Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I thank the chair of the Appropriations Committee for yielding me 1 minute.

I rise to say, of course, everybody is going to vote for this bill. I wish I believed that.

Madam Speaker, this bill is a demonstration of the failure of 535 adults elected by their fellow citizens to act responsibly. Obviously, of those 535, a number have acted responsibly, have worked to get the job done.

There are really only 12 bills that need to pass the Congress. There are many other bills that are important bills and should pass the Congress that I voted for and make life better for America.

How is that?

I thank the gentleman, who is my friend, and I thank him for that.

As I was saying, this is a failure. We knew that these 12 bills have to pass. Why? Because if they do not, government shuts down. It stops serving the American people. It stops maintaining security and health and welfare of our people. So we know these bills have to pass.

But notwithstanding that, year after year after year, we come to this point where we are adopting a CR. It is really a CI, congressional irresponsibility.

Now let me say that I generally speak of the Congress, but very frankly, Madam Speaker, we have exercised our responsibility in this House. We passed 9 of the 12 appropriation bills and sent them to the Senate.

The Senate, Madam Speaker, has not sent a single bill to the House, not passed a single appropriations bill through the United States Senate. They have passed through some in committee.

I heard my friend Tom Cole speaking earlier on the rule. He is my friend, and he is a Member I respect. He is a member of the Appropriations Committee and the Rules Committee. He is a Member who respects this institution. But I disagree with him very much about why we are at a CR. We passed overwhelmingly 75 percent of the appropriation bills before August 1 and sent them to the Senate. They have neither acted on those bills nor have they acted on their own bills and asked to go to conference.

So we find ourselves at the 11th hour, as we did on September 30-- although we passed the CR a little before September 30--without having funded the government.

The gentleman referred to the fact that we control both Houses. Frankly, nobody controls the United States Senate. We are in the majority by one. But, unfortunately, in the United States Senate, you need not a majority; you need a supermajority. So the minority can defeat the majority.

The minority can defeat the majority in the United States Senate. That is an appalling place for our democracy to be. I have written an op-ed in Time magazine on that issue, and it has been distributed to many Members.

Mr. Cole made an assessment about why the CR is coming to the floor today with just hours to go before it expires. His assessment was not correct. The reason we have not gotten, as the gentlewoman has pointed out, to even the opportunity to discuss a resolution of the differences between the House and the Senate on spending levels and the objects of that spending is because Senate Republicans have refused to negotiate and made as a condition precedent--as we lawyers say, something that has to happen before you do something else--that we resolve all the riders.

Now, for any of us who have been involved in the appropriation process for any period of time, the riders are almost always the last items to be resolved, invariably. I served as an active member of the Appropriations Committee for 23 years, and for the last 16 years, I have been very much involved in working with the Appropriations Committee to get these bills passed.

Because of the refusal to even sit down and determine how much money we will spend overall, which is called in our jargon 302(a) numbers, the chairman has been unable to get to a discussion of the differences so that they could be resolved. If you can't discuss, you can't resolve.

So for Mr. Cole, frankly, to have intimated that somehow it was the Democrats that couldn't do it, it takes two to tango, and frankly, one of the partners in the Senate doesn't want to tango until something happens that almost always happens at the end.

The timing for the consideration of this CR resulted not from the majority's focus on passing critical legislation to help the American people get ahead, the Build Back Better Act, the infrastructure bill which, by the way, only 13 Republicans voted for, but my speculation is at least half of them are going to take credit for what was done in that bill, maybe all of them. It is as a result, this failure, of the minority's determination to slow down the work of Congress so that such legislation is delayed.

As a matter of fact, the minority leader of the United States Senate said exactly that. He said that he would not consider negotiating on the CR until Build Back Better was done, which means he is prepared to shut down the government. I think that is probably not true. I don't think he wants to shut down the government. I hope he doesn't want to shut down the government.

He wants to gum up the works on Build Back Better. I get that. He is opposed to it. He doesn't like it. He thinks it is the wrong priorities. That is an honest position to take. I think it is incorrect, but it is honest. But don't do it by playing games with the appropriation process.

In my view, the Senate treats the appropriation process as a back- burner issue. When we get to it, we will get to it, but we have a lot of other things we want to do first. For the last 10, 11 months, that is what the case has been.

To dissemble and derail the legislative process using every tool available to them to prohibit Congress from doing exactly what the American people are looking for us to do is not responsible. How sad. How shameful that reality is.

I agree that it is unfortunate that we have to take up another stopgap measure this week to keep this government operating. If it were based upon whether this is the right thing to do in terms of substance, I would vote ``no.'' But it absolutely is the right thing to do in terms of process.

But the chair is absolutely right; we need to pass an omnibus. I would hope that every Republican after, hopefully, passing this piece of legislation today

or tomorrow will then address how we are going to have an omnibus, how we are going to deal with the problems, how we are going to give the government agencies that which they need to meet new challenges that were not available to us a year ago and so they could not be addressed.

It is extremely disappointing that Senate Republicans are blocking progress toward full-year appropriations that will enable our government to serve the American people. I happen to believe that the ranking member, Senator Shelby, wants to see an omnibus passed. I believe that. But I believe the tactics of the Republican leadership in the Senate are not to do so until they get what they want.

That is dangerous for our country, and it is extraordinarily inefficient for the 2 million people who are waiting to see what we are doing. That is what they are focused on, not the job, not the priorities, not the dangers, but what is happening: Is the government going to fund us on Saturday? On Saturday, are we going to be able to operate?

There are few certainties in Washington, Madam Speaker, but one of them has now become that Congress will not complete the appropriation process by the start of the fiscal year. I have tried to make that happen every year that I have been majority leader. The chair of this committee, Rosa DeLauro, did everything she could to pass 12 appropriation bills by the August 1 deadline. If we had had any help on the Republican side, we would have done it--any help.

Now, we have only a four-vote margin over here, so on some of the bills that were more controversial for one reason or another, we needed some help. I will remind my friend--and I dearly thank him for yielding me the time. He knew it was going to be a somewhat extended discussion, but I thank him for that. It reflects back to how this institution used to operate, frankly, and I appreciate it. But he knows that when the Republican side was in the majority, and they could not get the majority of votes on fiscal issues, they looked to this side of the aisle. We always helped and made it happen; maybe not 100 percent of us, but a large enough amount so that the important fiscal issues would be dealt with and passed.

Only six times over the past 20 years has Congress come within 3 months of this deadline, the end of the fiscal year.

Now, I could go on for some period of time talking about Mr. Cole. He said the majority wasn't serious. We are very serious. We have been the ones that opened up government after it was shut down for some 35 days when we took over from the Republican leadership two Congresses ago. We can do better.

For Mr. Cole to say that we were spending time pandering to the American people by passing the Build Back Better Act or passing the bipartisan infrastructure act, I hope he reflects upon that statement and says, no, that was wrong. Yes, we focused on Build Back Better because we think it is important for the American people, but we had already passed the appropriation bills. They were already in the Senate ready to be acted upon, and we were ready to act in response.

Madam Speaker, this is the result of the inability of the Congress to work. The House worked. Republicans and Democrats, this House can work. Maybe sometimes I don't agree with what it does, and maybe sometimes my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't agree with what it does, but it works. It can pass legislation.

The Senate is not working, and it is hurting our country.

We should all resolve, however we vote on this CR, we should all resolve, hopefully, all of us--and I am a good friend of the ranking member, Ms. Granger. I think she wants to get this bill done. By ``this bill,'' I am talking about omnibus, all 12 appropriation bills. I think she wants to get that done. But I am not sure that she has been empowered by her leadership to do so.

We can have differences, and we have a way of resolving those differences. Ultimately, we vote. But if we keep putting it off, putting it off, putting it off, it undermines the credibility of the United States, the confidence that people have in our country, the confidence that our workers have in our stewardship of the leadership of this country, and the people's confidence. So we ought to resolve that we stop this.

The Republicans, through Mr. Cole, have talked about a motion to recommit. It mirrors the unserious nature of their opposition. Why do I say that? Because their motion to recommit has nothing to do with the funding of government. It has nothing to do with our responsibility to ensure that government continues to work on behalf of the American people. Rather, it would send this bill back to committee and would not possibly be able to act in a timely fashion that some 30 hours from now, I guess 31\1/2\ hours from now, government would shut down.

I would have understood perhaps a motion that would have said we are going to fund government at this level, or we are going to fund this objective and not that objective, but that is not what it did, totally irrelevant to the appropriations process bill. They may think it is an important issue. I get that. But it doesn't have anything to do with this issue.

Very frankly, that is exactly what the Senate has been doing on the Republican side, irrelevant issues, not the appropriations process. So we find ourselves now at a time when we must pass this CR.

I am not in love with this CR, but in a world of alternatives, there should be none for any of us. All of us should have the courage to be responsible. Madam Speaker, all of us should have the courage to say there is no alternative, and after we pass this bill and the Senate passes this bill, get down to the work between now and February 18.

I would hope we could pass an omnibus appropriation bill including the work of the gentleman from California, the gentlewoman from Connecticut, and all the rest of us on the priorities that we want to pursue as an American people and the investments that we want to make in achieving those objectives. I hope we do that.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, pending Senate passage of the CR tonight without amendment, the House will not be in session tomorrow--I want to reiterate, pending passage of the CR tonight. If the CR is not passed, we will be in session tomorrow at 9.

If the Senate fails to act, as I just said, we will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business and expect to vote on some of the postponed suspensions. Members are encouraged to keep their schedules flexible as we work to fully fund government and prevent a shutdown at 12 midnight tomorrow night.

Next week, on Monday, pending Senate action on full government funding and H.R. 6119, the Further Extending Government Act, being signed into law, the House is no longer expected to meet. This is a change from our previously announced schedule. We will not be in session Monday, assuming we have funded the government.

On Tuesday, the House will meet at 12 p.m. for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

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

On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business, as was previously scheduled.

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

Additionally, the House will pass H.R. 4350, the National Defense Authorization Act, again, a second time, to provide our troops with the pay they deserve and our military with the tools it needs to carry out its missions safely and effectively, keep America safe, and keep the peace.

Again, I will reiterate that is the second time we will pass this version. As I understand it, it will be the conference-agreed version of the defense bill. This has been a discussion between the House and the Senate.

The House will also consider H.R. 8363, the Protecting Our Democracy

Act, to reassert Congress' role as a coequal branch of government by addressing the vulnerabilities exploited by the former President and his enablers to weaken our democracy, undermine the rule of law, and subvert the systems of checks and balances enshrined by the Framers in our Constitution.

The House may also consider legislation to address the debt limit and prevent a manufactured economic catastrophe that would derail our recovery from the pandemic and cause needless suffering to millions of American families.

I would reiterate that while we don't know the exact date at which America will be unable to pay its bills, we will address this next week, hopefully, in a bipartisan fashion.

Moreover, the House will be ready to act on H.R. 5376, the Build Back Better Act, should the Senate amend it and send it back to the House.

Lastly, of course, additional legislative items are possible.

We have a list of suspension bills, which has been announced and has been on our calendar for consideration. Those would be the pieces of legislation with which we would deal, pending action by the Senate.

Well, I think we will probably have to wait to see exactly what is going to happen. As the gentleman knows, we have passed a debt limit twice through this House. There has been a problem in the Senate, and I would expect Senator Schumer and Senator McConnell will be discussing that in the next few days.

Senator McConnell has made it very clear that he thinks that failing to protect the full faith and credit of the United States of America would have dire adverse consequences, so he has made it very clear he thinks we ought not to do that. Senator Schumer has done the same.

Essentially, my answer to the gentleman is, we have passed it twice in one form or another, so we can pass it and will pass it once the Senate agrees on a version. The two leaders are discussing that, I am sure. Now, I haven't talked to either one of them, but that is my premise.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I agree with his comments. It is my understanding, although I haven't talked personally, but it is my understanding that introducing the conference-agreed bill in the House, and passing it through the House will, under Senate procedures, facilitate them resolving this issue, hopefully, in a positive way next week.

Madam Speaker, I agree with the gentleman. We have talked to the sponsor, and we have talked to others. I expect this bill to be on the floor next week.

If the gentleman would yield?

With respect to the issues that I think we have broad agreement on, the cliffs that were created on Medicare and sequester are not good policy, and we ought to act on those. We are very seized of that issue, and hopefully, we can resolve something next week.

The gentleman mentions doing it in a bipartisan fashion. The good news is, and I know the gentleman will agree, that earlier this year, we delayed to January 1 of this coming year these items, particularly the 2 percent sequester by a vote of 90-2 in the Senate, meaning only two people voted against it, and in the House, 384. We were unanimous on our side, but you had the overwhelming majority on your side as well. So by 384-38, we extended that.

I am hopeful that we will do that again in a bipartisan way because not to do so, I think, would be very harmful to the medical community, to the country, and, obviously, to patients that are served by the medical community.

I am hopeful that we can resolve that as early as next week.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the Republican whip, for the purpose of an inquiry as to the balance of the day.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his question. Let me read through this so I reach every point that I think each Member needs to know.

Following the next vote, the House will stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair. As all Members know, we are waiting for some technical pursuits of the budget and reconciliation process to be completed.

The House has completed, as I think all of you know, 1 hour and 40 minutes of the 2 hours of debate on the Build Back Better Act, so there will remain 10 minutes on each side prior to the passage of the Build Back Better Act.

We are waiting, as the gentleman indicated, for the completion of a privileged scrub from the Senate Parliamentarians necessary for the reconciliation process.

Once we have received that information, the Rules Committee and Mr. McGovern will meet to report a rule with an additional manager's amendment to make technical corrections to the bill, which will be considered on the floor so that the Parliamentarian's concerns will be met in that technical amendment.

We are also awaiting the final two committee estimates from CBO. We expect CBO to have estimates--and I want to make it clear that this may not be the CBO score of the overall piece of legislation. We have just heard from those who are going to be reading that through the night, I know. We are also waiting for the final two committee estimates.

As I said, I want to thank the Senate Parliamentarian, who has been working around the clock--their office has been working around the clock to get us to where I think we are now.

I want to also thank CBO, who has been working extraordinarily hard. This is a large piece of legislation, which I guess is an understatement, and it is also complex.

Having said that, obviously, CBO has been working for months-- literally August, September, October, and November--on this legislation. We appreciate the hard work of the Parliamentarian and the Director of CBO and their staffs.

We are working toward completing the Build Back Better Act today, and more information on the schedule will be provided as soon as it becomes available.

Let me add, if I can, Mr. Whip, it is my hope that we will complete this legislation today so that this would be the last legislative day prior to the Thanksgiving work period.

I want to make sure everybody understands, however, we will complete Build Back Better before we go home. I am hopeful and believe--I think most Members are hopeful--that we can do that tonight, whether you are for it or against it, that we can do it tonight, and that is my effort to achieve that objective. I know it is the Speaker's effort as well.

I yield to my friend, the whip.

There would be debate on the rule, and then the 20 minutes of remaining debate on the bill itself; 10 minutes on your side and 10 minutes on our side.

I want to say, we do expect to have a full table of the score. As those of you who have pored over CBO scores, you know there is a number of pages--sometimes shorter, 15, it can be longer than that--of prose in explanation of the score. What we will have is the score itself, as I understand it, a summary table of the score. We may not have the prose by that time.

I want to make it clear to you that that is not necessary for us to pass it. It is necessary, and it will be in place, before it goes to the Senate under the reconciliation rules.

The Energy and Commerce has been done, so we do have that. But the other two will be in the table, correct.

Yes, that is my understanding.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is November 18, 2021. Those of us who serve in the Congress of the United States on this date will be able to tell our children and our children's children that we were there when the United States Congress passed one of the most transformational bills in the history of the Congress for the people.

Tonight, House Democrats will vote on the Build Back Better Act as will House Republicans, legislation to transform our country by making opportunities available and equitable for all Americans.

Its name, of course, refers to the broad recognition that too many Americans are just barely getting by in our economy, and we simply cannot go back to the way things were before the pandemic.

We have to ensure our people can access the tools and resources they need, not just to survive, but to succeed.

This bill does so by making investments in four key areas.

First, it will invest in childcare, universal pre-K, and home care so that more Americans can get back to the workforce and grow our economy.

Secondly, it further expands the Affordable Care Act coverage, reduces out-of-pocket costs, caps insulin at $35 for everyone, and finally gives Medicare the tools and authority to negotiate lower drug prices for seniors just as we do for veterans.

Thirdly, it will bring down the everyday costs for housing and higher education that make it harder for Americans to secure a place in our middle class.

And fourth, the Build Back Better Act makes the largest commitment toward addressing the climate crisis ever considered by any Nation in history.

Mr. Speaker, in all four of these critical areas, the Build Back Better Act will make transformational investments that will help more Americans access opportunities and achieve greater economic security.

This bill is truly for the people, not just those who have much, but those who have too little.

Many Americans are looking at the investments this bill would make in America's workers and families and asking: How are we going to afford it?

My friends on the other side of the aisle have raised that and I am sure will raise it again.

First and foremost, Mr. Speaker, this bill does not raise taxes from households or small businesses earning less than $400,000 a year.

In fact, the Build Back Better Act would provide a tax cut--contrary to the rhetoric I have heard on the other side of the aisle--to 80 percent of American households next year.

Not only that, but it will raise revenue, according to the Treasury Department and outside analyses.

My Republican friends should be excited that we give a tax cut essentially to 80 percent of Americans, not just 1 percent. By most estimates, this bill reduces the deficit. This bill reduces the deficit. It also ensures that all of us will pay our fair share to support our democracy.

The impacts of this historic legislation will be reflected in the greater economic security of millions of families and in the growth and competitiveness of a robust American economy.

President Biden said, in fact, very truthfully, this will be transformational, and it will be measured in the deeper sense of hope that Americans will have when they see their economy working for them instead of holding them back.

I am hopeful that the Senate acts quickly to pass this bill under reconciliation even while Republicans all sit on the sidelines on this historic moment, just as all but 13 of them did when we passed a transformational infrastructure investment bill, which will make America competitive in the 21st century and make businesses in America grow and succeed.

Democrats will not rest until all Americans have the tools to build back better, to access opportunities to get ahead, to achieve real economic security, and to reach for the American Dream that has been this country's promise for generations.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, as I said at the beginning, is for the people, all the people, the little people, the big people, all the people.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to be able to say on November 18, 2021, I voted for that legislation which made America, as John Kennedy said, a great country even greater.

Madam Speaker, I think all of us would wish that we were not here on a subject of this gravity, on a subject so present in our society at large: The exhortation to violence to accomplish one's objectives.

I have been sitting here since we started the debate, which was about 45 minutes ago. So many get up and say, ``I do not support violence,'' ``I do not support this action,'' but I will do nothing about it.

Now, of course, they don't say the last sentence. They just don't do anything.

As I sat there as Mr. McCarthy was talking, I was thinking that he was getting up in my face and up in Nancy Pelosi's face. I think that is what he was doing. I expect that in vigorous debate.

They focused on a non-analogous action by a Member of this House, the chairman of the Financial Services Committee. Why did they do that? Because there is no analogous event to this one. In the 40-plus years that I have served here, there has never been a case like this. Never.

This is not about control, as the majority leader would represent. It is about decency, democracy, and security, and the rule of law.

We have seen, Madam Speaker, over and over again in our politics that words matter, and actions matter even more. Vitriol, the glorification and promotion of violence, hate speech, and the failure to condemn all of these when they occur have created an atmosphere in our country, which sadly has now and too frequently been visited on this floor, that is not conducive to the exercise of free constitutional politics.

A former leader of my party Dick Gephardt said that democracy was a substitute for war, that we should settle our differences peacefully and nonviolently.

The speech that has been the subject of this resolution whittles away at the rule of law and the civility needed for constructive debate.

Indeed, violent words and images are too often a precursor to the practice of violence. We have seen that. We saw it on January 6 as the President of the United States incited and urged people to come to the Congress to stop democracy in its tracks.

And people wanted to hang the Vice President of the United States as a result of those words because he was not doing that because he thought it was not legal. He wanted to follow the law.

My friend Gabby Giffords and Senator Kelly know that all too well, that violent words and images are too often a precursor, as does Representative Speier who worked for the late Representative Leo Ryan and was herself badly injured in the shooting that took his life. My friend, the Republican whip, and his family know that words can encourage and result in violence. Last month, the family and constituents of Sir David Amess in the United Kingdom experienced the same pain.

All of us who were in this Capitol on January 6 and those who stood in defense of it know that pain.

The loved ones of Officers Sicknick, Liebengood, Smith, DeFreytag, and Hashida carry that pain with them every day.

Officer Evans' family, as well, has been carrying that pain since April.

Madam Speaker, so do the families of elected officials, journalists, and civil society leaders who have been killed or maimed by political violence across the world incited by rhetoric that is rationalized as acceptable in the political environment. And then, oh, I don't support violence. I don't know how that happened. Yes, I said in front of the White House, ``Go down to the Capitol,'' and although it wasn't the exact words of ``be violent,'' it is what those who came down here expected the exhortation to be.

It would be naive, Madam Speaker, to suppose that we can eradicate the promotion of violence in wider society, either in our country or abroad.

Such evil has always existed, and the internet and social media make it easier to disseminate that malicious type of speech.

But constitutional parliamentarians worldwide have long understood that in order to maintain the level of civility required to carry out the business of legislating for the people, we must have rules of decorum and limits on speech that would cause civil debate to devolve into uncivil attacks and political violence.

That is why we have rules in this House to enforce decorum and ensure civility. That is why we have rules of conduct, which the chairman of the Ethics Committee read a little earlier. It should be and is undebatable that this conduct violated that rule.

Those rules apply not only to this floor but everywhere a sitting Member engages in work relating to his or her service as a Representative.

When those rules were written, they did not anticipate that a Member would threaten violence directly against another Member. Not because it has never happened. A Congressman from South Carolina nearly beat to death a Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Sumner, because he wanted to abolish slavery. That, of course, was a crime.

In some countries threatening public officials is a crime. They didn't have to spell that out explicitly because it has always been understood that such behavior is unacceptable in this institution and incompatible with our service.

Indeed, any kindergartner, frankly, Madam Speaker, will tell you that such behavior is wrong anywhere.

The actions of Representative Gosar this week and in weeks previously--much like the actions of Representative Greene earlier this year--would convey a dangerous lesson to our children and teenagers that the opposite is true, that threatening violence against those with whom one disagrees is acceptable. It is not. That bullying and encouraging one's followers to menace another person or another group is somehow compatible with citizenship in a democracy and indeed a civilized society. It is not.

The resolution before us today is necessary because we in this House who speak for the American people must reflect, as the Speaker said, the highest standards of American society.

I just came from the Speaker's office not too long ago. I don't know how many of you have been there, but over the door it says it is Robert H. Michel Rooms.

I had the opportunity to serve with Robert Michel. Robert Michel was a Republican, and he was from Peoria, Illinois. He was one of the finest, most decent men that I have known, not just serving in the Congress of the United States, but have known. He said this: ``Civility means being tough without being mean, being witty without being malicious, and . . . believing in the power of reason to influence public debate while still being aware of the power''--hear these last words--``being aware of the power of irrationality in public life.''

This resolution, Madam Speaker, is necessary because when Members of Congress and other elected officials speak and act, our constituents and followers give great weight to our words and actions.

It is a way for them to rationalize unacceptable behavior as was done on January 6. It is disgusting, Madam Speaker, whenever someone out in the world tweets a threat of violence or hateful content.

But when a Member of this House does so, no matter how you rationalize it, no matter how you try to put lipstick on that pig, it is a threat of violence.

What Representative Gosar did last week is not just worthy of censure, it demands it.

And for anyone who threatens to apply the same standard to Democrats in the future, as Ms. Speier said, I am with you. This is not about Republicans or Democrats; this is about decency. This is about security for our Members. This is about democracy, not violent overthrow or opposition.

I, for one, will join you in enforcing that standard on any Democrat who violates it. But I will tell you this, Madam Speaker, the analogies that the Republicans have been making limp badly.

I am certain my fellow Democrats will do the same. Because this is not about party, it is not about politics, it is not about partisanship. It is about decorum, civility, safety, and, yes, the rule of law that was trampled upon on January 6.

But this is not about January 6. This is about this incident of a Member using whatever medium you want to say on the public dime threatening and showing the killing of a Member of this House. Can't that appall you, even that act? Do you have no shame? Madam Speaker, those are the questions that I would ask.

No one--Democrat or Republican--ought to be allowed to engage in the promotion of violence against a fellow Member, or indeed, a fellow American. Because we know where the glorification and promotion of violence leads, and we have seen it. We have seen it this year and in previous years.

Piercing tweets become sharp knives.

Fiery words bring out deadly firearms.

And cartoon killing begets real life bloodshed.

This resolution specifically addresses Representative Gosar's actions, but it also reflects more generally, Madam Speaker, what I hope is a sentiment shared by Members from both parties that we have seen too much of violent speech in our politics and in this country, and it must end.

In February, when we considered a resolution relating to the violence-promoting and undecorous actions of Representative Greene, I recalled the famous words of Edmund Burke, who viewed service in his nation's Parliament as the highest calling.

He said the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men and women--he did not add that but would today, certainly--that good men and good women do nothing.

Once again, the Republican leadership in this House has chosen to do nothing. It is interesting because a far lesser offense resulted in the removal of a Republican by the Republicans from committee, Steve King of Iowa.

So, again, the House, in light of that void, must take action.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on both sides of the aisle to uphold a standard that should be critical to us all. Some modicum of respect for those who are political opponents, Madam Speaker, and some restraint is in the way we depict them and ourselves.

Vote ``yes'' on this resolution.

Madam Speaker, by adopting this rule, we are now lining up at the runway in preparation to land the plane on Build Back Better.

As we wait for the CBO to complete its work and produce its analysis, which I believe will confirm an estimate from the White House based on the Joint Committee on Taxation's analysis of the bill's revenue impact, and the preliminary scoring from CBO that this bill is fully paid for.

Now, I am not saying it doesn't spend money. It does not create debt. When the Republicans passed their tax bill, of course, they gave themselves a ceiling of $1.5 trillion that they did not pay for on the assertion that that tax cut would pay for itself.

The problem is none of their tax cuts have ever paid for themselves. None. Zero. Zip. This bill is paid for. And what it will do for the American people will be life changing for working families and moms and children in this country.

Today, we are going to pass a rule, which will allow for the consideration of this bipartisan infrastructure bill to invest $1.2 trillion.

I was talking about Build Back Better. I am now talking about the bipartisan infrastructure bill, 69 Senators voting for the bipartisan infrastructure bill, which will make an extraordinary difference in the lives of the people in this country and, as importantly, job creation in this country, a million jobs per year. That is what this rule will do.

This bill will help our businesses create millions of good jobs here in our country, and it will make significant investments in promoting the deployment of clean energy technologies and making our infrastructure more resilient against climate change. That is what this bill will do.

And again, I am referring to the bipartisan infrastructure act passed with 69 votes in the United States Senate, almost half of the Republicans voting for it. This legislation will mean that our majority has delivered a major victory for the American people in a bipartisan way, and passing this rule will mean that next up is the transformational legislation to invest in America's human infrastructure--our children, our families, and opportunities for the most vulnerable in our country to access the American Dream.

Unlike our Republican friends who passed their tax bill, which was about 85 to 90 percent of it going to the wealthiest Americans, this bill deals with all Americans, particularly those who are the most vulnerable, most challenged, and having the most difficult time in our country.

So let's get this done today and show the American people that their Congress works for them. We ought to vote ``yes'' on this.

Now, let me say what this rule provides for: a bill which will add 1\1/2\ million jobs per year. This bill, the Build Back Better bill, will add 1\1/2\ million jobs per year and, on average, across the whole decade, increase labor force participation and accelerate the return to full employment; increase our total GDP by $3 trillion throughout the next decade; keep prices stable and decrease inflationary pressures as we continue our recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Nation has long underinvested in its infrastructure.

Now, I am sure as my friends across the aisle will remember, in 2016, President Trump was then campaigning for office, and he pledged to the American people that he would present a trillion-dollar infrastructure program for this country. 2017, no such infrastructure bill. 2018, no such infrastructure bill. 2019, no such infrastructure bill. But in early 2019, the President said $1 trillion is not enough; we ought to do $2 trillion. That was President Trump. $2 trillion was his suggestion.

And we asked him: Mr. President, we will support that. Tell us how you think we ought to fund it. Oh, we have to fund it?

The President never came forth with either a bill or with funding for a bill. So we didn't pass that.

This President said, no, we do need infrastructure, and the figure that Trump used is not, certainly, what this country needs, but it is a very good start. So he sent down a bill to accomplish that objective. That bill was not the one we passed because eight Senators from the Republican side of the aisle and eight Senators from the Democratic side of the aisle got together and talked about what we can agree upon.

I hear so much, particularly when I have colloquies with the minority whip about bipartisanship, that we ought to come together, that we ought to work together. Well, eight Senators on the Republican side and eight Senators on the Democratic side did exactly that. And what happened? They then went down to the White House; they talked to the President; and the President worked with them, and they agreed.

So this is a bill that the President, 19 Republican Senators, and 50 Democratic Senators agreed was good for America. And that is what we are enabling tonight.

The Nation, unfortunately, has long underinvested in its infrastructure and social needs and has been slow to respond to the threat posed by climate change. Our national security apparatus, including the four-star generals who lead our various service arms, has said the most existential threat to the security of the United States of America is climate change, global warming. This bill deals with that existential threat.

The policies being considered would direct the benefits of the stronger growth to lower income Americans. Now, that may be why it is sort of not what my Republican friends think ought to be done. Although the whip talked about that somewhat, that is not what their bill did.

It addresses the long-running skewing of income and wealth distribution in America, the richest country on Earth, where we have so many people in poverty, so many children who don't have a good education, so many children who don't have the healthcare they need. This bill addresses those issues.

On November 3, 2021, according to the Economic Policy Institute, ``The Build Back Better Act's macroeconomic boost looks more valuable by the day.'' They said their analysis shows that the U.S. economy is not overheating due to too much fiscal relief and recovery provided earlier this year. Expert after expert says that.

Did we have pent-up demand? We did. Are we having a supply side problem because of the pandemic? That is absolutely accurate. The Build Back Better agenda will ease bottlenecks and improve the resiliency of our supply chains.

It also boosts long-term growth and economic security through public investments and deeper social insurance. It provides a macroeconomic insurance policy against aggregate demand growing too slowly in coming years.

An open letter from Nobel laureates in support of the economic recovery agenda said this: ``Success in the 21st century will require building upon the bipartisan infrastructure deal that has passed the Senate, which prioritizes investments in our Nation's `hard' infrastructure.'' That is what this rule will provide for.

Furthermore, they say: ``The President's Build Back Better agenda employs a broader conception of infrastructure by making critical investments in human capital, the care economy, research and development, public education, and more, which will reduce families' costs.''

``Because this agenda invests in long-term economic capacity,'' they went on to say, ``and will enhance the ability to more Americans to participate productively in the economy, it will ease longer term inflationary pressures.''

That was Nobel laureates talking about this economic recovery plan. It was signed by 15 of those Nobel laureates.

Madam Speaker, the last 20 months have presented our Nation with challenges we could neither have foreseen nor envisioned. A global pandemic took the lives of nearly three-quarters of a million Americans. If you went out to the lawn surrounding the George Washington Monument, you saw rows and rows and rows of white flags indicating those over 700,000, almost now 750,000 Americans who lost their lives as a result of this pandemic.

We responded in a bipartisan way, and because of it, we did not go into a depression. Because of it, we saved literally hundreds of thousands of lives, maybe millions of lives.

Because of our investment, we saved businesses. Because of our investment, we saved jobs for literally millions of Americans.

From February 2020 to February 2021, 2.3 million women in our country left the workforce, in many cases, to care for children who had to stay home from school or care for a sick loved one. Very frankly, this bill, as well as the Build Back Better Act, will address the critical shortage of childcare in this country.

Thankfully, because of the swift development and deployment of lifesaving vaccines, our economy is coming back. I don't know whether any of my Republican friends mentioned that we created over 500,000 jobs last month. This administration has enjoyed over 5 million new jobs in America. That is twice the number of jobs that Mr. Trump had in his best year. And 7 million more jobs, because Mr. Trump in his last year lost 2 million jobs--now that was because of the pandemic, we understand that. But to say that 500,000 new jobs is not an economy that is growing and providing sustenance for its people.

The delta variant continues to impact, of course, that recovery, which is slower than we would like to see. Our economy, however, has brought back nearly 5 million jobs since President Biden took office: now 5.5 million jobs. Americans are getting back to work. And what this bill will do is to encourage the continuance of the growth of our economy, continue to grow the ability to educate and raise our children, the ability of women and single parents--male and female--to be in the workplace. We need their expertise, we need their talent, we need their energy. And providing safe, reliable, affordable childcare will make such a difference.

Madam Speaker, this bill that we provide for, being considered as we end

this debate, will help America grow. And the bill that the rule provides to consider at some time in the near future, will provide Americans with a better, safer, more secure life. For them, for their children, for their friends, and their neighbors, let's pass both of these bills.

Let's pass the bipartisan infrastructure framework tonight. And let us in the very near future, as this rule provides, pass the Build Back Better Act.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the minority whip.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for this opportunity to inform the Members of where we are. So many of us have been through this process before, and I know that every Member wants to have as much certainty about the schedule as possible. But, also, every Member understands that when we are at a period of time when we are trying to leave for a week and we have important legislation to do, that these events sometimes drag out.

So the schedule is this: After the next vote we are going to break for dinner. Members will be on notice that they will receive a 1-hour notice if we are going to return. As the House knows, we are scheduled to meet tomorrow as well, which we intend to do. So it is not unusual that we would go long before the last day, assuming that is the last day.

I want everybody to get the ramifications of assuming that tomorrow is the last day. We want to get two major pieces of legislation done. They are controversial pieces of legislation, we know, but we want to get those done. We are working on that. The other side has gone through that experience themselves.

Members should be on notice that we have an intention to break after this next vote for dinner, subject to an hour's notice to be back here, with the expectation that there may well be votes this evening. We are hopeful that those votes would be sooner rather than later in terms of going late into the night.

We will meet tomorrow at 9 o'clock and hope to complete the remainder of the business that was noted as possible for this week.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the question, and then we will conclude. We hope to have not only a JCT score but also CBO scores. As the gentleman knows, the overwhelming majority of the bill has been pending for some time. Obviously, the CBO has been reviewing the individual items for some time. We expect to have very close to most of the bill.

It does not need a CBO score. It does need a CBO score, however, when it goes to the Senate, as the gentleman knows. That would be our intention, to have as much information available to Members as we have in hand. We do intend to move forward with the bill.

We are working on that. We hope the CBO can accommodate that objective.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding and I thank him for his support. I want to thank the chairman of the committee as well for his agreeing to have this come to the floor, and I look forward to his support.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, I have talked to a lot of Members about this. The policies that we have regarding Cuba are subject to debate and subject to differences. While I think, Mr. Speaker, there are no differences--there are--in this Congress, that we are all for supporting those who seek democracy and who seek the benefits of freedom and who seek the welfare of their families associated with that freedom. I don't think there is a single Member who wasn't appalled by the way peaceful protesters in Cuba were brutally suppressed in July.

I doubt there is anyone here who is not concerned that such actions will be repeated this month when the next protests are scheduled to occur. So this is a very timely resolution because it anticipates that there will be another group of people who will have the courage to stand up and to speak up on behalf of freedom in their country.

There was a resolution passed by the United States Senate on August 3, 2021, although it doesn't exactly mirror our resolution. Frankly, our resolution is somewhat less specific in terms of criticism and in terms of policy.

Why? Because we wanted this to be about human rights. We wanted it to be about people who stand up for freedom. We wanted it to be another statement of the thousands that we have made in countries throughout this globe that suppress the rights of people and that imprison people because they try to express their views. But this resolution that was passed in the Senate was sponsored by my counterpart, the majority whip, Mr. Durbin; by Mr. Kaine from Virginia; Mr. Schatz from Hawaii; Mr. Coons from Delaware; Mr. Booker from New Jersey; Ms. Cortez Masto from Nevada; Mr. Brown from Ohio; Mr. Padilla from California; Mr. Warner from Virginia; Mr. Cardin from my own State of Maryland; Ms. Rosen from Nevada; Mr. Warnock from Georgia; Mr. Lujan from New Mexico, our former chair of the campaign committee; and Ms. Hassan from New Hampshire; along with many Republicans. My point is that this was a unanimous consent, so everybody was for it.

The vote we take on this resolution is a simple one. The text of the resolution is clear. It states that this House--all of us--stands in solidarity with Cubans seeking to express themselves and seek a redress of grievances from their leaders. It affirms that the Cuban people ought to be able to enjoy the same access to information and the internet as Americans and other free people do around the world. And it urges the Biden administration to find ways to promote freedom, human rights, and access to basic needs in Cuba.

I believe that these are goals we can support overwhelmingly. I understand that some Members believe that the text of this resolution does not include items on policy that they would like to have. I certainly think that is a legitimate concern, and there is no reason why we cannot have resolutions that speak to that. But this is singularly focused on the rights of people.

John Kennedy said that we will bear any burden to defend any peoples who essentially seek freedom. That is what this resolution does. It is simple and straightforward.

I have supported many of these policies as chairman of the Commission on Human Rights and the Helsinki Commission, where resolution after resolution said to Soviet satellites that the Helsinki signature of the Russians on that document demanded that they observe the human rights of those folks. This is a similar resolution.

I hope all Members would share my view that a strong, bipartisan, and united vote by this House will send a message to the people of Cuba that they are not alone, that the American people stand with those who speak out in peaceful protest, and that Democrats and Republicans stand together and in support of the freedoms they seek.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution. I hope that the valid concerns and differences Members have on both sides of the aisle when it comes to Cuba will not preclude us from agreeing that we ought to stand in solidarity with those who are seeking the same rights that we enjoy in this extraordinary country in which we live. That is why I will be voting an enthusiastic and strong ``yes'' on this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, who has been a dear friend of mine as his father was for a very long period of time. And we share in common a lot of things, but one of those things that we share in common is a great respect for Richard Trumka, a great appreciation for the leadership that Richard Trumka showed, not only in the labor movement but in our country as a citizen representing our best values.

And we share respect for the labor movement.

Richard Trumka, Madam Speaker, walked with the weight of America's workers on his shoulders, but he wore that weight lightly in one sense and with a great sense of responsibility in another sense.

He carried them with him always in his mind and in his soul. His life was devoted to the labor movement and to each and every worker who was part of the labor movement.

His loss, in my view, is a grievous one for our country, and he leaves behind a legacy for which we can all be grateful: the men and women in labor who have a better wage, a better place to work, and greater security because of Richard Trumka.

Thanks to Mr. Trumka, workers across the United States today have stronger representation and safer working conditions.

Madam Speaker, 12.5 million union members and countless others have looked up to him for decades as a force for our positive change, an unrivaled leader in the labor movement.

Few people epitomized the ideas of the workers' rights movement, which are also core values of the Democratic Party, in the way Mr. Trumka did. He was a fighter, but he was also a great tactician and strategist. Those, of course, are the determination and attributes that everyone who works hard ought to be able to get ahead and that working families ought to be able to access opportunities and economic security.

From the beginning of his career, first as a coal miner and then as president of the United Mine Workers of America, he was committed to forging closer ties between workers and their union representatives. He ultimately became president of the AFL-CIO because not only was he committed to do that, he did it. He accomplished it.

He made a difference for workers, for their families, and for America. He knew that union action was the greatest tool available to achieve labor reforms and to make economic security more attainable for workers and their families.

As American workers continue to face new challenges as a result of the pandemic, it is essential that policymakers continue to work closely with organized labor and leaders like Richard Trumka.

Madam Speaker, the COVID-19 pandemic has placed so many of our workers and their families in situations dangerous to their health and also to their economic well-being. More than ever, workers need champions for their rights, their fair wages, and their fair benefits, and they are missing that champion they called President Richard Trumka.

We need to ensure that workers continue to have a strong voice in Congress, and we need to do everything we can to keep them and their families safe and able to access opportunities.

Madam Speaker, in his last major speech, Mr. Trumka told Texas AFL- CIO members that inequality is the greatest threat to democracy. He said this: ``Without the right to vote and without the right to organize, there is no democracy.''

I share that view with Richard Trumka. Our Democratic House majority will not waver in our work to secure both the right to organize and the right to vote. They are really two of the same principle.

We look forward to working just as closely with Liz Shuler--I might say a historic figure in her own right, like our Speaker, who spoke a little while ago--the first woman to lead the AFL-CIO. She has worked alongside Richard Trumka for years, helping him realize his goals for the organization in its fight for workers' rights in this country. Richard Trumka's vision for the future was one of dignity and justice for all working Americans.

Madam Speaker, we remain committed to that vision and will continue to honor his memory by fighting to realize his dream for all working Americans.

God bless Richard Trumka, and may God keep his family in the hollow of his hand.

Madam Speaker, and Members of the House, last month, on the 10th anniversary of 9/11, former President George W. Bush delivered remarks commemorating the heroism of the crew and passengers of United Flight 93 in Pennsylvania.

The former President's words were a welcome reminder, Madam Speaker, of what it looks like for an American leader to call us together in unity. His words were compassionate, inspiring, and patriotic.

Madam Speaker, he and I have had many differences over the years when it comes to policy. During his Presidency, I opposed much of his governing agenda. He did the same, opposing many of Democrats' plans when we came into the majority in 2007.

We respected one another, we were able to work together with one another, and we both had at the center of our philosophy the best interests of the United States of America and its people. We always approached each other with civility, with seriousness, and with a shared respect for each other's patriotism.

We never questioned each other's love of our country or that we were doing what we thought was best for the safety and security of the American people.

I hope that President Bush's message will inspire my friends on the other side of the aisle, from the former President's own party and, indeed, all Americans and all of us, to remember what that kind of leadership looks like after 4 years of a President who did not call us to unity, who did not encourage civility or common cause, and who furthered our divides instead of bridged them.

I hope as well that we in this House can strive to heal the divisions in our country and embrace the kind of leadership that President Bush displayed last month and that together, as Democrats and Republicans, we can work toward a better tomorrow for all of our fellow Americans.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record President Bush's full remarks.

Remarks by President George W. Bush at Flight 93 National Memorial in

Commemoration of the Tenth Anniversary of 9/11 on September 11, 2021

``Thank you very much. Laura and I are honored to be with

you. Madam Vice President, Vice President Cheney. Governor

Wolf, Secretary Haaland, and distinguished guests:

``Twenty years ago, we all found--in different ways, in

different places, but all at the same moment--that our lives

would be changed forever. The world was loud with carnage and

sirens, and then quiet with missing voices that would never

be heard again. These lives remain precious to our country,

and infinitely precious to many of you. Today we remember

your loss, we share your sorrow, and we honor the men and

women you have loved so long and so well.

``For those too young to recall that clear September day,

it is hard to describe the mix of feelings we experienced.

There was horror at the scale of destruction, and awe at the

bravery and kindness that rose to meet it. There was shock at

the audacity of evil, and gratitude for the heroism and

decency that opposed it. In the sacrifice of the first

responders, in the mutual aid of strangers, in the solidarity

of grief and grace, the actions of an enemy revealed the

spirit of a people. And we were proud of our wounded nation.

``In these memories, the passengers and crew of Flight 93

must always have an honored place. Here the intended targets

became the instruments of rescue. And many who are now alive

owe a vast, unconscious debt to the defiance displayed in the

skies above this field.

``It would be a mistake to idealize the experience of those

terrible events. All that many people could initially see was

the brute randomness of death. All that many could feel was

unearned suffering. All that many could hear was God's

terrible silence. There are many who still struggle with a

lonely pain that cuts deep within.

``In those fateful hours, we learned other lessons as well.

We saw that Americans were vulnerable, but not fragile--that

they possess a core of strength that survives the worst that

life can bring. We learned that bravery is more common than

we imagined, emerging with sudden splendor in the face of

death. We vividly felt how every hour with our loved ones is

a temporary and holy gift. And we found that even the longest

days end.

``Many of us have tried to make spiritual sense of these

events. There is no simple explanation for the mix of

Providence and human will that sets the direction of our

lives. But comfort can come from a different sort of

knowledge. After wandering long and lost in the dark, many

have found they were actually walking, step by step, toward

grace.

``As a nation, our adjustments have been profound. Many

Americans struggled to understand why an enemy would hate us

with such zeal. The security measures incorporated into our

lives are both sources of comfort and reminders of our

vulnerability. And we have seen growing evidence that the

dangers to our country can come not only across borders, but

from violence that gathers within. There is little cultural

overlap between violent extremists abroad and violent

extremists at home. But in their disdain for pluralism, in

their disregard for human life, in their determination to

defile national symbols, they are children of the same foul

spirit. And it is our continuing duty to confront them.

``After 9/11, millions of brave Americans stepped forward

and volunteered to serve in the Armed Forces. The military

measures taken over the last 20 years to pursue dangers at

their source have led to debate. But one thing is certain: We

owe an assurance to all who have fought our nation's most

recent battles. Let me speak directly to veterans and people

in uniform: The cause you pursued at the call of duty is the

noblest America has to offer. You have shielded your fellow

citizens from danger. You have defended the beliefs of your

country and advanced the rights of the downtrodden. You have

been the face of hope and mercy in dark places. You have been

a force for good in the world. Nothing that has followed--

nothing--can tarnish your honor or diminish your

accomplishments. To you, and to the honored dead, our country

is forever grateful.

``In the weeks and months following the 9/11 attacks, I was

proud to lead an amazing, resilient, united people. When it

comes to the unity of America, those days seems distant from

our own. A malign force seems at work in our common life that

turns every disagreement into an argument, and every argument

into a clash of cultures. So much of our politics has become

a naked appeal to anger, fear, and resentment. That leaves us

worried about our nation and our future together.

``I come without explanations or solutions. I can only tell

you what I have seen.

``On America's day of trial and grief, I saw millions of

people instinctively grab for a neighbor's hand and rally to

the cause of one another. That is the America I know.

``At a time when religious bigotry might have flowed

freely, I saw Americans reject prejudice and embrace people

of Muslim faith. That is the nation I know.

``At a time when nativism could have stirred hatred and

violence against people perceived as outsiders, I saw

Americans reaffirm their welcome of immigrants and refugees.

That is the nation I know.

``At a time when some viewed the rising generation as

individualistic and decadent, I saw young people embrace an

ethic of service and rise to selfless action. That is the

nation I know.

``This is not mere nostalgia; it is the truest version of

ourselves. It is what we have been--and what we can be again.

``Twenty years ago, terrorists chose a random group of

Americans, on a routine flight, to be collateral damage in a

spectacular act of terror. The 33 passengers and 7 crew of

Flight 93 could have been any group of citizens selected by

fate. In that sense, they stood in for us all.

``The terrorists soon discovered that a random group of

Americans is an exceptional group of people. Facing an

impossible circumstance, they comforted their loved ones by

phone, braced each other for action, and defeated the designs

of evil.

``These Americans were brave, strong, and united in ways

that shocked the terrorists--but should not surprise any of

us. This is the nation we know. And whenever we need hope and

inspiration, we can look to the skies and remember.

God bless.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

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

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

And on Wednesday, the House will meet at 12 p.m. for legislative business.

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

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

With the short-term extension of the Surface Transportation Program through October 31, the House will aim to consider the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Build Back Better Act this work period.

In addition, the House will consider H.R. 2119, the Family Violence Prevention and Services Improvement Act of 2021, sponsored by Lucy McBath of Georgia. That bill modifies and expands and reauthorizes, through fiscal year 2026, the Family Violence Prevention and Services Program, which funds emergency shelters and supports related assistance for victims of domestic violence.

Madam Speaker, if time allows, the House may also consider H.R. 3992, the Protecting Older Jobs Applicants Act, which allows applicants to bring disparate impact claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 when they experience discrimination while seeking a job.

Lastly, additional legislative items may be possible when and if they are ready.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments and question.

Let me say that I mentioned two bills that will have a very, very substantial impact on the welfare of Americans, of their families, of their health, and yes, even of their environmental security in the Build Back Better plan and the BIP plan, which is a bipartisan bill on the Senate side.

I hope to bring both of those bills to the floor next week, if they are ready. Unfortunately, we don't have help from your side on either of those bills so it is more difficult to get unanimity on our side of the aisle.

Madam Speaker, I will tell my friend, all those problems that you mentioned, would be extraordinarily worse if we hadn't passed the American Rescue Plan in March of this year, which helped families extraordinarily and generously to stay above water. Not a single person on your side of the aisle voted for those.

So when the gentleman asked me, are we going to bring legislation to the floor, we brought it to the floor. You all opposed it, however-- unfortunately--that helped families, helped childcare, helped healthcare, helped health workers, helped States all to meet the pandemic that this administration inherited.

The pandemic was not the previous administration's fault, obviously, but the failure to deal with it effectively was their fault.

So I tell the gentleman that 5 million jobs have been created since this administration took office. Some people lamented the 233,000 jobs last month, how awful that was.

In the best year that Donald Trump had, that was his average production of jobs--in the best year he had, which was from January 2018 to January 2019.

So I will tell my friend, we hope to be able to bring these bills to the floor. We think they will have a very substantial, positive impact. We inherited, of course, because of the pandemic--again, not the fault of any--well, we don't know whether it was the fault of somebody purposely, but in any event, for whatever reasons, extraordinary amounts of people were laid off around the world.

Then, because of the American Rescue Plan, we finally gave some people the resources that they could buy things that they had needed and wanted for them and their families, and now we have a supply shortage.

The President acted through executive order, as the gentleman knows, to make sure that we had a 24/7 operation at the ports off Long Beach, off other ports in our country, to try to make sure that we, A, got goods on those ships that you say are to China--I don't know whether they are to China, but there are a lot of them; you are absolutely right on that--to get them offloaded, to get them on trucks, and to get them to where they could be distributed and available for businesses.

Then, of course, we have a substantial shortage of chips, which the gentleman knows, which was caused by a lockdown for major producers-- Singapore being one--of chips.

So, we are dealing with that. The executive is dealing with that as well.

I very much hope the gentleman will help us get that legislation passed, which will make a major difference. Who says? Fourteen or 17 laureates who wrote to the White House and said if these bills passed, it is not only going to help jobs, it is not only going to help climate, it is not only going to help health, but it is also going to help bring down inflation, which is a problem.

Why do we have inflation? Because we have too many dollars chasing too few goods, so prices go up. That is true of employment as well, which probably is good news in terms of salaries going up for people around the country.

I tell my friend that we do have some very substantial, important legislation

that we are trying to get done. It would be a lot easier to get it done if we had help from your side of the aisle. And your answer will be, well, it would be very helpful if you would take some of our ideas. I get that.

I will also tell you, if the gentleman is concerned about all of those issues, if we don't protect the full faith and credit of the United States of America, they will all get disastrously worse. And not one of you is prepared, in a debt that we all created, all of us, not all on the same thing--it may have been cutting revenues, increasing spending, this, that, and the other.

We all essentially voted for very substantial spending last year to meet the crisis of the pandemic. All of us did. The CARES Act, the largest of those, $2 trillion, was unanimously passed by a voice vote in one instance.

The only thing I would say to the gentleman is that we are very, very concerned about what is happening. We are very glad that we created 5 million jobs. Nine million jobs were lost the year before under Mr. Trump. He had a net loss of 2 million jobs over his 4 years--a net loss of 2 million jobs. This President has a net gain, and we are going to try to continue that. I hope we get some help from your side of the aisle.

I don't think I can respond, nor do I intend to respond, to each one of those assertions. I noticed that the gentleman totally ignored the facts.

The presentation the gentleman made, Madam Speaker, was as if the Republican policies were in place, we would be in high cotton.

Let me remind the gentleman, Donald Trump was President; the Republicans were in the majority, Madam Speaker; and over those 4 years, we lost a net 2.876 million people from jobs. The last 12 months of the Trump administration, 9,416,000 jobs were lost. Let me remind you, the best year you had, you had 2,820,000 new jobs. That is about an average of 235,000 jobs a month. Last month, when we were all wringing our hands because it came down substantially from expectations, it was 233,000.

In other words, the wringing of the hands over the poor job performance you seem to reflect was the average of Mr. Trump's best year. In fact, under this administration, helped by a bill, the American Rescue Plan, that every Republican voted against--what was the difference between the first five bills that were passed and the bill of 2021 that every Republican voted against? Donald Trump was President, and then Joe Biden was President.

It is like the debt limit, Madam Speaker. They know the debt limit has to be raised, or all the things that the gentleman just referenced are going to be hurt very, very badly.

Before you start criticizing people for not doing things to help, why don't you stop hurting the ability of the United States to present a balanced fiscal posture to our own economy and to the rest of the world and have some certitude that America is going to remain fiscally responsible and viable and pay its bills? I don't know the answer to that question. Perhaps, Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Louisiana knows.

The gentleman from Louisiana comes from a very important and critical energy producing State of our Nation. I don't blame him for being concerned about energy. He ought to be. We all ought to be. But, very frankly, we ought to also be very concerned about global warming, which the national security apparatus of the United States of America, even during the Trump administration, said was one of the biggest existential threats to the welfare of our people and the global community.

So, yes, we are very concerned about reaching an environment which is not dangerous for life on this planet. That is a very big issue for us. My friend is right, and we are going to deal with that in the Build Back Better plan. We are dealing with it, and we are dealing with it in the BIP plan.

Now, the BIP plan is a plan to spend $1.2 trillion on infrastructure investment over the next 10 years which will make our country more competitive, will increase our ability to produce goods here in America, Make It in America, which will make us more independent and self-sufficient. We found during the pandemic we weren't as self- sufficient as we should be and wanted to be.

These bills that we are considering will do that.

I don't expect many Republicans to vote for it. Even the transportation bill that I think they ought to be for--Donald Trump said he was going to spend $1 trillion, have a $1 trillion infrastructure program during his campaign, and then we went down to the White House, we had a meeting with him, and he said: No, $1 trillion is not enough, we ought to do $2 trillion.

He did zero, Madam Speaker, zero when the Republicans were in charge. Zero.

We are going to pass this infrastructure bill, and it is going to make a real difference. It is going to make a real difference on jobs, it is going to make a real difference on inflation, and it is going to make a real difference because we can increase the supply chain. It is going to make a real difference on the health of our globe.

So I tell the gentleman that he raises a lot of issues, and I would hope his party would start returning to a sense of bipartisanship in dealing with legitimate problems that the gentleman raises which we did in 2020.

Now, we did. We were in the minority. We voted with President Trump. Actually, we were in the majority, but President Trump was President, and we helped support his and the Treasury Secretary's objectives and our own objectives, and we came to an agreement, a bipartisan agreement.

Very frankly, it is unbelievable to me, Madam Speaker, that in the debt limit the minority leader of the United States Senate--and, very frankly, the gentleman just said that we all understand we don't want to--I presume he doesn't believe we ought to not raise our debt limit. I believe he wants us to pay our bills because he knows the catastrophic impact if we don't. But I don't understand why they won't support this. That is not an issue of Democrat or Republican. We all created that debt in one form or another. Certainly, last year we did a big number because we thought we needed to meet the pandemic. We did, and we saved millions of jobs in the process.

So my friend has these bills, we have bills, we are prepared to talk about proposals, as I have told my friend in the past. But, very frankly, there needs to be on some issues--that ought not to be political at all, like the debt limit--a statement that we are loyal to our country, not to Democrats. I said this the other day to the gentleman, the loyal opposition, not to Democrats, not to me as the majority leader, not to any of us, but to the country.

I would implore my friend, because we are going to have to do the debt, we are going to have to do the omnibus, we are going to have to do the debt limit, we want to do Build Back Better, and we want to do the infrastructure bill, those are four pieces of big legislation we want to do before December 30, I am hopeful that we can get some cooperation from the Republicans.

I mentioned the debt limit because that is an issue that the gentleman came to us under the Trump administration and asked us to help with. We knew it was critical for the interests of the country, and on three different occasions we voted with the President at the Secretary of the Treasury under the Trump administration's request and voted to make sure that America did not default on its bills.

Can I ask if the gentleman will at least, Madam Speaker, indicate that

they will support making sure that America continues to pay its bills?

The gentleman continues to say facts that are not true.

They are not true.

I do not disagree with it.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The reason I said he was misstating the facts is we have a bipartisan bill. It wasn't done by the Democratic leadership. It, frankly, wasn't done by the Republican leadership. It was done by Members of the United States Senate on the Republican side and on the Democratic side.

That bill was sent over here with almost half of the Republicans in the United States Senate voting for it, and my friend's leadership is lobbying against that infrastructure bill which would help all the issues the gentleman raised.

My friend is urging a ``no'' vote on that, and he is threatening Members who are going to vote for it--maybe not very many--because they know it is a bipartisan bill.

Madam Speaker, the whip is talking about bipartisanship. There has been so little bipartisanship, and when there is bipartisanship, their Members are disciplined. When there is bipartisanship on saying that it wasn't a protest, it was an insurrection, there was no bipartisanship on that.

It was a: ``We don't care what it was. We don't care that some people were killed. We don't really care that they were trying to stop the counting of votes for the President of the United States of America. It was just a protest.''

That is what former President Trump said the other day. What a bunch of hooey. There clearly has been a conscious decision made by the leadership on the other side of the aisle, Madam Speaker, against a bill that had 69 votes in the United States Senate. We only have 50.

And it is being lobbied against. Why?

To hurt Joe Biden.

Yes, they voted, Madam Speaker, for the five bills.

Why?

Because ultimately Donald Trump was for them. Not everybody voted for them, but the majority. And as I said, CARES, $2 trillion, absolutely essential, was passed. But the gentleman refuses to answer the question except to say: Well, the credit card was maxed out.

The credit card was maxed out by date in a couple of those votes which we helped as the responsible opposition, as we did with John Boehner and Paul Ryan when they couldn't get votes to pass bills to keep government open or to keep the United States from defaulting. Yes, we cast the responsible vote.

It is not a popular vote because it is demagogued, Madam Speaker. It has nothing to do with the debt. The debt happens when you pass spending or pass revenue cuts. That is what affects the debt, and that is what all of us do one way or the other.

So we are all responsible and we ought to all be responsible. But the Senate leader on the Republican side of the aisle has said he is not going to do anything.

Not only will he not do anything, Madam Speaker, he will not allow the majority to do it on their own because he is going to filibuster so it requires 60 votes. We don't have 60 votes. We have 51.

Not only will they not do the responsible thing on debt, which would adversely affect, if we do not extend it, all the things that the minority whip lamented were wrong; it would all be adversely affected if, for the first time in history, Madam Speaker, we fail to extend the debt limit, which, by the way, very few countries have--one or two-- because it is a phony issue. The debt is not phony, but the limit is controlled by what budgets we pass, what tax cuts we pass, what policies we pass.

Once we do that, we go in the store, or as Jim McGovern, the chair of the Rules Committee said, we go in the restaurant and buy the steak. You need to pay for the steak. The argument, Madam Speaker, of, oh, well, you are proposing a lot of spending in the future, is totally unrelated. The debt limit is caused by the debt that we already incurred. The two bills that we had, they don't affect the debt limit. We have met it now, not when we passed these bills, not after we make that commitment.

We have a debt limit coming up now on December 3, which was totally irresponsible in and of itself, for political reasons only, coterminous with the funding of government. In 2019, when we took over, the government was shut down. We spent a lot of time opening it up. That hurt the economy. That hurt jobs. Now, at that point in time, it didn't hurt inflation. And I have been amazed over the years, over the last 10 years, that we haven't had more inflation for a number of reasons.

But he didn't answer the question, whether he would help on that. That is not for us. It is not for Democrats, not for Republicans. It is for our country. It is for our economy. It is for global fiscal stability.

So I would hope at least in that area--not for us. I am not asking you to do it for me, Madam Speaker. I am not asking anybody to do it for me or for my party or for the President of the United States. Mitch McConnell says it is the country and the global community that could not afford default, and that is true.

Let me tell you, I think that is the first step to showing bipartisan responsibility together; not for one another, but for our country, Madam Speaker. And I hope that at some point in time we can show that kind of good faith.

I included this morning the remarks that President George W. Bush made in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, on the kind of America that he wanted to see. I would hope all of my Republican colleagues would read what George W. Bush had to say. It is so different from the rhetoric of the current leader of the Republican Party, Donald Trump, in terms of bringing us together as a country.

Madam Speaker, I think that bill passed the Senate Wednesday, so we will look at it, but we haven't had a chance to look at it at this point in time.

I want to get back--and I know this sounds like a broken record on the debt limit, but the gentleman makes the point, Madam Speaker, that somehow we have raised the debt to accommodate spending. That is what you always do because if you reach the debt limit, you are done. You stop Social Security. You stop veterans' payments. You stop any support payments. You stop paying the armed services of the United States. That is the spending you stop when you can no longer incur debt. Why? Because we spent a lot of money. We put it on the credit card, and it is coming due. It comes due on a regular basis, and we have to pay it on a regular basis.

The gentleman has voted for bills that do exactly what the bill he lamented, and none of his colleagues voted for, Madam Speaker, exactly what he asked us to do, extend it by a date, not a number, by a date. Then he hypothesizes, well, in that timeframe, you are going to incur additional expenses. He is absolutely right.

So, he is lamenting and giving as a reason for his not voting for it is because there are some proposals to spend money in the future. There are lots of them from all sides.

Then he brings up this ``tied together.'' Let me tell you who has tied it together. The Republican leadership has tied these together. Yes, the President talked about it. He said, no, they are not tied together. He said, first of all, they are tied together, and then he said, no, I negotiated this bill; don't do it.

But I will tell the gentleman, as the majority leader who brings bills to the floor, their infrastructure bill passed overwhelmingly in a bipartisan vote and put together in a bipartisan vote Republicans, Democrats, and the President of the United States.

Now, he is the President of the United States. I know the gentleman voted against certifying his election in a bipartisan move, I suppose.

But, Madam Speaker, that bill will be brought up separately, and you vote for that bill on its merits and vote against it on its merits. Do not hide behind the fact that you don't like some other bill.

Donald Trump said he was going to do a trillion dollars on infrastructure to help our economy. He didn't do it. Then he said it was going to be $2 trillion. He didn't do it. Republicans were in the majority. They controlled the House and the Senate. They didn't do it.

We have a bill they can vote for. I would urge them to vote for extending the debt limit so our country meets its full faith and credit obligations and for the infrastructure bill because I think it is a bipartisan bill negotiated by Republicans, by Democrats, and by the President of the United States which will help our economy and, as I said and will reiterate, every issue that the gentleman raised, Madam Speaker, in his opening remarks.

That is not accurate, and you know it.

Madam Speaker, if this Congress had never met this year, we would have to extend the debt limit at some point in time this year. That is a fact.

Mr. McConnell has said it is inconceivable that we would not extend the debt limit of the United States of America and fail our obligation under full faith and credit. As a matter of fact, the Constitution, in the 14th Amendment, says it shall not be questioned, but we have to take some legislative action.

The issue is what is our responsibility to the United States of America, not all this argument that pretends that somehow some bills that are proposed on spending or some that may have been passed this year, if they hadn't been passed, somehow we wouldn't have to do this. If anybody on either side of the aisle believes that to be the case, they ought to be defeated by their constituents because they don't know what is going on here, on either side of the aisle.

This is a very serious issue with respect to jobs, infrastructure, inflation, healthcare, and environment. All of those will be adversely affected, and the global community itself, if we do not extend this debt. We can argue about the other issues, but there is no argument about this issue.

Every Republican President has asked that this be done. Every Republican Secretary of the Treasury, since I have been in this Congress, 41 years, has asked that we extend the debt limit; every one of them, without fail. Every one of them has said--President Reagan on--that if we did not do it, the country's economy, reputation, and well-being would be put disastrously at risk.

I don't want bipartisanship. I want patriotism. I want people committed to their country and their country's well-being to stand up and say: I am not going to demagogue an issue that is so critically important to the welfare of my Nation.

I say to the gentleman again: Exactly what they passed when they were in the majority, and we voted for it, setting a future date--not a number, a future date. Exactly. We didn't ask them to do anything more than we did.

In terms of bipartisanship, I will again say: You have got a bipartisan bill negotiated in a bipartisan way that will be coming to this floor at some point in time, I hope earlier rather than later, separately--not tied to I don't like this bill, I don't like that bill, I won't do this, I won't do that, I won't do the other--which will substantially grow jobs in our country and deal with the climate crisis in our country.

I would ask you to support both of those propositions when they come to the floor in a show of bipartisan support for our country, not for each other, but for our country.

Madam Speaker, this needs to come to an end, obviously, but I will tell you this, as I stand here, as somebody who sat on this floor on January 6 and the question was would the House perform its function of accepting the electoral college vote to elect this President--it wasn't that there hadn't been voices in the past who had raised questions. But there was no effort by Ms. Clinton, who received the majority of the votes, or Mr. Gore, who received the majority of the votes, to raise a question about the legitimacy of the election.

But we had an insurrection incited by, invited by, and deployed by the President of the United States. So we didn't start on a very good bipartisan basis, again, not because Republicans should have been happy that their candidate was not elected or any more than we were happy that our candidate was not elected in the Clinton and Gore campaigns.

It was, at least, that we ought to uphold the constitutional principles. Vice President Pence did, and there were people in this Capitol on that night who wanted to see him, apparently, eliminated. That wasn't a good bipartisan start, Madam Speaker. The majority of Republicans voted against certifying the electoral college results in State after State. But we ought to put that behind us. That is done. What we are doing now is we are acting on behalf of the country.

The two issues that I dwelt on, because I think we have agreement on that, rhetorically and intellectually but not electorally, not in terms of voting, is the debt limit should never be breached and that we need to invest in infrastructure, two simple propositions.

The Senate minority leader says: We should never breach the full faith and credit of the United States of America, but I won't help you do it. I don't get that. Frankly, it seems to be kind of irrational.

And then an infrastructure bill passed overwhelmingly by the United

States Senate, which we are putting on the floor unchanged, as it was, not coupled--as it is and was--and saying let's vote for that.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Rules Committee for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution ought to be supported, and the underlying action that the rule provides for ought to be supported by every Member of this House who believes that this House has a constitutional responsibility of oversight, of protecting the Constitution and the democracy in which we all are privileged to live, and the integrity of this House.

Oversight is not possible for this House if, in fact, it cannot request and, indeed, demand the testimony of those who have information which this House, the people's House and the protector of our democracy and our Constitution, needs to protect our democracy. This rule and the underlying action for which it provides is essential.

Mr. Speaker, if I were trying a case, I would offer as Exhibit A a statement by the man who would be dictator, Donald Trump, who absurdly and, of course, incorrectly says the insurrection took place on November 3, election day. January 6 was the protest.

My view is that man, Donald J. Trump, protests too much, because I believe that he recruited, incited, and deployed an insurrectionist mob to threaten this institution, its Members, its constitutional responsibility in the electoral process of the Presidency of the United States, and democracy itself.

Mr. Speaker, the events of January 6 exposed threats to our democracy that must be fully understood and addressed. It is a weighty responsibility that falls to the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, a bipartisan committee.

I want to thank Chairman Thompson, Vice Chair Cheney, and all of those serving on this committee for their commitment to seeking the truth, defending our democracy, and to giving sufficient information to our public and our constituents, our people, that they know this to be a stark and dangerous lie.

The committee is doing a diligent job at finding the truth. This task should not have fallen to the members of a select committee, this subpoena for contempt. We should have been able to come together, Democrats and Republicans, to create a bipartisan commission in the style of the 9/11 Commission, recognizing that such consequential and transformative attacks require us to come together as one nation indivisible to seek answers and identify solutions to make our country safer.

Sadly, however, we have come to a place where one party is so focused on defending the indefensible that this institution cannot act as Americans but, rather, are relegated to acting simply as partisans.

Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I am heartened to see Democrats and some courageous Republicans working together to uncover the truth of what happened that day. These Republican Members are exhibiting what President Kennedy would call profiles in courage.

In order for this committee to perform its work in full--indeed any committee of the Congress to perform its work in full--ultimately it has to be able to get the information that it needs from those who know the information it needs. It must hear testimony from all those who may have information regarding the events of January 6 in this particular case. That is why we provided the committee with subpoena authority.

Steve Bannon's refusal to appear, even when subpoenaed is, A, a demonstration of his contempt, not only for Congress but his contempt of the Constitution and his contempt for the law. It is unacceptable and obstructive to this process of uncovering the full story of that day's attack on the Capitol. He must be found in contempt, not as a Democrat and not as a Republican, but on behalf of this institution and the people whom we represent.

Withholding information on the events of that day from the committee is no less than an act of betrayal of the American people and of our constitutional democracy.

The American people need to understand what led to the violent insurrection that sought to overturn our election and led to the deaths of multiple police officers and others; although, as I said, Exhibit A, the former President's comments, should be the proof in and of itself the American people need to understand what led to the deaths of those police officers and the placing at risk the democratic process of electing a President of the United States.

We need to understand, Mr. Speaker, how this could have happened, why it happened, and what ought to be done to hold the perpetrators accountable and prevent the events of the day from being repeated.

That appears to be the fear on the floor of this House today: accountability, responsibility, and consequences.

In refusing to appear before the commission, Mr. Bannon has made it clear where his loyalties lie. He has chosen Trump first and America last, not America first. Trump first, America last. Trump first, our Constitution last. Trump first, our democracy last. Trump first, the House of the people, this House of Representatives last. And he will have to answer for that to us.

This is a moment of reckoning for our country, reckoning with hard truths and painful memories, a reckoning that, above all, requires truth and understanding.

Can't we, Mr. Speaker, in a bipartisan way summon the courage to look the truth in the eye and vote the truth?

We cannot allow anyone to shirk their responsibility to share that truth and help the American people understand.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to vote ``yes'' on this resolution and to vote ``yes'' on the citation for contempt so that Chairman Thompson, Vice Chairwoman Cheney, and the members of the select committee can make it clear to Mr. Bannon and to all others summoned to testify they will seek the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth as they determine what we must do to protect our beloved country, our beloved Constitution, and our beloved democracy.

Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a close friend who passed away late last year following a courageous battle against cancer.

Michelle Lyn Present was a young woman blessed with many talents and virtues. She possessed an abounding faith, which enabled her to persevere through a very long and difficult struggle until her passing on December 3, 2020. Not only did she not allow darkness to shadow her days, Michelle was a beacon of light that never flickered but always shone brightly; indeed, hers was a light that helped to guide others in overcoming challenges of their own.

I came to know Michelle through her parents, Marti and Kenny Cox. Kenny was a former member of the District of Columbia Fire Department and, for many years, the Vice President of the International Association of Fire Fighters Local 26. Michelle's parents instilled in her their value of service to others and their love of community and country.

Among her many talents, Michelle was a very gifted singer. She was always willing to share her beautiful voice, whether in her church or at fire-service events. For many years, she performed at the National Fallen Firefighters Memorial Ceremony. At the request of the late Hal Bruno, former Chairman of the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation, she would perform the song `Precious Memories.' The sound of her voice resonated throughout the gathered assembly of family members and fire- service officials. It was a voice that I always looked forward to hearing each year at the very moving ceremony.

On behalf of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus leadership, I extend my condolences to Michelle's husband Jack and their daughter Taylor, to her parents Kenny and Marti, to her brother Ken Jr., and to her entire family. In remembrance of a dear friend who was called home too early, I would like to share the words from 'Precious Memories' with my fellow Members of the House. I hope you will find them as uplifting as I did whenever Michelle sang them to the families of fallen firefighters and all of us who were there to support them each year.

Precious memories, unseen angels,

Sent from somewhere to my soul

How they linger, ever near me,

And the sacred scenes unfold

Precious memories, how they linger,

How they ever flood my soul

In the stillness of the midnight,

Precious, sacred scenes unfold

Precious father, loving mother,

Fly across the lonely years

And old home scenes of my childhood,

In fond memory appear

In the stillness of the midnight,

Echoes from the past I hear

Old-time singing, gladness bringing,

From that lovely land somewhere

I remember mother praying,

Father, too, on bended knee

Sun is sinking, shadows falling,

But their prayers still follow me

As I travel on life's pathway,

Know not what the years may hold

As I ponder, hope grows fonder,

Precious memories flood my soul

May the precious memories of Michelle Lyn Present be a comfort and a blessing to all those who knew her and to all those to whom she brought her many gifts in life.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this is our debt. It is America's debt.

Now, I agree with the chairman of the Rules Committee that some of this debt clearly accumulates from tax cuts, cutting our revenue before we cut our spending. And some of it relates to greater spending promoted by both sides of the aisle.

For any one of us to get up and say it is your debt--it is America's debt, and America pays its bills.

Mr. Speaker, as a Member of Congress, I have faced this question of raising or suspending the debt limit 49 times. This will be the 50th time since I was first asked to vote on this question when Ronald Reagan was President of the United States.

Now, the gentlewoman is talking, Mr. Speaker, to her staff, but I want to say that the argument that she offered with references to why it is our debt is specious, and I emphatically deny that assertion.

It is our debt. We have different priorities, different perspectives, different mandates. But every time we cut revenues or we approve spending, we raise the debt limit.

And by the way, the gentlewoman was not here in the last Congress, but we accumulated $5.4 trillion in debt. And the gentlewoman may be reminded that they were passed in a bipartisan way to meet a crisis that we thought justified those expenditures.

Mr. Speaker, my Republican friends across the aisle have been asked to take this same vote many times as well, and they have voted ``yes'' on some of those occasions and ``no'' on others.

Nobody has clean hands when it comes to the debt limit. We all tend to rationalize that it is somebody else's debt. Let me repeat: It is our debt, America's debt.

And I will tell you this: I would hope that if only one of us of our 435, if only one of us had the decision to make as to whether we increase the debt limit or not, I hope that not a single one of us would say no.

Now, collectively, we apparently can rationalize saying no because somebody else will get it done. Somebody else will take the responsibility. Somebody else will act responsibly.

Mr. Speaker, the previous Speakers, I am sure although not here, perhaps have followed politics relatively closely. I have been here for a number of administrations. Ronald Reagan asked us to increase the debt. George H.W. Bush asked us to increase the debt. Bill Clinton asked us to increase the debt. George W. Bush asked us to increase the debt. Barack Obama asked us to increase the debt. Donald Trump asked us to increase the debt.

And now Joe Biden asks us to do the same. Why? Because the catastrophic alternative is unacceptable. Perhaps nobody is listening. But every Secretary of the Treasury, Republican and Democrat, has risen to the Congress of the United States and the American people and said: You must raise the debt or we will invite recession or perhaps depression and global chaos in the fiscal marketplace.

I don't see any animation from those who listened to that number or that assertion, and I am glad to have any one of them get up and try to deny that every President over the last 40 years that I have been here has asked us not to put the full faith and credit of the United States at risk.

Fifty times in 40 years. Every time we have made a determination, every time--Democrats and Republicans often together in common cause-- that the full faith and credit of the United States must never even be questioned. The 14th Amendment says that, Mr. Speaker. It has been our shared determination as responsible parties loyal to Constitution and country that the costs we have incurred on behalf of the American people must be paid.

And so many of the Republicans will vote today not to do that. And they will use some rationalization that they don't like the rest of the rule or this bill or that bill. Vote against them. But don't vote against your country's full faith and credit. Don't vote against your country's credit.

Preventing a default was the obligation of Members from both parties together. That is what all the Secretaries of Treasury have said. Sometimes a number of us on one side or the other would vote against it to lodge our concerns about fiscal policies of the day as long as it was clear that somebody else would get it done.

Together, Democrats and Republicans would make sure the debt limit was raised or suspended when needed and that default was never a possibility.

I want to thank Representative Foster and Representative Boyle and others who have introduced legislation

that would eliminate the debt ceiling altogether. It is a phony issue. It is a fraud. It is fake news. And to think otherwise is intellectually not correct.

We ought to think about eliminating this debt limit because all it does is have a threat to global instability; something we ought to consider very seriously given how the debt limit has in recent years been dangerously weaponized by one party to hold the country hostage.

Republicans first did that in 2011, even though they were in the House majority, and the result was the first-ever downgrade of America's credit rating. Of course, that same party sang a very different tune when it was in the White House. When Donald Trump sat in the Oval Office, Democrats were asked three times by your party to help not default on the debt, and three times Democrats overwhelmingly responded.

Now President Biden has asked us to do the same thing, take action on the debt limit to ensure that a default does not happen in the coming months.

I don't like this deal that the Senate sent us. If I were voting on the merits of this deal, I would vote ``no.'' It is a lousy deal. It holds hostage the debt and credit of the United States for another 2 months, and then we are going to play this game one more time; a despicable and irresponsible act for adults who know better.

While it is a relief to so many American business workers that the threat of default has now been pushed back just a little bit, that relief will surely be short-lived because we will find ourselves here again in a month's time faced with the same situation in which we found ourselves these past weeks.

That did not happen during the Trump administration because this side of the aisle was responsible. This side of the aisle knew the truth. This side of the aisle was not very happy with the President of the United States, but happy with America's creditworthiness. One party has played partisan games with the full faith and credit of our country, refusing to act responsibly as we all have so many, many times before.

Mr. Speaker, between now and December 3, America will be watching Leaders McCarthy and McConnell to see if they will lead their party down the responsible path or continue to play the game that has already pushed us to the brink of default. Let me be clear, I will urge my colleagues on my side of the aisle not to play that game in this administration or future administrations.

This is not about politics. This is about responsibility. This is about our country. This is, indeed, about the global fiscal health. We will continue to do the responsible thing and urge a longer term suspension of the debt limit so that we can get our country through the pandemic's economic crisis and build back better.

Even the possibility of a default, Mr. Speaker, risks harming our economic recovery. 194 sitting Democratic Members of this House, myself included, answered the call to help suspend the debt limit under President Trump. Apparently, you don't care about that. You think, well, yes, that was the responsible thing to do because we had a Republican President, but not now when we have a Democratic President. I hope the voters of America think that hypocrisy is not acceptable.

Others in our caucus who were not here at the time to take those votes, surely would have acted the same under the circumstances. 194 of us, not some few of us, but 194 of us voted for it.

The roll is going to be called, and not up yonder, but here. And I hope so many of you are there when that roll is called. Leader McConnell knows it is the right thing to do. These are Senator McConnell's words: ``Let me make it perfectly clear.''

Hear me, my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, and hopefully our people, Mr. McConnell, the minority leader in the United States Senate, the Republican leader: ``Let me make it perfectly clear,'' he said, ``the country must never default. The debt ceiling will need to be raised.'' He didn't say unless you stop pushing your policies, Democrats, that you ran on to help people, to help children, to help businesses. He didn't say that. He said, the debt limit must be raised.

In 2015 when Republicans were in the majority and asked Democrats to join them in voting to address the debt limit, he tweeted again--this is Senator McConnell, the leader of the Republican Party on the Senate side, ``When the United States makes promises, it keeps them, which is why the House voted today to avoid the threat of a debt default,'' with the overwhelming majority of us joining in that responsible action.

I hope Leaders McCarthy and McConnell and their House and Senate Republican colleagues will reject hypocrisy and embrace responsibility by joining with Democrats before December 3 to eliminate the threat of default this time and before December 3, after this bill passes, to ensure that our country pays for what it has already bought.

Now, I would simply add to the observations of the Rules Committee chairman, for whom I have not only respect but affection, I say to Mr. Chairman: We both went into that restaurant. We both got a steak. Neither one of us ought to leave without paying the bill. It wasn't just you that went and got the steak. We got a steak, too. And we both have the responsibility to pay for that steak. That is what this vote is about.

Do not hide behind some differences you may have on the three bills, as the gentlewoman, Mr. Speaker, referred us to. Don't hide behind that. This is about whether or not we are going to be fiscally responsible or not. And you can vote against those bills when they come to the floor--and I am going to bring all three of them to the floor. I will tell you that--and you can vote against them.

But do not vote against the good faith and credit of the United States of America, our country. Don't hide behind some facade that somehow we created the debt and you had no responsibility. Don't hide behind some facade that somehow we are going to offer something that has a whole lot of money coming to it because, very frankly, if that had been the case, Democrats would not have joined you under Donald Trump and raising the debt limit so we did not default.

Vote as an American; not as a Republican or Democrat. Vote as a responsible human being sent here by your neighbors and friends to do the right thing. You know in your hearts the right thing is to not allow this country's full faith and credit to be compromised in any way.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my friend Dr. C.D. ``Dan'' Mote, Jr., who served as President of the University of Maryland, College Park, from 1998 to 2010, in recognition of his contributions to the school's legacy of academic excellence.

Dr. Mote came to Maryland in 1998 after spending three decades at the University of California, Berkeley, where he studied dynamics systems and biomechanics and led the top-ranked graduate mechanical engineering program in the country. His research on gyroscopic systems and the biomechanics of snow skiing has been internationally recognized. He holds patents in four countries and has been published more than 300 times.

His leadership, both as an educator and in the field of biomechanics, has had global impact; he truly lives up to his motto: Excellence in All We Do.

At the University of Maryland, Dr. Mote worked to make education more affordable and inclusive by expanding access to financial aid programs, including the Maryland Incentive Awards, the Pathways program, and the Keep Me Maryland fund. One of his primary goals was closing the graduation gap for underrepresented minority students. His work was reflected in the achievements of Maryland students throughout his tenure.

Under Dr. Mote's leadership, the university received a record number of highly qualified applicants. He was committed to bringing in academically-committed students and giving them as many opportunities as possible to succeed. He tripled the number of students participating in study-abroad programs, provided new opportunities to enroll in courses outside of major requirements, and increased research funding more than 150 percent.

On October 10, the Maryland Incentive Awards Program and an Engineering Research Laboratory at the university will be named in Dr. Mote's honor. This recognition is well-deserved, and I join the University of Maryland, College Park, in saluting Dr. Mote's lifelong commitment to expanding academic opportunity and ensuring our state's flagship public university continues to excel. His legacy of excellence is visible each day at the University of Maryland, College Park, and his impact will be felt for decades to come.

I hope my colleagues in the House will join me in congratulating Dr. Mote on an illustrious career and in thanking him for all he did for Maryland students over his twelve-year tenure and throughout his life in academia.