Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, Mr. Costa, for yielding this time. I thank my friend and the ranking member, Mr. Turner, for his role in bringing this to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, as has been said over and over again, Vladimir Putin made a terrible strategic and tragic miscalculation by illegally invading the sovereign and democratic nation of Ukraine. His false justification for that invasion was the supposed threat posed by NATO expansion. His other false claim was that Russian Ukrainians were being terrorized and threatened. Neither of those allegations was true.

Now, his actions have led directly, as Mr. Turner just pointed out, and as Mr. Costa pointed out, to the opposite of what he intended. That is, we are going to be adding two extraordinary members of the European community, two countries that have shared our values, our democratic values, our nation of laws values, and our humanitarian values with us for literally over half a century.

Together, Finland and Sweden will add substantial capabilities to NATO's collective defense and make the Baltic region much more secure against Russian aggression. But much more than that, they will add value, because of their values, to our alliance.

Mr. Speaker, I was in Denmark in April, meeting with senior officials. I can attest that the addition of Finland and Sweden to the NATO family will create a Scandinavian bloc--Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland--within NATO that will be more than the sum of its parts, significantly contributing to the peace and stability of Europe and to the security of all NATO nations, including the United States.

As I have said before, we must ensure that Putin's invasion will result in a strategic defeat for Russia. I pause, Mr. Speaker, to emphasize that point. Vladimir Putin must not win this war, not only for the sake of the Ukrainians and their extraordinary bravery, and the bravery and the leadership of Mr. Zelenskyy, their President, but because the free world needs to send a very strong, clear, and unmistakable message that tyranny will not prevail. We must send a message to dictators around the world that this action is unacceptable and will be opposed until victory by the free world.

We must defend the hard-won principle in international laws and norms that a nation cannot simply invade and seek to conquer territory from a neighbor by force. That was accepted for centuries, indeed, millennia, but it is not acceptable today in a world of nuclear weapons, in a world that has a United Nations that stands for the principle that no nation can by force take the land of another nation.

I thank Representative Keating for his leadership on this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I hope we can all come together, Democrats and Republicans, as I think we will, in a resounding, unanimous vote to show our support not only for Ukraine, which we have demonstrated over and over again by votes of this House, but also for our new NATO allies, the people of Finland and Sweden.

I thank the Prime Minister of Sweden, Magdalena Andersson, and the Prime Minister of Finland, Sanna Marin, for their leadership in taking what is in many respects a courageous stand.

The Finns, of course, have a very long border with Russia. They believe, correctly, in my view, that their security is contingent, and that is why they are joining NATO.

As we have reiterated time and time again, this House is committed to honoring Article 5 of the NATO Charter.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good resolution that will stand us in good stead as a nation and as a global community.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlemen for yielding.

Madam Speaker, as the doctor has just said, this is an extraordinarily complex and difficult issue for all.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill and the Women's Health Protection Act that we are also considering today.

Three weeks ago today, the United States Supreme Court's unprecedented decision reversed nearly 50 years of established precedent overturning Roe v. Wade and paving the way for trigger laws across the country to criminalize access to abortion instantly. With this ruling, women in 2022 will now have fewer rights than their mothers or grandmothers and less control over their own bodies and their own healthcare.

Today, the House of Representatives is responding to protect the women of our country. Today, this House will vote to stand with women and affirm their freedom to make their own healthcare decisions.

It is not an easy decision, and it is not made lightly, but it ought to be free from interference from politicians. We must do everything, in my view, in our power to ensure that women are free to travel wherever they need in order to access reproductive care safely, legally, and without fear of punishment.

That is why I brought to the floor this bill, the Ensuring Women's Right to Reproductive Freedom Act. This legislation would prohibit States from preventing, impeding, or obstructing women from traveling to other States for reproductive care or retaliating against them for doing so.

Over a century and one-half ago it was legal to own people because of the color of their skin. They could escape, as Harriet Tubman did and as Frederick Douglass did, from their slavery on the Eastern Shore of our State and go to a so-called free State. But then, tragically, the Congress enacted a bill which allowed people to go and reimpose slavery on those folks. Let's none of us do the same.

This legislation would prohibit States from preventing, impeding, or obstructing women from traveling to other States for reproductive care where it is legal or retaliating against them for doing so. These draconian and authoritarian laws that States are talking about are going to criminalize behavior no matter whether it is legal in the State to which you went.

One of the first bills I voted on in 1967 when I first went to the State senate--at that point in time I was about 8 months out of law school--was to repeal the miscegenation statutes which said that a Black person could not marry a White person or a person of Japanese extraction or Chinese extraction. The Supreme Court held that unconstitutional.

It would be like saying: You can go to a State where that certainly is legal for an African American and a Caucasian to marry, but if you come back here, you are going to be a criminal.

That is draconian, authoritarian, and almost Communist-like. It is dictatorship that China tried to pursue and did.

This bill would also extend the same protections to healthcare providers who perform abortions for out-of-state patients and to anyone who helps them with transportation. Let us not set up a society where people are watching their neighbor, reporting on their neighbor, and criminalizing behavior which has, for one-half century, been the decision of a woman. Yes, she could consult her doctor and she could consult others, but it was her body that was at stake. It is her decision.

Additionally, this bill would protect the movement in interstate commerce of prescription drugs approved by the FDA to end pregnancies safely at home.

I am grateful to Representatives Lizzie Fletcher, Marilyn Strickland, and Jamie Raskin for introducing this legislation and to Chairman Pallone for advancing it through the Energy and Commerce Committee so speedily. I also want to thank Diana DeGette and Barbara Lee for their leadership on this issue as co-chairs of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus.

While protecting interstate travel is an important step, Congress must do much more to ensure that every woman in our country can access healthcare and reproductive choice safely, legally, and affordably. That is why we are also considering an updated version of the Women's Health Protection Act today.

I thank Judy Chu, again, for her leadership on this effort.

Make no mistake, Madam Speaker, until we codify Roe v. Wade's 49-year precedent in Federal statute, women in many parts of our country will not be safe or have access to the healthcare they need. I am old enough to remember when it wasn't legal and when people died in back alleys going to charlatans and did not have proper medical care. Let's not return to those dark and tragic days.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, to support freedom, and to support the women of our country. That is the right thing to do.

Madam Speaker, this is going to be a very busy week. There are over 600 amendments made in order to the defense bill.

Clearly, if we do what we just did, and we do it too often--take three times the time allotted to vote; this took about 47 minutes, 48 minutes to vote in the first vote--we will be here for a very long time. No one wants to shirk their duties, but they do want to do their duties on time.

I want to make it clear to the House that I have asked the leadership, the Speaker's Office, to join with me in ensuring that 5- minute votes are 5-minute votes.

My colleagues, invariably, that announcement brings cheers, and invariably, those cheers come after 10, 15, 20 minutes have elapsed on a 5-minute vote--not all of us, but some of us, and many of us sometimes.

In consideration of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, some of you are going to be angry because you are going to miss a 5-minute vote.

Now, for those of you who are casting proxies, I ask you to cast them immediately upon the vote opening so that we can process the proxies at the desk.

Yelling at one another doesn't help trying to bring some self-respect to this institution. Each of us has to take personal responsibility to do our job, which is to put our card in the voting machine, to put our proxies in, to move along.

I ask all of us to respect that because I am going to try, to the extent humanly possible, to end votes at 5 minutes. Some of you are going to be upset. You are going to walk down the aisle.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Ladies and gentlemen----

Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I just admonished some people.

This is a serious issue of how the House operates and how your time is respected. We have proxies. We are going to keep proxies. We can debate that, but the fact of the matter is, as long as we have proxies, we are going to have to take into consideration proxies.

But we don't have to simply waste time by people not showing up, proxy or not. That is my whole point, so that we can respect one another's time, respect the work of this institution, respect the work of our committees.

I would urge--and I will yield again--I would urge us to respect one another, respect our time, and respect the constraints of voting within a timeframe, whether it is 15 minutes or 5 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy).

Let me conclude, Madam Speaker, by urging everybody to stay on the floor. What we are seeing happen many times is somebody votes, they are registered, and then when you go to the next vote they are 10 minutes, 15 minutes late. That is not what we ought to be doing.

We are going to hew to the time limits as closely as humanly possible within the constraints of our clerks who are working very, very hard to accommodate us.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise to thank Velmon Washington for his twenty-two years of dedicated service as an employee of this House. Mr. Washington began his service with the Office of the Clerk in October 2000 as a Data Processing Specialist, and he was in that position for three years before being promoted to an Assistant Requisitions and Printing Clerk. Most recently, he was made Senior Requisitions and Printing Clerk. Mr. Washington's service with the Office of the Clerk caps eighteen years of outstanding service. I congratulate him on his retirement at the end of June.

Mr. Washington's many years of experience made him an expert in the inner workings of the Clerk's Office and the operations it oversees. He has worked directly with customers from Member and House Committee offices, supplying them with official letterhead and other important materials needed to serve constituents effectively. Mr. Washington also provided valuable assistance to many of the divisions within the Clerk's organization, including the Office of Communications and the Clerk's personal office in support of special projects. He was responsible for keeping track of dozens of requisitions every week using a unique requisitions website, and, for each new Congress, Mr. Washington prepared for months in advance to assemble--and often hand deliver--materials to all new Members on their first day in session.

Madam Speaker, outside of work Mr. Washington is a dedicated husband and father. He inspired his two children with patriotism and public service, and both have served in our nation's Armed Forces--something that makes him very, very proud. I thank Mr. Washington for his dedication, his love of country, and for his many years of service to the Clerk's Office, and I wish him all the best in his retirement. I hope my colleagues will all join me in expressing the gratitude of this House and offering our congratulations.

Mr. Speaker, for years, the gun violence epidemic in our country has forced us to cope with immeasurable grief and loss.

Throughout America, many communities have begun to erect memorials to remember those they have lost through gun violence. These monuments are not much different than those right outside The National Mall that honor Americans killed in war.

Just last week, people in San Bernardino, California, unveiled the Curtain of Courage made of steel and bronze to pay tribute to the 16 people who were murdered at a mass shooting there in 2015.

In Newtown, Connecticut, a planned memorial will feature a spiral of granite inscribed with the names of 20 children and 6 teachers killed at Sandy Hook Elementary in 2012.

Memorials are being built or planned, as well, to honor those who died in shootings in Charleston, Orlando, Las Vegas, El Paso, Buffalo, Uvalde, and many others.

The best way to honor those we have lost to gun violence, however, is not with bronze, steel, or granite. Rather, it is with meaningful action to prevent others from suffering the same fate.

The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which was overwhelmingly passed by the United States Senate, and which I am pleased to bring to the floor today, is a step in the right direction to take action.

This legislation includes measures that will reduce the threat of gun violence and save lives across the country. It will help implement red flag laws that empower law enforcement officers to keep guns out of the hands of people at risk of using them to harm themselves or others. Closing the so-called boyfriend loophole in this bill will prevent people convicted of domestic abuse in a dating relationship from possessing deadly firearms. If they have displayed violence, they ought to be prohibited from getting weapons

that will make mass violence more probable and possible. It will also require more thorough background checks for Americans under the age of 21 who seek to purchase a gun.

We passed expanded background checks through this House, and 85 percent of the American people say they are for that--and that is the minimum--but no action has been taken in the United States Senate. They have taken some action, and some action is better than no action.

Additionally, this legislation includes $250 million in funding for community-based violence prevention programs.

Do we not want to see community violence diminished?

It will also crack down on those who make straw purchases, purchases of guns that otherwise, under the existing system, could not be purchased by the ultimate user of those guns.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Senator Murphy, Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, Representative Lucy McBath, Representative Robin Kelly, Chairman Mike Thompson of the Gun Violence Prevention Task Force, and those Republicans who said that ``NRA'' does not stand for ``no Republican action.'' They took action. They stood up, even in the face of boos from their own party.

This legislation, as I said, is a step forward. That is how we make progress in America, a step at a time.

None of us have had the opportunity ever to vote on a perfect bill in this House. We vote on good bills that we feel will move our country forward. This is that kind of bill, a step forward but not enough.

Many of us feel that we need to do more. We need to do comprehensive background checks. We need to close the Charleston loophole. We sent those bills to the Senate.

We can and must do more.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that will weaken commonsense gun safety laws all over the country. Yes, we can return to the O.K. Corral and everybody having a six-shooter on their hip. Anybody who thinks that would make us a safer, more civil community I think is sadly mistaken. That fact ought to disturb all of us very deeply.

The Court's decision to make it even easier for bad actors to carry dangerous concealed guns without restrictions should serve as a reminder that we need to take additional active steps to protect our communities and our kids, actions that are supported by the overwhelming majority of the American people.

If we fail to do that, if we allow this legislation to be the end instead of the beginning, parents will continue to receive that dreaded, unfathomable call that they will never see their children again, and new monuments honoring victims will continue to pop up in communities across the country.

Mr. Speaker, I say to my House colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, we don't need additional memorials. We need action, and we need new laws.

If we can follow today's legislation with action on comprehensive background checks and further gun safety measures, however, future generations--perhaps it is not guaranteed, but it is certainly worth the effort to reduce the gun violence and to reduce the need for memorials.

If we do not, then those who come after will wonder why their forebears allowed such violence to be perpetrated uniquely in America.

Mr. Speaker, you don't find this in other countries--democratic countries and free countries--that protect individual rights.

Mr. Speaker, today, in just a few minutes, let us begin to end the cycle of tragedy and inaction. Let us pass this bill and say: No more.

Let us pass it and then do more. Vote ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay my respects to Dave Finger of the National Volunteer Fire Council who passed away on June 3rd following a courageous battle with pancreatic cancer.

Prior to joining the National Volunteer Fire Council (NVFC) as its Chief of Legislative and Regulatory Affairs in 2005, Dave served as the lead staffer on first responder issues for the Research and Technology Subcommittee of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Dave worked closely with my staff and the staff of my three fellow co- chairs of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus sharing input on legislation pending before the House Science Committee that benefited our nation's fire and emergency services.

As NVFC's Chief of Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Dave represented the interests of our nation's volunteer firefighters on Capitol Hill. His efforts played a critical role in the passage of federal legislation that not only advanced the health and safety of our nation's volunteer firefighters, but all firefighters and emergency services personnel.

Dave was the embodiment of collaboration. While his primary focus was always on advocating for the volunteer fire service, he understood the importance of working together with the other national fire organizations to advance a common agenda. Tributes from his colleagues expressed appreciation for his passion, integrity, and character. Cerebral in nature, he possessed a depth of knowledge and insight on the issues he championed. There was never a time when he walked into a meeting with Members of Congress or their staff unprepared; he was the consummate professional.

Dave was only forty-four when his life was cut short by cancer. He leaves behind his wife, Allison, and their two children: Vivienne, 7, and Sullivan, 2. He also leaves behind many friends and thousands of firefighters across the nation who owe him their deep gratitude for the work he performed on their behalf throughout his career.

Madam Speaker, on behalf of my fellow Co-Chairs of the Congressional Fire Service Caucus, I extend my sympathies to Dave's family and to his colleagues at the National Volunteer Fire Council and throughout the fire and emergency services community for the loss of their loved one and friend.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Obviously, in order to serve the American people and to serve their needs, we take in a lot of information--in this case, voluntary information, to determine what we can do to assist and make better the lives of people and the challenges they face.

This Pride Month we celebrate all the progress we have made over the years to help LGBTQ Americans express themselves more openly, to help their community become more visible, and to be free from the danger of violence perpetrated against them because of who they are.

We must acknowledge, however, that the Federal Government does not do enough to ensure that that community is seen and considered when making key policy decisions.

Although there is evidence that LGBTQ Americans, especially transgender people, still face substantial prejudice in areas such as housing, employment, and education, we need more data to determine the scope of these challenges and to devise a policy solution that works for all.

To promote visibility, foster inclusion, and build equity and equality for LGBTQ Americans, this legislation would ask the Federal agencies to collect voluntary information on orientation and gender identity whenever they ask for other demographic data.

I want to emphasize, as I know has been emphasized, that although this data will be processed anonymously, submission of this information will always be and continue to be completely voluntary.

Americans should never be forced to disclose their sexual orientation or gender identity to the government, period. To that extent I think we all agree.

I thank Representative Grijalva for introducing this legislation, as well as Chairwoman Maloney and her colleagues on the Oversight and Reform Committee for their efforts to advance this bill.

Although we still have much to do to address the disparities and marginalization of the LGBTQ people and what they face in America, this bill will help equip policymakers with the tools and information needed to make further progress.

Our vote today is a continuation, frankly, of the efforts of Johnson, Milk, and other leaders who showed courage in the LGBTQ community to come forward and to say that we are people and we need to be treated as equal under the law. And this will, I think, help us meet that responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and ranking member for the work they have done together and with the committee to bring this very important bipartisan bill to the floor. I thank them both for their hard work, and the committee for its hard work, in compiling this bipartisan package to combat two of the most important issues, Mr. Speaker, facing communities today: mental health and drug addiction.

The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated mental health and addiction challenges that were already present in our communities. For those already experiencing severe depression, anxiety, or even substance abuse and addiction disorders, the pandemic made it harder to access mental health care and essential help and resources, and it created, of course, much greater anxiety.

This bill would reauthorize key mental health and addiction programs while helping to strengthen communities' crisis response.

There are many important programs included, but I will highlight just a few.

Mr. Speaker, among them is legislation from my friend Representative David Trone to help States expand the availability of high-quality recovery housing for treatment from substance abuse. Representative Trone has been a leader on this issue as co-chair of the Bipartisan Addiction and Mental Health Task Force.

Mr. Speaker, also included is legislation from my friends Representatives Cindy Axne and Chris Pappas to revise opioid treatment program criteria to help those in need of treatment access it more quickly.

Our in-house pediatrician, Representative Kim Schrier, authored a provision to help children and teens who have had their lives upended by the pandemic access the mental health care and services that they so badly need.

Mr. Speaker, I also mention a critical section added by Representative Susie Lee to provide important resources for virtual peer support programs. Representative Lee knows how much her constituents have benefited from these types of programs and how much more good they can do if given the proper resources.

Representative Tonko from New York, included legislation to expand access to prescription medications that help patients overcome addiction disorders.

Mr. Speaker, these are just a few of the very beneficial policies included in this legislation that will improve lives and, indeed, save lives.

I am so proud of the Energy and Commerce Committee and all the Members whose legislation is included in this bipartisan package, which demonstrates how we can join together, Democrats and Republicans, to pass important legislation and show those we serve they are not alone in facing these challenges.

Mr. Speaker, I hope this strong vote today will help move these critical policies through the Senate and see them quickly enacted into law.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, the chairman has done a wonderful job as the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, and I know that you are working together to bring people together. One of the things that I most admire about Chairman Scott is that he wants to have a bipartisan result coming out of his committee, and I think in this bill he has.

Mr. Speaker, every day Americans across the country must contend with

the rising prices caused by inflation. Whenever they pull up to the gas pump, they face the repercussions of Vladimir Putin's criminal invasion of Ukraine, which has made gas prices skyrocket--not just because of the sanctions, not because of Russia's production, but because of the lack of confidence in the future that this war has caused.

Whenever our people go to the grocery store, they suffer the consequences of the havoc that the COVID-19 pandemic has inflicted on global supply chains. Unfortunately, we cannot erase the past crises that led to our current economic situation.

I say to the Members of this Congress that we can take the meaningful steps today to lower prices for consumers and to stimulate America's economy in the weeks and months to come. That is why House Democrats are focusing all week on easing inflation and bringing costs down. I know that is what my Republican colleagues want to do as well.

While this may not be a perfect alternative--there are no perfect alternatives--this is a positive step toward decreasing the costs to our people of things that they must buy: fuel and food. To support that mission, I am proud to bring the Lower Food and Fuel Costs Act to the floor today, at Mr. Scott's request.

America's farmers and ranchers have long fed our Nation, and indeed, much of the world. Despite their essential work, however, they have often struggled to turn a reliable profit in recent years because of rising expenses, associated particularly with fertilizer--the costs of which have gone up very substantially as a result of the crisis that we confront.

By making fertilizer more affordable and by improving farmers' access to loans for precision agricultural technology, this legislation will help lower these production costs, which burden smaller farmers and contribute to higher consumer food prices.

Additionally, this bill will lower gas prices by increasing biofuel adoption and investment, and by giving consumers greater fuel choices at the pump.

Lack of competition in the meat and poultry processing industries has also jeopardized many of our family farmers and the people they feed. Competition is the essence of a free market. Competition is the essence of establishing prices that are reasonable and fair, both to producers and to consumers.

Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, this legislation will help level that playing field for small and independent producers trying to break into the industry, which will both boost our meat processing capacity and stoke healthy competition and innovation, which both sides of the aisle believe is the way we have created this extraordinary economy we know as the American economy: competition and free markets.

Similarly, this bill establishes a dedicated office within the Department of Agriculture to strengthen enforcement of existing antitrust authorities to consult on trade practices, ensuring a fairer, more competitive industry that works better for consumers.

We know that if just a few producers have a monopoly--and that is one of the problems with oil prices. We have OPEC nations who have constricted supply when demand was up. What inevitably happens in a free market? Prices rise.

This is about free markets. This is about competition. This is about fair pricing for consumers. These reforms will enable our farmers to produce food more efficiently, driving down costs for Americans at the grocery store.

Not only will this legislation help us respond to the ramifications of crises like the pandemic and the war in Ukraine, but they will also make our agricultural sector and our economy more resilient to future shocks.

This legislation is a crucial step toward reducing inflation. I thank Representative Spanberger, Representative Craig, and Representative Axne, and my friends on the Republican side who have worked on this, and my friends on the Democratic side who have worked on this.

This is an important piece of legislation for the people--all of them. All of our Members listened closely to the concerns of their constituents and took a collaborative approach to come up with legislation that addresses some of the most pressing needs of the American people.

I thank the ranking member of this committee for his thoughtfulness in approaching this issue.

Today, every Member of this House has an opportunity to do something to ease inflation. Every Member has an opportunity to vote to ease inflation today. We are eager to take that action, which is why we are bringing this to the floor and voting to pass it.

I hope all of our Members will join us so we can show our constituents that their Congress is addressing inflation and working together on their behalf, not on our political behalves, but working together to pass this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues: vote ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, before I start on the colloquy and go through the schedule, I was just talking to the Republican whip, my friend, Mr. Scalise. We were talking about a friend of ours, his name is John Bresnahan; he is

a reporter. He has covered Capitol Hill since 1994, I believe, is the note I had. He is an excellent reporter.

He reports the facts. He reports the truth. As I know Mr. Scalise agrees, reporters who do that not only serve us, but more importantly, their major purpose is to serve the American people because we know that a free press telling the facts and the truth to the American people give them the opportunity to make solid decisions for our democracy.

I wish John Bresnahan a happy 60th birthday, and hope that he has many, many more. I have had 23 more than that, so I appreciate the fact that he is still going strong.

Madam Speaker, I want to tell Mr. Bresnahan that he made the same promise to me, which is why we did this. If he was going to sing it, I was a little reluctant to do this, and he didn't. I join the whip in wishing John Bresnahan, a friend, a very careful and honest reporter, the very best 60th birthday and many more to come.

Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, the House will meet at 12 p.m. for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m.

On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning hour and 12 p.m. for legislative business.

Madam Speaker, on Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business.

On Monday, we will be celebrating Juneteenth as a Federal holiday for the second time in American history. Juneteenth is the day on which the last slaves who were in Texas learned of their new status as free Americans, an extraordinary day in the history of our country, eliminating one of the great blights on the history of America. As de Tocqueville pointed out, we tried to heal our wounds and tried to heal our wrongs, and we are still working on that.

Last year, the Congress took the historic step of enacting legislation to recognize Juneteenth as a Federal holiday, at long last. I look forward to celebrating as we pay tribute to freedom to all men and women being created equal in the image of God. We celebrate the history of the African-American perseverance and triumph over injustice and adversity.

I say triumph--it has been a triumph--but there are battles yet to be won. Juneteenth not only looks back but it looks forward to winning those battles.

Madam Speaker, I see Mr. Green on the floor, who has a resolution on the recognition of the blight of slavery. I thank him for that resolution and look forward to having that considered.

On Monday, we will be celebrating that holiday, but we will be celebrating it as we do Martin Luther King's birthday, as we ought to be in celebrating Washington and Lincoln's birthday, and committing ourselves to the realization of the principles for which they stood.

Madam Speaker, the House will consider bills under suspension of the rules. The complete list of those suspension bills will be announced at the close of business tomorrow.

Next week, Madam Speaker, the House will consider H.R. 7666, which is titled Restoring Hope for Mental Health and Well-Being Act, a bipartisan package of bills led by Chairman Pallone and Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers, to address the mental health and opioid abuse crisis.

The legislation expands access to treatment for opioid use disorders, promotes behavioral health integration, and reauthorizes critical programs to support mental health and substance use disorder, prevention, treatment, and recovery, including in our children.

Madam Speaker, the House will also consider legislation under suspension from Chairman Bobby Scott and members of the Education and Labor Committee to address the mental health, addiction, and suicide on college campuses, which is far, far too prevalent.

Our young people have faced stresses by the pandemic, stresses within our Nation, the divisions on which prey on their minds, so this is a very important piece of legislation. I hope it will be--and I believe it is going to be--bipartisan.

The House will also take up H.R. 6411, the Veterans Affairs' Committee Chairman Mark Takano's STRONG Veterans Act, again, bipartisan legislation to combat veterans' suicide and address mental health, and help our Nation meet its commitment to those who risk their lives and safety for our country.

Additionally, Madam Speaker, the House will consider H.R. 5585, Representatives Eshoo's ARPA-H Act. This legislation would establish the Advanced Research Project Agency for Health, an independent agency tasked with accelerating biomedical innovation and making transformative breakthroughs in the fight against the most challenging diseases confronting our people.

This agency will oversee the next steps in the Cancer Moonshot program and help meet the President's goal of cutting the cancer death rate by at least 50 percent over the next 25 years, and hopefully sooner.

Madam Speaker, as we celebrate Pride Month, the House will consider H.R. 4176, the LGBTQ Data Inclusion Act.

Madam Speaker, I anticipate that the House will vote on a compromised, bipartisan Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring Our PACT Act, after the Senate takes action on the version agreed upon in May. As the whip knows, that Act was a bipartisan act that dealt with those who were exposed to burn pits and other toxic substances of which they did not know while they were serving on bases, both here and around the world.

This bill, we believe the Senate will take action on, a version agreed upon in May, which preserves much of the House-passed legislation to care for veterans exposed to burn pits and other toxic chemicals during their service.

In addition, the House will consider other bills under suspension of the rules, the complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. Additional legislative items are possible.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I would simply observe, as I observed the other day, that we all want to make sure that our Justices are safe.

Let me say, Madam Speaker, there is a very important reason for that. We want to keep all our people safe. But nine Justices of our Supreme Court represent that we are a nation of laws. They are one of the three branches of our government. Just as I was extraordinarily and remain extraordinarily concerned about the attack on this institution, the Congress of the United States, as we were preparing to elect a President of the United States, an attack on the Supreme Court and the lives of the Supreme Court Justices are an attack on our democracy, on a separate branch of government that is charged with continuing to make us a nation of laws.

So, very frankly, the Supreme Court Justices, under existing law, were protected. There were security people there. Luckily, there were security people there. But the gentleman is absolutely right. We want to make sure whether we agree or disagree with the individuals, whether we agree or disagree with the opinions or the judgements that Congress makes, we are a nation of laws, and the way to resolve our differences is not through violence but through the democratic process.

I thank the gentleman for his observation.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

We continue to talk about this as if this were the President's fault. First of all, in a much wider range, this is a result of the pandemic.

Why is it the result of the pandemic?

Not solely the pandemic but let me take the pandemic first. Everybody stayed home--this body and businesses across America.

What did that mean that they stayed home?

They stopped buying gas.

What did the oil companies do?

They shut down some of their production, a very substantial reduction in production. But then as the prices went up, they were making as much money or much more money. So in making much more money, they didn't increase production, as the gentleman says will be an answer to the question, in a country that does, in fact, have regulations and does have rules, and because of those regulations and rules the production of our energy is, in fact, as the gentleman asserts, more efficient and more environmentally considerate.

The oil companies--acting from what they thought was good business practice, demand was down, but prices were going up--were making profits. They bought back stock, which, of course, increased the value of the stock that remained. They increased dividends, which, of course, encouraged people to invest in them. It made people happy about their investments.

But they didn't increase production. They didn't have to increase production. They were making good profits and making, from their standpoint, good business decisions.

As I indicated in the last colloquy that we dealt with this problem, there were millions of leases put on the market by this administration, as I recall, some 80 million acres. Approximately 2 percent of the leases were bid on, and then the Court said that this was not a legal process.

But it is interesting how small was the interest in additional production at that time irrespective of what happened subsequently.

The gentleman mentions a bill, as he has done in the past, H.R. 6858, the American Energy Independence from Russia Act.

But before I say that, let me say, I hope the President is going to Saudi Arabia to talk privately, not publicly trying to embarrass or harangue, and certainly not to beg. The United States of America doesn't need to beg any nation in the world, and this President is not begging anybody.

This President should say, however, Madam Speaker: Saudis, stop controlling the supply unreasonably and driving the prices up of your product.

Yes, they are making more money, and they have a cartel. That is called a monopoly. That cartel has made sure that the lack of supply drove up the international market price. And then Russia went to war.

Now, Russia going to war has affected to some degree the supply of oil, but, very frankly, buying Russian oil supports their criminal war effort, their vicious and murderous war effort. We are all against that. So we agreed that we would not take any oil, and we urged our European allies not to rely on it either.

Now, what did that create?

It created a lack of confidence in the stability of the market.

What happens when you have lack of confidence in the stability of a market?

Prices go up because it is a bet on what is going to happen with the price of that product in the future that the market really reflects.

Now, the reason I say it that way is because these are not Biden prices. Even if tomorrow we snapped a finger and said: ``Okay, go ahead,'' nothing would happen tomorrow, nothing would

happen next week, and nothing would happen next month. It would take a substantial period of time because the oil companies, based upon the lack of demand, shut down, nor did they pursue further production.

Now, let me say something about the price of oil. The national price of oil now does not reflect the increase as part of the market response to what is called the West Texas Intermediary, which I am sure the gentleman from Louisiana, an oil-producing State, knows much more about than I do.

But let me say this: In 2008, that benchmark for crude oil peaked at $147.02 in July of 2008. Adjusted for inflation, that is $199.57 today.

In that time, 2008, the average U.S. gasoline peaked at $4.14 per gallon. Adjusted for inflation, that would be $5.62 today.

So, in other words, in 2008, otherwise known as the last year of the Bush administration, gasoline prices were higher than they are today notwithstanding the fact that the world price was $31 less.

Excuse me, yesterday, June 15, that West Texas Intermediary oil--the benchmark for crude oil prices--was $116 a barrel, $31 less, without accounting for inflation, which would make it greater than it was in 2008. That wasn't George Bush's fault. It was the international market's fault and also this cartel that controls a large part of the supply of the oil in our country.

Now, my point--I still have to deal with H.R. 6858. One of its tenets is to approve the Keystone pipeline. The problem with that is, for whatever reason--and I understand my friend will have a response, Madam Speaker, as to well, because you disapproved it, meaning the Obama administration. They want to open the Keystone pipeline. The problem is the company that had the Keystone pipeline has abandoned it. Even if it were approved, they would have to get back in business and we would be well over a year--well over a year.

Now, I happen to have agreed that we should have approved that pipeline. I have said that publicly. I said that to the press. That didn't happen. But it would not solve the problem. And particularly, when you look at the figures that I just gave with respect to the world market price, we are paying a lot more now than we did in 2008 when it was higher.

So I would say to my friend, he also had a provision that expedites the LNG facility approval process. One of the problems we had is 20 percent of the LNG export capacity is now shut down.

It was shut down because the regulations that the gentleman speaks of, correctly, were not followed, and the LNG plant had an explosion. It shut down because it violated regulations that were imposed upon it.

What I would say to my friend--I have talked to the committee about his bill. The LNG process is working. As I told him, I have an LNG export plant in my district, which has changed from substantial exports to the Pacific region, and now, 80 percent is going to Europe to try to bridge that gap as the Europeans retreat from being dependent upon Russian oil.

I tell my friend, with all due respect--and I am not going to plead with him, but I am going to suggest to him--we are going to Saudi Arabia, I hope, to tell them in private: Look, this is not a game you want to be playing. You are making our consumers pay far more.

We have acted. We acted, and we passed, some time ago, a bill that said you cannot have gas prices that are set at unreasonable levels, which we know as gouging. It is like you have a flood in your city and 80 percent of the grocery stores are wiped out, and the grocery stores that remain triple their prices. That is called gouging. We passed that bill.

We also passed a bill today which, unfortunately, most Republicans voted against--``most,'' I say, not all--which will, again, seek to bring the price down at the pump. How? By utilizing American products to supplement and expand the supply of gas and, we believe, bring the price of a gallon down some 40 cents--that is what the experts say--if we continue to use a mix of fuel.

But let me say in closing, on these remarks, which I know have been relatively lengthy, we are in this together, Republicans and Democrats.

FOX News criticized me for saying we are at war. We just sent a billion dollars for a war we are not in because we believe in freedom. We believe in international law.

We believe that we have a dictator, a dangerous dictator, who is committing war crimes through his men and women in eastern Ukraine in particular and did it in western Ukraine as they came into Kyiv.

We are in this together, one Nation, one America, on behalf of freedom. We have taken tough action. As part of that, we are paying the price at the pump because of that invasion.

The pandemic shut down production and shut down the purchase of gasoline by people because they didn't go to work. They didn't need to get in their cars. They didn't need to commute.

I would simply say to my friend that we are on the same team. Our President is leading our effort to defeat this despot, to stop this war, to ensure the freedom not only of the Ukrainian people but of all people, and to ensure that we respect international law.

I looked at the gentleman's bill. I would be glad to talk about other ways, including maybe some of the things that are in his bill. But I will tell the gentleman, the first couple that I looked at, the Keystone pipeline is not going to be reopened. The gentleman and I may lament that as a policy because I was publicly, during the Obama administration, for the approval of that pipeline. So, I am prepared to work with the gentleman to see what we can do.

But we have done today's bill. It may not be perfect. It may not work. But it is certainly worth a try, to try to bring these awful prices down at the pump because I know all of our constituents, whether they live in Louisiana or Maryland, are struggling because they have to use their cars. They have to use that gasoline. They don't have an alternative. And they don't have an alternative to buying food.

Both of those are tough, and we need to act together to try to see if we can solve that problem in the context of an extraordinary pandemic, a historic pandemic that shut down the world, and we are just trying to get back.

We are trying to get supply chains going, including gasoline pipelines, which is why the President is going to Saudi Arabia, not to beg, but to assert the economic fact of the ramifications of the cartels stifling supply.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for all of that information.

It continues to befuddle me why our Republican friends would much prefer to blame President Biden and so avoid placing blame on Mr. Trump's friend, Mr. Putin. I don't understand that, Madam Speaker. It is not a nation indivisible.

Now, Madam Speaker, I used a statistic some weeks ago that I have heard not at all disputed. The Biden administration has approved more drilling permits on public land in 2021, in 1 year, than the Trump administration did each year during its first 3 years in office.

Not compared to the combined 3 years, just compared to each individual year. Number one.

Number two: Domestic oil production is greater today than it was under Trump. Not a whole big difference, 10,968 versus 11,185, but nevertheless, it speaks to the fact that the representation that somehow Biden has shut down the industry, and therefore, he is to blame.

We don't want to talk about the pandemic that shut down oil production. In Trump's last year--in Trump's last year--refineries in the U.S. reduced their capacity by more than 800,000 barrels. So, under the Trump administration, production was decreased.

Maybe they will look at the records and see whether or not that representation is accurate, and if it is not, I stand to be corrected. But those are the figures I have.

I notice that my friend did not respond to my representation that prices were higher under George Bush in 2008 than they are today. Now, because of inflation, the number is different, and compared to the world price, prices are higher.

So, I will say to my friend, we had at least 80 million acres, 2.5 million taken. As the gentleman pointed out before, the court said, No, that wasn't legal, so it was never effected. But we have those 800,000 that are not back online.

Don't blame them, though. Don't blame Putin. Don't blame the pandemic. Politically, let's blame Biden.

Now, I'm not sure why Bush had the higher price. Maybe it was that he was shutting down the oil business, the President from Texas. Maybe.

But there is more today being produced. Not by enough. Still, there are 800,000 barrels shut down. That is per day, by the way; not just 800,000--per day.

So we can argue back and forth on this. We are passing legislation. Our Republican friends, for the most part, voted against it. It won't work. It won't do.

I don't know whether they are right or wrong, but it is worth trying. It is worth trying because our consumers are hurting.

People at the grocery store--I go to the grocery store every weekend, Madam Speaker. I live alone. I don't buy a lot of groceries because they will go bad, so I go every weekend.

I see the shelves that are empty. I see the price of bacon has gone up now over $10. I see the price of the eggs I get, the price of the half and half I buy, or the orange juice I buy. It is going up.

I am in the fortunate position where I can pay for it without it binding me someplace else. But I know that a whole lot of people that I see shopping, they have got that list out, and they are very worried about their costs.

I don't know whether this bill we just passed is going to solve that--certainly, not overnight. I don't know whether a month from now it will help somewhat, 5 cents or 10 cents on a pound of bacon or a dozen eggs.

I don't know that, but it was worth a try, and we passed this bill. We got some Republican support, including, I think, the ranking member of the committee that reported the bill out.

We are not technically at war, but we are spending a lot of money on behalf of freedom, and we ought to be together. We ought not to be carping about our President who is doing everything he can think of to try to get a handle on this, both on inflation, on the cost to consumers, and on the supply of a product that we all need.

So, I would simply make a request that let's work together to try to get this problem solved. Saudi Arabia is not the answer, but it is part of the answer. The cartel is part of the answer. The Russians are part of the answer.

Maybe none of them are the entire answer. But when you understand that this administration has given more leases on public land than the prior administration did in its first 3 years, it is hard to say that this administration is the reason for this. Other than politically, it is a very salient argument, but that is all it is.

Oh, okay. Sorry.

Would the gentleman yield?

What I said was, in Trump's last year, refineries in the U.S. reduced their capacity by more than 800,000 barrels. That didn't have anything to do about leases.

That had to do with an economic decision, which probably made sense because what happened is the economy was contracting.

Madam Speaker, 2.8 million net jobs were lost during the 4 years of Trump, and 8.7 million have been gained.

As they have been gaining, people are getting back in their cars. They are getting back and driving. They are spending on the economy. But what happened?

The pandemic had shut down supply lines. And the oil companies, rationally, when demand went down, they reduced capacity. They don't need a new lease to go back up to the 800,000. They were doing it under the present authorization that they have.

That was my point. It continues to be my point. The companies have made a decision and they are not moving ahead rapidly to try to get more production.

One of the reasons is--I get it--they are making a lot of money. Some oil companies have got 300 percent greater profits now than they had some years ago. 300 percent.

So, why do we need to do more product? We are making great money. Chevron says it had the most successful year in 2021 than it has ever had. It may be another oil company. I may be wrong on that.

Was it Chevron? I am asking somebody who probably knows the answer better than me. One of the oil companies reported that.

I am not criticizing them for that. What I am saying is, this is a multifaceted challenge that confronts us, and we ought to address it in a way that it deserves, and that is in a bipartisan way that will have effect.

I am going to work with the gentleman. As I said, I was for Keystone. I was not for shutting Keystone down. I was approving it to go ahead. I thought it made sense. Our friends in Canada have an extraordinary supply.

As the gentleman observes, though--interestingly, because I think many of your colleagues oppose those rules and regulations--it is cleaner. It is better for the environment to produce it here.

Why? Because we adopted regulations--either the administration adopted or we passed them in legislation, and very frankly, I think that many of those were opposed by--I don't know whether you, but many in your party, so it is better to do it here.

So I don't want to dispute that, but it is also necessary to have production, particularly among the cartel countries, and Russia has no interest--Russia has an interest in additional production.

Why? Because that is how they are funding this war. But we ought to spend time on criticizing Putin and his war and the crimes that are being committed in his name in Ukraine, and our determination to make sure the Ukrainian people who have displayed extraordinary courage, and Zelenskyy, who has displayed extraordinary leadership, make sure they know that we are focused on them. And we are focused against Putin, not our own President, any more than I did when, you know, George Bush was President.

Very frankly, I supported, as the gentleman probably knows, the trade bills. I thought it was good to do business. A lot of our people didn't support him on that. I supported him on that.

So I think we need to be not so critical of our President. We have one President at a time. We had a pandemic. It wasn't on his watch we got a pandemic. It was on his watch that we got a handle on the pandemic.

On his watch, he has been giving more access to public lands than his predecessor did. We can debate the nuances of differences, but we ought to focus on why we have this crisis.

The gentleman knows these prices in many ways reflect the confidence and the stability, or the lack of confidence and the lack of stability in the market, and the war directly relates to that issue.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana, the Republican whip, for yielding.

Madam Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at 12 p.m. for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed, as usual, until 6:30 p.m.

On Tuesday and Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning hour and 12 p.m. for legislative business.

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

Next week, the House will consider legislation to address inflation and help bring down costs for Americans. The House will consider the Lower Food and Fuel Costs Act from the Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on Energy and Commerce to address food prices and help bring down the cost of fertilizer for farmers while providing more affordable options at the gas pump for Americans.

The House will also consider S. 3580, the Senate-passed companion to John Garamendi's Ocean Shipping Reform Act, under suspension. We passed it previously, and it is in the Senate. However, this is a compromise with which Mr. Garamendi agrees. This legislation will address continued supply chain problems and ensure the fair and expeditious flow of goods in and out of our ports, helping lower costs for American consumers and bolstering our domestic agriculture products.

Additionally, Madam Speaker, the House will consider H.R. 2543, the Racial Equity, Inclusion, and Economic Justice Act, from Chairwoman Maxine Waters and the Financial Services Committee to promote racial equity and fair access to economic opportunity for those who are facing discrimination or bias. This will help families who are challenged in accessing financial services and housing at a time when every dollar is critical.

Finally, Madam Speaker, the House will also consider H.R. 2773, Representative Debbie Dingell's bipartisan Recovering America's Wildlife Act.

The House will consider other bills, Madam Speaker, under suspension of the rules. A complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. Additional legislative items, of course, are possible.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his question. I think it is a very relevant question. I am hopeful that we can move that as early as possible.

I want to tell the gentleman the reason he thought that it might be moved this morning was because last night, I thought I had, after discussions with Senator Cornyn, a way forward that both the Senate and the House could agree on. Unfortunately, this morning, that appeared not to be the case.

We are trying to pursue that because we believe that it is a critical piece of legislation, as are the pieces of legislation we are considering.

I will tell the gentleman that the incident that occurred last night, of course, was covered, as the gentleman, I am sure knows, by the present security arrangements for Supreme Court Justices. The gentleman was taken into custody and apparently didn't get close to the house because of the security.

Nevertheless, we share the gentleman's concerns about the security for our Supreme Court Justices and, frankly, their families, their residences, as we are for the officers and clerks of the Supreme Court and their families and their employees.

So, the answer to your question is that is a priority item that I hope we can get done very early next week.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his question. He has mentioned this before. I am talking to the committee whose jurisdiction this bill is in to consider what they want to do with it, and I am waiting to hear back from them.

Madam Speaker, this week, a champion for STEM education,

and a dear friend of mine, will retire from his long-time role as president of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, more affectionately known as UMBC.

Over the past 30 years, Dr. Freeman Hrabowski has transformed STEM education at UMBC, most notably by expanding resources for women and students of color.

UMBC was barely 10 years old when Dr. Hrabowski arrived as vice provost in 1987. Later, he was chosen as executive vice president and then named president in 1992, helping make UMBC a nationwide leader in STEM learning and a nationwide leader in education generally as well.

Over the last decade, UMBC has graduated more African Americans with doctorates in science and engineering than any other university in the United States. The school also produces the highest number of African- American undergraduates who go on to earn Ph.D.s in the natural sciences and engineering.

These achievements occurred in no small part thanks to Dr. Hrabowski's leadership, which made a critical difference as UMBC grew and expanded its academic programs.

At UMBC and beyond, he has dedicated his career to realizing the promise of students of color in STEM, and students generally as well, no matter their background, are assured access to high-quality science education.

In 2011, Madam Speaker, Dr. Hrabowski chaired the National Academies committee that produced a key report on expanding minority participation in science. In 2012, he was tapped by President Obama to serve as the chair of the inaugural President's Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for African Americans.

When the COVID-19 pandemic hit in 2020, Dr. Hrabowski sprang into action. Not only did he work to ensure that UMBC was contributing to research and taking safety measures, he and his wife, Jacqueline, personally volunteered for the phase 3 Moderna vaccine trial. Together, they campaigned to reduce vaccine hesitancy in Maryland, particularly in communities of color.

Madam Speaker, one of the lead researchers who developed the Moderna vaccine, Dr. Corbett, was a UMBC graduate and the keynote speaker at our annual Maryland Fourth and Fifth Districts' Black History Breakfast this year.

In addition to his leadership of UMBC, Dr. Hrabowski has authored numerous books on STEM education and lifting up academically successful students of color so they can reach for success in their careers.

In a field where representation is lacking and where opportunities have not always been equitable, he has been at the forefront of the effort to ensure that all students, regardless of their background, can pursue their dreams and ambitions.

Dr. Hrabowski has been recognized nationally and internationally for his impact. He was the recipient of the Carnegie Corporation of New York's Academic Leadership Award in 2011, one of the highest honors for an educator in this country.

He has been named as one of the 100 most influential people in the world, as one of America's most impactful leaders, and as a top-tier university president.

Indeed, many universities in the Big Ten, many universities in the Ivy League, many universities in other parts of our country have opportuned Dr. Hrabowski to come to be their president. His love and commitment to UMBC, however, kept him there and focused on developing it as an extraordinary institution of higher learning.

I believe that the last part is the one of which Dr. Hrabowski is most proud; that is, a top-tier university president. While he has been rightfully lauded as a global leader in STEM, first and foremost, he is an educator.

Frederick Douglass once wrote that it is easier to build strong children than it is to repair broken men. Over his long career in education, Dr. Hrabowski has laid the foundation for many thousands of young people to become the best version of themselves.

UMBC today graduates a diverse group of exceptionally bright and capable students who are quick to follow their dreams in large part because of Dr. Hrabowski's talent, focus, and effort. He has been working so hard to make his dream of educational opportunity and excellence a reality, and he has succeeded in many ways.

His legacy will surely be cemented in the innumerable achievements of his students that they have made over the last 30 years and will surely continue to do so for decades to come.

Madam Speaker, as he prepares to leave UMBC at the end of this year, Dr. Hrabowski has set the school on a path of success and continued innovation. All Marylanders, and all Americans, can be proud of his unwavering commitment to his students, to UMBC, and to his unshakable belief in the power of young people of color to achieve and contribute in the fields of STEM.

The future of science, technology, engineering, and math education nationwide is stronger not only at UMBC but throughout this country as a result of his leadership.

Those of us fortunate enough to count Dr. Hrabowski among our friends are all the better for knowing him. I hope my colleagues in the House will join me, Madam Speaker, in congratulating Dr. Hrabowski on his retirement this week and thanking him for his groundbreaking work over the last 30 years.

He is retiring from UMBC, Madam Speaker, but I am sure that he is not retiring from his life of advocacy for those who seek opportunity and the realization of the American Dream.

He is an extraordinary individual, an extraordinary speaker, an extraordinary human being. I am certain that he will continue to benefit Maryland and our country as an educator and a visionary for many years to come.

Godspeed, Dr. Hrabowski.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

This is an emotional debate. It is an emotional debate because we lose, on a daily basis, family members, neighbors, friends, and fellow citizens to a bullet or multiple bullets--killed by gun.

I do not subscribe to the theory that some promote that the more guns we have, the safer we will be. I believe that is somewhat like the O.K. Corral theory that if you have a faster gun, then you will be safe. Eventually,

somebody will have a faster, bigger, and more surprising gun than we.

Madam Speaker, like all Americans, I found the mass shooting at Uvalde, Texas, heart-wrenching, tragic, and unacceptable. Although the news was excruciating to watch, it was anything but surprising given our history with deadly firearms. Sadly, we didn't even have time to mourn the 19 children and two teachers who were killed in Uvalde before news broke of another mass shooting--over and over and over and over and over and over again.

At some point these statistics have to move us to respond in an effective way. My friend from North Carolina suggested hardening the schools. We have hardened this Chamber over the objections of some when we know that no gun should be in this Capitol other than those possessed by law enforcement, Capitol Police.

According to the nonpartisan Gun Violence Archive, there have been as many as 33 mass gun violence incidents in the 14 days since the attack on Robb Elementary. We have more guns in this country than any other nation on Earth. The Second Amendment guarantees that we have a right to a gun, but the Supreme Court in Heller said: But there are limitations to that right.

I strongly support an individual American's right to have a gun in his or her home--their home--to protect themselves and their business. But the Court said: Be reasonable.

In the past week alone, 7 days, we have seen mass shootings in Chattanooga, Tennessee, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Tulsa, Oklahoma. Not even 10 days before the shooting in Robb Elementary, a domestic terrorist killed 13 people in a grocery store in Buffalo, New York.

In every corner of this country, Americans are begging--begging-- Congress to protect our kids and our people. Many of us like to say, This is the people's House.

The people are speaking to us and crying out for action.

A gentleman who spoke before me said something about saying prayers. I believe in prayer. But I also believe the admonition that John Kennedy said when he said: ``Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on Earth, God's work must truly be our own.''

Today, in this House--the people's House--we need to act to protect the people.

Madam Speaker, I want to direct your attention to this chart again. Look at the numbers--hundreds of deaths. In addition to the unconscionable trauma these attacks inflicted on the parents, children, wives, husbands, brothers, sisters, and other loved ones of the victims, they have one thing in common: the perpetrator got the gun legally.

In Tulsa, Oklahoma, the perpetrator got the gun approximately 3 hours before he shot Dr. Phillips. He was filled, obviously, with passion, hate, and anger at the pain that he apparently was suffering physically and perhaps emotionally.

So what did he do?

He went down and quickly got a gun--an AR-15 to be exact--and went and shot not only Dr. Phillips but three other people in the process. Those are 285 deaths we could have prevented if we had commonsense gun laws in place.

Of the 45,000 people who died from gun violence last year alone--we are talking about making people safe--45,000 deaths--they are not safe--how many would have also been spared had our laws been stronger?

Frankly, I, myself, would favor reinstituting the 1994 assault weapons ban for which I voted. And I lamented the fact that when my Republican colleagues were in charge of the House, Senate, and the Presidency, they allowed that law to go out of existence. None of us can speculate what the cost of that was, but there is no doubt in my mind there was a cost. In fact, that bill reduced mass shootings then, and it would do so again now.

There is much I believe we ought to do as the Representatives of the American people in this House. The House, though, has already taken action on two very critical gun safety measures supported by 9 out of 10 Americans. We don't have 9 out of 10 Americans who are Democrats in this country. Neither side does. But if you have any credence in polling data that says what Americans think, 9 out of 10 think that comprehensive background checks should be the law of the land. I don't know a commonsense argument against that.

We passed the Charleston loophole. This gentleman who bought that gun 3 hours or thereabouts before he killed Dr. Phillips would have had time to cool off and to perhaps have second thoughts, to perhaps have saved the life of a doctor whose job it was to save lives. We sent those bills over, and Senate Republicans, however, have refused to allow even debate on either of these bills--even debate on either of these bills that are overwhelmingly supported by the American people.

I know that my Republican colleagues are as disturbed by the murder of children as Democrats are. I believe that. I hope that is the case, but I believe it. But I am confounded by the unwillingness to respond in an effective way even on asking that everybody get checked out, so we know they are not criminally insane or a felon or an abuser or on the terrorist watch list; but it is no to comprehensive background checks just to see if somebody is a danger to themselves or others.

I know that our colleagues across the aisle shed tears when their constituents die from gun violence, as we do. This should not be a Democratic or Republican issue but an issue of our common humanity and our common sense. If we work together, we can achieve a safer America.

We have seen promising signs from the Senate that a bipartisan agreement may be possible. I surely hope it is. But this House will not and should not wait to act. That is why we are voting on this Protecting Our Kids Act today.

This legislation is, in my view, long overdue. I participated in a sit-in on this floor to try to galvanize the Congress. It didn't work. Sadly, it didn't work. To the disappointment of the American people, it didn't work.

This comprehensive bill is the product of tireless efforts by many of our colleagues to address issues that contribute to our gun violence epidemic.

Thanks to Robin Kelly, the Protecting Our Kids Act will crack down on gun traffickers who take guns, where? Into the big cities and spread them around. Now, they sell them; they don't give them away for free. But it is the traffickers who break the laws--not of Chicago, but perhaps don't break the laws of where they bought multiple guns for those who can't buy guns.

Similarly, Representatives Cicilline and Espaillat pushed to include provisions that would regulate elusive ghost guns. Now, I chaired the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government that oversaw the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Division, and we couldn't even make sure that ordnance--bullets--could be traced because the NRA was opposed.

Representative Titus ensured that we would ban bump stocks, a weapon component that allowed a gunman to kill 60 people in Las Vegas in 2017 and wound hundreds more.

Was he a hunter? Was he a sportsman?

Additionally, this bill will restrict high-capacity magazines which enable shooters to inflict maximum destruction in the minimum amount of time, thanks to language included by Representative Deutch. Because of Chairwoman DeLauro, Chairwoman Jackson Lee, and Representative Slotkin, this bill also protects our kids from gun violence at home by implementing gun storage safety standards.

Common sense and common purpose protects our kids.

This act also includes Representative Anthony Brown's measure to raise the legal age for purchasing assault weapons and shotguns from 18 to 21. You can buy an AR-15, apparently, or some other multiple-shot, quick-shot weapon, but you can't buy a drink in many jurisdictions.

Is that common sense?

This legislation never would have come together without the leadership of Chairman Nadler. I thank the chairman for his leadership, and I thank the committee for their work on this bill. I thank Chairwoman Jackson Lee of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, and I thank Chairman Thompson of the Gun Violence Task Force.

This bill, as well as additional legislation from Representatives McBath and Carbajal that will be considered subsequently on Thursday, takes major

steps forward to make our communities and our children safer.

Is it perfect?

Will it stop all the killing?

No, it won't. We know that.

Is there a perfect answer?

No.

Is making schools safer bad?

No. We support that.

I don't know that we support making them into armed camps, as some would suggest, because I think that would make them less safe in many respects.

So I urge all of my colleagues to put our country, our constituents, and our kids first. Let us rise above party and partisanship and special interests as we seek to do what is right, what is necessary, and what an overwhelming majority of the American people are looking to Congress to achieve.

Isn't that what we are supposed to do, represent the people?

I am hopeful we can find a bipartisan path forward to enact long- overdue reforms to make our communities safer from gun violence because a bullet doesn't care about your race, your faith, your age, your orientation, or any other factor.

And yes, people do care about those things and manifest it in the worst way possible. But they do it with an instrument that will allow them to kill a lot of people very quickly.

The American people care what we do here today. The American people care that their Congress is doing everything possible to keep them safe, to keep our children safe. The American people care.

Each of us today has a chance to show that we care. God's work on Earth must truly be our own. Vote for this bill. Make our kids and communities and people safer.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chair and the ranking member for bringing this bill to the floor.

I am honored to bring this resolution to the floor every year. It authorizes an event, as you have been told, that I am proud to support every year. This will be the first time it has been held since 2019 because of the pandemic.

That event is the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby, one of my favorite events of the year. The Soap Box Derby brings families together from across the greater Washington metropolitan area, encouraging kids and their adult family members or community members to compete in a fun and educational race.

This is my 29th year sponsoring the Soap Box Derby resolution. I don't know whether that is a record on the Soap Box Derby, but in any event, this is the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby's 79th year.

The race will be held on June 18, and you will see soap box racers from ages 8 to 17 compete in three divisions: stock, super stock, and masters. The winner from each division, Mr. Speaker, will have a chance to compete at the national All-American Soap Box Derby, which is held each year in Akron, Ohio.

Much of the fun, however, takes place even before the race begins. Participants spend weeks, perhaps months, building and testing their racers at home, a wonderful bonding experience for kids, parents, grandparents, and other family members and those engaged in mentorship in their communities.

Soap box derbies have been called the greatest amateur racing event in the world. They have become a staple of the American experience and an important piece of Americana. They teach sportsmanship, engineering, manufacturing, and leadership.

Oftentimes, racers are sponsored by local civic groups, service organizations, and police or fire departments, with members coming out to cheer on their hometown participants.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to sponsor this resolution today that will authorize the use of the Grounds of the U.S. Capitol for this year's Soap Box Derby.

I thank my cosponsors, members of the region's congressional delegation: Representatives Don Beyer, David Trone, Gerry Connolly, Anthony Brown, Jennifer Wexton, and Jamie Raskin.

I am also proud that several Greater Washington Soap Box Derby champions have come from Maryland's Fifth District, my district, in recent years, including the winners from 2007, 2008, 2009, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2018. So my guys do pretty well in this race, and some of them are gals, by the way.

Our racers even won a national championship in 2007 and 2008. I am excited to see how the Fifth District racers do this year, and I am looking forward to seeing their colorful and creative soap box designs.

I thank the organizers of the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby, as well as Chairman DeFazio and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for their support. I hope every Member, as they have in the past, will join in supporting this resolution. I invite them to join me in cheering on the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby on June 18.

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the fifty-seventh anniversary of the Head Start program, which was founded on the idea that people of all backgrounds can lead productive lives and thus deserve the opportunities that education makes possible. Since its creation on May 18, 1965, Head Start has fostered the cognitive, social, physical, and emotional development of tens of millions of children from low-income families across America and has helped set them up for success before they begin their educational journeys in school.

When President Lyndon B. Johnson introduced Head Start as part of his `War on Poverty,' he said that the program would go down in history as `one of the most constructive, and one of the most sensible, and also one of the most exciting programs that this Nation has ever undertaken.' His words proved prescient, as even today, more than a million American pre-school children participate in Head Start each year. These students are not the only ones who benefit from the program. Early-education teachers gain insights from research conducted by Head Start administrators. Parents gain access to affordable child care and job training, allowing them to work to improve their families' well-being. By every measure, this program is delivering enormous benefits to our country and the children who will be its future.

The overwhelming success of Head Start, however, belongs to the communities that support it. Head Start depends on the dedication of more than a million volunteers--most of whom are the parents of Head Start children--who devote hours of their time to the program. Their work is crucial at a time when more than 6 million American children, or nearly 15 percent of all kids in the United States, live in poverty. When data was last reported in 2019, it revealed that 59,000 families participating in Head Start had been experiencing homelessness. Thanks in part to Head Start's services, however, more than a quarter of these families were able to find housing that same year.

From expanding programs like the Children's Health Insurance Program to implementing the Child Tax Credit to help families weather the COVID-19 pandemic, House Democrats continue to take action aimed at eradicating child poverty in our country. Head Start will remain one of our greatest tools to combat child poverty in the years ahead, and we must continue to ensure that it has the support and resources it needs to carry that work forward. As President Johnson said when he created Head Start: `five- and six-year-old children are inheritors of poverty's curse and not its creators.' These children today can help us build a better and stronger America for tomorrow, but only if we invest in their growth, wellbeing, and opportunity.