Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, everybody in America wants to get back to normal. Everybody in America. We agree with them, and we are hopeful that we will get there sooner rather than later, and we are making good progress. We just, yesterday, invested a large number, billions of dollars, to facilitate getting to where we want to be. And Americans want to be in testing, vaccination, and tracing. So I don't want to have anybody think we are in disagreement. We want to get there. We want to get there safely. We want to get there consistent with good health practices and the advice of the scientists and the physicians who treat us. But we are talking about it as we were here this week, and we are going to be talking about it next week because we all want to get to the same place.

Mr. HOYER. The gentleman was here in 2017, of course. There was a bill that approximated the size of this bill. It was about $1.5 trillion, $1.6 trillion. This is a little more--substantially a little more, $300 billion, $400 billion, but in the same ballpark. There were no hearings on that bill. There were no amendments on that bill. It came to the floor, and there were no amendments to that bill. None. Zero. Now, of course, 83 percent of that bill went to the top 1 percent of Americans. This bill was just about the opposite; 85 to 90 percent go to probably the bottom two-fifths in terms of income level and wealth. Hundreds of amendments were offered, as the committees marked up their instructions from the Budget Committee. Hundreds. Amendments were, of course, offered in the Senate, as well. As my friend knows, they had their vote-a-rama; they met for over 24 hours. To indicate that this bill did not have a robust committee process in which Republicans and Democrats could offer amendments and have them adopted, I think, is not accurate, with all due respect, Madam Speaker. Furthermore, this bill enjoyed the overwhelming support of the American people. Madam Speaker, 77 percent of Americans--59 percent of Republicans in the Morning Consult poll, 67 percent of Americans supporting the minimum wage, which was rejected, of course, by the parliamentarian in the Senate; 83 percent of Americans supporting H.R. 1, one of the bills that passed; 89 percent supporting comprehensive background checks, which passed today; 72 percent of Americans supporting equal protections for LGBTQ Americans. The point I am making is, A, the bill to which my friend refers, the American Rescue Plan, had very substantial consideration over days. The Ways and Means markup took 2 days and many amendments offered. So from the standpoint of the public's knowing what was going on, I would suggest to my friend that that was very much greater than when the tax bill--about the same--in the same range of, in that case, $1.5 trillion with interest approaching the $1.9 trillion. So we think, very frankly, that there has been a lot of discussion on that bill. One of the things, Madam Speaker, that concerned me the most was we worked in a bipartisan fashion on six prior bills. One passed on voice vote, the CARES Act, on the floor. Others passed with well over 150 Republicans and well over 150 Democrats--more than that, but well over 300 votes. They were all bipartisan. They were negotiated with the administration--the Trump administration. The CARES Act, Madam Speaker, was about exactly the same amount of dollars, and it passed on a voice vote here. What was the difference? Trump was President. That was the difference in all five. And it had been negotiated with him--or the Secretary of the Treasury, to be more accurate. But substantively there was very little difference in terms of the broad nature of their impact, the dollar value of the bills, and the diversity of their objectives. To that extent, they were very much like this bill. But, Madam Speaker, what was the difference? The same thing that was the difference when we did the Recovery Act in `09. The gentleman was here. He was elected in `08. He came here and he voted ``no'' on the Recovery Act. Every Republican voted ``no'' on the Recovery Act--$787 billion. In my view, it kept us out of a depression. But that was not my view alone. It was Bernanke's view and it was the Secretary of the Treasury's view. So we see the same thing happen again. We went from bipartisan to partisan votes. I, frankly, Madam Speaker, find it hard to believe that there wasn't a single Republican who thought the investments in opening up schools-- some people say, well, you open up schools, that is the big cry now. Yes, and we are doing something about it. They weren't open when we took over, but they are coming to be open. I think it is unfortunate, Madam Speaker, that some demean our teachers. I will tell you, Madam Speaker, I have four great- grandchildren. All but one, who is too young, were taught virtually for these many, many months. And my granddaughter, their mother, raves about their commitment of the teachers to those three children, and the work that they put in, day after day after day. So are they concerned about their own safety? Are they concerned about the safety of the children? Are they concerned about other children and children taking it home to their moms and dads or their grandparents? They are. So we need to be safe. But this bill, which all our Republican friends voted against, has substantial billions in there to make the schools safe so that people can go back with the confidence that they will be safe. So I would simply say to my friend and others that they have talked about openness. In the 115th Congress--that is the last Congress in which there was a Republican majority--there was not a single open rule, not one. In the 115th Congress, you had 103 closed rules. In the last Congress, which we were in charge, we had that number to less than 52, 51. Jim McGovern, the chairman of the Rules Committee, is very committed to trying to make amendments, including amendments on the Republican side, in order; and I have urged him to do that. So, hopefully, we will move forward in a way that continues to allow this House to operate effectively, and also give opportunity to your side and our side to raise issues.

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I don't think there is a socialist agenda on this floor, any more than I think there is a fascist agenda on this floor. And we hear socialist. When Gingrich was here it was liberals. Now it is socialists; trying to distract from substance, trying to inflame. It wasn't socialists that stormed the Capitol, and they weren't carrying Biden signs, they were carrying Trump signs. I am tired, Madam Speaker, of this socialist drivel. First of all, I think a lot of them don't have the faintest idea what socialism is versus dictatorship or authoritarian regimes. And the schools weren't reopened when we took over. Trump was President for 10 months. The gentleman apparently wants to say in this bill, open the schools no matter what. We don't care what your locals say. We don't care what your PTAs say. We don't care what your superintendents of schools say. Open the schools because we mandate it. I don't think that is what the gentleman, Madam Speaker, in the past has stood for, mandating what States do. Now maybe he thinks that we ought to take over the local education systems and tell them to open. We didn't do that. What we did was, however, gave them $130 billion, over time--he is right, not immediately--over time to spend to make those schools safe; make their ventilation systems safe for kids; make the accommodations in the schools safe for kids and teachers and parents who go there. So, Madam Speaker, we get distracted by these assertions of some sort of ideological patina that resonates with the right wing in America. And we can do that, or we can talk about substance. Yes, I mentioned Americans overwhelmingly said that the substance that we had in this bill was what they liked. So, I would hope the Republican whip would talk about the substance of these bills. We can have differences. But over and over, in the newspapers and on this floor, the socialist agenda resonates in your polls. It resonates in some of the districts; we saw that. It was not true. Social Security was called socialist when it was adopted; Medicare, as well; Medicaid certainly, socialist, efforts to try to lift people up. And when the gentleman tries to make an analogy to a bill that sent 83 percent of $1.5 trillion to the top 1 percent in America as being a bill to help the middle class, and working Americans, boy, that is a stretch, Madam Speaker. Now, I want to go back to the substance of what the gentleman has raised. We want to see us working together. I see my friend from Texas on the floor. He and I have had these discussions. It is a shame that we accuse one another of this epithet or that epithet and try to put one another in a corner. I lived through the Gingrich era, and that was almost the entire rhetoric that I heard from the floor all the time. But if we are going to do that, it is going to be because people really do want to work in a bipartisan fashion. There was discussion--I know for a fact, I was here, and I saw President Obama try to work in a bipartisan fashion on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Yes, he put his bill on the floor-- excuse me--not on the floor, he put it on the table. And I heard the meetings at the White House. I heard the meetings here when the Republicans said: Well, he didn't try to talk to us; he put this bill on the floor before he even talked to us. Not on the floor, on the table. I know because I was sitting there in the room when President Obama was trying to reach bipartisan agreement. Zero Republicans, three in the Senate, helped on the American Recovery Act, which kept us out of depression. And I wasn't surprised that we had zero on this reconciliation bill, and I wasn't surprised that it changed from the six votes previously, where Donald Trump said this bill is okay; I am going to sign it; because nothing could have become law without him signing it. And Republicans voted overwhelmingly, in most cases, for it. But now that we have a Democratic President, they have decided to return to the ``no'' votes that they cast on the Recovery Act, on the Affordable Care Act, which has helped millions and millions of people, and so many other pieces of legislation. I would urge, my friend, Madam Speaker, to, when we say we want to work in a bipartisan way, let's try to do it. It is worth doing.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, well, that is an interesting speech to follow. Mr. Massie was very energized. I haven't seen, of course, that which he submitted for the Record, but 90 percent of America thinks this bill makes sense, 90 percent. Take your own polls. Poll after poll after poll shows overwhelming support of this legislation because it is common sense. It is common sense that you want to assure the community that those who buy weapons that can be used with deadly force, as the gentleman just indicated, are not a danger to themselves or to others. Mr. Speaker, according to the database from the Associated Press, USA Today, and Northeastern University that tracks mass shootings, which they define as four or more victims, not including the shooter, 2020 was a standout year. After years of setting new records for mass shootings, 2019 had the highest number recorded, 33 mass shootings in one year. But in 2020, there were only two mass shootings: one in February and another in early March. Of course, Mr. Speaker, those numbers don't count the hundreds of shootings each year in which there are fewer than four victims, with tens of thousands killed or maimed by gun violence annually. The contrast in the number of mass shootings from 2019 to 2020 is stark. Mr. Speaker, I don't have to explain to my colleagues why mass shootings suddenly came to a halt last year, but it shouldn't take a deadly viral pandemic--which took us out of group meetings, which took us off the streets, which kept us at home--to stop a deadly epidemic of gun violence. With the arrival of vaccines and passage of President Biden's plan to help make it safe to reopen businesses and schools, we will soon be gathering in groups once more, but nobody wants to see a return to mass shootings, Mr. Speaker. Nobody wants to see a return to deadly school shootings that terrorize America's students. We shouldn't need a pandemic to reduce gun violence in this country. The way to do that ought to be through passing commonsense gun safety legislation through Congress to make it harder for deadly firearms to get into the hands of those who cannot bear them responsibly. That is what H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act, would do. Nine out of 10 Americans support the reforms in this bill. Now, I know I have seen some people, Mr. Speaker, shake their head, no, no, that is not the case. Show me a poll that has less than 80 percent of Americans thinking that terrorists should not be able to buy guns, that felons should not be able to buy guns, that domestic abusers should not buy guns, particularly in an accelerated way. You get mad at a partner, you get mad at a girlfriend, a boyfriend, whatever, go down to the store, boy, get a gun, bang. It is one thing to have a thoughtful purchase: I want to have a hunting gun; I want to have a handgun for target practice; I want a handgun for safety in my home, in my business, in my car. But if you are a person who has shown that you are not somebody who is a responsible person--sort of like driving a car, if you are not responsible, you are a reckless driver and you have been guilty of manslaughter by automobile or something of that nature--people have a right to know that what you do is going to be not a danger to them. This is one of the greatest examples of legislation that truly reflects the will of the American people. That is why I hope we can come together to pass it with bipartisan support. I don't know that that is going to be the case. But if it is not the case, it will not reflect the will of the American people who would like to see this on a bipartisan basis. Republicans and Democrats polled support this legislation. Now, if somebody wants to show me a poll that says, no, that is not the case, that is one thing, but I haven't seen a poll that doesn't reflect that. Just as I believe we ought to do this week with Representative Clyburn's bill as well, which could close the loophole that contributed to the reprehensible and racially motivated mass shooting at the Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina, in 2015. Nine people in church slain by somebody who got a gun; who, if the report had come back in a timely fashion, wouldn't have been able to get that gun. I hope that Senate Republicans will not filibuster this bill. At some point in time the majority ought to rule. Now, the Second Amendment correctly protects gun ownership. I don't have an argument with that. But the Supreme Court itself said that there could be responsible restraints and items for protection consistent with that amendment. That is what this bill does. I hope our friends will listen to the voices of parents, children, siblings, spouses, neighbors, and friends of those who were killed by gun violence in recent years; and I hope they will remember the names that bring tears to many eyes and pain in so many hearts. Parkland. Some believe Parkland didn't happen. They are wrong, of course. Sandy Hook; Charleston; Las Vegas; Orlando; Pittsburgh; Annapolis; San Bernardino; Washington Navy Yard, just a few blocks from here; Oak Creek; Tucson; Virginia Tech; and the list could go on and on and on. I say to the ladies and gentlemen of the House, let's not add more names to this register of grief. Let's not rely on a pandemic to do what we ought to have done so long ago. Let's pass these bills and reduce gun violence the right way, with our votes. Is this a perfect bill? Will it establish or accomplish the absolute safety? It will not, but what 90 percent of Americans say is that it is a step in the right direction. Mr. Speaker, let us take that step.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, some of us have been here for some period of time. Some of us have heard this debate before. My friend, Mr. Reed, from New York, opined, and others have opined, about how we passed a number of bipartisan bills, five to be exact. March 4, March 14, March 27, April 24, and then we had a hiatus, because the majority leader of the Senate said we ought to take a break and see what happens, and the minority leader of the House said the same thing. So we didn't take any action. Frankly, tens of thousands of people died-- hundreds of thousands of people died. Now, I point out that we have acted five times: 415-2, 363-40--a voice vote on the CARES Act, $2 trillion--388-5, and 359-53. Now, if you include the CASH Act, which we passed, because the President, i.e., Mr. Trump, said we needed more money for people, so we passed the bill and 44 Republicans voted for that one as well. Now, there is only one thing that has changed since we passed those first five bills. We now have a Democratic President and not a Republican President. That is the only thing that has changed. The need is there. The virus is still with us. The economy is struggling. But now we have a Democratic President, so I expect zero of you to vote for this. Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I expect zero Republicans to vote for this bill. Why do I expect that? Because I was here in 2009 when, under George Bush, we went into the deepest recession this country has seen since the Great Depression. Very frankly, Mr. Speaker, we passed two major pieces of legislation to deal with that recession. One was called TARP, the Troubled Asset Relief Program. A Republican President and Democrats passed that bill. Only a third, Mr. Speaker, of the Republicans would support President Bush. You can shake your head, but you look at the Record, that is the fact. That is the fact. Democrats supported the request of a Republican President because we thought it was in the best interests of the country and our people. And the only reason it passed this House is because Democrats, 172 of us, stood up with George Bush and voted for that program. And it was a bad vote for us. It was the right thing to do, but politically it was a bad vote. How sad, Mr. Speaker, I think it is that we passed five bipartisan votes with a Republican President. Now the President is different, and we don't want to give him any credit, so we are going to cut off the nose of the American people to spite the face of America. Mr. Speaker, the Democratic majority in the Senate has taken action, passing an amended version of the American Rescue Plan that this House approved on February 27. The version they sent us back reflects the same commitment demonstrated by this House to take the big and bold action demanded by the American people and overwhelmingly supported not just by Democrats, but by Republicans. The Republicans outside this House support this bill. Only the Republicans inside this House, unanimously apparently, oppose this bill while some 60 percent of the Republicans in America polled say, ``We are for this bill.'' But we have a Democratic President, I get it. President Biden's plan is reflected in this legislation. It says President Biden's plan, but this is our plan. This is a plan we built over a year of tough debate, long debate, substantive debate and discussion on both sides of the aisle, and in a bipartisan fashion passed those five bills. This bill is consistent with the measures we passed last year to confront the challenges to our public health and economic well-being. It achieves a number of critical goals: It puts vaccines into Americans' arms; it will put money in Americans' pockets; it will put children back in classrooms; it will put millions of Americans back to work and reopen businesses safely; and it will put at ease the frontline and essential workers who are in the public sector, like teachers, the first responders, by ensuring that State, local, Tribal, and territorial governments can keep them employed. Mr. Speaker, the American people overwhelmingly support this legislation, with more than three-quarters in favor of its enactment, according to a Morning Consult poll from March 3rd. I would like to see some of the NRCC polls because I think they give the same message. But, of course, maybe those people polled didn't realize there was a Democratic President. Heaven forbid that we vote for something that a Democratic President wants. Mr. Speaker, I put our party up to any kind of analysis in terms of our bipartisan support for Republican Presidents when we thought it was in the best interests of the country. Nearly 6 in 10 Republicans want to see this bill passed. Listen to your people. I am surprised that more of our Republican colleagues are not planning to vote for this legislation. I hope they will do so. I hope they will do so because I think it is in the best interests of our Nation, of our families, of our individuals, of our businesses, of our economy. I hope they will join Democrats in taking action to help the nearly 10 million Americans who are out of work compared to this time last year. We waited. This is what happened. I hope they will also join Democrats in voting to extend expanded unemployment insurance benefits that would otherwise lapse for more than 11 million families this weekend and to make good on our promise to send another round of $1,400 stimulus checks to most Americans. What are they going to do with that check? They are going to put it in the economy, and it is going to grow the economy and create jobs. And I hope they will join us in supporting a massive effort at deploying vaccines and testing so we can defeat this virus. The American Rescue Plan means an end to the failed approach of hitting the pause button. It didn't work. It is time to hit the start button. It is time to start Building Back Better through bold action. That is a political slogan. I like it. I have a Make It In America slogan myself. But this is not about slogans. It is about investment in our country, in our economy, and in our people, our families, our children, and, yes, the most vulnerable among us. That is what my faith teaches me to do. This is a vote to face our challenges with all of our strength and resolve. This is a vote to have each other's backs as fellow Americans in this time of difficulty. Mr. Speaker, with our votes today, we can send this legislation to President Biden so he can sign it into law and get the help that America and Americans need.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I got here just a little before I was going to speak, and I heard the gentlewoman from Illinois speak. She talked about flexible work hours. I thought to myself: Who decides what is flexible? Historically, of course, working men and women were told: You will do this for that much at this time under these conditions. That was the reality--sweatshops, health-endangering shops, and long hours with little pay. Then the labor unions came along. They got some strength, they got some support, and lo and behold, the middle class started to grow and started to make good wages, have safe working conditions, and, yes, flexible hours. Mr. Speaker, as we work to create jobs and build our economy back better, we need to make sure that the jobs that are available to Americans help them get by and get ahead. That is what the minimum wage battle is about. That is what this is about--average working people wanting to get by, wanting to have a decent salary, and wanting to have decent working conditions. Very frankly, that just didn't happen, Mr. Speaker. Some died to make that a reality. Others were beaten and battered in order to have that be a reality. Child labor, abuse of gender, women abused in the workplace working in terrible, odious conditions--that is why Democrats passed the PRO Act last year, and that is why we will do so again today. One of the most important tools for workers to secure better pay and benefits is the right to organize and bargain collectively. Those of you who have been employers know that you want to maximize profits and you want to try and manage and see whether you can hire people for X amount of dollars rather than X plus Y. That right was secured over the course of generations by workers who fought to have that right recognized and secured. Collective bargaining made possible the prosperity and upward mobility that was a hallmark of America in the 20th century. Strong unions lead to better pay, higher quality and more affordable healthcare, more secure retirement benefits, and workplaces that are safer, not just for union members but for all workers. Unfortunately, in the 21st century, Mr. Speaker, the right to organize has been eroded and weakened. As a result, many workers are stuck with no recourse to demand the better pay and benefits they deserve, and they need, and their families need, and we need as a middle class society that knows that we are a consumer economy. Henry Ford knew if you didn't pay them, then they couldn't buy your cars--a pretty simple equation. The PRO Act would change that, empowering workers, once again, through their right to organize. It prevents management from misclassifying workers. I urge Members to think whether or not that happens. Mr. Speaker, this gig economy sounds great until you get to be 65 or 67 and you look around and there is nobody behind you. There is nobody to lift you up. There is nobody to say: Thank you for that 30 years, 40 years, or 50 years of service to our company or to our economy. It prevents management from misclassifying workers in order to avoid negotiating the fair pay and safe working conditions they deserve. No, they are just contract employees. They don't have any real attachment or relationship with our company. They are just contract, and we can use them one day and throw them away the next. Moreover, the PRO Act levels the playing field for labor unions in contract negotiations. Maybe you don't believe in that, Mr. Speaker, not you personally, but maybe there are people who don't believe that they ought to be equal. After all, I started the business, and I invested money. I agree with that; I want to see them make money. I am a procapitalist Democrat, a procapitalist American. I have been around the world, and I have seen noncapitalist societies. They don't work very well. But the capitalist society works better if everybody is lifted, not just some. I thank Chairman Scott of the Education and Labor Committee for his hard work on this bill, as well as the members of his committee. I am proud that we Democrats strongly support this bill, which is so central to our effort to make opportunities more accessible and more broadly available to American workers as we look to rebuild our economy stronger after COVID-19. The leader of the party on the other side of the aisle said in his speech that he gave at the beginning of the session: We are the workers' party. We will see, Mr. Speaker, when we vote on this bill, whether that statement was accurate. The workers are not against this bill. As I said last year, when we passed this bill, the PRO Act is the workers' rights legislation that working people in our country need and for which they have been waiting for far too long. That is why we need to pass this bill today and send it to the Senate. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote for our workers, for our families, for our children, and for our effort to build back better and stronger from the challenges we now face.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, it would be an irresponsible policy to defund the police. We are not for that. Hear me. You can say it over and over and over again. It will be a lie. No matter how well it serves your political purposes, it will be a lie. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation. I want to thank Representative Bass and members of the Congressional Black Caucus for their leadership last year and now. I also want to thank my friend, Chairman Nadler, and the Judiciary Committee for their hard work. I am proud to be an original sponsor. If I thought this defunded the police, I would not be for it. Now, that won't affect you and your debate, I understand that, any more than it affected you in recognizing the legitimacy of the Presidential election. I am proud to be an original sponsor. Mr. Speaker, in June of last year, the House passed this bill because we recognized that something had to change. Change could not wait. Change waited too long in the Jim Crow South. Change has waited too long throughout this country--North, East, West, and South. Mr. Speaker, when we mournfully say the names of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Eric Garner, Michael Brown, Philando Castile, Freddie Gray, with a list that goes on and on and on and on, enough, my colleagues, enough. We must change the psychology of how we treat people. I don't mean police alone. I mean all of us, but all of us don't carry guns. All of us have not been given extraordinary authority by the public we serve. Because we give certain people in this country extraordinary authority to take our freedom away and, yes, to take our lives away, we must ensure accountability for the use of that power, just as the voters ought to ensure accountability for the power that they give to us. When we hear about African American parents having to teach their sons how to act during encounters with police so that they, too, don't become victims, it is time for change. When we feel the energy of many millions of Americans of every race, every faith, and every age taking peacefully to the streets in protest against injustice, we know that change must come now. I know how you lament the use of violence. I saw that on January 6. Mr. Speaker, peaceful demonstrations, Martin Luther King was locked up. Rosa Parks was locked up. For a crime? Of course, Parks sat in the front of the bus. That was illegal. As King said, an illegal law ought not to be obeyed. Mr. Speaker, they paid the consequences. They had the courage and fortitude to do that. That is why we took action last year, passing the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. This legislation addresses police choke holds like the kind that took George Floyd's life. Stand if you can justify that action. Mr. Speaker, it addresses no-knock warrants like the one that led to the tragic and preventable death of Breonna Taylor. It would condition Federal funding and resources to police departments on ending racial profiling. Content of character, did we not learn that lesson? It is not the color of your skin, the cut of the cloth you wear, or the part in your hair. Mr. Speaker, we ask them to follow best practices with that power and authority we have given them, best practices in police training that help ensure the rights of those who encounter police, as well as the safety of all of us. Mr. Speaker, this bill also brings justice to victims and their families by facilitating, under appropriate circumstances, their ability to seek redress of grievances. This bill is not only intended to protect people who encounter the police, but it is meant to help keep police safe as well, to help them do the difficult job of keeping their communities safe. Mr. Speaker, there is not a Member of this body, I think I can safely say, who has attended more frequently the annual National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund ceremony. I am local, but I dare say that no Member in this body has attended that more frequently, been more supportive of law enforcement, or been more supportive of my local sheriffs and police departments. They are critically important. Of course, we don't want to defund them. We have to have a safe society if democracy is going to prevail. That is why we have law enforcement. Mr. Speaker, I have heard from so many law enforcement officials who are deeply concerned about misconduct and racial bias in policing, just as each one of us ought to be concerned about a politician who commits a crime. Why? It reflects on all of us. All of those politicians are crooks. Somebody out there is saying amen. That is why this is important, because there are so many hundreds of thousands of honest, hardworking, courageous, dedicated police officers, sheriffs, and constables in this country. Mr. Speaker, most police officers are good and decent men and women, serving with honor. They want to know that their ranks are free from those who would apply bias and sow mistrust that endangers their and their colleagues' safety. This is just the beginning of a larger effort to reform policing, which will require the Senate and White House to work with us to ensure that victims of misconduct and their families get the justice they deserve, while police departments have the support, the funding, if you will, they need to keep our communities safe. Mr. Speaker, sadly, when we passed this bill last year, the Republican-controlled Senate refused even to consider it. They were in charge. They put no bill of their own on the floor. I apologize. I retract that. Mr. Jordan is correct. Now, however, with this Democratic Senate majority, I hope I can see action, work with Senator Scott, and come to a resolution, because this problem will not go away if we don't help it. We will not save lives if we don't act. Mr. Speaker, I know that this is a top priority for Senate Democrats, as well as for President Biden and Vice President Harris. So, I hope that we will not only see the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act pass the House today but also be signed into law this Congress. Mr. Speaker, this is a necessary bill to respond to a crisis throughout our country, certainly not by every member of law enforcement, but by the minority of law enforcement officers, just as my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are a credit to the service in this House, not all, but the overwhelming majority. Mr. Speaker, let's pass this bill. Let's act for justice.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I would be glad to yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairwoman for yielding, and I thank John Sarbanes, my colleague from Maryland, for all the work that he has done and the extraordinary leadership that Zoe Lofgren has done in bringing this bill to the floor last year and bringing it back this year. It was passed with unanimous support on our side of the aisle because our Members know that Americans are frustrated, and they feel somewhat shut out from their democracy. This is a bill for the people. I thank all of those who have worked for so long on making sure that Americans have access to the ballot. Madam Speaker, last year, we lost an extraordinary giant in our country. His name was John Lewis, an acolyte of Martin Luther King Jr., and a servant for the people. This is a very, very important bill. One could say that everything else we do depends on this bill because, in our democracy, government only works if those it serves have faith that it is truly a government ``of the people, by the people, and for the people.'' Madam Speaker, of course, it was Abraham Lincoln who spoke those words, mourning those who gave their lives in a great struggle to preserve our Union as it faced the evils of slavery, sedition, and secession. That war was a war to not only give freedom to other human beings, but it was also a war, at its heart, which tried to live out the creed that all men are created equal; endowed by their creator--not by this Congress, not by the majority, not by the Constitution, not by the President, or any of us, but by their creator--with certain unalienable rights. And certainly, in a democracy, voting, knowing who you are voting for, knowing who you are supporting, who you are voting for are critical. Even in that dark moment of the Civil War, when so many were losing hope for the success of our great American experiment in democracy and constitutional government, President Lincoln encouraged us to renew our faith as Americans in that project. Now, in 2021, though the crises we face are different than in 1863, our Nation is clearly facing grave challenges. January 6 taught us that. January 6 took us by the scruff of the neck and shook us and said, ``Beware, lest you lose your democracy.'' A pandemic has led to the deaths of more than half a million Americans. Its subsequent economic crisis has put more than 10 million out of work and millions of families and small businesses are struggling to get by. Deep racial and political divisions threaten to tear our country apart with misinformation and mistrust as dangerous to our Republic as any virus or recession. Madam Speaker, the American people must have faith that their government is truly theirs; their collective expression and will is heard; and that it can deliver results that improve their lives and offer them hope for a better future. That is what H.R. 1 does, the For the People Act: Reassure the American people that their government will always work for them. First, it will protect the sacred right to vote--protect the sacred right to vote--by ensuring that every American can participate equally and without undue barriers to casting their ballots. No counting of jelly beans in a jar; no reciting verbatim the Constitution and Declaration of Independence; no poll tax; no effort to make it more difficult for people to register, more difficult to vote. Bloody Sunday, a stark example of how committed some people were and some people still are, to not permitting people who they think will vote against them to vote. H.R. 1 would be the most consequential piece of voting rights legislation enacted since we passed the Help America Vote Act, which I was proud to sponsor. Second, this bill roots out corruption in government by increasing ethical standards and limiting the corrosive effects of dark money in our political campaigns. My mother used to say: ``Consider the source.'' Consider who is talking to you. And if you don't know who is contributing, if you don't know who is paying for those ads for Citizens for a Better America, who is against that. But you don't know who it is. You don't know what interest they have that they are paying out millions of dollars to promote. By forcing super-PACs to disclose their donors, H.R. 1 will ensure that American voters know exactly who is paying for the campaign ads they see or hear. And by requiring Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates to release 10 years' worth of tax returns, as most have done--with one singular, stark exception--it will provide voters with information critical to ensuring that those seeking our highest offices are free from conflicts of interest. Are they representing themselves or are they representing the people? Third, H.R. 1 will end partisan redistricting, whereby politicians choose their voters instead of the other way around. Too many voting districts are drawn in a way to limit voters' voices in our democracy. So many times we saw the central city cut up into pies, where you had a sliver of the city here, a sliver of the city here. And all of you know that happened. What was it designed to do? To take away the voting power of those who the people in the State legislature did not like. Now, most of you are too young to remember Baker v. Carr and Reynolds v. Sims, when the Supreme Court said, ``Oh, no, we are not representing trees, we are representing people, and you are going to have to district.'' And then we had subsequent legislation which said, you cannot make it impossible for certain constituencies to elect people who look like them, talk like them, think like them. That has to end, and the only way to do it is through a national approach that creates, as this bill does, a nonpartisan process in each State. Madam Speaker, lastly, H.R. 1 includes a number of provisions to increase transparency and accountability so that the American people can see what their elected officials are doing and make sure they are doing their jobs properly. Through all of these steps, House Democrats will deliver on our pledge to renew Americans' faith in government by making sure it works for the people. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation so consequential to our democracy and our ability to deliver results for our constituents. But I also ask the American people to join me in believing in what government can achieve when we take steps to make it work in the way our Founders intended. With the challenges we are facing, with the divisions and mistrust that abound, let us seize this moment, as Lincoln once did, to rededicate ourselves to the work of ensuring that ``government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from this Earth.'' Let us do so with a strong--and my hope is bipartisan--vote to pass H.R. 1 and send it to the Senate.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I think that is a legitimate debate to have. I think we have been having that debate. Very frankly, I tell my friend from Texas that I think we won that debate. We won it in the courts over and over and over again, but understand that does not mean we ought not to have the debate here. Madam Speaker, I would not be opposed to such a debate. This bill, I think, is a bill which has been debated over and over again in committee and on the floor and has passed through the Senate. Unfortunately, the Senate didn't take it up. We didn't have a conference because they had a different perspective on the question the gentleman raises. They chose not to debate it. They chose not to address it. They chose to ignore the problems that clearly do exist. Madam Speaker, I think the gentleman's point is well-taken. I think, at some point in time in the future, we ought to have that debate, either on legislation you introduce or others introduce. I would support that effort.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. One of the sad things that is happening in America, Mr. Speaker, is that the truth is so often being perceived as fake news or that fake news is so often being perceived as the truth. Mr. Speaker, I am old enough to have worked for a United States Senator during the civil rights era. And I would get a publication-- because I opened the mail; I had a hifalutin job--from what was called the Cross and the Sword, a publication that came somewhere from the South. I forget where its headquarters was. I remember reading how the Bible told us that we should not integrate America and that if God had wanted us all to be together, then we would be the same color. I perceived that then and I perceive that now as absurd. So I proudly rise in support of H.R. 5, the Equality Act, and congratulate Mr. Cicilline and all those who have worked on getting this bill to this point on this floor. We passed it before, of course, and sent it to the United States Senate. They ignored it, to their discredit. The House passed this bill last Congress with bipartisan support. I hope we have bipartisan support this year because I remember, Mr. Speaker, back in the days of the early sixties and mid-sixties there were giants in the Republican Party who stood with Democrats on behalf of civil rights. I hope we can repeat that today because there is no room in America--it says here in 2021 that there should have been no room in America from 1776 on when we said: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident''--for legal discrimination. There are moments in our history that are celebrated for generations as those in which Americans came together to perfect our Union and to protect and uphold the universal rights enshrined in our founding documents. That is what we as a nation did with the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. It is what we did with the 19th Amendment where we said: Oh, yes, I know you are a woman, but you are going to be equal, you are going to be allowed to vote. What a radical idea that was and how long it took. We did it as well with the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1960. We did it together with the bill that I was proud to sponsor on this floor, the Americans with Disabilities Act. We said that it is not your disability that counts; it is your ability; drop the ``dis.'' We can do it again today with Mr. Cicilline's Equality Act, affirming that equality is for everyone all the time and everywhere. This legislation, Mr. Speaker, would ban discrimination against LGBTQ Americans in every area where it still exists and in every State that still permits it. One nation under God, indivisible. Not discrimination in the Northwest and discrimination in the Northeast or discrimination in the South or the Southwest. One nation--no discrimination--fairness and equality for all. That includes housing, public education, personal finance and credit, employment, healthcare, jury service, and public accommodation. The practical effect of such legalized discrimination is the denial of opportunities and economic security to certain Americans because of their gender identity or sexual orientation. The practical effect of this bill, Mr. Speaker, will be to open the doors of opportunity and economic security to those for whom they were shut for far, far too long. I want to thank Representative Cicilline. I want to thank the gentleman in the Chair for his leadership and courage. Both of them have displayed such worth as human beings and as colleagues, not by some arbitrary definition that we give to them based upon their sexual orientation or whether any of us, because of our gender, male or female, or our color, Black or White or yellow or red, one nation under God, indivisible. This legislation tries to recognize that indivisibility of the right of all Americans. I want to express my gratitude to the Congressional LGBTQ-Plus Equality Caucus, which has provided leadership both in shaping and improving this legislation championing its adoption. The House will pass this legislation today, and then I hope it will not be lost in the politics of the Senate. That body has an extraordinary record over the centuries in terms of civil rights. It should uphold that record. I know that the Democratic Senate majority is eager to see it considered and passed. As I said, when I grew up in the sixties in the civil rights movement, many Republican leaders were giants in this effort. I hope the Senate Republicans who have stood in the way of equality of opportunity for LGBTQ Americans for too long will finally come together with them in a bipartisan fashion and allow an up-or-down vote. That is all we ask, an up-or-down vote. Frankly, that is not all we ask. We ask for 10 Republicans to join us with 50 Democrats to make this a reality. Most Americans have come to understand that ending discrimination for LGBTQ people is about the fundamental rights and dignity of their fellow Americans, and it is about who we are as a country, who we claim to be but for far too long were not. We know we are not there yet, but this is a very significant and important step for us to take in a land of opportunity for all and a land of liberty and justice for all. So let us affirm that today in this House. And I hope the Senate, in days to come, will join in that affirmation of justice for all, and let us make this a day to remember in our history as one where we came together to perfect our Union, as John Lewis would say, one more time. I urge a ``yes'' vote, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, as you know, as a result of COVID-19 and our discussions with the Capitol physician, we have organized voting in a way that we have seven different segments at 5-minute intervals so that a limited number of Members will vote in every 5-minute segment. That is obviously designed to keep us as safe as possible, our staffs as safe as possible, so we get off the floor, and they have to be on the floor. This vote that we just had was about 1 hour and 5 minutes. Obviously, if you take seven segments at 5 minutes a segment, that is 35 minutes. We have added another 5 minutes for people who missed their segment, which would be 40 minutes. We are starting to average 20, 25, 30, 35 minutes beyond that 40 minutes. Therefore, I wanted to announce to every Member that I will be recommending that we close votes 45 minutes after they start. Bang. Now, I will tell my side--which probably has this responsibility more than the other side because we use proxies more than you do--that if you hold a proxy, not only do you have a responsibility to yourself to vote in a timely fashion, but if you miss the vote, acting in a fiduciary capacity for another Member who can't be here because of health-related issues, and you do not vote, that will not be a happy situation. So I want you to know, I am going to be talking to the Speaker--I have already talked to her--that 45 minutes after that first bell rings I want the gavel to come down. And, hopefully, we will all recognize when the bell rings that we will have to vote in the next 45 minutes. Now, that cannot be a real burden on anybody. Cannot. It is simply that we look to see how many people have voted--oh, well, there are 20 people out, so I don't have to worry, and that is after we have gone by the 40 minutes. Madam Speaker, I am going to send out a notice on this as well, and I want to confirm with the Speaker, but I know, having talked to the Speaker numerous times about this issue, that she shares my view that if we are going to run this institution with respect to one another-- Don Young didn't come on this vote. Don Young is the famous--call it on time. I want every Member to understand, this is not to penalize anybody. It is, however, to try to run this institution in a way that Members' time, which is valuable, is respected, and we simply don't waste it waiting around for one or two or five or six other people to come. I do not cast aspersions. Sometimes it is hard to get here on time, particularly if you have done something and you are in some other place. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the time. I will be talking to the Speaker. I will notify everybody when that is going to be implemented. It may be implemented as soon as today, and we will be sending out a notice. And, by the way, everybody I talked to agrees with this.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I want to take a moment to pay tribute to a dear friend and a wonderful former colleague of ours. Former Rep. Jane Harman, who retired from this House in 2011 after nine terms representing the Thirty-Ninth District of California, is stepping down in February after ten very successful years as CEO of the Wilson Center. I hope all of us in this House will join me in congratulating her and wishing her well in her next endeavors. I have no doubt that she will find new ways to continue serving her country, as she has done with such dedication and ability since her days as a staffer for Sen. John Tunney in the early 1970's and during her time in Congress, where she served as Ranking Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Jane's entire career has been spent in service to the people of California and to the American people. The Wilson Center was created by Congress in 1968 to serve as a nonpartisan policy forum and support research into addressing global issues. It continues to fulfill its role as a public think tank, a place where scholars and leaders come together to seek creative solutions to some of the country's and the world's most intractable challenges. As the first woman to serve as its CEO, Jane oversaw an expansion of its programs, helped grow its federal appropriation by a third, and launched its Global Women's Leadership Initiative. She drew on her close contacts abroad to bring world-class scholars and global leaders to the Center for informative discussions and debates, and I was honored to be her guest at the Center's fiftieth anniversary dinner in 2018 and to welcome Jane back to Capitol Hill for the Center's very informative `Fiscal Ship' budgetary exercise in 2016. Under her guidance, the Wilson Center has truly lived up to its mission and will surely continue to do so for a long time to come as a result of her sound management and oversight. I hope all of us will take a moment to thank former Rep. Jane Harman for her many years of outstanding service to our country and her commitment to the hard work of ensuring that our democracy can deliver the best policymaking for the American people. She will long remain a friend to so many of us in this House, and I will continue to cherish her friendship and her wise counsel in the years ahead.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day and a difficult day for the House of Representatives and for our country. I have had the great honor of serving this body for 40 years and in that time, I have never encountered a situation like the one before us now, where a Member has made such vile and hurtful statements, engaged in the harassment of colleagues, and expressed support for political violence. None of us should take any pleasure in what we must do today. But to do nothing would be an abdication of our moral responsibility to our colleagues, to the House, to our values, to the truth, and to our country. A great forebear of legislators, Edmund Burke, famously declared: ``The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.'' Yesterday, the Republican Conference chose to do nothing, so today, the House must do something. I have heard some condemnation from across the aisle of the contents of Representative Greene's statements. Some have condemned the white supremacist and anti-Semitic things she said and posted online. Some have condemned the falsehoods she shared about 9/11 and the horrific school shootings. But I have heard little from Republicans about the horrific statements made by their colleague making threats of violence against Democratic elected officials and her threatening conduct toward Representative Bush and others. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, there seems to be much silence when it comes to her incitement of political violence. In The Washington Post yesterday, columnist Greg Sargent wrote: Whatever happens to Representative Greene, the truth is unavoidable: Republicans have yet to offer a clear and unambiguous declaration that political violence is unacceptable and has no place in their ranks. And I have heard too much about process and not enough about accountability. No Member ought to be permitted to engage in the kind of behavior that Representative Greene has and face zero consequences. This vote can be a first step in correcting the error of those who, so far, have chosen to do nothing. A short while ago, Representative Greene came to this floor to defend her indefensible conduct. I heard no apology. She claimed that we are here today only because of some things she wrote online before she ever ran for Congress, as if one's moral slate is wiped clean when one becomes a candidate for office. Regardless, the conduct we are judging today continued to occur even after Representative Greene became a candidate, and even after she was elected. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to look at this image. I heard about motherhood today. Two of those women between them have six children. They are mothers. One of them does not have children, and she has come to this body asking for more housing for people, for more healthcare for people, for more income for people. How awful. And they are not the Squad. They are Ilhan, they are Alexandria, and they are Rashida. They are people. They are our colleagues. And yes, you may have disagreements, but I don't know anybody, including Steve King, who you precluded from going on committees for much less--and this is an AR-15 in the hands of Mrs. Greene. This was on Facebook just a few months ago. Is that a message of peace and reconciliation and peaceful democratic dialogue--The Squad's worst enemy, AR-15 in hand. I have never ever seen that before. Is this a precedent-setting event? It is, because the conduct, the tweeting, the QAnon association--I heard the disavow of QAnon. I learned more. AR-15, ``Squad's Worst Nightmare.'' Is that what it was intended to do, that each one of these ladies would have a nightmare about somebody with a gun, an AR-15 that can carry a clip of up to 60 bullets? I urge my colleagues to look at that image and tell me what message you think it sends. Here she is, armed with a deadly assault rifle, pointing it toward three Democratic Members. Now, the pictures were put together, you understand. They were not present; I understand that. And she captioned it ``Squad's Worst Nightmare.'' Yes, some people are having nightmares and fear. And some people who wanted to give other people nightmares committed sedition and broke into the House of Representatives and tried to stop us from electing a President of the United States. These three faces are real people. They are three reasons we are here. But there are many other reasons we are here today. In 2019, during the same election cycle in which she ran, she showed support for comments online that the quickest way to remove Speaker Pelosi from power would be ``a bullet to the head.'' Did any of you hear Steve King say anything like that? You removed him from all of his committees. But as I said, you did nothing. As a matter of fact, you gave a standing ovation, as I understand. I wasn't there. What message does that send? What message does it send to have a standing ovation to give these three women nightmares? Indisputably, these are clear threats to commit or incite political violence, not from years ago but just months ago. Imagine the pain that these Members' families must be experiencing when they see pictures like this one. Imagine what their children think when they know their loved ones are walking the Halls of Congress and may encounter harassment, as it happened to Representative Bush? So I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, when they take this vote, imagine your faces on this poster. Imagine it is a Democrat with an AR-15. Imagine what your response would be. Would you think that that person ought to be held accountable? But when acquiescence to the suggestion of violence of any kind is allowed to go unchecked, it is a cancer that metastasizes on the body politic of our Nation, as we saw just a few days ago on January 6. Cancer, that is how Senate Republican Leader McConnell described it. He said: ``Loony lies and conspiracy theories are cancer for the Republican Party and our country.'' Should we stand silent in the face of that kind of activity? He continued: ``Somebody who has suggested that perhaps no airplane hit the Pentagon on 9/11, that horrifying school shootings were pre- staged, and that the Clintons crashed JFK Jr.'s airplane is not living in reality.'' That is not me talking. That is not a Democrat talking. That is Senator McConnell. ``This has nothing to do with the challenges facing American families or the robust debates on substance that can strengthen our party.'' My colleagues across the aisle have an opportunity today to reclaim their party from the dangerous cancer of QAnon and violent conspiracy theories that promote and have demonstrably resulted in sedition and insurrection. Senator Romney--you remember Senator Romney. He was a candidate for President of the United States on the Republican ticket, nominated in the Republican convention. He said of his party this week: ``I think we should have nothing to do with Marjorie Taylor Greene and think we should repudiate the things she said and move away from her.'' ``Our big tent is not large enough to both accommodate conservatives and kooks.'' Not my words, his words, a Republican Member of the United States Senate. Now, he is not a big buddy of Trump's, so apparently he didn't have to do what Trump suggested he do. And Senator Ernst, a conservative woman from Iowa: ``She doesn't represent the party. I don't want her to be the face of our party. I think this is a great time for us to really talk about what we want to see in the upcoming years and continue to build. We don't need people that are promoting violence or anything like that.'' That is a Republican conservative Senator. Republican Senator and former Governor of Florida Rick Scott said--a conservative Republican Senator--``That is not what the Republican Party stands for.'' Let me suggest to you, if it is not, vote with us. Vote with the House, not Democrats. Vote with the House of Representatives. Vote with good order and peace. Furthermore, Senator Young from Indiana said: ``There ought to be no place'' in the Republican Party for the kind of views espoused by Representative Greene. That is what McCarthy said when you kicked King off of all his committees. This is not something you haven't done. However, sadly, you left it to us to do your job. Representative Cole called her statements ``extraordinarily disturbing.'' He said that yesterday; it is an old quote. And Senator Thune asked his fellow Republicans in the House: ``Do they want to be the party of limited government''--I think the answer to that is yes--``or do they want to be the party of conspiracy theories and QAnon?'' Furthermore, Senator Young from Indiana said: ``There ought to be no place'' in the Republican Party for the kind of views espoused by Representative Greene. That is what your Republican colleagues have said. This is not partisan. This is about principle. And you can shake your head as much as you want. This is not about party. It is about whether or not you will vote for decency and truth, not the Members' worst nightmare. I hope we can do it together, all of us, embracing our humanity and our basic adherence to the Constitution. Edmund Burke, who I quoted earlier, said: The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Let us not do nothing. I often share another passage shared so long ago by Edmund Burke when a new Member arrives to serve in the House. It concerns a duty a representative has to his or her constituents. His conclusion on that matter is that we owe them our unbiased opinion, mature judgment, and enlightened sense of conscience. What does your conscience tell you to do in light of this kind of assertion? Nothing? Burke told his own constituents that these virtues of a representative ``does not derive from your pleasure,'' ``nor from the law and the Constitution. They are a trust from providence, for the abuse of which'' you are ``deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment, and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.'' This is not about polling. This is not about your base. This is about your conscience and your moral judgment. In other words, each of us ought to look inside our hearts to the answer that we know is right and is best for the House and for our country. If the Republican Party for less toxic language took committee assignments away from Steve King, should they do less in this instance? There is no doubt that if somebody came to the Congress and had said, before they came to the Congress, ``I am for violent revolution against the Government of the United States of America,'' your party would say that is not somebody we want to be associated with. That is not what she said; I do not assert that. But should we do less than you did for Steve King for far less toxic language? Let us not do nothing. Mr. Speaker, let us do the right thing.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Roy is walking off the floor, but I am one of those Members that has sympathy for his frustration. I have sympathy for his frustration because I have served here for a long time when we did things in a bipartisan, regular order way. But I hope the gentleman shared the same frustration when we passed a tax bill that did $2 trillion, at a time when the economy didn't need a tax cut and the people who got the tax cut clearly did not need it. And I had the same frustration the gentleman has expressed. As the gentleman who chairs the committee pointed out, this is the first step, however, in giving instructions on what committees ought to do, and doesn't tell them exactly how to do it. Next week is going to be an entire committee week in which 12 committees will consider how to achieve the objectives set forth in the budget resolution. But I do share, and we ought all share that we don't act in the bipartisan fashion in which we ought to. The President met with 10 Republican Senators. They are pretty far apart. I am going to speak a little bit about the substance of this, but I want to assure the gentleman that I am a big supporter of regular order. I think we ought to pass all 12 appropriations bills and not do these omnibus bills that nobody knows what is in them: not you, not me. I am the majority leader. You think, well, he knows all that is in there. I don't. Why? Because they are so massive that you really don't have an opportunity and we don't debate them fully. So I want to say that I share the frustration. On this, I think we need to move quickly, and I am going say why in the comments that I make. But I didn't want the gentleman to go off the floor thinking that everybody was simply dismissing, not so much the substance, but the frustration he feels, I feel, and I think so many of our Members feel about the process being either too quick or too slow, too comprehensive, too incomprehensible. So I just wanted to say that to the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, we have passed four major pieces of legislation. They weren't partisan pieces of legislation. They weren't rushed through by Democrats and, in fact, a Republican President had to sign all four of those bills. The first one, an $8.3 billion bill, four times what the President asked for, but ultimately, he said, yes, we need that much, and that was way, way, way too little. But we thought it was a huge sum of money at that point in time. It passed 415-2. On March 14, we passed the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, 363-40. On March 27, just a few days--this is all within weeks of one another, we passed the CARES Act, about $2 trillion, voice vote, $2 trillion, about the same amount as this bill suggests. Frankly, since that time, we have had hundreds of thousands of Americans die from COVID, and our economy go up and down, but now it is tanking, and we are all concerned about that. George Bush came to the House when I was majority leader the first time and said, we need $700 billion, actually, a little more than that, $700 billion to loan to big banks. Loan to big banks? And Ben Bernanke, then the chair of the Federal Reserve said, if you don't do it, we are going to go into a depression. So what happened, Mr. Speaker, was Democrats carried that bill for George Bush, a Republican President, and Republicans gave him one-third of their votes, their President--he was our President, but theirs in the sense he was a Republican. So I am a little frustrated when I hear, well, we can't do this because we passed the Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act, very controversial, a big bill, 388-5. Now, what does that tell you? What does it tell the American people? That there was a consensus that it is a crisis in America that there is no example for it in the past. And so we need to move. We had an election. The President of the United States said we had to move, and we passed a $900-plus billion bill, and the President said, by the way, it wasn't enough. He wanted to see more. He wanted to see substantially more in payments to the American people because they were struggling. So, Mr. Speaker, this is a continuation of what has, throughout the year--we are not yet at the year, the first year of COVID, and so far, we have dealt with it in a bipartisan way, and robustly, because of the magnitude of the challenge. People are suffering from the most severe public health emergency in our lifetimes and the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, and they are looking to Washington for help. After we enacted, Mr. Speaker, the CARES Act in March 2020 to get American workers, businesses, and communities through the spring and summer months, the Trump administration and Republican-controlled Senate hit the pause button. We passed the Heroes Act May 15. We then waited and waited and tried to negotiate. Mr. McConnell said, no, let the States go bankrupt. And Mr. McCarthy said, let's see what happens. And tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people died, and the economy has regressed. That pause crippled our Nation's response, both to the public health emergency and the economic one as supports authorized by the CARES Act faded. While we were finally able to reach bipartisan agreement on COVID-19 relief at the end of December, December 16, to be exact, much damage had been done and we knew, we knew, we all knew that the December legislation would not be enough, Mr. Speaker, and that we would have to act again. Now we are doing so. Now, very frankly, when we were at the greatest recession, not depression, in December of 2007, and then 2008, and then when we took over and could act on a relief bill, we passed a $787 billion bill, relatively small by the kinds of sums we are talking about now, and it saved us from depression, and not a single Republican in the House of Representatives voted for that. Now, remember, 172 Democrats voted for George W. Bush's TARP legislation. Not a single Republican stepped in to help the American economy, not one. So when I hear about bipartisanship, I think to myself, gee, I am for bipartisanship, and we will all be for it. And I will tell you, the proof of the pudding is those 172 votes that voted for TARP; and without TARP, I think the country would have gone into depression. Now, President Biden has outlined the next steps we need to take as part of the American Rescue Plan. The budget resolution before us today provides us with one path to put that plan into action with the next round of major relief for our people. The gentleman from Texas lamented, well, this is a farce. Let me tell you, if this farce passes, millions of families are going to get thousands of dollars to support themselves and buy food and pay their mortgage and pay their rent. This is very real. Now, this is not the only path. Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker, we want this to be a bipartisan endeavor. Joe Biden's entire career, which is an extensive career, shows his bipartisanship, and I hope the discussions between the President and a small group of Senate Republicans will lead to a responsible and actionable bipartisan compromise that can pass the Senate with 60 votes and get to the President's desk in the coming weeks. But make no mistake; we will not seek compromise at the expense of necessary action. The American people cannot wait for Republicans to work their way through another pause. Democrats are taking this step today to ensure that we have all the procedural tools necessary to move forward with the relief so sorely needed for the American people in case the preferred path of bipartisanship is unsuccessful, particularly because expanded unemployment benefits expire on March 14. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me, to join the chairman in a bipartisan way in voting for this resolution so we can assure the American people that Congress is moving forward with the relief they need and in the timely manner they ought to expect. If we care about American families, if we care about children who are going hungry, if we care about renters who can't pay rent and landlords who need that rent to pay their bills--now, some of them may be giants, but most of them are small--this bill cannot wait. This bill needs to pass as soon as we can possibly pass it. I urge all my colleagues, vote for this resolution, and let's take a first, critically important step to passing this bill that will be constructed by 12 different committees here, committees in the Senate, and put together, as the chairman has just pointed out, and we will have to vote on it again as a final product, for the people.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and Mr. Rogers from Alabama, the ranking member, for bringing this forward as a bipartisan effort. Mr. Speaker, I rise as one of those who opposed the waiver for General Mattis. People ask me, well, what is the difference? Mr. Gallagher raised this. You change your mind. Let me tell you what makes the difference for me, Mr. Speaker. I think this law is a very relevant law. It is a very important law. It anticipated, when the Congress passed it, that there would be reasons for waiver, or it would not have included it. It would have made a preclusion. It did not do that. It said under circumstances that the Congress considers, it may be well be in order to have a waiver. This, I think, is one of those times. Very frankly, one of the reasons I voted ``no'' on Mr. Mattis is because Mr. Trump did not know Mr. Mattis, his outstanding military service. General Mattis really didn't know Mr. Trump; and that relationship did not go well, unfortunately. In my view, General Mattis was a great tower of strength and independence in leading the Department of Defense. So I congratulate him for his service, although I participated in a meeting in the White House in which President Trump was very harsh in his analysis of General Mattis, which I thought was unfortunate. But this difference that I see today is a very important one. What is that difference? The President of the United States--the Commander in Chief, the civilian leader--knows General Austin, has worked with General Austin, and has taken the measure of General Austin, and they have a relationship, a positive relationship. In addition to that, of course, the son of the President, Beau Biden, serving in the military, served with General Austin and took the measure of the man and his commitment to civilian leadership in the Armed Forces--a critically important concept for the Secretary of Defense. One problem that dictates the speediest possible passage of this bill is the security situation in which we find ourselves. Always in a transition the enemy can think you are weak and not able to respond in an effective way. That is why, traditionally, Mr. Speaker, the Congresses do, in fact, confirm the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State. Ms. Avril Haines was just confirmed as the head of the DNI. It is because we do not want a long period of time between having somebody in charge in the Defense Department and, in this case, somebody in charge who obviously knows and agrees with the principles of the President of the United States. I am sure he will give good advice and sometimes he will disagree, but we have a confidence relationship. So very, very important. This is not a moment for our country to be without a Secretary of Defense. Secretary-designate Austin is a highly qualified nominee, spoken to by the bipartisan support that this waiver will garner this day in the Congress of the United States. Mr. Speaker, he would make history, of course, as has been pointed out, and not an insubstantial mark on history. Secretary-designate Austin is the first African American who will be Secretary of Defense. At this time, our country is fighting to overcome the legacy of slavery, segregation, and prejudice, as has been pointed out by my friend, Mr. Brown, who served as a lieutenant colonel in the Armed Forces. Secretary-designate Austin served in Iraq. Forty percent minorities. What a symbol and a bridge between those of the majority and those of the minority in our services, which will coalesce and bind together better the units, which is extraordinarily important. Secretary-designate Austin served our Nation admirably in uniform and oversaw the safe and successful drawdown of our troops in Iraq, as has been pointed out by Representative Khanna. In doing so, he earned the trust of then-Vice President Biden and Beau Biden. Because of Secretary-designate Austin's recent military service, he requires a waiver. But, again, the waiver is included so that the Congress can make a determination as to whether this is appropriate. I can't think of a more appropriate Secretary of Defense than somebody who has great knowledge and confidence of the Commander in Chief. We ought to take that action without delay. Mr. Speaker, we must always have a clear delineation between the military and civilian authorities in this country. I have a picture hanging on my wall, which is also in the rotunda. I have it in my office because it is in the Maryland State Senate, the Old Chamber. It is still in existence, still in the capitol in Annapolis, of George Washington resigning his commission as Commander in Chief of the Continental Army. And I always point out to people who come into my office that the Members of the Continental Congress are seated notwithstanding their inclination in the presence of this great, iconic figure was to stand and pay reverence to him. And George Washington said, ``No, you sit,'' because the civilian government is superior to the military. What a great lesson George Washington taught us at that time, which, thank God, has been revered until this time. I think this appointment is the right appointment. I think it will be good for America. I think it will be good for the Armed Forces of the United States of America. I think the President has chosen well. I urge my colleagues to grant this waiver. This, I would add, is not confirmation. Our brothers and sisters in the United States Senate will still have to judge and give advice and consent to this appointment, but this waiver is a precondition to their considering it on the merits. I hope that we will give them that.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Rules Committee for yielding. I congratulate him for his efforts down at the Rules Committee in acting and acting swiftly. I appreciate the remarks of Mr. Cole, for whom I have great respect, but I disagree with his sense of a lack of urgency in action. I do agree with him of the consequences of our action. There are consequences to actions, and the actions of the President of the United States demand urgent and clear action by the Congress of the United States. The chairman of the committee introduced the remarks and put them in the Record, but I want to reference the remarks of the chair of the Republican Conference, which is the analog to the Democratic Caucus. It is all the Republicans elected to the Congress of the United States in the House of Representatives. And they elected Liz Cheney, the daughter of the Vice President of the United States, the former whip of this House, Dick Cheney, with whom I served in the eighties. Representative Cheney, from Wyoming, a conservative Republican, said this: ``The President of the United States summoned this mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack.'' That is not some irresponsible new Member of the Congress of the United States. This is the daughter of the former Republican whip and former Vice President of the United States of America. She knows of what she speaks. She said this as well: ``There has never been a greater betrayal by a President of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution.'' This is not, as Liz Cheney says, just some action. She characterized it as the biggest betrayal of any President of the United States in our history. Mr. John Katko--not a backbench Republican who just got here and doesn't know what is going on--Mr. John Katko, who is the ranking Republican on the Homeland Security Committee, says this: ``To allow the President of the United States to incite this attack without consequence is a direct threat to the future of our democracy.'' This is not some backbencher on their side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker. It reflects the sense of outrage and the sense of historic dissimilarity from the actions of any previous President. Then Mr. Adam Kinzinger, a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and a senior Member from Illinois--so we have a Member from Wyoming, a Member from Illinois, and a Member from New York. There will be others on this vote who will join them. Mr. Kinzinger said this: ``If these actions''--he hasn't had any hearings; he doesn't need any long, drawn-out consideration--``If these actions are not worthy of impeachment, then what is an impeachable offense?'' There is no doubt in my mind that the President of the United States broke his oath and incited this insurrection. I tell my friend, Mr. Speaker, a gentleman for whom I have great respect--he is my friend, and I say that honestly, not just as rhetoric that we say on this floor, because there are some that I don't consider friends, whose values I do not share. That is not Mr. Cole. We have a difference. Liz Cheney, John Katko, Adam Kinzinger, and other Republicans whom I have talked to within the last 24 hours believe this action is required. Mr. Speaker, I see the gentleman from Ohio is on the floor. He likes to say that we Democrats were elected and the first thing we wanted to do was impeach this President. He is shaking his head in agreement because, like the President of the United States, he denies the facts. Trump-like. Fake news. Mr. Speaker, December 6, 2017, Mr. Green, who I am going to refer to, offered a motion because he saw the danger that confronted our country, and he filed a resolution of impeachment. On December 6, 2017, we had a vote on that, and the majority of Democrats voted ``no''--actually, they voted ``yes'' to table--so that we did not proceed in 2017. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) thought, however, the next year that there was still a danger to our country. Some of us shared that view, but we were not confident that the case could be made or that the transactions that preceded would lead to conviction. So, on January 19 of 2018, we had a motion to table Mr. Green's resolution, and the majority of Democrats voted to table that resolution. What a rush to judgment. And then, on July 17, 2019, 9 days before the call to Ukraine to get the Ukrainian leader to act on the political behalf of the President of the United States and where he withheld money to defend the Ukrainian people from Russian involvement and offered that as a bribe, on July 17, the majority of Democrats voted to table that resolution. Mr. Speaker, there was no rush to judgment. Then that call to which I just referred was on July 26, 9 days later. I call that the ``a-ha moment.'' Yes, I knew what I thought, but that was proof. Some gentlemen have lamented that we didn't know the whistleblower, because, after all, if we knew the whistleblower, we could intimidate everybody else from coming forward. This President has done everything he can to intimidate whistleblowers, people who came forward and told the truth. And we had witness after witness after witness who confirmed what the whistleblower brought to our attention. So, Mr. Speaker, the reason I rise today--and I am going to speak on the resolution itself at some later time--is to recognize the contributions that Al Green from Texas has made to getting us to this place. I am not going to read all of the resolution, but I want to read some excerpts from the resolution he has introduced. We won't be considering his resolution. We will be considering Mr. Cicilline's resolution which over 200 others have signed on to. Mr. Green had a resolution be introduced: ``Resolved, that Donald Trump, President of the United States'' . . . `'is impeached for high misdemeanors, and that the following Articles of Impeachment be exhibited to the Senate.'' Article I says, ``In his capacity as President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his high office and the dignity and proprieties thereof, and of the harmony and courtesies necessary for stability''--to which my friend spoke, the gentleman from Oklahoma-- Donald John Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the Office of President ``has harmed the society of the United States, brought shame and dishonor to the Office of President of the United States, sowing discord among the people of the United States'' by weaponizing hate for political gain. He went on to say, ``On January 6, 2021, in a speech at the National Mall, President Donald Trump weaponized the hate that resulted in violence, the deaths of multiple people, an assault on democracy, and an insurrection against the Capitol of the United States of America by inciting a mob''--who said that? Liz Cheney said it, and Al Green said it--infected with white supremacists carrying a rebel flag, erecting a gallows structure with a noose, wearing shirts and hateful messages such as ``Camp Auschwitz: Work Brings Freedom'' and ``MAGA Civil War, January 6, 2021.'' ``MAGA Civil War.'' They had the hats on of the army of MAGA, which I refer to as ``Make America Grieve Again.'' We grieved at Fort Sumter; we grieved on December 7, 1941; and we grieved on 9/11. And, yes, we grieved on January 6 of this year. He goes on to say what the President told this mob that Liz Cheney said was recruited by the President of the United States. This is the President talking to this mob: ``All of us here today do not want to see our election victory stolen by bold and radical left Democrats''--like the Secretary of State in Georgia and the Governor of Georgia--``which is what they are doing, and stolen by the fake news media.'' Inciting, riling up, creating anger with the fake news and lies that the President of the United States said to these folks. ``That is what they have done and what they are doing,'' the President continued. ``We will never give up. We will never concede. It doesn't happen. You don't concede when there is theft involved.'' And so what did they do? Incited by this President, as Liz Cheney said, as John Katko said, as Adam Kinzinger said, and, frankly, what Secretary Chao acted upon and what the Secretary of Homeland Security acted upon and what so many others in the administration have acted upon--disgusted, dismayed, and disheartened by what their President had done, they got out. They quit. The President further emboldened them, saying--this is the Green resolution. We are not considering it, but it is the Green resolution. The President further emboldened them, saying, ``You will never take back our country with weakness.'' We had a display of non-weakness, criminal insurrection-like conduct, recruited by and deployed by the President of the United States to come to this Capitol and ``stop the steal.'' The ``steal,'' of course, was: We assembled, accepting what all the courts that considered it said was a fair and accurate election of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris as President and Vice President of the United States. After his National Mall speech, a mob of his supporters proceeded to the Capitol complex. We know that. And so Mr. Green's resolution ends with, ``Wherefore, to prevent national harm to our society, Donald John Trump, by such conduct, warrants an immediate impeachment trial and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States Constitution and the 14th Amendment.'' Mr. Speaker, Mr. Green is going to speak after me, but, in conclusion, let me tell my friend Mr. Cole: I have been here some time; he has as well. I served with Ronald Reagan, with George H.W. Bush, and George Bush. I had respect for all of those Presidents. They cared about our country, they honored our Constitution, and they executed the duties of their office consistent with the Constitution and laws of our country. That is not true of this President, and, therefore, he ought to be removed. We have that opportunity to do so. Is there little time left? Yes. But it is never too late to do the right thing.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. This is a troubled time, a sad time. It is a time where all of us have stood almost to a person and lamented the violence and the assault on this Capitol and the assault on democracy itself. It was right to do that. But this impeachment ought to be put in the perspective of what the Republican chair of the Republican Conference said it was. She said the President of the United States summoned the mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of that attack. There has never been, she said, a greater betrayal by a President of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution. That is why we are here today. That is why we are here today just a week before that President, at the request of the American people, will leave office. The issue is, what do we, the 433 of us, I believe, who are here, do on behalf of the American people to respond to what Representative Cheney described that happened on the 6th of January: a mob assembled by, summoned by, and then spoken to, to light the flame of the attack. To ``stop the steal,'' as we sat here, exercising our constitutional duty. And to his great credit, the Vice President of the United States followed the Constitution of the United States of America, notwithstanding the fact that he was opportuned by the President not to do so. That mob sent by the President to ``stop the steal'' did so for a few hours, not the ``steal'' but the constitutional duty that we had. So, we ask ourselves, what do we do? What is our responsibility? What should we say in light of only the Civil War as an analogy? That doesn't mean there haven't been demonstrations in Washington before and demonstrations throughout this country before. But it is the first and only physical presence, other than the 9/11 attack, on this Nation, which came from abroad and had a plane aimed at our Capitol dome. This attack was not from abroad. It was, as Liz Cheney said, summoned, assembled, and inflamed by the President of the United States of America. In Liz Cheney's words, there has never been a greater betrayal by a President of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution. I pride myself as a Member of this Congress who for 40 years has worked in a bipartisan fashion with many of your leaders and do to this day. But are we to remain silent in the face of Liz Cheney saying this was the greatest betrayal of the duty of the President of the United States in history? Are we to stand silent? Will we stand silent? Will we not stand up and say this is not acceptable? Madam Speaker, for 4 years, Donald Trump has made no efforts to hide his ambitions or his lacking of Republican principles--not our principles, but the principles that Abraham Lincoln was just quoted as having said. Your President, our President, has never displayed those in the 4 years he has been President of the United States. He has allowed little constraint on his worst inclinations. His desire for autocracy and his glorification of violence have not been tempered but rationalized by those who sought to profit financially and politically from their proximity to power. Upon the foundations of virtue, reason, and patient wisdom laid down by George Washington as our first President, Donald Trump has constructed a glass palace of lies, fearmongering, and sedition. Last Wednesday, on January 6, the Nation and the world watched it shatter to pieces. There can be no mistaking any longer the kind of man sitting in the Oval Office or his intentions and capabilities. The curtain has been pulled back. The office to which he was elected could not temper or reform him. Washington's legacy was passed down to us, not as written decrees but understood norms, how we ought to act, how we ought to conduct ourselves. Term after term, each occupant has observed those norms out of a recognition that our Constitution's Articles are not the only preservative of our democracy. For more than two centuries, Madam Speaker, whenever those norms were tested and strained, good and virtuous citizens on both sides of the aisle found common purpose in reaffirming those norms. But memory fades, and from time to time, it must be refreshed. Madam Speaker, as the Framers emerged from the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was asked whether they had made America a monarchy or a republic. Probably all of us know his response. A republic, he answered, if you can keep it. That is the question today, if we can keep it. And the way we keep it is to say no to actions and words that do not promote the keeping of that republic. For millennia, people have understood that a republic is only as stable and lasting as the citizens and leaders who commit themselves to its upkeep. This President has shown us he is not committed to that project. His tweets every day have shown he is not committed to that project. Indeed, he openly disdains it and appears to prefer the alternative. But what of the rest of us, those of us who have the honor and the great privilege and the weighty responsibility to represent the views of 750,000 of our fellow citizens? We, in this Congress, have an opportunity--no--a duty to demonstrate our commitment both as leaders and as citizens to keeping America a republic that resolves its differences, not through being ordered to come to the Capitol to prevent them from stealing the election, which was an absurd assertion from the very first day it was made. We cannot erase the last 4 years, Madam Speaker. We cannot turn back the clock, but we can look to the ideals and principles inherited from great Presidents like Washington; like Jefferson; and, yes, certainly like Abraham Lincoln; and like Franklin Roosevelt. And from outstanding Americans like Frederick Douglass; Harriet Tubman; Susan Anthony; Cesar Chavez; Martin Luther King; Thurgood Marshall; our beloved John Lewis; and, yes, RBG, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who all taught us a lot about equality and inclusion. Madam Speaker, it is up to us to restore the vibrancy of our democracy by reaffirming our commitment to the norms they passed onto us and entrusted to our care. But to make that possible, Madam Speaker, we must rise to this moment and not only affirm the virtues we cherish, but reject the vices we abhor. That is what I am asking my fellow Representatives on both sides of the aisle to do today. We all stood and we abhorred the violence that occurred and the threat to the very democracy that we hold so dear and that we swore an oath to protect and uphold. Reject deceit. Reject fear-mongering. Reject sedition, tyranny, and insurrection. Reject the demand for fealty to one man over fidelity to one's country. When I addressed the House during the debate over the Articles of Impeachment in December of 2019, I said the following: We need not ask who will be the first to show our courage by standing up to President Trump. The question we must ask: Who will be the last to find it? Senator McConnell, Representative Cheney, and a number of other Representatives who have spoken on this floor with great courage, Madam Speaker, because there is much fear of Donald Trump. There is much fear of Donald Trump's tweets. There is much fear of Donald Trump's retribution for opposition. In my view, Donald Trump demands absolute loyalty and gives none in return. I hope others will join Liz Cheney. I hope others will be honest with themselves and with their constituents as Liz Cheney was, saying, ``There has never been a greater betrayal of a President of the United States to his office and to his oath to the Constitution.'' Don't dismiss that. She is the daughter of a Vice President of the United States, who was the whip when I came to Congress. As she has taken a stand, I hope others will as well, Madam Speaker. Soon, the Clerk will call the roll and ask for our votes. Make no mistake, this will be no ordinary roll call. This is about our country, our Constitution, and our democracy. These votes will be inscribed on the roll of history, a record of courage and of our commitment to country and Constitution, of our commitment to the rule of law and renewal of that which we inherited and hope to pass on unbroken, unshattered. With just 7 days left in the President's term, this vote is not about timing. It is about principle and fidelity to our Constitution. It concerns the clear and present danger facing our country not only in these final days of the Trump administration, but in the weeks, months, and years that will follow. It is about the necessity to demonstrate to this generation and to future generations the duty we share to protect our democracy every single day. Do not pretend, my friends, that it was simply those who came into the Capitol, encouraged by our President to ``stop the steal'' at any cost. By the way, if the Vice President doesn't do my bidding and follows the Constitution, sweep him away. We know that this President would never emulate George Washington and give up his power for the good of our Republic, even after losing an election. Somebody talked about a peaceful transition. There has not been a peaceful transition. I don't know what you are talking about. You are not living in the same country I am. It was just days ago that the President, after committing this terrible act, thought he had to admit that Joe Biden might, yes, be President of the United States. We know that this President neither recognizes norms, nor reflects the rule of law. We know that this President is not a patriot. Madam Speaker, so I ask this House: Who among us will be recorded on the roll of history for their courage, their commitment to the Constitution, and their country? We do this today not for politics. We don't need this for politics. Georgia showed that. There was no mistake in this election. We do this today to preserve and protect this great democracy. We do it for the America we love, our America the beautiful, whose Founders' sacrifices we praise in song: ``O beautiful for heroes proved in liberating strife, who more than self their country loved and mercy more than life.'' Sadly, Madam Speaker, as our current President, the appropriate words would be: Who less than self his country loved and victory more than truth. Vote for this, for America, for our Constitution, for democracy, for history.

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the objection.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, it is a sad day in America. It is a wrenching day in America. It is a day in which our words and our actions have had consequences of a very, very negative nature. We ought to watch our words and think what it may mean to some. My remarks were written before the tragic, dangerous, and unacceptable actions--and ``unacceptable'' is such a tame word. My remarks started with, ``Madam Speaker, the American people today are witnessing one of the greatest challenges to our democracy in its 244- year history.'' Little did I know that this Capitol would be attacked by the enemy within. I was here on 9/11 when we were attacked by the enemy without. We need to all work together to tame and reduce the anger and, yes, the hate that some stoke. What some--not all, Madam Speaker, but some-- in this House and this Senate are doing today will not change the outcome of the election, which is the clear and insurmountable victory of President-elect Biden and Vice-President-elect Harris. Instead, all they will accomplish is to further the dangerous divisions. This was written before this Capitol was assaulted, before this democracy was put aside by thousands, encouraged by the Commander in Chief. Instead, all they will accomplish is to further the dangerous divisions, as I said, among our people and energize conspiracy theories stoked by our foreign adversaries, which seek to erode America's confidence in our democracy and our system of free and fair elections. I was here in 2000. I was strongly in favor of Al Gore for President, and my candidate got more votes than the other candidate. His name was George Bush, of course. And one of the saddest days was January 20th of 2001 when our candidate, who won the election, in my view, was not elected. But it was also one of the proudest moments of my career because the greatest power on Earth passed peacefully from Bill Clinton to George W. Bush. Not a shot was fired. Nobody assaulted this Caucus or this Congress or this Chamber. Because we were not disappointed? No. Because we were not angry? No. Because we believe in democracy. We believe in ``We the people.'' One of the speakers, I think it was the Senator from Texas, expressed: We are here for the people. If those were the people, we are in a lot of trouble. Our electoral system, our democratic system, however, did not break under the strains of the misinformation, the claims of fraud, which court after court after court have dismissed out of hand, not because there was a little evidence, but because there was no evidence. That is why we are the longest-lasting constitutional democracy in the world. I hope all of us in this body are proud of that and understand why that is the case. Because, as Dick Gephardt said on this floor many years ago, democracy is a substitute for war to resolve differences. It proved once more the ever-beating strong heart that gives life to our Republic and our freedoms. That strength, Madam Speaker, is derived in part from our institution and our laws, but most importantly, it is powered by citizens' and leaders' commitment to our Constitution. Not just us. We swear an oath. But it is all of America. Barack Obama spoke from that Chamber, and he said: I am going to be taking another title next year--citizen. And he was proud to take that. And every citizen needs to protect, preserve, and uplift our democracy. Some today did not do that, many today. Sixty-eight years ago in Springfield, Illinois, Governor Adlai Stevenson gracefully conceded his loss to General Dwight Eisenhower. He said this: ``It is traditionally American,'' he told his deeply disappointed supporters, ``to fight hard before an election.'' But then he added, it is equally traditional to close ranks as soon as the people have spoken--not the Congress, not the electors, the people have spoken. That which unites us as American citizens is far greater than that which divides us as political parties. It was another man from Springfield, fourscore and 8 years earlier, who won reelection to the Presidency in the national crisis that tested our country and its democratic institutions, who pleaded even in his hour of victory for the same spirit of reconciliation. That was the party of Lincoln. That hasn't happened to this hour. Lincoln said: ``. . . now that the election is over,'' he asked, ``may not all, having a common interest, reunite in a common effort to save our common country?'' Such is the duty of an American who stands for elections, or participates in our politics, to be either humble in triumph or gracious in defeat. I have lost some elections--not too many--and I have won a lot of elections. I hope that I have been gracious in defeat and humble in victory. I hope that I put my State and my country first, not myself. It is clear to all that the outgoing President has not followed the path that Stevenson and Lincoln urged. So, we, the people--each one of us represents about 750,000 to 800,000 people, some a few less. The people, they have spoken in the way that our Constitution set for them to be heard by us and by the country--they voted, and they voted pretty decisively. We, the people, together, must turn away from division and its dangers. The senior Member of our body, Don Young from Alaska, spoke the other day when we were sworn in and said: Ladies and gentlemen of this House, we are so divisive that it is going to destroy our country. We need to reach out and hold one another's hands. We all have a title that we honor more than any other--perhaps parent, perhaps husband. But we are all Americans. Not Americans-R; not Americans-D. We are Americans. Let us hope tonight that we act like Americans. Not as Ds and Rs, but as Americans, just as Al Gore, just as Hillary Clinton, just as Adlai Stevenson, just as Abraham Lincoln, who had won that election, of course. But he had defeated people, and he said that is not the issue; the issue is to reunite. We, the people, must again be the strong heart of our American democracy. We, the people, on this day in Congress, must be agents of unity and constructive action to face the grave threats that confront us and tell those who would assault our Capitol: That is not the American way. We, the Members of Congress, who swore an oath before God to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States and our democracy, must do so now. I don't usually read Senator McConnell's speeches, but I am not speaking as a Democrat, nor was he speaking as a Republican just a few hours ago. ``We're debating a step that has never been taken in American history, whether Congress should overrule the voters and overturn a Presidential election.'' He went on to say that he supports a strong State-led voting reform. ``The Constitution,'' he said, ``gives us here in Congress a limited role. We cannot simply declare ourselves a national board of elections on steroids. The voters, the courts, and the States have all spoken.'' Five people said the election of 2000 was over. We didn't agree with them. But Al Gore said: We are a nation of laws. Five people--yes, they were members of the Supreme Court, but they were five people--said the election is over. I sat on that podium and saw that power transfer to George W. Bush. McConnell went on to say: ``If we overrule them, it would damage our Republic forever.'' He said that, McConnell, the Republican leader of the Senate, about 2 hours ago, 3 hours ago, now 4 hours. He went on to say: ``If this election were overturned by mere allegations from the losing side, our democracy would enter a death spiral.'' He concluded: ``It would be unfair and wrong to disenfranchise American voters and overrule the courts and the States on this extraordinarily thin basis. And I will not pretend such a vote would be a harmless protest gesture . . .'' How presciently he spoke. People who think that the election has been stolen with some fraud, why do they think it? Because the Commander in Chief said so, and they respect him and they follow him. And words matter. ``Pete,'' as he ended, ``I will not pretend such a vote would be a harmless protest gesture while relying on others to do the right thing. I will vote to respect the people's decision and defend our system of government as we know it.'' I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this objection, as McConnell said, a danger to our democracy.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, this would not be the time I would have chosen, but it may be the last time that we are in session before the new administration comes in. We are losing an extraordinary young woman who has been with me for over a decade and who is our floor leader, our floor director. All of you know her. Her name is Shuwanza Goff, and she has been with me for a significant period of time. Shuwanza is a wonderful person. And the problem with having wonderful, talented, good staff is that at an administration change, they steal your people. It is just a terrible thing that happens. Two of my staff, Shuwanza Goff and Mariel Saez, will be going to the administration as well, and I have asked the administration to please do not take any more of my people. But Shuwanza Goff has just been extraordinary. Those of you who have dealt with her understand how bright she is. That is the bad news, Madam Speaker, that they have taken her. But the good news is, she is going to be the administration's representative to the House of Representatives, so we are going to see a lot of Shuwanza. I am sure she will be talking to both of us on both sides of the aisle and urging us to vote one way or the other or getting us information or doing all sorts of things that we might ask her to do and that she would want to do for us. I want to say, Madam Speaker, and I know you share my view, those of us who have had an opportunity to work closely with Shuwanza, I love Shuwanza Goff. She is just a wonderful spirit. She is smart. She knows the rules. She knows the floor. I think Mr. McCarthy's and Mr. Scalise's staffs would say the same thing if I had given them any notice that we were going to do this, but I thought we had some time. Shuwanza, I really do want to thank you, and we wish you the best of luck. We know you are not going far. I know we are going to see a lot of you, but we wish you great success in everything you do. I tell my staff, Madam Speaker, that they can go off the payroll, but they cannot go off the staff. God bless, Shuwanza, and good luck. At 3:22 a.m., the Sergeant at Arms, Paul D. Irving, announced the Vice President and the Senate of the United States. The Senate entered the Hall of the House of Representatives, headed by the Vice President and the Secretary of the Senate, the Members and officers of the House rising to receive them. The Vice President took his seat as the Presiding Officer of the joint convention of the two Houses, the Speaker of the House occupying the chair on his left. Senators took seats to the right of the rostrum as prescribed by law.

Mr. HOYER

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