Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. It was not radical spending in 2020, because Trump signed the bills. Trump left, and it became radical spending. That is situational ethics, Mr. Speaker. I will leave it at that.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. As he knows, the President of the United States has strongly expressed support of those who are seeking freedom and liberty in Cuba. He said that shortly after the demonstrations occurred. He has maintained that position. I share that opinion with him, and we are discussing what action we might be taking here in this House.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, if you mention Jerry Lewis from California, our Jerry Lewis probably wouldn't be the first one you would think of. You would think of Dean Martin's sidekick. When I first met Jerry Lewis some 40 years ago, I guess, now--how long has Jerry been gone? Thirty-two years plus however long he has been gone--I thought of Jerry Lewis. ``Oh, Jerry Lewis, yes, he is on the committee.'' I thought of the comedian Jerry Lewis. To some degree, Jerry Lewis was a comedian. He was a wonderful guy, wonderful spirit, a wonderful person. I served with him, as I said, for 32 years, both in the House of Representatives and on the Appropriations Committee. Actually, that is not really right. I served with him 32 years, but I was only on the committee for 23 years before I became the majority leader in 2006 and then went off the committee. Jerry Lewis is coupled in my thoughts with a guy named Vic Fazio, who was also from California, who was also on the Appropriations Committee, who was one of my closest friends and still is. I think about the two of them because Jerry Lewis and Vic Fazio, for a number of years, headed up the Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee together. They were a team, a positive team, a team that agreed that this institution was worth protecting and worth serving. As I think of Jerry Lewis, I lament the fact--and in doing so, I want to thank Ken Calvert, also a member, for seeing me in the hall and saying, ``Are you doing this Special Order?'' Mr. Speaker, if he hadn't talked to me, I wouldn't have known, and I wouldn't have gotten this opportunity to speak. Much has been said of what he did, but what Jerry Lewis and Vic Fazio represented were Members who thought about the institution, not about party. They were representative of a large number of people in this body who served when I came here in the 1980s and the 1990s who shared that view. Tom Cole is sitting here. He is one of those Members that shares that view. As I think of Jerry Lewis, I lament the fact that we have lost the Jerry Lewises--not all of them, but too many--who made this body a collegial body, not a confrontational body. That doesn't mean we didn't have severe disagreements. I remember Jerry Lewis, at one point in time, said, as chairman of the committee, he was going to move Goddard Space Flight Center, which is in my district, some 3,000 or 4,000 people, to California. We had a little tussle about that. The good news was that Barbara Mikulski chaired the committee in the Senate, and the chances of that happening were zero. But we had a tussle about that. It was a friendly tussle, and I really don't believe he was real. He was just sort of getting a little leverage. Jerry Lewis was a man of this institution, the Congress, and of the Constitution. He cared about this country; he cared about this institution; and he worked positively and constructively for both. The fact that he was a Republican and I was a Democrat was somewhat irrelevant. That doesn't mean it was not relevant in terms of our having differences. The parties had differences, and there were contentious times. At that point in time, he was on one side, and I was on the other. I am, I like to think, a man of the House, but I am also a man of the Appropriations Committee. I love the Appropriations Committee. I love the Appropriations Committee because it was a committee where compromise, frankly, was easier. Philosophical differences are tougher to compromise on. Money is not so tough. We have $100. I am in the majority, so I get $60, and you get $40. That is relatively easy. It is much, much more complicated than that, but it is a committee in which you can decide priorities based upon where you want to put your money. I think it is a little easier than on issues that are deep, philosophically held beliefs. I wanted to speak, and I thank Ken Calvert for giving me a heads-up that this Special Order was happening, because we need to get back to the Jerry Lewises and Vic Fazios. I lament the fact that we are so contentious in this body. I lament the fact that there is so much tension in this body. Everybody in this body has been elected by their neighbors and friends and people who don't know them because that is the only way you can get here. I, therefore, believe that everyone in this body is due respect, even those I vigorously disagree with, because they have been sent here by the people. But we have lost that sense of camaraderie, and we have lost the sense that, for the most part, we are going to work together. I came here when Ronald Reagan was elected President. I came here in a special election. Even though we had contention, and we had the Boll Weevils, et cetera, the overwhelming majority of the House, Democrats and Republicans, felt like working together. I will close with this. I loved Jerry. He was my dear, dear friend. What he represented, I think, was so important. But we have lost the sense that we are all working together for the country, for the people. I don't mean we have lost it individually, but it seems to me that the camaraderie and cooperation that existed for a long time that I have served in this body is very tenuous at best now. Very frankly, I think it was made even more tenuous in the last administration. I don't think we are going to get back there. Part of it was because the Democrats, when I came here, had been in charge for about 20 years, and there wasn't a real sense that everything one did would change the complexion or the control of the House of Representatives. Now that is the case, so it is a lot more contentious. People are thinking, ``If we do this or do that, maybe we will win the majority.'' That was not the case then. I want to thank Jerry Lewis. I want to thank Arlene. I want to thank their family for being the kind of people who made those of us on the other side of the aisle feel like that was just an aisle but we were Americans together, Members of the House of Representatives together, working on behalf of our country and our people and to make the House of Representatives the kind of institution of which the American people could be proud. Thank you, Jerry Lewis. God bless you.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Pallone for yielding, and I thank him for his work on this piece of legislation, along with Mrs. Dingell, a member of the committee. Obviously, the gentlewoman's deceased husband was chairman of this committee and ranking member for many, many years and was a leader in many respects on addressing environmental challenges. This is an environmental challenge. There is no disagreement on that. There, obviously, is disagreement on specifics. The gentleman who just spoke, in a very knowledgeable and thoughtful way, said he hopes this legislation moves forward, but he is in opposition to it. I understand he does not want it to pass. But his comment was that, hopefully, this would be perfected in the legislative process. Now, I do not claim to be, Mr. Speaker, an expert on this chemical. I do know, however, that it affects my district, and every single congressional district in our country is affected by this challenge. That is because every district has faced the challenge of PFAS contamination, which has affected nearly 2,800 communities according to an analysis by the Environmental Working Group. I heard a figure of about 9,200 sites as well from the ranking member. Like countless other districts in the country, Maryland's Fifth District, which I have the privilege of representing, contamination has been detected at military installations. We are proud of our military installations. Pax River is a, I think, world leading air test, research, and evaluation center for naval air, as well as other air, including helicopters of the Army. Also in my district is the Naval Research Laboratory, Chesapeake Bay Detachment. The citizens surrounding them are concerned, rightly, about what the contamination may have done to the water they and their children drink or bathe in. Thankfully, the defense authorization that we enacted in 2019 required our military to transition away from the use of PFAS chemicals in firefighting fluids, a major source of contamination. However, the PFAS pollution that has already occurred needs to be cleaned up, and this legislation would set requirements and deadlines for EPA to do so. Our citizens deserve to have that done. We must prevent PFAS chemicals from entering drinking water used by our communities. I think there is no disagreement on that. PFAS has been called a forever chemical. Apparently, the biological fact of life is that it does not degrade over long periods of time, because they can linger in the human body for a whole lifetime, causing health effects ranging from cancers to reproductive and immune system deficiencies. For 4 years, the previous administration claimed that it would take action through the EPA to protect Americans from PFAS contamination. Perhaps if they had done so, we wouldn't have this legislation; but they did not do so. They failed to protect the American people from these harmful chemicals. So the committee has acted in this instance and previously. Now it is time for Congress to act. Again, I am not an expert on this legislation, but I do know that the committee has carefully weighed how to make sure that we move forward, and in the view of people more expert than I, will not preclude every chemical from being utilized in needed and important items that we use every day in our society, but will provide, because of the designation as a hazardous material, that it be cleaned up where it is necessary to do so. It ensures that EPA finally takes measures to prevent future release of PFAS chemicals into our environment and clean them up where such contamination has occurred. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me, not just because this is so important to the people living in Maryland's Fifth District, but because it is critical to all Americans living in each and every one of our districts. Mr. Speaker, I encourage the Senate to join us in taking this step to protect Americans' access to drinking water and look carefully at the issues that have been raised by the ranking member, legitimate issues in the sense that, yes, we ought to make sure that we are doing the right thing and that the good is not outweighed by the bad. In this instance, I think it is very clear that the good of this bill, the objectives of this bill, and the specifics of this bill, will redound to the benefit of the American people and each and every one of our communities, and I urge my colleagues, therefore, to vote ``yes.''

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to ask the House to join me in recognizing Garrett L. Ressing for his thirty years of outstanding federal service as a civilian attorney for the Department of the Navy's Office of the General Counsel (OGC). He lives in Southern Maryland, in the Fifth District, and I am honored to represent him and so many other talented and hardworking federal civilian employees in Congress. Since he began his distinguished career with OGC in l990, Garrett has held several attorney positions. Notably, he became a member of the Senior Executive Service in November 2008. In April 2015, he was selected to serve as the Deputy General Counsel, and in March 2019 he was designated Principal Deputy General Counsel. During his tenure in this last position as the Navy Department's most senior career attorney, Garrett twice served as the Acting General Counsel of the Navy--a presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed position--from March 2019 to January 2020 and again from January 2021 to August 2021. Garrett excelled at advising the Secretary of the Navy during an unprecedented global pandemic. He provided steady leadership during a time of major change within the Department of the Navy and furnished crucial legal and operational advice necessary to move the Navy forward in light of an increasingly complex global security environment. Garrett has distinguished himself as an attorney who worked tirelessly to provide proactive, accurate, and innovative legal advice on legally complex, sensitive issues impacting operations, procurement, fiscal matters, labor, ethics issues, environmental concerns, and intelligence law. Furthermore, he has demonstrated an unmatched record of leadership while overseeing the provision of legal advice by more than 800 civilian and military attorneys within OGC, ensuring the successful execution of Navy and Marine Corps missions worldwide. Throughout his career, Garrett has received various awards for his outstanding contributions to the Navy, the Department of Defense (DoD), and our nation. These include the Department of the Navy Meritorious and Superior Civilian Service Awards, the Presidential Rank Award of Meritorious Executive, and other performance-related accolades. Madam Speaker, I offer Garrett my congratulations on retiring from federal service after a career of great contribution to our Nation's defense and to the well-being of all those who have served in the Navy. I hope all of my colleagues will join me in recognizing Garrett L. Ressing as he reaches this milestone and in wishing him all the best in the future.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Jason G. Thomas for his ten years of service with the House's Office of the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), Logistics & Support. It is with a heavy heart that I share the news that he passed away in September 2020 at the young age of forty. Jason was a constituent of mine from Maryland's Fifth District. Jason began his career with the CAO in January 2015, joining the Logistics & Support group responsible for moving furniture and carrying out the massive effort every two years of moving offices during the Congressional transition. Prior to his time with the CAO, Jason worked with District Movers, where he gained a strong understanding of logistics and organization, which served him well in his House employment. Among his many hobbies, Jason had a love of acting, he enjoyed mechanics, he was an avid football fan, and he proved a very talented drummer. He was a graduate of the Massanutten Military Academy. Jason's coworkers and friends remember him for his infectious smile and incessant positive attitude. Some of the sentiments they shared after he passed away included that: `He was always smiling,' and `What a great guy.' Also: `He would always greet you with a smile and a hello and was such a light to be around.' Prior to his death, Jason was being recognized for his exceptional service while confronting the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic. He was tasked with helping to assist with the enormous job of processing the distribution of thousands of laptops and electronics to House Members and staff who were suddenly required to work remotely. The Asset Management Department specifically requested Jason by name, not only because of his talent but also because of his sunny disposition and positive attitude while performing his duties. He was soon to be recognized for his contribution to this effort by former Chief Administrative Officer Phil Kiko. Jason lived in Clinton, Maryland, and is survived by his parents, Henry and Idena Thomas, his three sisters--Sonya, Tanya, and Yolanda-- and his three young children, fourteen-year-old Kason, thirteen-year- old Juatez, and ten-year-old Karen. Madam, Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Jason G. Thomas for his service and contributions to this House. I want to extend my heartfelt condolences to, the Thomas family for their tremendous loss. The gifts of Jason's life and his tremendous dedication to service, family, and community will always be remembered.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 7 of House Resolution 535, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bills: H.R. 678; H.R. 1036; H.R. 1079; H.R. 1158; H.R. 1250; H.R. 1754; H.R. 1833; H.R. 1850; H.R. 1871; H.R. 1877; H.R. 1893; H.R. 1895; H.R. 2118; H.R. 2795; H.R. 2928; H.R. 2980; H.R. 3003; H.R. 3138; H.R. 3223; H.R. 3263; and H.R. 3264, and agree to H. Res. 277; and H. Res. 294.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, the American public watching this debate must think that some of the verbiage was written by Lewis Carroll. Lewis Carroll, of course, wrote ``Alice in Wonderland,'' where up was down, black was white, left was right, and right was left. There is an advantage, I would tell you, of not having served here for some time because you don't know what happened in the past. The gentlewoman who represents the Rules Committee said, gee, there have been other investigations. I remember how outraged I was when the Republicans had the eighth investigation of Benghazi, outraged not only because, as it has been opined by the gentlewoman, that, oh, we looked at this, but because for the first seven times, they found nothing there, ``they'' being the Republicans. And so, they logically concluded, we need to have another study until we get the answer we want. Lo and behold, the investigator, Mr. Gowdy, felt to be a person of extraordinary intellect, which he was, had a study, a partisan study, and found exactly the same outcome. The studies to date have found that there were many things done wrong, but they were limited in their scope, which is, of course, the one thing that the Republicans wanted to do with the bipartisan commission they asked for, that the Speaker gave them: five Democrats, five Republicans; equal power over subpoenas. And the staffing, clearly, had been worked out on the Senate side. In the final analysis, the issue was really: See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. Madam Speaker, like many of our colleagues and many Americans, I had hoped that Congress would establish a bipartisan commission to investigate the terrible, tragic, almost unthinkable events of January 6, when we saw Americans assault this Capitol, these Representatives on this floor and the floor down the hall, calling for the death of the Vice President of the United States and the Speaker of the House, one of the most tragic events in the history of our country. The House brought a bill to this floor. The Speaker brought to this floor what the minority leader asked for, except for one thing, scope, the fear that we would look at the very essence of what January 6 was about. Yes, some accuse us of concluding that, because the President recruited people to come to Washington, incited them in a fiery speech, and then deployed them to the Capitol of the United States, Heaven forbid that we would look at him as being a cause of that event. That is only three things that he did. The House voted on May 19 to do exactly that. And then what happened? Well, the Republicans all voted against it. Not everyone, strike that. There were a few courageous souls that did vote for it because they wanted to see the truth and get the truth. In fact, some of them articulated the truth, and to that extent, their party kicked them out of the leadership. That is what they said: See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. The Bible says the truth shall set you free, and the people need to know the truth because that is what will keep them free. We voted, with hopes that the Senate would concur in the House's judgment, that a bipartisan commission consistent with what Leader McCarthy asked for, except for scope--we wanted the commission to be able to look at the event that was the cause of the commission's creation. Afterward, however, the former President tweeted: ``Republicans in the House and Senate should not approve the Democratic trap of the January 6 commission.'' What was the truth? That was the trap. That was the trap that the President feared. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. The Senate was forced to choose between a bipartisan process that many Republicans had earlier supported--you remember, of course, that the ranking member of the committee that reported out the commission bill supported it and urged his colleagues to do so as well. It was not a partisan effort; it was a bipartisan effort. But, of course, Mr. Trump hadn't spoken at that point in time. They were forced to choose between the President and the truth. Sadly, they chose former President Trump, not truth. However, the American people are still demanding answers and accountability, and they deserve both. They want to know that steps are being taken to understand what happened and take measures to ensure that it never happens again. It had never happened before, and we don't want it to happen again. Just like after the 9/11 attacks, we need to come together, as we did after 9/11, to ensure that a full investigation is conducted on an independent and bipartisan basis. Now, yes, this select committee is not even, as other investigative committees have not been even. We would prefer even, which is why we brought it to the floor. Mr. Katko preferred even, which is why we brought it to the floor. Mr. McCarthy had asked for even, which is why we brought even to the floor. Sadly, House and Senate Republicans made it impossible to establish a commission on a bipartisan basis because you have reached your conclusion. And your conclusion is: Let's move on. Let bygones be bygones. Let the past be forgotten. Who said that? John Thune. He said: We don't want to--the gentlewoman has said it. All they want to do is drag this on because we don't want it to adversely affect our election. That is what was said. Senator Thune essentially said that. Notwithstanding that, the House is going to do its job, and we are going to create this select committee to achieve the goal of truth. We will do it on behalf of the people we represent, who watched in horror as their Capitol was assaulted by a violent mob bent on overturning a United States election. That is insurrection. The people who thought it was a tourist visit I don't think were on the floor. You heard the gentlewoman from California talk about her experience. It was not a tourist experience. I hope my Republican friends will participate in this committee's work in good faith with their Democratic colleagues to carry out its mission. If they see things being done that are not the truth, then they ought to tell the truth. They ought to bring up the facts as they see them. That is what our adversary system is. We have an adversary system here in this House. We have an adversary system in our legal system. Engage, be involved, raise the flag as you see it. I hope we can come together to create the bipartisan commission so many have sought and still seek. The launching of this new select committee will not preclude the alternative objective. So I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this resolution today, and I hope we can begin to uncover exactly what happened and take responsible steps to prevent the events of January 6 from reoccurring, and, yes, find out who is responsible. Who is responsible for inciting a mob to come to the Capitol of the United States to overturn the election of the President of the United States? That was their stated intent. Madam Speaker, I urge a strong vote for this select committee Americans deserve and want and let us pray they get the truth.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate Chairwoman Maloney's leadership on this issue and so many other issues to protect the citizens, protect consumers, protect voters, and protect, frankly, those who stand up and say there is wrongdoing. I heard the remarks of the ranking member, and I appreciate his thoughtfulness. But as I was listening to him, I am thinking: How do you make sure that somebody is not cowed by a President, any President, who is prepared to take adverse action without cause against somebody because he or she does not like the investigation they are undertaking? As the gentleman may know, and as my colleagues may know, I urged a rule that we adopted in this House which said that it is a violation of our rules to out a whistleblower. We have put whistleblower protections in, but unfortunately, when we had whistleblowers come forward most recently, they were attacked and attempted to be outed, which would have subjected them, obviously, to the adverse consequences against which we tried to protect them in the legislation that we passed on whistleblowing. So, I see some analogy between these two. I thank Vice Chairman Gomez, Chairman Connolly, Chairman Lynch, and Representatives Porter and Lieu for working on this legislation and supporting this legislation. I was proud to introduce it with the chair of the committee and proud to support it. Madam Speaker, Americans deserve the highest standards of ethics, transparency, and accountability from their government. Federal agencies and officials work for the people, and they must be accountable to the people. That is why the previous administration's assault on the independence of inspectors general was so alarming. This is not an attack on a specific administration. As the gentlewoman and chair of the committee has pointed out, we have a Democratic President now, so this is going to bind him. It is not going to bind his predecessors. If anything, it is certainly not anti-Biden, but it is to say: President Biden, we respect you, but we want to have inspectors general who have the confidence they can move ahead without fear of retribution. Former President Trump removed or replaced, as has been pointed out, the inspectors general from the Departments of Defense, State, Health and Human Services, and Transportation. What kind of a check and balance is that, if a President can simply say, ``I don't like what you are doing. I am removing you''? I would suggest none, with all due respect to my friend. These watchdogs must be able to act independently and be free from political pressure or threats to their careers. It seems to me that is a very commonsense, rational judgment to make. That is what this is about. We introduced our bill to address the challenge exposed by the actions of the prior administration, that is true. But that has not been the only administration that has acted to undermine inspectors general. I urge all of my colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation today. It will build on the provisions that I pushed to include in the House Rules Committee, as I pointed out in January, which protects Federal whistleblowers by making it a violation of House rules for Members to reveal their identities. Those who come forward to reveal misconduct or violations of the public trust need to be heard and must be protected from threats of retaliation. If that is not the case, it will undermine the very objective that we seek in creating IGs. They need to know that they can go to inspectors general or to Congress under strong whistleblower protections. House Democrats, and I hope House Republicans, will renew the faith in government and ensure that it works for the people. We are determined to protect and strengthen government accountability. I hope all of us, in a bipartisan way, will repair this very critical principle of accountability for the people of this country.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I am glad to be back. Madam Speaker, I have been out for 2 weeks, and now that I have a new knee, I am good for another 20 years. That is what they tell me. They guarantee me that. Madam Speaker, when I brought this bill to the floor just about a year ago, I referred to our Capitol Building as a sacred space for democracy, a symbol around the world of democracy. The intervening months have shown us, in ways we could not have imagined then, just how true that statement was and is. Sadly, we in this House, our colleagues in the Senate, all who work here, experienced on January 6 a wrenching reminder of how democracy demands our eternal defense and vigilance. We watched our temple of democracy defiled by a violent mob of insurrectionists. For many of us here, that was a watershed moment, seeing such evils pervade the halls of the American Capitol. However, Madam Speaker, for African Americans, who have been serving here, working here, and visiting here for many decades, that sense of defilement of this sacred space is all too familiar for them. Our colleague, the former speaker of the California Assembly, Karen Bass, made that clear when she spoke. When they see individuals like John Calhoun, Charles Aycock, and James Paul Clarke celebrated in stone and bronze in these halls, they are reminded that, for so much of our history, the leaders and leading institutions of our government and country did not view them as equal or, at times, even human. When they enter the solemn Old Supreme Court Chamber and stare into the cold marble eyes of Roger Brooke Taney, they are reminded that, at one time, the highest court in our land declared that Black lives did not matter. Mr. Speaker, we ought not be surprised when our fellow citizens of color raise signs that say: No, America, Black lives do matter. That is somewhat what this debate is about. In the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision written by Justice Taney, a distinguished citizen of Maryland revered in his time for his intellect and his accomplishments, Taney, in this terrible decision, quoted the Declaration of Independence, which all of us quote so often: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.'' Today, we would say all men and women are equal, irrespective of color. But this Dred Scott decision ought to teach us a lesson today. It ought to humble us today. When people around us say, ``Boy, that is the right decision,'' because it happens to be the decision of the moment, not a decision of history. Beneath those lines, Taney wrote these: ``The general words,'' that is, that all men are created equal, ``The general words above quoted would seem to embrace the whole human family.'' Hear me, colleagues. This is Taney speaking in a decision where he is about to say Black lives do not matter. He said, however, that it ``would seem to embrace the whole human family,'' not divided by color or gender or nationality or religion, the whole human race. And he went on to say: ``And if they were used in a similar instrument at this day would be so understood.'' I want you to think about that. I want you to think about it, colleagues, with humility. Frankly, I want those who argue for the originalist point of view to think of that. Taney thought of that. And he thought, in his day, in 1857, the whole human family would be covered by ``all men are created equal.'' But notwithstanding that belief, he did not so rule because he was mired in the past, and the progress of those some 90 years had alluded him because he went on to say: But ``the enslaved African race were not intended to be included and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this Declaration.'' An originalist. The Founders were human. They were extraordinary humans, but they were human. Their environment shaped their thoughts, as they do ours. Taney's words were used by the Confederacy during the Civil War to justify the creation of a regime built to sustain the enslavement of African Americans in perpetuity, with no possibility of recognizing their humanity. Even though Taney said that in 1857, that would have been the popular definition of all men are created equal, Blacks and Whites alike. And those words have been used ever since by bigots and white supremacists to justify segregation, racial violence, and discrimination. Mr. Speaker, I say to my fellow colleagues that we must not allow the author of those words to hold a place of honor in our Capitol. That is why I introduced this legislation along with Representative Barbara Lee; my dear friend of over a half a century, Jim Clyburn; Representative Karen Bass, former Speaker of the California Assembly; Chairman Bennie Thompson from Mississippi; and Representative G. K. Butterfield a North Carolina former Supreme Court Justice; and the present chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, Congresswoman Joyce Beatty from Ohio. Because this building, this sacred space, this temple of democracy has been defiled for too long. We owe it not to forget history. We must learn from history. But we ought not to honor that which defiled the principles for which we think we stand and for which I think we do stand. It is time, Mr. Speaker, to remove those symbols of slavery, segregation, and sedition from these Halls. How recently we saw, remembered the savage genocide in Tulsa just a few weeks ago, justified in the minds of many, I am sure, that these, after all, were not men who were created equal. They were not children created in the image of God. And therefore, some rationalized the taking of their lives because, after all, their lives did not matter, and therefore, no one was prosecuted, no one was held accountable. As I said, Roger Brooke Taney was from my State of Maryland, and I acknowledge, as I was growing up as a kid in the late 1950s in high school and then in college in the 1960s, my party was the segregationist party. And my party decided that we did not want to be that party and that there was not a home for segregationists in the Democratic Party. That is a decision we made consciously, knowing full well the cost and that is why Lyndon Johnson said when he signed one of the civil rights bills: We may have just given up the South. In our State capital of Annapolis, Mr. Speaker, we removed the statue of Chief Justice Taney, the highest ranking Marylander in the Federal Government in history. It had stood there when I was sworn in as a member of the State Senate. And when I listened to Governor Agnew give his State of the Union, it was on the site of the Roger Brooke Taney statue on the east front of our Capitol. If you turn and walk west through the Capitol of Maryland, you will come out on a park. It is the Thurgood Marshall Park, a testament to the progress and enlightenment that occurred from Taney to Marshall in our State. The decision to remove Taney's statue was long overdue, but as the gentleman from Texas said Martin Luther King said: It is never too late to do the right thing. And this, today, is the right thing. It reflects our growth as a State as we have confronted the most difficult parts of our history and it will reflect our growth as we recognize it here, as we did overwhelmingly when we passed this last year. Over a third of my Republican colleagues joined the Democratic colleagues in saying Black lives do, in fact, matter. Those who say we shouldn't teach about slavery or that we should sweep it under the rug or that we should skip over the lines in our Constitution that reference it, do a disservice to our understanding of America's greatness. Jim Clyburn, our whip, a civil rights hero in his own right, likes to quote de Tocqueville saying that America's greatness is not that it always does the right thing. America's greatness is that it is willing to correct its wrongs. We are great because we approach our past with humility and openness. And we are great because we continue to protect our democracy through more inclusion, more tolerance, more justice, more equality, that all men and women, irrespective of artificial distinctions or real distinctions, are equal in the eyes of our Constitution and of our laws. That is why Democrats and Republicans came together earlier this month to make Juneteenth a national holiday, overwhelmingly, a handful voting against that, in an articulation of our principles today, not yesterday. That was Roger Brooke Taney's great blindness. That is why I believe we can take this important step together today. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House once again to join me in passing this legislation, to remove these statues and bust of Chief Justice Taney from the Capitol. Not to forget them. Not to say they weren't part of history, but they are not deserving of our honor. Not because we want to erase history but because we are determined to confront it. As a Marylander, proud of steps we have taken in Annapolis, I believe that Justice Thurgood Marshall would be a far better ambassador for the greatness of American democracy and for our State of Maryland than Roger Brooke Taney. Where Roger Brooke Taney represents the worst of American justice and racism, Thurgood Marshall represents the best of justice and equality. He deserves to be honored in this Capitol for his trailblazing career and lifelong dedication to civil rights and equal justice for all. Mr. Speaker, I hope all of my colleagues, not as Republicans and Democrats, but as Americans who believe we are a special, exceptional country because we lift up the individual and we protect the 1 against the 99 if the 1 is right. That is the essence of America. And even though they did not live it out perfectly, they articulated the perfection of all men are created equal. And endowed not by the Constitution, not by the laws of Congress, not by the majority vote of their fellow citizens, endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. That is what this vote is about today, and I urge my colleagues, vote ``yes'' for America, vote ``yes'' for its principles that are so respected properly around the world.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to thank my constituent, Charlene Best, for nineteen years of outstanding service to the United States House of Representatives. She retired on June 3 from her role as Manager with the Asset Management Department of Logistics and Support. Charlene has had a very distinguished career prior to her House employment. In high school and into college, she worked with the Department of the Navy. After her graduation in 1995, she went to work for the National Science Foundation as an Administrative Assistant, followed by a stint with the Census Bureau from 1999 to 2000. Later, she worked as an Executive Assistant for Booz, Allen, Hamilton. Charlene had long wished to be a House employee and began interviewing in 2002, earning a position as a Special Assistant for the Office of the CAO in the Office Systems Management. She quickly moved through the ranks and became a Supervisor and, eventually, Manager with First Call from 2007 through 2015, before moving up to her current position. Charlene also served as a Move Coordinator during the many Congressional Transitions and brought her special talents and expertise to Members of Congress and their staffs. When asked about the highlights of her career, Charlene has said how much she appreciated the mentorship of her boss, Tom Coyne, Chief Logistics Officer, and she credits him with helping her to grow professionally. She has also cited one of her first supervisors, Carol Nichols, as someone who saw potential in her and invested time and energy to help her advance in her career. One notable contribution that Charlene made to the House was her participation in the lying-in-state of Rosa Parks, for which she earned Congressional recognition. She remembers this event with sober reflection. In addition, one of the most cherished memories from her House career was being present in the Capitol for the first inauguration of President Barack Obama. While relaying the story to my staff, she recalled being in the hallway of the Capitol on the path leading out to the inaugural stage, when President-Elect Obama walked within ten feet of where she was standing and gave her a friendly wink prior to stepping out onto the stage. She loves to tell this story to demonstrate the great honors she has felt working for the U.S. House of Representatives. Charlene, like so many House employees, had been teleworking during the COVID-19 pandemic, and she said that she felt lucky to have spent some `home time' with her daughter Jordyn, a graduating senior. It was a welcome opportunity to spend quality time with Jordyn before she heads off to college in the fall. In retirement, Charlene is looking forward to enjoying more time spent with her family and pursuing other opportunities. I hope all of my colleagues will join me in extending our congratulations to Charlene Best for her many years of dedication and outstanding contributions to this House. I wish her many wonderful and fulfilling years in retirement.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, my district, the State of Maryland, and our country have lost an extraordinary citizen, an outstanding contributor to education and leader for Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). Dr. Samuel L. Myers, who was a trailblazer for equality and a pioneer in economics and higher education, passed away at the age of 101 on January 8 and will be remembered at a memorial service later this month. I was honored to know him and work closely with him over the years to advance the important causes he championed. Born in Baltimore, Dr. Myers was the son of Jamaican immigrants and grew up in a home that strongly valued education and public service. After earning his undergraduate degree in 1940 from Morgan State University and a master's degree from Boston University in 1942--both in economics--he was drafted into the U.S. Army and rose to the rank of Captain while serving in the Pacific Theater. At the time, of course, our military was segregated, and Dr. Myers was a trailblazer in speaking out against the injustices facing African-American servicemembers, risking court martial. Following his honorable discharge from service in 1946, he studied at Harvard University and completed his doctorate in economics in 1949, studying with some of the most renowned scholars at that time, including John Kenneth Galbraith. As an economist, Dr. Myers focused on inequalities and the effects of segregation on African-American businesses and families. That interest led him into government service, and he worked as a research economist for the Bureau of Labor Statistics while teaching at his alma mater of Morgan State. Recognizing his leadership abilities and his deep commitment to education, Bowie State University selected him as its fourth president in 1968. During his tenure, which lasted until 1977, Dr. Myers reshaped Maryland's oldest HBCU and laid the groundwork for its success, preparing graduates to seize the opportunities of our twenty-first century economy. While pioneering the launch of computer science programs and new educational practices, he worked to secure funding for new buildings to replace those that were crumbling and dilapidated, and he supported students who had protested against unfair budgets that disadvantaged historically African-American campuses in Maryland and nationwide. In 1977, Dr. Myers stepped down as President of Bowie State University but continued his passionate commitment to HBCUs. He became President of the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education (NAFEO) and continued to lead that organization for eighteen years. In that capacity, he lobbied for HBCUs and was instrumental in the 1980 Executive Order, signed by President Carter, directing that federal funding for higher education be prioritized for HBCUs, a principle that has since been expanded to include institutions serving Hispanic and Native American tribal communities. The recipient of many awards and recognitions for his contributions to equality in education, Dr. Myers continued even after his retirement from overseeing NAFEO to be a leader in this national effort, chairing the board of Minority Access, which helps build partnerships between minority-serving institutions and major research universities. He was also a longstanding supporter of foreign language programs and cultural exchanges that expand young Americans' views of our world and help build bridges with students and scholars from other nations. Dr. Myers will be remembered as a man of vision and of service. His legacy will not be forgotten by the millions of students who were able to access high-quality undergraduate and graduate programs and pursue their dreams because of his tireless efforts. Maryland will long remember Dr. Samuel L. Myers among the pantheon of our great native sons and daughters who dedicated their lives and careers to the improvement of our society, the expansion of opportunities, and the cause of justice and equality for all. I offer my condolences to his children, Dr. Yvette Myers and Dr. Samuel Myers, Jr., along with their families. Their father now joins their wonderful mother Marion Myers--who was his partner for sixty-four years--and their sister Judge Tama Clark, who passed away last year, in peaceful eternal rest. May his memory continue to bless and inspire so many in Maryland and in our country to pursue service and help build a more perfect union for future generations of Americans.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the late Rev. E. Baxter Morris, who passed away on May 2. His funeral took place on Saturday, May 15, at the church that he led for nearly half a century. Many of us in this House knew Rev. Morris as a gracious host when we traveled to Montgomery, Alabama, on the annual Faith and Politics Institute Civil Rights Pilgrimage. He and his congregants at the historic First Baptist Church welcomed us with a very moving service followed by a home-cooked meal that made us feel like we were part of their community. I spoke with him at those lunches and, like so many others, came to see his wisdom, patience, and grace. I know that Rev. Morris, who was the congregation's longest-serving pastor, will be deeply missed by all who knew him and worshiped with him. One of my most cherished memories of congressional pilgrimages to the First Baptist Church and other now-sacred places is sharing the experience with my dear friend John Lewis. John would remind us of the time in youth when he helped organize and lead the Freedom Rides. That effort began 60 years ago this spring. In late May 1961, around 1,500 community members, Freedom Riders, and civil rights activists had gathered to worship at First Baptist Church, when they were besieged by a mob of as many as 3,000 white supremacists. Joining John Lewis inside were Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Fred Shuttlesworth, Diane Nash, James Farmer, and the Rev. Ralph Abernathy, who was the senior pastor of the church at that time. It took a historic intervention by President John F. Kennedy and Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, which involved calling out the Alabama National Guard, to break that siege and save the lives of those inside. That incident, known now to history as the First Baptist Church Siege, was a pivotal moment in the effort to desegregate public transportation across the South. Thus when Rev. Morris became the senior pastor of First Baptist Church in 1972, it already had a storied history. He did his utmost to preserve that history and ensure that his congregants and visitors alike never forgot the important role that First Baptist Church played in the march for freedom, equality, and civil rights in our country. Indeed, at the lunches I attended with John and other Members of Congress, Rev. Morris would remind us that his church had been founded shortly after emancipation by those who had endured slavery. When a fire destroyed their original church building, the congregants banded together to build the current structure, donating bricks for its construction. For that reason, it is also known as the Brick-a-Day Church. Rev. Morris understood that his pastoral work reached far beyond the walls of First Baptist Church. He regularly volunteered his time as a mentor throughout the Montgomery community, and he served as Chaplain for the Montgomery Police Department for more than two decades. The Operation Good Shepherd program organized with other religious leaders from across the city endeavors to help law enforcement de-escalate encounters with residents and promote cooperation instead of confrontation. I know that his presence and contributions will be greatly missed across Montgomery and its region. I join in offering my condolences to Rev. Morris' wife, Rebie, and their family as well as the entire First Baptist Church community. I will never forget the wisdom he shared with us or his warm and kind welcome and the wonderful meals we had over the years fixed by the members of First Baptist. Now, he and John and Martin and Ralph and so many other great men and women of justice and courage march on together in eternal peace.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding, and I thank the chairman for his work. I have been here a long time. This is my 40th year in the Congress of the United States. I came at the same time Ronald Reagan was elected President of the United States. It was clearly a time of difference in the House and in the country between Republicans and Democrats, but it was also a time when, frankly, the John Katkos of the Congress were in the majority in the Republican Party. And by that I mean, Mr. Speaker, people who wanted to work together to get results that, while not perfect for either side, were good for the country. So while I thank Mr. Thompson for the hard work he has done, I thank Mr. Katko as well for doing what Americans expect us to do, to come together, looking at a challenge to our country and to our people, coming to a decision to resolve those challenges and those problems. That is what Mr. Thompson and Mr. Katko have done. Indeed, I think this is, in some ways, the best of days and, in some ways, the worst of days because we have seen today two Republican leaders turn what ought to be a nonpolitical issue, an issue with reference to a unique event, not just a demonstration that has occurred. I grew up in the 1960s. Whether it was civil rights or Vietnam, there were a lot of demonstrations. But the Capitol of the United States was not attacked. It was not invaded. It was not breached. The work of the Congress of the United States was not stopped because people were trying to get through the door, with some Members trying to stop them who then said: These are just tourists. It is sad because what the minority leader in the Senate and the minority leader in the House said is exactly what Mr. Katko pointed out. They wanted a commission that was even, as the 9/11 Commission was even, so that both sides would have an equal voice. What was the resolution that Mr. Thompson and Mr. Katko attained? Equal division, equal voice. Not only equal voice in terms of numbers but, for instance, one of the things that was controversial was about subpoenas. Mr. Thompson and Mr. Katko arrived at a resolution that said both sides have to agree, or alternatively, the committee can agree. In light of the fact that the committee is evenly divided, it would obviously have to be a bipartisan request for subpoenas. Now, what we didn't agree on was the distraction and the dissembling. Let's look at this corner; don't look here. Let's look at this corner; don't look here. Let's look at that corner; don't look there. Don't look at just the invasion, the insurrection that occurred on January 6; look at everything else because maybe we can confuse the issue enough that we will lose sight of the insurrection on January 6. We ought not to do that. I have been here a long time, but I also know the history of the House, and I do not know of any other instance that is analogous to January 6, not one. In 1812, of course, there was a similar invasion, but it was from a foreign enemy. It was not the enemy within. I said that on the floor that morning as we finished the business of the House, notwithstanding the insurrection. Mr. Speaker, it is vital that Congress establish a bipartisan, independent commission to investigate January 6, not some other date. That does not absolve any wrongdoing anywhere at any time. But it says that this unique insurrection is a danger to our democracy, not to Republicans or Democrats, to our democracy, to our Congress, to the people's House and the United States Senate, which was occupied. At least this House was not occupied. But Members were terrified, work was stopped, and democracy, for a short period of time, was overtaken by armed, violent insurrectionists. Certainly, each one of us ought to be very concerned about getting to the bottom of why that happened. How did it happen? How can we stop it from happening again? What are the resources that we need, and, yes, who was responsible? Some, perhaps, are going to vote against this because that is what they fear. The 9/11 Commission, as Mr. Katko pointed out, made America safer. It made this institution safer. It made our law enforcement more acutely aware of the failures that led to 9/11. I hope this commission does the same. I have talked to numerous Republicans who tell me they think it was right that we focused on January 6. Don't be distracted. Don't cover up or make it more lacking in clarity by trying to deal with every problem that we may have. Focus on January 6. Together, Mr. Katko and Mr. Thompson negotiated a bipartisan agreement to move forward with such a commission based on input from Democrats and Republicans. There are going to be a significant number of Republicans who vote for this bill. Unfortunately, the truth has been a victim over the last couple of weeks. It was okay for Liz Cheney to tell the truth once, but when the former President of the United States kept telling a lie, and she said that is a lie each time that he said it, well, that was not appropriate, so she was removed. But the truth was removed with her. See no evil, hear no evil. The commission, as a result of Ranking Member Katko's participation in these discussions, will be equally composed, as I said. It will have subpoena power that will be shared by both sides. I was pleased that we reached a bipartisan agreement and sad for this institution, for this country, for the American people who must think: Well, can't you agree on anything? The minority leader got what he asked for, yet he won't take yes for an answer. Trump does not want this commission. That can be my only explanation. Throughout my career, both in the State senate for 12 years, as president of the Senate, and here in this body for 40, I think I am known on the other side of the aisle as somebody you can work with. I hope that is the case because I think that is the way Americans want us to work. President Trump opposes this commission. I am not sure why. It is deeply disappointing that there is a division among Republicans about whether to support the ranking member who worked hard to get to this place and got what the minority leader asked for, except for the distraction, except for the dissembling. He didn't get that. But he got everything else. Mr. Speaker, I hope my Republican colleagues will think not about their politics, not about the former President, not about themselves. I hope they will think of the country, of this Congress, of this House. As they do so, I hope they say to themselves: We will vote for this legislation. What if George Bush had said we shouldn't have a 9/11 Commission, perhaps out of fear that somehow the administration would have been perceived as being responsible for 9/11? They weren't. Wouldn't all of us have said: What are you talking about that we are not going to have a commission to see how we can protect the Capitol and why this Capitol was stopped from doing the work of our democracy? This legislation is going to pass. It is going to pass on a bipartisan basis, and I want to thank Mr. Katko for having the courage and the integrity to stand up, fighting for what the minority leader asked for. I say to Mr. Thompson that that is the funny thing about this. I hope Senators will think long and hard about rejecting this bipartisan compromise to move forward, to protect our democracy, and to lift it up as the beacon that it has been and needs to be not only for our own citizens but for all the world. How sad that day was as the world watched, as TVs showed them America's citadel of democracy and of freedom invaded by its own citizens. Vote ``yes.'' It is the right thing to do.

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 5 of House Resolution 403, I move to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 144, H.R. 204, H.R. 210, H.R. 240, H.R. 707, H.R. 711, H.R. 1157, H.R. 1447, H.R. 1510, H.R. 1711, H.R. 2027, H.R. 2167, H.R. 2441, H.R. 2494, H.R. 2533, H.R. 2655, H.R. 2695, H.R. 2704, H.R. 2788, H.R. 2878, and H.R. 3008.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. Madam Speaker, there is no place in America for hate. Well, at least there should be no place in America for hate. There should be no place in our country for exclusion, for bigotry, or racial violence. And, frankly, I tell my friend from Texas, it is not enough just to say that we are against that. We need to do something. This bill takes a step to doing something. Disturbingly, over the past few years, we have seen these evils emerge out of their dark hiding places. While we have always struggled as a nation to confront hatred and injustice, this past year we have been tested in ways we have not seen in some period of time. Madam Speaker, in particular, the COVID-19 pandemic has unleashed an onslaught of hatred directed against Asian Americans, and other minorities as well. These men and women, our fellow citizens, have endured vile words and violent blows. They have been made to feel unsafe and made to feel apart. Congress is taking action today, led by my friends Senator Hirono, Representative Meng, Representative Beyer, and Representative Chu. I am so proud to align myself with their efforts to make it clear that hate crimes against Asian Americans will be prosecuted to the fullest extent possible and that they will never be tolerated in our country, ever, as they have been tolerated too often in the past. Representative Chu, as chairwoman of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, has put forward a resolution condemning the deadly shootings in Atlanta in March, which killed six Asian-American women and two others. I am strongly supporting both her resolution and Senator Hirono's hate crimes legislation, which has already passed the Senate, 94-1. Mr. Hawley of Missouri was the sole exception, the Senator who gave thumbs-up to the insurrectionists. That bill is the companion to Representative Meng's legislation, and she has instructed my office she wants to see this adopted as soon as possible. We would have brought her bill to the floor, but she said, no, let's do the Senate bill because it can move more quickly. And she deserves full credit for bringing this issue forward. Madam Speaker, I commend her for her tireless efforts to stand up against hate targeting in the Asian-American community and in every other community--indivisible, one Nation. Together, as the Nation's representatives, we must make it absolutely clear that racism and intolerance have no home here in America. Very frankly, the people who look at this vote will not parse it. They will interpret it as those who are against hate and those who thought this bill wasn't perfect in saying that we are against hate. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join in sending that message with a strong bipartisan vote on both of these measures. Let us reject hate and remind our Asian-American brothers and sisters that we are one Nation indivisible, standing together and building our common future together. We haven't always been that Nation. We haven't always been the perfect union to which we inspire. Too often, we have held others who are not like us as less than us. That has been a tragedy of mankind wherever one lived. This is a small step, but it is an important step. Let's take it.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I'm proud to represent more than 62,000 federal employees in Maryland's Fifth District and to have long been an advocate for recognizing and celebrating the many contributions that federal civilian workers make to our country. That's why I am always very excited to participate in marking Public Service Recognition Week, which is held each May. It is a moment to thank federal employees for their patriotism, their service, and the many essential roles they play in creating and delivering opportunities for the American people. Each year, the Partnership for Public Service reviews hundreds of nominations submitted by federal workers and the Americans they serve of outstanding federal civilian employees for recognition in a number of categories. During Public Service Recognition Week, the organization unveils the list of finalists in each category, and it has named twenty-nine finalists this year. The winners, including Federal Employee of the Year, will be announced in the autumn. These Samuel J. Heyman Service to America Medals, named in memory of the founder of the Partnership for Public Service and a champion for those serving in government, are affectionately known as the `Sammies,' and they are considered to be the government-service equivalent of the Academy Awards. I am proud to share with my colleagues that one of this year's finalists in the `Emerging Leaders' category is Edward Sisco from Maryland's Fifth District. A research chemist at the Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Ed has already made an enormous impact even at only thirty-two years old. He developed a novel procedure for testing potentially toxic substances faster than thought possible, which has yielded tremendous benefits in forensic analysis and protection for law enforcement and forensic chemists testing drugs seized in raids. The Thermal Desorption Direct Analysis in Real Time Mass Spectrometry (TD-DART-MS) technique that he pioneered is already being deployed and is having a major impact on criminal justice and laboratory safety. Ed and many of his colleagues at NIST are among the thousands of outstanding federal employees who call Maryland's Fifth District home, and I am proud to join in recognizing his work and his being chosen as a Service to America Medal finalist. I wish him all the best of luck in the competition, and I look forward to learning the winners in his category and all the others, as well as Federal Employee of the Year, this fall. While these awards recognize special contributions to our country that go above and beyond, I hope all of us who serve in the House will remember the contributions and hard work that 2.1 million federal employees perform every day in every state and in single one of our districts. Each and every one of them deserves our recognition and our gratitude.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I would say in response to Mr. Green's passionate speech: Me too. I rise in strong support of this bill, and I am proud to bring it to the floor for consideration, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate Chairman Nadler's leadership in sponsoring and shepherding it through the committee. I thank Chairman Scott, as well, for his efforts on behalf of this very important piece of legislation. America still has a long way to go when it comes to making our economy work for women and mothers. We have seen that dramatically during COVID-19. Too often, women are pressured to leave the workforce when they start a family. Women should not face discrimination or adverse actions as a result of pregnancy. I think everybody would, I hope, agree with that. This legislation would prevent that from happening by requiring employers, Mr. Speaker, to make reasonable accommodations so that pregnant workers can remain on the job, earning their incomes. Now, I know a thing or two about reasonable accommodations, frankly, as the principal sponsor of the Americans with Disabilities Act signed by President Bush on July 26, 1990. When I sponsored the bill more than 30 years ago, that legislation incorporated the concept of reasonable workplace accommodations, in that case, for employees with disabilities. Pregnancy, of course, is not a disability. It is a joy. But there are certainly dangers faced by pregnant workers that could threaten the health of the woman and her unborn child, including heavy lifting and exposure to toxic substances. That is why it is essential for pregnant workers to receive reasonable accommodations that protect their safety in the workplace without being demoted or losing their jobs and, of course, to protect the rights and safety of their babies. Protecting the rights and safety of pregnant workers in our economy is something Democrats have championed for a very long time, Mr. Speaker, and we passed this legislation last Congress, as well. But I hope that this is an issue where Democrats and Republicans--Mr. Fortenberry just spoke very well--can come together, in a bipartisan way, to protect mothers-to-be and their children. I hope that the Senate will join the House in adopting these protections, which are so essential at a time when millions of women are eager to rejoin the workforce and continue pursuing careers that bring them and their families opportunity and economic security. I thank Chairman Nadler again for his leadership. I thank Mr. Scott for his leadership, as well. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this legislation.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, on Wednesday the Republican Conference ejected the Gentlelady from Wyoming from the ranks of its leadership because she dared to speak truth and refused to join in spreading falsehoods regarding the recent election. This is a dangerous moment for our democracy, when one party is operating according to a set of clearly debunked falsehoods and punishes its Members who prefer actual facts. To underscore that danger, I include in the Record the following op-ed, which was published in The Washington Post on Tuesday and written by the former Republican Senator from Arizona, Jeff Flake. I hope all of my colleagues--on both sides of the aisle--will read his words and consider carefully this perilous moment in which our country and this Congress finds itself. [From the Washington Post, May 11, 2021] Opinion: In Today's Republican Party, There Is No Greater Offense Than Honesty (By Former Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ)) ``The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.''--George Orwell Near the beginning of the document that made us free, our Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident.'' There you have it. From the very beginning of America, our freedom has been predicated on truth. For without a principled fidelity to truth and to shared facts, our democracy will not last. On Wednesday, Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) will most likely lose her leadership post within the House Republican Conference, not because she has been untruthful. Rather, she will lose her position because she is refusing to play her assigned role in propagating the ``big lie'' that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump. Cheney is more dedicated to the long-term health of our constitutional system than she is to assuaging the former president's shattered ego, and for her integrity she may well pay with her career. No, this is not the plot of a movie set in an asylum. Ladies and gentlemen, this is your contemporary Republican Party, where today there is no greater offense than honesty. It seems a good time to examine how we got to a place where such a large swath of the electorate (70 percent of Republican voters, according to polling) became willing to reject a truth that is so self-evident. This allergy to self-evident truth didn't happen all at once, of course. This frog has been boiling for some time now. The Trump period in American life has been a celebration of the unwise and the untrue. From the ugly tolerance of the pernicious falsehood about President Barack Obama's place of birth to the bizarre and fanatical fable about the size of inauguration crowds, to the introduction of the term ``alternative facts'' into the American lexicon, the party's steady embrace of dishonesty as a central premise has brought us to this low and dangerous place. I don't know what will happen to Cheney politically after Wednesday. For me, I knew that I couldn't support Trump's election or reelection after his seminal falsehood about Obama's birth certificate, to say nothing of the cascade of untruths, from the trivial to the consequential, that followed daily. I had hoped that, over time, my Republican constituents would feel differently about the former president, or at least value a Republican who pushed back, and that I could stand for reelection in 2018 with a reasonable chance of surviving a Republican primary. It soon became apparent that Republican voters wanted someone who was all in with a president that I increasingly saw as a danger to the republic. That could not be me, so I spoke out instead and didn't stand for reelection. When I became an unwitting dissident in my party by speaking in defense of self-evident truths, I assumed that more and more of my colleagues would follow me. I remain astonished that so few did. Congresswoman Cheney, I know how alone you must be feeling. But just know that history keeps the score, not Kevin McCarthy or Elise Stefanik. In January 2018, three years before the Capitol insurrection, I said the following on the Senate floor: ``Mr. President, let us be clear. The impulses underlying the dissemination of such untruths are not benign. They have the effect of eroding trust in our vital institutions and conditioning the public to no longer trust them. The destructive effect of this kind of behavior on our democracy cannot be overstated.'' Three years later, it's clear that I didn't know the half of it. The destructive effect of the president's behavior-- and the willingness of Republican elected officials to indulge, excuse, defend, justify and, in many cases, just roll with it--has taken a devastating toll. It is elementary to have to say this, but we did not become a great nation by believing or espousing nonsense, or by embracing lunacy. And if my party continues down this path, we will not be fit to govern. Cheney has proved her fitness, and today it seems that adherents to the ``big lie'' will cast her out. Hold your head high, congresswoman. Those of us who believe in American democracy and who live in objective reality are grateful that you have chosen to take a stand for truth--self-evident truth--regardless of the consequences.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 6 of House Resolution 380, I move to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 297, H.R. 433, H.R. 478, H.R. 586, H.R. 721, H.R. 768, H.R. 810, H.R. 1205, H.R. 1260, H.R. 1324, H.R. 1448, H.R. 1475, H.R. 1480, H.R. 2862, H.R. 2955, and H.R. 2981. The other suspension bills, either a vote was not requested or, alternatively, one bill, for which a problem has arisen, we have pulled that. Hopefully, we will consider that tomorrow under suspension.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate that we stand and speak on behalf of the law enforcement community of our country. As the former chief of the Orlando Police just said, it is because of them that we have law and order. Democracy cannot survive without law and order. So, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Demings) for leading this Special Order hour and for so many Democrats and Republicans participating. She is, as so many Americans now know, not only an outstanding Member of the Congress but also a former chief of police for the city of Orlando, Florida, and, I might say, a serious candidate considered by President Biden for Vice President of the United States. She is not the only one in our Caucus who has worked in law enforcement or overseen police departments as mayor, but certainly one of the most experienced. As we observe National Police Week this year, we do so at a time when we are engaged in a critical national conversation about justice in policing. Tonight, we want to make it clear: This important dialogue does not detract one iota from the deep and abiding respect that all of us--Democrats, Republicans, independents, Americans--have for the men and women who dedicate their careers in law enforcement to protecting their communities, their neighbors, their friends. I do not believe, I want to make it clear, in defunding police. That is neither my view nor my party's platform. Indeed, we honor law enforcement. Over the years, I have been proud to join my Democratic colleagues as a strong supporter of law enforcement and to raise awareness of the very serious dangers that police officers face while doing their jobs. Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson, in 1998, were slain, one in my office and one outside the door of my office. They were brave and good people who lost their lives defending the Capitol of the United States. In my State of Maryland and the Fifth District, I have worked closely with police chiefs, sheriffs, and departments to ensure that their needs are being met. Together, we have worked to make certain that the families of those who fell in the line of duty received the benefits, help, compassion, and appreciation they deserve. Every year--until it became virtual, and now I do it virtually--I have gone down to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial. 22,611 Americans, law enforcement officers, have lost their lives keeping the peace. Last year, Mr. Speaker, America lost 295 police officers in the line of duty. It is a dangerous duty, but it is a critical duty. Here in the Capitol, we will remember those who have given their lives to protect this institution, including Officer Chestnut, Detective Gibson, Officer Howard Liebengood, Officer William Evans, and, of course, Officer Brian Sicknick. The actions just laid out are ones that Congress, House Democrats, believe are important to protecting those who keep us safe every day. But I believe, Mr. Speaker, it is equally essential for the efficacy and safety of law enforcement to take positive and proactive steps to ensure accountability and rebuild trust in our departments. That is true of our institution, Mr. Speaker. When we hold accountable one of our Members, as we have done, it does not besmirch the rest of our Members. No one ought to simplify that one is like all. To do that, we must continue the important national conversations about justice in policing and rooting out racial bias that corrodes effective police work. The majority, Mr. Speaker, of principled police officers are among those most concerned about ensuring that those who cannot properly and responsibly carry out their work of policing are held accountable. That is why we passed the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. Congress has a responsibility to deal with this challenge not only for the sake of justice and public safety but also in order to help police departments better carry out their missions and to raise the respect and support they receive from the American public. Such a policy is not designed to defund police or to lessen the impact of the vital function that law enforcement officers perform. So, as we join in observing Police Week this year, let us remember all those 22,000-plus, those 295, the brave men and women protecting us and the peacefulness of our communities. Let us continue to support law enforcement by striving to help police officers and departments face this moment head-on and emerge stronger, safer, more trusted, and better equipped to keep all Americans safe.

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of this legislation. I want to just briefly respond to the remarks of the gentleman who preceded me about retrocession. Retrocession is an interesting idea that my Republican colleagues have. It has to do with the issue of two United States Senators. One could say that has to do with both sides of the aisle, two United States Senators. The history of adding States has been a history where focus is on those two United States Senators that would be added, and the party that wanted them and the party that didn't want them. But retrocession, frankly, is an interesting idea, except for the fact the gentleman talked about the Founding Fathers and James Madison and the Federalist Papers. One of the articles of debate was, if you had a State, i.e. Maryland, whose land, of course, the Federal city is located on--Virginia gave some, but they took it back--you would have a State surrounding the Federal enclave. No difference, except for it would be Maryland and not Washington, Douglass Commonwealth. So that argument limps. It fails because you are suggesting the same thing that some have said is of concern to them. So the only difference is two Senators. So this is about politics. Throughout history people have guessed as to what the new States are going to be. Now some knew absolutely. We have North and South Dakota. I don't know whether any of you know why we have North and South Dakota; two Senators versus four Senators. And the Republicans who were in charge wanted to have four Senators to assure their majority in the Senate as opposed to the Democrats in the South. Ironic how things change. So if you are voting on politics, I get it. But on principle, Nevada was added and taken from Utah, by the way, because the Republicans who were then in charge back in the day wanted to have two additional Senators. And they got them, with less than 10,000 people living in the area that was taken from Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado, and formed Nevada. So let's not get mired in these principled votes, because this is about two Senators. We get it. It is not about principle because there are over 700,000 people--712,000, to be exact, maybe more when we get the Census report--who are unequal citizens in America. I want to thank the incomparable Eleanor Holmes Norton for her hard work and tireless advocacy for so many years as the leader of this cause on behalf of equal rights for the citizens she represents without a vote. Why, are they lesser citizens? Is she a lesser Representative? Surely not. If a President of the United States, Republican or Democrat, asked somebody to come to the District of Columbia and work for the U.S. Government, bring your talents, your energy, and your focus to work for your country in Washington, D.C., but, oh, by the way, you have to give up your vote in the Congress of the United States through your Representative. In no other democracy are residents of the National Capital excluded from representation. None. Frankly, I think the Founders had no concept of how big this city would become, how vibrant it would become. None. Yet, nearly 700,000 Americans are denied full representation. The Founders of our Union of States set forth a simple process for the admission of new States to that Union. They believed, the 13 of them, that adding new States would be positive for the country and that they would want people represented in the territories in the Congress when they became States and qualified to be such. They saw that process of expansion as both healthy and workable, and they believed that it would strengthen our democracy. Through the years, however, the admission of new States has been a very contentious process on both sides of the aisle. And there was a time in our history in the latter half of the 19th century when Republicans affected the admission of a number of new States in order to increase the numbers in the Senate. They accomplished that objective in some respects. In one noteworthy example, which I have just mentioned, Nevada in 1864, less than 10,000 people. The criteria at that point in time, theoretically, was 60,000, but it was ignored. It was ignored. Two Senators. That is what this issue is about. Two Senators. It is not about whether, on a principled basis, we ought to give to 712,000 of our citizens the right to be equally represented in the Congress of the United States. No, if they live here, we ask them to give up that right. That same process, as I mentioned, was repeated in the admission of North and South Dakota. They had hardly any people living there. They could hardly qualify if you put all of the Dakota territory together. But what the Republicans did was--they were in charge at that point in time--they divided it, North and South Dakota. What happened? Two extra Senators. It wasn't about principle, about how many people, what the economic status was. It was about how many Senators. My friends across the aisle complain that this bill would lead to the election of two additional Democratic Senators. So what? Is that the criteria, the political judgment of the citizens of some entity seeking to become a State? There is nothing in the Constitution about that. Zero. It is the politics of it. I get it. But it is not the principle. I hope people vote on principle, that they believe that their fellow citizens who happen to live within this, what used to be a square, but a square minus that to the south of the Potomac. This legislation is very different than the acts that admitted those States in the 19th century. It is different because it is based on the demonstrable need to provide representation to hundreds of thousands of Americans who deserve to have their voices heard in our democracy. And they have determined they want to be a part. Our Founders were offended, indeed outraged that they were forced to pay taxes, but were afforded no representation in the body that set those taxes. Wouldn't all of us have been there at the Tea Party saying, ``You cannot tax us, England, without us having representation in the Parliament''? I am sure you have heard the argument from many people on this floor--I won't repeat them--about the level of taxation that is paid by the citizens of the District of Columbia. But they have no say in the level of those taxes which so outraged our Founders. Moreover, this legislation would end the unjust practice of treating D.C. residents differently than their fellow citizens in the 50 States when it comes to allocating resources or providing COVID-19 relief under the CARES Act last year. Mr. Speaker, when President Eisenhower--a Republican President, but not a very partisan President, unlike today, where we have seen a very partisan President, no longer there--addressed the question of admitting Hawaii as a State in the 1950s, he said the following--and by the way, I think all of you probably know that when Alaska and Hawaii were admitted not too far apart in time, Alaska was perceived to be a Democratic State and Hawaii was perceived to be a Republican State. So the assumption that somehow the District of Columbia will automatically elect two Democrats--which may be accurate, but it may not always be the case--the principle is what Eisenhower articulated, and he said this: You have an economy that is self-supporting. There is a large population, and I would like to see the case handled clearly and specifically on its merits. By that metric, Washington, D.C., earned its right to statehood a long time ago. And today, we can take a major step toward that goal when we pass this bill, which we passed last Congress as well. As to retrocession, again, I wonder if Nevada would like to be back to Utah or to Wyoming or to Colorado or whether Wyoming, that has 200,000 less citizens approximately than the District of Columbia, would like to be subsumed by one of the surrounding States because of the few numbers? Vermont as well, which was taken from another State, as was West Virginia, which was part of Virginia. I hope the Senate will then take up this bill when we pass it and consider the question of D.C. statehood on its merits, not on politics. Maybe that is too much to ask. This is not a partisan math problem or electoral prediction, which, as we have seen, may or may not come to pass. But on the merits alone, on the conviction that taxation without representation is not fair now as it was not fair in 1776, the people of this city, our Nation's Capital, deserve full and equal representation in Congress. Mr. Speaker, I hope that this bill will pass with bipartisan support. It is going to pass, but I hope we have some bipartisan support based upon the principle that every citizen in our country ought to enjoy the same representation in the Congress of the United States as every other citizen.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for her service. I thank Chairwoman Beatty and members of the Congressional Black Caucus for organizing this Special Order tonight. Madam Speaker, Alcee Hastings was a dear friend, a close friend, a wonderful supporter, adviser, counselor, a friend who will be greatly missed not only by me, but by so many with whom he served on both sides of the aisle. Madam Speaker, he and I served together in this House for 28 years, almost three decades. Over the course of that time, I came to know him very well. I visited his district. I know his wife. I saw his passion for public service, his sharp intellect and ability as a legislator, and his kindness and decency as a human being. Alcee was someone who held strong convictions, as all of us know, and he would impart those to you, and he fought hard for what he believed in. One of those convictions was that all people on this Earth deserve the same basic freedoms and access to democracy as Americans are privileged to enjoy. Madam Speaker, he and I served together on the U.S. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, and Alcee later served as its chairman, as I once did. He was the first African American to lead that body. And he was also honored, Madam Speaker, by legislators from 57 different nations when he was chosen as president of the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe's Parliamentary Assembly. The only American, the only African American, obviously, to have had that honor, and the only person of African descent to have that honor. Before the pandemic, Alcee traveled the world to promote democracy and human rights where they were newly enjoyed or not yet achieved. Wherever he went, he brought his deep commitment to constitutionalism, rule of law, equality, justice, and opportunity for all. In doing so, he was an excellent envoy of this House of Representatives, the people's House, and the democratic mission it embodies to the nations of the world. I want to take a moment to speak about a part of Alcee's life that shows his true character. It is no secret that Alcee faced difficult and painful rebuke earlier in his career. I am not going to go into the specifics. Most people know the outlines. But what stands out, Madam Speaker, for me and for others more than anything about what happened is that most people, after having been through such an experience, might have turned away from public service and harbored a debilitating anger and self-pity. Not our friend Alcee Hastings. He was determined to continue giving back and serving his State and his country. So he ran for Congress and received the imprimatur of his neighbors and friends and constituents as a person of great worth whom they wanted to represent them. He served his constituents faithfully and with great ability for 28 years and, indeed, prior to that as well. Those he served and those with whom he served are grateful that he made that choice. We are grateful that he persisted and persevered. And we are so fortunate, Madam Speaker, to have been blessed in our own lives by the wonderful life of service and contributions by Alcee Hastings. I join others in offering my condolences to his wife, Patricia; to his family; to his devoted staff; and to the communities of southern Florida he represented so skillfully in this House. Another Representative of southern Florida, my dear friend, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, will be relating from her personal experience serving with him from southern Florida the extraordinary impact that he had on Florida and that region. Madam Speaker, I spoke this morning at a memorial service led, again, by the Congressional Black Caucus for Alcee, and I related the story that a few days before his death, I had called Patricia and talked to her about how Alcee was doing, and she said: Not well. Two days later, I called her back. It was probably 7 o'clock, about this time, in the evening. I said: How are things? She said: Not good. I said: Can I talk to him? She said: I don't think he will understand you and I don't think he will be able to respond, but I will put the phone to his ear and you can say something to him. She did that, and I said a few words very briefly, and then I closed with the sentiment that I have today and that I had for most of the time that I had known him. I said to him: I love you, Alcee. I said this morning that I don't know whether he could hear or understand what I said at that point in time, but the good news for me is I knew that he knew that I loved him. He was a man of great worth, of great feelings, of great expectations, of great service, of great vision. I will miss Alcee, my friend. May Alcee's memory be a blessing and inspiration to us as we continue to work here in this institution that he loved and served so well.