Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, and my good friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Madam Speaker, today's rule covers H.R. 4502, a seven-bill appropriations package for fiscal year 2022, including the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, where I am the ranking member.

Though I have great affection for my good friend, Chairwoman Rosa DeLauro, and respect all of my colleagues across the aisle, I think this package is deeply misguided, and I will be opposing it today.

From the beginning, this package was structured on a flawed premise. The majority chose to use the 302(b) allocation numbers, the levels that tell each subcommittee how much money they can spend, that were totally off the mark.

The majority chose to mark their bills to spending levels that called for a 17 percent increase in nondefense spending, and an inadequate 1 percent increase in defense spending, less even than the amount the President requested in his own budget.

At a time when our national security is facing repeated threats, ranging from the Middle East to Afghanistan to the South China Sea, we can hardly afford to return to the continual underfunding of our military that was the hallmark of the Obama-Biden years.

What is worse, these seven bills account for a 21 percent increase over fiscal year 2021. Across the seven titles, the majority is asking to spend more than $100 billion more in fiscal year 2022 than we did just last year. This comes on top of massive spending earlier this year with the majority's $1.9 trillion COVID spending package, and at a time when Democrats in the House and the Senate are looking to spend another $3.5 trillion as part of a new partisan reconciliation bill. This is truly tax-and-spend politics like we have never seen before.

But the problems with this bill aren't just with the amount of money that they spend. In drafting this package, the majority has also chosen to strip out longstanding bipartisan policy provisions and, instead, has filled this package with partisan, far-left policy that simply cannot pass both Chambers and become law.

There is no better illustration of this than the majority's shocking decision to remove the Hyde and Weldon amendments.

For 45 years, through both Democratic and Republican administrations and Democratic and Republican majorities in the House, the Hyde amendment has been the law. It is a commitment that no Federal tax dollars can be used to fund abortions, except in certain rare instances, and a commitment to protect the conscience rights of the great majority of American taxpayers who are opposed to publicly funding abortions.

Since 2006, the Weldon amendment has protected the conscience rights of healthcare providers to not participate in abortions if they have a moral objection to the procedure.

The very same Democratic majority that controls the House today had no apparent issue with the Hyde and Weldon amendments just 1 year ago since they were carried on their Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill without any issue. Yet, this year, the majority has inexplicably chosen not to include these bipartisan provisions, despite receiving support from every Democrat on the Appropriations Committee only last year.

Removing language that has been included in appropriations bills for decades is not only an overreach by the far left, but it also threatens to destabilize and upend the entire appropriations process. Appropriations bills simply cannot pass both Chambers and be signed into law without this language.

Eliminating the Hyde and Weldon amendments, given all of their importance to the American people, also eliminates the opportunity for bipartisanship. Without a bipartisan deal approved by both Chambers, we cannot reach a successful conclusion to the fiscal year 2022 appropriations process.

Removing this language sends us on a collision course for a yearlong continuing resolution or, worse, a government shutdown.

Madam Speaker, I filed an amendment to today's package to restore the Hyde and Weldon amendments. I did not do so alone. I was joined by every single Republican Member in this body--every single one. All 213 members of the Republican Conference signed on to this important amendment. Yet, when the Rules Committee met yesterday, I was shocked that my amendment was not made in order.

Madam Speaker, I find it stunning that the majority would not back provisions that are this important to the American people. But it serves to show how deeply partisan the package before us today actually is. The majority simply prefers to ram through their own partisan policy rather than provisions that have had bipartisan support for decades.

I find that deeply disappointing, Madam Speaker. But I know that today's bill will not be the last word. Whether the majority likes it or not, at the end of the day, we will have to reach a bipartisan and bicameral deal on spending for fiscal year 2022. The alternative is too bleak to contemplate.

But if the majority fails to compromise and fails to work with Republicans, both here and across the Capitol, then they will have only themselves to blame. They will bear the responsibility for the consequences, a continuing resolution or, even worse, a government shutdown.

Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule and the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 4698 for immediate consideration. This bill addresses the growing problem in American schools of educators pushing their own ideology onto students by forcing them to use the pedagogy of critical race theory.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Owens), the author of this amendment to further explain the amendment.

Madam Speaker, it should be easy to agree that schools, especially primary schools, should focus solely on facts-based education, without political overtones.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from South Carolina (Ms. Mace), who will speak more about the importance of defeating the previous question because of the potential indoctrination of school children posed by schools teaching critical race theory.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Bishop), a passionate advocate on this issue, who will speak more about the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), my very good friend, a distinguished member of both the Rules Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), my very good friend and the most distinguished defender of life in the Congress.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Van Drew), my good friend.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Van Duyne).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith), my very good friend and the ranking member of the Budget Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I would advise the gentleman that I am prepared to close whenever he is. Madam Speaker, can I inquire how much time remains?

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I want to begin by thanking my good friend, Mr. McGovern, the chairman of

the Rules Committee, as we always have a spirited debate and lively exchange and we don't always agree on things, but I always appreciate his faith in the institution, his willingness to engage in debate, and his friendship and decency as we work through our differences.

Madam Speaker, the bill before us today is a deeply misguided bill. I say that as someone who serves on the Appropriations Committee. The spending package covering seven different appropriations bills is marked to numbers that simply don't make sense.

Contrary to what my friend claimed, we haven't had a massive disinvestment in domestic spending over the last 4 years. Quite the opposite. There have been steady and, I think, genuinely merited increases. This is an explosion of spending tied to additional spending that is promised down the road in the form of a $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill.

Now, everything is funded except, as my good friend from Missouri said, the things that keep us safe and free. The defense budget is laughable. We have had a succession of Secretaries--on both sides of the aisle, by the way--who have told us we need a 3 to 5 percent increase beyond inflation in defense over the next several years.

We don't have a defense bill on the floor. We are not likely to see one any time soon, but the reality is, the defense bill my friends propose actually is an inflation-adjusted cut in the defense of the United States, a cut at a time that we are dealing with Russian and Chinese aggression and dangerous adventurism in other parts of the world by regional adversaries like North Korea and Iran. That is irresponsible.

We all know we have a crisis on the southern border. We won't see the Homeland Security bill either because that is flat funded and not meeting the obvious needs that we have there. But we do have an extraordinary explosion in domestic spending, one that is simply not justified and can't be sustained.

If those were my only objections, I would think at some point we could probably find some sort of reasonable compromise, because my friends know at the end of the day they have to get to 60 votes in the United States Senate. However, in addition to that, they have ripped out things like the Hyde and Weldon amendments that have been in these bills for 45 years, in the case of the Hyde amendment, 15 or 16 years in the case of the Weldon amendment. Those are deal-breaking bills to us.

Now, my friends have routinely voted for those things for decades; not for years but for decades, and Presidents of both parties have signed them. As I have mentioned to my friends yesterday in the Rules Committee, it was a Democratic Congress that passed the Hyde amendment, overwhelmingly Democrat in both Chambers.

My friends have changed their view about the life issue. That is their right. I respect it. We have not. We have not changed our views on conscience issues. My friends know that if that language in the Hyde amendment and the Weldon amendment are not restored to the appropriations bills, they are not going to have any of these grand bills or even compromise bills. They are going to end up with a continuing resolution, at best.

For those people who are watching that don't know what a continuing resolution is, it is simply last year's spending with the Weldon and Hyde amendments. In effect, a Democratic President, a Democratic House, and a Democratic Senate will have produced Donald Trump's last- negotiated budget. That is where we are headed unless my friends decide to restore that language. That is an absolute deal-breaker for us if it is not.

The other thing that I would mention to my good friends on the other side is that there is still some time to do some things. This is a long process, and I understand setting out your negotiating position. But let's not be under any illusion that what we are talking about today will ever become law. It will never be passed by the Senate. It will never reach the desk of the President of the United States.

Madam Speaker, I urge my friends to reject the rule, reject the bill, and sit down and bargain in good faith. We can get there.

As I have said on many occasions, I have had the great privilege of having been chairman and ranking member of the largest component bill in this group. On six different occasions, both as chairman and ranking member, working with my good friend, the chairwoman of the full committee, Representative DeLauro, we came to a deal. All six times, the bill was out of committee, across the floor, signed by the President. It didn't matter who was chairman or ranking member. It didn't matter which party controlled. It didn't matter who the President was.

That is six times in a row. We can do that again a seventh time in this bill. There are some good things in this bill, as my friend says, some things I certainly support. But there can be such a thing as too much of a good thing, and there is way too much of a good thing in this bill in terms of the amount of money it spends.

At the end of the day, if we are going to have an appropriations process that works, if we are going to have a deal--and we both should want a deal--then the defense number is going to have to come up. The discretionary spending number, which is embodied in this bill, is going to have to come down, and the Hyde and Weldon amendments are going to have to be restored.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I will be brief. But I want to begin by thanking Chairwoman DeLauro and Ranking Member Granger for their help throughout the process.

However, despite many areas of agreement in the bill before us today, particularly relating to Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, I will oppose the bill.

Madam Speaker, at the end of May, President Biden sent us a $6 trillion budget request for fiscal year 2022. The bill presented today, in many ways, mirrors that budget request. Proposing the highest spending level since World War II, the price tag alone is utterly unrealistic. As we continue the see inflation on the rise, such a proposal is bad for the recovering economy as well.

Instead of focusing on the urgent priorities for all Americans, like reopening our economy and schools, President Biden's budget request and this bill, elevate controversial left-wing policies over-pressing needs, like strengthening our national defense and addressing the crisis at our southern border.

In fact, this budget calls for billions of dollars to fund progressive priorities and policies like the Green New Deal, while recommending an effective cut in the funding for our military. With China and Russia growing their militaries by the day, this is a very misguided approach.

Finally, most egregious in the President's budget and the current deal, which is reflected here, is the removal of the Hyde amendment, which protects life and prevents Federal taxpayer-funded abortions. Since it was first enacted in 1976, it is estimated this provision has saved more than 2 million lives while protecting the conscience rights of the great majority of Americans who are opposed to publicly-funded abortions. Also, it removes the Weldon amendment, which provides important conscience protection for our healthcare providers who object to participating in abortion proceedings.

This amendment and the Weldon amendment have both been supported

for generations by Republicans and Democrats alike.

Madam Speaker, you know that the Democrats in Congress do not have the majorities capable of passing this bill without Republican vote. In the days and weeks ahead, it is my hope that Members on both sides of the aisle and both Chambers can negotiate spending that is reasonable and will not lead us to financial disaster.

But the first step toward negotiation will be the full reinstatement of the Hyde and Weldon amendments along with similar pro-life protections contained across the 12 spending bills that we consider as a committee.

These protections need to be reinstated for this package to move to the President's desk. Quite frankly, everyone in the Chamber knows this bill will never pass the United States Senate without their inclusion, and the majority of American people support that view.

In closing, Madam Speaker, while the bill does fund many good things, and while I certainly appreciate the openness of the process in which the gentlewoman from Connecticut and the gentlewoman from Texas have participated in developing the bill, I do oppose it as drafted.

The price tag is too high. The bill contains too many poison pill policy riders, and it funds too many unauthorized programs, and bows to a leftist agenda that does not reflect the views and values of the American people.

Madam Speaker, I remain hopeful that we can do better, and I urge rejection of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include the text of the amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I think it says everything about Jerry Lewis if you look at who has come to speak on his behalf. We have had the Speaker and the majority leader of the House from the other party. You have a man he squared off against twice for the chairmanship of the full committee. You have colleagues on both sides. It tells you he was a very unusual man with very broad appeal.

I first met Jerry Lewis as a staffer. I was the new executive director of the NRCC, and I got a call out of the blue from one of the most important Republicans in Congress who said, ``Hey, have you got time to come over and meet?'' I thought, ``Boy, I am either in trouble or something is serious and big.'' It turns out that his deputy chief of staff, Letitia White, was married to the brother of a good friend of mine. They happened to meet at the wedding, and he said, ``Hey, there is this kid from Oklahoma coming up. You need to get to know him.''

Jerry Lewis was the kind of guy who reached out to you no matter what. We became firm friends from there, long before I was in this institution. I used to bring people by, particularly clients who were running for Congress, to meet him because he always helped them and always gave them good advice.

Then, by happenstance, I had the opportunity to come to the Congress of the United States. The first person who helped me was Jerry Lewis, and the first person who gave me good advice said, ``Tom, become an appropriator if you possibly can.'' It was Jerry Lewis. Then, he helped me get to that spot.

He was the ranking member, our Republican leader on the committee, and guided the decisions I made in terms of what positions I would choose, where I would go, and what subcommittees I would serve on. I always got great advice, always got tremendous help. There was always wisdom in any observation that he had.

Like my friends, I am going to miss him very, very much. I extend my sympathies to Arlene and the family, but this institution lost a great champion. We lost a great American.

God bless him wherever he is now. Actually, I know where he is now. God bless him.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for yielding, and I want to be the first to admit I was alive when both of these authorizations were passed.

The Congress' current effort to review the existing authorities for military force for which the original purposes have been achieved or are no longer appropriate is an important exercise of this body's authority under the Constitution and pursuant to the War Powers Act.

I am pleased to note that Chairman McGovern and I, along with my friends, Chairman Meeks and Ranking Member McCaul, helped initiate an evaluation of the War Powers Act, its strength and limitations and its need for modernization in a hearing on this topic in March. It is fitting, and frankly overdue, that the House is considering these issues and is now poised to repeal a second and third outdated AUMF this year with strong bipartisan support.

The joint resolution to promote peace and stability in the Middle East was enacted in 1957, 2 years after the signing of the Warsaw Pact, in response to the concerns about the potential spread of communist influence in the Middle East and, therefore, threats to U.S. economic and political interests in the region is long overdue. Needless to say, much has changed in the 64 intervening years. The Berlin Wall has fallen, and six of the seven former Eastern Bloc countries are now allied with the United States through NATO. The Soviet Union, of course, is no more. Communism obviously remains in the world, but it is no longer the driving force for most threats to the United States, particularly in the Middle East.

Similarly, the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 1991 is not related to the current situation in Iraq, and therefore, defunct. United Nations Resolution 678 authorized member states to use force to restore peace and order in response to Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. President Bush stated on multiple occasions at the time, including in his signing statement of this AUMF, that he believed he had sufficient constitutional authority to use force in this case. However, he did not test the question, and requested and welcomed the AUMF. With or without the United Nations approval, in spite of the action's intent to enforce international law and, regardless of my support for the action taken by President Bush at that time, it was the initiation of a war, and in my opinion, the President was obligated to seek Congressional approval. However, since the issue has been long-since settled, it is time to revoke the outdated authority.

Let us reinforce with this action today, Mr. Speaker, that should the President find reason to initiate military action subject to the War Powers Act in Iraq or anywhere in the Middle East, he or she must come to Congress with information, justification, and request for approval.

Also going forward, I strongly suggest this and future Congresses consistently establish a sunset of future authorizations either by a firm expiration date in the authorization or triggered by satisfaction of clear and specific objectives.

Once again, I support the passage of H.R. 3283 and H.R. 3261.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the previous question, and I fully support the immediate consideration of H.R. 18, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2021.

The bill would codify protections for the unborn and would make them permanent. These protections are commonly carried as part of the Hyde amendment, which has been carried in the appropriations bills produced by the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Subcommittee of Appropriations, where I am the ranking member, for the past 45 years.

There is no cause greater for any Member of Congress than defending life, especially amongst the most vulnerable. When I was privileged to be chair of the subcommittee, every one of the annual appropriations bills passed out of the subcommittee carried this important protection.

Yet the majority has once again begun the misguided assault on life; first, with President Biden's revocation of the Mexico City policy, followed by legislative efforts to dismantle the Hyde amendment, both of which protect life and prevent taxpayer-funded abortions.

Since the Hyde amendment was first enacted in 1976, it is estimated that this provision has saved more than two million lives. It has been supported by lawmakers of both parties on both sides of the aisle, and signed into law by Presidents of both parties every single year since then. Indeed, every Democratic Member, other than freshmen, has voted for legislation containing the Hyde Amendment.

When he was serving in the United States Senate, President Biden, at that time, expressed his support for the inclusion of this provision, a stance he has since abandoned. Eliminating this provision in the annual appropriations bills would be a terrible mistake and at odds with the beliefs of a strong majority of the American people.

A recent Marist Poll found that 58 percent of Americans oppose the taxpayer funding for abortion, while only 38 percent support it. Hyde protects the conscience rights of the great majority of Americans who are opposed to publicly funded abortions for religious, moral, or fiscal reasons. It allows States to choose to fund elective abortions or not with State taxpayer dollars, and the people of 34 States have voluntarily chosen not to do so.

As we look ahead to the annual appropriations process, I would remind my friends on the other side of the aisle that 200 Republicans, including every single Republican member of the Appropriations Committee, signed a letter to congressional leadership stating that they would oppose any spending bill that did not include Hyde protections.

I see no better way for us to continue to celebrate life and ensure protections for the unborn than by making the Hyde amendment permanent, which we can do if we pass H.R. 18 into law.

Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, Chairman McGovern, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, today's rule covers two items. The first item I will discuss is H.R. 3237, a supplemental appropriations bill intended to provide security funding for the Capitol complex, including funding for the U.S. Capitol Police, the National Guard, and other agencies that responded to the January 6 attack on the Capitol complex, as well as to provide funds to address the coronavirus throughout a variety of agencies Congress directly controls.

Although the process leading to this bill started out with bipartisan negotiations, unfortunately, no deal was reached. Instead of negotiating with Republicans on our counterproposal, as is typical in these discussions, Democrats walked away, once again, choosing to go it alone with the bipartisan bill before us today.

Madam Speaker, it is truly disappointing that Democrats were unwilling to continue to work towards an agreement with Republicans on a matter of this magnitude, and given that the Senate is in no hurry to take up this legislation, a few additional weeks of discussion could and likely would have led to a bipartisan product instead of a product destined for the legislative graveyard.

In the wake of the January 6 attack, I would hope that the majority would join with Republicans and choose to speak with one voice. Instead, like so many items in this Congress, the majority has insisted on its way or the highway. And today, they are doing it so again with this partisan bill.

House Republicans and even some Senate Democrats have concerns with this package. The bill creates a rapid response force with the D.C. National Guard. Any rapid response force intended to provide backup for the United States Capitol Police and to protect the Capitol complex should be under the control of, and housed within Congress.

As a number of my colleagues mentioned during the debate in the Committee on Rules yesterday, housing these capabilities within the D.C. National Guard introduces the exact same concerns my friends on the other side raised in the aftermath of January 6, that Congress would be reliant on the executive branch to deploy this rapid response force.

Madam Speaker, I have deep concerns about putting this rapid response force under the control of any other entity, whether that is the government or the District of Columbia or the executive branch. I also have grave concerns about assigning this role to the military since this is undoubtedly a law enforcement function.

Further bipartisan and bicameral negotiations would have helped us to tailor the package to allay some of the serious concerns Members have, and at the same time would direct funds to where they are needed most.

Madam Speaker, I do know that what the House passes this week will not be the final word. And I am hopeful that in the not-too-distant future, the House will take up a different version of this package, one that has been negotiated with Republicans and that can pass the Senate, and I look forward to supporting that package before the President signs it into law.

Madam Speaker, our second item for today is H.R. 3233, a bill which establishes a national commission to investigate the January 6 attack on the United States Capitol complex.

I thank Ranking Member John Katko and Chairman Bennie Thompson of the Committee on Homeland Security for their hard work in putting this legislation together. They took an unworkable and hyper-partisan proposal from the Speaker and turned it into a far better bill. I commend these two gentlemen for their desire to find bipartisan agreement.

However, I continue to have concerns with the legislation, concerns that could have been addressed if several of the amendments proposed at our Committee on Rules hearing would have been made in order.

On an issue this serious, the full House deserves the opportunity to debate and discuss areas of disagreement to see if we can find common ground. One of these areas of continued disagreement is that of scope, which remains too narrow in the proposal.

As the culture of our national politics has coarsened over the past several years, there has been a resulting broader wave of political violence in this country. This includes events like the 2017 domestic terror attack that targeted Republican Members of Congress at a baseball practice, and which would have been catastrophically worse but for the bravery of the U.S. Capitol Police officers who were present that day.

It includes the April 2 attack that killed U.S. Capitol Police Officer Billy Evans.

It includes the wave of violence, rioting, and property destruction that swept across the country last summer.

The commission should have specific flexibility to examine these events in their appropriate context.

I am also concerned about current language in the bill related to the ongoing work of law enforcement to bring the perpetrators of January 6 to justice. There are multiple investigations already underway. Several committees in both the House and the Senate have held, and will continue to hold, hearings on the topic.

The Architect of the Capitol is reviewing security vulnerabilities in the Capitol complex. As of yesterday, more than 450 people have been arrested in connection with the events of January 6, with at least 100 more arrests to come. All of these individuals will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, as well they should.

Given each of these ongoing investigations and proceedings, I fear that adding yet another investigation from this proposed commission would only muddy the waters and make achieving due process and reaching justice all that much harder.

For that reason, I supported an amendment offered in the Rules Committee that would ensure that the ongoing and critically important work of law enforcement would continue unimpeded by this commission. For reasons I do not fully understand, this amendment was blocked.

Moreover, in my personal opinion, the commission would benefit from any revelations emerging from the investigations currently underway.

In addition, I note that it was 14 months between the events of 9/11 and the creation of the 9/11 commission. During that time, many facts emerged that informed the investigation of the commission. The same could be true here. As such, it makes sense to take more time prior to commencing an undertaking like this commission.

Though I have reservations about the bill, I have no reservations at all about the job Ranking Member Katko and Chairman Thompson have done. I am hopeful that this bill will be improved further as it proceeds through the legislative process.

Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up House Resolution 153, a resolution condemning the recent hate crimes committed against Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Steel), my good friend, the author of the resolution, to further explain the amendment.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my good friend, the distinguished chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, for his excellent work on this bill; and I want to thank his ranking member and negotiating partner. I think they, frankly, moved us in the right direction toward agreement.

We continue to have concerns. It is a long, legislative process. Obviously, we will have to pass something through the Senate as well. So it is my hope we can build upon their work and continue to move forward.

We are not prepared at this time to provide huge support for this bill. We think it can continue to improve. But that doesn't take anything away from my appreciation and admiration for the gentleman from Mississippi for his good work. We will continue to try and work with him and others and get to a place we can all come to agree.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I oppose the rule. The majority is proposing two significant pieces of legislation today. Unfortunately, concerns remain with both of them.

H.R. 3237, the supplemental appropriations package intended to provide funds for the security of the Capitol complex is, unfortunately and unnecessarily, a partisan bill.

It was the subject of bipartisan negotiations, and there is no reason we could not have gotten to a bipartisan result had the majority wanted to do so. Instead, we are left with a partisan package that does not meet the needs of the institution and, frankly, has no chance of becoming law in its current form.

I would urge my friends particularly to look at the section relating to the rapid response force. That is something where I think, honestly, with a little bit more reflection, we could find some common ground.

I think it is a mistake to put a force like that under the control of either the District of Columbia or the executive branch. I think we need direct control of that ourselves. I know some of my colleagues on the other side feel strongly that way, too. It simply

makes sense that if we are having a crisis here, we ought to make the decision if we need an extra force.

I think if we keep working at it, we are going to find some common ground there, and I hope that we do.

H.R. 3233 establishes a commission to investigate the January 6 attack on the Capitol complex. Here, too, I want to acknowledge that real progress was made in the course of negotiations, and I want to commend particularly Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Katko for having brought us closer to agreement.

However, on our side, many of us continue to have reservations about this bill and the parameters of the commission itself. After all, the events of January 6 did not occur in a vacuum. If we truly hope to find answers for the American people, then we must take into account everything, all the other political violence that has taken place in recent years.

I would just ask my friends to go back--and I know they have--and look at the 9/11 Commission, which did exactly that. It didn't just look at 9/11. It looked at the attack on the USS Cole. It went back to the attack on the African Embassies that we experienced.

There is room here, I think, for context and additional discussion. We also have concerns structurally with some of the staffing provisions and other items that I have mentioned that we hopefully would look at. We would like to continue to work on that.

I think we could have made good progress had any of the amendments that were offered in the Rules Committee been made in order. My friends chose not to do that. That is their privilege to do so, but I think it probably obstructed what could have been a larger bipartisan vote for this particular piece of legislation.

But, again, we will see going forward. What we do here isn't the final arbiter. This is one stage in the process. The United States Senate is the next stop. Hopefully, there will be some changes made there. Then, it will have to come back here. We should look at both of these matters as stops in a journey, or parts of a journey, not as the final decision on any of them.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 145, I mistakenly voted ``nay'' when I intended to vote ``yea.''

Madam Speaker, for a vote on April 15, 2021. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 114.

Madam Speaker, Arthur ``Art'' Francis Walsh passed away early in the morning of February 24, 2021 in Salisbury, MD. Art was a good man, a loving husband, a loyal father, who loved his family and served his country and community. He had a great career. He enjoyed life and a good joke. He made people laugh; enjoyed golf, children, and pets; and had friendships that lasted his entire life. He loved and was loved. His final days were difficult, but he slipped into the arms of God peacefully in his sleep and we are thankful.

Art was born on April 13, 1942, to Marion Veronica Walsh (nee Kiernan), a mother of six, and Howard John Walsh Sr., a Deputy Sheriff and Detective with the New York Police Department, in the South Bronx neighborhood of New York, NY.

He often shared memories of his carefree days of his youth playing stickball and rambling around the neighborhood with his siblings and hundreds of other Irish Catholics kids, walking home for lunch from P.S. 35, watching baseball at nearby Yankee Stadium and vexing the clergy of St. Angela's School and Powell Memorial Academy.

Art enlisted in the Marine Corps, trained at Paris Island, SC, then served in the Marine barracks at 8th and I Streets in Washington, DC, where he was meritoriously promoted to the rank of Lance Corporal and was selected for the Marching Twenty-Four unit, performing silent precision exhibition drills. As a member of the Marine Corps Honor Guard, Art served presidential support duty for President John F. Kennedy.

Art then completed six years in the Marine Reserves and joined the New York Telephone Company, where he built a 30-year career, rising from an installer of rotary phones to a regional manager overseeing fiber optic cable and high-speed internet.

With his first wife, Barbara, Art enjoyed many nights bowling, gathering with friends and having fun throughout McLean Avenue in Yonkers and all over Manhattan. Together, they moved to the mountains of Ringwood, NJ. He participated in that community as a member of the Knights of Columbus, local Republican politics, the Ringwood Board of Health and St. Catherine's Parish. His home and pool offered summers away from the city for his sister-in-law Georgann, nieces Stephanie and Donna and nearly nephew Eddie. He loved people and wanted to help improve their quality of life. Art's large family circle included step- nieces, ex-sister-in-laws, childrens' friends, and friends held as family.

Art was a wonderful father to Brian and Andrea and dearly loved sister-in-law Georgann. He played, explored the woods and laughed. He hosted swim lessons, went to little league games and daddy-daughter dances. He made it possible for each, plus six step-grandchildren, to graduate college, pursue successful careers and begin families of their own. He taught us to help others, to apply our capable hands to any problem we faced, to work hard, listen, look others in the eye and give respect to all the people you encounter in this world.

Art was blessed to find great happiness in retirement with his wife Carole Benner Walsh, moving to the Eastern Shore of MD, where they enjoyed 20 years of fun. Together, Art and Carole traveled, played golf and celebrated with friends and enjoyed the beaches of Maryland, their dog Charlie, and life as grandparents to their expanded family.

Many thanks go to the care providers at Lakeside at Mallard Landing for their kindness, care and loyalty throughout the last two difficult years.

So, raise a glass, say a prayer and give thanks to a good man, a Marine, a son, a brother, a father, a husband, a grandfather, a friend . . . to a life well lived . . . and, to quote Art, ``keep smilin''.

Art is survived by his wife Carole Benner Walsh; children Brian O. Walsh (and Natasha) and Andrea Walsh Silva (and Nicholas); his sister- in-law Georgann Russo, step-children Jeffrey D. Benner (and Rochelle) and Cheryl Oursler (and George), and his siblings Howard Jr., Virginia, and Maureen Walsh and was predeceased by siblings Patrick and Loraine. Numerous multigenerational nieces and nephews; and his four grandchildren and six step-grandchildren that brought him great joy will sadly miss him.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. This rule and the accompanying legislation, sadly, is not about passing law. It is about making a point.

All five of the bills dealt with in this rule have not been marked up by any committee in this Congress at all, and all of them are filled with poison pills that are designed to make sure most Republicans will not vote for them, and they cannot pass the Senate of the United States.

The two bills dealing with illegal immigration will not just help DACA people, it will legalize millions of people in this country illegally.

The measure on ERA, the timeline ran out for that 42 years ago. This matter cannot be reversed now.

Frankly, the matter dealing with the budget, as my friend from Minnesota suggested, we said last week you are going to run into this problem, you are going to cut Medicare. There are billions of dollars of wasted spending in that reconciliation bill that could actually offset those cuts. We should be considering that.

Let me turn now to the Violence Against Women Act, Madam Speaker. I have been one of the strongest supporters of that legislation since I arrived in Congress, and I particularly am pleased with some of the measures dealing with Native American women, particularly some of the changes in this bill that extend it to children, that extend it to Tribal law enforcement officers. Those are good changes.

But there are other measures coupled with it dealing with the Second Amendment or dealing with, frankly, people that are not biologically female that will put this bill at risk on this floor and certainly in the United States Senate.

Madam Speaker, none of this was ever designed to become law. Two years ago, we made that mistake. Three years ago, actually, a little over two years ago, in 2018, and none of the good things happened. Let's not make that mistake again. Let's reject this rule. Let's modify these bills. Let's send the Senate something it can work with and pass. If we do that, we have a chance of not making a point, but of actually making law that benefits every single American.

Madam Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 45

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Morelle), my very good friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, today's rule covers two items, both of which will be familiar to Members who were here during the 116th Congress. We are once again considering H.R. 1, a bill that nationalizes our election system and substitutes Washington's judgment for a key responsibility of our States in the administration of free and fair elections. We are also considering H.R. 1280, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.

Unfortunately, despite its title, H.R. 1 has nothing at all to do with the people. It is, instead, a bill about preserving the present Democrat majority. It is a bill by Democrats for Democrats. Though the majority claims this bill is about reforming our political system, the reality is that most of the changes in this bill, if enacted into law, would be to benefit the majority to the detriment of the minority.

The most egregious of these provisions are those dedicated to changing our national system of campaign finance. Now, in general, I think this is a worthy goal, but the majority's proposed solution does not make much sense. The majority is proposing to create a new federally funded campaign ATM using corporate fines, ensuring that certain candidates will receive millions of dollars just for running a campaign.

My colleagues in the majority have bemoaned the massive amount of money that has been entering into our campaign system over the past few decades, yet their proposed solution is to dump corporate dollars into the system.

In what world does this make sense?

Even Democrats know what a flawed program this is, which is why today's rule also includes a provision to allow Members of Congress to opt out of this program. Before this bill was even passed by the House, Democrats were already running from it. They should just keep running and pull this bill from the floor.

Other proposed changes in this bill are just egregious. Wherever possible, the majority is attempting to impose one-size-fits-all systems from Washington onto the States. It does this with a one-size- fits-all voter registration system, including forcing States to provide same-day voter registration whether they want to or not.

It takes away the power of the States to choose how to redistrict, forcing them to adopt Washington-imposed ``independent redirecting commissions,'' something that less than 20 percent of the States who undertake redistricting actually do.

These provisions impede the traditional power of the States to control their own elections. As a former secretary of state and election official in my home State of Oklahoma, I find these changes to be particularly concerning.

But what is worse, H.R. 1 also includes severe restrictions on free speech and repeals the Lois Lerner rule, a rule put into place after the IRS began targeting the speech of conservative organizations in determining whether or not they would qualify for tax exempt status. If enacted into law, these provisions would reweaponize the IRS and limit the abilities of organizations, corporations, and individuals to freely exercise this most-important right guaranteed under the Constitution.

How the majority can claim that this bill is for the people when they are blatantly restricting the people's right to free speech is beyond my understanding.

Mr. Speaker, what the majority is attempting today is egregious. Changing the national campaign finance system to benefit themselves, taking traditional powers away from the States, and restricting the right of free speech are all part of an unprecedented power grab.

I strongly urge the majority to change course, and I urge my colleagues to reject this terrible bill.

Today, we are also considering H.R. 1280, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. As with H.R. 1, this bill will be familiar to our returning Members, as the House passed an identical bill last summer.

Unfortunately, while I think this bill is well-intentioned, it, too, is misguided. Reforms contained in H.R. 1280 will do more harm than good. I do not doubt the majority's good intentions with this legislation.

The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act came about following the tragic events of last summer. George Floyd's death demonstrated what so many Americans know only too well, that abuses of power clearly exist and must be grappled with.

And while the overwhelming majority of law enforcement officers faithfully and bravely carry out their duties and responsibilities each day, all too often many Americans receive different treatment due to the color of their skin. Americans across the country rightly condemn this horrific and unacceptable act.

Unfortunately, rather than choosing to come together to legislate in a bipartisan manner, the majority chose to take the exact opposite course last summer, and we are once again considering the same flawed and deeply partisan bill we considered then and that the Senate failed to take up. I believe this bill will face the same result, should the House pass it again this week.

During the last Congress, when the Judiciary Committee met to mark up this bill, the majority completely shut out Republicans from the process. Republicans made good-faith attempts to work with the Democrats to find common ground on needed reforms, yet every single one of these attempts were rejected.

This year, the majority has not even deigned to bring this bill to a markup in the Judiciary Committee, and, once again, the majority has shut Republicans out of the process.

This is no way to legislate on an issue that is this important, Mr. Speaker. Republicans and Democrats alike agree that reforms are necessary. We all watched the tragedy of George Floyd unfold last summer and we all watched the resulting protests. We all agree that action is necessary. But rather than working together in the best interest of the American people, the majority is once again telling Republicans that they can only have a

Hobson's choice. They can take the Democrats' bill or they can take the Democrats' bill with no other options.

But I, along with my fellow Republicans, reject that idea. We fully recognize the critical need for reform. My colleagues, both in the House and in the Senate, have put together our own package, the JUSTICE Act, filled with bipartisan reforms that could pass both the House and the Senate and be signed into law quickly. These reforms include critical measures, like providing funding for body cameras for police officers, requiring deescalation procedures, and banning choke holds.

My colleague, Representative Stauber, offered this as an amendment at the Rules Committee earlier today, but, once again, the majority chose to shut out Republicans and refused to make this amendment in order.

That is a sad state of affairs, Mr. Speaker, but the real losers here are the American people. This is an issue we can and should cooperate on. I urge my colleagues in the majority to rethink the path they are on. On an issue that is this important and this critical to the American people, the very best thing we can do is work together. And with a reduced majority, I think that would actually be good political advice for my friends.

We can work on bipartisan reforms together and we can produce consensus legislation that has the buy-in of Members on both sides. Unfortunately, the majority has once again chosen the opposite path: Partisan bills filled with provisions that do not reflect the best interest or consensus of the country.

We can do better than that, Mr. Speaker. The American people deserve better.

Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to this rule and the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), my good friend, also a member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis), my very good friend, and the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on House Administration.

Mr. Speaker, my friend and I disagree on the two pieces of legislation today, but we absolutely agree that the Committee on Rules' meeting was not fun.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. Greene), my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), my very good friend and the ranking member of the House Committee on Natural Resources.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, just quickly to my friend from New York, I wasn't here, and he wasn't here, but our friends thought to challenge in this Chamber the election in 2001, after 2000. I was here in 2004 when they challenged a State and demanded a recount. Then, I was here in 2017 when my friends on the other side sought to challenge 10 different States. So, let's not act like this is somehow unusual.

Mr. Speaker, another part of today's rule includes a provision to deem passed a correction to last week's budget reconciliation measure. Given that the majority now wishes to reopen last week's reconciliation, it is certainly appropriate to further amend that resolution to correct one of the more egregious provisions in it.

If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to immediately adopt H. Res. 178, an engrossment correction to strike funding in the budget reconciliation bill for the Pelosi subway tunnel in California and instead direct the $140 million to support mental health and suicide prevention in States where children do not have the option of in-person instruction in school.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Mrs. Bice), my good friend, for further explanation of the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, obviously, I oppose the rule. The majority is proposing two significant pieces of legislation today that are, unfortunately, both deeply partisan. In neither case has the majority allowed Republicans to be involved in the process of legislating.

Mr. Speaker, on H.R. 1, the majority is proposing a deeply troubling takeover of election practices that will benefit only Democrats. The bill will take away the traditional powers of the States to run their own elections as they see fit, imposing a one-size-fits-all regime from Washington.

It dumps huge amounts of corporate money into the campaign finance system, particularly benefiting certain candidates. It imposes severe restrictions on free speech that are anathema to a free and fair election.

On H.R. 1280, the majority is once again seeking to pass the same flawed police reform bill it passed last Congress.

Mr. Speaker, we had a real opportunity here for both Democrats and Republicans to work together to pass real reforms for the American people. Instead of taking ``yes'' for an answer, the majority is instead seeking to impose a deeply partisan bill that will not fix the problems or help heal the American people.

Mr. Speaker, we deserve better than that. The American people are best served when their Representatives in Congress can come together and work in a bipartisan manner. One side attempting to impose partisan legislation on the country does us all a disservice.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to rethink this path, reject both of these bills, and return to the negotiating table and work with Republicans for a brighter future for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I mean this with all sincerity. There is a great gap between us on H.R. 1. We just simply look at this matter differently. I think it is egregious partisan overreach. On H.R. 1280, there really is an opportunity for bipartisan cooperation. The JUSTICE Act that Mr. Stauber filed last year and presented today as an amendment has a great deal in common with some of the objectives I know my friends want to achieve on their side of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, in an almost evenly divided House and an evenly divided Senate that still has the filibuster, you can't do things by reconciliation every day. Most days, to get much done, it is going to require bipartisan cooperation.

We often say that never happens. The reality is it happens a lot more than people acknowledge. Five times last year we came together as Republicans and Democrats and passed COVID relief packages that made a big difference in this country. We also passed the spending bill on a bipartisan basis that funded the government for this entire fiscal year. We did that in the middle of a Presidential election year that was extraordinarily divisive.

Mr. Speaker, we can work together. I would ask my friends to rethink the course of the reconciliation bill and now these two pieces of legislation and start thinking about where we can actually get things done. I think the George Floyd bill, H.R. 1280, is one of those places. I also think the appropriations process can be one of those places. We can probably even find some common ground on some of the electoral issues, although personally, in my view, H.R. 1 is a very flawed piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from New York for the debate and tell him that, despite our disagreements on these two pieces of legislation, I look forward to working with him. I don't think either of these are likely to get through the United States Senate. I do think we can get a product back from the United States Senate that both of us might be able to vote for, in terms of police justice and overhaul. We will wait and see what happens with H.R. 1. I am less optimistic we will ever see it again, but I am happy to say good-bye to it out of this Chamber.

Mr. Speaker, I urge rejection of the rule and I urge rejection of both underlying pieces of legislation.

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend from Texas for yielding.

Today, the House is considering a massive budget reconciliation package that the majority claims to be using for additional coronavirus relief funds. Having already passed five bipartisan relief packages over the last year, totaling almost $4 trillion in spending, the majority is now seeking to spend nearly $2 trillion more.

But unlike the past five measures, which were bipartisan deals with both Republican and Democratic support, today's bill is strictly partisan, with only Democratic support and input. And with a glance at the bill, it is easy to see why.

First, the vast majority of this so-called rescue package has nothing to do with the COVID-19 pandemic. The bill fails to keep a laser focus on providing relief for Americans, ensuring schools are open to educate our children, and moving to swiftly reopen the economy.

Instead, the majority has thrown in completely unrelated items that just so happen to be at the top of their progressive wish list. This includes irresponsible policies like Federal bailouts for certain pension funds, providing bloated contributions to State and local governments, and arbitrarily raising the minimum wage, which will cost well more than a million people to lose their jobs. Incidentally, the same minimum wage provision is not going to be considered in the Senate and will have to be stripped from the bill.

But perhaps I shouldn't be surprised by these misguided provisions, given how completely shut out of this process Republicans have been. During the markups across nine committees that

considered this package, Republicans offered 245 amendments to help fix these and other problems.

Republicans offered commonsense amendments to reopen schools, give additional resources to the NIH, provide funding to make sure all teachers have the opportunity to receive a COVID vaccine, and many more. Yet, only two of these amendments were accepted by the Democrats in committee markups, and one of those two amendments is actually being stripped out of the bill in the manager's amendment today.

A $1.9 trillion package that is being brought to the floor with next to no Republican input? Simply astonishing.

Madam Speaker, it is clear what we need to do. Our entire Nation is suffering as a result of this pandemic. Every day, more businesses shutter. Every day, children are falling further behind. And every day, people fall deeper and deeper into despair caused, in part, by isolation.

Instead of proceeding with this progressive wish list, we need to take real action to open the economy. Above all else, we need to get children back in school.

Prior to the pandemic, children had access to in-person staff and services at school. But now, with schools remaining closed, we see the results: more students falling behind, more students contemplating suicide, more children falling into despair.

For millions of children, the ground lost during the pandemic may never be recovered. We are failing an entire generation of our children, and we need to reverse course and get them back in school.

Madam Speaker, there was, and still is, an opportunity to put together a bipartisan relief package. There is still time to focus on policies that will reopen the economy and make sure kids can learn in person, but we cannot do it if the majority insists on this bloated package with so many unrelated policies.

So long as the majority insists that it is their way or the highway, true help for the American people cannot be achieved. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and the underlying legislation.

Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, my good friend, Chairman McGovern, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, today is a sad one for us, for me personally, for the Rules Committee, and for the entire House of Representatives. Today, we are meeting on an unprecedented resolution by the majority, removing a Member of the minority party from her committee assignments.

Now, before I continue, Madam Speaker, I want to be very clear that I find the comments made by the Representative in question before she was elected to Congress to be deeply offensive. Members of Congress are and should be held to a high standard. And if she spoke any of what has been reported while a Member of this body, her words would certainly not meet that standard.

But at last night's Republican Conference, Representative Greene expressed regret for her past statements, which speaks to a problem with today's resolution. Representative Greene is not being given the courtesy of a referral to the Ethics Committee, the body empowered to investigate the conduct of Members. She is not being given the same due process that is given to other Members before facing punishment by the House.

Why is it so hard for the majority to give a Republican Member due process before stripping her of her committees? That is all I asked the Rules Committee last night, which the majority rejected.

Today's resolution raises serious questions for this institution. Indeed, these questions have nothing to do with this particular Member at all. Instead, they are about the future of the institution. The action the majority is proposing to take today is not only premature but, in fact, unprecedented in the history of the House.

Madam Speaker, what the majority is really proposing to do today is establish a new standard for punishing Members for conduct before they ever became a Member. The majority is proposing to hold Members of Congress accountable for statements made before they were even a candidate for Congress.

This change opens up troubling questions about how we judge future Members of Congress and whether or not we, as an institution, should impose sanctions on Members for actions they took before they were even candidates for office.

Under this majority's new approach, could a Member be punished for statements they made 5 years ago? Ten years ago? Twenty years ago?

I would remind the majority that several of their own Members have engaged in activities or made comments that Republican Members find offensive and inappropriate. If the majority changes hands in the future, as it surely will at some point, how would the current majority feel if these Members are stripped of their committee assignments with no due process? My friends run the risk of setting off a tit-for-tat exchange of escalating partisan punishment and score-settling that could cripple the operation of the House now and well into the future.

But what has also never been done before in the history of the institution is this: The majority has never taken steps to exercise a veto over the minority's committee assignments. It has never been done, Madam Speaker.

I know my friend, Chairman McGovern, attempted to point out some cases in yesterday's Rules Committee hearing to the contrary. But each of those cases he cited actually involved the party sanctioning their own Members. The majority exercising a veto over the minority's assignments has never happened before.

I would also like to point out that this is the same majority which raised no objections a week ago when this House unanimously approved resolutions on committee assignments.

In the past, the majority and minority have respected each other's rights to place Members on committees without interference. It has ultimately been the responsibility of each side to also hold their Members accountable for unacceptable behavior, including making decisions to remove Members from their committee assignments when warranted.

Indeed, Madam Speaker, Republicans have removed Members from committees in the past. I know. I have personally been part of those proceedings.

We can and will do so again, if necessary, but it will be done with due process and with the Members in question, whoever they may be, allowed to make their case. That is a simple standard of fair play and decency that the majority has decided not to extend to a Member of the minority in this case.

I truly believe that the majority claiming a new right to be able to exercise a veto over the minority's committee assignments will ultimately be dangerous for this institution. A change in norms away from an institution built on mutual consent and toward an institution where the majority

holds a veto power over everything, including committee assignments, is ultimately an institution that cannot function.

If one side feels the other should take corrective action for one of its Members and has failed to do so, then the bipartisan Ethics Committee exists to adjudicate matters related to the Code of Official Conduct. I believe it would be appropriate for the Ethics Committee to determine if a new standard relating to the actions taken by a Member of Congress before they are elected should be covered by the Code of Official Conduct and make the appropriate recommendations for the institution to guide us going forward.

I fear that doing anything other than this would send the institution down a precarious path. The Ethics Committee is the appropriate venue for considering claims of misconduct. That is traditionally what this institution has done when considering the conduct of an individual Member. I believe today it is appropriate to adhere to that norm.

Madam Speaker, the matter we are faced with is bigger than any one individual Member. It is about how we, as an institution, will continue to function in the future. I fear that if we open this particular Pandora's box, we will not like what happens next. I would strongly urge this House to consider an alternative course before it is too late.

Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume just for informational purposes.

There is no way my friend from Massachusetts could have known this, but last night the Republican members were formally named to the Ethics Committee. We expect them to be approved today so the committee could function immediately. But, again, my friend would have had no way of knowing that.

Madam Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. Greene).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott), my very good friend.

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Georgia an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, just quickly, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, just to respond to my friend briefly, remember, we are doing something here that has never been done before. The majority is taking away a committee assignment of the minority. That has not happened in this House before.

Also remember, we are applying, or you were choosing to apply the code of official conduct to a Member before they were ever a Member. That has not, to my knowledge, ever been done before either.

We haven't said: Let's do nothing. We have said: These are pretty serious questions. Let's go to the Ethics Committee, adjudicate them, have a discussion, and have a recommendation come back out.

So to say we don't want to do something is just simply inaccurate. I think you are, frankly, overlooking the unprecedented nature of the acts that you have decided upon, and where that may lead us when the majority changes.

So with that, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from California an additional 15 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the distinguished Republican whip of the Congress and my good friend.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, just quickly for the Record, so my friend knows, the resolution that the Republican whip, Mr. Scalise, was referring to just a few minutes ago only concerned Republicans. So if you wanted to object to Republicans, that is what you could

have done. It didn't involve Democrats at all.

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to amend House rules to state that any resolution proposing to remove a Member from a committee assignment shall not be in order unless offered by, or with the concurrence of, the leader of the party of the Member that is the subject of the resolution.

Madam Speaker, this speaks to a norm of basic fairness that today's resolution does not comply with. In the past, the majority has never attempted to exercise a veto over the minority's committee assignments, nor has the minority ever attempted to do the same to the majority.

This has been, in the past, an unwritten rule, a norm the House has adhered to in order to protect the operations of the institution. But the majority's actions today threaten that norm and threaten to set off a new round of escalating partisan punishment anytime the majority changes hands. Enshrining historical practice as a new rule is an important step to protect the institution as a whole.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, just in response to my good friend: I was actually there. So, number one, she didn't get a standing ovation for things that she said. She got a standing ovation for regretting things that she had said, and saying she has been wrong, and denouncing QAnon and denouncing school shootings. That is what she got the standing ovation for. My friend didn't have the opportunity to hear that. I wanted to take the opportunity to inform him.

Madam Speaker, I would advise my friend that I am prepared to close.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I oppose the rule. Never before in the history of this institution has the majority attempted to exercise a veto over the minority's right to make committee assignments, yet, today, the majority is choosing to do just that. This leads the institution down a dangerous path, the end of which we cannot see.

Madam Speaker, there are alternative paths open that I believe the House should consider. We owe it to ourselves and to the institution to do so. Before we strip a Member of their committees for remarks that person made before they were subject to the official rules of conduct of the House, maybe we ought to have a discussion about that, if we are going to extend that in a way we never have before in the institution. I am not necessarily against that, by the way. I think that is a worthy topic.

I also think that if we are going to strip a Member before they ever served on a committee, they ought to have an opportunity to tell their side of the story in a judicious proceeding. Our Committee on Ethics has resolved a lot of naughty issues in a very bipartisan way, and not with Members escaping punishment. So to say we have asked for nothing be done, it is quite the opposite.

We have said: Let's go to the Committee on Ethics.

Let's hash through these tough issues of changing the scope of the official conduct provisions of the House that applies to Members.

Let's talk about whether or not it is appropriate for the majority to actually try to dictate the people that the minority puts on committees.

And, finally, let's give a Member that we accuse of something an opportunity to make his or her case.

That is what we have asked for, and that is what the majority has chosen not to do.

Madam Speaker, I think it is a dangerous mistake. It is a mistake that, frankly, when the majority changes, the temptation will be overwhelming for a Member to say: ``Oh, well, there is a Member I didn't like or said something or did something I didn't like. As a Member, I think I am just going to take that committee assignment away.''

I can give you a list of people that have done things that I think are inappropriate, on both sides of the aisle, quite frankly. But we have never done that here, and I don't think we should start doing that here. All we have asked for is a process, a Committee on Ethics discussion. We think that is the appropriate way to proceed.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend, the distinguished Member from Texas, for yielding.

Today's rule sets in motion a process for considering H. Con. Res. 11, a shell budget for fiscal year 2021. I understand that the majority's stated intent in bringing forward this resolution is to pave the way for using budget reconciliation to push through a partisan COVID-19 relief package. Unfortunately, I think the majority's intent is misguided.

I want to remind us all that the only reason we are here today is that the majority failed to pass a budget last year. As of today, we are nearly 9\1/2\ months overdue for the passage of the budget for fiscal year 2021, and fiscal year 2021 is already a third of the way over. Hardly an auspicious start for an item as serious as the annual budget for the United States Government.

But the lack of expeditiousness that characterized the budget in the 116th Congress has been replaced by hastiness. The majority is now, in the 117th Congress, rushing forward with a new budget despite never bothering to convene the Budget Committee. Indeed, the Budget Committee has yet to meet in this Congress, much less conduct normal hearings that pave the way for the markup of the annual budget.

Rather than undertake the normal process through the Budget Committee, the majority is instead air-dropping a budget straight from leadership offices directly onto the floor. This is hardly the kind of process considered to be regular order, and it fails to give Members a chance to have their ideas considered in committee or to offer amendments on the floor.

Indeed, as a longtime member of the Budget Committee myself, I looked forward to our hearings on the budget and the markup. Through this process, Members had the opportunity to consider the budget, consider expert testimony, offer ideas, and propose amendments to be considered by the whole committee. That the majority is failing to do so makes a mockery out of the entire budgeting process.

Over the past year, Congress has shown it can work together to produce bipartisan legislation. In the last Congress, we actually passed five COVID-19 relief bills that appropriated nearly $4 trillion in relief funds. Not all of these funds have yet been spent. Not even close, Mr. Speaker. And the $4 trillion number is right around the annual budgetary outlays of the Federal Government in a normal year, covering both mandatory and discretionary spending.

Yet, the majority is moving forward with yet another bill and seems determined to ensure that this bill enshrines as many partisan policy priorities as possible.

To make matters worse, from looking at the actual budget before us, we do not know what these partisan priorities are. We know the budget includes instructions to committees to increase spending by certain amounts, but it does not offer any guidance on how they should do so.

Will it encompass only COVID relief matters, or will they enact progressive policy goals like Medicare for All or the Green New Deal? We have no way of knowing.

We do know that Senator Bernie Sanders, the socialist leader of the Senate Budget Committee, wants to use reconciliation to ram through a $15 minimum wage, a measure that would be a disaster for workers and businesses alike in my home State of Oklahoma. But what else may be included in the bill is a mystery.

Mr. Speaker, this process hardly befits the bipartisanship that we were promised by President Biden. It has been less than 2 weeks since the new President was inaugurated, and already we are seeing the majority abandoning any pretense at bipartisanship.

The House majority has failed to even propose a bipartisan COVID relief bill or to engage Republicans in serious negotiations. Instead, they have simply predetermined the outcome and are moving forward with their own partisan bill without even pretending to try to work with those of us on my side of the aisle.

This is hardly what we were promised, Mr. Speaker. It is hardly what the institution was promised. And on a matter as important as the annual budget of the United States, and during a pandemic as deadly and serious as the one we are currently living through, I know the institution can do better.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this course and work together and pass real bipartisan legislation that will benefit all Americans.

Today's rule also adds a change in the House rules, imposing serious fines on Members who fail to go through the new magnetometers around the Chamber. Mr. Speaker, as I told my colleagues on the Rules Committee a short time ago, I don't disagree with the additional security measures to keep Members and staff safe. However, I do have concerns over how the new measures are being implemented.

Earlier this afternoon, I offered an amendment to this rule which would have instructed the House Committee on Administration to review the matter and make appropriate recommendations. I have no issue whatsoever with Members being subjected to the same requirements as staff and our constituents when they enter the Capitol, but I have serious concerns that the majority's proposed solution is untenable.

Requiring Members to pass through a magnetometer each time they enter

the House Chamber, even if they haven't left the area, is a sure recipe for chaos. It is impossible for Members to socially distance when they are stacked up in a line to await their turn at passing through the metal detectors.

When Members need to leave the Chamber to make a phone call right outside the doorway, they have to reenter and pass through security again. And there are hardworking staff members who work just a few feet away from the House Chamber but must pass through these same magnetometers every time they need to run to their offices and then back to the floor. This is a clear recipe for disorganization and gridlock.

But this need not be the only option, Mr. Speaker. There are already existing metal detectors and X-ray machines at entrances to the building. Why can't Members be screened at those entrances instead? Why must it be right on the way to the very cusp of the Chamber in a location guaranteed to stack up Members outside the door waiting to get in?

Mr. Speaker, we have better alternatives, and I urge that we empower the Committee on House Administration to look at that.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the rejection of the rule.