Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia, the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee for yielding, and I thank him for his untiring work.

``No employer . . . shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex, by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex.''

That was passed by the Congress of the United States, signed by the President of the United States in 1963. A half a century later, Mr. Speaker, the figures belie that promise. The figures are a shameful recognition of the emptiness of that promise.

Now, I know the gentlewoman from North Carolina, not well, but well enough. We have served here together for some period of time. I hope she will take this with a measure of positivity. She is a feisty lady. She stands up for what she believes. And she is tough. All those things are said lovingly. God help us if they paid her less than they paid every male Member of this House.

But we don't. We pay everybody the same, except, I will admit, the Speaker and myself, so perhaps I am not quite as detached. But everybody else gets the same. A person who comes in the first day gets paid as much as a person who has been here 40 years like me. Why? Because it is the responsibility and duties that we perform that are being compensated, not our gender.

Now, in this bill and every other bill that has dealt with equal pay--however, let there be no mistake, clearly, I pay people in my office who have been there for 10 years more than I pay people that have been there a year if they are doing the same thing. Period. Experience counts.

As a lawyer when I ran my law office, I paid people differently based upon their experience, their education, and other differentials, but not on the basis of gender. And like the gentleman who spoke before me, I have one more daughter than he has; he has two daughters, I have three daughters. Mr. Speaker, they would not be happy today if their dad came to this floor and voted against this bill, I will tell you that. I don't know about the gentleman's daughters, but I can tell you where my daughters would be.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to bring the Paycheck Fairness Act to the floor, as I did last Congress. The legislation is a critical part of Democrats' effort to close the gender pay gap and ensure that women earn equal pay for equal work. Lilly Ledbetter did not get equal pay for equal work. Period. Unfortunately, she was prevented by the Supreme Court from making her case. We corrected that.

The House passed a bill in 2019, but the Republican-controlled Senate failed to do the same, a bill just like this. That was very disappointing, not only to those of us who have been working hard to close the gender pay gap in Congress, but more so to the tens of millions of people in the workforce who deserve to take home pay they have earned. This is not a gift. This is compensation based upon ability and contribution, not on gender.

In America today, a woman still earns on average just 82 cents to every dollar earned by a man. Mr. Chairman, has that been disputed on this floor? From women of color it is even worse. African-American women earn on average only 63 cents to the dollar, while Latinas see 55 cents for the same work.

For women who work full time, year-round, the gender pay gap represents a loss of more than, as the Speaker just said, $400,000. That ought to be unacceptable to all of us if we believe in equality.

This disparity does not only hurt women, it disadvantages their entire families, with women's pay critical to household incomes.

Two-thirds of women are now either the primary breadwinner or co- breadwinner of their households, and women's earnings are the main source of income in more than 4 in 10 households, 40 percent.

Now, the gentlewoman from North Carolina knows full well that historically we have underpaid women because we thought men were the breadwinners. They were the people who earned the money. They were the people who needed money so they could support their families. That is not true today, if it was ever true. Those households ought not to be disadvantaged because women are paid less for the same work as their male counterparts.

I mentioned in 1963 the promise we made as a Nation. In 2009, when I was majority leader for the first time, I was proud to bring the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to the floor and get it passed.

I congratulate Rosa DeLauro who is on the floor today, Mr. Speaker. She has been indefatigable and focused and untiring--I suppose that is redundant--in her efforts to ensure that women were treated equally. And one of the best ways to treat people equally is pay them the same thing for the same job.

The Paycheck Fairness Act builds on its success by making it harder for businesses to hide the underpayment of women in their employ through nondisclosure contracts and imposing new civil penalties for those who violate equal pay rules, among other beneficial provisions.

Now, this has been in effect for half a century, and we haven't gotten there. Do we need some, yeah, let's get it done, this is what the law said in 1963? And we really meant it. So let's carry that out so when the bipartisan, nonpartisan reports are made as to who is making what for the same job, it will come back men and women are getting the same pay for the same job with the same skills and the same seniority.

I hope the Senate will take up this long overdue legislation and pass it so President Biden can sign it into law and at long last make good on the promise of the Equal Pay Act nearly six decades ago.

I thank my friend, as I just did, Rosa DeLauro for the work she has done. I thank Ms. DeLauro on behalf of Susan, on behalf of Stefany, on behalf of Anne, my daughters, on behalf of Judy and Ava and Brooklyn and Savannah, my three great granddaughters and my granddaughter. What she has done, what we can do will make a difference for them, their families, and our country.

Mr. Speaker, in March, the House passed legislation to award a Congressional Gold Medal to the men and women of the U.S. Capitol Police for their heroism on January 6 and for their daily efforts to protect the institutions of our democracy.

On April 3, once again, we saw an example, of not only the dangers in which they place themselves through their service, but also the courage they bring to that service.

In the short span of fewer than 100 days, the U.S. Capitol force lost three members as a result of attacks on the Capitol complex. Yesterday, we honored one of those Capitol policemen, Billy Evans. But in a real sense, we honored every member of the United States Capitol Police.

Some years ago, I lost a member of the Capitol Police who lived in my district, J.J. Chestnut. Wendy, his wife, was at the ceremony yesterday for Billy Evans. That was in 1998. He and Officer Gibson lost their lives in defending this Capitol on that date. And while a Congressional Gold Medal is a very fitting tribute, it can neither lessen the grief felt by their fellow officers nor reduce the sense of unease that so many of them must still be feeling today.

Mr. Speaker, this has been a challenging time for the Congress and for all of us, but it certainly has been a time of challenge for the Capitol Police force. And surely the force will be going through a period of change and adaptation for some time to come, as will all of us who serve here in the Capitol complex.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a moment on this floor to say thank you for those who still stand watch at the doors and the vehicle barriers, who patrol the neighborhoods and the office buildings, who sit ready to respond quickly and courageously to any emergency, never knowing what the next alarm might bring.

Mr. Speaker, in particular, I thank the men and women who have served on the security detail that the Capitol Police have assigned to me in my role as majority leader. You get to know them as friends, as protectors, and as family.

Since being elected to House leadership, I have been privileged to know some of the best of the force. They are representative of an extraordinary group of people. In order to protect their safety and privacy, I will not share their names, but they know who they are. Each and every one of them not only have my immense gratitude and respect, but they have the admiration of my entire staff, whom they have gotten to know very well.

Mr. Speaker, again, as I know them, I know that they are representative of an extraordinary group of people that we call the United States Capitol Police.

On January 6, when the rioters first breached the Capitol's defenses, these officers acted without delay, according to their training, to get me quickly to a safe location, but they couldn't get everybody. And so many were still in this Chamber as the insurrectionists cried for the lives of Members of Congress.

Capitol Police checked in with staff and did their best to get us information in a situation that was chaotic and rapidly changing for us, but more importantly, for them on the front lines. My security detail until the last Congress had been led by an officer, who now serves in the force in a more senior capacity. He was by my side almost every day for nearly two decades. I came to know him and his family well, just as I have other members of my detail. As I said, they are like family to all of us in the majority leader's office. I know that is true of the minority leader's office and the whip's office and the Speaker's office and the Democratic whip's office, and our Senate counterparts.

The senior officer on my detail formerly was present at the Capitol on January 6, and he acted heroically, and he was the one that tried to save the life of the woman who was shot--who was an insurrectionist-- because he stood next to her, unarmed, when that incident occurred. He acted heroically in trying to keep the rioters away from the House Chamber and in responding when one of them was shot in the hallway, as I just pointed out.

I know that the events of that day still weigh very heavily on him and on each of us--on his colleagues, on all of us. And I hope that he and his colleagues know that their grief weighs heavily on all of us whom they protect and serve.

President Joseph Biden, in speaking yesterday to the family of Officer Evans, showed empathy. He showed that he felt their pain, their concerns, their trauma. And I would urge all my colleagues, when you see members of the United States Capitol Police, uniformed or in plain clothes, that you thank them.

Mr. Speaker, I talked about Officer Chestnut. Wendy, his wife, as I said, was here yesterday. He was shot in the back by the assailant, who then shot Officer Gibson in the office that I now occupy. It was Tom DeLay's office at that point in time.

Mr. Speaker, we thank them, we honor them, but the way we really need to respond to them is to make sure they have the resources, the training, the equipment, and the authority to respond to those who confront them with violence and fatal force.

We lost Officer Sicknick. This Capitol was invaded because there were restraints, frankly, on the United States Capitol Police. We need to make sure that they have the authority to respond, to protect this Capitol, this democracy, our Members, our staff, the visitors to this Capitol, but also, importantly, themselves.

We know that this is a difficult moment and the Capitol Police force is facing challenges like never before in its 193-year history.

In the early 1960s, I worked here as an intern in a United States Senator's office, and I had a number of friends who also were in law school or some other school, who were ``Capitol cops'' we called them. Thankfully, the risks were minimal. That is not true today. And as the risks are great, we must respond robustly to ensure that we have the capacity and the will to meet those risks.

Mr. Speaker, may God bless and protect our U.S. Capitol Police officers.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, let us remember that the United States Senate in 2013, with 14 Republicans and the balance of Democrats, well over 60 people, voted for comprehensive immigration reform, as I recall, and, perhaps the chairman can correct me, I believe $47 billion for security. Maybe the staff can shake their head if that was the right number. It was a very substantial number; it might not be the exact number.

On this side of the aisle, we pleaded with the majority to bring a comprehensive immigration bill to the floor. They were in charge. They could have brought whatever security that they wanted. They could have brought comprehensive immigration reform to the floor.

The bills that were brought to the floor bore no relationship, with all due respect, to the Senate-passed bipartisan bill, so we did not achieve comprehensive immigration reform. There was no conference; there was no back-and-forth; and there was no response to that bipartisan bill.

So, I tell my friend from Texas, yes, there is a problem. There is a problem in trafficking, and we need to deal with it.

But I also tell this House that what it ought to know is that the immigration system is broken. I wait for somebody to arise and say: No, it is fine.

Nobody believes it is fine, Mr. Speaker. These bills are not comprehensive immigration reform, but they are supported by the American people because they know that Dreamers, TPS, and DED are adding to this country's value.

Mr. Speaker, for 135 years, America's bright beacon to the world has been that statue that stands in New York Harbor. It lifts her lamp beside the golden door for those who are yearning to breathe free.

My father came through that door. He was 32 years of age in 1934. He came from Denmark. He came for the reason most come, not fleeing, however, from a dangerous land, as some are now doing, but looking for opportunity and a better life. They have come throughout our history from every corner of the world, braving hardship and seeking opportunity, arriving here to build businesses, raise families, and contribute to strengthening communities.

Dreamers have done that. They did not come at their insistence. They came at their parents' insistence or somebody else's insistence, but they are here, and they know America as their home.

Immigrants are a reason why America became the world's most powerful and most prosperous country. For years now, however, our immigration and visa system has been terribly broken, so much so that millions in this country live in fear, holding their breath every day that they could be deported to faraway lands that are not their homes because America is their home.

For Dreamers, it has been their home since their earliest days. And, today, this House is going to take action, as we did last Congress, to help them breathe easier.

The minority leader and I were meeting at the White House some years ago, and then-President Trump said: If you send me a Dreamers bill, I will sign it.

Well, we never sent it. The minority leader and I negotiated, along with others--the administration and Senator Durbin, the minority leader, and Senator Cornyn. We didn't get there, sadly.

This bill will correct a wrong that has brought fear and uncertainty to so many Americans. Yes, Americans. America is their home and their country. We are talking about patriotic and law-abiding residents, many of whom have been here for decades and are working to build a strong community and serving on the front lines of this pandemic as healthcare professionals, first responders, and essential workers.

We owe them the chance to live without fear of deportation and family separation. There are other problems we ought to talk about and we have talked about. But, certainly, these Dreamers and those with TPS who have been here for a long period of time, and DED, this bill is just for them.

When I say ``just,'' I don't mean solely. I mean justice.

We passed the American Dream and Promise Act last Congress with bipartisan support, and I hope we can do the same today.

I want to thank Representative Roybal-Allard for her leadership on H.R. 6, and all of those in the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and yourself, Mr. Speaker, for the extraordinary work you have done.

We are also voting, of course, today on another immigration bill this week, H.R. 1603, the Farm Workforce Modernization Act. I rise in support of that as well.

This legislation, offered by Chairwoman Lofgren, provides a pathway to permanent legal residency to undocumented agricultural workers and their families who are living here and filling a critical economic need from which we benefit, every one of us, every day; and that is the food on our table.

Without that change, workers and their employers will continue to operate under a cloud of uncertainty and instability. These reforms are long overdue, and I want to thank Chairwoman Lofgren for her work to bring them to the floor.

I hope, as part of broader immigration reform efforts, that we can address the status of seasonal non-agricultural workers on H-2B, who contribute so much to our economy and communities working in landscaping, hospitality, and, in my own State of Maryland, the crab industry.

After the House passes this legislation and H.R. 6, I hope the Senate will move quickly to send them to President Biden for his signature.

The Dream and Promise Act, some 75 percent of Americans are for that. We have been passing legislation that an overwhelming majority of Americans are for, and somehow, the Senate didn't get it or didn't care. Hopefully, this year they will.

If enacted, these two bills would provide a pathway to permanent legal status for some 3 million to 4 million people. They are here. They are among us. They help us. They work with us. They pay taxes. Let's bring them out from under the cloud of being kicked out.

This legislation today is a major achievement and will hasten the moment when 3 million to 4 million immigrants and their families can breathe a little easier, a little freer, knowing they are welcomed and valued here in America, that they are truly a part of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support both of these pieces of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I rise to join her in recognizing and thanking Latrice Powell for the extraordinary service that she has given to this institution.

Members from both sides of the aisle have come to know and respect Latrice for her deep knowledge of floor procedure, her acumen, and her experience helping to manage the floor during very difficult votes and debate.

Not only has she served the Speaker as her deputy floor director, Latrice previously helped run the Democratic Cloakroom, as was pointed out, and before that was director of operations for Member services for the Congressional Black Caucus as well as a staff member for the gentleman from Mississippi, our Speaker pro tempore, Mr. Bennie Thompson. That is a very distinguished record of service to this House and to our country.

Now, I would be remiss if I did not observe that Latrice Powell is a graduate of the University of Maryland, and is a proud Terp. What a wonderful and distinguished academic institution she has graduated from. She also holds a master's degree in counseling and psychology from Bowie State University.

What is significant about the University of Maryland and Bowie State University? They are in my district, so, Mr. Speaker, you know what extraordinary institutions they are.

Today, Latrice lives in Upper Marlboro. Whose district do you think that is, Mr. Speaker? Just take a wild guess. The Fifth Congressional District of Maryland that I have had the proud privilege of serving for the last four decades.

Sadly, Latrice will shortly be leaving the House. You have heard me say this about other of our staff: The American people have no idea how talented our staff is and how hardworking, how patriotic, and how committed they are to this country and to this institution.

I would hope that all of us would, on a regular basis, tell them.

Latrice is an extraordinary person, but she is representative of those who work with us. That is the great truth and great privilege that we have as Members of this House serving with such extraordinary people who serve this institution. They serve us, and they serve this country so well.

I know that feeling all too well, having just said good-bye to my floor director, Shuwanza Goff. All of you know Shuwanza. She is now serving the President of the United States of America. She, too, was a historic first on this floor.

I hope that all the Members will join me on both sides of the aisle. For the most part, this staff is serving this House and this institution, not a party and not a philosophy, but serving an institution that we have so proudly call the people's House.

Bill Natcher from Kentucky was the chairman of the Appropriations Committee on which Nancy and I both served. He used to say, when he brought his bill to the floor: This is the people's bill in the people's House.

How proud we are that nobody can appoint us to this institution; we have to be elected to the House of Representatives.

Latrice, you have served all of us so very, very well. We love you, and we wish you the very best in the days ahead. God bless you, and Godspeed. We love you.

Madam Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, as we celebrate Women's History Month, we do so with an awareness that so much work in the fight for equality remains. Much has been accomplished, but much remains to be done. This is one of those.

That is what the House is focusing on this week, women's equality, women's safety and justice, and women's opportunity. I am proud that we are taking action to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act within the first 3 months of the new Congress.

I was a cosponsor--and proud of it--of the original 1994 Violence Against Women Act. We passed the original VAWA on a bipartisan basis and reauthorized it with bipartisan support in 2000 and again in 2005. Those were overwhelming votes of 371-1 and 415-4.

Now we are talking about the equal rights amendment, I understand.

In 2013, we did it again on VAWA, 87 Republicans joining all 199 Democrats in the House vote. Every time we reauthorized the law, we made it stronger, ensuring protections for more women who were victimized by domestic abuse, stalking, and other crimes.

Last Congress, our House Democratic majority passed a VAWA reauthorization that included these expanded protections, but Senate Republicans blocked it from consideration. Not that they offered an alternative, not that they said: This is a problem and we need to solve it. It has been bipartisan, so here is our view and we will go to conference on it.

They simply blocked it.

It is essential, Madam Speaker, that Congress take action with a long-term reauthorization of VAWA, made all the more critical by the rise in domestic violence we have seen during the COVID-19 pandemic and more people having to stay home; an epidemic of domestic violence. Let's send a message to the women and men of America that Congress will continue to do its part to root out domestic violence and abuse.

I was just with Congresswoman Jackson Lee, the sponsor and the chair of the Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Subcommittee. Chairman

Nadler is now speaking. I said then, as I say now: It is critical that we pass this legislation.

I agree with President Biden, the author of the original 1994 Violence Against Women Act, that strengthening and renewing VAWA is long past due. Once we pass it in the House, I hope the Senate will send it quickly to President Biden to sign it into law.

Madam Speaker, I am speaking on both VAWA, obviously, and the ERA, two very critically important pieces of legislation.

Last year, Virginia became the 38th State to ratify the equal rights amendment. When I hear the opposition to the equal rights amendment, you would think that we were organizing to defeat women's rights. I think some of these speeches were written by Lewis Carroll.

After Virginia passed and became the 38th State, the House passed a resolution to affirm that, with Virginia's action, the equal rights amendment had been duly added to our Constitution as the 28th Amendment. However, the Republican-led Senate refused to do the same.

Now, with the Democratic-led Senate, I am hopeful that Congress can affirm the adoption of that amendment and provide strong, legal backing to those seeking to have it recognized by our courts as a full part of our Constitution.

What little faith we demonstrate in the courts of the United States of America when it is going to be interpreted, according to some, as not affirming equal rights for women, but somehow undermining equal rights. That is why I say that I think these speeches were written by Lewis Carroll.

The amendment simply states, as I am sure has been said: ``Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.''

How can that be misinterpreted to say somehow we are enunciating a proposition that would undermine rather than protect and lift up the rights of women?

It is long overdue that we, as a Nation, affirm this truth: that all men and women are created equal. Not the same, quite obviously, but equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Madam Speaker, I have two granddaughters and I have three great- granddaughters. The late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg--the famous or, as she would say from time to time, the infamous RGB--said this: ``I would like to see my granddaughters, when they pick up the Constitution, to see that notion--that women and men are persons of equal stature--I'd like them to see that it is a basic principle of our society.''

Madam Speaker, that is what this amendment is about. It should have been passed two centuries ago, but it is never too late to do the right thing. And we can take a major step forward this week to make that happen by passing the bipartisan resolution offered by Representatives Jackie Speier and Tom Reed.

I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting both H.J. Res. 17 and the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. Both will articulate our concern for women, for mothers, for daughters, for sisters, for neighbors, for friends.

We have a chance this week to send a message that Congress will not tolerate violence or discrimination against women, and we have an opportunity to mark this Women's History Month, not just with words, but with actions that mean something by making history in a very positive way, benefiting not only women, but our Nation as a whole.

Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support these two very important pieces of legislation.

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, 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 Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate and noon for legislative business.

On Thursday, the House will meet at noon for legislative business.

On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business, with the last votes no later than 3 p.m.

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

In addition, we will consider two bills to honor Women's History Month, including the Violence Against Women Act. This legislation is essential to help stamp out domestic abuse, violence against women and girls, and sexual harassment, and to provide victims and survivors with the resources to recover and seek justice. In addition to that, the House will consider a resolution to remove the deadline for ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment.

The House will also consider two bills to address our broken immigration system. The first, H.R. 6, the American Dream and Promise Act, is to protect Dreamers and those with TPS and DED status. In addition, the Farm Workforce Modernization Act is to create a pathway for agricultural workers to earn legal status and to reform the H-2A program, a bill which enjoys broad bipartisan support.

Additionally, the House will consider a bill to ensure that we preclude cuts to Medicare, as well as farm supports and other programs implicated by sequestration.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I agree with the Members, and I regret that we have had such a necessity on too many occasions to change the schedule. We did so, of course, to accommodate not only work done but also the very, very unusual start that we have had to this session, a tragic start that we have had to this session, dealing with issues that we would have preferred not to deal with, but we had to as a result of the insurrection that occurred on January 6, and other actions, including the security that the gentleman referred to. That concerns us all.

As somebody who represents the Washington metropolitan region, the openness of our Capitol is of particular concern to me because my constituents all live within driving distance, an hour or less. So, I share the view.

Madam Speaker, I want to assure Members that we are going to make every effort and that we are trying to now finalize. We already have April, May, June, and July as the schedule. I think that will not be changed in any dramatic fashion. But when we have the final, I hope to make sure that everybody, next week, before we leave here, knows what is going to happen in April, May, June, July, before the August break. Because I understand, when the schedule is changed, for whatever reasons, however justified they may be, it does disrupt.

Although I heard some criticism last Wednesday that we didn't come in Thursday, no Member came up to me complaining that we didn't come in Thursday. I did hear some political rap about it, but I didn't hear any Members say, ``Oh, jeez, I really wanted to come in Thursday.'' That usually is the case.

Madam Speaker, I want to remind the gentleman that we got all of our work done last week. All that was scheduled was done.

I will assure the gentleman that we are working very hard so that, the next 4 months, Members can rely on it when they see on the calendar that they have to be here or they don't have to be here, or that we are going to consider this, that, and the other.

We are going to try to hew very, very closely to that because I do appreciate that when you change the schedule, it is very disruptive for people's lives, for people's businesses, for our constituents.

Madam Speaker, I would tell the gentleman that would certainly be the ideal. There is no doubt about that. We would like to get to that position.

We continue to consult the Capitol physician on his advice on what we ought to be doing. It would be a lot simpler if every Member had been vaccinated, I will tell my friend. Although, obviously, the information as to who gets a vaccination and who does not is privileged and private information, as it should be, I would ask my friend to urge his Members to get the vaccination so that both sides will know that all of our Members have been vaccinated. That will facilitate getting to where the gentleman wants to get and where, I share his view, I want to get and the Speaker wants to get. So, we will continue to talk about that.

Although we have a regular schedule, it is not the old schedule. It is not the 15-minute vote or 17- or 20-minute vote that we had, which was much more efficient, as you may have seen me quoted in the paper the other day about virtual, that we prefer to come together in this Chamber, in committee rooms, on this campus, to discuss with one another, to work with one another. We think that is the ideal, and we hope to get there as soon as possible.

We are making progress, obviously. We are getting a lot of Americans vaccinated. We are not anywhere close to the 75 percent yet, but, hopefully, we will be there soon.

I would think and hope we could get to 100 percent of Members and make sure that our staff is vaccinated as well. The sooner we do that, the sooner we can accomplish what the gentleman wants to accomplish.

Would the gentleman yield?

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Let me make a few comments. First of all, the gentleman mentioned about the White House and the President. I am going down with the President, who is going to sign the American Rescue Plan tomorrow, an extraordinary piece of legislation that we are very excited about and that is going to help literally millions and millions of Americans and our entire economy, our families, and our children. So we are very excited about that.

I was required to have a test. Now, I have had two shots, but I was required to have a test this morning by the Capitol physician before I went down to the White House. The gentleman says that you don't wear a mask, but one has to have a test before one gets into the room.

Now, with respect to the 100 percent, I think we ought to have 100 percent. I think everybody in this body and every one of our staff ought to have the vaccine to make sure that we are safe and that others who deal with us are safe. The CDC guidelines, by the way, recommend that people be vaccinated but that they avoid medium and large crowds.

Now, depending upon what the gentleman says, Madam Speaker, if you have 300 people on this floor, that is a reasonably good-sized crowd, and we are in great proximity to one another because of the size of this Chamber.

The CDC also says--the Senate has not listened to the CDC. The CDC says wear masks. So in terms of the gentleman's suggestion about the CDC changing its rules, that is true, but they haven't changed their rule on masks. They say wear a mask and try not to congregate in large crowds.

However, having said that, we want to get to the same objective that the gentleman references, and we are working towards that with the consideration of the safety of our staff, the safety of our Members, and the safety of security folks. We hope to get there sooner rather than later, and we are working on it.

My point on the White House was that a Member may decide that. And if they don't want to get a test, then they can't go to the White House, for the safety of everybody there.

Madam Speaker, everybody in America wants to get back to normal. Everybody in America. We agree with them, and we are hopeful that we will get there sooner rather than later, and we are making good progress.

We just, yesterday, invested a large number, billions of dollars, to facilitate getting to where we want to be. And Americans want to be in testing, vaccination, and tracing. So I don't want to have anybody think we are in disagreement. We want to get there. We want to get there safely. We want to get there consistent with good health practices and the advice of the scientists and the physicians who treat us. But we are talking about it as we were here this week, and we are going to be talking about it next week because we all want to get to the same place.

The gentleman was here in 2017, of course. There was a bill that approximated the size of this bill. It was about $1.5 trillion, $1.6 trillion. This is a little more--substantially a little more, $300 billion, $400 billion, but in the same ballpark. There were no hearings on that bill. There were no amendments on that bill. It came to the floor, and there were no amendments to that bill. None. Zero.

Now, of course, 83 percent of that bill went to the top 1 percent of Americans. This bill was just about the opposite; 85 to 90 percent go to probably the bottom two-fifths in terms of income level and wealth. Hundreds of amendments were offered, as the committees marked up their instructions from the Budget Committee. Hundreds.

Amendments were, of course, offered in the Senate, as well. As my friend knows, they had their vote-a-rama; they met for over 24 hours. To indicate that this bill did not have a robust committee process in which Republicans and Democrats could offer amendments and have them adopted, I think, is not accurate, with all due respect, Madam Speaker.

Furthermore, this bill enjoyed the overwhelming support of the American people. Madam Speaker, 77 percent of Americans--59 percent of Republicans in the Morning Consult poll, 67 percent of Americans supporting the minimum wage, which was rejected, of course, by the parliamentarian in the Senate; 83 percent of Americans supporting H.R. 1, one of the bills that passed; 89 percent supporting comprehensive background checks, which passed today; 72 percent of Americans supporting equal protections for LGBTQ Americans.

The point I am making is, A, the bill to which my friend refers, the American Rescue Plan, had very substantial consideration over days.

The Ways and Means markup took 2 days and many amendments offered. So

from the standpoint of the public's knowing what was going on, I would suggest to my friend that that was very much greater than when the tax bill--about the same--in the same range of, in that case, $1.5 trillion with interest approaching the $1.9 trillion. So we think, very frankly, that there has been a lot of discussion on that bill.

One of the things, Madam Speaker, that concerned me the most was we worked in a bipartisan fashion on six prior bills. One passed on voice vote, the CARES Act, on the floor. Others passed with well over 150 Republicans and well over 150 Democrats--more than that, but well over 300 votes. They were all bipartisan. They were negotiated with the administration--the Trump administration. The CARES Act, Madam Speaker, was about exactly the same amount of dollars, and it passed on a voice vote here.

What was the difference?

Trump was President. That was the difference in all five. And it had been negotiated with him--or the Secretary of the Treasury, to be more accurate.

But substantively there was very little difference in terms of the broad nature of their impact, the dollar value of the bills, and the diversity of their objectives. To that extent, they were very much like this bill.

But, Madam Speaker, what was the difference?

The same thing that was the difference when we did the Recovery Act in `09. The gentleman was here. He was elected in `08. He came here and he voted ``no'' on the Recovery Act. Every Republican voted ``no'' on the Recovery Act--$787 billion. In my view, it kept us out of a depression. But that was not my view alone. It was Bernanke's view and it was the Secretary of the Treasury's view. So we see the same thing happen again. We went from bipartisan to partisan votes.

I, frankly, Madam Speaker, find it hard to believe that there wasn't a single Republican who thought the investments in opening up schools-- some people say, well, you open up schools, that is the big cry now.

Yes, and we are doing something about it. They weren't open when we took over, but they are coming to be open.

I think it is unfortunate, Madam Speaker, that some demean our teachers. I will tell you, Madam Speaker, I have four great- grandchildren. All but one, who is too young, were taught virtually for these many, many months.

And my granddaughter, their mother, raves about their commitment of the teachers to those three children, and the work that they put in, day after day after day.

So are they concerned about their own safety? Are they concerned about the safety of the children? Are they concerned about other children and children taking it home to their moms and dads or their grandparents? They are. So we need to be safe.

But this bill, which all our Republican friends voted against, has substantial billions in there to make the schools safe so that people can go back with the confidence that they will be safe.

So I would simply say to my friend and others that they have talked about openness. In the 115th Congress--that is the last Congress in which there was a Republican majority--there was not a single open rule, not one. In the 115th Congress, you had 103 closed rules. In the last Congress, which we were in charge, we had that number to less than 52, 51.

Jim McGovern, the chairman of the Rules Committee, is very committed to trying to make amendments, including amendments on the Republican side, in order; and I have urged him to do that.

So, hopefully, we will move forward in a way that continues to allow this House to operate effectively, and also give opportunity to your side and our side to raise issues.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I don't think there is a socialist agenda on this floor, any more than I think there is a fascist agenda on this floor. And we hear socialist. When Gingrich was here it was liberals. Now it is socialists; trying to distract from substance, trying to inflame.

It wasn't socialists that stormed the Capitol, and they weren't carrying Biden signs, they were carrying Trump signs.

I am tired, Madam Speaker, of this socialist drivel. First of all, I think a lot of them don't have the faintest idea what socialism is versus dictatorship or authoritarian regimes.

And the schools weren't reopened when we took over. Trump was President for 10 months.

The gentleman apparently wants to say in this bill, open the schools no matter what. We don't care what your locals say. We don't care what your PTAs say. We don't care what your superintendents of schools say. Open the schools because we mandate it.

I don't think that is what the gentleman, Madam Speaker, in the past has stood for, mandating what States do. Now maybe he thinks that we ought to take over the local education systems and tell them to open. We didn't do that.

What we did was, however, gave them $130 billion, over time--he is right, not immediately--over time to spend to make those schools safe; make their ventilation systems safe for kids; make the accommodations in the schools safe for kids and teachers and parents who go there.

So, Madam Speaker, we get distracted by these assertions of some sort of ideological patina that resonates with the right wing in America. And we can do that, or we can talk about substance.

Yes, I mentioned Americans overwhelmingly said that the substance that we had in this bill was what they liked. So, I would hope the Republican whip would talk about the substance of these bills.

We can have differences. But over and over, in the newspapers and on this floor, the socialist agenda resonates in your polls. It resonates in some of the districts; we saw that. It was not true.

Social Security was called socialist when it was adopted; Medicare, as well; Medicaid certainly, socialist, efforts to try to lift people up.

And when the gentleman tries to make an analogy to a bill that sent 83 percent of $1.5 trillion to the top 1 percent in America as being a bill to help the middle class, and working Americans, boy, that is a stretch, Madam Speaker.

Now, I want to go back to the substance of what the gentleman has raised. We want to see us working together. I see my friend from Texas on the floor. He and I have had these discussions.

It is a shame that we accuse one another of this epithet or that epithet and try to put one another in a corner. I lived through the Gingrich era, and that was almost the entire rhetoric that I heard from the floor all the time.

But if we are going to do that, it is going to be because people really do want to work in a bipartisan fashion.

There was discussion--I know for a fact, I was here, and I saw President Obama try to work in a bipartisan fashion on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Yes, he put his bill on the floor-- excuse me--not on the floor, he put it on the table.

And I heard the meetings at the White House. I heard the meetings here when the Republicans said: Well, he didn't try to talk to us; he put this bill on the floor before he even talked to us. Not on the floor, on the table. I know because I was sitting there in the room when President Obama was trying to reach bipartisan agreement.

Zero Republicans, three in the Senate, helped on the American Recovery Act, which kept us out of depression. And I wasn't surprised that we had zero on this reconciliation bill, and I wasn't surprised that it changed from the six votes previously, where Donald Trump said this bill is okay; I am going to sign it; because nothing could have become law without him signing it. And Republicans voted overwhelmingly, in most cases, for it.

But now that we have a Democratic President, they have decided to return to the ``no'' votes that they cast on the Recovery Act, on the Affordable Care Act, which has helped millions and millions of people, and so many other pieces of legislation.

I would urge, my friend, Madam Speaker, to, when we say we want to work in a bipartisan way, let's try to do it. It is worth doing.

I have nothing to further to say, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, some of us have been here for some period of time. Some of us have heard this debate before. My friend, Mr. Reed, from New York, opined, and others have opined, about how we passed a number of bipartisan bills, five to be exact. March 4, March 14, March 27, April 24, and then we had a hiatus, because the majority leader of the Senate said we ought to take a break and see what happens, and the minority leader of the House said the same thing. So we didn't take any action. Frankly, tens of thousands of people died-- hundreds of thousands of people died.

Now, I point out that we have acted five times: 415-2, 363-40--a voice vote on the CARES Act, $2 trillion--388-5, and 359-53.

Now, if you include the CASH Act, which we passed, because the President, i.e., Mr. Trump, said we needed more money for people, so we passed the bill and 44 Republicans voted for that one as well.

Now, there is only one thing that has changed since we passed those first five bills. We now have a Democratic President and not a Republican President. That is the only thing that has changed.

The need is there. The virus is still with us. The economy is struggling. But now we have a Democratic President, so I expect zero of you to vote for this.

Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I expect zero Republicans to vote for this bill.

Why do I expect that? Because I was here in 2009 when, under George Bush, we went into the deepest recession this country has seen since the Great Depression.

Very frankly, Mr. Speaker, we passed two major pieces of legislation to deal with that recession. One was called TARP, the Troubled Asset Relief Program. A Republican President and Democrats passed that bill. Only a third, Mr. Speaker, of the Republicans would support President Bush.

You can shake your head, but you look at the Record, that is the fact. That is the fact.

Democrats supported the request of a Republican President because we thought it was in the best interests of the country and our people. And the only reason it passed this House is because Democrats, 172 of us, stood up with George Bush and voted for that program. And it was a bad vote for us. It was the right thing to do, but politically it was a bad vote.

How sad, Mr. Speaker, I think it is that we passed five bipartisan votes with a Republican President. Now the President is different, and we don't want to give him any credit, so we are going to cut off the nose of the American people to spite the face of America.

Mr. Speaker, the Democratic majority in the Senate has taken action, passing an amended version of the American Rescue Plan that this House approved on February 27. The version they sent us back reflects the same commitment demonstrated by this House to take the big and bold action demanded by the American people and overwhelmingly supported not just by Democrats, but by Republicans.

The Republicans outside this House support this bill. Only the Republicans inside this House, unanimously apparently, oppose this bill while some 60 percent of the Republicans in America polled say, ``We are for this bill.''

But we have a Democratic President, I get it. President Biden's plan is reflected in this legislation. It says President Biden's plan, but this is our plan. This is a plan we built over a year of tough debate, long debate, substantive debate and discussion on both sides of the aisle, and in a bipartisan fashion passed those five bills.

This bill is consistent with the measures we passed last year to confront the challenges to our public health and economic well-being. It achieves a number of critical goals: It puts vaccines into Americans' arms; it will put money in Americans' pockets; it will put children back in classrooms; it will put millions of Americans back to work and reopen businesses safely; and it will put at ease the frontline and essential workers who are in the public sector, like teachers, the first responders, by ensuring that State, local, Tribal, and territorial governments can keep them employed.

Mr. Speaker, the American people overwhelmingly support this legislation, with more than three-quarters in favor of its enactment, according to a Morning Consult poll from March 3rd. I would like to see some of the NRCC polls because I think they give the same message. But, of course, maybe those people polled didn't realize there was a Democratic President. Heaven forbid that we vote for something that a Democratic President wants.

Mr. Speaker, I put our party up to any kind of analysis in terms of our bipartisan support for Republican Presidents when we thought it was in the best interests of the country. Nearly 6 in 10 Republicans want to see this bill passed.

Listen to your people. I am surprised that more of our Republican colleagues are not planning to vote for this legislation. I hope they will do so. I hope they will do so because I think it is in the best interests of our Nation, of our families, of our individuals, of our businesses, of our economy. I hope they will join Democrats in taking action to help the nearly 10 million Americans who are out of work compared to this time last year.

We waited. This is what happened. I hope they will also join Democrats in voting to extend expanded unemployment insurance benefits that would otherwise lapse for more than 11 million families this weekend and to make good on our promise to send another round of $1,400 stimulus checks to most Americans.

What are they going to do with that check?

They are going to put it in the economy, and it is going to grow the economy and create jobs.

And I hope they will join us in supporting a massive effort at deploying vaccines and testing so we can defeat this virus.

The American Rescue Plan means an end to the failed approach of hitting the pause button. It didn't work. It is time to hit the start button. It is time to start Building Back Better through bold action. That is a political slogan. I like it. I have a Make It In America slogan myself.

But this is not about slogans. It is about investment in our country, in our economy, and in our people, our families, our children, and, yes, the most vulnerable among us. That is what my faith teaches me to do. This is a vote to face our challenges with all of our strength and resolve. This is a vote to have each other's backs as fellow Americans in this time of difficulty.

Mr. Speaker, with our votes today, we can send this legislation to President Biden so he can sign it into law and get the help that America and Americans need.

Mr. Speaker, well, that is an interesting speech to follow. Mr. Massie was very energized. I haven't seen, of course, that which he submitted for the Record, but 90 percent of America thinks this bill makes sense, 90 percent. Take your own polls. Poll after poll after poll shows overwhelming support of this legislation because it is common sense. It is common sense that you want to assure the community that those who buy weapons that can be used with deadly force, as the gentleman just indicated, are not a danger to themselves or to others.

Mr. Speaker, according to the database from the Associated Press, USA Today, and Northeastern University that tracks mass shootings, which they define as four or more victims, not including the shooter, 2020 was a standout year. After years of setting new records for mass shootings, 2019 had the highest number recorded, 33 mass shootings in one year. But in 2020, there were only two mass shootings: one in February and another in early March.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, those numbers don't count the hundreds of shootings each year in which there are fewer than four victims, with tens of thousands killed or maimed by gun violence annually. The contrast in the number of mass shootings from 2019 to 2020 is stark.

Mr. Speaker, I don't have to explain to my colleagues why mass shootings suddenly came to a halt last year, but it shouldn't take a deadly viral pandemic--which took us out of group meetings, which took us off the streets, which kept us at home--to stop a deadly epidemic of gun violence.

With the arrival of vaccines and passage of President Biden's plan to help make it safe to reopen businesses and schools, we will soon be gathering in groups once more, but nobody wants to see a return to mass shootings, Mr. Speaker. Nobody wants to see a return to deadly school shootings that terrorize America's students.

We shouldn't need a pandemic to reduce gun violence in this country. The way to do that ought to be through passing commonsense gun safety legislation through Congress to make it harder for deadly firearms to get into the hands of those who cannot bear them responsibly. That is what H.R. 8,

the Bipartisan Background Checks Act, would do.

Nine out of 10 Americans support the reforms in this bill. Now, I know I have seen some people, Mr. Speaker, shake their head, no, no, that is not the case. Show me a poll that has less than 80 percent of Americans thinking that terrorists should not be able to buy guns, that felons should not be able to buy guns, that domestic abusers should not buy guns, particularly in an accelerated way. You get mad at a partner, you get mad at a girlfriend, a boyfriend, whatever, go down to the store, boy, get a gun, bang.

It is one thing to have a thoughtful purchase: I want to have a hunting gun; I want to have a handgun for target practice; I want a handgun for safety in my home, in my business, in my car. But if you are a person who has shown that you are not somebody who is a responsible person--sort of like driving a car, if you are not responsible, you are a reckless driver and you have been guilty of manslaughter by automobile or something of that nature--people have a right to know that what you do is going to be not a danger to them.

This is one of the greatest examples of legislation that truly reflects the will of the American people. That is why I hope we can come together to pass it with bipartisan support. I don't know that that is going to be the case. But if it is not the case, it will not reflect the will of the American people who would like to see this on a bipartisan basis. Republicans and Democrats polled support this legislation.

Now, if somebody wants to show me a poll that says, no, that is not the case, that is one thing, but I haven't seen a poll that doesn't reflect that. Just as I believe we ought to do this week with Representative Clyburn's bill as well, which could close the loophole that contributed to the reprehensible and racially motivated mass shooting at the Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina, in 2015. Nine people in church slain by somebody who got a gun; who, if the report had come back in a timely fashion, wouldn't have been able to get that gun.

I hope that Senate Republicans will not filibuster this bill. At some point in time the majority ought to rule.

Now, the Second Amendment correctly protects gun ownership. I don't have an argument with that. But the Supreme Court itself said that there could be responsible restraints and items for protection consistent with that amendment. That is what this bill does.

I hope our friends will listen to the voices of parents, children, siblings, spouses, neighbors, and friends of those who were killed by gun violence in recent years; and I hope they will remember the names that bring tears to many eyes and pain in so many hearts. Parkland. Some believe Parkland didn't happen. They are wrong, of course. Sandy Hook; Charleston; Las Vegas; Orlando; Pittsburgh; Annapolis; San Bernardino; Washington Navy Yard, just a few blocks from here; Oak Creek; Tucson; Virginia Tech; and the list could go on and on and on.

I say to the ladies and gentlemen of the House, let's not add more names to this register of grief. Let's not rely on a pandemic to do what we ought to have done so long ago. Let's pass these bills and reduce gun violence the right way, with our votes.

Is this a perfect bill? Will it establish or accomplish the absolute safety?

It will not, but what 90 percent of Americans say is that it is a step in the right direction.

Mr. Speaker, let us take that step.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I got here just a little before I was going to speak, and I heard the gentlewoman from Illinois speak. She talked about flexible work hours. I thought to myself: Who decides what is flexible?

Historically, of course, working men and women were told: You will do this for that much at this time under these conditions.

That was the reality--sweatshops, health-endangering shops, and long hours with little pay. Then the labor unions came along. They got some strength, they got some support, and lo and behold, the middle class started to grow and started to make good wages, have safe working conditions, and, yes, flexible hours.

Mr. Speaker, as we work to create jobs and build our economy back better, we need to make sure that the jobs that are available to Americans help them get by and get ahead. That is what the minimum wage battle is about. That is what this is about--average working people wanting to get by, wanting to have a decent salary, and wanting to have decent working conditions.

Very frankly, that just didn't happen, Mr. Speaker. Some died to make that a reality. Others were beaten and battered in order to have that be a reality. Child labor, abuse of gender, women abused in the workplace working in terrible, odious conditions--that is why Democrats passed the PRO Act last year, and that is why we will do so again today.

One of the most important tools for workers to secure better pay and benefits is the right to organize and bargain collectively. Those of you who have been employers know that you want to maximize profits and you want to try and manage and see whether you can hire people for X amount of dollars rather than X plus Y. That right was secured over the course of generations by workers who fought to have that right recognized and secured. Collective bargaining made possible the prosperity and upward mobility that was a hallmark of America in the 20th century.

Strong unions lead to better pay, higher quality and more affordable healthcare, more secure retirement benefits, and workplaces that are safer, not just for union members but for all workers.

Unfortunately, in the 21st century, Mr. Speaker, the right to organize has been eroded and weakened. As a result, many workers are stuck with no recourse to demand the better pay and benefits they deserve, and they need, and their families need, and we need as a middle class society that knows that we are a consumer economy. Henry Ford knew if you didn't pay them, then they couldn't buy your cars--a pretty simple equation.

The PRO Act would change that, empowering workers, once again, through their right to organize. It prevents management from misclassifying workers.

I urge Members to think whether or not that happens.

Mr. Speaker, this gig economy sounds great until you get to be 65 or 67 and you look around and there is nobody behind you. There is nobody to lift you up. There is nobody to say: Thank you for that 30 years, 40 years, or 50 years of service to our company or to our economy. It prevents management from misclassifying workers in order to avoid negotiating the fair pay and safe working conditions they deserve.

No, they are just contract employees. They don't have any real attachment or relationship with our company. They are just contract, and we can use them one day and throw them away the next.

Moreover, the PRO Act levels the playing field for labor unions in contract negotiations. Maybe you don't believe in that, Mr. Speaker, not you personally, but maybe there are people who don't believe that they ought to be equal. After all, I started the business, and I invested money.

I agree with that; I want to see them make money. I am a procapitalist Democrat, a procapitalist American. I have been around the world, and I have seen noncapitalist societies. They don't work very well. But the capitalist society works better if everybody is lifted, not just some.

I thank Chairman Scott of the Education and Labor Committee for his hard work on this bill, as well as the members of his committee.

I am proud that we Democrats strongly support this bill, which is so central to our effort to make opportunities more accessible and more broadly available to American workers as we look to rebuild our economy stronger after COVID-19.

The leader of the party on the other side of the aisle said in his speech that he gave at the beginning of the session: We are the workers' party.

We will see, Mr. Speaker, when we vote on this bill, whether that statement was accurate.

The workers are not against this bill. As I said last year, when we passed this bill, the PRO Act is the workers' rights legislation that working people in our country need and for which they have been waiting for far too long. That is why we need to pass this bill today and send it to the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote for our workers, for our families, for our children, and for our effort to build back better and stronger from the challenges we now face.

Mr. Speaker, it would be an irresponsible policy to defund the police. We are not for that.

Hear me. You can say it over and over and over again. It will be a lie. No matter how well it serves your political purposes, it will be a lie.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation. I want to thank Representative Bass and members of the Congressional Black Caucus for their leadership last year and now. I also want to thank my friend, Chairman Nadler, and the Judiciary Committee for their hard work.

I am proud to be an original sponsor. If I thought this defunded the police, I would not be for it. Now, that won't affect you and your debate, I understand that, any more than it affected you in recognizing the legitimacy of the Presidential election.

I am proud to be an original sponsor.

Mr. Speaker, in June of last year, the House passed this bill because we recognized that something had to change. Change could not wait. Change waited too long in the Jim Crow South. Change has waited too long throughout this country--North, East, West, and South.

Mr. Speaker, when we mournfully say the names of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Eric Garner, Michael Brown, Philando Castile, Freddie Gray, with a list that goes on and on and on and on, enough, my colleagues, enough.

We must change the psychology of how we treat people. I don't mean police alone. I mean all of us, but all of us don't carry guns. All of us have not been given extraordinary authority by the public we serve. Because we give certain people in this country extraordinary authority to take our freedom away and, yes, to take our lives away, we must ensure accountability for the use of that power, just as the voters ought to ensure accountability for the power that they give to us.

When we hear about African American parents having to teach their sons how to act during encounters with police so that they, too, don't become victims, it is time for change. When we feel the energy of many millions of Americans of every race, every faith, and every age taking peacefully to the streets in protest against injustice, we know that change must come now.

I know how you lament the use of violence. I saw that on January 6.

Mr. Speaker, peaceful demonstrations, Martin Luther King was locked up. Rosa Parks was locked up. For a crime? Of course, Parks sat in the front of the bus. That was illegal. As King said, an illegal law ought not to be obeyed.

Mr. Speaker, they paid the consequences. They had the courage and fortitude to do that.

That is why we took action last year, passing the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. This legislation addresses police choke holds like the kind that took George Floyd's life. Stand if you can justify that action.

Mr. Speaker, it addresses no-knock warrants like the one that led to the tragic and preventable death of Breonna Taylor. It would condition Federal funding and resources to police departments on ending racial profiling. Content of character, did we not learn that lesson? It is not the color of your skin, the cut of the cloth you wear, or the part in your hair.

Mr. Speaker, we ask them to follow best practices with that power and authority we have given them, best practices in police training that help ensure the rights of those who encounter police, as well as the safety of all of us.

Mr. Speaker, this bill also brings justice to victims and their families by facilitating, under appropriate circumstances, their ability to seek redress of grievances.

This bill is not only intended to protect people who encounter the police, but it is meant to help keep police safe as well, to help them do the difficult job of keeping their communities safe.

Mr. Speaker, there is not a Member of this body, I think I can safely say, who has attended more frequently the annual National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund ceremony. I am local, but I dare say that no Member in this body has attended that more frequently, been more supportive of law enforcement, or been more supportive of my local sheriffs and police departments. They are critically important. Of course, we don't want to defund them. We have to have a safe society if democracy is going to prevail. That is why we have law enforcement.

Mr. Speaker, I have heard from so many law enforcement officials who are deeply concerned about misconduct and racial bias in policing, just as each one of us ought to be concerned about a politician who commits a crime. Why? It reflects on all of us. All of those politicians are crooks. Somebody out there is saying amen.

That is why this is important, because there are so many hundreds of thousands of honest, hardworking, courageous, dedicated police officers, sheriffs, and constables in this country.

Mr. Speaker, most police officers are good and decent men and women, serving with honor. They want to know that their ranks are free from those who would apply bias and sow mistrust that endangers their and their colleagues' safety. This is just the beginning of a larger effort to reform policing, which will require the Senate and White House to work with us to ensure that victims of misconduct and their families get the justice they deserve, while police departments have the support, the funding, if you will, they need to keep our communities safe.

Mr. Speaker, sadly, when we passed this bill last year, the Republican-controlled Senate refused even to consider it. They were in charge. They put no bill of their own on the floor. I apologize. I retract that. Mr. Jordan is correct.

Now, however, with this Democratic Senate majority, I hope I can see action, work with Senator Scott, and come to a resolution, because this problem will not go away if we don't help it. We will not save lives if we don't act.

Mr. Speaker, I know that this is a top priority for Senate Democrats, as well as for President Biden and Vice President Harris. So, I hope that we will not only see the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act pass the House today but also be signed into law this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, this is a necessary bill to respond to a crisis throughout our country, certainly not by every member of law enforcement, but by the minority of law enforcement officers, just as my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are a credit to the service in this House, not all, but the overwhelming majority.

Mr. Speaker, let's pass this bill. Let's act for justice.

Madam Speaker, I thank the chairwoman for yielding, and I thank John Sarbanes, my colleague from Maryland, for all the work that he has done and the extraordinary leadership that Zoe Lofgren has done in bringing this bill to the floor last year and bringing it back this year. It was passed with unanimous support on our side of the aisle because our Members know that Americans are frustrated, and they feel somewhat shut out from their democracy. This is a bill for the people.

I thank all of those who have worked for so long on making sure that Americans have access to the ballot.

Madam Speaker, last year, we lost an extraordinary giant in our country. His

name was John Lewis, an acolyte of Martin Luther King Jr., and a servant for the people.

This is a very, very important bill. One could say that everything else we do depends on this bill because, in our democracy, government only works if those it serves have faith that it is truly a government ``of the people, by the people, and for the people.''

Madam Speaker, of course, it was Abraham Lincoln who spoke those words, mourning those who gave their lives in a great struggle to preserve our Union as it faced the evils of slavery, sedition, and secession.

That war was a war to not only give freedom to other human beings, but it was also a war, at its heart, which tried to live out the creed that all men are created equal; endowed by their creator--not by this Congress, not by the majority, not by the Constitution, not by the President, or any of us, but by their creator--with certain unalienable rights. And certainly, in a democracy, voting, knowing who you are voting for, knowing who you are supporting, who you are voting for are critical.

Even in that dark moment of the Civil War, when so many were losing hope for the success of our great American experiment in democracy and constitutional government, President Lincoln encouraged us to renew our faith as Americans in that project.

Now, in 2021, though the crises we face are different than in 1863, our Nation is clearly facing grave challenges. January 6 taught us that. January 6 took us by the scruff of the neck and shook us and said, ``Beware, lest you lose your democracy.''

A pandemic has led to the deaths of more than half a million Americans. Its subsequent economic crisis has put more than 10 million out of work and millions of families and small businesses are struggling to get by.

Deep racial and political divisions threaten to tear our country apart with misinformation and mistrust as dangerous to our Republic as any virus or recession.

Madam Speaker, the American people must have faith that their government is truly theirs; their collective expression and will is heard; and that it can deliver results that improve their lives and offer them hope for a better future. That is what H.R. 1 does, the For the People Act: Reassure the American people that their government will always work for them.

First, it will protect the sacred right to vote--protect the sacred right to vote--by ensuring that every American can participate equally and without undue barriers to casting their ballots.

No counting of jelly beans in a jar; no reciting verbatim the Constitution and Declaration of Independence; no poll tax; no effort to make it more difficult for people to register, more difficult to vote.

Bloody Sunday, a stark example of how committed some people were and some people still are, to not permitting people who they think will vote against them to vote.

H.R. 1 would be the most consequential piece of voting rights legislation enacted since we passed the Help America Vote Act, which I was proud to sponsor.

Second, this bill roots out corruption in government by increasing ethical standards and limiting the corrosive effects of dark money in our political campaigns.

My mother used to say: ``Consider the source.'' Consider who is talking to you. And if you don't know who is contributing, if you don't know who is paying for those ads for Citizens for a Better America, who is against that. But you don't know who it is. You don't know what interest they have that they are paying out millions of dollars to promote.

By forcing super-PACs to disclose their donors, H.R. 1 will ensure that American voters know exactly who is paying for the campaign ads they see or hear. And by requiring Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates to release 10 years' worth of tax returns, as most have done--with one singular, stark exception--it will provide voters with information critical to ensuring that those seeking our highest offices are free from conflicts of interest. Are they representing themselves or are they representing the people?

Third, H.R. 1 will end partisan redistricting, whereby politicians choose their voters instead of the other way around. Too many voting districts are drawn in a way to limit voters' voices in our democracy.

So many times we saw the central city cut up into pies, where you had a sliver of the city here, a sliver of the city here. And all of you know that happened. What was it designed to do? To take away the voting power of those who the people in the State legislature did not like.

Now, most of you are too young to remember Baker v. Carr and Reynolds v. Sims, when the Supreme Court said, ``Oh, no, we are not representing trees, we are representing people, and you are going to have to district.''

And then we had subsequent legislation which said, you cannot make it impossible for certain constituencies to elect people who look like them, talk like them, think like them. That has to end, and the only way to do it is through a national approach that creates, as this bill does, a nonpartisan process in each State.

Madam Speaker, lastly, H.R. 1 includes a number of provisions to increase transparency and accountability so that the American people can see what their elected officials are doing and make sure they are doing their jobs properly.

Through all of these steps, House Democrats will deliver on our pledge to renew Americans' faith in government by making sure it works for the people.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation so consequential to our democracy and our ability to deliver results for our constituents.

But I also ask the American people to join me in believing in what government can achieve when we take steps to make it work in the way our Founders intended.

With the challenges we are facing, with the divisions and mistrust that abound, let us seize this moment, as Lincoln once did, to rededicate ourselves to the work of ensuring that ``government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from this Earth.''

Let us do so with a strong--and my hope is bipartisan--vote to pass H.R. 1 and send it to the Senate.

Madam Speaker, I would be glad to yield to my friend.

Madam Speaker, I think that is a legitimate debate to have. I think we have been having that debate. Very frankly, I tell my friend from Texas that I think we won that debate. We won it in the courts over and over and over again, but understand that does not mean we ought not to have the debate here.

Madam Speaker, I would not be opposed to such a debate. This bill, I think, is a bill which has been debated over and over again in committee and on the floor and has passed through the Senate. Unfortunately, the Senate didn't take it up. We didn't have a conference because they had a different perspective on the question the gentleman raises. They chose not to debate it. They chose not to address it. They chose to ignore the problems that clearly do exist.

Madam Speaker, I think the gentleman's point is well-taken. I think, at some point in time in the future, we ought to have that debate, either on legislation you introduce or others introduce. I would support that effort.

Madam Speaker, as you know, as a result of COVID-19 and our discussions with the Capitol physician, we have organized voting in a way that we have seven different segments at 5-minute intervals so that a limited number of Members will vote in every 5-minute segment. That is obviously designed to keep us as safe as possible, our staffs as safe as possible, so we get off the floor, and they have to be on the floor.

This vote that we just had was about 1 hour and 5 minutes. Obviously, if you take seven segments at 5 minutes a segment, that is 35 minutes. We have added another 5 minutes for people who missed their segment, which would be 40 minutes. We are starting to average 20, 25, 30, 35 minutes beyond that 40 minutes.

Therefore, I wanted to announce to every Member that I will be recommending that we close votes 45 minutes after they start. Bang.

Now, I will tell my side--which probably has this responsibility more than the other side because we use proxies more than you do--that if you hold a proxy, not only do you have a responsibility to yourself to vote in a timely fashion, but if you miss the vote, acting in a fiduciary capacity for another Member who can't be here because of health-related issues, and you do not vote, that will not be a happy situation.

So I want you to know, I am going to be talking to the Speaker--I have already talked to her--that 45 minutes after that first bell rings I want the gavel to come down. And, hopefully, we will all recognize when the bell rings that we will have to vote in the next 45 minutes. Now, that cannot be a real burden on anybody. Cannot.

It is simply that we look to see how many people have voted--oh, well, there are 20 people out, so I don't have to worry, and that is after we have gone by the 40 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I am going to send out a notice on this as well, and I want to confirm with the Speaker, but I know, having talked to the Speaker numerous times about this issue, that she shares my view that if we are going to run this institution with respect to one another-- Don Young didn't come on this vote. Don Young is the famous--call it on time.

I want every Member to understand, this is not to penalize anybody. It is, however, to try to run this institution in a way that Members' time, which is valuable, is respected, and we simply don't waste it waiting around for one or two or five or six other people to come. I do not cast aspersions. Sometimes it is hard to get here on time, particularly if you have done something and you are in some other place.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the time. I will be talking to the Speaker. I will notify everybody when that is going to be implemented. It may be implemented as soon as today, and we will be sending out a notice. And, by the way, everybody I talked to agrees with this.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

One of the sad things that is happening in America, Mr. Speaker, is that the truth is so often being perceived as fake news or that fake news is so often being perceived as the truth.

Mr. Speaker, I am old enough to have worked for a United States Senator during the civil rights era. And I would get a publication-- because I opened the mail; I had a hifalutin job--from what was called the Cross and the Sword, a publication that came somewhere from the South. I forget where its headquarters was.

I remember reading how the Bible told us that we should not integrate America and that if God had wanted us all to be together, then we would be the same color. I perceived that then and I perceive that now as absurd.

So I proudly rise in support of H.R. 5, the Equality Act, and congratulate Mr.

Cicilline and all those who have worked on getting this bill to this point on this floor.

We passed it before, of course, and sent it to the United States Senate. They ignored it, to their discredit. The House passed this bill last Congress with bipartisan support. I hope we have bipartisan support this year because I remember, Mr. Speaker, back in the days of the early sixties and mid-sixties there were giants in the Republican Party who stood with Democrats on behalf of civil rights. I hope we can repeat that today because there is no room in America--it says here in 2021 that there should have been no room in America from 1776 on when we said: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident''--for legal discrimination.

There are moments in our history that are celebrated for generations as those in which Americans came together to perfect our Union and to protect and uphold the universal rights enshrined in our founding documents. That is what we as a nation did with the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. It is what we did with the 19th Amendment where we said: Oh, yes, I know you are a woman, but you are going to be equal, you are going to be allowed to vote.

What a radical idea that was and how long it took.

We did it as well with the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1960. We did it together with the bill that I was proud to sponsor on this floor, the Americans with Disabilities Act. We said that it is not your disability that counts; it is your ability; drop the ``dis.''

We can do it again today with Mr. Cicilline's Equality Act, affirming that equality is for everyone all the time and everywhere.

This legislation, Mr. Speaker, would ban discrimination against LGBTQ Americans in every area where it still exists and in every State that still permits it. One nation under God, indivisible. Not discrimination in the Northwest and discrimination in the Northeast or discrimination in the South or the Southwest. One nation--no discrimination--fairness and equality for all.

That includes housing, public education, personal finance and credit, employment, healthcare, jury service, and public accommodation. The practical effect of such legalized discrimination is the denial of opportunities and economic security to certain Americans because of their gender identity or sexual orientation.

The practical effect of this bill, Mr. Speaker, will be to open the doors of opportunity and economic security to those for whom they were shut for far, far too long.

I want to thank Representative Cicilline. I want to thank the gentleman in the Chair for his leadership and courage. Both of them have displayed such worth as human beings and as colleagues, not by some arbitrary definition that we give to them based upon their sexual orientation or whether any of us, because of our gender, male or female, or our color, Black or White or yellow or red, one nation under God, indivisible. This legislation tries to recognize that indivisibility of the right of all Americans.

I want to express my gratitude to the Congressional LGBTQ-Plus Equality Caucus, which has provided leadership both in shaping and improving this legislation championing its adoption.

The House will pass this legislation today, and then I hope it will not be lost in the politics of the Senate. That body has an extraordinary record over the centuries in terms of civil rights. It should uphold that record. I know that the Democratic Senate majority is eager to see it considered and passed.

As I said, when I grew up in the sixties in the civil rights movement, many Republican leaders were giants in this effort. I hope the Senate Republicans who have stood in the way of equality of opportunity for LGBTQ Americans for too long will finally come together with them in a bipartisan fashion and allow an up-or-down vote. That is all we ask, an up-or-down vote.

Frankly, that is not all we ask. We ask for 10 Republicans to join us with 50 Democrats to make this a reality. Most Americans have come to understand that ending discrimination for LGBTQ people is about the fundamental rights and dignity of their fellow Americans, and it is about who we are as a country, who we claim to be but for far too long were not.

We know we are not there yet, but this is a very significant and important step for us to take in a land of opportunity for all and a land of liberty and justice for all. So let us affirm that today in this House. And I hope the Senate, in days to come, will join in that affirmation of justice for all, and let us make this a day to remember in our history as one where we came together to perfect our Union, as John Lewis would say, one more time.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to take a moment to pay tribute to a dear friend and a wonderful former colleague of ours. Former Rep. Jane Harman, who retired from this House in 2011 after nine terms representing the Thirty-Ninth District of California, is stepping down in February after ten very successful years as CEO of the Wilson Center. I hope all of us in this House will join me in congratulating her and wishing her well in her next endeavors. I have no doubt that she will find new ways to continue serving her country, as she has done with such dedication and ability since her days as a staffer for Sen. John Tunney in the early 1970's and during her time in Congress, where she served as Ranking Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Jane's entire career has been spent in service to the people of California and to the American people.

The Wilson Center was created by Congress in 1968 to serve as a nonpartisan policy forum and support research into addressing global issues. It continues to fulfill its role as a public think tank, a place where scholars and leaders come together to seek creative solutions to some of the country's and the world's most intractable challenges. As the first woman to serve as its CEO, Jane oversaw an expansion of its programs, helped grow its federal appropriation by a third, and launched its Global Women's Leadership Initiative. She drew on her close contacts abroad to bring world-class scholars and global leaders to the Center for informative discussions and debates, and I was honored to be her guest at the Center's fiftieth anniversary dinner in 2018 and to welcome Jane back to Capitol Hill for the Center's very informative `Fiscal Ship' budgetary exercise in 2016. Under her guidance, the Wilson Center has truly lived up to its mission and will surely continue to do so for a long time to come as a result of her sound management and oversight.

I hope all of us will take a moment to thank former Rep. Jane Harman for her many years of outstanding service to our country and her commitment to the hard work of ensuring that our democracy can deliver the best policymaking for the American people. She will long remain a friend to so many of us in this House, and I will continue to cherish her friendship and her wise counsel in the years ahead.