Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, there is no place in America for hate. Well, at least there should be no place in America for hate. There should be no place in our country for exclusion, for bigotry, or racial violence.

And, frankly, I tell my friend from Texas, it is not enough just to say that we are against that. We need to do something. This bill takes a step to doing something.

Disturbingly, over the past few years, we have seen these evils emerge out of their dark hiding places. While we have always struggled as a nation to confront hatred and injustice, this past year we have been tested in ways we have not seen in some period of time.

Madam Speaker, in particular, the COVID-19 pandemic has unleashed an onslaught of hatred directed against Asian Americans, and other minorities as well. These men and women, our fellow citizens, have endured vile words and violent blows. They have been made to feel unsafe and made to feel apart.

Congress is taking action today, led by my friends Senator Hirono, Representative Meng, Representative Beyer, and Representative Chu. I am so proud to align myself with their efforts to make it clear that hate crimes against Asian Americans will be prosecuted to the fullest extent possible and that they will never be tolerated in our country, ever, as they have been tolerated too often in the past.

Representative Chu, as chairwoman of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, has put forward a resolution condemning the deadly shootings in Atlanta in March, which killed six Asian-American women and two others. I am strongly supporting both her resolution and Senator Hirono's hate crimes legislation, which has already passed the Senate, 94-1. Mr. Hawley of Missouri was the sole exception, the Senator who gave thumbs-up to the insurrectionists.

That bill is the companion to Representative Meng's legislation, and she has instructed my office she wants to see this adopted as soon as possible. We would have brought her bill to the floor, but she said, no, let's do the Senate bill because it can move more quickly. And she deserves full credit for bringing this issue forward.

Madam Speaker, I commend her for her tireless efforts to stand up against hate targeting in the Asian-American community and in every other community--indivisible, one Nation.

Together, as the Nation's representatives, we must make it absolutely clear that racism and intolerance have no home here in America. Very frankly, the people who look at this vote will not parse it. They will interpret it as those who are against hate and those who thought this bill wasn't perfect in saying that we are against hate.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join in sending that message with a strong bipartisan vote on both of these measures. Let us reject hate and remind our Asian-American brothers and sisters that we are one Nation indivisible, standing together and building our common future together.

We haven't always been that Nation. We haven't always been the perfect union to which we inspire. Too often, we have held others who are not like us as less than us. That has been a tragedy of mankind wherever one lived. This is a small step, but it is an important step. Let's take it.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 5 of House Resolution 403, I move to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 144, H.R. 204, H.R. 210,

Madam Speaker, I'm proud to represent more than 62,000 federal employees in Maryland's Fifth District and to have long been an advocate for recognizing and celebrating the many contributions that federal civilian workers make to our country. That's why I am always very excited to participate in marking Public Service Recognition Week, which is held each May. It is a moment to thank federal employees for their patriotism, their service, and the many essential roles they play in creating and delivering opportunities for the American people.

Each year, the Partnership for Public Service reviews hundreds of nominations submitted by federal workers and the Americans they serve of outstanding federal civilian employees for recognition in a number of categories. During Public Service Recognition Week, the organization unveils the list of finalists in each category, and it has named twenty-nine finalists this year. The winners, including Federal Employee of the Year, will be announced in the autumn. These Samuel J. Heyman Service to America Medals, named in memory of the founder of the Partnership for Public Service and a champion for those serving in government, are affectionately known as the `Sammies,' and they are considered to be the government-service equivalent of the Academy Awards.

I am proud to share with my colleagues that one of this year's finalists in the `Emerging Leaders' category is Edward Sisco from Maryland's Fifth District. A research chemist at the Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Ed has already made an enormous impact even at only thirty-two years old. He developed a novel procedure for testing potentially toxic substances faster than thought possible, which has yielded tremendous benefits in forensic analysis and protection for law enforcement and forensic chemists testing drugs seized in raids. The Thermal Desorption Direct Analysis in Real Time Mass Spectrometry (TD-DART-MS) technique that he pioneered is already being deployed and is having a major impact on criminal justice and laboratory safety.

Ed and many of his colleagues at NIST are among the thousands of outstanding federal employees who call Maryland's Fifth District home, and I am proud to join in recognizing his work and his being chosen as a Service to America Medal finalist. I wish him all the best of luck in the competition, and I look forward to learning the winners in his category and all the others, as well as Federal Employee of the Year, this fall. While these awards recognize special contributions to our country that go above and beyond, I hope all of us who serve in the House will remember the contributions and hard work that 2.1 million federal employees perform every day in every state and in single one of our districts. Each and every one of them deserves our recognition and our gratitude.

Mr. Speaker, I would say in response to Mr. Green's passionate speech: Me too.

I rise in strong support of this bill, and I am proud to bring it to the floor for consideration, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate Chairman Nadler's leadership in sponsoring and shepherding it through the committee.

I thank Chairman Scott, as well, for his efforts on behalf of this very important piece of legislation.

America still has a long way to go when it comes to making our economy work for women and mothers. We have seen that dramatically during COVID-19.

Too often, women are pressured to leave the workforce when they start a family.

Women should not face discrimination or adverse actions as a result of pregnancy. I think everybody would, I hope, agree with that.

This legislation would prevent that from happening by requiring employers, Mr. Speaker, to make reasonable accommodations so that pregnant workers can remain on the job, earning their incomes.

Now, I know a thing or two about reasonable accommodations, frankly, as the principal sponsor of the Americans with Disabilities Act signed by President Bush on July 26, 1990. When I sponsored the bill more than 30 years ago, that legislation incorporated the concept of reasonable workplace accommodations, in that case, for employees with disabilities.

Pregnancy, of course, is not a disability. It is a joy. But there are certainly dangers faced by pregnant workers that could threaten the health of the woman and her unborn child, including heavy lifting and exposure to toxic substances.

That is why it is essential for pregnant workers to receive reasonable accommodations that protect their safety in the workplace without being demoted or losing their jobs and, of course, to protect the rights and safety of their babies.

Protecting the rights and safety of pregnant workers in our economy is something Democrats have championed for a very long time, Mr. Speaker, and we passed this legislation last Congress, as well.

But I hope that this is an issue where Democrats and Republicans--Mr. Fortenberry just spoke very well--can come together, in a bipartisan way, to protect mothers-to-be and their children.

I hope that the Senate will join the House in adopting these protections, which are so essential at a time when millions of women are eager to rejoin the workforce and continue pursuing careers that bring them and their families opportunity and economic security.

I thank Chairman Nadler again for his leadership. I thank Mr. Scott for his leadership, as well.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on this legislation.

Madam Speaker, on Wednesday the Republican Conference ejected the Gentlelady from Wyoming from the ranks of its leadership because she dared to speak truth and refused to join in spreading falsehoods regarding the recent election. This is a dangerous moment for our democracy, when one party is operating according to a set of clearly debunked falsehoods and punishes its Members who prefer actual facts. To underscore that danger, I include in the Record the following op-ed, which was published in The Washington Post on Tuesday and written by the former Republican Senator from Arizona, Jeff Flake. I hope all of my colleagues--on both sides of the aisle--will read his words and consider carefully this perilous moment in which our country and this Congress finds itself.

[From the Washington Post, May 11, 2021]

Opinion: In Today's Republican Party, There Is No Greater Offense Than

Honesty

(By Former Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ))

``The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it

will hate those who speak it.''--George Orwell

Near the beginning of the document that made us free, our

Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote: ``We

hold these truths to be self-evident.''

There you have it. From the very beginning of America, our

freedom has been predicated on truth. For without a

principled fidelity to truth and to shared facts, our

democracy will not last.

On Wednesday, Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) will most likely

lose her leadership post within the House Republican

Conference, not because she has been untruthful. Rather, she

will lose her position because she is refusing to play her

assigned role in propagating the ``big lie'' that the 2020

election was stolen from Donald Trump. Cheney is more

dedicated to the long-term health of our constitutional

system than she is to assuaging the former president's

shattered ego, and for her integrity she may well pay with

her career.

No, this is not the plot of a movie set in an asylum.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is your contemporary Republican

Party, where today there is no greater offense than honesty.

It seems a good time to examine how we got to a place where

such a large swath of the electorate (70 percent of

Republican voters, according to polling) became willing to

reject a truth that is so self-evident.

This allergy to self-evident truth didn't happen all at

once, of course. This frog has been boiling for some time

now. The Trump period in American life has been a celebration

of the unwise and the untrue. From the ugly tolerance of the

pernicious falsehood about President Barack Obama's place of

birth to the bizarre and fanatical fable about the size of

inauguration crowds, to the introduction of the term

``alternative facts'' into the American lexicon, the party's

steady embrace of dishonesty as a central premise has brought

us to this low and dangerous place.

I don't know what will happen to Cheney politically after

Wednesday. For me, I knew that I couldn't support Trump's

election or reelection after his seminal falsehood about

Obama's birth certificate, to say nothing of the cascade of

untruths, from the trivial to the consequential, that

followed daily. I had hoped that, over time, my Republican

constituents would feel differently about the former

president, or at least value a Republican who pushed back,

and that I could stand for reelection in 2018 with a

reasonable chance of surviving a Republican primary. It soon

became apparent that Republican voters wanted someone who was

all in with a president that I increasingly saw as a danger

to the republic. That could not be me, so I spoke out instead

and didn't stand for reelection.

When I became an unwitting dissident in my party by

speaking in defense of self-evident truths, I assumed that

more and more of my colleagues would follow me. I remain

astonished that so few did. Congresswoman Cheney, I know how

alone you must be feeling. But just know that history keeps

the score, not Kevin McCarthy or Elise Stefanik.

In January 2018, three years before the Capitol

insurrection, I said the following on the Senate floor: ``Mr.

President, let us be clear. The impulses underlying the

dissemination of such untruths are not benign. They have the

effect of eroding trust in our vital institutions and

conditioning the public to no longer trust them. The

destructive effect of this kind of behavior on our democracy

cannot be overstated.''

Three years later, it's clear that I didn't know the half

of it. The destructive effect of the president's behavior--

and the willingness of Republican elected officials to

indulge, excuse, defend, justify and, in many cases, just

roll with it--has taken a devastating toll.

It is elementary to have to say this, but we did not become

a great nation by believing or espousing nonsense, or by

embracing lunacy. And if my party continues down this path,

we will not be fit to govern.

Cheney has proved her fitness, and today it seems that

adherents to the ``big lie'' will cast her out. Hold your

head high, congresswoman. Those of us who believe in American

democracy and who live in objective reality are grateful that

you have chosen to take a stand for truth--self-evident

truth--regardless of the consequences.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 6 of House Resolution 380, I move to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 297, H.R. 433, H.R. 478,

Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate that we stand and speak on behalf of the law enforcement community of our country. As the former chief of the Orlando Police just said, it is because of them that we have law and order.

Democracy cannot survive without law and order. So, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Demings) for leading this Special Order hour and for so many Democrats and Republicans participating. She is, as so many Americans now know, not only an outstanding Member of the Congress but also a former chief of police for the city of Orlando, Florida, and, I might say, a serious candidate considered by President Biden for Vice President of the United States.

She is not the only one in our Caucus who has worked in law enforcement or overseen police departments as mayor, but certainly one of the most experienced.

As we observe National Police Week this year, we do so at a time when we are engaged in a critical national conversation about justice in policing. Tonight, we want to make it clear: This important dialogue does not detract one iota from the deep and abiding respect that all of us--Democrats, Republicans, independents, Americans--have for the men and women who dedicate their careers in law enforcement to protecting their communities, their neighbors, their friends.

I do not believe, I want to make it clear, in defunding police. That is neither my view nor my party's platform. Indeed, we honor law enforcement.

Over the years, I have been proud to join my Democratic colleagues as a strong supporter of law enforcement and to raise awareness of the very serious dangers that police officers face while doing their jobs.

Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson, in 1998, were slain, one in my office and one outside the door of my office. They were brave and good people who lost their lives defending the Capitol of the United States.

In my State of Maryland and the Fifth District, I have worked closely with police chiefs, sheriffs, and departments to ensure that their needs are being met. Together, we have worked to make certain that the families of those who fell in the line of duty received the benefits, help, compassion, and appreciation they deserve.

Every year--until it became virtual, and now I do it virtually--I have gone down to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial. 22,611 Americans, law enforcement officers, have lost their lives keeping the peace.

Last year, Mr. Speaker, America lost 295 police officers in the line of duty. It is a dangerous duty, but it is a critical duty.

Here in the Capitol, we will remember those who have given their lives to protect this institution, including Officer Chestnut, Detective Gibson, Officer Howard Liebengood, Officer William Evans, and, of course, Officer Brian Sicknick.

The actions just laid out are ones that Congress, House Democrats, believe are important to protecting those who keep us safe every day. But I believe, Mr. Speaker, it is equally essential for the efficacy and safety of law enforcement to take positive and proactive steps to ensure accountability and rebuild trust in our departments.

That is true of our institution, Mr. Speaker. When we hold accountable one of our Members, as we have done, it does not besmirch the rest of our Members. No one ought to simplify that one is like all.

To do that, we must continue the important national conversations about justice in policing and rooting out racial bias that corrodes effective police work.

The majority, Mr. Speaker, of principled police officers are among those most concerned about ensuring that those who cannot properly and responsibly carry out their work of policing are held accountable. That is why we passed the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.

Congress has a responsibility to deal with this challenge not only for the sake of justice and public safety but also in order to help police departments better carry out their missions and to raise the respect and support they receive from the American public.

Such a policy is not designed to defund police or to lessen the impact of the vital function that law enforcement officers perform.

So, as we join in observing Police Week this year, let us remember all those 22,000-plus, those 295, the brave men and women protecting us and the peacefulness of our communities. Let us continue to support law enforcement by striving to help police officers and departments face this moment head-on and emerge stronger, safer, more trusted, and better equipped to keep all Americans safe.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of this legislation.

I want to just briefly respond to the remarks of the gentleman who preceded me about retrocession. Retrocession is an interesting idea that my Republican colleagues have. It has to do with the issue of two United States Senators. One could say that has to do with both sides of the aisle, two United States Senators.

The history of adding States has been a history where focus is on those two United States Senators that would be added, and the party that wanted them and the party that didn't want them. But retrocession, frankly, is an interesting idea, except for the fact the gentleman talked about the Founding Fathers and James Madison and the Federalist Papers.

One of the articles of debate was, if you had a State, i.e. Maryland, whose land, of course, the Federal city is located on--Virginia gave some, but they took it back--you would have a State surrounding the Federal enclave. No difference, except for it would be Maryland and not Washington, Douglass Commonwealth. So that argument limps. It fails because you are suggesting the same thing that some have said is of concern to them. So the only difference is two Senators.

So this is about politics. Throughout history people have guessed as to what the new States are going to be. Now some knew absolutely. We have North and South Dakota. I don't know whether any of you know why we have North and South Dakota; two Senators versus four Senators. And the Republicans who were in charge wanted to have four Senators to assure their majority in the Senate as opposed to the Democrats in the South. Ironic how things change.

So if you are voting on politics, I get it. But on principle, Nevada was added and taken from Utah, by the way, because the Republicans who were then in charge back in the day wanted to have two additional Senators. And they got them, with less than 10,000 people living in the area that was taken from Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado, and formed Nevada.

So let's not get mired in these principled votes, because this is about two Senators. We get it. It is not about principle because there are over 700,000 people--712,000, to be exact, maybe more when we get the Census report--who are unequal citizens in America.

I want to thank the incomparable Eleanor Holmes Norton for her hard work and tireless advocacy for so many years as the leader of this cause on behalf of equal rights for the citizens she represents without a vote. Why, are they lesser citizens? Is she a lesser Representative? Surely not.

If a President of the United States, Republican or Democrat, asked somebody to come to the District of Columbia and work for the U.S. Government, bring your talents, your energy, and your focus to work for your country in Washington, D.C., but, oh, by the way, you have to give up your vote in the Congress of the United States through your Representative. In no other democracy are residents of the National Capital excluded from representation. None.

Frankly, I think the Founders had no concept of how big this city would become, how vibrant it would become. None. Yet, nearly 700,000 Americans are denied full representation.

The Founders of our Union of States set forth a simple process for the admission of new States to that Union. They believed, the 13 of them, that adding new States would be positive for the country and that they would want people represented in the territories in the Congress when they became States and qualified to be such. They saw that process of expansion as both healthy and workable, and they believed that it would strengthen our democracy.

Through the years, however, the admission of new States has been a very contentious process on both sides of the aisle. And there was a time in our history in the latter half of the 19th century when Republicans affected the admission of a number of new States in order to increase the numbers in the Senate. They accomplished that objective in some respects.

In one noteworthy example, which I have just mentioned, Nevada in 1864, less than 10,000 people. The criteria at that point in time, theoretically, was 60,000, but it was ignored. It was ignored. Two Senators. That is what this issue is about. Two Senators.

It is not about whether, on a principled basis, we ought to give to 712,000 of our citizens the right to be equally represented in the Congress of the United States. No, if they live here, we ask them to give up that right.

That same process, as I mentioned, was repeated in the admission of North and South Dakota. They had hardly any people living there. They could hardly qualify if you put all of the Dakota territory together. But what the Republicans did was--they were in charge at that point in time--they divided it, North and South Dakota. What happened? Two extra Senators. It wasn't about principle, about how many people, what the economic status was. It was about how many Senators.

My friends across the aisle complain that this bill would lead to the election of two additional Democratic Senators. So what?

Is that the criteria, the political judgment of the citizens of some entity seeking to become a State? There is nothing in the Constitution about that. Zero. It is the politics of it. I get it. But it is not the principle.

I hope people vote on principle, that they believe that their fellow citizens who happen to live within this, what used to be a square, but a square minus that to the south of the Potomac.

This legislation is very different than the acts that admitted those States in the 19th century. It is different because it is based on the demonstrable need to provide representation to hundreds of thousands of Americans who deserve to have their voices heard in our democracy. And they have determined they want to be a part.

Our Founders were offended, indeed outraged that they were forced to pay taxes, but were afforded no representation in the body that set those taxes.

Wouldn't all of us have been there at the Tea Party saying, ``You cannot tax us, England, without us having representation in the Parliament''?

I am sure you have heard the argument from many people on this floor--I won't repeat them--about the level of taxation that is paid by the citizens of the District of Columbia. But they have no say in the level of those taxes which so outraged our Founders.

Moreover, this legislation would end the unjust practice of treating D.C. residents differently than their fellow citizens in the 50 States when it comes to allocating resources or providing COVID-19 relief under the CARES Act last year.

Mr. Speaker, when President Eisenhower--a Republican President, but not a very partisan President, unlike today, where we have seen a very partisan President, no longer there--addressed the question of admitting Hawaii as a State in the 1950s, he said the following--and by the way, I think all of you probably know that when Alaska and Hawaii were admitted not too far apart in time, Alaska was perceived to be a Democratic State and Hawaii was perceived to be a Republican State.

So the assumption that somehow the District of Columbia will automatically elect two Democrats--which may be accurate, but it may not always be the case--the principle is what Eisenhower articulated, and he said this:

You have an economy that is self-supporting. There is a

large population, and I would like to see the case handled

clearly and specifically on its merits.

By that metric, Washington, D.C., earned its right to statehood a long time ago. And today, we can take a major step toward that goal when we pass this bill, which we passed last Congress as well.

As to retrocession, again, I wonder if Nevada would like to be back to Utah or to Wyoming or to Colorado or whether Wyoming, that has 200,000 less citizens approximately than the District of Columbia, would like to be subsumed by one of the surrounding States because of the few numbers? Vermont as well, which was taken from another State, as was West Virginia, which was part of Virginia.

I hope the Senate will then take up this bill when we pass it and consider the question of D.C. statehood on its merits, not on politics. Maybe that is too much to ask.

This is not a partisan math problem or electoral prediction, which, as we have seen, may or may not come to pass. But on the merits alone, on the conviction that taxation without representation is not fair now as it was not fair in 1776, the people of this city, our Nation's Capital, deserve full and equal representation in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that this bill will pass with bipartisan support. It is going to pass, but I hope we have some bipartisan support based upon the principle that every citizen in our country ought to enjoy the same representation in the Congress of the United States as every other citizen.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for her service. I thank Chairwoman Beatty and members of the Congressional Black Caucus for organizing this Special Order tonight.

Madam Speaker, Alcee Hastings was a dear friend, a close friend, a wonderful supporter, adviser, counselor, a friend who will be greatly missed not only by me, but by so many with whom he served on both sides of the aisle.

Madam Speaker, he and I served together in this House for 28 years, almost three decades. Over the course of that time, I came to know him very well. I visited his district. I know his wife. I saw his passion for public service, his sharp intellect and ability as a legislator, and his kindness and decency as a human being.

Alcee was someone who held strong convictions, as all of us know, and he would impart those to you, and he fought hard for what he believed in. One of those convictions was that all people on this Earth deserve the same basic freedoms and access to democracy as Americans are privileged to enjoy.

Madam Speaker, he and I served together on the U.S. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, and Alcee later served as its chairman, as I once did. He was the first African American to lead that body. And he was also honored, Madam Speaker, by legislators from 57 different nations when he was chosen as president of the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe's Parliamentary Assembly. The only American, the only African American, obviously, to have had that honor, and the only person of African descent to have that honor.

Before the pandemic, Alcee traveled the world to promote democracy and human rights where they were newly enjoyed or not yet achieved. Wherever he went, he brought his deep commitment to constitutionalism, rule of law, equality, justice, and opportunity for all.

In doing so, he was an excellent envoy of this House of Representatives, the people's House, and the democratic mission it embodies to the nations of the world.

I want to take a moment to speak about a part of Alcee's life that shows his true character. It is no secret that Alcee faced difficult and painful rebuke earlier in his career. I am not going to go into the specifics. Most people know the outlines.

But what stands out, Madam Speaker, for me and for others more than anything about what happened is that most people, after having been through such an experience, might have turned away from public service and harbored a debilitating anger and self-pity. Not our friend Alcee Hastings.

He was determined to continue giving back and serving his State and his country. So he ran for Congress and received the imprimatur of his neighbors and friends and constituents as a person of great worth whom they wanted to represent them. He served his constituents faithfully and with great ability for 28 years and, indeed, prior to that as well.

Those he served and those with whom he served are grateful that he made that choice. We are grateful that he persisted and persevered. And we are so fortunate, Madam Speaker, to have been blessed in our own lives by the wonderful life of service and contributions by Alcee Hastings.

I join others in offering my condolences to his wife, Patricia; to his family; to his devoted staff; and to the communities of southern Florida he represented so skillfully in this House.

Another Representative of southern Florida, my dear friend, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, will be relating from her personal experience serving with him from southern Florida the extraordinary impact that he had on Florida and that region.

Madam Speaker, I spoke this morning at a memorial service led, again, by the Congressional Black Caucus for Alcee, and I related the story that a few days before his death, I had called Patricia and talked to her about how Alcee was doing, and she said: Not well.

Two days later, I called her back. It was probably 7 o'clock, about this time, in the evening. I said: How are things?

She said: Not good.

I said: Can I talk to him?

She said: I don't think he will understand you and I don't think he will be able to respond, but I will put the phone to his ear and you can say something to him.

She did that, and I said a few words very briefly, and then I closed with the sentiment that I have today and that I had for most of the time that I had known him. I said to him: I love you, Alcee.

I said this morning that I don't know whether he could hear or understand what I said at that point in time, but the good news for me is I knew that he knew that I loved him. He was a man of great worth, of great feelings, of great expectations, of great service, of great vision. I will miss Alcee, my friend.

May Alcee's memory be a blessing and inspiration to us as we continue to work here in this institution that he loved and served so well.

Madam Speaker, first of all, I rise in strong support of this resolution. It makes in order that we will not discriminate against people based upon their religion or the State from which they come or the nation from which they come. It says not at our cost, but at their cost they have the right to consult counsel. That seems to me to be a basic premise in America.

Then, thirdly, which we hear so much lamentation about, it gives to 700,000-plus people in the District of Columbia equal status with the 500,000 people in Wyoming. How terrible. Now, perhaps if my friends from the other side of the aisle, Madam Speaker, thought that there were going to be two Republican Senators elected, they would be for it. I say perhaps, but I believe there is no doubt about that.

I am proud to be a strong supporter of that legislation, and I will tell my Republican friends who talk about human rights around the world so often--properly so--that Washington, D.C., is the only capital in the free world whose residents do not have a representative in the parliament of their country--the only one.

There is no reason why the gentlewoman who sits in front of me, Eleanor Holmes Norton--who is an extraordinary American and an extraordinary patriot who serves her Nation so incredibly well and is elected by those 700,000 people--why she is less than we because Eleanor Holmes Norton cannot vote on final passage of a bill.

Now, I did, as the majority leader, at least give her the respect and the respect to others who are representatives of their particular areas--Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands--the right to vote in the Committee of the Whole to let them know at least in that small way we wanted to give voice to the folks they represent.

So I rise in strong support of this rule. We have passed these bills before. Republicans opposed them before, and they will oppose them again. I am not surprised.

Madam Speaker, before I sit, however, I want to speak about another issue. We are expecting the Republican leader to offer a privileged resolution at the conclusion of the debate on this rule. I am disappointed at that news. His resolution is being used by Republicans to posit a moral equivalence between a comment by the gentlewoman from California about standing up for justice and peaceful protest and remarks by Representative Greene who directly threatened violence by retweeting a tweet. I understand it was not her words, but she retweeted those words which said that if you want to shut Pelosi up, a bullet to the head will accomplish that objective. She didn't say it. I want to make that clear. She retweeted a tweet that said that.

Even more egregiously, it is being used to twist reality to suggest that somehow Congresswoman Waters' remark is as condemnable a remark as rhetoric that incites a violent attempt to overthrow the government of the United States on January 6, an action that Republicans refuse to condemn. There is no equivalence.

Chairwoman Waters' remarks reflect the very profound anger and sense of hopelessness that she and so many others--myself included--feel when we see African Americans being killed during encounters with our law enforcement and their families not seeing justice.

It is my understanding we are going to get a ruling almost perhaps any minute. We will see.

It is, however, irresponsible to take Chairwoman Waters' remarks out of context just to hold a gotcha partisan vote, particularly when no action was taken by her party regarding Mrs. Greene's remarks.

It is, frankly, exploiting the pain of so many families and communities to turn Chairwoman Waters' concern for justice into a partisan cudgel.

As my friend, the dearly departed Elijah Cummings used to say and would surely say now, ``We are better than this.''

So when the minority leader offers his motion, I will offer a motion to table and urge all my colleagues to support that motion.

I urge all of my colleagues to pick up their dictionary, turn to the Cs, and look up confront. Confront is to face the facts. Confront is to face the truth. Confront is to face the challenges that we have, and that is what Ms. Waters urged.

I would suggest to my friend, the minority leader, Madam Speaker, that if confrontation is subject to sanction, then we are going to have a lot of people on his side of the aisle who we believe are confrontational every day.

Confront is not violence. Confront is not waving guns and some groups' biggest fear. Confront is not to say to be violent in confronting the facts, the truth, the opportunities, and the challenges, and, yes, the alternatives that we all take.

So if one of us stands up and says that we need to confront this and we need to be confrontational and we need to get up in people's faces and say: This is the truth and we need to act and that would be subject to admonition, then I suggest to my friend, Madam Speaker, and my friends in this House, that we all confront.

We came here to represent people and to confront their needs, to confront their fears, and to confront their wants. Now, yes, you could say, well, that is advocacy. Of course, it is. So I ask my friends not only to vote for this rule, but to vote for the motion to table my friend's motion that I anticipate.

We could spend all our time here, Madam Speaker. We have been on this side of the aisle, as my friend, the leader knows, and we haven't had all the resolutions that have been introduced on my side of the aisle. This makes it harder, however, not to proceed on numerous resolutions on my side of the aisle. Let us table this resolution on behalf of this institution and every Member in it.

Madam Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 6 of House Resolution 330, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bills: H.R. 367, H.R. 370, H.R. 396, H.R. 397, H.R. 408, H.R. 490, H.R. 965, H.R. 1251, H.R. 1395, H.R. 1491, H.R. 1528, H.R. 1532, H.R. 1565, H.R. 1602, and H.R. 2523, and agree to H. Res. 124.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at noon for morning- hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes expected no earlier than 6:30 p.m.

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

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, with last votes no later than 3 p.m.

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

In addition, Madam Speaker, we will consider bills relating to justice and civil rights: H.R. 1333, the NO BAN Act, which prevents origin-based discrimination against those seeking to visit our country to do business, see family, or engage in tourism, rejecting the previous administration's policy of banning arrivals from predominantly Muslim countries; H.R. 1573, the Access to Counsel Act, which reaffirms key American principles of justice with regard to immigrants' rights to counsel during status hearings; and then lastly, H.R. 51, standing for the 51st State. H.R. 51 is the Washington, D.C. Admission Act, to admit the District of Columbia as a State and provide equal representation in Congress for its residents.

That will be our schedule for the week to come. The following 2 weeks in April will be our committee workweeks so that the committees can produce additional product for consideration on the floor of the House of Representatives.

I have not had a discussion with Mr. Nadler, but as the gentleman knows, we have a lot of work to do on the floor of the House of Representatives, and we intend to get that work done. We have not considered bringing to the floor the bill to which the gentleman refers.

Did the gentleman in his research find any instances in any authoritarian country where they refused to consider a constitutional appointee to their Supreme Court that the President, with 10 months on his term, sent down to the United States Senate or some other body in those countries?

Will the gentleman yield?

Madam Speaker, I don't know about the Nadler bill, but I do know that the Constitution says nothing about the Senate's ability to simply refuse to consider an appointee of the President of the United States. I don't think the Founders had any concept that that would be the case when they gave the power of appointment to the President of the United States.

And then when that occurred, when the present Attorney General was appointed to the Supreme Court, Mitch McConnell said, We are not going to consider it, ten months before the end of the term of a President of the United States. And then they said the reason being is because we have an election coming up in just a few months--in that case, it was 8 months--and the next President ought to appoint.

Madam Speaker, that deep principle enunciated by Mr. McConnell, by Mr. Graham, and others--who was the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, that deep principle was abandoned immediately when it became politically pragmatic for the Republican Party to do so and steal a Supreme Court justice.

So he can talk about socialism all he wants. What a distraction that is. A failure to want to discuss on the merits of the issues.

So what do they do, Madam Speaker? They talk about socialism or communism or dictatorship, none of which we have in the United States of America.

Now, we just lost a President of the United States that, in my experience--and I have served with many Presidents of the United States--was the most authoritarian-seeking President with whom I have served.

Madam Speaker, so I tell my friend that we are going to focus on issues important to the American people. We want to pass a jobs bill to make sure that America is competitive in the 21st century. We want to pass a jobs bill to make sure that families have good-paying jobs that they can support themselves and their families. We want to support bills that build America back better. I want an America that makes sure that everybody can ``make it in America,'' not only manufacture it in America but make it in America. That is what we are going to be focused on.

Madam Speaker, we hope that the debate is on the merits of those proposals, not some aspersion of some ideological tinge that they may think their supporters regale at.

The gentleman refers to Communist China, apparently wants to follow that example. A communist authoritarian government that owns most of the manufacturing capability in China--not all of it. It is ironic that in two different debates in less than 5 minutes that the gentleman would point to China as the example of what perhaps we ought to do, when their tax policy is approximately 100 percent, except what they want to allow their citizens to have.

Madam Speaker, let me just close on that point with: The Supreme Court has been packed.

Madam Speaker, we have a situation that is heart-wrenching and unacceptable. And it must be dealt with. In part, this situation comes because of the draconian policies of the previous administration.

It comes also because Republicans have refused, in both Houses, to come to agreement on a comprehensive immigration reform bill. So we have chaos as a result because our immigration system, as I believe almost every Member of your side of the aisle and every Member of my side of the aisle believes, is broken.

Now, unfortunately, what we see in that picture is broken systems causing great danger, apprehension, and fear among many people who are fleeing to America for refuge. It has, of course, Lady Liberty at the head of the harbor, the Hudson River, raises her torch and says, ``That is what America is for.''

Now, having said that, this situation is unacceptable. It is unacceptable for humanitarian reasons. It is unacceptable for the safety of not only those people that are in that picture, but for American citizens as well.

Madam Speaker, now it is my understanding that the CDC's existing pandemic public health order for closed borders is, in fact, being followed. In Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, California, unaccompanied children crossing the border are tested--are tested--by the Department of Health and Human Services. The migrants entering ICE facilities are tested, and they are quarantined if they test positive.

So protections are trying to be effective, and this administration is working very hard to ensure the safety of Americans and the safety of these many children who have come across the border.

None of them have been taken out of the arms of their parents. None of them have been made orphans by this administration.

I didn't hear the gentleman lamenting the fact that we had hundreds of children who had been taken out of the arms of their parents, and then they could not be found--that is, their parents. They could not be reunited with their parents.

This is a challenge. It is not a partisan challenge. It is a challenge for America. It is a challenge for us all.

This administration is working to try to come to a solution that is both humanitarian and effective. I am hopeful that they will proceed in accomplishing that objective.

The gentleman mentions the policies of the Trump administration, which substantially underfunded its own policies of trying to help the Northern Triangle countries. When I say help the triangle countries, unfortunately, the leadership of those countries, in too many instances, is not trying to help itself. So, we see panicked people fleeing.

Madam Speaker, I don't know whether the gentleman from Louisiana, my friend, Mr. Scalise, saw the pictures of two children being dropped over the fence--by the way, that very large fence, billions of dollars of fence. Smugglers dropped two children over the fence. That is how secure it was.

The tragedy of those children being dropped over that fence alone, I don't care where they are from or who they are, but my faith teaches me that they may be strangers, but they are brothers and sisters.

In that context, we need to come to grips, and I am hopeful that the gentleman will support the administration's desire to get a comprehensive immigration bill adopted in this Congress.

In 2013, the Senate passed, Madam Speaker, a bill which was supported by Democrats and Republicans, 14 Republican Members of the United States Senate. We pleaded with the Republican leadership to bring that bill to the floor. They will say they brought a

bill to the floor, and they did bring a bill to the floor, and almost nobody thought it was effective in accomplishing the objective of having an immigration system that would work.

So, I tell the gentleman, the pictures that he is displaying ought to concern us all deeply. We ought to urge all of our colleagues to cooperate and work toward making sure that we don't have scenes like that and that we have the ability to deal with this surge at the border in a humane way.

But no one in the previous administration can wash their hands of the responsibility of creating a situation which--the gentleman says Mexico is adjudged to be one of the most dangerous nations on Earth for COVID- 19. The previous administration said to people trying to seek solace and health and safety: Stay. Stay in the most dangerous nation on Earth for COVID-19.

I don't know whether that is a very humane policy. That is not a sanctuary for people who are in dire straits.

We said ``no'' to some people who came here from Germany. We said, no, you can't come in. Many of them returned in the 1930s and early 1940s and were slaughtered. They came here for sanctuary and found none.

That doesn't mean we can take everybody, but it does mean that we need to deal with it in a humanitarian way, in a way that honors our values and honors these people as our fellow human beings.

So, I tell the gentleman, in conclusion, that these are sad scenes, and we need to respond to them in a humanitarian way, but also a smart way. We need to respond to the cause as well as the effect.

Will the gentleman yield on the asylum issue?

Does the gentleman believe we ought to obey America's laws on asylum?

Donald Trump didn't fix the problem; he delayed the problem. That is what happened. That is what those pictures reflect.

He didn't fix the problem. He would say to those kids: Get out of here. Go back to Mexico. Maybe you have a parent there, maybe you have somebody who will take care of you, but get out of here.

That was one way to ``solve'' the problem, I presume. Those kids didn't go away. The fear that they have for being home didn't go away.

Now, I have said, Madam Speaker, this is something that we all need to deal with from a compassionate standpoint, from a legal standpoint, and from a human standpoint, which I guess is redundant to ``compassionate.'' But the fact of the matter is that President Trump did not solve this problem; he simply delayed it.

When he left, the pressure was so great because they did not believe that this President would simply throw them to the wolves, take them from their parents, treat them as refuse.

We need to deal with this, and, hopefully, we will. Hopefully we will get comprehensive immigration reform.

I will say again that one of the reasons that we have the problem of not adjudicating these people quickly is because we don't have enough judges. And the reason we don't have enough judges, which were included both in the 2013 bill and the subsequent reform bills, is because we haven't passed bills to provide the judges on the theory that if we don't provide the judges, then we won't be able to approve asylum and people won't be able to get in.

Madam Speaker, I am at the end of this circuitous argument.