Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day and a difficult day for the House of Representatives and for our country. I have had the great honor of serving this body for 40 years and in that time, I have never encountered a situation like the one before us now, where a Member has made such vile and hurtful statements, engaged in the harassment of colleagues, and expressed support for political violence. None of us should take any pleasure in what we must do today.

But to do nothing would be an abdication of our moral responsibility to our colleagues, to the House, to our values, to the truth, and to our country.

A great forebear of legislators, Edmund Burke, famously declared: ``The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.''

Yesterday, the Republican Conference chose to do nothing, so today, the House must do something.

I have heard some condemnation from across the aisle of the contents of Representative Greene's statements. Some have condemned the white supremacist and anti-Semitic things she said and posted online. Some have condemned the falsehoods she shared about 9/11 and the horrific school shootings.

But I have heard little from Republicans about the horrific statements made by their colleague making threats of violence against Democratic elected officials and her threatening conduct toward Representative Bush and others.

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, there seems to be much silence when it comes to her incitement of political violence.

In The Washington Post yesterday, columnist Greg Sargent wrote:

Whatever happens to Representative Greene, the truth is

unavoidable: Republicans have yet to offer a clear and

unambiguous declaration that political violence is

unacceptable and has no place in their ranks.

And I have heard too much about process and not enough about accountability.

No Member ought to be permitted to engage in the kind of behavior that Representative Greene has and face zero consequences. This vote can be a first step in correcting the error of those who, so far, have chosen to do nothing.

A short while ago, Representative Greene came to this floor to defend her indefensible conduct. I heard no apology.

She claimed that we are here today only because of some things she wrote online before she ever ran for Congress, as if one's moral slate is wiped clean when one becomes a candidate for office.

Regardless, the conduct we are judging today continued to occur even after Representative Greene became a candidate, and even after she was elected.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to look at this image.

I heard about motherhood today. Two of those women between them have six children. They are mothers. One of them does not have children, and she has come to this body asking for more housing for people, for more healthcare for people, for more income for people. How awful.

And they are not the Squad. They are Ilhan, they are Alexandria, and they are Rashida. They are people. They are our colleagues.

And yes, you may have disagreements, but I don't know anybody, including Steve King, who you precluded from going on committees for much less--and this is an AR-15 in the hands of Mrs. Greene. This was on Facebook just a few months ago.

Is that a message of peace and reconciliation and peaceful democratic dialogue--The Squad's worst enemy, AR-15 in hand.

I have never ever seen that before. Is this a precedent-setting event? It is, because the conduct, the tweeting, the QAnon association--I heard the disavow of QAnon. I learned more.

AR-15, ``Squad's Worst Nightmare.'' Is that what it was intended to do, that each one of these ladies would have a nightmare about somebody with a gun, an AR-15 that can carry a clip of up to 60 bullets?

I urge my colleagues to look at that image and tell me what message you think it sends.

Here she is, armed with a deadly assault rifle, pointing it toward three Democratic Members. Now, the pictures were put together, you understand. They were not present; I understand that. And she captioned it ``Squad's Worst Nightmare.''

Yes, some people are having nightmares and fear. And some people who wanted to give other people nightmares committed sedition and broke into the House of Representatives and tried to stop us from electing a President of the United States.

These three faces are real people. They are three reasons we are here. But there are many other reasons we are here today.

In 2019, during the same election cycle in which she ran, she showed support for comments online that the quickest way to remove Speaker Pelosi from power would be ``a bullet to the head.'' Did any of you hear Steve King say anything like that? You removed him from all of his committees.

But as I said, you did nothing. As a matter of fact, you gave a standing ovation, as I understand. I wasn't there. What message does that send? What message does it send to have a standing ovation to give these three women nightmares?

Indisputably, these are clear threats to commit or incite political violence, not from years ago but just months ago. Imagine the pain that these Members' families must be experiencing when they see pictures like this one. Imagine what their children think when they know their loved ones are walking the Halls of Congress and may encounter harassment, as it happened to Representative Bush?

So I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, when they take this vote, imagine your faces on this poster. Imagine it is a Democrat with an AR-15. Imagine what your response would be. Would you think that that person ought to be held accountable?

But when acquiescence to the suggestion of violence of any kind is allowed to go unchecked, it is a cancer that metastasizes on the body politic of our Nation, as we saw just a few days ago on January 6.

Cancer, that is how Senate Republican Leader McConnell described it. He said: ``Loony lies and conspiracy theories are cancer for the Republican Party and our country.'' Should we stand silent in the face of that kind of activity?

He continued: ``Somebody who has suggested that perhaps no airplane hit the Pentagon on 9/11, that horrifying school shootings were pre- staged, and that the Clintons crashed JFK Jr.'s airplane is not living in reality.''

That is not me talking. That is not a Democrat talking. That is Senator McConnell.

``This has nothing to do with the challenges facing American families or the robust debates on substance that can strengthen our party.''

My colleagues across the aisle have an opportunity today to reclaim their party from the dangerous cancer of QAnon and violent conspiracy theories that promote and have demonstrably resulted in sedition and insurrection.

Senator Romney--you remember Senator Romney. He was a candidate for President of the United States on the Republican ticket, nominated in the Republican convention. He said of his party this week: ``I think we should have nothing to do with Marjorie Taylor Greene and think we should repudiate the things she said and move away from her.'' ``Our big tent is not large enough to both accommodate conservatives and kooks.''

Not my words, his words, a Republican Member of the United States Senate. Now, he is not a big buddy of Trump's, so apparently he didn't have to do what Trump suggested he do.

And Senator Ernst, a conservative woman from Iowa: ``She doesn't represent the party. I don't want her to be the face of our party. I think this is a great time for us to really talk about what we want to see in the upcoming years and continue to build. We don't need people that are promoting violence or anything like that.'' That is a Republican conservative Senator.

Republican Senator and former Governor of Florida Rick Scott said--a conservative Republican Senator--``That is not what the Republican Party stands for.''

Let me suggest to you, if it is not, vote with us. Vote with the House, not Democrats. Vote with the House of Representatives. Vote with good order and peace.

Furthermore, Senator Young from Indiana said: ``There ought to be no place'' in the Republican Party for the kind of views espoused by Representative Greene.

That is what McCarthy said when you kicked King off of all his committees. This is not something you haven't done. However, sadly, you left it to us to do your job.

Representative Cole called her statements ``extraordinarily disturbing.'' He said that yesterday; it is an old quote.

And Senator Thune asked his fellow Republicans in the House: ``Do they want to be the party of limited government''--I think the answer to that is yes--``or do they want to be the party of conspiracy theories and QAnon?''

Furthermore, Senator Young from Indiana said: ``There ought to be no place'' in the Republican Party for the kind of views espoused by Representative Greene.

That is what your Republican colleagues have said. This is not partisan. This is about principle.

And you can shake your head as much as you want. This is not about party. It is about whether or not you will vote for decency and truth, not the Members' worst nightmare.

I hope we can do it together, all of us, embracing our humanity and our basic adherence to the Constitution.

Edmund Burke, who I quoted earlier, said: The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

Let us not do nothing.

I often share another passage shared so long ago by Edmund Burke when a new Member arrives to serve in the House. It concerns a duty a representative has to his or her constituents. His conclusion on that matter is that we owe them our unbiased opinion, mature judgment, and enlightened sense of conscience.

What does your conscience tell you to do in light of this kind of assertion? Nothing?

Burke told his own constituents that these virtues of a representative ``does not derive from your pleasure,'' ``nor from the law and the Constitution. They are a trust from providence, for the abuse of which'' you are ``deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment, and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.''

This is not about polling. This is not about your base. This is about your conscience and your moral judgment.

In other words, each of us ought to look inside our hearts to the answer that we know is right and is best for the House and for our country.

If the Republican Party for less toxic language took committee assignments away from Steve King, should they do less in this instance?

There is no doubt that if somebody came to the Congress and had said, before they came to the Congress, ``I am for violent revolution against the Government of the United States of America,'' your party would say that is not somebody we want to be associated with.

That is not what she said; I do not assert that. But should we do less than you did for Steve King for far less toxic language?

Let us not do nothing. Mr. Speaker, let us do the right thing.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Roy is walking off the floor, but I am one of those Members that has sympathy for his frustration. I have sympathy for his frustration because I have served here for a long time when we did things in a bipartisan, regular order way.

But I hope the gentleman shared the same frustration when we passed a tax bill that did $2 trillion, at a time when the economy didn't need a tax cut and the people who got the tax cut clearly did not need it. And I had the same frustration the gentleman has expressed.

As the gentleman who chairs the committee pointed out, this is the first step, however, in giving instructions on what committees ought to do, and doesn't tell them exactly how to do it. Next week is going to be an entire committee week in which 12 committees will consider how to achieve the objectives set forth in the budget resolution. But I do share, and we ought all share that we don't act in the bipartisan fashion in which we ought to.

The President met with 10 Republican Senators. They are pretty far apart. I am going to speak a little bit about the substance of this, but I want to assure the gentleman that I am a big supporter of regular order. I think we ought to pass all 12 appropriations bills and not do these omnibus bills that nobody knows what is in them: not you, not me. I am the majority leader. You think, well, he knows all that is in there. I don't. Why? Because they are so massive that you really don't have an opportunity and we don't debate them fully. So I want to say that I share the frustration.

On this, I think we need to move quickly, and I am going say why in the comments that I make. But I didn't want the gentleman to go off the floor thinking that everybody was simply dismissing, not so much the substance, but the frustration he feels, I feel, and I think so many of our Members feel about the process being either too quick or too slow, too comprehensive, too incomprehensible. So I just wanted to say that to the gentleman.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, we have passed four major pieces of legislation. They weren't partisan pieces of legislation. They weren't rushed through by Democrats and, in fact, a Republican President had to sign all four of those bills. The first one, an $8.3 billion bill, four times what the President asked for, but ultimately, he said, yes, we need that much, and that was way, way, way too little. But we thought it was a huge sum of money at that point in time. It passed 415-2.

On March 14, we passed the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, 363-40.

On March 27, just a few days--this is all within weeks of one another, we passed the CARES Act, about $2 trillion, voice vote, $2 trillion, about the same amount as this bill suggests. Frankly, since that time, we have had hundreds of thousands of Americans die from COVID, and our economy go up and down, but now it is tanking, and we are all concerned about that.

George Bush came to the House when I was majority leader the first time and said, we need $700 billion, actually, a little more than that, $700 billion to loan to big banks. Loan to big banks? And Ben Bernanke, then the chair of the Federal Reserve said, if you don't do it, we are going to go into a depression.

So what happened, Mr. Speaker, was Democrats carried that bill for George Bush, a Republican President, and Republicans gave him one-third of their votes, their President--he was our President, but theirs in the sense he was a Republican.

So I am a little frustrated when I hear, well, we can't do this because we passed the Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act, very controversial, a big bill, 388-5. Now, what does that tell you? What does it tell the American people? That there was a consensus that it is a crisis in America that there is no example for it in the past. And so we need to move.

We had an election. The President of the United States said we had to move, and we passed a $900-plus billion bill, and the President said, by the way, it wasn't enough. He wanted to see more. He wanted to see substantially more in payments to the American people because they were struggling.

So, Mr. Speaker, this is a continuation of what has, throughout the year--we are not yet at the year, the first year of COVID, and so far, we have dealt with it in a bipartisan way, and robustly, because of the magnitude of the challenge.

People are suffering from the most severe public health emergency in our lifetimes and the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, and they are looking to Washington for help.

After we enacted, Mr. Speaker, the CARES Act in March 2020 to get American workers, businesses, and communities through the spring and summer months, the Trump administration and Republican-controlled Senate hit the pause button.

We passed the Heroes Act May 15. We then waited and waited and tried to negotiate. Mr. McConnell said, no, let the States go bankrupt. And Mr. McCarthy said, let's see what happens. And tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people died, and the economy has regressed.

That pause crippled our Nation's response, both to the public health emergency and the economic one as supports authorized by the CARES Act faded.

While we were finally able to reach bipartisan agreement on COVID-19 relief at the end of December, December 16, to be exact, much damage had been done and we knew, we knew, we all knew that the December legislation would not be enough, Mr. Speaker, and that we would have to act again. Now we are doing so.

Now, very frankly, when we were at the greatest recession, not depression, in December of 2007, and then 2008, and then when we took over and could act on a relief bill, we passed a $787 billion bill, relatively small by the kinds of sums we are talking about now, and it saved us from depression, and not a single Republican in the House of Representatives voted for that.

Now, remember, 172 Democrats voted for George W. Bush's TARP legislation. Not a single Republican stepped in to help the American economy, not one. So when I hear about bipartisanship, I think to myself, gee, I am for bipartisanship, and we will all be for it. And I will tell you, the proof of the pudding is those 172 votes that voted for TARP; and without TARP, I think the country would have gone into depression.

Now, President Biden has outlined the next steps we need to take as part of the American Rescue Plan. The budget resolution before us today provides us with one path to put that plan into action with the next round of major relief for our people.

The gentleman from Texas lamented, well, this is a farce. Let me tell you, if this farce passes, millions of families are going to get thousands of dollars to support themselves and buy food and pay their mortgage and pay their rent. This is very real.

Now, this is not the only path. Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker, we want this to be a bipartisan endeavor. Joe Biden's entire career, which is an extensive career, shows his bipartisanship, and I hope the discussions between the President and a small group of Senate Republicans will lead to a responsible and actionable bipartisan compromise that can pass the Senate with 60 votes and get to the President's desk in the coming weeks.

But make no mistake; we will not seek compromise at the expense of necessary action. The American people cannot wait for Republicans to work their way through another pause.

Democrats are taking this step today to ensure that we have all the procedural tools necessary to move forward with the relief so sorely needed for the American people in case the preferred path of bipartisanship is unsuccessful, particularly because expanded unemployment benefits expire on March 14.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me, to join the chairman in a bipartisan way in voting for this resolution so we can assure the American people that Congress is moving forward with the relief they need and in the timely manner they ought to expect.

If we care about American families, if we care about children who are going hungry, if we care about renters who can't pay rent and landlords who need that rent to pay their bills--now, some of them may be giants, but most of them are small--this bill cannot wait. This bill needs to pass as soon as we can possibly pass it.

I urge all my colleagues, vote for this resolution, and let's take a first, critically important step to passing this bill that will be constructed by 12 different committees here, committees in the Senate, and put together, as the chairman has just pointed out, and we will have to vote on it again as a final product, for the people.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and Mr. Rogers from Alabama, the ranking member, for bringing this forward as a bipartisan effort.

Mr. Speaker, I rise as one of those who opposed the waiver for General Mattis. People ask me, well, what is the difference? Mr. Gallagher raised this. You change your mind.

Let me tell you what makes the difference for me, Mr. Speaker. I think this law is a very relevant law. It is a very important law. It anticipated, when the Congress passed it, that there would be reasons for waiver, or it would not have included it. It would have made a preclusion. It did not do that.

It said under circumstances that the Congress considers, it may be well be in order to have a waiver. This, I think, is one of those times.

Very frankly, one of the reasons I voted ``no'' on Mr. Mattis is because Mr. Trump did not know Mr. Mattis, his outstanding military service.

General Mattis really didn't know Mr. Trump; and that relationship did not go well, unfortunately. In my view, General Mattis was a great tower of strength and independence in leading the Department of Defense. So I congratulate him for his service, although I participated in a meeting in the White House in which President Trump was very harsh in his analysis of General Mattis, which I thought was unfortunate. But this difference that I see today is a very important one.

What is that difference?

The President of the United States--the Commander in Chief, the civilian leader--knows General Austin, has worked with General Austin, and has taken the measure of General Austin, and they have a relationship, a positive relationship.

In addition to that, of course, the son of the President, Beau Biden, serving in the military, served with General Austin and took the measure of the man and his commitment to civilian leadership in the Armed Forces--a critically important concept for the Secretary of Defense.

One problem that dictates the speediest possible passage of this bill is the security situation in which we find ourselves. Always in a transition the enemy can think you are weak and not able to respond in an effective way. That is why, traditionally, Mr. Speaker, the Congresses do, in fact, confirm the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State.

Ms. Avril Haines was just confirmed as the head of the DNI. It is because we do not want a long period of time between having somebody in charge in the Defense Department and, in this case, somebody in charge who obviously knows and agrees with the principles of the President of the United States.

I am sure he will give good advice and sometimes he will disagree, but we have a confidence relationship. So very, very important.

This is not a moment for our country to be without a Secretary of Defense. Secretary-designate Austin is a highly qualified nominee, spoken to by the bipartisan support that this waiver will garner this day in the Congress of the United States. Mr. Speaker, he would make history, of course, as has been pointed out, and not an insubstantial mark on history.

Secretary-designate Austin is the first African American who will be Secretary of Defense. At this time, our country is fighting to overcome the legacy of slavery, segregation, and prejudice, as has been pointed out by my friend, Mr. Brown, who served as a lieutenant colonel in the Armed Forces.

Secretary-designate Austin served in Iraq. Forty percent minorities. What a symbol and a bridge between those of the majority and those of the minority in our services, which will coalesce and bind together better the units, which is extraordinarily important.

Secretary-designate Austin served our Nation admirably in uniform and oversaw the safe and successful drawdown of our troops in Iraq, as has been pointed out by Representative Khanna. In doing so, he earned the trust of then-Vice President Biden and Beau Biden.

Because of Secretary-designate Austin's recent military service, he requires a waiver. But, again, the waiver is included so that the Congress can make a determination as to whether this is appropriate. I can't think of a more appropriate Secretary of Defense than somebody who has great knowledge and confidence of the Commander in Chief. We ought to take that action without delay.

Mr. Speaker, we must always have a clear delineation between the military and civilian authorities in this country. I have a picture hanging on my wall, which is also in the rotunda. I have it in my office because it is in the Maryland State Senate, the Old Chamber. It is still in existence, still in the capitol in Annapolis, of George Washington resigning his commission as Commander in Chief of the Continental Army. And I always point out to people who come into my office that the Members of the Continental Congress are seated notwithstanding their inclination in the presence of this great, iconic figure was to stand and pay reverence to him. And George Washington said, ``No, you sit,'' because the civilian government is superior to the military. What a great lesson George Washington taught us at that time, which, thank God, has been revered until this time.

I think this appointment is the right appointment. I think it will be good for America. I think it will be good for the Armed Forces of the United States of America. I think the President has chosen well.

I urge my colleagues to grant this waiver. This, I would add, is not confirmation. Our brothers and sisters in the United States Senate will still have to judge and give advice and consent to this appointment, but this waiver is a precondition to their considering it on the merits. I hope that we will give them that.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Rules Committee for yielding. I congratulate him for his efforts down at the Rules Committee in acting and acting swiftly.

I appreciate the remarks of Mr. Cole, for whom I have great respect, but I disagree with his sense of a lack of urgency in action. I do agree with him of the consequences of our action. There are consequences to actions, and the actions of the President of the United States demand urgent and clear action by the Congress of the United States.

The chairman of the committee introduced the remarks and put them in the Record, but I want to reference the remarks of the chair of the Republican Conference, which is the analog to the Democratic Caucus. It is all the Republicans elected to the Congress of the United States in the House of Representatives. And they elected Liz Cheney, the daughter of the Vice President of the United States, the former whip of this House, Dick Cheney, with whom I served in the eighties.

Representative Cheney, from Wyoming, a conservative Republican, said this: ``The President of the United States summoned this mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack.''

That is not some irresponsible new Member of the Congress of the United States. This is the daughter of the former Republican whip and former Vice President of the United States of America. She knows of what she speaks.

She said this as well: ``There has never been a greater betrayal by a President of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution.''

This is not, as Liz Cheney says, just some action. She characterized it as the biggest betrayal of any President of the United States in our history.

Mr. John Katko--not a backbench Republican who just got here and doesn't know what is going on--Mr. John Katko, who is the ranking Republican on the Homeland Security Committee, says this: ``To allow the President of the United States to incite this attack without consequence is a direct threat to the future of our democracy.''

This is not some backbencher on their side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker. It reflects the sense of outrage and the sense of historic dissimilarity from the actions of any previous President.

Then Mr. Adam Kinzinger, a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and a senior Member from Illinois--so we have a Member from Wyoming, a Member from Illinois, and a Member from New York. There will be others on this vote who will join them. Mr. Kinzinger said this: ``If these actions''--he hasn't had any hearings; he doesn't need any long, drawn-out consideration--``If these actions are not worthy of impeachment, then what is an impeachable offense?''

There is no doubt in my mind that the President of the United States broke his oath and incited this insurrection.

I tell my friend, Mr. Speaker, a gentleman for whom I have great respect--he is my friend, and I say that honestly, not just as rhetoric that we say on this floor, because there are some that I don't consider friends, whose values I do not share. That is not Mr. Cole. We have a difference. Liz Cheney, John Katko, Adam Kinzinger, and other Republicans whom I have talked to within the last 24 hours believe this action is required.

Mr. Speaker, I see the gentleman from Ohio is on the floor. He likes to say that we Democrats were elected and the first thing we wanted to do was impeach this President. He is shaking his head in agreement because, like the President of the United States, he denies the facts. Trump-like. Fake news.

Mr. Speaker, December 6, 2017, Mr. Green, who I am going to refer to, offered a motion because he saw the danger that confronted our country, and he filed a resolution of impeachment. On December 6, 2017, we had a vote on that, and the majority of Democrats voted ``no''--actually, they voted ``yes'' to table--so that we did not proceed in 2017.

The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) thought, however, the next year that there was still a danger to our country. Some of us shared that view, but we were not confident that the case could be made or that the transactions that preceded would lead to conviction. So, on January 19 of 2018, we had a motion to table Mr. Green's resolution, and the majority of Democrats voted to table that resolution.

What a rush to judgment.

And then, on July 17, 2019, 9 days before the call to Ukraine to get the Ukrainian leader to act on the political behalf of the President of the United States and where he withheld money to defend the Ukrainian people from Russian involvement and offered that as a bribe, on July 17, the majority of Democrats voted to table that resolution.

Mr. Speaker, there was no rush to judgment.

Then that call to which I just referred was on July 26, 9 days later. I call that the ``a-ha moment.'' Yes, I knew what I thought, but that was proof.

Some gentlemen have lamented that we didn't know the whistleblower, because, after all, if we knew the whistleblower, we could intimidate everybody else from coming forward. This President has done everything he can to intimidate whistleblowers, people who came forward and told the truth. And we had witness after witness after witness who confirmed what the whistleblower brought to our attention.

So, Mr. Speaker, the reason I rise today--and I am going to speak on the resolution itself at some later time--is to recognize the contributions that Al Green from Texas has made to getting us to this place.

I am not going to read all of the resolution, but I want to read some excerpts from the resolution he has introduced. We won't be considering his resolution. We will be considering Mr. Cicilline's resolution which over 200 others have signed on to.

Mr. Green had a resolution be introduced: ``Resolved, that Donald Trump, President of the United States'' . . . `'is impeached for high misdemeanors, and that the following Articles of Impeachment be exhibited to the Senate.''

Article I says, ``In his capacity as President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his high office and the dignity and proprieties thereof, and of the harmony and courtesies necessary for stability''--to which my friend spoke, the gentleman from Oklahoma-- Donald John Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the Office of President ``has harmed the society of the United States, brought shame and dishonor to the Office of President of the United States, sowing discord among the people of the United States'' by weaponizing hate for political gain.

He went on to say, ``On January 6, 2021, in a speech at the National Mall, President Donald Trump weaponized the hate that resulted in violence, the deaths of multiple people, an assault on democracy, and an insurrection against the Capitol of the United States of America by inciting a mob''--who said that? Liz Cheney said it, and Al Green said it--infected with white supremacists carrying a rebel flag, erecting a gallows structure with a noose, wearing shirts and hateful messages such as ``Camp Auschwitz: Work Brings Freedom'' and ``MAGA Civil War, January 6, 2021.'' ``MAGA Civil War.''

They had the hats on of the army of MAGA, which I refer to as ``Make America Grieve Again.'' We grieved at Fort Sumter; we grieved on December 7, 1941; and we grieved on 9/11. And, yes, we grieved on January 6 of this year.

He goes on to say what the President told this mob that Liz Cheney said was recruited by the President of the United States. This is the President talking to this mob:

``All of us here today do not want to see our election victory stolen by bold and radical left Democrats''--like the Secretary of State in Georgia and the Governor of Georgia--``which is what they are doing, and stolen by the fake news media.''

Inciting, riling up, creating anger with the fake news and lies that the President of the United States said to these folks.

``That is what they have done and what they are doing,'' the President continued. ``We will never give up. We will never concede. It doesn't happen. You don't concede when there is theft involved.''

And so what did they do? Incited by this President, as Liz Cheney said, as John Katko said, as Adam Kinzinger said, and, frankly, what Secretary Chao acted upon and what the Secretary of Homeland Security acted upon and what so many others in the administration have acted upon--disgusted, dismayed, and disheartened by what their President had done, they got out. They quit.

The President further emboldened them, saying--this is the Green resolution. We are not considering it, but it is the Green resolution. The President further emboldened them, saying, ``You will never take back our country with weakness.''

We had a display of non-weakness, criminal insurrection-like conduct, recruited by and deployed by the President of the United States to come to this Capitol and ``stop the steal.''

The ``steal,'' of course, was: We assembled, accepting what all the courts that considered it said was a fair and accurate election of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris as President and Vice President of the United States.

After his National Mall speech, a mob of his supporters proceeded to the Capitol complex. We know that.

And so Mr. Green's resolution ends with, ``Wherefore, to prevent national harm to our society, Donald John Trump, by such conduct, warrants an immediate impeachment trial and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States Constitution and the 14th Amendment.''

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Green is going to speak after me, but, in conclusion, let me tell my friend Mr. Cole: I have been here some time; he has as well. I served with Ronald Reagan, with George H.W. Bush, and George Bush. I had respect for all of those Presidents. They cared about our country, they honored our Constitution, and they executed the duties of their office consistent with the Constitution and laws of our country.

That is not true of this President, and, therefore, he ought to be removed. We have that opportunity to do so. Is there little time left? Yes. But it is never too late to do the right thing.

Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.

This is a troubled time, a sad time. It is a time where all of us have stood almost to a person and lamented the violence and the assault on this Capitol and the assault on democracy itself.

It was right to do that. But this impeachment ought to be put in the perspective of what the Republican chair of the Republican Conference said it was. She said the President of the United States summoned the mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of that attack. There has never been, she said, a greater betrayal by a President of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution.

That is why we are here today. That is why we are here today just a week before that President, at the request of the American people, will leave office.

The issue is, what do we, the 433 of us, I believe, who are here, do on behalf of the American people to respond to what Representative Cheney described that happened on the 6th of January: a mob assembled by, summoned by, and then spoken to, to light the flame of the attack.

To ``stop the steal,'' as we sat here, exercising our constitutional duty. And to his great credit, the Vice President of the United States followed the Constitution of the United States of America, notwithstanding the fact that he was opportuned by the President not to do so. That mob sent by the President to ``stop the steal'' did so for a few hours, not the ``steal'' but the constitutional duty that we had.

So, we ask ourselves, what do we do? What is our responsibility? What should we say in light of only the Civil War as an analogy?

That doesn't mean there haven't been demonstrations in Washington before and demonstrations throughout this country before. But it is the first and only physical presence, other than the 9/11 attack, on this Nation, which came from abroad and had a plane aimed at our Capitol dome.

This attack was not from abroad. It was, as Liz Cheney said, summoned, assembled, and inflamed by the President of the United States of America. In Liz Cheney's words, there has never been a greater betrayal by a President of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution.

I pride myself as a Member of this Congress who for 40 years has worked in a bipartisan fashion with many of your leaders and do to this day. But are we to remain silent in the face of Liz Cheney saying this was the greatest betrayal of the duty of the President of the United States in history? Are we to stand silent? Will we stand silent? Will we not stand up and say this is not acceptable?

Madam Speaker, for 4 years, Donald Trump has made no efforts to hide his ambitions or his lacking of Republican principles--not our principles, but the principles that Abraham Lincoln was just quoted as having said. Your President, our President, has never displayed those in the 4 years he has been President of the United States.

He has allowed little constraint on his worst inclinations. His desire for autocracy and his glorification of violence have not been tempered but rationalized by those who sought to profit financially and politically from their proximity to power.

Upon the foundations of virtue, reason, and patient wisdom laid down by George Washington as our first President, Donald Trump has constructed a glass palace of lies, fearmongering, and sedition. Last Wednesday, on January 6, the Nation and the world watched it shatter to pieces.

There can be no mistaking any longer the kind of man sitting in the Oval Office or his intentions and capabilities. The curtain has been pulled back. The office to which he was elected could not temper or reform him.

Washington's legacy was passed down to us, not as written decrees but understood norms, how we ought to act, how we ought to conduct ourselves.

Term after term, each occupant has observed those norms out of a recognition that our Constitution's Articles are not the only preservative of our democracy. For more than two centuries, Madam Speaker, whenever those norms were tested and strained, good and virtuous citizens on both sides of the aisle found common purpose in reaffirming those norms. But memory fades, and from time to time, it must be refreshed.

Madam Speaker, as the Framers emerged from the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was asked whether they had made America a monarchy or a republic. Probably all of us know his response. A republic, he answered, if you can keep it.

That is the question today, if we can keep it. And the way we keep it is to say no to actions and words that do not promote the keeping of that republic.

For millennia, people have understood that a republic is only as stable and lasting as the citizens and leaders who commit themselves to its upkeep. This President has shown us he is not committed to that project. His tweets every day have shown he is not committed to that project. Indeed, he openly disdains it and appears to prefer the alternative.

But what of the rest of us, those of us who have the honor and the great privilege and the weighty responsibility to represent the views of 750,000 of our fellow citizens?

We, in this Congress, have an opportunity--no--a duty to demonstrate our commitment both as leaders and as citizens to keeping America a republic that resolves its differences, not through being ordered to come to the Capitol to prevent them from stealing the election, which was an absurd assertion from the very first day it was made.

We cannot erase the last 4 years, Madam Speaker. We cannot turn back the clock, but we can look to the ideals and principles inherited from great Presidents like Washington; like Jefferson; and, yes, certainly like Abraham Lincoln; and like Franklin Roosevelt. And from outstanding Americans like Frederick Douglass; Harriet Tubman; Susan Anthony; Cesar Chavez; Martin Luther King; Thurgood Marshall; our beloved John Lewis; and, yes, RBG, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who all taught us a lot about equality and inclusion.

Madam Speaker, it is up to us to restore the vibrancy of our democracy by reaffirming our commitment to the norms they passed onto us and entrusted to our care. But to make that possible, Madam Speaker, we must rise to this moment and not only affirm the virtues we cherish, but reject the vices we abhor. That is what I am asking my fellow Representatives on both sides of the aisle to do today.

We all stood and we abhorred the violence that occurred and the threat to the very democracy that we hold so dear and that we swore an oath to protect and uphold. Reject deceit. Reject fear-mongering. Reject sedition, tyranny, and insurrection. Reject the demand for fealty to one man over fidelity to one's country.

When I addressed the House during the debate over the Articles of Impeachment in December of 2019, I said the following: We need not ask who will be the first to show our courage by standing up to President Trump. The question we must ask: Who will be the last to find it?

Senator McConnell, Representative Cheney, and a number of other Representatives who have spoken on this floor with great courage, Madam Speaker, because there is much fear of Donald Trump. There is much fear of Donald Trump's tweets. There is much fear of Donald Trump's retribution for opposition. In my view, Donald Trump demands absolute loyalty and gives none in return.

I hope others will join Liz Cheney. I hope others will be honest with themselves and with their constituents as Liz Cheney was, saying, ``There has never been a greater betrayal of a President of the United States to his office and to his oath to the Constitution.''

Don't dismiss that. She is the daughter of a Vice President of the United States, who was the whip when I came to Congress. As she has taken a stand, I hope others will as well, Madam Speaker.

Soon, the Clerk will call the roll and ask for our votes. Make no mistake, this will be no ordinary roll call. This is about our country, our Constitution, and our democracy. These votes will be inscribed on the roll of history, a record of courage and of our commitment to country and Constitution, of our commitment to the rule of law and renewal of that which we inherited and hope to pass on unbroken, unshattered.

With just 7 days left in the President's term, this vote is not about timing. It is about principle and fidelity to our Constitution. It concerns the clear and present danger facing our country not only in these final days of the Trump administration, but in the weeks, months, and years that will follow. It is about the necessity to demonstrate to this generation and to future generations the duty we share to protect our democracy every single day.

Do not pretend, my friends, that it was simply those who came into the Capitol, encouraged by our President to ``stop the steal'' at any cost.

By the way, if the Vice President doesn't do my bidding and follows the Constitution, sweep him away.

We know that this President would never emulate George Washington and give up his power for the good of our Republic, even after losing an election.

Somebody talked about a peaceful transition. There has not been a peaceful transition. I don't know what you are talking about. You are not living in the same country I am. It was just days ago that the President, after committing this terrible act, thought he had to admit that Joe Biden might, yes, be President of the United States.

We know that this President neither recognizes norms, nor reflects the rule of law. We know that this President is not a patriot.

Madam Speaker, so I ask this House: Who among us will be recorded on the roll of history for their courage, their commitment to the Constitution, and their country?

We do this today not for politics. We don't need this for politics. Georgia showed that. There was no mistake in this election. We do this today to preserve and protect this great democracy. We do it for the America we love, our America the beautiful, whose Founders' sacrifices we praise in song: ``O beautiful for heroes proved in liberating strife, who more than self their country loved and mercy more than life.''

Sadly, Madam Speaker, as our current President, the appropriate words would be: Who less than self his country loved and victory more than truth.

Vote for this, for America, for our Constitution, for democracy, for history.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 21) calling on Vice President Michael R. Pence to convene and mobilize the principal officers of the executive departments of the Cabinet to activate section 4 of the 25th Amendment to declare President Donald J. Trump incapable of executing the duties of his office and to immediately exercise powers as acting President, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the objection.

Madam Speaker, it is a sad day in America. It is a wrenching day in America. It is a day in which our words and our actions have had consequences of a very, very negative nature. We ought to watch our words and think what it may mean to some.

My remarks were written before the tragic, dangerous, and unacceptable actions--and ``unacceptable'' is such a tame word. My remarks started with, ``Madam Speaker, the American people today are witnessing one of the greatest challenges to our democracy in its 244- year history.''

Little did I know that this Capitol would be attacked by the enemy within. I was here on 9/11 when we were attacked by the enemy without.

We need to all work together to tame and reduce the anger and, yes, the hate that some stoke. What some--not all, Madam Speaker, but some-- in this House and this Senate are doing today will not change the outcome of the election, which is the clear and insurmountable victory of President-elect Biden and Vice-President-elect Harris. Instead, all they will accomplish is to further the dangerous divisions.

This was written before this Capitol was assaulted, before this democracy was put aside by thousands, encouraged by the Commander in Chief.

Instead, all they will accomplish is to further the dangerous divisions, as I said, among our people and energize conspiracy theories stoked by our foreign adversaries, which seek to erode America's confidence in our democracy and our system of free and fair elections.

I was here in 2000. I was strongly in favor of Al Gore for President, and my candidate got more votes than the other candidate. His name was George Bush, of course. And one of the saddest days was January 20th of 2001 when our candidate, who won the election, in my view, was not elected. But it was also one of the proudest moments of my career because the greatest power on Earth passed peacefully from Bill Clinton to George W. Bush.

Not a shot was fired. Nobody assaulted this Caucus or this Congress or this Chamber. Because we were not disappointed? No. Because we were not angry? No. Because we believe in democracy. We believe in ``We the people.''

One of the speakers, I think it was the Senator from Texas, expressed: We are here for the people.

If those were the people, we are in a lot of trouble.

Our electoral system, our democratic system, however, did not break under the strains of the misinformation, the claims of fraud, which court after court after court have dismissed out of hand, not because there was a little evidence, but because there was no evidence.

That is why we are the longest-lasting constitutional democracy in the world. I hope all of us in this body are proud of that and understand why that is the case. Because, as Dick Gephardt said on this floor many years ago, democracy is a substitute for war to resolve differences. It proved once more the ever-beating strong heart that gives life to our Republic and our freedoms.

That strength, Madam Speaker, is derived in part from our institution and our laws, but most importantly, it is powered by citizens' and leaders' commitment to our Constitution. Not just us. We swear an oath. But it is all of America.

Barack Obama spoke from that Chamber, and he said: I am going to be taking another title next year--citizen.

And he was proud to take that. And every citizen needs to protect, preserve, and uplift our democracy.

Some today did not do that, many today.

Sixty-eight years ago in Springfield, Illinois, Governor Adlai Stevenson gracefully conceded his loss to General Dwight Eisenhower. He said this: ``It is traditionally American,'' he told his deeply disappointed supporters, ``to fight hard before an election.''

But then he added, it is equally traditional to close ranks as soon as the people have spoken--not the Congress, not the electors, the people have spoken.

That which unites us as American citizens is far greater than that which divides us as political parties.

It was another man from Springfield, fourscore and 8 years earlier, who won reelection to the Presidency in the national crisis that tested our country and its democratic institutions, who pleaded even in his hour of victory for the same spirit of reconciliation. That was the party of Lincoln. That hasn't happened to this hour.

Lincoln said: ``. . . now that the election is over,'' he asked, ``may not all, having a common interest, reunite in a common effort to save our common country?''

Such is the duty of an American who stands for elections, or participates in our politics, to be either humble in triumph or gracious in defeat.

I have lost some elections--not too many--and I have won a lot of elections. I hope that I have been gracious in defeat and humble in victory. I hope that I put my State and my country first, not myself.

It is clear to all that the outgoing President has not followed the path that Stevenson and Lincoln urged. So, we, the people--each one of us represents about 750,000 to 800,000 people, some a few less. The people, they have spoken in the way that our Constitution set for them to be heard by us and by the country--they voted, and they voted pretty decisively.

We, the people, together, must turn away from division and its dangers.

The senior Member of our body, Don Young from Alaska, spoke the other day when we were sworn in and said: Ladies and gentlemen of this House, we are so divisive that it is going to destroy our country. We need to reach out and hold one another's hands.

We all have a title that we honor more than any other--perhaps parent, perhaps husband. But we are all Americans. Not Americans-R; not Americans-D. We are Americans.

Let us hope tonight that we act like Americans. Not as Ds and Rs, but as Americans, just as Al Gore, just as Hillary Clinton, just as Adlai Stevenson, just as Abraham Lincoln, who had won that election, of course. But he had defeated people, and he said that is not the issue; the issue is to reunite.

We, the people, must again be the strong heart of our American democracy.

We, the people, on this day in Congress, must be agents of unity and constructive action to face the grave threats that confront us and tell those who would assault our Capitol: That is not the American way.

We, the Members of Congress, who swore an oath before God to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States and our democracy, must do so now.

I don't usually read Senator McConnell's speeches, but I am not speaking as a Democrat, nor was he speaking as a Republican just a few hours ago.

``We're debating a step that has never been taken in American history, whether Congress should overrule the voters and overturn a Presidential election.''

He went on to say that he supports a strong State-led voting reform.

``The Constitution,'' he said, ``gives us here in Congress a limited role. We cannot simply declare ourselves a national board of elections on steroids. The voters, the courts, and the States have all spoken.''

Five people said the election of 2000 was over. We didn't agree with them. But Al Gore said: We are a nation of laws. Five people--yes, they were members of the Supreme Court, but they were five people--said the election is over. I sat on that podium and saw that power transfer to George W. Bush.

McConnell went on to say: ``If we overrule them, it would damage our Republic forever.''

He said that, McConnell, the Republican leader of the Senate, about 2 hours ago, 3 hours ago, now 4 hours.

He went on to say: ``If this election were overturned by mere allegations from the losing side, our democracy would enter a death spiral.''

He concluded: ``It would be unfair and wrong to disenfranchise American voters and overrule the courts and the States on this extraordinarily thin basis. And I will not pretend such a

vote would be a harmless protest gesture . . .''

How presciently he spoke. People who think that the election has been stolen with some fraud, why do they think it? Because the Commander in Chief said so, and they respect him and they follow him. And words matter.

``Pete,'' as he ended, ``I will not pretend such a vote would be a harmless protest gesture while relying on others to do the right thing. I will vote to respect the people's decision and defend our system of government as we know it.''

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this objection, as McConnell said, a danger to our democracy.

Madam Speaker, this would not be the time I would have chosen, but it may be the last time that we are in session before the new administration comes in.

We are losing an extraordinary young woman who has been with me for over a decade and who is our floor leader, our floor director. All of you know her. Her name is Shuwanza Goff, and she has been with me for a significant period of time.

Shuwanza is a wonderful person. And the problem with having wonderful, talented, good staff is that at an administration change, they steal your people. It is just a terrible thing that happens. Two of my staff, Shuwanza Goff and Mariel Saez, will be going to the administration as well, and I have asked the administration to please do not take any more of my people.

But Shuwanza Goff has just been extraordinary. Those of you who have dealt with her understand how bright she is.

That is the bad news, Madam Speaker, that they have taken her. But the good news is, she is going to be the administration's representative to the House of Representatives, so we are going to see a lot of Shuwanza. I am sure she will be talking to both of us on both sides of the aisle and urging us to vote one way or the other or getting us information or doing all sorts of things that we might ask her to do and that she would want to do for us.

I want to say, Madam Speaker, and I know you share my view, those of us who have had an opportunity to work closely with Shuwanza, I love Shuwanza Goff. She is just a wonderful spirit. She is smart. She knows the rules. She knows the floor. I think Mr. McCarthy's and Mr. Scalise's staffs would say the same thing if I had given them any notice that we were going to do this, but I thought we had some time.

Shuwanza, I really do want to thank you, and we wish you the best of luck. We know you are not going far. I know we are going to see a lot of you, but we wish you great success in everything you do.

I tell my staff, Madam Speaker, that they can go off the payroll, but they cannot go off the staff.

God bless, Shuwanza, and good luck.

At 3:22 a.m., the Sergeant at Arms, Paul D. Irving, announced the Vice President and the Senate of the United States.

The Senate entered the Hall of the House of Representatives, headed by the Vice President and the Secretary of the Senate, the Members and officers of the House rising to receive them.

The Vice President took his seat as the Presiding Officer of the joint convention of the two Houses, the Speaker of the House occupying the chair on his left. Senators took seats to the right of the rostrum as prescribed by law.

Madam Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged resolution.

Madam Speaker, I move that the motion to postpone consideration be tabled.

Madam Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the time allocated to me be controlled by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the chairman of the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, I will continue to address my remarks to you notwithstanding the fact that you ruled against me just a little while ago on a vote, which excited some.

I am an institutionalist. I believe in this body, I believe in democracy, and for your information, I believe in the free enterprise system.

Madam Speaker, I listened to the remarks of the minority leader. I listened to the outrage that he expresses. I share the view of the Rules Committee chairman that he was a principal leader in the most closed Congress in which I have served, which was, of course, presided over by my Republican colleagues. He talked about free speech. Nothing in this rule undermines the free speech of any Member in this House-- nothing.

When they had closed rules, I didn't get up and say: You are muzzling my speech.

You muzzled my ability to make legislation, but you did not muzzle my

speech. The First Amendment is sacrosanct, hopefully for everybody in this body. But I will tell you I have been in this body when Republican Members, Madam Speaker, rose to their feet demanding that people do something in the galleries.

Madam Speaker, I am going to show hypocrisy--not from me. The gentleman, the chairman of the Rules Committee, Madam Speaker, mentioned that the minority leader mentioned hypocrisy. I presume his assertion was that somehow we were being hypocritical. I intend to speak a little bit of time and I intend to show hypocrisy.

First of all, the gentleman is wrong in his facts. The motion to recommit was taken from the British Parliament and was present at the first Congress in 1789. Interestingly enough, the motion to recommit was used to correct something that had not been included in the bill and was considered a friendly amendment and remained that way for a very, very long time.

In 1934, it was ruled that instructions in a motion which were present from time to time was not necessary, and that is the way the rule maintained essentially for the next 20 years--actually, excuse me, 60 years, until 1995.

The gentleman is correct. When the Republicans took office for the first time in a very long time under the leadership of Newt Gingrich, Madam Speaker, they changed the rule. They said that you have to have a motion to instruct, as if they were giving us something, as if they were giving us something. Remember that phrase because I am going to show it meant nothing. It was an illusion. It was a pretense.

Madam Speaker, I am going to first go through, of 34 examples, about 10 of the examples of what our Republican friends, Madam Speaker, said about the motion to recommit.

First of all, the minority leader--I read from the Wichita Eagle of May 12, 2013: ``The political book on McCarthy is that he does a good job at counting votes, of knowing where the 233 House of Representatives Republicans are at any given time. He points out that Republicans, unlike Democrats in a previous Congress, haven't lost certain procedural votes''--procedural vote. Let me underline procedural vote. Not substance of the First Amendment and not substance of free speech. Procedural vote--``called a motion to recommit, that are a test of floor control.''

That is what the minority leader was bragging about: floor control. He was not in the minority at that point in time. He was in the majority. I believe he was the whip.

A subsequent--or previous to the present minority leader, Eric Cantor went on to amplify the Republican perspective on the motion to recommit. Majority Leader Eric Cantor publicly went on the defensive about an MTR, stating that the MTR was simply a gimmick. Eric Cantor, the majority leader of the Republican Party in 2012.

Mr. Bishop, one of the ranking members, he is no longer here. He left. He retired last year. Referring to an MTR, he said: ``Mr. Speaker, this is a procedural motion.''

Madam Speaker, Mr. Bishop went on to say that it is just ``another delay tactic.'' Just a delay tactic. He didn't say anything about the First Amendment. He didn't say anything about substantive consequences of the MTR. He said that it was a delaying tactic.

Referring to the MTR, Representative Conaway said: ``To come in here now and pull this procedural trick. . . . When we are in the minority, we do it.''

He is correct. When we are in the minority, we do it.

Madam Speaker, very frankly, I will tell you--and you can take my words down for the future--if this never came back, ever, it wouldn't bother me because it is a charade of substance. It is a pretense of legislating.

Representative Goodlatte, who was then-chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I believe, or at some subsequent point chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said: ``This is simply a dilatory tactic. . . . `'

That is what the chairman of the Judiciary Committee--I am not sure if he was at that point in time in 2015. I think he was.

Madam Speaker, a dilatory tactic is what the chairman of the Judiciary Committee on the Republican side of the aisle called the MTR. It ``seeks to distract from the urgent needs. . . . `'

Representative Lamborn said: ``Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is a procedural motion. . . . `'

Madam Speaker, I am sorry the Chamber is not full. It can't be full. I would have liked to speak to all the Members of the Congress, and they can judge on the hypocrisy of the arguments that are being made.

This motion to recommit is a procedural motion designed to slow down consideration of this important bill. It is purely, purely procedural. Not a little bit procedural and a little bit substantive; it is purely procedural.

Representative Olson, in 2019, referring to it, said: ``It fits a pattern of delay and obstruction that we simply can't afford.''

Hypocrisy. He didn't say anything about its having to do with free speech. A motion that we were offering as an MTR that we thought, like you think--excuse me, Madam Speaker, as the Republicans think, is a gotcha amendment. It is politics on both sides. It is not substantive and it is not about free speech. It is about politics and gotcha. Yes, I am an institutionalist and, yes, I think we ought to not be doing gotcha in a nonsubstantive way.

Madam Speaker, obviously, we disagree on issues. And when we offer an issue and they don't vote for it, we think that is politically helpful to us because we think it is for the people. They do the same thing and they think it is for the people. So no party is free of its gotcha actions. Mine is not, nor is theirs.

Representative Upton, one of the institutionalists in this body, former chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Republican from the State of Michigan, being kind, as Fred Upton is kind, said: ``I appreciate the motion to recommit, and I would just say to all my colleagues: Our side certainly views that as a procedural issue, not a real amendment.''

Madam Speaker, I would say to the ladies and gentlemen of the Congress: Who is hypocritical? Who is hypocritical when their Member, a valued senior chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, says that this is a procedural issue, not a real amendment?

My goodness gracious, the Rules Committee is taking away not a real amendment.

Isn't that horrific?

How could they do that, Madam Speaker, when the Republicans say that it is not a real issue, it is not substantive, it is a gimmick, and it is a delaying and obstruction tactic?

Now, let me say that the Republicans uniformly vote against the MTR.

Mr. Woodall was a member of the Rules Committee. He is no longer here. He is from the State of Georgia. Mr. Woodall said, after being here for about 10 years of the motion to recommit, that he was told by the leadership when he started in this body that it is a procedural motion aimed to obstruct and delay, we always vote ``no.''

Now, let me tell you, Madam Speaker, what they always vote ``no'' on. On April 7, 2011, an MTR was offered, a motion to recommit that would ensure that our troops would get paid. The Republicans defeated that motion overwhelmingly. Only one person on the Republican side voted for it, Walter Jones. He is no longer in the Congress. He was pretty iconoclastic when he was here, and he did what he darn well pleased irrespective of the directions of the leadership who said: Always vote ``no'' on the MTR.

So what they are complaining about, Madam Speaker, is the preclusion of doing something they always opposed. And, very frankly, when they won those MTRs from time to time--very few--they then voted against the bill. There was no substance.

A little while later, about a month later, the motion to recommit that we offered ensured that our top priority in funding our intelligence services is the campaign to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaida and affiliated organizations.

Raise your hand if you are opposed to that. Madam Speaker, not your hand. But our colleagues ought to reflect on whether they are opposed to that premise. Not a single Republican voted for that MTR--this substantive assertion that our campaign and intelligence services ought to be not disrupted in their fight against al-Qaida and affiliated organizations.

A short time later we offered another MTR. The motion to recommit provides our troops with a $100 per month increase in combat pay.

As you sit in your chairs in this House, or you are watching these proceedings on television, I want you to say to yourself: Am I against $100 for our troops who are at risk?

Because if you are, voting against the MTR was justified. Every Republican save--except--one more time--Walter Jones, voted against that amendment, that substantive amendment that we are stealing away from them, which they say we never vote for.

Madam Speaker, if Mr. McCarthy were here, I would ask him: Have you ever voted for an MTR?

I ask him rhetorically. Perhaps, at some point in time, he will tell us. Maybe he was against the substance of all of these amendments that I am speaking about.

In 2012, the following year, the motion to recommit would prohibit the issuance of leases to any entity that is in violation of the Iran Sanctions Act or the Syrian Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act.

Madam Speaker, not a single Republican voted for that amendment. The substantive amendment that they are so aggrieved--and by the way, energizing their party to be more partisan than they ought to be doing. We ought to all praise Don Young, the dean of the House. He served here longer than anybody else. He said yesterday that we ought to come together and reach out our hands to one another and make this place work for the people.

Another motion to recommit would prohibit export of helium from the Federal Helium Reserve to Iran, North Korea, and Syria.

Madam Speaker, not a single Republican voted for that MTR. Why? Because it is procedural. It is a gimmick. It is obstructing. That is what we are taking away that you are so aggrieved at.

Now, I have about 35 or 40 of these. The good news is, I am not going to read them all. But in 2014, the motion to recommit would ensure that the intelligence community continues to protect the United States--hear me--from Chinese and other state-sponsored computer theft. I am sure all of you will say, ``Well, I am against that. That is an awful thing to do.'' But everyone on that side of the aisle in the Congress today voted against that amendment. Our new Members didn't vote against it, obviously, but people who were here, every Republican that was here, voted ``no'' on protecting ourselves from the Chinese, the theft of our computer technology.

Madam Speaker, the next year, 2015--and I am just taking a couple from each year--the motion to recommit would deter terrorist cyberattacks, homegrown terrorist attacks, and strengthen America's cybersecurity by increasing prevention efforts to stop the recruitment and travel of homegrown terrorists by ISIL, al-Qaida, and other terrorist organizations.

Now, I know you are going to be shocked because you are probably thinking, ``Oh, of course we voted for that.'' Not one. Not a single Republican voted for that MTR.

So, this aggrieved rhetoric that we hear about taking something away, the only thing being taken away is their gotcha opportunities and ours.

Now, in the majority, you don't have the motion to recommit. I get that. But we may be in the minority at some point in time. Don't give it back to us because it is a political game that undermines the integrity of this institution, and it is covered as a gotcha game, for the most part, by the press and media that knows what that is--a game.

Madam Speaker, in 2015, the motion to recommit would require the Department of Homeland Security to prioritize protection and technical assistance to stop cyberattacks on critical infrastructure, such as the electric power grid and nuclear power plants.

By now, you know what I am going to say. Only one Republican voted for that. It won't surprise you that it was Walter Jones because Walter Jones really did treat it as a substantive piece of legislation.

But the party that is so aggrieved today instructs their Republican freshmen and all of their Members: Vote ``no'' on the MTR.

Madam Speaker, I am available to yield to anybody who is going to tell me that is not the truth. Nobody has propounded that question to me.

In 2015, again, a month later, the motion to recommit would protect troop pay, guaranteeing a pay increase of 2.3 percent for our servicemembers and ensuring no lapse in troop pay in the event of a government shutdown. And there was my friend, standing tall--Walter Jones, alone but standing tall. Not a single other Republican voted for that.

Just three left.

Madam Speaker, in 2017, I am bringing you up to date because this has been a consistent pattern. This is not some ``one person said this; one person said that.'' It is a consistent pattern of Republicans dismissing the motion to recommit as not of substance, only a delay tactic, a gimmick, if you will, according to Mr. Cantor.

The motion to recommit, in November 2017, to ensure rural communities have adequate funding for educational services, conservation projects, and fire prevention programs.

Madam Speaker, now, Walter Jones got a friend on this one, Rod Blum, who is no longer here. And, tragically, Mr. Jones died too early. They are not here, but they thought that was a good idea. No other Republican thought that was a good idea.

In 2018, just 2 years ago, the motion to recommit would amend the underlying bill to prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from chartering a private plane or flying any class above coach. That was because a couple of Secretaries clearly did not meet their responsibilities to the American taxpayer in the expenditures of moneys in their Departments.

Again, Mr. Blum and Mr. Jones thought that was a good idea, but the Republican leadership had instructed them, you will recall, according to Mr. Woodall, to vote ``no'' because this is just a delaying tactic. This is just a game. Vote ``no.'' It is procedural. It is not substance.

Lastly--and people are now saying amen--the motion to recommit would ensure, in this case, that we would: protect students and children from a person who has been convicted of a sex offense against a minor; secondly, prevent domestic violence; thirdly, prevent rape or sexual assault; or four, require criminal background checks for schools or other employment.

Rod Blum and Walter Jones stayed true to themselves and did not follow the instruction: This is a game. This is an obstruction. This is a gimmick. This is a way to delay and defeat.

Madam Speaker, I have taken some time to discuss this because I don't like hypocrisy. I don't like wasting time. I don't like not respecting one another and playing a gotcha game to see if you guys are afraid of this amendment. And then when we adopt the amendment, if we adopt, a very few--vote against the bill because, after all, it was just a political game. We don't like the bill, no matter what you have in it.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. Madam Speaker, the people who are watching this debate may not have the knowledge that all of us have. Almost invariably--almost invariably--this is a partisan vote. The Republicans will vote against our rule, and we will vote against their rule. And, invariably, we will find some problem with it that we can rationalize our vote on.

Madam Speaker, I regret that we are starting this Congress--and I am going to look at Mr. Ryan's speech. I am going to look at Mr. Hastert's speech on the opening day. I am going to look at all the Speakers with whom I have served and see what their comments were on the opening day.

I regretted the minority leader's opening statement. I regretted it because, as Don Young said, we need to come together. We are at a time of pandemic. We are at a time of economic distress. We ought to be acting not for ourselves, not for our politics, but for our people.

Madam Speaker, I would urge every Member to vote for this rule. And as they do so, be assured they are not denigrating or denying anybody's free speech any more than the Republicans denied free speech in the most closed Congress in our history just a few years ago.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during the 117th Congress, the Speaker, majority leader, and minority leader be authorized to accept resignations and to make appointments authorized by law or by the House.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during the 117th Congress, all Members be permitted to extend their remarks and to include extraneous material within the permitted limit in that section of the Record entitled ``Extensions of Remarks.''

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during the first session of the 117th Congress:

(1) on legislative days of Monday or Tuesday when the House convenes pursuant to House Resolution 11, the House shall convene 2 hours earlier than the time otherwise established by the resolution for the purpose of conducting morning-hour debate;

(2) on legislative days of Wednesday or Thursday when the House convenes pursuant to House Resolution 11, the House shall convene 2 hours earlier than the time otherwise established by the resolution for the purpose of conducting morning-hour debate;

(3) when the House convenes pursuant to an order other than House Resolution 11, the House shall convene for the purpose of conducting morning-hour debate only as prescribed by such order;

(4) the time for morning-hour debate shall be allocated equally between the parties and may not continue beyond 10 minutes before the hour appointed for the resumption of the session of the House; and

(5) the form of proceeding for morning-hour debate shall be as follows:

(a) the prayer by the Chaplain, the approval of the Journal, and the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag shall be postponed until resumption of the session of the House;

(b) initial and subsequent recognitions for debate shall alternate between the parties;

(c) recognition shall be conferred by the Speaker only pursuant to lists submitted by the majority leader and by the minority leader;

(d) no Member may address the House for longer than 5 minutes, except the majority leader, the minority leader, or the minority whip;

(e) no legislative business shall be in order except the filing of privileged reports; and

(f) following morning-hour debate, the Chair shall declare a recess pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I until the time appointed for the resumption of the session of the House; and

(6) the Speaker may dispense with morning-hour debate upon receipt of a notification described in clause 12(c) of rule I, or upon a change in reconvening pursuant to clause 12(e) of rule I, and notify Members accordingly.

Pursuant to section 3(a)of House Resolution 491, I hereby give notice of intention that the House consider the following joint resolutions on Wednesday, July 17, 2019:

S.J. Res. 36;

S.J. Res. 37; and

S.J. Res. 38.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.

I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia, who is my friend; and I want to respectfully say to him: This resolution is not about partisanship. It is about prejudice and the necessity to confront it.

Mr. Speaker, my father was from Denmark. He was born and raised in Copenhagen and came here as an adult in his twenties. I have a large extended family in Denmark.

The President of the United States, Mr. Speaker, did not tell me to go back to Denmark.

He did not tell the Speaker of this House, a woman proud of her Italian American heritage, to go back to Italy.

He did not tell the Irish American Members of this body to go back to Ireland or tell those of German ancestry to go back to Germany. No.

He told four women of color, three of whom are natural-born citizens, born and raised in their home country of America, to ``go back'' to their countries.

This is their country, Mr. Speaker, I would tell the President.

And it is the country of our colleague who came here as a refugee from Somalia. She endured hardships and arrived on our shores like so many others, seeking freedom, safety, and opportunity.

She is an American citizen, one who chose to give back to her community and our country through public service. This is her country.

I will not speculate on this floor about the motives or intentions of the President, but no one can dispute that the words he said and wrote were racist words--and have been called such by Republicans--with a long history of being used to demean, dismiss, and denigrate some American citizens as less than others, as not fully belonging in our country because of the color of their skin or the origin of their families.

Mr. Speaker, to oppose this resolution is, in effect, saying the words were acceptable.

They were not acceptable. Such words should never be acceptable from the leader of this country, or frankly, anybody else. They demean our Declaration of Independence; they demean our Constitution; and they demean our Pledge of Allegiance: ``One Nation . . . indivisible.''

So I urge this House to come together and support this resolution. No matter whether one supports this President or not; whether one believes he is a racist or not; vote for this resolution that condemns the words he spoke. They hurt. They are not American. They are not us. The sentiment was not one we ought to espouse.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the President, if I were speaking to him: The next time you wish to denigrate and demean those who came here, or the children and grandchildren of immigrants, say it to me. Say it to all of us in this House. Say it to every descendant of immigrants.

Express the sentiment of the House of Representatives that this is not the conversation that we have in America. We lift our lamp beside the golden door. Let us keep that flame bright.

Madam Speaker, I rise to mark the twenty-ninth anniversary next week of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) being signed into law by President George H.W. Bush on July 26, 1990. This transformative and trailblazing piece of legislation, which was supported by both Democrats and Republicans, serves as a lasting reminder that Congress can bring so much opportunity for our people when we join together for the greater good. The ADA calls us to continue to act on behalf of millions of Americans with disabilities to ensure that their hopes, dreams, and aspirations are as valid and attainable as those of every other American. It remains a powerful expression of Congress's determination that disability rights are civil rights.

On July 23, advocates for those with disabilities are also pausing to celebrate and recognize the many contributions of Helena Berger, President & CEO of the American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), who will be retiring this August after thirty years of service and leadership in the disability rights movement. Ms. Berger held several leadership positions with AAPD prior to becoming President & CEO, including Executive Director, Chief Operating Officer, and Executive Vice President. Under Ms. Berger's leadership, AAPD has significantly increased its reach and impact across the country, including through the expansion of AAPD's renowned Summer Internship Program, which cultivates the next generation of leaders in the disability rights movement.

I join in thanking Ms. Berger for her years of service to AAPD and the broader disability rights community, for her tireless efforts to fight for representation and economic opportunities for Americans with disabilities, and for ensuring that AAPD can continue to advocate on their behalf for years to come. I hope all of my colleagues who value and celebrate what the ADA represents will join me in paying tribute to Ms. Berger for her leadership and wishing her all the best in her retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, before I get into the schedule, I know that all of our thoughts are with my good friends in Louisiana and my good friend who represents Louisiana, his constituents, and the people of Louisiana as they brace for Tropical Storm Barry, expected to make landfall tomorrow.

This is a serious storm, and, when combined with the flooding we have already seen along the Mississippi, it poses a serious threat to the safety and welfare of many.

We hope everyone is safe and taking the necessary steps to get out of harm's way, and I want the gentleman from Louisiana to know how much we are paying attention to his constituents in the State he represents and the region he represents.

I know the gentleman is concerned. We share that concern, and we share the concern for the people of south Louisiana.

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

On Tuesday and 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 9 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes of the week are expected no later than 3 p.m. on that Thursday.

Mr. Speaker, we will consider several bills under suspension of the rules, including H.R. 748, Middle Class Health Benefits Tax Repeal Act of 2019. A complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business today.

The House will consider H.R. 3494, the Intelligence Authorization Act. I am pleased to say that the bill was approved by unanimous voice vote in committee and would authorize funding and enable congressional oversight of the U.S. intelligence community.

Mr. Speaker, the House will also consider a resolution to hold Attorney General Barr and Secretary Ross in contempt over efforts to ignore congressional subpoenas and subvert the 2020 Census with the addition of a citizenship question meant only to deter minorities from participating, leading to an undercount in parts of the country.

In addition, the House will also consider S.J. Res. 36, S.J. Res. 37, and S.J. Res. 38.

Mr. Speaker, last month, the Senate passed 22 resolutions of disapproval related to the Saudi-UAE arms sale for which the administration declared an emergency, thereby bypassing the Congress of the United States. The House will take up three of these resolutions related to precision-guided munitions, the most controversial and significant sales contemplated.

Lastly, the House will consider H.R. 582, Raise the Wage Act. This legislation, authored by Chairman Scott, would gradually increase the minimum wage to $15 by 2024. This bill is an important step toward lifting millions of American workers out of poverty.

We believe that one should not be working a 40-hour week and still remain under the poverty level in our country. We raise the minimum wage for the first time in nearly a decade, essentially, 10 years.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his observations. He, I think, told a partial story of the CBO study and some other studies. Of course, he mentioned the city of Baltimore.

The problem with the city of Baltimore, as the mayor who vetoed it indicated, was that next door, the minimum wage was lower. Had the minimum wage been the same, there would not have been the same transfer, I suggest to the gentleman.

That aside, he mentions the CBO report on the impact of gradually raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour. The minimum wage was last raised in 2007. It then incrementally raised over 3 years to the present $7.25. It has not been raised in a decade. The poorest workers in America have not had a raise in 10 years.

We don't think that is right, as we see this extraordinary disparity of income, where presidents of corporations now are making 1,500 times what their average worker makes.

Very frankly, we are a consumer-based economy. Seventy percent of our GDP is based upon consumers. If we raise their salaries, they are going to spend more, grow the economy, and, I suggest, grow jobs, not shrink jobs.

Let's look at the CBO study. The CBO study had a number of different averages that were perceived, three of which were zero loss of jobs. 3.7 million was the maximum, not the average, the maximum loss.

I am not surprised that opponents of raising the minimum wage would point to that as if it were the figure. It is a maximum, the worst-case scenario.

We have a growing economy. I don't expect the worst-case scenario to occur. The fact of the matter is that we believe that this bill and this raise will have little, if any, adverse impact.

What we do know is this, which the gentleman did not mention. CBO said the bill will give 27 million workers in America a raise, and that the worst-case scenario--we don't want to see anybody lose their job-- would be 3.7 million, but the average would be less than 2 million. That was their average estimate, and three of them were zero.

We believe that 27 million Americans, which will lift 1.3 million Americans out of poverty, is something that will be good for America. It will be good not only for those workers but good for business, for families, for children, and, frankly, for all of us.

The benefits of the Raise the Wage Act for America's workers, in our opinion, far outweigh any potential risk. We think the risk is minimal.

More than 10 years with no increase in the Federal minimum wage, I might point out, Mr. Speaker, is the longest period since the adoption of the minimum wage in 1938, the longest period we have gone without raising the minimum wage.

Mr. Speaker, it has been 10 years since we Democrats were in the majority. I point that out because the last time we were in the majority, we passed and, very frankly, President Bush signed the raise that was to $7.25 an hour. But this is the longest time in history it hasn't been raised.

The Raise the Wage Act is a critical step, in my view, toward restoring the value of work and ensuring that working families--we all say we are for working families. Well, we ought to pay them, and we ought to pay them a decent wage.

By the way, this raise is probably a very, very infinitesimal percentage of the raises that those at the upper level, in the top 10 percent and the top 5 percent, have received.

This will allow working families to achieve some type of financial security. We believe that is essential.

We are very pleased that this bill is moving forward, and we urge all of our Members to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I would simply say that he said the entire State of Maine. Maybe he missed the fact that I said 27 million people, under this bill, are going to get an increase in their salary and in their ability to support themselves and their families. That, by the way, is about the size, perhaps, of New York. It is not quite California, which is 38 or 39 million people. But 27 million are going to get a raise.

My suggestion is, and I believe this sincerely, that that increase and raise, because they are consumers, those consumers all spend their spendable money. They need it to support themselves, and that is going to be an infusion.

When the gentleman says small business, I understand that. We all pay it in the end because the consumer of services and goods is who will pay it. We understand that. But not paying it perhaps advantages us because some families can't support themselves and, very frankly, may be on public assistance, so we pay for it one way or the other.

This is the right thing to do. Twenty-seven million Americans, that is about a sixth, I think, of our workforce, somewhere in that neighborhood, are going to get a raise under this bill.

I hope that the estimate of 1.3 million is wrong. I think it is wrong, as I explained. If everybody is doing the same, then the employer that needs to have things done is going to get those things done. He or she will be on a competitive level because others will be doing the same thing, in terms of the level of pay. They won't be competing with people who are paying their folks at a very low level, and people will be able to survive.

I understand the gentleman's position. By the way, I would say the gentleman's argument has been made since 1938.

Every time the minimum wage came up for increase, we have heard this. I didn't hear it in `38, I want to make that very clear. But that argument has been made every time the minimum wage, while I have been involved in this floor over the last 30 years, has been made. And I suggest to you, as a result of the raising of the minimum wage, our economy has been better, it has grown more, people have been better off, and we have had a better country.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I think we have exhausted that subject. I think the positions have not changed since 1938, and I don't expect them to change in the next few minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

We did have a meeting, and in a bipartisan fashion, I think we are all hopeful that we can pass the USMCA.

I was here when we passed NAFTA, as was the Speaker. There were a number of promises made, as the gentleman knows from his knowing experience of NAFTA. We are very focused, as the gentleman knows, on workers' rights, environmental protections, the price of

biologics, and the length of time that they would be protected from generic competition and bringing prices down.

But we are, as we discussed in the meeting to which the gentleman referred where we met with the Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Trudeau, and many of his Cabinet, we are very concerned about enforcement. We want to say if we make this agreement that it will, in fact, be enforced. And, as the gentleman knows, there were meetings as late as yesterday on this issue.

The good news is, as the gentleman probably knows, Ambassador Lighthizer has great respect and confidence on both sides of the aisle. I would say that he is one of those people who both sides of the aisle believe is credible, knowledgeable, straightforward and an honest broker. So we are working very hard with him.

Almost every Democrat has said we are trying to get to ``yes'' on this. I don't think you have heard many Democrats, if any, say we are not for this agreement.

So I am hopeful that we can get there, personally. I think this is an improvement over the existing NAFTA.

I would say, however, that I think it would be a mistake if, in fact, we don't get to an agreement, which I hope we will, to back out of NAFTA, as the President has indicated. I think that would cause chaos in our economy and with respect to Canada and Mexico, as well. So I think that would not be a good policy. But I think a good policy would be, if we can get enforcement and the assurances that the agreements that are made will, in fact, be carried out by all parties, then, hopefully, we can get this done.

Whether we can get this done by the August break, can't make that representation to the gentleman, which does not surprise him, I am sure. But I can tell you, yesterday, as you know, there was work being done on it, and I trust that there will be work being done on it in the coming days. And if we can get to an agreement, we will move it as quickly as possible.

But we may need to make sure that the protections that are referenced in the document will, in fact, be the protections that are affected and enforceable.

I thank the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman for his comment, Joe Wilson, of course, a member of his party.

Joe Wilson filed that bill five Congresses ago, 8 years ago, and it languished. It was not brought to the floor. It did not pass.

I understand the gentleman's concern, but he ought to also reflect upon the fact that Joe Wilson introduced it four Congresses ago, so that we have now included it in the bill. We think it was a proper provision to have in our bill.

Of course, all your people voted against that bill, and I would observe, they voted against a bill that, frankly, the chairman of your committee, now the ranking member, wrote an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal that said the appropriate level of funding was exactly what we put in our bill. The Joint Chiefs of Staff said that the figure for 2020 was 733.

I was deeply regretful that a bill which was the figure that Mr. Thornberry put forward in an editorial in The Wall Street Journal--and, I might say, I had conversations with him subsequent to that, recently, which confirmed to me that he still held that view.

Notwithstanding that, every one of your Republicans voted against it. And it was the largest--there was this complaint about the size of the military pay raise. It was the largest raise for our military in 10 years. Now, we were in charge 10 years ago and we are now back in charge, which means we have had the two largest raises, and that was included in your MTR.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope the whip would, as we do so often, work in a bipartisan fashion on these issues. The committee did work in a bipartisan fashion. I am very disappointed that this was made a political issue. Mr. Speaker, it was made a political issue on the theory that maybe the Democrats can't pass this bill, and if we all vote against it, we will say: Look, the Democrats don't support defense.

Mr. Speaker, we did pass that bill. We passed it with over 218 votes--220, to be exact--and it included some very, very important things for our men and women in uniform, for weapons systems, for operations, for training to strengthen our national security.

It was turned into, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, a partisan issue, and that is sad and unfortunate because, at least on the national security of which I have been supportive for 38 years--I supported much of the Reagan buildup. I supported the deployment of missiles in Europe. I supported the MX missile, which was somewhat controversial in my district. I did it because I thought America needed to be strong and to make sure the world knew we were going to be strong.

When you talk about Joe Wilson's amendment, which we included in our bill, which you were supportive of and I think the level of funding was also, frankly, intellectually supported, if not politically supported, I regret that we did not have a bipartisan vote on the defense bill.

With respect to his specific question, I respond to the whip, Mr. Speaker: We hope this bill is signed. If not, we hope it goes to conference. We hope we have a conference agreement, Mr. Speaker, and we hope that the Wilson amendment is kept in the conference report.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman specify what they were?

Mr. Speaker, obviously, we could debate a bill we just passed, a bill that has been debated on this floor for 3 days, a bill that was chairmanned and supported by somebody equally, if not more, bipartisan in terms of his work over the years on this matter of defense, Adam Smith, period.

It is a good bill, Mr. Speaker. It takes care of the men and women. It provides them the necessary resources. And, yes, it says we ought to have a new AUMF that is now 18 years old.

With respect to the pay raise that was going to happen anyway, I presume that the gentleman refers to the recommendation of the President of the United States, a Republican. We took the recommendations of the President of the United States and put it in our bill. It is higher than any figure that was put in for our men and women in uniform during the previous 10 years that the Republicans controlled the House and controlled this bill.

There were poison pills, from my perspective, in the defense bills in years past. I now note that I voted against those bills when they passed the House. I voted for the conference committee when it came back.

I am hopeful that the Republicans will decide that the rhetoric they used, ``If you vote against this bill,'' meaning the defense bill, to our side, ``you vote against the men and women in the Armed Forces, the men and women in uniform, the men and women at the point of the spear,'' I hope you will remember that language, Mr. Speaker. I hope my Republican colleagues will remember that language. Now, apparently, it doesn't apply.

This was a good bill. That was a bill worked on in a bipartisan fashion.

I will tell the whip, Mr. Speaker, that I had conversations with some of the top Republican leaders on that committee with respect to funding levels. I was told that the funding levels that were in our bill, as the Joint Chiefs said and as the ranking member said in an editorial in The Wall Street Journal, were appropriate levels that will fund the priorities of our country and the needs of our national security, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly, I hope that the Senate and the House can work on this. By the way, the Senate number is the same as our number as it relates to compensation, I believe, for members of the Armed Forces.

I would hope, Mr. Speaker, when this bill comes back from conference, that we will have agreement, will pass it, and will send it to the President for signature. That is the way it ought to be.

I am sorry that we didn't get significant support, as is almost always the case, except when political games were played, not just that items were put in that the Republicans didn't like or the Democrats didn't like. There were a lot of things in the defense bills that I

voted for that I didn't like, but I thought the overall bill was a bill that supported our troops and supported our national security, as I think this bill did. We will see.

Mr. Speaker, I only want to say that I do not accept the premise that anything in this bill we just passed with a majority vote undermines training, operations, or acquisitions, period.