Floor Statements

Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the State of Alaska seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that Donald J. Trump of the State of Florida received 3 votes for President and Michael R. Pence of the State of Indiana received 3 votes for Vice President.

Madam Speaker, I rise to strike the last word.

Madam Speaker, this day marks a crossroads for American democracy. Those who object to the counting of the electoral college votes, which reflect the votes of the American people, want to substitute their preferences for the voters' choice. That is not what our Constitution requires, and it is at odds with our American democratic Republic.

If Congress selects the next President instead of the American voters, we would have no need for an electoral college. In fact, we would have no need for Presidential elections at all. We would be moving from a government elected by the people to a government selected by those already governing.

That is not America. In the United States, we abide by the choices of the people, not by an elite few.

The Framers of our Constitution considered to have Congress select the President and specifically rejected it. Instead, they wrote Article II and the 12th Amendment.

Article II creates the electoral college, where each State appoints electors. Laws of all 50 States and D.C. require electors to vote for the winner of the State's popular election. Each State provides for the orderly conduct of elections, including lawful challenges, recounts, and the like.

The 12th Amendment is what brings us to today. It says the electors meet in their States. That happened December 14.

The amendment says the electors shall cast their votes, sign and certify them, and transmit them to us, sealed. That has been done. The sealed envelopes containing the signed and certified ballots from each State's electors reflecting the votes of the people are in those mahogany boxes.

The 12th Amendment directs the Vice President, as the President of the Senate, to do only this: open the sealed envelopes and then the votes shall be counted. Simple. It doesn't say counted in a manner that some Members of Congress or the Vice President might prefer. No. The votes are simply to be counted as certified and transmitted by the States.

During reconstruction after the Civil War, more than one slate of electors were appointed by States. Dueling lists were sent and protracted processes were undertaken in Presidential elections. And, as a result, to make an orderly process, Congress enacted the Electoral Count Act of 1887. This law governs our proceedings today. The act provides dispute resolution mechanisms.

Under the ECA, if a Governor certifies a slate of electors and there are no competing slates in that State, the Governor-certified must be counted. Today, every single slate of electors won by Joe Biden, or won by Donald Trump, got their Governor's certification. Not a single State submitted a competing slate. There is no dispute to resolve.

The 2020 election was the most secure election conducted in modern history. Challenges were resolved by lawful recounts and audits.

The result?

Vice President Biden won the 2020 election.

More than 60 lawsuits were filed contesting elements of the election process. None of these lawsuits prevailed.

Why?

As even President Trump's own judicial appointees ruled, there was no evidence of any wrongdoing that would change the outcome.

The people spoke. It was not a close election. The margin of victory for Biden in 2020 was larger than Trump's margin in 2016. In fact, the Biden victory is one of the most decisive in modern times, exceeding the margin enjoyed by Reagan when he defeated Carter in 1980.

Congress has gathered in a joint session to count electoral votes every four years since 1789. I understand the disappointment people feel when their candidate for President loses. I have felt the same several times in my voting life.

When that happens, it is not an invitation to upend the Constitution and the laws of the United States. It is an invitation to work with the new President for the good of the country and to wait for the next election in 4 years if you are dissatisfied.

In that spirit, I urge my colleagues to uphold the American democracy and reject the objection.

Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the State of California seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that Joseph R. Biden, Jr., of the State of Delaware received 55 votes for President and Kamala D. Harris of the State of California received 55 votes for Vice President.

Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the State of Florida seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that Donald J. Trump of the State of Florida received 29 votes for President and Michael R. Pence of the State of Indiana received 29 votes for Vice President.

Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the State of Iowa seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that Donald J. Trump of the State of Florida received 6 votes for President and Michael R. Pence of the State of Indiana received 6 votes for Vice President.

Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the Commonwealth of Kentucky seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that Donald J.

Trump of the State of Florida received 8 votes for President and Michael R. Pence of the State of Indiana received 8 votes for Vice President.

Mr. President, the certificate of electoral vote of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that Joseph R. Biden, Jr., of the State of Delaware received 11 votes for President and Kamala D. Harris of the State of California received 11 votes for Vice President.

Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the State of Montana seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that Donald J. Trump from the State of Florida received 3 votes for President and Michael R. Pence from the State of Indiana received 3 votes for Vice President.

Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the State of New Jersey seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that Joseph R. Biden, Jr., of the State of Delaware received 14 votes for President and Kamala D. Harris of the State of California received 14 votes for Vice President.

Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the State of North Dakota seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that Donald J. Trump of the State of Florida received 3 votes for President and Michael R. Pence of the State of Indiana received 3 votes for Vice President.

Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that Joseph R. Biden, Jr., of the State of Delaware received 20 votes for President and Kamala D. Harris of the State of California received 20 votes for Vice President.

Madam Speaker, our duty today is significant but straightforward. We must count the votes of the electors as cast in the electoral college and announce the results.

As discussed, our roles and responsibilities are established by the Constitution and Federal law, and they are clear. The facts before us are also clear. Pennsylvania submitted one slate of electors, as chosen by the voters of the State. The slate was certified according to State law. Now those lawful results must be counted and announced.

Despite disinformation and any number of false claims that you may have heard, including here today, as former Attorney General Barr said: ``We have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.''

This is not simply a conclusory statement. The results of the election have been litigated. The record is clear: The lawsuits challenging the election results failed. They failed because there is simply no evidence to support these baseless claims.

Now, it is one thing to tweet a belief, quite another to provide actual evidence. These cases failed because there is no evidence. Judges ruled in the lawsuits that the 2020 election was sound.

It should come as no surprise that Republican officeholders have recognized the election results as legitimate and accurately determined in an election that was conducted safely, securely, and with integrity.

We all take an oath to support and defend the Constitution. As we near the end of the task before us, let's remember the beginning of the Constitution. Before Article II and the 12th Amendment, which spell out the electoral college, and before Article I, which creates Congress, the Constitution begins with the preamble. The preamble is short and bold: ``We the people.''

The people spoke in historic numbers. Their votes have been counted. Their choice is clear. It is time, as the law requires, to announce the state of the people's vote.

The violence and disorder inflicted on our democracy by seditious rioters today is an indication of why adherence to our Constitution is so vital.

I urge all of us to stand up for law, for democracy, for our Constitution, and to stand up for America and reject this objection.

Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the State of Tennessee seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that Donald J. Trump of the State of Florida received 11 votes for President and Michael R. Pence of the State of Indiana received 11 votes for Vice President.

Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the Commonwealth of Virginia seems to be in regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that Joseph R. Biden, Jr., of the State of Delaware received 13 votes for President and Kamala D. Harris of the State of California received 13 votes for Vice President.

Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the State of Wisconsin seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that Joseph R. Biden, Jr., of the State of Delaware received 10 votes for President and Kamala D. Harris of the State of California received 10 votes for Vice President.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1044) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate the per-country numerical limitation for employment-based immigrants, to increase the per-country numerical limitation for family-sponsored immigrants, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1044, the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act, a bipartisan bill that would make a modest, but important change to our immigration laws to alleviate hardships associated with lengthy visa backlogs.

Let me begin by explaining what this bill does do and does not do. H.R. 1044 does not increase the overall number of immigrant visas that are available each year. Although raising the ceiling on visas is the only viable way to eliminate backlogs, there is, in my view, unfortunately, no consensus on that issue at this time.

But there is broad consensus that we should do what we can to make the system more equitable. This is the focus of H.R. 1044. By eliminating the per-country limit on employment-based visas, all immigrant visa applicants will eventually be restored to a level playing field, where one's country of nationality has no bearing on their place in line.

Under our immigration laws, employment-based visas are granted to individuals under a five-tiered ``preference system.'' The first three preference categories are reserved for priority workers, individuals with advanced degrees, and other professionals and skilled workers.

To be eligible for a visa under one of these categories, the applicant must generally have an offer of employment from a U.S. employer, and must submit extensive documentation of their qualifications for the job and the relevant preference category. The applicant's country of birth is simply not a factor, and rightfully so. What does a person's nationality have to do with their merit as an employee?

However, country of birth does become relevant after the applicant has qualified for a visa and is waiting in line for a visa number. The so-called ``per-country'' limit prohibits any one country from receiving more than 7 percent of the immigrant visas that are available each year.

Because of this, the visa backlogs have a particularly harsh impact on nationals of countries with high populations, and thus, high demand for visas, such as India. As a result, it can now take a decade or more for an Indian physician working in a medically-underserved area, or a particle physicist with a Ph.D. from MIT to receive a green card. How is this good for our country?

Our immigration system is in desperate need of reform. We all know too well the plight of Dreamers and the undocumented population. We know now more than ever that our agriculture sector, which relies heavily on immigrant workers, is struggling to satisfy its labor needs and provide a safe domestic food supply.

We are reminded daily of the concern we have of the situation unfolding at the border.

On top of these very real and very serious issues, we also remain inextricably bound by the imperfections of an immigration framework that was formulated nearly 30 years ago and is out of touch with the needs of the 21st century.

Major reforms are required to truly fix our outdated legal system. But as we all know, such reforms have been hard to come by for a long time.

If we want to get anything done, if we want to do what is right for our country, we have to find common

ground, and we have to compromise. On an issue as contentious as immigration, our failure to work together in a fully bipartisan fashion can only result in legislation that will go nowhere in the Senate.

H.R. 1044 is one of those rare proposals where we can agree. H.R. 1044 has strong bipartisan support, with more than 200 Democratic and more than 100 Republican cosponsors. In 2011, the House passed a version of this bill by a margin of 389-15. I urge all of my colleagues to once again vote in favor of this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Khanna), my colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Krishnamoorthi).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

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

Mr. Speaker, I do want to address the points made by the ranking member of the full committee.

This bill has been around a while. It was introduced in 2011. At that point, we did have a hearing and even a markup. We have had it on the floor before. We have, at this moment, 312 Members on the bill, bipartisan.

Addressing the issue that he was reading, and I don't think it is at all confusing, the Department of State is actually the agency that allocates the priority dates. They keep track of the visas. We have communicated with them frequently over the years.

We provided in this bill a transition period because as time has gone on, the delays have gotten even worse for large countries, so we wanted to put a transition period in the bill. That is what the section that he read about would do.

We do think that this has become an emergency in some sectors.

I recently met with a physician and his wife, who is also a physician, who are here on H-1B visas, and they have been for a number of years. They are serving a medically underserved community. Their children, who are here legally as dependents, are about to ``age out.'' They haven't been back to the country of their birth in who knows how long; they don't speak the language; they don't have anybody in the country of their birth; and they are about to be out of status even though they have played by all the rules.

Those two physicians told their patients that they were going to close their practice and move to Canada because they just couldn't go on like this.

That is not a situation we can countenance. That is happening all over the country. We need to fix it.

Mr. Speaker, this bill does fix it, and I hope that we can support it. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for the excellent work he has done on this bill; the collaboration that we have had on bringing it forward so it could be considered today; and the tremendous bipartisanship that has been exhibited throughout dealing with this question, going back for nearly 10 years of work on this.

I would note that the vast majority, way over 90 percent, of employment-based immigrants who have been sponsored for green cards are already working in the United States on some form of temporary visa. This doesn't bring in additional people. These are people who are already here.

The question is, are they going to be able to get the stability that legal permanent residence provides? If they do, it will be good for our country in several ways.

One, they are contributing to our economy, whether they are physicians serving in medically underserved areas, whether they are scientists breaking new ground, or whether they are H-1B nurses who are serving in underserved areas.

Further, we know from studies that people who are legal permanent residents are not vulnerable to those who might be abusive employers trying to suppress their wages. So, this is good for American workers as well as those who would gain bargaining power by gaining legal permanent residence.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that we can have a great vote of support for this bill today. I thank all the cosponsors and those who worked so hard to get us here today.

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

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 460, I call up the bill (H.R. 2722) to protect elections for public office by providing financial support and enhanced security for the infrastructure used to carry out such elections, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 2722.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2722. The SAFE Act is critical legislation to invest in and upgrade the machinery of American democracy. It will help us combat the national emergency facing our country. It will improve the resilience of election infrastructure used in Federal elections.

Aging equipment, under-resourced jurisdictions, and interference by foreign entities or non-state actors leaves the system vulnerable to exploitation that can undermine confidence in election outcomes. Ineffective and vulnerable equipment can also discourage participation in Federal elections.

It comes to the floor after the Committee on House Administration held three hearings in the first 6 months of this year that addressed the integrity of our elections. In February the committee held the ``For the People: Our American Democracy'' hearing, where the integrity of our democracy--including critical steps to improve the security and reliability of our election infrastructure--was addressed.

On May 8 the committee held an election security hearing where we heard testimony about the urgent need to upgrade our election infrastructure and the lack of ongoing investment in the wake of new threats.

And on May 21 the committee held an oversight hearing of the Election Assistance Commission, an agency that plays a central role in supporting election administration in this country.

I will remind this House that earlier this year, the Director of National Intelligence published a report stating that our adversaries and strategic competitors ``probably already are looking to the 2020 U.S. elections as an opportunity to advance their interests.

``They may also use cyber means to `directly manipulate or disrupt elections systems--such as by tampering with voter registration or disrupting the vote tallying process--either to alter data or to call into question our voting process.'''

Last year he said that ``the warning lights are blinking red''. . . .

Special Counsel Robert Mueller noted in Volume One of his report that the Russian military ``targeted individuals and entities involved in the administration of the elections. Victims included U.S. State and local entities, such as State boards of elections, secretaries of State, and county governments, as well as individuals who worked for those entities. The GRU also targeted private technology firms responsible for manufacturing and administering election-related software and hardware, such as voter registration software and electronic polling stations.''

In April, FBI Director Christopher Wray called Russia's interference efforts a ``significant counterintelligence threat,'' and said that the 2018 midterms were a ``dress rehearsal for the big show'' of the 2020 Presidential elections.

Early voters in Georgia in 2018 saw machines deleting votes and switching them to other candidates. The machines where voters saw this occur were purchased in 2002. During early voting in Texas in 2018 some electronic voting machines deleted votes and switched them between candidates. The machines were used in 78 of 254 Texas counties.

In June of 2016 the Russian GRU compromised the computer network of the Illinois State Board of Elections by exploiting a vulnerability in their website. They gained access to a database with information on millions of Illinois voters and extracted data on thousands before the activity was detected.

H.R. 2722 responds to this emergency that we find ourselves in as a nation. We ought to be doing everything we can to bolster the security and integrity of our elections from interference and hacking.

The bill's section 102 requires that States transition to voting systems that use individual, durable, voter-verified paper ballots, which means a paper ballot marked by the voter by hand or through the use of a non-tabulating ballot marking device or system. Voter-verified paper ballots are the best way to ensure that a voter's ballot accurately reflects their choices and is counted as cast. Paper can be audited. In the last Presidential election, approximately 20 percent of registered voters cast their ballot on voting machines that do not have any kind of paper backup.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine concluded that paperless systems ``should be removed from service as soon as possible.''

In at least 40 States, elections are carried out using machines that are at least a decade old. And like any technology, they are susceptible to increasing failure with age. One witness at our election security hearing, Lawrence Norden of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School, explained that some State officials have ``had to turn to eBay to find critical components like dot-matrix printer ribbons, decades old storage devices, and analog modems.'' Aging systems also frequently rely on unsupported software like Windows XP and 2000, which may not receive regular security patches and are thus more vulnerable to the latest methods of cyberattack.

This bill addresses many other cybersecurity best practices besides paper-based systems.

The bill in section 111 authorizes a $600 million Election Assistance Commission grant program to assist States in securing election infrastructure. States may use the money to replace their aging equipment with voter-verified paper ballot voting systems, but also ongoing maintenance of election infrastructure, enhanced cybersecurity and operations of IT infrastructure, and enhanced cybersecurity of voter registration systems.

Originally, the bill, as introduced, would have authorized $1 billion for this initial round of surge funding; however, during the Committee on House Administration's markup, the committee approved an amendment in the nature of a substitute that authorized $600 million instead. Combined with the $380 million that Congress appropriated last year in election security grants, this funding reaches the $1 billion that experts have said is necessary to implement these necessary protections.

The bill also provides in section 111 $175 million in biennial maintenance funding. Cybersecurity threats will not dissipate, they will only evolve. State election officials have told us repeatedly they need more funding and a sustainable source of funding.

Section 103 of the SAFE Act fosters innovation for voters living with disabilities. It provides grant funding for the study, development, and testing of accessible paper ballot voting, verification, and casting mechanisms. It expressly requires States to ensure that individuals with disabilities and others are given an equivalent opportunity to vote, including with privacy and independence, in a manner that produces voter-verified paper ballots as for other voters.

The bill fosters accountability for election technology vendors. It would create a qualified election infrastructure vendor designation where the Election Assistance Commission, in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security, would craft criteria that vendors would follow to receive the qualified designation. This would include reporting any known or suspected cybersecurity incidents involving election infrastructure to both the EAC and DHS, as well as affected election agencies.

The bill in sections 201 and 203 also includes open-source provisions, requiring use of software and hardware for which information is disclosed by manufacturers. This will allow cybersecurity experts and the public to vet the security of election systems regardless of the technology used.

As amended in the committee, the bill in section 121 requires States to adopt risk-limiting audits. Risk-limiting audits are the gold standard of post-election audits. They involve hand counting a certain number of ballots using advanced statistical methods to determine with a high degree of confidence that the reported election outcome is accurate. The SAFE Act requires States to implement risk-limiting audits because they go hand in hand with paper ballots. We need audits to ensure that ballot marking devices or optical scanners were not hacked and that the reported results are accurate.

Second, as amended in committee, the bill in section 201 includes specific cybersecurity standards to apply to optical scanner voting systems and another set of standards to apply to ballot marking devices. These will apply equally to current and future technology. For example, H.R. 2722 prohibits the use of wireless communications devices and internet connectivity in voting systems upon which ballots are marked by voters or that otherwise mark and tabulate ballots.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 2722 is an essential step forward in shoring up our election infrastructure and investing in secure elections. I ask the House to pass this legislation and bolster the trust and confidence in our system that all Americans expect and deserve.

Every American--no matter what their choice in politics--should know that their vote will be counted as cast.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), a member of the House Administration Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), a member of the House Administration Committee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath), a new Member of Congress.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Casten).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. Wexton).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), my colleague from the House Judiciary Committee and Homeland Security Committee.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on each side.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker of the House.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield), a valued member of the House Administration Committee.

Madam Speaker, we have no additional speakers, so if the gentleman would like to yield back, I will close.

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

I think it is important to address a few of the issues that have been raised in the course of this debate.

First, we are moving forward with the SAFE Act because of a sense of urgency that we have about the 2020 election. That sense of urgency was fueled by the Director of National Intelligence, and it was fueled by the Director of the FBI who told us that red lights, warning lights were flashing and that the 2016 election was just a prelude to what the Russians were going to do in the 2020 election. We feel a sense of urgency.

As has been mentioned by others, H.R. 1 included provisions about ballot security. But I introduced this bill, the SAFE Act, on May 14 because it was specifically addressing election security, and, also, we made some additional enhancements to H.R. 1 relative to cybersecurity and the like.

We drafted the bill with the assistance of the Parliamentarian so that it was entirely within the jurisdiction of the House Administration Committee, with one exception. There was a line on page 11 of the committee mark that authorized a study by the NSF. The Science, Space, and Technology Committee waived jurisdiction on markup because it was just a study, and that was very clear.

This bill has proceeded in the regular order. It has been noticed according to our rules. And it brings us here today to test whether we are going to meet the challenge that faces us in ballot security: whether we are going to allow the Russians to attack our country by trying to steal our election next year or not.

Mention has been made about the need for bipartisanship. I work often on a bipartisan basis with Members of the other party. I will say that we have tried in vain to have the Republican Members buy into the need to require best practices for next year's election, and we couldn't reach agreement.

We decided that it is our responsibility to move forward, and that is why we are here today.

Just a mention on unfunded mandates, we are authorizing about $1 billion. $380 million was appropriated last year, and as the Speaker mentioned, we are appropriating this year an additional $600 million for ballot security.

This bill authorizes the $600 million that we are appropriating, and we think it is important that that money flow to the States to harden our systems so the election cannot be stolen by our enemies. It is ironic that some on the other side of the aisle have complained about unfunded mandates at the same time they tried to impose a 25 percent match requirement on States for receiving these funds that they need to get to harden our system.

Just a comment on DREs, DREs are not as unsafe as pure electronic voting, but they are not best practices.

Much has been mentioned about the State of Georgia. It is worth noting that the Georgia legislature ignored the advice they got from computer scientists that what they were doing did not meet best practices for ballot security.

A study published by Georgia Tech indicated that most voters did not actually look at the receipt when it was printed. They also point out that even though printed ballots, when voters do look at them, include the names of candidates, votes will be encoded in barcodes that humans can't authenticate and that are subject to hacking.

``There's nothing speculative about these vulnerabilities,'' said a Georgia Tech computer professor and former chief technology officer for Hewlett-Packard. ``If exploited, it would affect the result of the election. It's not a secure system.''

We need to fix these things not because it is partisan but because we need to protect America.

The idea that we would allow this just to be decided at a local level is

wrongheaded. If the Russians launched missiles at the counties of the United States, we wouldn't say, well, that is just a local issue. We would say, no, that is an attack on the United States of America.

We need to harden our systems and protect our country.

Madam Speaker, I strongly urge the adoption of this measure.

I would like to read from a letter that we received just yesterday from the NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice. In their last paragraph, the Catholics say:

In a secular democracy, elections are the closest thing we

have to a sacrament. We know that nefarious foreign and

domestic actors continue to meddle in our democratic systems,

and we have been put on notice that previous efforts were

only trial runs, presumably for our next election in 2020.

The NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice considers our

elections to be sacrosanct and that Congress must pass the

SAFE Act to protect them.

This bill is supported by a broad sector of civil rights groups, including the NAACP and Common Cause. It deserves all of our support.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2722 to ensure the security of our Nation's election infrastructure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make an important observation. The gentleman has said that what happened in North Carolina is perfectly legal in other States. Fraud is not legal in any of the 50 States.

I would like to note that, in our bill, we do have provisions that vendors must be owned and controlled by citizens or permanent residents of the United States and certain other provisions relative to security; but to conflate the allowance in some States--of 27 States and 9 others that designate allowing your mother or your brother or your neighbor to take your ballot with fraud is really pretty low.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Aguilar).

Mr. Speaker, I would close by urging every Member to vote against this motion to recommit and further note that the House Administration Committee will soon be examining foreign influence on our elections. We would welcome the participation of the minority in that important work.

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

Madam Speaker, I stand here today in strong support of H.R. 6, the American Dream and Promise Act of 2019, a product of decades-long advocacy, grit, and compromise.

I am extremely proud to stand with Dreamers and recipients of temporary protected status and deferred enforced departure. We are here because of their hard work, as well as the steadfast determination of immigrant rights groups, faith-based organizations, labor unions, civil rights groups, business associations, and so many of my colleagues who have worked tirelessly to bring this bill to the floor today.

Our work has paid off. There is widespread, bipartisan support across the country for protecting Dreamers and passing the American Dream and Promise Act.

Just yesterday, over 100 business leaders urged us to vote in favor of the bill, including household companies such as eBay, Hewlett- Packard, IKEA, Chobani, and Levi Strauss. They support the bill because the United States will benefit economically from its passage.

The Chamber of Commerce says that it supports the bill, and it may make the vote on the American Dream and Promise Act a key vote.

Even now, more than 70 percent of the top 25 Fortune 500 companies, which generate $3 trillion in annual revenue, employ Dreamers. Even the conservative Cato Institute found that allowing Dreamers to remain here would add an extra $350 billion to our economy and an additional $90 billion in tax revenue.

On the other hand, failure to support lawful status for Dreamers will directly undermine our competitiveness and subject them to permanent exile. That makes no sense.

We have waited long enough. It is time for us to pass the American Dream and Promise Act in the House of Representatives.

It was 2001 when the first iteration of the Dream Act was introduced. Eighteen years later, we are finally poised to pass it.

We have seen the benefit of President Obama's DACA announcement, a temporary initiative that allowed these young people to temporarily work and to stay without looking over their shoulders. The courts have kept us from seeing the destruction of DACA that President Trump had ordered, even though polls show that almost 90 percent of Americans support legal recognition for Dreamers.

Dreamers are Americans. All they lack is the paper to prove it. They live in every one of our 50 States. Their families hail from every region of the world. Their contributions are felt all across the landscape of this country.

Among them are future industry leaders; nurses; doctors; chefs; construction workers; teachers, including 5,000 teachers in California; and care providers for our children and parents.

Dreamers are joined in their efforts by TPS and DED brethren. In the same month that the administration announced the end of DACA, they also announced the termination of TPS for six countries and, a few weeks later, the termination of DED for Liberians, even though many of them have been here for 30 years.

More than 400,000 nationals of seven countries now face exile from the United States. The majority have lived here for at least 20 years, building their lives, raising families that include more than a quarter of a million U.S. citizen children.

The future for Dreamers and longtime TPS and DED recipients does not have to be uncertain. We have the opportunity to pass the American Dream and Promise Act in the House of Representatives today and, by doing so, put those Dreamers and strivers on the path to legal recognition.

Let's put partisan fights aside for the good of our Nation, for the good of our economy and our communities. Approve this rule and, later today, vote for the American Dream and Promise Act.

Madam Speaker, today, we have the privilege of voting for the American Dream and Promise Act of 2019. This vote will bring Dreamers, young immigrants who came to the country as children, as well as individuals who have lived here lawfully for years under temporary protected status or deferred enforced departure, another step closer to being fully recognized as American.

Many of us, both inside and outside this room, have been working to advance this legislation for almost two decades. It is hard to believe that 18 years have passed since the Dream Act was first introduced, and 9 years have passed since the House last voted on it.

Yet, despite bipartisan support in Congress as well as the support of almost 90 percent of the American people, we have thus far been unable to get this bill enacted into law.

I am proud to stand here with so many colleagues who worked with determination over the years to bring this bill to the floor, as well as all the young people and their allies who persisted through setbacks and never gave up on their call for lawful permanent residence.

Madam Speaker, our work has paid off. Today, I urge my colleagues to support the American Dream and Promise Act.

In September 2017, President Trump announced the end of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, otherwise known as DACA, which provided temporary relief from removal to approximately 800,000 Dreamers. Over the next few months, the administration announced plans to terminate the TPS designation for six countries, as well as DED for Liberia. These actions have upended the lives of hundreds of thousands of Dreamers and TPS and DED holders.

They have come to the United States in different ways, and they have had different opportunities once they arrived. But today, they are united not only by the passage of time but also by the uncertainty of the future. Congress has the power to bring certainty to their lives by passing this act.

The bill provides a fair and reasonable opportunity for Dreamers to apply for lawful permanent residence with tough eligibility standards and discretion to consider unique situations on a case-by-case basis. The TPS and DED holders must continue to meet the strict eligibility requirements that already apply to them.

Based on comments made earlier during the rules debate, comments that I assume may be repeated during this debate, I feel the need to remind everyone just how tough this bill is.

To begin with, the bill applies criminal bars that apply to any other immigrant seeking admission to the United States. It then adds to current law by disqualifying anyone convicted of any felony or more than two misdemeanors.

On top of that, it authorizes the Secretary to deny individuals who pose a threat to public safety based on a single misdemeanor conviction, a juvenile delinquency adjudication, or proof of gang- related activities.

This is a very tough bill. Anyone who poses a threat to public safety is simply ineligible under this bill.

This legislation should not be controversial. The Dream Act has enjoyed bipartisan support in the past, with many of the same provisions. TPS and DED holders are integral parts of our communities and have been contributing to our economy for years, if not decades.

On this point, I also want to stress the important economic benefits that Dreamers and TPS and DED holders provide to our country.

Immigrants eligible for the American Dream and Promise Act own 215,400 homes in the United States and pay an estimated $2.5 billion in annual mortgage payments. If these individuals were to lose their homes, be deported, and default, it would certainly shock housing markets around the country and cause serious damage to cities, States, and the economy as a whole.

Eligible immigrants and their households currently contribute around $17.4 billion per year in Federal taxes and $9.7 billion per year in State and local taxes.

Annually, these households generate over $75 billion in spending power. That money helps to fuel local economies, creating new jobs and bringing new economic prosperity to everyone living and working with H.R. 6 beneficiaries across the country.

Without this bill, these individuals would lose their status and be kicked out of the workforce, creating a major hole in the American economy.

That may be why the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has indicated it may make this bill a key vote for its scoring purposes and why hundreds of major business leaders are urging us to pass this bill in order to grow the economy and bolster our global competitiveness.

We must set aside partisanship and move this bill forward so that Dreamers and long-term TPS and DED recipients can finally have the peace of mind they deserve and so that our country can have the contributions that they are ready to make.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote for the bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Clarke), the sponsor of the bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), the vice chair of the Immigration Subcommittee, and a fierce proponent of this bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentlewoman.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a long-serving member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), a member of our Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Correa), who is a member of our Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on each side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). The majority leader has been such a supporter of Dreamers for these many years.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Garcia), a valued member of our Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stanton), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Mucarsel-Powell), a member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Escobar), a member of our Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), my colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel), a leader in this movement.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Panetta), my colleague and neighbor in California.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu), a leader on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Phillips).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my colleague from California (Mrs. Torres).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro), the chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Garcia).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), my colleague, the Speaker of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct a couple of things that have been said in the course of this debate.

Unfortunately, there are those in our country who try and claim that immigrants are criminals, and that is really incorrect. But for those who have said that this bill was loose for people who have committed serious crimes, it is simply not the case. We have tough restrictions in this bill.

Under the bill, an applicant is disqualified if any one of the following apply:

There is reason to believe the applicant is a national security risk;

The applicant has a felony conviction of any kind other than immigration status related;

The applicant has a single misdemeanor conviction involving moral turpitude with a sentence of more than 6 months, whether or not that has been served;

An applicant has two misdemeanors involving moral turpitude, regardless of sentence;

An applicant has more than two misdemeanors of any kind, excluding offenses that should not bar anyone, like minor traffic offenses; and

The applicant has a single misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence.

A lot has been said, I think, incorrectly, about the provision in the bill that says the Secretary's authority to deny applicants who pose a threat to public safety--and that is our failsafe in this--the Secretary can deny an applicant if he determines, or she, that the applicant poses a current threat to public safety, that somehow that is unworkable. But that is not true.

Let's be clear. Members of Congress are the only ones who can introduce bills and sign letters. But do we do every single aspect of that? Of course not. We have staff who assist us.

That is how that would work in the Department of Homeland Security. The staff would help, and they would prepare something for the Secretary, who would not be able to delegate it. And this is how it has worked in the Immigration and Nationality Act before.

I draw your attention to INA's 236(a), which is the mandatory detention of suspected terrorists at habeas corpus and judicial review. This section provides that this decision cannot be delegated, and yet it is workable because a lot of the staff work is done to present to the Secretary who, himself, must make that decision; similarly, with public law 110-301, the Libyan Claims Resolution Act, and 8 U.S.C. 1522 that provides nondelegable activities.

Now, there has been discussion that somehow the language that we have in the bill about databases means you can't use that evidence. That is simply incorrect.

Mr. Speaker, if we had wanted to prevent the Department of Homeland Security from using or referring to gang databases, we would have said so. The bill would clearly state that DHS could not use, rely on, or refer to gang databases. That is not what the bill says.

The bill says ``it shall not establish disqualifying gang participation.'' It can be evidence, but it can't be the establishment of that fact.

Now, why would that be the case? We value our law enforcement community. They keep us safe. They are hardworking. But these databases are populated by people way beyond law enforcement, people in school police, school security. They can result in people being mistakenly tagged as gang members when they are not.

I will give an example.

There was an audit done of California's gang database, CalGang. When the auditors went through, they found out there were 42 individuals who were under the age of 1 year old who had allegedly self-reported that they were part of a gang. Obviously, that was incorrect. So we would not want to make that the determining factor.

I want to mention a little bit about the comments that were made about DUI. DUI is a very serious matter, and no one wants to see individuals who are threats to public safety obtain relief under this bill.

First, anyone who is convicted by an offense punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of more than 1 year is barred from relief. So anyone who would commit a serious offense is barred.

If you have one conviction for DUI with a suspended license and you knew your license was suspended, you have committed a crime of moral turpitude, because section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act still applies.

Some have said that a single DUI conviction should be enough to disqualify you. Well, we have provided for that as well. If the Secretary finds that you pose a serious public safety threat, he can deny your application.

I will just say this. There are Members of the House of Representatives who have a single DUI. We didn't exile them from a single DUI, and I don't think if someone has turned their life around, we should exile them as well.

Now, I want to talk about the value of this bill.

It is interesting to hear the bill has been jammed, because we have waited for 18 years for this moment to pass this bill.

Mr. Speaker, over 400 diverse organizations, associations, and industry leaders support this bill, including United We Dream, NAACP, National Organization for Women, Interfaith Immigration Coalition, United States Chamber of Commerce, and National Education Association.

Yesterday, more than 100 business leaders, including Walmart, Koch Industries, Coca-Cola, Starbucks, and General Motors all came out in support of this bill. They had full-page ads in The New York Times, asking us to please pass this bill.

H.R. 6 is the solution we have been waiting for. Passage of this measure is long overdue. Dreamers and TPS and DED recipients do not have the luxury of time. President Trump terminated DACA. He terminated TPS for six countries. He extended DED only through March 2020.

While the courts have stopped the President on DACA and TPS, these individuals are living on borrowed time.

We can vote on their futures now. To a great extent, we are deciding their fates, and we are also deciding our fates. Are we the America that made us great, who opened our doors to those who wanted to become Americans with us, who understood that those who have done no wrong should not receive punishment? I say that we are.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of the American Dream and Promise Act of 2019, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Administration be discharged from further consideration of House Resolution 30, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (S. 1436) to make technical corrections to the computation of average pay under Public Law 110-279, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to file a supplemental report on the bill, H.R. 965.

Mr. Speaker, I rise really on behalf of the entire California delegation to honor our friend and former colleague, Ellen Tauscher, who passed away much too soon last month at the age of 67.

Ellen was a trailblazer in virtually everything she did in her remarkable life, and her passing is a great loss not only to California, not only to our country, but to the world.

I met Ellen when she ran for office, but I got to know her here. I recall so well Democratic Congresswomen--and there weren't as many of us at the time--all telling their own personal story and all of us being kind of surprised that we came from modest beginnings. Ellen was born in Newark, New Jersey. Her father was a shop steward at the UFCW, and he was at the Shop Rite store in Union City. Her mom, like my mom, was a secretary. But, she went on, because this country gave her an opportunity, she got a great education, and, of course, then, as will be said later tonight, became one of the youngest and one of the first women to become a member of the New York Stock Exchange.

She excelled in the issue of childcare. She wrote a book and did some technology about that before she ran for office.

But I ran into her in 1996 when I had been in Congress just a short time, and she decided and actually was recruited to run against a very conservative gentleman who had been in the House, but was really more conservative than his district, especially when it came to being pro- choice and the need to do something sensible about gun violence. I remember Ellen had a parade when she ran for office, and people were cheering her on. I thought: This woman is going to win this seat.

Sure enough, she did.

She was so popular and so different than the predecessor. People were talking about Tauscherism in the State of California, using her last name as an -ism. Really what it was was a very sensible, business- oriented approach, heavily interested in technology but wedded with good values that reflected her constituency: pro-choice, pro-education, pro-equal rights, pro-LGBTQ rights, and that was what she brought to this body.

We remember her for the mark that she left on this institution. She continued to lead on the Armed Services Committee where she chaired the Strategic Forces Subcommittee and was a leading figure on arms control policy.

She also worked on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in a remarkable way. Not only was she a national leader on environmentally sustainable transportation policy, as a founding member of the Intelligent Transportation Systems Caucus, she also delivered for her district. It really mattered to her that she got a widening of the Sunol Grade on 680 which made a difference, not only for her district but for mine, as people were trying to commute between the two regions.

She got a fourth bore for the Caldecott Tunnel so that commuters could get around. She played a leadership role securing funding for the BART extension to the San Francisco Airport and her work to get the Army Corps to fund the dredging of the Port of Oakland.

I am particularly excited by the work we did together for the Lawrence Livermore National Lab as well as the Sandia Lab. She was so interested in the National Ignition Facility. She saved the funding, she was there at the groundbreaking, she was there when we opened the facility, and she really believed that the science that was going on there would change the world, and I still believe that it will.

But here in the House I think all of us will remember her as the presiding officer. Ellen was completely unflappable. I can remember when we had the worst, most contentious issues, we knew it would be okay because Ellen would take the dais and she would preside. She would help people calm down, focus on the disagreements, and adhere to the rules of the House. Nothing could shake her ability to preside in a wise, thoughtful, and very calm way over the House of Representatives.

We had such fun with her. Women Members went out to dinner with her and shared stories. She never put up with nonsense. She was very matter of fact. She had a wicked sense of humor, but she was someone with tremendous integrity. Of course, as we know, that integrity, expertise, and vision was recognized when President Obama nominated her to be Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. She was confirmed and left the House.

She did important things in that office. She helped negotiate the New START Treaty with the Russian Federation--the first agreement signed with Russia in nearly 20 years--and it was ratified by the U.S. Senate.

After leaving the Department of State, she continued to make contributions. She served on the Board of Regents for the University of California. She continued to make sure that the science at Lawrence Livermore National Lab was protected and also at Los Alamos. She continued in her efforts to make sure that the cutting edge was always protected as a member of the Board of Advisors of SpaceX, eHealth, and other important technology businesses.

These achievements really don't do justice to Ellen's legacy. I know from our many good times talking with her, her funny irreverence and her smart insight, the one thing that she loved more than anything else on this Earth was her wonderful daughter, Katherine, who I hope is watching tonight. We loved Ellen Tauscher, and she loved Katherine.

Not every Member who planned to be here this evening was able to. We will make sure that all of the statements are entered into the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who is the majority leader of the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, all of us knew Ellen in a different way, but those who served with her on the Armed Services Committee knew her work there, so I would like to recognize the gentlewoman from California, Susan Davis, who served not only in the delegation with Ellen but also on the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, all of us, as I said, knew Ellen in different ways. I was surprised that the gentlewoman from Florida probably knew Ellen Tauscher longer than anyone else in this body, and I am so pleased to recognize Donna Shalala.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Shalala).

Mr. Speaker, talking about how we each knew Ellen in different ways, she was very active in the New Democrat Coalition. We have someone who served with her as one of her cohorts, as a New Democrat who, I believe, chaired it with her at one time. I am happy to recognize Ron Kind.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. Speaker, much has been said about the New Dems, and I would like to recognize the current New Dem chair. I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Kilmer).

Mr. Speaker, I think so many of us in the House could think of the different things we did with Ellen. As I was listening, I was remembering her capacity to reach agreement. She was a legislator, and whether it was reaching across the aisle or disagreements even within the Democratic Party, she was always trying to come up with a solution that would make the country better.

I remember a disagreement we had. We were good friends, but we had a disagreement on a legislative issue. There was a disagreement in the Democratic Party, and we had a big meeting. Rather than let people fight, we stood in front of the group and we actually drafted the compromise that would move us forward in the course of about 20 minutes. It was an extraordinary experience for both of us and especially for the new Members who had never seen legislators actually legislating themselves.

I know that there are people throughout the House who have such memories, and I hope that they will be able to put them into the Record, keeping Katherine and the entire Tauscher family in their prayers.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on the subject of this Special Order.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 10 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, May 15, 2019, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Madam Chair, the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC's) partisan vote to rollback net neutrality regulations implemented under the Obama Administration was extremely troubling and quite wrong. Allowing internet service providers (ISPs) to charge for ``fast lanes'' would alter the internet significantly.

The idea that broadband internet access is an information service, rather than a telecommunications service, was a convenient legal- fiction in the 90s when broadband was in an infancy, to help speed its adoption. But classifying broadband as anything other than telecommunication service today is intellectually empty.

The argument the FCC puts forward that broadband is an information service because it offers domain name resolution is laughable. According to the FCC, you aren't buying internet access you are buying a DNS service, something I'm willing to bet 98 percent of broadband customers have never heard of.

It must be a triumph of marketing genius that broadband providers have sold 98 percent of their customers something that they have never heard of, or even knew they had. Under this logic, I guess telephone lines aren't telecommunication services, but phonebook information services.

Likewise, the FCC's argument that somehow net neutrality has harmed broadband deployment has not only been directly contradicted for years by broadband providers' statements to shareholders, one only needs to look at Comcast for an example of how wrong the FCC is.

Because of the consent decree it agreed to for its purchase of NBC Universal, Comcast was subject to net neutrality longer than any other broadband provider, from 2011 to 2018. In those 7 years, the average Comcast broadband connection went from 18 megabits per second to 69 megabits per second. In 2017, Comcast had the fastest national Speed Score according to internet speed test company Ookla.

As for the concerns around the reclassification itself, the FCC never attempted to use any of the Title II authorities that broadband companies were allegedly concerned about. In fact, the FCC barred themselves from doing so in the original net neutrality order.

By voting in favor of H.R. 1644, we will be codifying this forbearance, effectively preventing any future FCC from undoing that forbearance without Congress.

The Internet has become an indispensable part of all aspects of modern life. And our reliance on it as a neutral gateway will only increase. It would be irresponsible of Congress not to protect the openness and freedom of the Internet that has made so much possible.

I can't fathom why this isn't a bipartisan issue, but to quote Wade Randlett, founder of TechNet: ``The GOP seems to think that Orwellian language is going to work on the world's smartest people, . . . . If you say net neutrality is government regulation--and if you think there's anyone in the valley who thinks that's a true statement--you're already dead in the water. They would be better off just saying, `We respectfully disagree.' ''

I am a proud original cosponsor of H.R. 1644, the Save the Internet Act, and urge my colleagues to vote in favor.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Administration be discharged from further consideration of H. Con. Res. 31, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Administration be discharged from further consideration of

S. Con. Res. 7, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.