Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I think that Members now know that yesterday we lost a wonderful, decent, extraordinary former Member of this body. Madam Speaker, as you know, he was from your State. His name was Vic Fazio. Some of you served with him. Most of you did not. He retired in 1998 from a very successful career.

Many of us in this House, who served with him and who remember him fondly, are grieving the loss of Vic Fazio. He was, until my dear friend Ben Cardin came to the Congress, my best friend. They were two of my best friends. Vic and I were very, very close. Many others in the Congress of the United States would say the same thing, who served with him, that they were close to him.

Vic Fazio had an extraordinarily successful life. He was 79 years of age.

He was a leader and was a cardinal in the Appropriations Committee from his first year on the Appropriations Committee. He and an extraordinary Republican, who died just 8 months ago, who we remembered on this floor, another dear friend of mine, Jerry Lewis, also from California, co-chaired the Legislative Appropriations Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee. They did so in a way that enhanced the sense of importance of this institution and of the collegiality that was possible in this institution. We said that when Jerry Lewis died. It is true when his partner now of that era has passed away.

It is an era that we ought to remember and hopefully replicate. Vic Fazio was a ``Member's Member.'' He was an

institutionalist. He cared about each and every one of us, irrespective of the letter next to our name. He cared about process. He cared about substance. He cared about the integrity of Members. He cared about their well-being and how they were treated as Members.

In fact, it was Vic Fazio in 1989 who led the effort to reform the pay and benefits of Members. In that process, at that point in time, Members could make about $25,000 to $30,000 in what was called honoraria. It was a payment from private sector interests to Members for giving a speech.

Vic, and the colleagues with whom he worked, worked together to eliminate honoraria and to make sure, however, that Members could live decently in this town, an expensive town in which to live, with a salary that was appropriate. All of you who get your paychecks can thank Vic Fazio that they are substantially above what they otherwise would have been, but for his and other reformers' actions.

Vic Fazio lost his wife, Judy, and I lost my wife, Judy. Our wives knew one another. I lost mine 25 years ago, and he lost his some years ago. The sadness of his life is that he lost a daughter very early in life, and he never got over that. It was a deep, deep scar in his heart.

The good news is that after the death of Judy, he married a woman whose name is Kathy. I don't know whether Kathy is watching today, but if she is, we send her our love and our sympathy and our thanks for the life of Vic Fazio and the contribution he made to his country, to his State, to our Nation, and to this institution.

To give us an example of wisdom, of acceptance of others, of lifting others up, irrespective of that small letter next to their name, because he knew that all of us were Americans, chosen by our neighbors, which is the only way you can get here, to serve them, to represent their views in this body, and to make weighty decisions on their behalf that will have consequences for them and, as we do today, consequences for all the world.

For 20 years, Vic Fazio was the voice of Sacramento and Yolo County in the Congress. One of Vic's lasting legacies was the designation of 3,700 acres of protected wetlands in Yolo County. Perhaps, Madam Speaker, we can name that territory after Vic Fazio.

He was effective because he reached across the aisle and worked closely with Republicans and, as I mentioned, Jerry Lewis.

When the legislative appropriation bill came to the floor, we were all proud, because it was not a partisan bill. It was a bill for the institution and for the people.

So we remember a man of intellect, of integrity, and a warm and genial nature who was proud of his service, proud of the Congress, and proud of his colleagues.

Madam Speaker, I would ask all of us to rise for a moment of silence to remember a great, great American and great Member of this House, Vic Fazio.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairwoman DeLauro, Ranking Member Granger, and all of the Members of the Appropriations Committee for their hard work to bring this bipartisan legislation together.

I want to highlight several important inclusions in this package that are noteworthy and that reflect our Majority's commitment to governing responsibly For the People.

First, this legislation includes a robust, emergency aid package to help the Ukrainian people and their military fight back against Vladimir Putin's criminal invasion, defend their freedom and their democracy, and address the humanitarian crisis resulting from this unprovoked attack while strengthening NATO's deterrence and defense.

Second, this package will provide strong funding for the essential safety-net programs that enable Americans to make better lives for themselves and their families and keep millions of Americans from falling into poverty.

I am particularly pleased that a number of key priorities for which I have been advocating were included in this package.

Among them is a 21 percent increase in office budgets to make allowance for competitive pay for our staff here on Capitol Hill. This will enable us to recruit and retain the best and brightest to help us serve the American people and better reflect our nation's diversity.

I am also glad that this bill funds the Department of Education's Full-Service, Community Schools program at $75 million.

We were able to come together as well to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, which the House passed last year.

Additionally, this omnibus includes $95 million for the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) and election grants to help states improve their voting systems.

Last summer, I offered--and the House adopted--a Floor amendment to the House's Financial Services and General Government title directing the EAC to set aside $4 million for the purpose of administering the program that encourages college students to volunteer as poll workers in their communities--a program created under my Help America Vote Act legislation in 2002. As this bill heads to the President's desk, it is my expectation that the EAC will allocate this funding to that program as directed.

I also want to thank appropriators for including language to direct the GSA to move forward expeditiously with the selection of a site for a new consolidated FBI headquarters at one of the three locations previously identified in Maryland or Virginia. This project has now been ongoing for fourteen years and needs to be concluded, and the decision to move forward needs to be made within six months.

This omnibus reauthorizes our intelligence programs as well, and it funds the replenishment and enhancement of Israel's Iron Dome missile defense system. Furthermore, it includes Rep. Brad Schneider's legislation directing the State Department to continue expanding and deepening the Abraham Accords and promoting the normalization of relations between Arab states and Israel.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Members as well for their efforts to identify and support requests for community project funding, which is back this year under strict rules to protect the process and ensure that it is ethical, transparent, and accountable. Members know our districts better than those working in the executive branch, which is why this facet of the appropriations process, derived from Congress's constitutional power of the purse, has always been very important and beneficial to our communities.

This is an omnibus that all of us can be proud to support. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this legislation, and I hope the Senate will approve it swiftly as well so that President Biden can sign it without delay.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to ask the House to join me in recognizing William C. Baker for his thirty-nine years of environmental advocacy as President of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF). Will has demonstrated a sincere passion for improving the health of the Bay and ensuring that its environmental resources are preserved for future generations. Will has been a good friend, and I've been proud to work closely with him throughout the years to fight for a cleaner and healthier Chesapeake Bay.

Since he first began his distinguished career with the CBF as an intern in 1976, Will worked relentlessly to protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay. Will became president in 1982, inheriting an immediate crisis: the 1982 Chesapeake Bay Study had just concluded that the Bay was dying. He spoke to the United States Senate, urging senators not only to maintain the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) presence on the Bay but to establish an office to coordinate and monitor restoration efforts among the states in its watershed. Thanks to

his advocacy and hard work, Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, the EPA, and the Chesapeake Bay Commission together signed the Chesapeake Bay Agreement and committed jointly to clean up the Bay.

During Will's tenure as president, the CBF reached new heights of success. His work helped expand the CBF's membership to over 300,000 and inspired so many Marylanders to share his passion for preserving one of our nation's greatest natural treasures. He raised the CBF's national profile, and the Save the Bay movement received international attention. Under Will's leadership, the CBF received the 1992 Presidential Medal for Environmental Excellence--our nation's highest environmental honor--for its environmental education program. He was instrumental in the CBF's efforts to help restore the Bay's oyster population, which is critical not only to preserving a fragile ecosystem but also to sustaining and supporting one of the key aquaculture industries in our state. Although challenges remain, the CBF's efforts have greatly improved the Bay's health and continue to drive efforts forward today to ensure that generations of Marylanders and Americans will be able to treasure the Chesapeake in the future.

Madam Speaker, I offer Will my congratulations on retiring from public service after a career of great contribution to the well-being of Maryland's beloved Chesapeake Bay. I hope all of my colleagues will join me in recognizing William C. Baker as he celebrates this milestone and in wishing him all the best in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Scott, the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, and the gentlewoman from Iowa for their comments. We join in unanimity in rejecting hate, rejecting bigotry, and rejecting threats based upon the color of skin or any other attribute, rather than adverse conduct.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a founding member of the Congressional Bipartisan HBCU Caucus, led by Congresswoman Adams from North Carolina. I am proud, because historically Black colleges and universities not only have played a critical role in making quality higher education accessible to more people in my district but also because these institutions have produced some of the most innovative, entrepreneurial, and transformative leaders for our country.

When I first learned about the bomb threats against several HBCU campuses earlier this year, I was deeply alarmed and angered. Disturbingly, these threats continue to occur, including at Bowie State University, Maryland's oldest HBCU and one of the first in our country. It is in my district.

I picked up the phone and called my friend, Aminta Breaux, who is the president of Bowie State University, to ask about her campus, her students, the faculty, their sense of threat, and, yes, their sense of well-being.

On February 2, as the chairman has outlined he has done, I sent a letter to the Secretary of Homeland Security Mayorkas and Attorney General Garland making clear that these threats must be taken seriously, and they ought to be investigated as hate crimes. The chairman has just indicated that is what they are doing. That was, of course, during February, Black History Month.

Sadly, the history of Black Americans, of those brought here in 1619 in chains who, for another 2\1/2\ centuries, lived in those chains or lived in segregation--and I mean America, not just the South--lived in a place where they were discriminated against and shut out.

The threats made against historically Black colleges and universities in 2022 recall the horrific attacks made on students who worked to integrate higher education during the 1950s and 1960s, against young Freedom Riders.

Mr. Speaker, I spent this past weekend in Montgomery, Alabama, Birmingham, Alabama, and Selma, Alabama. My dear friend John Lewis went with me every time I went there. He went more often, obviously. We walked across the Edmund Pettus Bridge together, half of those times hand in hand. We miss John, but his spirit was there. His cry for justice was there. His cry for freedom and respect was there.

The threats made against historically Black colleges and universities were a failure of some of our citizens to understand the grief, the wrong, the original sin of slavery, and the ramifications of that to this very day.

Today's young Americans, like those young Americans, deserve to spend their college years free from violence and harassment, free from the hate and intolerance that it manifests. They deserve to learn and grow and expand their horizons without fear of bombs, gun violence, or threats of attack.

Martin Luther King, in his ``I Have a Dream'' speech, spoke about young Black boys and young Black girls with young White boys and young White girls holding hands in solidarity as Americans based upon the content of their character, not the color of their skin.

This bipartisan resolution before us expresses that determination and concern of the House for the safety and well-being of students, faculty, and staff at historically Black colleges and universities across the country.

I want to thank Representative Adams and Republican Member Hill. This is bipartisan. This is about America. This is about who we are. This is about who we want to stand up for and what we want to stand up about.

Let us come together today in a strong show of unity and resolve to say that this kind of hateful and criminal activity has no place in our country and runs counter to our principles of freedom, justice, opportunity, and equality.

John Lewis is not with us physically here today, but his spirit is on this floor, and on his behalf I urge every one of our colleagues to vote ``yes'' for justice, for respect, for America.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

On Monday, Mr. Speaker, the House will meet at 12 p.m. for morning- hour debate, and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m.

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

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

The House will consider an omnibus appropriations package so the House and Senate can both pass it before March 11. As the Republican minority whip knows, on March 11 at 12 o'clock, if we have not passed additional authorization for the funding of the government, the government will shut down. It is imperative that we act.

In light of the fact that many of us on the Democratic side of the aisle will be going to Philadelphia for a legislative retreat on the Wednesday preceding March 11, March 9, we need to act by that time and send something to the Senate. I hope we can do that.

The House will also consider H. Con. Res. 70, condemning threats of violence against historically Black colleges and universities--too many of which we have seen in recent weeks--and reaffirming support of HBCUs and their students, introduced by Representative Alma Adams. That will be considered under suspension of the rules.

The House will also consider other bills 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 want to say that, clearly, one of the principal focuses that we have is the onslaught and criminal behavior led by Vladimir Putin, which is occurring in Ukraine. The President spoke to the country and to us on Tuesday in the State of the Union message, in which he made it clear that we need to be unified. In fact, we passed a resolution in which--for the most part, save three of our Members--we were unified.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we would remain unified in the face of what is the breaking of international law and could be called a genocide of the Ukrainian people by Vladimir Putin. I am hopeful that we will remain unified and focused on that issue as we proceed.

As I said, I hope we can be unified and seek to pursue that which unifies us. If we did everything that the gentleman suggests is in that bill, it would not make an immediate difference, and the gentleman knows that. The gentleman knows that there are literally millions of acres available for additional pumping, oil rigs to be arrayed both offshore and onshore. The gentleman knows we just released 300 million barrels from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Excuse me. Thirty million.

So this administration has taken actions immediately to assist the Europeans. In addition, of course, the Europeans have done something. As the gentleman knows in terms of reliance, the Germans, in a very difficult political decision for them, have canceled any further actions dealing with receiving energy through a pipeline in Germany known as Nord Stream 2.

He knows further that there is consideration to reactivate or to not decommission nuclear plants which provide not only clean energy but abundant energy. In my part of the world in a southern Maryland district that I represent, we have a nuclear power plant that produces clean energy for us in abundance. Very frankly, I have heard this argument when we had recession; I have heard this argument when we had the stock market go down, and the stock market go up. We are producing more energy than any other country on Earth right now. We are exporting energy right now.

Now, the issue as to whether or not--we have a relatively small sector, but the gentleman is correct, we are receiving oil in some jurisdictions from Russia--as to whether we ought to continue that, I think that is a valid argument, and we ought to pursue it.

But I want to say to the gentleman very, very frankly that we need to be focused on what we have done and what we are doing. NATO is unified. NATO is taking unified action. All the nations of NATO are taking actions both with respect to stopping any benefits to Russia which may facilitate the funding of their operations. We have taken very, very substantial sanctions, as you know, and we have cut off the Russian central bank which freezes Putin's strategic reserve funds. He had $600 billion that he was relying on that he called the ``war fund''.

We have imposed full sanctions on Russia's other major financial institutions, state-owned enterprises critical to its economy. We have removed Russian banks from SWIFT, an action that nobody thought the Europeans would join us in, but they have. We have secured new export controls to cut off Russia's access to tech inputs, including microchips. We have frozen the assets of Putin and oligarchs close to him and launched a task force to hunt down and freeze more of their wealth. We have stopped the Nord Stream 2 pipeline that I talked about which would have made Germany and some of Europe even more dependent on energy from Russia.

Again, some months ago, nobody would have thought that was possible. President Biden has achieved that.

We have done $1 billion in security assistance to Ukraine over the past year--a massive increase over past administrations--and have also announced a $1 billion sovereign loan guaranty to shore up Ukraine's economy.

America, essentially, is energy independent. As I said, we are exporting energy. If we didn't export energy, we may be fully independent. Having said that, the gentleman comes from an area of the country that refines some of the kind of oil we get from Russia, heavy crude, as the gentleman knows much better than I do because he is very, very familiar with that industry.

Energy is important. We believe as well that assuring energy that is not damaging to our global health is also important. I would be for not buying any oil from Russia. Then what would happen is--and may happen yet--is the price of oil would go up. The gentleman knows that. And then the gentleman would rise and say to me: How can you possibly allow prices to be where they are?

I want to honestly tell the American people that we are not sending troops. We will not have people on the front lines. But we will pay a cost to take the actions that the President has courageously taken and that President Zelensky has courageously taken to defend Ukraine's freedom. We will pay a cost.

So the President is trying to balance that with doing what needs to be done. I, frankly, think he is doing what needs to be done, and I am very proud of the fact that, as I said yesterday, we joined together in a bipartisan way to support the Ukrainian people.

We have differences of opinion on energy policy. For the most part, I think many of your Members don't believe global warming is the threat that we believe it is on this side of the aisle. So we have differences of agreement on energy. But what we don't have differences of opinion on, I hope, is that we ought to decrease to the extent we possibly can any economic benefits to Putin--not the Russian people, but to Putin and the war machine that he has put in place, and, as you and I have agreed, killing Ukrainians unprovoked, unjustified, and illegal under international law. So that is the real issue we ought to be focused on.

Yes, we ought to continue to have a fulsome debate on energy policy-- very, very important. But I will tell the gentleman, as I said before, there are millions of acres--millions--currently available to produce more energy in this country.

The gentleman's party was in charge for a long period of time of both the House, Senate, and the Presidency under President Trump, and essentially the policies that the gentleman--I don't know all the policies in that bill, obviously, I haven't read that bill--that could have been affected during that period of time.

So the bottom line is, the gentleman is correct. We need to make sure that Putin pays a horrific price and that we substantially reduce the resources he has available to perpetrate this international crime. And in the process, we ought to remember that this Congress appropriated over $400 million some years ago to help Ukraine, and President Trump held that money hostage, urging Mr. Zelensky to see if he could get dirt on President Biden. President Trump has recently said how brilliant he thinks Mr. Putin is and that our President is dumb. That doesn't reflect unity. That doesn't reflect a country that is together to confront an enemy. That undermines our democracy.

Mr. Pompeo has also said he thinks Putin is brilliant. I think Putin is an international criminal. He says he is very shrewd and very capable. There are many dictators and tyrants of the world that you can say that about. He didn't say he was a criminal--I am talking about Pompeo and Trump--or that he was committing a genocide, as you and I have said. Those were not words that either the former of Secretary of State or the former President of the United States used just recently after the invasion.

So I say to my friend very sincerely: We have differences of views on energy. We don't have difference of views, however, on diminishing very radically any resources which Putin could rely on to perpetrate his unjustified and criminal invasion of a sovereign country who has shown no threat to Russia or the Russian people.

At some point in time we will continue this argument about drilling and production of more oil. We will continue, I think, to try to be unified on the issue at hand. America's unity expressed to the rest of the world will give the Ukrainians, I think, more confidence and give NATO more confidence. And I might say when I mentioned that NATO has taken extraordinary steps, President Biden, unlike his predecessor, created respect and unity among the NATO allies. Germany, in particular, on Nord Stream 2, the former President uniformly demeaned Ms. Merkel and the Chancellor of Germany, and our relations with Germany were very strained. President Biden has put those together-- critically important in facing Putin down at this point in time.

As General Milley said in our briefing--this was not classified--he said he

thought Russia was going to lose in the end--or at least Putin was going to lose.

The Russian people do not want this war. The Russian people do not feel threatened by Ukraine.

Putin wants to create empire, and that is what I think we ought to stay focused on and unified on. We will debate energy policy, but let us not deceive the American public that any policies of this administration have undermined the ability to drill and produce additional energy on those millions of acres that are available on public lands and in public waters right now. Right now.

Will the gentleman yield so I can clarify?

I do not believe energy ought to be taken off the table. I want to assure my friend that is not my position, nor is it our collective position as a party. I understand what the gentleman said. I agree with the gentleman that to the extent that we can decrease any-- any--underline any--resources available to Putin and his war machine, we ought to do it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

First of all, the Speaker just announced, minutes ago, she is opposed to importing any oil from Russia. So the comment I just made to the gentleman, if you are trying to project that we want to see Russia advantaged by any expenditures we have on imports, now the Speaker has said exactly what I just said. We are not for that. Okay?

There are 26 million acres right now available and unaffected, as I understand it, by any of the constraints that you have talked about, available for additional drilling. There are 11 million acres, so that is 37 million acres currently available for production of additional product in the United States of America, right now.

So the red herring of somehow President Biden is constraining the production of oil in this country, as I understand it--now, you are much more aware of this because you come from a producing State and, obviously, are focused on this.

But the fact of the matter is, I am told that these 37 million acres are unaffected and are ready for production right now.

Now, the debate we have, Mr. Whip, is about what kind of fuels we ought to be using. You talked a lot about carbon emissions. Scientists tell us that carbon emission is a danger. As a matter of fact, the Department of Defense, the Pentagon, testified when asked, ``What is the greatest threat to America's security?'' some--I think it was last year; it may have been the year before that--said global warming. That is what they said.

Right now, we have an immediate challenge. Nothing you suggest will affect that immediate challenge beyond the Speaker and I both telling you we agree, and I hope the President pursues this: No money to Russia, period. No buying of Russian products.

Now, the gentleman mentions that, oh, he urged Russia to produce more energy last year. Why did he urge that? He urged all OPEC nations to produce more energy. Why? Because he did not want Americans to pay more at the pump. I think that is a policy you would probably support, trying to keep prices down.

With the oil cartel, when you constrain supply, what happens? Demand doesn't diminish because people have to drive to work; they have to get their kids to school; they have to get home. Demand stays steady.

What happens, inevitably, when supply is constrained and demand stays where it is or it goes up, prices rise. Yes, you are right, the President stands accused of trying to get more supply on the market to bring prices at the pump down.

But we do have a fundamental disagreement, and frankly, we ought not to be talking about it now. We had an energy bill that most of your side did not vote for. We get that. There is a legitimate difference of opinion of where we ought to invest our dollars. We believe we ought to invest our dollars in renewable energy that will be there for some time and does not pollute our air, increase our heat, and make our storms worse for the safety of our globe and our people for decades and centuries to come.

But, we do agree that we want to stop Putin.

Now, the reason I pointed out Trump, because Trump didn't stop Putin. He regaled Putin: He is my friend. I know him. We can get together.

Putin is a thug. He is a criminal thug. He is an international criminal. I think we all agree on that. And it doesn't help for the former President of the United States to tell the world I think their guy, this criminal, this thug, is smart, or in Pompeo's words, brilliant and our guy is dumb.

Our guy is not dumb. He is very smart. I have known him for 50 years. He may disagree on policy, but that is not because he is dumb. He has a different perspective.

Very frankly, he is not withholding money from Zelensky. He is making sure Zelensky gets money.

Trump tried to hold hostage money for Ukrainian security that we appropriated because we wanted early on to make sure that Zelensky and the Ukrainian people had the resources they needed. Mr. Trump withheld them. Now, ultimately, he paid them out, after it was disclosed--after it was disclosed.

We are going to continue to differ on energy policy, but don't mislead the American people when you have 37 million acres available for additional production unaffected by the restraints that you talk about. He is talking about new stuff.

So, my friend, let's focus, in this instance, at this time of crisis, on how we can make sure that America is perceived as unified and of one mind, as we did right after 9/11 and as we did yesterday.

But we abandon that very quickly in this polarized society in which we are living. We need to be unified, and we need to be honest with the American people. It is not going to be cost-free because neither Biden--and Biden, by the way, is urging the Saudis to increase production and others to increase production.

But as the gentleman knows, we far outstrip any of those nations in the production of energy and oil. China, a country that is three times, four times our size, four times our size, is producing 25 percent of what we produce.

America is producing a lot of energy. It did so under Obama. As the gentleman knows, energy production in the country rose during the Obama years. It rose during the Trump years. And it still is at a high plateau.

The only thing I would say to my friend, the whip: We have differences on energy policy. We ought to discuss those. That is an honest difference of opinion. I want to be energy independent.

I hope you heard the President talk about Make It In America. All of my colleagues rose and sort of pointed at me because I have been talking about making it America, which is producing energy as well, for a good period of time. I started the Make It In America agenda in 2010 and have been talking about it every year since.

We need to be energy independent, and we can use energy as an element of foreign policy and strategic policy as well, which is why the Speaker said, just minutes ago, as I said to you, we ought not to be buying oil from Russia, period.

Mr. Speaker, can the gentleman clarify when he says, ``just the other day''?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that question. The answer to it is the Office of the Attending Physician and the Sergeants at Arms in both the Senate and the House are looking at that, both from a health standpoint and from a security standpoint.

I think all of us agree that the American public's access to the Capitol ought to be as fulsome as possible, given constraints of health concerns and of security concerns. So I join the gentleman in saying, as I have said to the press, as soon as we can do that responsibly, we ought to do it. I agree with the gentleman.

I want to add something that is of great concern to me. I hope we have agreement in this House, and I hope we have agreement in the United States Senate. I have been shocked, deeply saddened, when your party passes a resolution and tells the American people that January 6 was legitimate political discourse.

If we are telling people in this country that January 6 was legitimate political discourse, we are going to have great concerns about opening up this Capitol for the safety of our Members, for the safety of the public who wants to visit, and for the safety of our staff.

I would ask my friend; does he believe that January 6 reflected legitimate political discourse?

I was shocked, astounded, that a major political party in this country would tell the American people what they saw on January 6 was legitimate political discourse.

Will he please reject that concept, reject that conclusion, that what they saw on January 6 had anything to do with legitimate political discourse.

Yes, I want to open up the Capitol, but I don't want to make any representation to the American people, Mr. Speaker, that what happened on January 6 bore any resemblance to what we as Americans believe is legitimate political discourse.

Rightfully, Senator McConnell and former candidate for President of the United States, Mitt Romney, rejected that out of hand. I would hope you and your party would do so on this floor and tell the American people, yes, we want to open up this Capitol, but do not delude yourself that anything you saw on January 6 bears any resemblance in any way to legitimate political discourse.

I had not brought that up, but I am constrained to do so as we talk about opening up our Capitol.

Tuesday night, we were an armed camp. You saw it, I saw it, we all saw it, the fence around the Capitol, men and women with automatic weapons, both military and civilian, because of what happened on January 6, because of the concern they had for the safety of our democracy and of the ability of the President of the United States to come and give a State of the Union address to the assembled Members of the Congress of the United States and the United States Senate. That is why all of that was there.

Very frankly, inexplicably, the Republican Party's national committee passed a resolution, apparently overwhelmingly, that told the American people that January 6 was legitimate political discourse.

Mr. Speaker, the equivalency that my friend from Louisiana tries to make between citizens, some who committed crimes, but citizens who are acting because they are seeing their children's lives taken because of the color of their skin and what happened on January 6 to undermine our democracy, our Constitution, and our election of a President of the United States, reflects the resolution the Republican National Committee passed, legitimate political discourse.

They weren't talking about the people--some people saw, obviously, the President incite those people to come from where that political discourse, that discussion--which sounded like incitement to me, maybe not to you--and

they came from the White House, at the President's instruction, Mr. Speaker: Go down to the Capitol, stop the steal, give them hell, fight like hell. Instructing the Vice President of the United States to do what the Vice President of the United States concluded was illegal, not within his power, and they came into the Capitol calling for the life of the Vice President and the Speaker of this House.

There is no equivalency. But they continue, Mr. Speaker, to make that equivalency, to justify what was done on January 6, that, oh, well, everybody does it. No, they don't. It is the first time in history that it has happened.

The whip and I are talking about what I think we both want to do, open up this Capitol, make it more accessible, have people come in, gun free, weapon free--come into this Capitol and see their democracy in action. That resolution was read by the American people as, oh, it is okay, legitimate political--there was nothing about January 6 that was legitimate political discourse, including what the President of the United States had to say, at that point in time, Donald Trump. That wasn't legitimate at all.

Sixty courts determined Joe Biden was elected. He still, to this day, lies to the American people. Sadly, too many people believe him, which led to January 6 and the violence. I am sure that the whip believes they ought to be held accountable if they came in here and waved guns at people and killed a police officer. I appreciate that he said that.

If he believes, as Romney believes, as McConnell believes--McConnell didn't say they were talking about the people talking in political discourse, should we do this, should we do that. McConnell responded to that resolution exactly as I have, understanding exactly what it meant, inexplicable.

Very frankly, if we are going to open up this Capitol, we need all of us to tell every American we are opening up the Capitol to peaceful-- sure, political discussion; that is what this place is all about. That, Mr. Speaker, is what this discourse is about, differences of opinion, how we resolve them, how we reach consensus, how we hopefully bring people together. But not by waving racist flags, not by hanging a gallows in front of the Capitol. That is not how we do it.

We ought to all, all 435 of us, reject it out of hand. We should not in any way try to make it look like, well, some other people did this, and some other people did that, and, therefore, it is okay.

They attacked our democracy, our Constitution, this country. They were traitors. We ought to all reject that kind of conduct out of hand, not try to rationalize it with some other group did this and some other group did that, people with grievances.

The Constitution does not guarantee being able to shoot at people, police or nonpolice. It doesn't justify destroying property. That is criminal activity. I agree with that 100 percent. And no city was burned down. A little bit of hyperbole there, Mr. Speaker.

Were there things done that shouldn't have been done? Yes. Were there things that shouldn't have been done and things that happened on this Capitol? Yes.

But January 6 was not analogous to any of those things. It was an attempt to undermine our democracy, our Constitution, and the election of the President of the United States by this Congress in approving what we should have no discretion in one way or the other. That is what lawfully is done in each State when they send their electors here.

What President Trump kept asking Mr. Pence to do was ignore the votes of the American people, ignore the lawfully elected electors and the result of their deliberations.

Mr. Scalise is my friend. He is a good man. A famous quote says that nothing is necessary for the spread of evil but that good men do nothing. And that is why I tell my friend I was so appalled at the rhetoric of that Republican National Committee resolution and what it says to people around this country who may have a grievance, who may be angry.

As Senator McConnell interpreted it, the resolution was speaking to what happened on January 6, whether it was at the White House and incitement, whether it was at the White House and deployment, or whether it was here in execution of what was clearly a coordinated effort to prohibit the Congress from carrying out its constitutional duties. Expressed and acted out.

So I say to my friend in conclusion, I didn't mean to get into this today, but your questions obviously spurred my feeling about this because, yes, we want to open up the Capitol, but I don't want to give any citizen the thought that the Capitol is being opened so they can come in here, threaten the lives of a Vice President, threaten the lives of a Speaker, threaten the lives of the minority leader or the Republican whip or any others of us.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican whip is my friend. He was badly injured by a criminal who may have been deranged or whatever, but no excuse, who attacked him because he was a Republican. Totally unjustified. Totally heinous in its execution. The whip has shown extraordinary courage, Mr. Speaker, in coming back. I know it has been hard. It has been tough for him, and all of us admire him for the courage he has shown in coming back, and we condemn in the severest terms any kind of action that would have put him or any other of our Members, our staff, or the visitors to this Capitol at risk.

We are considering it. We want to open it up. The American people ought to have access to their Capitol.

Madam Speaker, I rise to congratulate Elizabeth `Liz' Savage, a career attorney in the Disability Rights Section of the Civil Rights Division (CRD) at the U.S. Department of Justice, who received the Maceo W. Hubbard Award in December. The Division's highest award, it recognizes her exceptional work as an expert in disability rights law and her commitment to educating Americans with disabilities on how to access reasonable accommodations guaranteed under law. The law referenced, of course, is the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which I was proud to sponsor and helps shepherd to enactment in 1990.

I've known Liz Savage for many years, and during the time that I was leading efforts to pass the ADA, she was working at the Epilepsy Foundation. Liz had been working with our former Majority Whip Tony Coelho, long a champion for disability rights, who served on the Epilepsy Foundation's board at the time. Tony, of course, was the original author of the ADA, and I was honored that he asked me to take charge of it after he left the House. When I did, I was grateful for Liz's support and assistance, as she helped lead grassroots organizing and outreach to Members of Congress to educate the public and policymakers about what the ADA would achieve and how important it would be to promoting equality, access, independence, and opportunity for those living with disabilities. She worked hard to build a coalition among national disability, civil rights, religious, and civic organizations in support of the ADA's enactment.

In addition to the ADA, Liz had a profound impact on a number of pieces of federal legislation during her time at the Epilepsy Foundation. These included the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Civil Rights Restoration Act, and Fair Housing Act amendments. Liz served as a tireless advocate in all of those efforts to ensure that the voices of people whose lived experience included dealing with a disability were included when policies were developed and adopted.

For more than three decades, Liz has continued to fight for the rights and equality of people with disabilities. Over the past ten years, she has been working in the Justice Department's Disability Rights Section, and the Maceo W. Hubbard Award she received in December is testament to her success and achievement in that role. I join in congratulating her and thanking her for the service and many contributions she has made and continues to make for her country and for Americans with disabilities. I hope my colleagues will join in congratulating Liz Savage as well.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Takano not only for yielding

time, but much more importantly, I thank him for the extraordinary work he does on behalf of the Armed Forces and for its veterans. He is tireless in his advocacy of veterans' interest.

I meet with him every Wednesday in the chairman's meeting. He is always speaking up about how we need to continue our focus on the needs of our veterans who served our country so heroically, whether they went overseas or not.

Some of the veterans that we are talking about today were not overseas when they contracted a disease or an illness as a result of toxic substances. They were here in America. There is a poet who says: They also serve who stand and wait ready to serve, ready to be deployed to the point of the spear.

Mr. Speaker, you and I are old enough--I don't want to be too harsh on the Speaker--but to remember the song: When Johnny comes marching home again, hurray, hurray, the boys will shout, the girls will cheer, and the women, they will all turn out.

One of the problems we have seen, though, after that cheering, that after that parade, after that exultation, is that memories are short. As time goes by, some of our veterans, sadly, tragically, and wrongfully, have been forgotten.

This bill says we do not forget. This bill says we will be there for you, and, yes, we will be there even if there is a substantial cost to it.

This is a defense cost. In my view, the veterans cost ought to be in the defense budget, and it ought to be there because that is what we are all enthusiastic about spending money on. Veterans need to be and are our first priority.

I thank the chairman for his focus and for his action. He has long been a champion of our veterans and their well-being.

I also thank Representative Ruiz and Representative Luria, who is sitting here with us, who have worked very hard on this legislation. Mrs. Luria, from Virginia, is a retired commander from the United States Navy. She and her husband commanded a ship. Dr. Ruiz has been on the front line of illness, the front line as an emergency physician, and knows full well the psychological and physical effects of toxic material to the well-being of individuals. I thank Dr. Ruiz and Commander Luria for their work on this bill.

Our veterans served with honor and routinely went above and beyond the call of duty in their defense of our Nation. Many of them risked their lives; not everybody, there were some that were support, and without their support those at the point of the spear could not have been successful.

We have a responsibility, Mr. Speaker, a moral responsibility, to care for our veterans when they return home and ensure that they receive the treatment they deserve.

When we send our servicemembers to war, when we recruit them, when we put them in a position by order and they become ill because of where they are, because of either negligent or unknowing actions, unknowing to the extent we don't know the adverse effects that they caused, whatever the situation, a soldier's exposure is our responsibility.

A soldier's exposure to burn pits and other toxic substances during their service has been shown to be connected to a greatly increased risk of cancer and respiratory diseases. There is no doubt about that.

The legislation before us would expand veterans' healthcare access and benefits to address the effects of those toxic exposures that occurred during their military service.

Mr. Speaker, you and I both know we asked our veterans to go to battle for America, and they answered the call. When they return home, veterans should not have to go to battle against red tape to receive the medical treatment and benefits they have earned through their service.

They ought to be able to access care for the physical and mental wounds they carry without impediment or delay. All of us have gotten cases where there have been weeks, months, years that veterans have waited for benefits that they deserve under law, and as a moral responsibility of our government.

We thank our veterans for their service. As I said, we cheer and shout and turn out. But this is our responsibility. This is not about cheering or shouting. This is about doing what we ought to do for those who were injured in the defense of our Nation and our freedom. This is our opportunity to keep our promise to put our veterans first and truly give them our highest respect.

Again, I thank my friend, Chairman Takano. I thank all the members of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and all those veterans who don't forget those who come after them. I thank Mr. Takano for his leadership, and I urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to join in passing this bill with a strong bipartisan support.

Our President talked about bipartisanship. I talked to Mr. Scalise about being the loyal opposition. Not loyal to Democrats or Democrat leaders, but loyal to our country. Being loyal to our country means being loyal to those who served and preserved the freedoms that we enjoy, this home of the free and land of the brave. I think it is the opposite way around, but we get the point. Brave and free go together. Let us not forget. Let's pass this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the chairman of this committee, for yielding. We have traveled in various parts of the world together. We have seen pain, and we have seen progress. We are seeing pain now, and all I can say with respect to the remarks that were just made by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), amen.

I thank Mr. McCaul for his working not as a Republican, and I thank Mr. Meeks not as a Democrat, but as Americans, Americans confronted with a crisis, a crisis for democracy, a crisis for the global community. I thank them both because they have, in the best traditions of this House and of this country, worked together to bring to the floor a resolution, which, indeed, speaks to the pain and to the moral responsibility of all those who love freedom and democracy.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, as Russian missiles rained down on the cities of his country, Ukraine's heroic President, President Zelensky, virtually addressed the European Parliament in Brussels.

Mr. Speaker, President Zelensky spoke of a horrendous missile attack that had just struck the main square of the besieged city of Kharkiv. ``This,'' he said, is ``the largest square in Europe . . . it is called `freedom square.' '' He went on to say: ``And believe you me, in every square today, no matter what it is called, it is going to be called `freedom square.' In every city of our country. Nobody is going to break us. We are strong.''

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, he didn't have to tell us that. We have seen that strength. We have seen that courage. We have seen that determination in the face of overwhelming force confronting them.

These past 7 days, the people of Ukraine have indeed shown the world they are strong, they are courageous, they are united, and they are resolved to defend their freedom and their democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I served as co-chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, otherwise known as the Helsinki Commission, for 10 years from 1985 to 1995. It was a historic time where democracy won the Cold War. It was in the final years of that Cold War that Ukraine in the nineties emerged and was guaranteed essentially by the international community, but certainly by Russia and the United States, that they would be a sovereign nation not just in the east but in the west as well.

I had the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to travel to Kyiv, to Riga, to Vilnius, to Tallinn, to Sofia, to other cities behind the Iron Curtain on a relatively regular basis during those 10 years, certainly in the 6 years from 1985 to 1991. In each place I saw a ``freedom square'' where either before or shortly after my visit people would gather to demand the right to choose their own future, their own leaders, and their own laws.

I saw in many others who traveled to those cities and to those countries a yearning, I saw the commitment to democracy, their courage and determination.

President Zelensky is correct: ``Wherever democracy thrives, every public square is a `freedom square.' '' It may have another name, but it is a ``freedom square.''

Americans have sacrificed much over the generations to secure our freedoms and to our great credit the freedom of others around the world.

I tell people, Mr. Speaker, that America is the nation that had the most hegemony of power and used it so without acquiring the nations that it protected or imposing its will on the nations that it protected which is the least acquisitive superpower in the history of the world.

Americans have sacrificed much over the generations to secure our freedoms and the freedoms of others. The land of the free and the home of the brave.

Now, the tyranny and autocracy of Vladimir Putin tests us again.

Though American forces will not be engaged directly in this war, that does not mean that America is sitting on the sidelines. Far from it. And we must be engaged. This resolution speaks to engagement.

President Biden has unified not only NATO but a broad coalition of the world's democratic nations and those committed to the post-war order of respecting peace, borders, and, yes, diplomacy.

Dozens of nations have partnered to stand up to Putin and to support the freedom fighters in Ukraine. Together, we have imposed punishing sanctions that are already hurting Putin's regime.

We are already seeing thousands of Russians taking to the streets in their country to demand that Putin end this unjust war, this unprovoked war, this criminal war, and stop the unnecessary death and destruction on both sides for which Vladimir Putin alone bears responsibility.

Today, this House, the people's House representing the greatest democracy in history, the leading democratic nation in the world, is expressing our support for the Ukrainian people in their struggle for freedom and self-government.

I hope and I urge that this resolution pass with not a single negative vote. Let there be no mistake throughout the globe that, yes, we have differences between Republicans and Democrats, but we in this House are all Americans committed to freedom, committed to democracy, committed to the peaceful relations between nations.

It recognizes the egregious and inhumane actions undertaken by the Russian military at Putin's command, including the shelling of civilian targets and the killing of innocents in order to instill fear and weaken Ukrainian resolve.

We know that resolve, however, Mr. Speaker, will not be broken. We have seen it in the eyes of the President, and we have seen it in the eyes of the citizens in those freedom squares.

This resolution further recognizes importantly that Russian aggression against Ukraine did not begin last week. It began as soon as the Ukrainian people rejected a Putin-backed autocrat, established a true democracy, and sought the security and protection of stronger bonds with its fellow democracies in Europe and NATO, which, of course, it had every right as a sovereign nation to do.

Putin sent his forces to occupy Crimea. Mr. Speaker, in my view we were not as determined that that should not happen at that time. We must not repeat that mistake. Putin instigated a violent, separatist uprising in the Donbas region that has festered for 8 long years.

His unprovoked and unjustifiable invasion of Ukraine comes after it became increasingly clear that the separatists could not achieve Putin's expansionist aims on their own. He tried to do it surreptitiously through agents. It did not succeed, so he took the next step, a tragic, criminal step.

This resolution also makes clear that the United States will continue to support Ukraine by providing both military and humanitarian assistance while maintaining painful sanctions against Putin for as long as he pursues this war of choice.

In no small part, this resolution puts into action the promise that President Kennedy made when he took office at the height of the Cold War.

This will not be a free war for any of us in the free world. It is going to cost us something. Gas prices may go up. But we want to stand on freedom's side.

I am in politics largely because John Kennedy ran for President as I was at the University of Maryland, and I was inspired by his call to service.

I would urge all of you to read one more time John Kennedy's inaugural address. It is an extraordinarily inspiring address, an address not only to the American people, but to the entire world. And in it he said this: ``Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and success of liberty,'' and of those freedom squares to which President Zelensky referred.

Mr. Speaker, Americans and our allies are being asked to pay a price, to bear a burden, to meet some hardship in the days and weeks and months ahead, not to sustain fire, not to live in buildings being bombed, not to have to move from their home to a refuge or another country, but some hardship.

I know that our fellow Americans are up to the task. They have always been up to the task because those who say we take freedom for granted, who say the cost is too high, the burden too great, have always underestimated the American people.

When we see Putin's corrupt, evil, and menacing grab for power and tyrannical control, we are reminded of the tyrants and evil ideologies that Americans have fought and vanquished through our collective commitment and shared sacrifices.

Mr. Speaker, today, let us make this House Freedom Square. Let us stand with those who are assaulted by a tyrant.

The generation before mine, John Kennedy referred to England as ``Why England Slept.'' If we do not meet this tyrant now, we will pay greatly later.

I urge my colleagues to stand with these brave Ukrainians who stand for freedom and liberty and international law. Let us all overwhelmingly, unanimously vote for this resolution and send a message, not just to Putin but to all the tyrants of the world who would test us once again, that we will not blink.

Madam Speaker, I move that the message of the President be referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered printed.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the life and legacy of Mayor Kevin Ward. The Hyattsville community lost a trusted leader and a strong advocate when Kevin tragically lost his life to suicide on January 22. He was just forty-four years old and left behind a husband, two sons, and a grandson. His loss is deeply felt across the community and throughout Prince George's County in my district, and the outpouring of grief is a testament to the impact he left on so many. There was no one more willing to lend an ear to a neighbor or to do whatever it took to change someone's life for the better in the community to which he gave so much of his energy, talent, and love.

Kevin saw Hyattsville as `the jewel in the crown of Prince George's County,' and he dedicated himself to making that jewel shine brighter. In 2015, Kevin was elected to the Hyattsville City Council, and during his tenure as a Council member and later as Council President, he promoted an inclusive agenda to help Hyattsville residents thrive and get ahead. He cosponsored legislation aimed at making Hyattsville more welcoming to and inclusive of immigrants and voted to expand the municipal franchise to include non-citizen residents. Under his leadership, Hyattsville experienced unprecedented economic growth with the expansion of the Gateway Arts District and creation of new housing.

In 2020, Kevin became Interim Mayor and was elected to a full term last May. As Hyattsville's first openly gay and second Black mayor, Kevin was a trailblazer not only in representation but in the boldness of his vision. During his time in office, he was a champion for youth, affordable housing, and sustainability efforts. He worked zealously to help residents throughout the pandemic, partnering with the First United Methodist Church of Hyattsville to set up vaccination clinics and food distribution for those in need.

Kevin was more than an exemplary public servant: he was a devoted father, grandfather, and husband. His love for his husband Chad, his sons Sydney and Norman, and his grandson Elijah inspired him to work for a better future for them and all who shared their community. I offer my deepest condolences to Kevin's family, friends, and neighbors, who will surely be reflecting on his legacy for a long time to come and who have already been an enormous support to Chad, their sons, and their grandson during this very difficult time. Through the darkness of this moment, surely Kevin's memory will be the inspiring light to guide the community forward into brighter days to come. I hope all of my colleagues will join me in remembering Kevin Ward and his life of service, passion, and love for his community.

The rise in suicide among Black Americans is a challenge we as a nation cannot ignore. The pandemic has exacerbated mental health struggles for millions of Americans, and it is essential that we all do our part to reach out and help others who may be in need of assistance. I urge anyone struggling with grief or mental health challenges to reach out and seek support from the many resources available, including the National Suicide Hotline at (800) 273-8255.

Madam Speaker, I thank the chair for yielding, and I want to thank both Mrs. Maloney, Congresswoman Maloney from New York, the chair of the committee, and Mr. Comer from Kentucky.

There is nobody covering this right now. There aren't a lot of Members on the floor. This will pass in a bipartisan fashion. But this is a piece of legislation on one of the most important agencies of government, the most important services to the American people, keeping them in touch, getting them goods and services and prescription drugs that they need, being able to pay their bills.

This bill is a very important bill. The interest in it in terms of the public is belied by the fact that it is bipartisan and that, therefore, it is assumed to happen.

But I tell you, Madam Speaker, this is decades in the making. This bill has been debated--not this bill, but the reforms that this bill achieves, have been debated for decades.

As the former chair of the Treasury Postal Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee, I know full well how difficult this process has been, and it doesn't need me to say anything more about the specifics of the bill, other than to thank Chair Maloney. She has been tenacious. She has been focused, and she has been indefatigable in this effort.

Madam Speaker, I want say that this would not have been done without Mr. Comer, because it is easy to demagogue one part of the issue or some other part of the issue. But the gentleman working together with Mrs. Maloney has made this happen, and America will be better. The Postal Service will be better. Postal workers will be better. And the American community that utilizes and relies on the Postal Service will have greater security and greater service.

So Madam Speaker, I thank Mrs. Maloney and Mr. Comer.

I thank all of those who worked on this bill in the committee, and I urge its overwhelming passage on a bipartisan basis.

Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Scalise for yielding.

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, as usual, 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.

And again, as usual, on Friday the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business.

The House, Madam Speaker, will consider Senate 2959, the Supplemental Impact Aid Flexibility Act under suspension of the rules. This bill passed the Senate unanimously. It is on suspension in the House. It is coauthored by Representative Joe Courtney of the House.

This bipartisan legislation allows local educational agencies participating in the Impact Aid Program to use the student count or Federal property valuation data from their fiscal year 2022 program applications for their fiscal year 2023 applications.

This, Madam Speaker, will prevent schools from losing substantial funding upon which they have relied to address COVID-19 learning loss by giving them more flexibility to use prepandemic data to calculate funding needs.

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

The House will also consider H.R. 4673, the EVEST Act sponsored by Chairman Mark Takano of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, the rule for which we adopted this week.

This legislation would automatically enroll eligible veterans into the VA healthcare system so that no veterans are left behind when it comes to receiving quality, affordable healthcare.

Lastly, Madam Speaker, the House stands ready to act on the Build Back Better Act, as well as the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act should the Senate amend them and send them back to us.

Additional legislative items, of course, are possible.

Madam Speaker, because I don't have it in front of me, and I haven't read it as carefully as perhaps I should have, I don't know the specific answer to that question.

What I do want to say, however, is that we need to have kids in school. Everybody says that the learning experience is substantially compromised by virtual learning. It is better than nothing, and it has been pursued very vigorously and with great positive effect.

But having said that, we all think that young people ought to be back in schools. But I don't know whether this bill, which passed the Senate unanimously, deals with that particular aspect that the gentleman asked about. But let me say this: I think that every school system has adopted the premise that in school is better.

Clearly, we have been assaulted by a virus whose transmissibility is substantially more than the previous virus, the delta variant. The omicron variant, as we know, one of the problems is it is easily caught and easily transmitted.

The good news is if you have taken a vaccination and had a booster, the likelihood of you going to the hospital is much smaller, and if you go to the hospital, you are much less sick. But having said that, we continue to have a challenge to get this under control. And the administration, properly so, and the overwhelming majority of the medical community, properly so, and the overwhelming majority of scientists are recommending that we wear a mask, that we wear a KN95 or N95 mask because they are much better than the surgical masks or the cloth masks, that we continue to wash our hands regularly, and we continue to keep our distance.

But the gentleman and I agree that we need to ensure that--to the extent that it is possible and that parents will send their children to school because of being dissuaded by the transmissibility of this disease--we need to have kids in school.

Will the gentleman yield?

Madam Speaker, I think everybody is concerned about this. Certainly, every parent in my district and your district is concerned about this, and anybody who is concerned about the welfare of our children is concerned about it.

But I think it would be appropriate for me to say that the teachers of America--and my wife was a teacher, and I happen to believe that teachers are the most important people in any society because they educate the leadership and the citizens of tomorrow--have been put to an extraordinary challenge.

And I have a granddaughter who has four children, so I have four great-grandchildren, three of whom are in school and were in school in 2020 and 2021. And Judy, my granddaughter, who is named after my wife, has told me on numerous occasions what extraordinary ends her children's teachers--there were three different teachers at different levels in the school system--went to make sure that while they were home, while they were learning virtually that they had a positive, productive experience. But all of them felt, I think, it is a lot easier to have kids in school if they can do so safely. I think that bears saying.

Like medical personnel, teachers have been put through extraordinary stress, as have parents generally have been put through stress.

So I think the gentleman's concern is rightfully placed, and we need to do everything we can to make sure kids get back in school and have a learning experience like you and I had in the classroom.

Madam Speaker, I understand the gentleman's position, which is held by a number of people.

My own view is that employers make a reasonable decision when they say to an employee--for the sake, not only of the employee but for everybody else in the workplace with whom they work--that you are required to be vaccinated because we believe that science and medical personnel tell us that is a much safer route. But I understand there is a difference on that.

But even then, I know Governors who have been against vaccines are not necessarily against the employer requiring that as an employee requirement as opposed to a governmental requirement.

Madam Speaker, first of all, let me say inflation is a serious challenge confronting American families, particularly working families in this country.

I live alone, and because I am just one person, I buy relatively small amounts of food at the grocery store. And I go to the grocery store nowadays and whether it is the price of bacon, which is at $12 a pound for Hormel or another meat packing, it is high, and I think to myself how a family not doing as well as I am doing and with kids to feed, how tough it is on them. So this inflation is very tough.

It is a worldwide phenomenon. It is a phenomenon that is caused obviously by a pent-up demand asking for a lot of goods and chasing a lot of goods. And elementary economics, that any of us took in college, is that there are a lot of resources chasing few resources, i.e., a lot of money chasing a short supply of goods, and you have that demand so that it drives prices up.

This pandemic has had a global effect on the supply chain. The supply chain has been substantially affected. This was not the fault of, frankly, either Biden or his predecessor in terms of what happened to the supply chain. In Singapore they shut down companies, as you know, for months at a time. They just shut them down, which is one of the things that has led to this chip shortage, which has had ramifications.

So I want to assure the gentleman that the administration, our side of the aisle--I know your side of the aisle is very concerned about the inflationary pressure that is putting such a stress on America's families. This pandemic has caused extraordinary, historic things to happen. That is the bad news.

The good news is we have created more jobs in the last year and 2 months than were created--of course, net we lost jobs for the previous 4 years; over 2 million jobs net lost. So the good news is that we have a number of economic statistics that are, in fact, positive. However, having said that, we do need to be very concerned about inflation. The administration has expressed their concern.

We believe that the infrastructure bill will have a positive impact on inflation, assuming the Build Back Better Act passes, which I assume at some point it will.

I think that is going to have a very positive affect on inflation because it will help the supply chain, help the

health of the people, the employees, it will make people more able to get out. Childcare. It is going to help people get back to work, which will have a positive impact on the supply chain and on the availability of goods and services. So I think we are moving in the right direction.

Unemployment, as the gentleman knows, which is down 3.9 percent. So while inflation is up and unacceptably high, historically high, over the last 4 years, we need to get it down. And we see this phenomena happening all over the world. This is not the fault of the President or the Congress, it is the fault of an extraordinary, invasive, and widespread disease that has caused extraordinary disruptions within our society and economy.

But we need to get a handle on it. We need to take action. So I will talk to the gentleman about what issues he believes would be helpful in that regard.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Of course, as you know better than probably anybody, the Speaker appointed a task force to look exactly at that issue of the $800 billion and what has been done, what has been spent to make sure that it has been properly spent, because you are the ranking member on the committee headed up by Jim Clyburn that is looking at those issues. I know you had a hearing this past week.

Yes, we have a difference of opinion. The difference of opinion, you call it spending, I call it investment. We are investing in our children. We are investing in our families. We are investing in small businesses. We are investing in growth and opportunity. And we are investing in the ability of those folks that you talk about that are not in the workforce, the restaurant can't hire. Why can't they hire them? Because they are not paying sufficient amount to justify a mom getting childcare because childcare is so expensive. Or she is caught-- or a single dad--is caught in the catch-22 situation. If I go to work, I will earn money but I will pay it all to childcare. If I am going to pay it all to childcare, it is much better for me as a parent to be with my child, if the net result is going to be pretty much a wash.

We are investing in that. We are investing in childcare in the Build Back Better Act. We are investing in early childhood education, three- and four-year-olds. We believe that is investment. And it also is very important for that small business so that that mom or dad who has that child who is then going to go and be in a preschool environment can have time to themselves so that they can, in fact, pursue employment without simply putting it from one pocket to another pocket, none of which is their pocket.

So the difference, I think, really is you look at it as spending, we look at it as investment. We think it will have big, big return for our country. And that is what Build Back Better is about. The building back better you say it was not related to the pandemic. It clearly was related to the pandemic. The pandemic hit us in the gut. It hit everybody throughout the world in the gut. We have recovered better than anybody else in the world. And that is because we invested, sometimes in a bipartisan way, and sometimes in a partisan way, but we invested in our people, in our children, in our families, in our businesses, and in our health, generally of our country and indeed trying to help other parts of the world as well because this is a global pandemic that affects us all.

But I think the real difference is, we perceive this as an investment. We think it will help grow America. I am sure you have heard me talk about, from time to time, the Make It In America agenda. Our investment in both the infrastructure bill and the Build Back Better will have a positive effect on Make It In America.

So we see it, Mr. Whip, as investment. We think it will have a positive effect. We think it is having a positive effect. And as I say, unemployment is down below 4 percent and jobs are up over 6 million over the last 11 months. So that is a good accomplishment. Is it enough? Do we still have people who aren't working for a varied number of reasons, many of which are related to COVID-19?

So we see it as an investment, and I am hopeful the Build Back Better Act will pass and I hope that will have a positive effect not only on, as the President says, the next 5 years, but on the next five generations. So we are continuing to pursue that.

But inflation, which is how we started this discussion, is a problem and we need to deal with it. I would be glad to talk to the gentleman about what he thinks will be helpful to do that. I know part of that is stop spending money. I think if we stop investing money, our country will not get to where it wants to be and where it is now with respect to the rest of the world, leading the rest of the world in terms of economic recovery from the pandemic. We are not there yet but we are going to get there

Right.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I would say at the outset, I believe the committee on which he serves with Mr. Clyburn is one of the committees, among many, who ought to be looking at those facts.

But let me say this, because in stating the facts, as you just did, the appearance is that substantial progress has not been made. I don't think that premise is correct. Let me read you some statistics.

Last year, the first year the President came into office, testing in America was molecular in at-home tests per day. The beginning of last year, 1.7 million per day. Today, 11.7 million tests per day are being conducted.

So to imply that somehow there has not been substantial progress, that is a 10-fold increase in the testing available to Americans every day. And when Biden took office, zero at-home rapid tests were available to consumers--zero. Today, 300 million at-home rapid tests are on the market each month.

Enough? No. Are more coming? Yes.

Has the government used the Defense Production Act to accomplish greater production? They have. The administration started using, as I said, the Defense Production Act. The Biden administration is increasing places people can get free tests, for instance.

You talk about a plan. When Biden took office, there were only 2,500 pharmacies offering free testing. Today, there are 20,000 sites, an 8- fold increase. The administration is purchasing 500 million at-home rapid tests to be distributed for free to Americans who want them, with initial delivery starting this month.

The administration is distributing up to 50 million free at-home self-tests to community health centers and rural health clinics. In addition to already covering PCR tests, the administration is requiring private insurance plans to cover at-home tests starting on January 15, just a couple of days from today. A lot is happening.

Is enough happening? Enough is not happening until everybody has immediate availability. ``Immediate'' may overstate it, but easy access. The fact is that some people are having problems finding the at-home tests now, and we need to work on that.

Those statistics show you that extraordinary increases have occurred under the Biden administration, and that is their plan, to make sure that these tests are available, because we know that testing will make a difference. If you find out you are sick, you quarantine.

I suggest to the gentleman that the Biden administration has made an extraordinary difference. Is the situation where we want it to be? Absolutely, it is not.

Do we have a new variant that apparently came out of South Africa or was first identified in South Africa that spiked up?

I talked to Dr. Monahan yesterday, and apparently, just in recent days, we have had a fall-off in disease recognized. I hope that is the case. I hope it keeps going down because we are perhaps now using the KN-95 or N-95 masks and keeping our distance a little more conscientiously. Let's hope all of that works for the people, for the country, and for the globe.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, this has been a calm discussion so far. Let me remind the gentleman that the previous President said in February or March of 2020 that this is going to go away in about 30 days: Don't worry about it. It will go away.

A lot of your Members said we don't need a mask; we don't need to keep distance; we don't need to wash our hands; this is going to go away. It is here today and gone tomorrow. That was the previous administration's plan.

I agree with you. The science community, the private-sector community, and government on Operation Warp Speed did a good job-- extraordinary work in the private sector, extraordinary work around the world. Because of the computer age in which we live, they were able to share information instantaneously, in real time, and say that this alternative doesn't work, which accelerated greatly the ability to get, within a year, an extraordinary accomplishment, largely from our scientific and medical community but facilitated by Warp Speed. No doubt about that. Give credit where credit is due.

Very frankly, the leader--unlike President Biden, who said this is a problem; we have to be careful; we have to pursue it; we have to invest--said no problem. The gentleman conveniently forgets that.

He also ignores the statistics I just gave where we have had a tenfold, eightfold increase in the availability of testing and pharmaceutical access for literally millions of people. This is per day that we are talking about, 11.7 million people per day.

It doesn't take too long at that rate that the whole country, all 330 million people, in about a month and a few days has been taken care of. When you say we have to make progress, we have made extraordinary progress.

Our view is--and I know we differ on this--we have made investments in the American Rescue Plan Act to deal with the pandemic crisis; in the infrastructure bill to create jobs, additional manufacturing capacity, and training and apprenticeships for our people; in the Build Back Better bill to make sure that our families can keep their heads above water and can, in fact, have childcare that they can rely on and feel their children are safe so they can take a job, be productive citizens, and add to the growth of our economy.

We believe we are doing that. Are we doing it perfectly? None of us do it perfectly. Perhaps we need to do more, as the gentleman implies, and have hearings.

The gentleman says he was in a hearing. Private or public, I presume the gentleman had an opportunity to ask questions. I don't know who the witnesses were, so I don't know what expertise they have.

I can't believe that if you requested of Mr. Clyburn that you have relevant witnesses to come by and that you want to question about the progress that either has been made or you think ought to be made or further things that could be done, I can't believe that he wouldn't agree to do that.

In any event, great progress is being made, but the entire world--not the Biden world, not America--the entire world is confronting a crisis and is having a tough time getting ahold of it. We have done it better than anybody else in terms of growing our economy and keeping our people's heads above water. That is to be applauded.

Do we still have a challenge? We do. Are we still working on it? We are. Do we need to continue? Yes.

For a long time, the former President of the United States--apparently, he changed his view now and criticized DeSantis for not pursuing mask wearing, et cetera, et cetera. The fact of the matter is, of course, the former President discouraged wearing masks early on. He discouraged it: Oh, no, you don't need to wear a mask.

He had events that were spreader events, as we call them.

The gentleman heard me say that I think the President followed good advice and made a decision on Warp Speed that was helpful. As the gentleman noted, it was the scientists at NIH and scientists in the private sector and scientists throughout the world, but mainly our people, who did an extraordinary thing in an extraordinarily short timeframe--never been done before--to develop this kind of vaccine.

You talk about the three vaccines. The three manufacturers, it had never been done before. It was a wonderful event. Unfortunately, too many people are advising: Don't take the vaccine. You don't have to take the vaccine. Don't sweat it.

The government tells people they have to vaccinate their children to send them to school. Why? So other children don't get sick.

I told you I had those great-grandchildren, three of whom are in school. They have a child that sits in front of them, a child that sits to the right, a child that sits to the left, and a child that sits behind them. I want all of them well because I don't want my great- grandchild getting sick.

I don't think there was a very successful effort either by the former President or by many on your side of the aisle to say--you talk about science--do what the scientists tell you to do. Now, I notice most of your Members are doing so now, but still some wear it as a badge of courage and raise money off of it. I think that is harmful to our communities.

I think you sort of just set aside no plan. Well, no plan has resulted going from 1.7 million to 11.7 million tests per day. That is the plan. We invested in March, in the American Rescue Plan Act, in making sure that health services could respond properly. A lot of money went into health and testing in the American Rescue Plan.

You keep saying there is no plan. We have adopted plans, and we think they are positive plans. We think, hopefully, that we are going to get better soon.

Neither President Trump nor President Biden was responsible for this extraordinary virus. Our view is President Trump laid back for a long, long time before he really engaged heavily in this, and now he has changed his tune to a much more positive ``listen to the scientists'' kind of attitude, which we welcome.

I disagree with the gentleman that there is not a plan. We adopted together in 2020 five major pieces of legislation to address this challenge, and we have adopted in a partisan way, unfortunately, bills that continue to fight that fight, and I think it is fighting it, not as successfully because we have a new variant, much more transmissible, a different type. It has metastasized into a more communicable disease. That has caused us a challenge, we are addressing that, and we are accelerating the availability of resources to do so.

I just want to say in terms of where we are today, the overwhelming percentage--I am talking about 90 percent--of people who are getting really sick are people who are not vaccinated. And for the government to say: You need to be vaccinated because we don't want you coming to the office, we don't want you coming with other people who are being careful, who have been vaccinated, and who have done the responsible thing and getting them sick. Because what we have seen, unfortunately, even with vaccination, is that people who are vaccinated, of our own Members on both sides of the aisle who have been vaccinated, have gotten--thankfully--mild cases of COVID.

But when we talk about the President wanting people to get vaccinated--and my friend indicates that he and I both are advocates of that, and/or requiring them to get vaccinated--the reason you require people to get vaccinated, the more people you have unvaccinated, the more hosts this virus has to metastasize and to grow into a different type of virus that can attack in different ways. That is why you do that. That is why they talk 70 percent. Now we just have about 70 percent in America now. Very frankly, if we had a higher percentage we would be better off. So let's hope that we can work together to make sure that we give encouragement to people to do what the scientists advise.

My friend talks about the reason we were so successful in that year under Warp Speed of getting those three vaccines is because the scientists knew what had to be done. They found out and they had quick discoveries and eliminated a lot of dead-ends relatively quickly because of our computer capability and transformation of information around the world and dead-ends.

If we listen to them, we would be better off. But an awful lot of people are saying: Don't listen to them. Don't do it.

When the gentleman says for health reasons, there are hundreds, probably billions, I don't know what the billions are, people who have been vaccinated with a miniscule and almost undetectable adverse reaction. So I don't know what the gentleman talks about for health reasons. I know Djokovic is saying he is doing it for health reasons. I don't know what those are. Maybe my friend does. I am not an expert enough to know what that is. But all the doctors I talk to--and certainly our own doctor here whom we consult with on a regular basis, I know both of us have done that--say get the vaccine.

So I would hope that all of us would ask our constituents to get the vaccine. It is good for you, it saves your lives, it saves your families, and it saves others. Get it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I am old enough to have grown up and become cognizant of public affairs in the late 1950s and early 1960s. It is ironic that today, I am hearing the language of interposition of States' rights. There were a lot of States' rights in the 1950s and the 1940s and 1960s. And John Lewis will tell you those States' rights kept people from voting, from participating, from playing a role.

Now, we have legislation before us that will ensure, as the Voting Rights Act of 1965 assured, that people would not be shut out by States' rights by people who wanted to keep certain other people from voting and participating in their State's elections, in their county's election, in their municipal election, in their city election.

I have heard a lot about States' rights. I am old enough to have heard about what States' rights meant. They meant don't butt in to assure that

every United States citizen, one nation, under God, indivisible. But we were divisible. We were divisible by color and by other arbitrary and unjustified distinctions. So we are here today to say that is not America. That is not one nation under God, indivisible.

So, yes, all the States will be covered because we want all States to comply, and they will not have a thing to worry about under this legislation if they have not had violations within the 20-year period.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, we will mark what would have been Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s, 93rd birthday. When he was born in 1929, it had only been 9 years, just 9 years from the date of his birth that women were given the opportunity to vote in America. How sad that it took us so long. When he was born in 1929, it had only been 9 years since the 19th amendment had been passed, and it had only been 64 years since the amendments ending slavery and ostensibly guaranteeing the right to vote for African Americans.

But that constitutional amendment was not honored. And ways and means were found to prevent people from voting, from registering. And so, yes, the Supreme Court passed the decision in Shelby v. Holder, Shelby in Alabama, a county that had discriminated greatly and was discriminating at that point in time. And as soon as the Supreme Court said this is no longer necessary, we saw a cascade of new laws to restrict access to the ballot box--a cascade.

When Dr. King was born, neither African-American men or African- American women could cast ballots and participate in our democracy in many States and jurisdictions, North and South. Before he was killed, at just 39 years of age, Dr. King led a movement to correct the injustices that had come about because for so long many Americans had no recourse to participate in our democracy or pursue opportunities equally because their States felt they had the right to discriminate. That is what State rights were in my generation. And apparently, the concept still exists, but that is the right.

The right to vote is the guarantee to all others. Dr. King joined by other giants of the Civil Rights Movement, including our dear friend and brother. My, my, my, G.K. and I were just saying how sad we are that John Lewis is not on this floor, who gave blood and almost his life but lived his life to assure that every American had the right to vote and was facilitated in that right.

Dr. King, joined by other giants of the Civil Rights Movement, including our friend and brother, John Lewis, used the tools of nonviolent, peaceful protest in organizing to expose the hypocrisy of a system that called itself a democracy but did not allow all of its citizens to share in electing leaders.

Each year, on Martin Luther King, Jr.'s, birthday, Americans reflect on the lessons of his life and on the Civil Rights Movement as though they formed a chapter in America's past. Would that they mirrored simply the past. But if we look around us today, there can be no doubt that the fight for our democracy is very much a part of our present.

Now, this is a radical bill that will allow process of the United States Senate that is a failing practice. The majority will rule on debating this bill--the majority. It is not a radical proposal that the majority of the Senate that is for this bill. When people get up and say, Oh, this bill can't pass. The only reason it can't pass is because the minority will stop it, if they can. I hope they can't. I hope they change the rules. I am an opponent of the filibuster. It is undemocratic, and as Hamilton said, it poisons democracy.

The right to vote has not been so endangered since Dr. King walked among us. But there is a remedy. It is not perfect but it will go a long way toward turning back the tide of voter suppression in protecting the fundamental right to vote. One nation, under God, indivisible. All of us could vote. The legislation incorporated into this bill represents the boldest and most consequential voting rights reforms in a generation.

I was the sponsor of the Help America Vote Act. It was called then a very consequential bill. It was not nearly as consequential as this bill will be in empowering every person eligible to vote. And by the way, every citizen, from my perspective, to vote, so there is no mischaracterization of my view.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Nadler, Representative Sewell, Representative Sarbanes, Chairwoman Beatty, and the entire Congressional Black Caucus, and literally hundreds of Members who through the years have fought to protect this sacred right.

In addition to providing for automatic online and same-day voter registration, the Freedom to Vote Act will make Election Day a Federal holiday--a holy day, if you will--in the pursuit of our secular commitment to democracy. It will guarantee at least 15 days of early voting.

Isn't that terrible? Well, it must be terrible because many States throughout the country are cutting those days down. Why? I don't know. If you vote on Tuesday as opposed to Thursday, is there more fraud involved? I don't know. It will guarantee those days and two weekends while ending requirements for difficult-to-obtain photo ID. It doesn't eliminate ID. If States have ID, it does not eliminate that.

Importantly, this legislation will restore voting rights to those who have paid their debts to society. And it will ensure that those who cast eligible ballots provisionally in the wrong precincts will still have their votes counted.

As the sponsor of the Help America Vote Act in 2002, that provision was in the Federal law. This bill would limit partisan gerrymandering and remove the corrosive influence of dark money. My mother used to tell me, consider the source. If the money is dark and you don't know who is paying the bill for the talk that is being given to you, you can't make that judgment. You can't determine who the source is. When it comes to defending the integrity of our elections and our democracy, this legislation is absolutely needed in America.

Not only will it prohibit the removal of election officials without cause, which is happening because a President calls up and says, ``Can't you find some more votes?'' That was the asking of some elected official, Secretary of State of Georgia, to commit a crime. Talk about fraud in elections.

This will enable the EAC to provide State and local boards of election with grants to upgrade outdated voting equipment and protect against hackers and cyber threats. It wasn't until 2003 that the Federal Government paid part of the election costs incurred in electing Federal officials, also restoring the full force of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which was undermined by Shelby v. Holder, applying it to every State--not discrimination.

If you break the law in any State, if you preclude people from legitimate voting in any State, you are covered under this legislation. We don't pick out any actor. Every State is included. We apply it to every State. And updating it for the 21st century, the Freedom to Vote Act has the power to restore trust that our elections are fair and that every eligible voter will be able to participate.

House Democrats have passed voting rights measures multiple times, this Congress sending both H.R. 1 and H.R. 4 to the Senate. The majority is for it, but the filibuster stops it. The minority controls the majority.

Madison said that was not democracy. Now, the Senate must act.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Senators to come together on Monday and approve this historic voting rights legislation for our time. We have the opportunity.

I share G. K. Butterfield's sadness that John Lewis is not on this floor to cast his vote. Very frankly, I would have yielded all the time I have taken to John Lewis to talk to us about how important this legislation is and how many people gave their lives and their blood and their time and their talent to accomplish an America where no person would be shut out of the ballot box.

In future years, I hope Americans will be able to celebrate Martin Luther King Jr. Day by reflecting not only on how our country overcame Jim Crow in the 20th century but how we prevented its return in 2022.

I know we have heard, ``Oh, this is not Jim Crow.'' No matter how subtle the discrimination may be, it is discrimination.

I ask Members to cast your vote for this bill today, so our citizens can cast their votes without hindrance and share equally in the making of our laws and in the shaping of our future. Vote ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, every Member of the House ought to vote for this resolution--every one of you. I see one shaking their head vigorously ``no.''

For those of us who have been here for some time, we have seen extraordinary energy exercised by the other side of the aisle in conducting oversight. Mr. Burton from Indiana summoned tens and tens more and ten thereafter, on and on and on, to hold accountable an administration with whom he did not agree and thought was not doing the right thing. And he issued subpoena after subpoena after subpoena.

The reason I say every one of us ought to vote for this is because this institution needs this power. This institution is charged under the Constitution with protecting the welfare of the American people and expanding the opportunities of our people.

To do so, as the gentlewoman from Wyoming has observed, we need to gather information, and in the conduct of gathering that information, it must be our ability to compel people to testify, to come before the Congress of the United States and tell us facts that we need.

Now, my Republican friends, when they were in charge, thought there was some type of wrongdoing, which resulted in the loss of four lives, tragically, in Benghazi, Libya. They had eight separate hearings on that issue, the last of which was the select committee led by Trey Gowdy of South Carolina. Every one of those committees reached the same conclusion, but there were eight of them.

Madam Speaker, perhaps some of my Republican friends will recall that Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State during that time, appeared for 11 hours before one of these committees, the select committee.

Madam Speaker, I have a speech here that deals with what the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Meadows, has done. I have chosen not to give this speech because the issue, in my view, is not what Meadows has done, but clearly in contempt, as the gentlewoman from Wyoming pointed out so factually, but it is about this institution, about whether or not a President or anybody else can simply say, ``I will not testify,'' and then take months and months and months.

Now, the gentleman who just spoke, the gentleman from Indiana, laments the fact that we have this committee. But the gentleman from Indiana voted against forming an equally numbered committee to be set up to adjudge this issue. He voted against that, as did his Republican colleagues, save a few. And now he comes and says, Oh, my goodness, this is not what I wanted. But like so many of his colleagues, he voted against what he says he wanted.

Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Indiana who just spoke voted against holding in contempt Steve Bannon not because of any executive privilege. He was a private citizen, not a member of the President's Cabinet. And the gentleman from Indiana voted against having him honor a subpoena of the Congress of the United States.

Yes, it ought to be noted that, at the time of the insurrection, we had a vote on whether to confirm what court after court after court had said was a legitimate election. He voted against certifying the election of the President of the United States. So I am not surprised that the gentleman from Indiana does not want to see this subpoena honored because, Madam Speaker, I believe that he fears the information that would be brought forward. Fearing the truth is not an excuse for not honoring a subpoena of this Congress.

So, again, it is not just simply the actions of Mr. Meadows that are at issue here. What is at issue here is what power does the Congress have to get the information it needs--in this case, the most important information it needs to achieve one of its most important objectives, which the gentlewoman from Wyoming has not only talked about but has shown extraordinary courage in standing up to her party. She is, after all, the former chair of the Republican Conference, the daughter of a Vice President of the United States and former Secretary of Defense and former minority whip of this House, who has shown extraordinary courage in the face of almost united opposition on her side of the aisle, leading to her removal from the position she held.

Would that all of us all the time have the courage of our convictions that the gentlewoman from Wyoming has shown.

So I say to my colleagues, all 434 or 433 of us here----

I do not yield.

Madam Speaker, first let me say that I respect the gentleman's service in the United States Navy as I respect all of our men and women in the Armed Forces of the United States.

Let me end as I began. All of us ought to vote for this motion to hold somebody in contempt who refuses to come forth, who is clearly and, obviously, in contempt of the Congress of the United States. I urge every Member on behalf of this institution, not on behalf of any political party; on behalf of our democracy, not on behalf of Democrats; on behalf of the Constitution of

the United States to vote ``yea'' on this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Doreen Dotzler, the Deputy Chief of the Office of Official Reporters, as she retires after twenty-three years of service to the House in the Office of the Clerk.

A Minnesota native, Doreen first came to Congress in 1998, working as a House stenographer covering committee assignments for the Clerk's Office. From 2001 to 2014, she served as a stenographer on the House Floor, and then transitioned to a Senior Official Reporter Position before taking on her current role in 2019. Among a great many other responsibilities, over the last seven years, Doreen has read every single word spoken on the House Floor, and over her career she has borne witness to countless historic moments in this chamber. It is in no small part because of her dedication, her knowledge of Congressional procedure, and her attention to detail that the daily Congressional Record over her tenure has been consistently accurate and reliable.

After previously delaying her retirement to extend her public service, Doreen leaves her post this year after a distinguished tenure in support of the House and its work. This institution and the American people it serves have greatly benefitted from her work, and I hope all of my colleagues will join me in extending my heartfelt thanks to Doreen and wishing her and her husband Terry and their family the very best as she retires.