katy that I forever will owe Bobby ``big time'' for what he

did for me in 2018. It was time for me to return the favor. I

would visit him in person on a regular basis for as long as

it took to get him better.

On November 5, I was on my way to the Silverstein home,

armed with three bowls of chicken soup (of course) for Lynne,

Bobby, and myself. While we waited for Lynne to return from

an errand, Bobby and I sat on the porch, basking in the early

fall sunlight and talking about everything: families,

politics, sports, friends, and his tenacious battle to defeat

pancreatic cancer.

An hour into our conversation, Bobby pivoted suddenly and

dramatically to the strong possibility that pancreatic cancer

might win. He made it abundantly clear that he would continue

to fight the cancer with all his might, but he knew the odds

were not in his favor. He just wanted me and everyone else to

know that he was not afraid of dying. Indeed, if he died, he

would die a happy man. He explained that he had lived a full

life, experiencing all its joys, especially the love of his

family and friends and his enormous love for them.

Bobby first talked about how wonderful it was to have been

married to Lynne, the love of his life, for 51 years. Then he

turned to Mark and Evan and how fabulous and loving they had

been as sons and how they had married Steph and Christie, two

remarkable and loving women. And to the surprise of no one in

this room, Bobby shared with me for the millionth time, how

spectacular it was to be the grandfather of Cyrus, Chloe,

Jacob, and Bailey.

And yes, he did mention his professional career with a

sense of pride in his accomplishments and the opportunities

he had to help better the lives of countless Americans.

While Bobby talked, I realized that once again I was the

one receiving another friendship gift. In his careful,

diplomatic, and effective way, Bobby was making it clear that

it is possible to achieve balance in one's personal and

professional lives--with a lot of hard work, the willingness

to compromise, and love.

As I drove home that day, I promised myself that no matter

what life still had to offer, I would try to be more like

Bobby. Once again, thank you, my dear friend.

Madam Speaker, I am going to miss this 1 minute, let me tell you that.

This bill was passed with a very bipartisan vote in this House this past July. I rise in strong support of the Respect for Marriage Act, which this bill has been slightly amended and sent to us.

Like many Americans across the country, I was sickened and deeply sorry by the violent attack on an

LGBTQ+ nightclub in Colorado Springs just a few weeks ago. It was a manifestation of hate, a manifestation of prejudice, a manifestation of bigotry, a manifestation of thinking one is better than the other, that somehow we are not all equal in the eyes of our Constitution and in the eyes of God.

It was a somber reminder of how safe spaces still are not safe for so many. One of the Club Q survivors, a young man named Anthony, said that as he lay wounded on the floor his first thought--not surprisingly, which he believed may be his last thought--was of his husband of 14 years, Jeremy.

What the Justices said some years ago and what we have said in our legislation is that who you love is your choice. One of the first votes I cast in the Maryland State Senate in 1967 was the repeal of the miscegenation statute. The Supreme Court, that same year, had ruled that unconstitutional. That because a Black male wanted to marry a White woman or a White woman wanted to marry a Black male or an Asian or of some other ethnicity or race, that somehow we would interpose our own judgment denying that all people are created equal, endowed by their creator--not by us, not by the Constitution--by their creator with certain unalienable rights, among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Certainly, the pursuit of happiness means that you can love whom you chose.

The love that Anthony felt for his husband in that moment reflected a basic emotional instinct that makes us all human.

Madam Speaker, I rise today for the millions of people like Anthony and Jeremy who deserve to continue living proudly and happily and safely in same-sex and interracial marriages.

In doing so, I stand for all Americans who cherish the liberty, equality, and justice promised to them under our Constitution.

Last summer, the Supreme Court, largely the Republican faction of the Supreme Court--they will resent that phrase, I am sure--violated that sacred promise with their radical ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson, breaking nearly 50 years of precedent, contrary to what some of those Justices said to the United States Senate their premise would be. They deprived women of their constitutional right to reproductive healthcare, to control their own bodies, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

In the process, they also opened the door for future challenges to Obergefell v. Hodges, United States v. Windsor, and Loving v. Virginia, which dealt with you couldn't marry a person of another color.

The Obergefell and Windsor precedents protecting same-sex marriage have stood for 7 and 9 years respectively, not the half a century that the others had, but the same proposition. It is not your business. I am shocked that conservatives who have a libertarian bent believe that somehow we ought to get involved in this.

Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this.

I remember the most conservative member of the State Senate, in which I served for 12 years, got up in talking about a woman's right to choose, and said: It is not my business. It is not government's business. It is not the legislators' business. It is my business. It is her business.

The Loving precedent protecting interracial marriage has stood for 55 years. Justice Thomas perhaps would opine that it is not a right that is found in the Constitution.

After the Supreme Court disregarded decades of precedent to overturn Roe v. Wade, we have no reason to expect it won't do the same to marriage equality. We believe that all men are created equal and all women, and men and women together.

Americans have grown accustomed to knowing that they have a constitutional right to equal marriage. Those living in same-sex and interracial marriages should not have to live with the fear that their government could rescind legal recognition of their families at any moment. That is not America. That is not content of character, as Martin Luther King urged us to pursue--character.

They must be able to live confidently, knowing that their marriages will be recognized wherever they go in America--no matter the city, county, or State.

Our Democratic House majority knows that no State ought to be able to deny full faith and credit to legal marriage between consenting American adults, and a lot of Republicans agree with us.

This is not a partisan issue. I hope it is not a partisan issue in this vote. It certainly was not a partisan issue when we passed it to the Senate. It was not a partisan vote in the United States Senate.

We know the best way to protect that most basic right to marriage equality is to enshrine it in Federal statute. That is why we took swift action last summer to pass the Respect for Marriage Act through the House and why I am proud to bring it to the floor again today.

Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Nadler and the staff of the committee. I thank Representative Cicilline and all the co-chairs of the LGBTQ+ Equality Caucus. This is not a caucus issue; this is a country issue. This is a constitutional issue. This is a fairness issue. This is justice for all.

I thank Chairman Ruiz and the Democratic Caucus chairman, Mr. Jeffries, who has been very involved in this bill, and Chairwoman Beatty, they all have worked hard on this bill.

Similarly, I appreciate the House Republicans who joined us in supporting this bill--a significant number of House Republicans. I would hope that all Republicans would do it on the theory that this is not our business, that people are free to make their own decisions, not the government making these decisions.

I also thank the 62 Senators, including 12 Republicans that came together to advance this critical legislation.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, all 435 of us, to stand up and say this is a free country. It is a country that believes in equality for all. This is a country that the representatives of our Constitution, our Declaration, and of our laws would stand up united in saying: You are free to love who you choose. It is not our choice.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Will the gentleman yield?

Madam Speaker, I just want to make clear, the gentleman indicated that we did nothing. The Justices of the Supreme Court had full protection. The issue was the families and the families of Members, but it ought to be on the public record that

the Supreme Court Members were protected.

If the gentleman will continue to yield, you represented that the Justices were unprotected. That is not accurate, sir.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 1508, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bills: H.R. 8844, S. 198, and S. 1687.

Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a resolution and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and thank him for his remarks. I will say some other words at a later time, so we don't prolong this colloquy.

I will say to the gentleman, I have enjoyed being majority leader. I have enjoyed working with the gentleman, and I look forward to working in the

next Congress in a constructive way to try to solve the challenges confronting our country and giving our people the opportunities that we want them to have.

I know the gentleman is going to be the majority leader. I will tell him, I have been the minority whip, and being majority leader is a lot better. So he is going to enjoy this job. I look forward to working with him.

Mr. Speaker, let's hope we have just one more colloquy, maybe not three more colloquies.

On Monday, Mr. Speaker, the House will meet at 12 p.m. for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. Members are advised that no votes are expected in the House on Monday.

On Tuesday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Votes will occur as early as 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday.

The House will recess for the Congressional Gold Medal ceremony to honor the extraordinary courage and fidelity of the U.S. Capitol Police and others who protected the Capitol on January 6, 2021, and allowed us to return to this Chamber to confirm the constitutional duty of electing the President of the United States.

On Wednesday, the House will meet at 2 p.m. for legislative business. The 2 p.m. convening time, I want to remind people, is because of the funeral of our beloved Don McEachin from Virginia, who sadly died after a long illness. His funeral will be at 11 a.m. in Virginia, and there will be arrangements for those who want to leave from here to go to the funeral in Virginia.

On Thursday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business.

Next week, the House will consider the Senate amendments to H.R. 8404, the Respect for Marriage Act, which will allow millions of interracial and same-sex couples to be able to live with greater certainty knowing their right to equal marriage is enshrined in Federal law.

The House will also consider Senate amendments to H.R. 7776, the James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for 2023.

Additionally, the House will consider two important immigration bills: H.R. 3648, the EAGLE Act, sponsored by Representative Zoe Lofgren, to phase out the per country cap on employment-based immigrant visas, with no increase in the total number, and Representative Takano's H.R. 7946, the Veteran Service Recognition Act.

The House will consider bills under suspension of the rules. The complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business today.

Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman raises an important point, how much time do people have to read the final product of a negotiation.

I was hopeful, frankly, that the bill would have been filed today. It is not ready for filing today because there are still some outstanding issues. But I have talked to Mr. Smith, the chairman of the committee, who indicates they are making progress and they are hopeful they can get this done.

So the Committee on Rules notice is subject obviously to the completion of negotiations and the filing.

It is not done, not filed today. We need to have it filed as soon as possible. The conferees are working on getting that.

As the gentleman points out, this bill tends to be, historically on both sides of the aisle, where we add a lot of things to it, which are not necessarily directly related but are because this bill is something that we want to pass and that we do pass--and we will pass this one. It garners riders, if you will, on the bill.

That is still going on, but I am cognizant, and the gentleman is correct, we want to have sufficient time for Members to see the bill.

We would like to do this bill next week, if we can, because, as the gentleman points out, this is about the national security of our country and our participation in international stabilization efforts around the world, not the least, of course, is the unprovoked, illegal war initiated by Mr. Putin in Ukraine. So we are hopeful we can get this done as soon as possible.

Yes, I think that is a good point, and we will try to make sure that happens.

My expectation is that there would be four-corners discussion, as we have referred to it, with the Republican and Democrat House and Senate leaders included in those discussions.

Unfortunately, as you know, the Senate has not passed any appropriations bills, and there was no agreement on a top line. That has been the discussion.

The difference, as the gentleman probably knows, is discussions about what is the top line for defense discretionary and what is the top line for nondefense discretionary.

As I understand it, the parties have started talking in the Senate on that issue. We are waiting for, I think, agreement, and hopefully that agreement will be reached soon, hopefully as soon as perhaps the beginning of next week because the gentleman is absolutely correct, on December 16, the authority to fund the government ends, and we are either going to have to pass a short-term CR, a longer-term CR or, more preferably, the omnibus.

I will say, as the gentleman knows--he indicated I was returning to the Appropriations Committee--we talk about a CR adversely affects the defense, and it does. You can't plan if you are a manager of any of the programs in the Defense Department. But I would also bring to the attention of Members, it harms every agency and department of government because it makes them unable to plan on what resources they have available to do the work we have asked them to do by law.

A CR is a very clumsy, frankly, admission of failure to get our job done on time, which I have been very unhappy about for a very, very long period of time. It is an affliction that affects both sides in terms of delay. As I say, the Senate, when the Republicans were in charge, and when the Democrats were in charge, haven't really gotten a bill to the floor and gotten it passed.

But we are not going to shut down the government, so we will propose some action which will preclude shutting down the government at whatever time that action is needed, but I am

very, very hopeful that we will do an omnibus because an omnibus at least gives the government and its agencies a year's worth of notice as to what resources they have to use to accomplish the objectives we have asked them to.

I wish I had a more specific answer for you, but, as you know, the negotiations are going on about the top line, and hopefully that will be resolved relatively soon.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. The gentleman is absolutely correct. There is a shot clock. It is September 30 at midnight. That is the shot clock. That is when government no longer is funded if we do not take some additional action.

I said to somebody this morning, there are 535 of us. Presumably we are all adults, presumably we are all rational people. Neither side would agree that everybody is that. But the fact of the matter is, we don't do what we know we have to do. You may want to do a lot of things, and we passed from our perspective very good legislation through this Congress, but the only thing you have to do is pass the 12 appropriations bills so you can fund the operations of government or make a decision that you are not going to fund a department, a program, an activity, whatever. But we don't do that.

We have, unfortunately, the sense that the delay is an acceptable process, as the gentleman points out. Then you get to the last minute, a crisis, and then you get a big bill we call the omnibus bill, that really it is so large and so few people have been participating in the formulation of that bill that it is unfair to the Members of Congress, and it is unfair to the American people.

I couldn't agree with the gentleman more that the appropriation process should be done, my own view is each bill should be considered individually. The Republicans started the practice, we followed the same practice of bundling them so we could save time. I look forward to working with the gentleman. I am going back to the Appropriations Committee, working with Chair DeLauro and Ranking Member DeLauro on doing that. But to her credit, all 12 bills were reported out of committee in a timely fashion, and this is gratuitous--you didn't ask for this advice--but what I would suggest we should have done if we could have done it is start the markups in May, pass the bills in June, send them to the Senate, and have July and August and September to resolve differences between the two, and pass the bills by September 30. That is what we ought to do, I agree with the gentleman. It is an objective that we ought to try to attain.

One of the things--I have been on the Appropriations Committee; I was on it for 23 years before I took leave--we had actual conferences, Senators and House Members on the two subcommittees came together, discussed differences, tried to resolve those differences. That essentially does not exist any longer, and it is not healthy, I think, for the institution.

Madam Speaker, I want to recognize the loss of an exceptional law enforcement official and community leader in Prince George's County, Maryland: Sheriff Melvin C. High. After a barrier- breaking career in law enforcement spanning 53 years, Sheriff High

passed away on November 17, 2022, just weeks before he was set to start a well-deserved retirement. Although many throughout the region and throughout the country will mourn his loss, his legacy endures through his profound impact on the communities he served and on policing broadly. Most importantly, his memory lives on through his wife, Brenda, and his daughter. Tracy.

Throughout his life, Melvin displayed an unyielding commitment to serving others. After teaching high school science in Mississippi, he served his country in Vietnam as a United States Marine. When he returned, he joined the Metropolitan Police Department here in Washington, DC in 1969. As one of the only Black officers in the ranks, he had to work his beat on foot since the police cruisers were reserved exclusively for his white colleagues. When he left the department after 24 years, however, he did so as Assistant Chief of Police--the first Black person in the department's history to serve as second-in-command. Melvin then spent a decade as Chief of Police in Norfolk, Virginia, before he came to Prince George's County in 2003.

Melvin was appointed Chief of the Prince George's County Police Department at a time of immense distrust between law enforcement and the community. He worked to restore the public's faith in his department by improving accountability, addressing mismanagement, and implementing policies to build safer communities. From rewriting the department's use-of-force policy to instituting the county's first system to detect and track the early signs of abuse, High's stringent standards and innovative leadership got his department back on track. Prince Georgians were so pleased with his work that they elected him to serve as their county's sheriff in 2010 and again in 2014 and 2018. In that role, he continued to make accountability a priority and worked to bring attention to pressing issues facing his community, including domestic abuse.

Melvin faced many obstacles over the years, but he worked to dismantle them for those who followed in his footsteps. Throughout his career, he cultivated greater diversity in law enforcement, developed more equitable and more effective community policing methods, and mentored numerous officers. While Melvin's many achievements are impressive, his humility is what makes them so inspiring. Despite being one of the most accomplished law enforcement professionals in the country, he still saw himself as a father and husband first. I am sure that he would remind us that he was just one of the many law enforcement officers across America who serve quietly to keep their communities and country safe.

Nevertheless, I ask all my colleagues to join me in mourning his loss, honoring his life's work, and wishing strength to his family.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 5 of House Resolution 1499, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bills: H.R. 4601, H.R. 4772, H.R. 5943, H.R. 7158, and agree to H. Res. 744 and H. Res. 922.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 5 of House Resolution 1499, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bills: H.R. 4899, H.R. 8203, H.R. 9308, and S. 3825.

Mr. Speaker, I would indicate to Chair Lofgren that perhaps we can yield to the ranking member because he would like to yield me 1 minute, I am sure.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. I was the sponsor of HAVA. Republicans were in charge, and I worked very closely with my friend Bob Ney on HAVA. It was legislation that was called by The Washington Post as the greatest reform legislation in 25 years since the civil rights bill. That may have been some hyperbole, but it was a good bill.

This bill corrects, essentially, a fault that we made in terms of its inclusiveness. The bill before us concerns two critical objectives that have been central to my work here in the House.

The first is ensuring that those with disabilities have equal access to the same opportunities as their fellow Americans. On July 26, we celebrated the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act signed by President George H.W. Bush, a very bipartisan piece of legislation that has made a historical difference.

The second is ensuring that all eligible voters in America have access to the ballot box and can make their voices heard in our democracy. That is, after all what our democracy is about.

The PAVA Program Inclusion Act helps accomplish both of those goals, and that is why I am proud to bring it to the floor today.

Specifically, this bill would improve access to the ballot for Americans with disabilities who live in the Northern Mariana Islands-- clearly, we want those included--and our Native American Tribal lands in the Four Corners region of the southwest, which we also expected we had done.

This bill expands key programs first laid out in the Help America Vote Act, also known as HAVA, that provided funding to regional protection and advocacy systems to assist people with disabilities in the voting process.

Although HAVA intended to provide funding for this important purpose to all protection and advocacy systems across the country, a technical oversight, as has been mentioned, led to the exclusion of these two regions. Today's legislation would correct that error and help us realize HAVA's original vision.

I was proud to serve as the principal House sponsor, as I said, of HAVA back in 2002 along with Bob Ney, who was the Republican chair of the House Administration Committee and a very good friend of mine. We are prepared to celebrate its 20th anniversary later this month. I am glad to see that the groundbreaking law continues to evolve and be strengthened by Congress.

HAVA was based on the principle that the integrity of our democracy depends on the accessibility and accuracy of our electoral system. I brought together a bipartisan coalition to enact that legislation in order to establish a number of commonsense policies that make voting easier and more secure, from reliable voting equipment to expanded provisional ballot access, HAVA and the bipartisan Election Assistance Commission--which I strongly support, and I am glad to see that we are investing in--make our Federal participation more broad and more effective.

Today's bill reminds us, however, that HAVA must continue to adapt to new needs and challenges. I very much appreciate the efforts of Chair Zoe Lofgren, the gentlewoman from California, who has worked so hard on voting rights issues as head of the House Administration Committee, and I thank the ranking member Mr. Davis, as well. I thank Senator Lujan, our former House colleague, for authoring this bill and advancing it through the Senate.

We must do everything in our power to ensure that people with disabilities, especially those from historically marginalized groups such as Native Americans and Pacific Islanders, can participate equally and fully in our democracy.

Mr. Speaker, that is why I ask all of my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 10 of House Resolution 1396, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bills: H.R. 1638, H.R. 3304, H.R. 4081, H.R. 4821, H.R. 6889, H.R. 6967, H.R. 8163, H.R. 8510, H.R. 8681, H.R. 8875, H.R. 8956, and S. 1198, and concur in the Senate amendments to H.R. 5641.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, Congress has a sacred duty to uphold our elections and to safeguard our democratic process. I rise in strong support of that mission.

I am not surprised that we hear on this floor the rationalization of insurrection, the rationalization of what I believe was treason.

I rise with extraordinary respect for the gentlewoman from Wyoming, as Republican as any Member of that side of the aisle, save a willingness to stand and speak truth to power, to honor facts, to honor the Constitution.

I applaud her for it and have deep respect for her willingness to stand up today and for history.

The gentleman from Georgia called January 6 an incident. The Republican National Committee passed a resolution, almost overwhelmingly, that referred to January 6 as legitimate political discourse: see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil.

I hear my friend, Mr. Davis, speaking about this being a partisan issue. This is an American issue. This is a democracy issue. This is a values issue.

To those who come to this well or speak from the floor to try to rationalize the invitation given by President Trump--the incitement stated by President Trump--and the deployment of a mob to fight like hell and stop the steal--I advise my colleagues and I urge my colleagues to look at Vice President Gore's comments when he lost the election 5-4. He honored the Court's decision, not because he agreed

with it, but because he said it was good for America and our democracy.

I call attention to the remarks of Hillary Clinton when she lost to President Trump. That night, knowing that she had gotten 3 million more votes, she conceded because the law is the electoral college makes that decision.

In 1864, despite the turmoil of Civil War, President Lincoln-- President Lincoln would be standing with Liz Cheney if he were on this floor. President Lincoln went to great lengths to ensure that Americans had the opportunity to make their voices heard in a national election. He argued that ``We cannot have free government without elections,'' and that ``if the rebellion could force us to forego or postpone a national election, it might fairly claim to have already conquered and ruined us.''

Liz Cheney has said that, not exactly in those words, but it is exactly the same substance of what Abraham Lincoln said over a century and a half ago.

We came face to face with a similar danger on January 6 last year. It was rationalized then, and, sadly, it is being rationalized now. History will judge.

The insurrection revealed a willful and false refusal to accept the certified and judicially confirmed election results. The gentleman from Illinois said that the Trump administration went to the courts. They lost time after time after time after time, and to this day, they do not accept what Al Gore accepted, that we are a nation of laws and not of one man.

There are ambiguities in our electoral system, and they can jeopardize our democracy. That is what this bill is about: upholding our democracy.

Questions surrounding the Vice President's role in counting electoral votes served as a pretext for the insurrectionists' assault on the Capitol. Fortunately, their conspiracy and their plot failed. In that incident that the gentleman from Georgia talked about, police officers died, civilians died, and hundreds were injured severely in that incident.

What a polite word for treason and insurrection.

That tragic and dangerous episode, however, underscored the importance of clarifying any uncertainties that future malevolent actors could exploit to undermine the will of the American people as expressed through their votes.

I went to the Charles County Fair last weekend. I went to the Democratic booth. As I always do, I went to the Republican booth, and the biggest sign was: Trump won.

We are a nation of laws. Try to respect a nation of laws. The bipartisan legislation the Presidential Election Reform Act provides the clarity necessary.

It reaffirms, as former Vice President Mike Pence correctly concluded--which is why those incidents were calling for the death of the Vice President with a noose hanging out in front of the Capitol and why they were calling for the life of the Speaker of the House in that incident--that he did not have, and he does not have the authority to delay or reject the counting of electoral votes.

Why?

Because we are a nation of laws and a nation of the Constitution. That principle was established in both the Constitution and the Electoral Count Act of 1887.

Not only would this legislation raise the threshold required to object to a State's slate of electors from the ridiculously low one House Member and one Senator to one-third of the membership--at least 152 million people ought to be given that respect who voted in that election--at least one-third of us would have to rise to overturn their judgment.

This bill also restricts the grounds on which objections can be made, limiting the ability of Members to lodge frivolous and partisan objections.

The bill also contains important provisions to restrict the ability of State and local elected and election officials to undermine or overturn the process of tabulating and certifying results in their jurisdictions. People elect the President, not State legislators, and not this Congress. The American people elect the President.

Not only do these measures align with the overwhelming consensus--not just conservative commentators, but commentators of all stripes whether ideological or not, believe this is a good piece of legislation. I share their view.

No individual or group of conspirators ought to have the power to subvert the will of the American people.

I thank the Committee on House Administration Chair Zoe Lofgren, and I share the remarks of the gentlewoman from Wyoming about her integrity, her intellect, and her conscientious carrying out of her duties as a Member of the Congress. Indeed, Vice-Chair Cheney's work on this bill and the January 6 Committee will go down as one of this institution's greatest examples of political courage and integrity.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her work.

Similarly, I thank Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney and her colleagues on the House Oversight and Reform Committee for their work investigating vulnerabilities in our democratic process.

We must now come together not as Republicans, not as Democrats, and not as partisans, but as protectors. We raised our hands and said that we would protect the Constitution and laws of this Nation. This is one of those days that we get to meet that oath.

Let me conclude because not only did Lincoln argue that elections were essential to free government, but he also made clear his belief that ``elections belong to the people. It is their choice.''

That is what this legislation is about. Stand up for your country. Stand up for the people. Vote for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 2 of House Resolution 1361, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bills: H.R. 1433, H.R. 4009, H.R. 4358, H.R. 6265, H.R. 6846, H.R. 7240, H.R. 7338, H.R. 8453, H.R. 8503, and H.R. 8520; and agree to H. Res. 558.

Mr. Speaker, there is always time to celebrate extraordinary Americans, which is why I rise today to recognize American tennis star and proud son of Maryland's Fifth District, Frances Tiafoe.

Last week, he became the first American man to reach the U.S. Open semifinals since 2006 and the first African-American man to do so since Arthur Ashe in 1972.

Indeed, Tiafoe is one of the only three African-American men in the history of tennis to advance out of the rounds and into the finals of the U.S. Open.

Of course, we have been very proud to cheer Serena Williams and Sloane Stephens, who together won 4 out of the last 10 women's titles in the U.S. Open, not to mention an extraordinary young woman, Coco Gauff, who made it to the U.S. Open quarterfinals.

Tiafoe's accomplishments in the men's tournament are especially impressive, Mr. Speaker, considering his extraordinary story. Born in Maryland's Fifth District--mine--to immigrant parents who fled civil war in Sierra Leone, Frances grew up living in a spare office at the Junior Tennis Champions Center in College Park, Maryland, where his father worked as a custodian. Indeed, earlier, his father had been part of the construction crew that built that tennis center.

Noticing young Frances' upbeat attitude and love of the game, the coaches and staff of the center took him under their wing and helped him train to become one of the most promising American tennis players in recent memory. How proud they must be.

We saw that training bear fruit last week when he made it to the semifinals by defeating one of the greatest tennis players in history, Rafael Nadal, from Spain. Although Frances ultimately didn't win the title, he showed the world that the future of American tennis is bright indeed.

I had the opportunity of talking to Frances just a few minutes ago. I am inviting him down to the Capitol, and I want all the Maryland Members to meet him. But I am going to invite all of you to meet him, as well, Mr. Speaker.

He is an extraordinary young man. I congratulate him, I congratulate his family, and I congratulate those coaches who saw a promising young man and took him under their wing not because he was paying them but because they saw great promise in Frances Tiafoe.

Boy, were they right.