Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 6 of House Resolution 330, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bills: H.R. 367, H.R. 370, H.R. 396, H.R. 397, H.R. 408, H.R. 490, H.R. 965, H.R. 1251, H.R. 1395, H.R. 1491, H.R. 1528, H.R. 1532, H.R. 1565, H.R. 1602, and H.R. 2523, and agree to H. Res. 124.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, first of all, I rise in strong support of this resolution. It makes in order that we will not discriminate against people based upon their religion or the State from which they come or the nation from which they come. It says not at our cost, but at their cost they have the right to consult counsel. That seems to me to be a basic premise in America. Then, thirdly, which we hear so much lamentation about, it gives to 700,000-plus people in the District of Columbia equal status with the 500,000 people in Wyoming. How terrible. Now, perhaps if my friends from the other side of the aisle, Madam Speaker, thought that there were going to be two Republican Senators elected, they would be for it. I say perhaps, but I believe there is no doubt about that. I am proud to be a strong supporter of that legislation, and I will tell my Republican friends who talk about human rights around the world so often--properly so--that Washington, D.C., is the only capital in the free world whose residents do not have a representative in the parliament of their country--the only one. There is no reason why the gentlewoman who sits in front of me, Eleanor Holmes Norton--who is an extraordinary American and an extraordinary patriot who serves her Nation so incredibly well and is elected by those 700,000 people--why she is less than we because Eleanor Holmes Norton cannot vote on final passage of a bill. Now, I did, as the majority leader, at least give her the respect and the respect to others who are representatives of their particular areas--Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands--the right to vote in the Committee of the Whole to let them know at least in that small way we wanted to give voice to the folks they represent. So I rise in strong support of this rule. We have passed these bills before. Republicans opposed them before, and they will oppose them again. I am not surprised. Madam Speaker, before I sit, however, I want to speak about another issue. We are expecting the Republican leader to offer a privileged resolution at the conclusion of the debate on this rule. I am disappointed at that news. His resolution is being used by Republicans to posit a moral equivalence between a comment by the gentlewoman from California about standing up for justice and peaceful protest and remarks by Representative Greene who directly threatened violence by retweeting a tweet. I understand it was not her words, but she retweeted those words which said that if you want to shut Pelosi up, a bullet to the head will accomplish that objective. She didn't say it. I want to make that clear. She retweeted a tweet that said that. Even more egregiously, it is being used to twist reality to suggest that somehow Congresswoman Waters' remark is as condemnable a remark as rhetoric that incites a violent attempt to overthrow the government of the United States on January 6, an action that Republicans refuse to condemn. There is no equivalence. Chairwoman Waters' remarks reflect the very profound anger and sense of hopelessness that she and so many others--myself included--feel when we see African Americans being killed during encounters with our law enforcement and their families not seeing justice. It is my understanding we are going to get a ruling almost perhaps any minute. We will see. It is, however, irresponsible to take Chairwoman Waters' remarks out of context just to hold a gotcha partisan vote, particularly when no action was taken by her party regarding Mrs. Greene's remarks. It is, frankly, exploiting the pain of so many families and communities to turn Chairwoman Waters' concern for justice into a partisan cudgel. As my friend, the dearly departed Elijah Cummings used to say and would surely say now, ``We are better than this.'' So when the minority leader offers his motion, I will offer a motion to table and urge all my colleagues to support that motion. I urge all of my colleagues to pick up their dictionary, turn to the Cs, and look up confront. Confront is to face the facts. Confront is to face the truth. Confront is to face the challenges that we have, and that is what Ms. Waters urged. I would suggest to my friend, the minority leader, Madam Speaker, that if confrontation is subject to sanction, then we are going to have a lot of people on his side of the aisle who we believe are confrontational every day. Confront is not violence. Confront is not waving guns and some groups' biggest fear. Confront is not to say to be violent in confronting the facts, the truth, the opportunities, and the challenges, and, yes, the alternatives that we all take. So if one of us stands up and says that we need to confront this and we need to be confrontational and we need to get up in people's faces and say: This is the truth and we need to act and that would be subject to admonition, then I suggest to my friend, Madam Speaker, and my friends in this House, that we all confront. We came here to represent people and to confront their needs, to confront their fears, and to confront their wants. Now, yes, you could say, well, that is advocacy. Of course, it is. So I ask my friends not only to vote for this rule, but to vote for the motion to table my friend's motion that I anticipate. We could spend all our time here, Madam Speaker. We have been on this side of the aisle, as my friend, the leader knows, and we haven't had all the resolutions that have been introduced on my side of the aisle. This makes it harder, however, not to proceed on numerous resolutions on my side of the aisle. Let us table this resolution on behalf of this institution and every Member in it.

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield on the asylum issue?

Mr. HOYER. Does the gentleman believe we ought to obey America's laws on asylum?

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at noon for morning- hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes expected no earlier than 6:30 p.m. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate and 12 p.m. for legislative business. On Wednesday, the House will meet at 12 p.m. for legislative business. On Thursday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business, with last votes no later than 3 p.m. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business today. In addition, Madam Speaker, we will consider bills relating to justice and civil rights: H.R. 1333, the NO BAN Act, which prevents origin-based discrimination against those seeking to visit our country to do business, see family, or engage in tourism, rejecting the previous administration's policy of banning arrivals from predominantly Muslim countries; H.R. 1573, the Access to Counsel Act, which reaffirms key American principles of justice with regard to immigrants' rights to counsel during status hearings; and then lastly, H.R. 51, standing for the 51st State. H.R. 51 is the Washington, D.C. Admission Act, to admit the District of Columbia as a State and provide equal representation in Congress for its residents. That will be our schedule for the week to come. The following 2 weeks in April will be our committee workweeks so that the committees can produce additional product for consideration on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Mr. HOYER. I have not had a discussion with Mr. Nadler, but as the gentleman knows, we have a lot of work to do on the floor of the House of Representatives, and we intend to get that work done. We have not considered bringing to the floor the bill to which the gentleman refers. Did the gentleman in his research find any instances in any authoritarian country where they refused to consider a constitutional appointee to their Supreme Court that the President, with 10 months on his term, sent down to the United States Senate or some other body in those countries?

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I don't know about the Nadler bill, but I do know that the Constitution says nothing about the Senate's ability to simply refuse to consider an appointee of the President of the United States. I don't think the Founders had any concept that that would be the case when they gave the power of appointment to the President of the United States. And then when that occurred, when the present Attorney General was appointed to the Supreme Court, Mitch McConnell said, We are not going to consider it, ten months before the end of the term of a President of the United States. And then they said the reason being is because we have an election coming up in just a few months--in that case, it was 8 months--and the next President ought to appoint. Madam Speaker, that deep principle enunciated by Mr. McConnell, by Mr. Graham, and others--who was the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, that deep principle was abandoned immediately when it became politically pragmatic for the Republican Party to do so and steal a Supreme Court justice. So he can talk about socialism all he wants. What a distraction that is. A failure to want to discuss on the merits of the issues. So what do they do, Madam Speaker? They talk about socialism or communism or dictatorship, none of which we have in the United States of America. Now, we just lost a President of the United States that, in my experience--and I have served with many Presidents of the United States--was the most authoritarian-seeking President with whom I have served. Madam Speaker, so I tell my friend that we are going to focus on issues important to the American people. We want to pass a jobs bill to make sure that America is competitive in the 21st century. We want to pass a jobs bill to make sure that families have good-paying jobs that they can support themselves and their families. We want to support bills that build America back better. I want an America that makes sure that everybody can ``make it in America,'' not only manufacture it in America but make it in America. That is what we are going to be focused on. Madam Speaker, we hope that the debate is on the merits of those proposals, not some aspersion of some ideological tinge that they may think their supporters regale at.

Mr. HOYER. The gentleman refers to Communist China, apparently wants to follow that example. A communist authoritarian government that owns most of the manufacturing capability in China--not all of it. It is ironic that in two different debates in less than 5 minutes that the gentleman would point to China as the example of what perhaps we ought to do, when their tax policy is approximately 100 percent, except what they want to allow their citizens to have. Madam Speaker, let me just close on that point with: The Supreme Court has been packed.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, we have a situation that is heart-wrenching and unacceptable. And it must be dealt with. In part, this situation comes because of the draconian policies of the previous administration. It comes also because Republicans have refused, in both Houses, to come to agreement on a comprehensive immigration reform bill. So we have chaos as a result because our immigration system, as I believe almost every Member of your side of the aisle and every Member of my side of the aisle believes, is broken. Now, unfortunately, what we see in that picture is broken systems causing great danger, apprehension, and fear among many people who are fleeing to America for refuge. It has, of course, Lady Liberty at the head of the harbor, the Hudson River, raises her torch and says, ``That is what America is for.'' Now, having said that, this situation is unacceptable. It is unacceptable for humanitarian reasons. It is unacceptable for the safety of not only those people that are in that picture, but for American citizens as well. Madam Speaker, now it is my understanding that the CDC's existing pandemic public health order for closed borders is, in fact, being followed. In Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, California, unaccompanied children crossing the border are tested--are tested--by the Department of Health and Human Services. The migrants entering ICE facilities are tested, and they are quarantined if they test positive. So protections are trying to be effective, and this administration is working very hard to ensure the safety of Americans and the safety of these many children who have come across the border. None of them have been taken out of the arms of their parents. None of them have been made orphans by this administration. I didn't hear the gentleman lamenting the fact that we had hundreds of children who had been taken out of the arms of their parents, and then they could not be found--that is, their parents. They could not be reunited with their parents. This is a challenge. It is not a partisan challenge. It is a challenge for America. It is a challenge for us all. This administration is working to try to come to a solution that is both humanitarian and effective. I am hopeful that they will proceed in accomplishing that objective. The gentleman mentions the policies of the Trump administration, which substantially underfunded its own policies of trying to help the Northern Triangle countries. When I say help the triangle countries, unfortunately, the leadership of those countries, in too many instances, is not trying to help itself. So, we see panicked people fleeing. Madam Speaker, I don't know whether the gentleman from Louisiana, my friend, Mr. Scalise, saw the pictures of two children being dropped over the fence--by the way, that very large fence, billions of dollars of fence. Smugglers dropped two children over the fence. That is how secure it was. The tragedy of those children being dropped over that fence alone, I don't care where they are from or who they are, but my faith teaches me that they may be strangers, but they are brothers and sisters. In that context, we need to come to grips, and I am hopeful that the gentleman will support the administration's desire to get a comprehensive immigration bill adopted in this Congress. In 2013, the Senate passed, Madam Speaker, a bill which was supported by Democrats and Republicans, 14 Republican Members of the United States Senate. We pleaded with the Republican leadership to bring that bill to the floor. They will say they brought a bill to the floor, and they did bring a bill to the floor, and almost nobody thought it was effective in accomplishing the objective of having an immigration system that would work. So, I tell the gentleman, the pictures that he is displaying ought to concern us all deeply. We ought to urge all of our colleagues to cooperate and work toward making sure that we don't have scenes like that and that we have the ability to deal with this surge at the border in a humane way. But no one in the previous administration can wash their hands of the responsibility of creating a situation which--the gentleman says Mexico is adjudged to be one of the most dangerous nations on Earth for COVID- 19. The previous administration said to people trying to seek solace and health and safety: Stay. Stay in the most dangerous nation on Earth for COVID-19. I don't know whether that is a very humane policy. That is not a sanctuary for people who are in dire straits. We said ``no'' to some people who came here from Germany. We said, no, you can't come in. Many of them returned in the 1930s and early 1940s and were slaughtered. They came here for sanctuary and found none. That doesn't mean we can take everybody, but it does mean that we need to deal with it in a humanitarian way, in a way that honors our values and honors these people as our fellow human beings. So, I tell the gentleman, in conclusion, that these are sad scenes, and we need to respond to them in a humanitarian way, but also a smart way. We need to respond to the cause as well as the effect.

Mr. HOYER. Donald Trump didn't fix the problem; he delayed the problem. That is what happened. That is what those pictures reflect. He didn't fix the problem. He would say to those kids: Get out of here. Go back to Mexico. Maybe you have a parent there, maybe you have somebody who will take care of you, but get out of here. That was one way to ``solve'' the problem, I presume. Those kids didn't go away. The fear that they have for being home didn't go away. Now, I have said, Madam Speaker, this is something that we all need to deal with from a compassionate standpoint, from a legal standpoint, and from a human standpoint, which I guess is redundant to ``compassionate.'' But the fact of the matter is that President Trump did not solve this problem; he simply delayed it. When he left, the pressure was so great because they did not believe that this President would simply throw them to the wolves, take them from their parents, treat them as refuse. We need to deal with this, and, hopefully, we will. Hopefully we will get comprehensive immigration reform. I will say again that one of the reasons that we have the problem of not adjudicating these people quickly is because we don't have enough judges. And the reason we don't have enough judges, which were included both in the 2013 bill and the subsequent reform bills, is because we haven't passed bills to provide the judges on the theory that if we don't provide the judges, then we won't be able to approve asylum and people won't be able to get in. Madam Speaker, I am at the end of this circuitous argument.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia, the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee for yielding, and I thank him for his untiring work. ``No employer . . . shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex, by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex.'' That was passed by the Congress of the United States, signed by the President of the United States in 1963. A half a century later, Mr. Speaker, the figures belie that promise. The figures are a shameful recognition of the emptiness of that promise. Now, I know the gentlewoman from North Carolina, not well, but well enough. We have served here together for some period of time. I hope she will take this with a measure of positivity. She is a feisty lady. She stands up for what she believes. And she is tough. All those things are said lovingly. God help us if they paid her less than they paid every male Member of this House. But we don't. We pay everybody the same, except, I will admit, the Speaker and myself, so perhaps I am not quite as detached. But everybody else gets the same. A person who comes in the first day gets paid as much as a person who has been here 40 years like me. Why? Because it is the responsibility and duties that we perform that are being compensated, not our gender. Now, in this bill and every other bill that has dealt with equal pay--however, let there be no mistake, clearly, I pay people in my office who have been there for 10 years more than I pay people that have been there a year if they are doing the same thing. Period. Experience counts. As a lawyer when I ran my law office, I paid people differently based upon their experience, their education, and other differentials, but not on the basis of gender. And like the gentleman who spoke before me, I have one more daughter than he has; he has two daughters, I have three daughters. Mr. Speaker, they would not be happy today if their dad came to this floor and voted against this bill, I will tell you that. I don't know about the gentleman's daughters, but I can tell you where my daughters would be. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to bring the Paycheck Fairness Act to the floor, as I did last Congress. The legislation is a critical part of Democrats' effort to close the gender pay gap and ensure that women earn equal pay for equal work. Lilly Ledbetter did not get equal pay for equal work. Period. Unfortunately, she was prevented by the Supreme Court from making her case. We corrected that. The House passed a bill in 2019, but the Republican-controlled Senate failed to do the same, a bill just like this. That was very disappointing, not only to those of us who have been working hard to close the gender pay gap in Congress, but more so to the tens of millions of people in the workforce who deserve to take home pay they have earned. This is not a gift. This is compensation based upon ability and contribution, not on gender. In America today, a woman still earns on average just 82 cents to every dollar earned by a man. Mr. Chairman, has that been disputed on this floor? From women of color it is even worse. African-American women earn on average only 63 cents to the dollar, while Latinas see 55 cents for the same work. For women who work full time, year-round, the gender pay gap represents a loss of more than, as the Speaker just said, $400,000. That ought to be unacceptable to all of us if we believe in equality. This disparity does not only hurt women, it disadvantages their entire families, with women's pay critical to household incomes. Two-thirds of women are now either the primary breadwinner or co- breadwinner of their households, and women's earnings are the main source of income in more than 4 in 10 households, 40 percent. Now, the gentlewoman from North Carolina knows full well that historically we have underpaid women because we thought men were the breadwinners. They were the people who earned the money. They were the people who needed money so they could support their families. That is not true today, if it was ever true. Those households ought not to be disadvantaged because women are paid less for the same work as their male counterparts. I mentioned in 1963 the promise we made as a Nation. In 2009, when I was majority leader for the first time, I was proud to bring the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to the floor and get it passed. I congratulate Rosa DeLauro who is on the floor today, Mr. Speaker. She has been indefatigable and focused and untiring--I suppose that is redundant--in her efforts to ensure that women were treated equally. And one of the best ways to treat people equally is pay them the same thing for the same job. The Paycheck Fairness Act builds on its success by making it harder for businesses to hide the underpayment of women in their employ through nondisclosure contracts and imposing new civil penalties for those who violate equal pay rules, among other beneficial provisions. Now, this has been in effect for half a century, and we haven't gotten there. Do we need some, yeah, let's get it done, this is what the law said in 1963? And we really meant it. So let's carry that out so when the bipartisan, nonpartisan reports are made as to who is making what for the same job, it will come back men and women are getting the same pay for the same job with the same skills and the same seniority. I hope the Senate will take up this long overdue legislation and pass it so President Biden can sign it into law and at long last make good on the promise of the Equal Pay Act nearly six decades ago. I thank my friend, as I just did, Rosa DeLauro for the work she has done. I thank Ms. DeLauro on behalf of Susan, on behalf of Stefany, on behalf of Anne, my daughters, on behalf of Judy and Ava and Brooklyn and Savannah, my three great granddaughters and my granddaughter. What she has done, what we can do will make a difference for them, their families, and our country.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, in March, the House passed legislation to award a Congressional Gold Medal to the men and women of the U.S. Capitol Police for their heroism on January 6 and for their daily efforts to protect the institutions of our democracy. On April 3, once again, we saw an example, of not only the dangers in which they place themselves through their service, but also the courage they bring to that service. In the short span of fewer than 100 days, the U.S. Capitol force lost three members as a result of attacks on the Capitol complex. Yesterday, we honored one of those Capitol policemen, Billy Evans. But in a real sense, we honored every member of the United States Capitol Police. Some years ago, I lost a member of the Capitol Police who lived in my district, J.J. Chestnut. Wendy, his wife, was at the ceremony yesterday for Billy Evans. That was in 1998. He and Officer Gibson lost their lives in defending this Capitol on that date. And while a Congressional Gold Medal is a very fitting tribute, it can neither lessen the grief felt by their fellow officers nor reduce the sense of unease that so many of them must still be feeling today. Mr. Speaker, this has been a challenging time for the Congress and for all of us, but it certainly has been a time of challenge for the Capitol Police force. And surely the force will be going through a period of change and adaptation for some time to come, as will all of us who serve here in the Capitol complex. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a moment on this floor to say thank you for those who still stand watch at the doors and the vehicle barriers, who patrol the neighborhoods and the office buildings, who sit ready to respond quickly and courageously to any emergency, never knowing what the next alarm might bring. Mr. Speaker, in particular, I thank the men and women who have served on the security detail that the Capitol Police have assigned to me in my role as majority leader. You get to know them as friends, as protectors, and as family. Since being elected to House leadership, I have been privileged to know some of the best of the force. They are representative of an extraordinary group of people. In order to protect their safety and privacy, I will not share their names, but they know who they are. Each and every one of them not only have my immense gratitude and respect, but they have the admiration of my entire staff, whom they have gotten to know very well. Mr. Speaker, again, as I know them, I know that they are representative of an extraordinary group of people that we call the United States Capitol Police. On January 6, when the rioters first breached the Capitol's defenses, these officers acted without delay, according to their training, to get me quickly to a safe location, but they couldn't get everybody. And so many were still in this Chamber as the insurrectionists cried for the lives of Members of Congress. Capitol Police checked in with staff and did their best to get us information in a situation that was chaotic and rapidly changing for us, but more importantly, for them on the front lines. My security detail until the last Congress had been led by an officer, who now serves in the force in a more senior capacity. He was by my side almost every day for nearly two decades. I came to know him and his family well, just as I have other members of my detail. As I said, they are like family to all of us in the majority leader's office. I know that is true of the minority leader's office and the whip's office and the Speaker's office and the Democratic whip's office, and our Senate counterparts. The senior officer on my detail formerly was present at the Capitol on January 6, and he acted heroically, and he was the one that tried to save the life of the woman who was shot--who was an insurrectionist-- because he stood next to her, unarmed, when that incident occurred. He acted heroically in trying to keep the rioters away from the House Chamber and in responding when one of them was shot in the hallway, as I just pointed out. I know that the events of that day still weigh very heavily on him and on each of us--on his colleagues, on all of us. And I hope that he and his colleagues know that their grief weighs heavily on all of us whom they protect and serve. President Joseph Biden, in speaking yesterday to the family of Officer Evans, showed empathy. He showed that he felt their pain, their concerns, their trauma. And I would urge all my colleagues, when you see members of the United States Capitol Police, uniformed or in plain clothes, that you thank them. Mr. Speaker, I talked about Officer Chestnut. Wendy, his wife, as I said, was here yesterday. He was shot in the back by the assailant, who then shot Officer Gibson in the office that I now occupy. It was Tom DeLay's office at that point in time. Mr. Speaker, we thank them, we honor them, but the way we really need to respond to them is to make sure they have the resources, the training, the equipment, and the authority to respond to those who confront them with violence and fatal force. We lost Officer Sicknick. This Capitol was invaded because there were restraints, frankly, on the United States Capitol Police. We need to make sure that they have the authority to respond, to protect this Capitol, this democracy, our Members, our staff, the visitors to this Capitol, but also, importantly, themselves. We know that this is a difficult moment and the Capitol Police force is facing challenges like never before in its 193-year history. In the early 1960s, I worked here as an intern in a United States Senator's office, and I had a number of friends who also were in law school or some other school, who were ``Capitol cops'' we called them. Thankfully, the risks were minimal. That is not true today. And as the risks are great, we must respond robustly to ensure that we have the capacity and the will to meet those risks. Mr. Speaker, may God bless and protect our U.S. Capitol Police officers.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, let us remember that the United States Senate in 2013, with 14 Republicans and the balance of Democrats, well over 60 people, voted for comprehensive immigration reform, as I recall, and, perhaps the chairman can correct me, I believe $47 billion for security. Maybe the staff can shake their head if that was the right number. It was a very substantial number; it might not be the exact number. On this side of the aisle, we pleaded with the majority to bring a comprehensive immigration bill to the floor. They were in charge. They could have brought whatever security that they wanted. They could have brought comprehensive immigration reform to the floor. The bills that were brought to the floor bore no relationship, with all due respect, to the Senate-passed bipartisan bill, so we did not achieve comprehensive immigration reform. There was no conference; there was no back-and-forth; and there was no response to that bipartisan bill. So, I tell my friend from Texas, yes, there is a problem. There is a problem in trafficking, and we need to deal with it. But I also tell this House that what it ought to know is that the immigration system is broken. I wait for somebody to arise and say: No, it is fine. Nobody believes it is fine, Mr. Speaker. These bills are not comprehensive immigration reform, but they are supported by the American people because they know that Dreamers, TPS, and DED are adding to this country's value. Mr. Speaker, for 135 years, America's bright beacon to the world has been that statue that stands in New York Harbor. It lifts her lamp beside the golden door for those who are yearning to breathe free. My father came through that door. He was 32 years of age in 1934. He came from Denmark. He came for the reason most come, not fleeing, however, from a dangerous land, as some are now doing, but looking for opportunity and a better life. They have come throughout our history from every corner of the world, braving hardship and seeking opportunity, arriving here to build businesses, raise families, and contribute to strengthening communities. Dreamers have done that. They did not come at their insistence. They came at their parents' insistence or somebody else's insistence, but they are here, and they know America as their home. Immigrants are a reason why America became the world's most powerful and most prosperous country. For years now, however, our immigration and visa system has been terribly broken, so much so that millions in this country live in fear, holding their breath every day that they could be deported to faraway lands that are not their homes because America is their home. For Dreamers, it has been their home since their earliest days. And, today, this House is going to take action, as we did last Congress, to help them breathe easier. The minority leader and I were meeting at the White House some years ago, and then-President Trump said: If you send me a Dreamers bill, I will sign it. Well, we never sent it. The minority leader and I negotiated, along with others--the administration and Senator Durbin, the minority leader, and Senator Cornyn. We didn't get there, sadly. This bill will correct a wrong that has brought fear and uncertainty to so many Americans. Yes, Americans. America is their home and their country. We are talking about patriotic and law-abiding residents, many of whom have been here for decades and are working to build a strong community and serving on the front lines of this pandemic as healthcare professionals, first responders, and essential workers. We owe them the chance to live without fear of deportation and family separation. There are other problems we ought to talk about and we have talked about. But, certainly, these Dreamers and those with TPS who have been here for a long period of time, and DED, this bill is just for them. When I say ``just,'' I don't mean solely. I mean justice. We passed the American Dream and Promise Act last Congress with bipartisan support, and I hope we can do the same today. I want to thank Representative Roybal-Allard for her leadership on H.R. 6, and all of those in the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and yourself, Mr. Speaker, for the extraordinary work you have done. We are also voting, of course, today on another immigration bill this week, H.R. 1603, the Farm Workforce Modernization Act. I rise in support of that as well. This legislation, offered by Chairwoman Lofgren, provides a pathway to permanent legal residency to undocumented agricultural workers and their families who are living here and filling a critical economic need from which we benefit, every one of us, every day; and that is the food on our table. Without that change, workers and their employers will continue to operate under a cloud of uncertainty and instability. These reforms are long overdue, and I want to thank Chairwoman Lofgren for her work to bring them to the floor. I hope, as part of broader immigration reform efforts, that we can address the status of seasonal non-agricultural workers on H-2B, who contribute so much to our economy and communities working in landscaping, hospitality, and, in my own State of Maryland, the crab industry. After the House passes this legislation and H.R. 6, I hope the Senate will move quickly to send them to President Biden for his signature. The Dream and Promise Act, some 75 percent of Americans are for that. We have been passing legislation that an overwhelming majority of Americans are for, and somehow, the Senate didn't get it or didn't care. Hopefully, this year they will. If enacted, these two bills would provide a pathway to permanent legal status for some 3 million to 4 million people. They are here. They are among us. They help us. They work with us. They pay taxes. Let's bring them out from under the cloud of being kicked out. This legislation today is a major achievement and will hasten the moment when 3 million to 4 million immigrants and their families can breathe a little easier, a little freer, knowing they are welcomed and valued here in America, that they are truly a part of this country. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support both of these pieces of legislation.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I rise to join her in recognizing and thanking Latrice Powell for the extraordinary service that she has given to this institution. Members from both sides of the aisle have come to know and respect Latrice for her deep knowledge of floor procedure, her acumen, and her experience helping to manage the floor during very difficult votes and debate. Not only has she served the Speaker as her deputy floor director, Latrice previously helped run the Democratic Cloakroom, as was pointed out, and before that was director of operations for Member services for the Congressional Black Caucus as well as a staff member for the gentleman from Mississippi, our Speaker pro tempore, Mr. Bennie Thompson. That is a very distinguished record of service to this House and to our country. Now, I would be remiss if I did not observe that Latrice Powell is a graduate of the University of Maryland, and is a proud Terp. What a wonderful and distinguished academic institution she has graduated from. She also holds a master's degree in counseling and psychology from Bowie State University. What is significant about the University of Maryland and Bowie State University? They are in my district, so, Mr. Speaker, you know what extraordinary institutions they are. Today, Latrice lives in Upper Marlboro. Whose district do you think that is, Mr. Speaker? Just take a wild guess. The Fifth Congressional District of Maryland that I have had the proud privilege of serving for the last four decades. Sadly, Latrice will shortly be leaving the House. You have heard me say this about other of our staff: The American people have no idea how talented our staff is and how hardworking, how patriotic, and how committed they are to this country and to this institution. I would hope that all of us would, on a regular basis, tell them. Latrice is an extraordinary person, but she is representative of those who work with us. That is the great truth and great privilege that we have as Members of this House serving with such extraordinary people who serve this institution. They serve us, and they serve this country so well. I know that feeling all too well, having just said good-bye to my floor director, Shuwanza Goff. All of you know Shuwanza. She is now serving the President of the United States of America. She, too, was a historic first on this floor. I hope that all the Members will join me on both sides of the aisle. For the most part, this staff is serving this House and this institution, not a party and not a philosophy, but serving an institution that we have so proudly call the people's House. Bill Natcher from Kentucky was the chairman of the Appropriations Committee on which Nancy and I both served. He used to say, when he brought his bill to the floor: This is the people's bill in the people's House. How proud we are that nobody can appoint us to this institution; we have to be elected to the House of Representatives. Latrice, you have served all of us so very, very well. We love you, and we wish you the very best in the days ahead. God bless you, and Godspeed. We love you.

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Madam Speaker, as we celebrate Women's History Month, we do so with an awareness that so much work in the fight for equality remains. Much has been accomplished, but much remains to be done. This is one of those. That is what the House is focusing on this week, women's equality, women's safety and justice, and women's opportunity. I am proud that we are taking action to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act within the first 3 months of the new Congress. I was a cosponsor--and proud of it--of the original 1994 Violence Against Women Act. We passed the original VAWA on a bipartisan basis and reauthorized it with bipartisan support in 2000 and again in 2005. Those were overwhelming votes of 371-1 and 415-4. Now we are talking about the equal rights amendment, I understand. In 2013, we did it again on VAWA, 87 Republicans joining all 199 Democrats in the House vote. Every time we reauthorized the law, we made it stronger, ensuring protections for more women who were victimized by domestic abuse, stalking, and other crimes. Last Congress, our House Democratic majority passed a VAWA reauthorization that included these expanded protections, but Senate Republicans blocked it from consideration. Not that they offered an alternative, not that they said: This is a problem and we need to solve it. It has been bipartisan, so here is our view and we will go to conference on it. They simply blocked it. It is essential, Madam Speaker, that Congress take action with a long-term reauthorization of VAWA, made all the more critical by the rise in domestic violence we have seen during the COVID-19 pandemic and more people having to stay home; an epidemic of domestic violence. Let's send a message to the women and men of America that Congress will continue to do its part to root out domestic violence and abuse. I was just with Congresswoman Jackson Lee, the sponsor and the chair of the Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Subcommittee. Chairman Nadler is now speaking. I said then, as I say now: It is critical that we pass this legislation. I agree with President Biden, the author of the original 1994 Violence Against Women Act, that strengthening and renewing VAWA is long past due. Once we pass it in the House, I hope the Senate will send it quickly to President Biden to sign it into law. Madam Speaker, I am speaking on both VAWA, obviously, and the ERA, two very critically important pieces of legislation. Last year, Virginia became the 38th State to ratify the equal rights amendment. When I hear the opposition to the equal rights amendment, you would think that we were organizing to defeat women's rights. I think some of these speeches were written by Lewis Carroll. After Virginia passed and became the 38th State, the House passed a resolution to affirm that, with Virginia's action, the equal rights amendment had been duly added to our Constitution as the 28th Amendment. However, the Republican-led Senate refused to do the same. Now, with the Democratic-led Senate, I am hopeful that Congress can affirm the adoption of that amendment and provide strong, legal backing to those seeking to have it recognized by our courts as a full part of our Constitution. What little faith we demonstrate in the courts of the United States of America when it is going to be interpreted, according to some, as not affirming equal rights for women, but somehow undermining equal rights. That is why I say that I think these speeches were written by Lewis Carroll. The amendment simply states, as I am sure has been said: ``Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.'' How can that be misinterpreted to say somehow we are enunciating a proposition that would undermine rather than protect and lift up the rights of women? It is long overdue that we, as a Nation, affirm this truth: that all men and women are created equal. Not the same, quite obviously, but equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Madam Speaker, I have two granddaughters and I have three great- granddaughters. The late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg--the famous or, as she would say from time to time, the infamous RGB--said this: ``I would like to see my granddaughters, when they pick up the Constitution, to see that notion--that women and men are persons of equal stature--I'd like them to see that it is a basic principle of our society.'' Madam Speaker, that is what this amendment is about. It should have been passed two centuries ago, but it is never too late to do the right thing. And we can take a major step forward this week to make that happen by passing the bipartisan resolution offered by Representatives Jackie Speier and Tom Reed. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting both H.J. Res. 17 and the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. Both will articulate our concern for women, for mothers, for daughters, for sisters, for neighbors, for friends. We have a chance this week to send a message that Congress will not tolerate violence or discrimination against women, and we have an opportunity to mark this Women's History Month, not just with words, but with actions that mean something by making history in a very positive way, benefiting not only women, but our Nation as a whole. Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support these two very important pieces of legislation.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I have nothing to further to say, Madam Speaker.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, the House will meet at noon for morning- hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes expected no earlier than 6:30 p.m. On Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate and noon for legislative business. On Thursday, the House will meet at noon for legislative business. On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business, with the last votes no later than 3 p.m. Madam Speaker, we will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business Friday. In addition, we will consider two bills to honor Women's History Month, including the Violence Against Women Act. This legislation is essential to help stamp out domestic abuse, violence against women and girls, and sexual harassment, and to provide victims and survivors with the resources to recover and seek justice. In addition to that, the House will consider a resolution to remove the deadline for ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. The House will also consider two bills to address our broken immigration system. The first, H.R. 6, the American Dream and Promise Act, is to protect Dreamers and those with TPS and DED status. In addition, the Farm Workforce Modernization Act is to create a pathway for agricultural workers to earn legal status and to reform the H-2A program, a bill which enjoys broad bipartisan support. Additionally, the House will consider a bill to ensure that we preclude cuts to Medicare, as well as farm supports and other programs implicated by sequestration.

Mr. HOYER. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I agree with the Members, and I regret that we have had such a necessity on too many occasions to change the schedule. We did so, of course, to accommodate not only work done but also the very, very unusual start that we have had to this session, a tragic start that we have had to this session, dealing with issues that we would have preferred not to deal with, but we had to as a result of the insurrection that occurred on January 6, and other actions, including the security that the gentleman referred to. That concerns us all. As somebody who represents the Washington metropolitan region, the openness of our Capitol is of particular concern to me because my constituents all live within driving distance, an hour or less. So, I share the view. Madam Speaker, I want to assure Members that we are going to make every effort and that we are trying to now finalize. We already have April, May, June, and July as the schedule. I think that will not be changed in any dramatic fashion. But when we have the final, I hope to make sure that everybody, next week, before we leave here, knows what is going to happen in April, May, June, July, before the August break. Because I understand, when the schedule is changed, for whatever reasons, however justified they may be, it does disrupt. Although I heard some criticism last Wednesday that we didn't come in Thursday, no Member came up to me complaining that we didn't come in Thursday. I did hear some political rap about it, but I didn't hear any Members say, ``Oh, jeez, I really wanted to come in Thursday.'' That usually is the case. Madam Speaker, I want to remind the gentleman that we got all of our work done last week. All that was scheduled was done. I will assure the gentleman that we are working very hard so that, the next 4 months, Members can rely on it when they see on the calendar that they have to be here or they don't have to be here, or that we are going to consider this, that, and the other. We are going to try to hew very, very closely to that because I do appreciate that when you change the schedule, it is very disruptive for people's lives, for people's businesses, for our constituents.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I would tell the gentleman that would certainly be the ideal. There is no doubt about that. We would like to get to that position. We continue to consult the Capitol physician on his advice on what we ought to be doing. It would be a lot simpler if every Member had been vaccinated, I will tell my friend. Although, obviously, the information as to who gets a vaccination and who does not is privileged and private information, as it should be, I would ask my friend to urge his Members to get the vaccination so that both sides will know that all of our Members have been vaccinated. That will facilitate getting to where the gentleman wants to get and where, I share his view, I want to get and the Speaker wants to get. So, we will continue to talk about that. Although we have a regular schedule, it is not the old schedule. It is not the 15-minute vote or 17- or 20-minute vote that we had, which was much more efficient, as you may have seen me quoted in the paper the other day about virtual, that we prefer to come together in this Chamber, in committee rooms, on this campus, to discuss with one another, to work with one another. We think that is the ideal, and we hope to get there as soon as possible. We are making progress, obviously. We are getting a lot of Americans vaccinated. We are not anywhere close to the 75 percent yet, but, hopefully, we will be there soon. I would think and hope we could get to 100 percent of Members and make sure that our staff is vaccinated as well. The sooner we do that, the sooner we can accomplish what the gentleman wants to accomplish.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. Let me make a few comments. First of all, the gentleman mentioned about the White House and the President. I am going down with the President, who is going to sign the American Rescue Plan tomorrow, an extraordinary piece of legislation that we are very excited about and that is going to help literally millions and millions of Americans and our entire economy, our families, and our children. So we are very excited about that. I was required to have a test. Now, I have had two shots, but I was required to have a test this morning by the Capitol physician before I went down to the White House. The gentleman says that you don't wear a mask, but one has to have a test before one gets into the room. Now, with respect to the 100 percent, I think we ought to have 100 percent. I think everybody in this body and every one of our staff ought to have the vaccine to make sure that we are safe and that others who deal with us are safe. The CDC guidelines, by the way, recommend that people be vaccinated but that they avoid medium and large crowds. Now, depending upon what the gentleman says, Madam Speaker, if you have 300 people on this floor, that is a reasonably good-sized crowd, and we are in great proximity to one another because of the size of this Chamber. The CDC also says--the Senate has not listened to the CDC. The CDC says wear masks. So in terms of the gentleman's suggestion about the CDC changing its rules, that is true, but they haven't changed their rule on masks. They say wear a mask and try not to congregate in large crowds. However, having said that, we want to get to the same objective that the gentleman references, and we are working towards that with the consideration of the safety of our staff, the safety of our Members, and the safety of security folks. We hope to get there sooner rather than later, and we are working on it.

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