Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to publicly apologize to Leader McCarthy for a remark I made to myself that was picked up by the House microphone yesterday. It was said out of frustration and anger, it was wrong, and I have apologized privately to Mr. McCarthy, who I believe is a man of integrity in this House.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, what we ought to have the courage to do is to tell all our Homeland Security personnel, We are going to fund you through the end of this year, as we have told every other employee in the Federal Government that is protecting us and serving us on a day- to-day basis. Mr. Speaker, the majority party said to the American people in a pledge to America: We will end the practice of packaging unpopular bills with ``must-pass'' legislation. The funding of the Department of Homeland Security is a must-pass piece of legislation, legislation to circumvent the will of the American people. Instead, we will advance major legislation one issue at a time. Mr. Speaker, they are breaking that pledge today. Peter King, the former Republican chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, said this: ``If a clean bill comes here, as we expect to happen in just a few hours, we have to accept and vote on it.'' He then said, in reference to this cul-de-sac strategy that the majority party is following of continuing to go into a dead end, he said this, Peter King: ``I think up to this point, we've engaged in an exercise of tactical malpractice. Self-delusion is self-destructive.'' There is not a Republican in this House who believes this strategy will do anything but run them back into that cul-de-sac that they went into in December, at the expense of the confidence of Americans that their Department of Homeland Security, tasked to make them safe, tasked to provide for the security of this Nation, will, in fact, be operating on a full basis. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter dated yesterday from Secretary Jeh Johnson and read this key excerpt from it. Secretary Johnson said: ``Finally, as I have noted many times, mere extension of a continuing resolution has many of the same negative impacts''-- outlined in this letter. ``A short-term continuing resolution exacerbates the uncertainty for my workforce and puts us back in the same position, on the brink of a shutdown.'' For those Republicans who believe that we ought to do the responsible thing, as Peter King has said, vote against the previous question. Vote for a rule that provides for the consideration of the Senate-passed bill, which they, 98-2, decided to put on the floor because they thought it was good policy. KEY EXCERPT: ``Finally, as I have noted many times, mere extension of a continuing resolution has many of the same negative impacts. A short-term continuing resolution exacerbates the uncertainty for my workforce and puts us back in the same position, on the brink of a shutdown just days from now.'' February 26, 2015. Dear Speaker Boehner, Majority Leader McConnell, Minority Leader Reid, and Minority Leader Pelosi: Thank you for your leadership and efforts to pass a clean, full-year appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security. As you know, our funding expires tomorrow at midnight. I write to explain to Members of Congress the real and substantial consequences of a failure to pass a full-year appropriations bill by that deadline. As an initial matter, it must be noted that a potential shutdown of the Department comes at a particularly challenging time for homeland security. It is stunning that we must even contemplate a shutdown of the Department in the current global context. The global terrorist threat has become more decentralized and complex. Terrorist organizations are now openly calling for attacks on Western targets. Yesterday's arrests in New York City highlight the threat of independent actors in the homeland who support overseas terrorist organizations and radical ideology. We are working hard to stay one step ahead of potential threats to aviation security. Last year at this time, the spike in migrant children began to appear at our border; we are deployed to prevent this situation from recurring, and to address it aggressively if it does. The Nation is in the midst of a very cold, harsh winter, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency is working with states impacted by record snowfalls. Here are just some of the consequences for homeland security if the Department's funding lapses and we shut down: First, about 170,000 employees will be required to work, but will not get paid for that work during the period of a shutdown. This includes our Coast Guard, Border Patrol agents, Secret Service agents, Transportation Security Administration officers, and others on the front lines of our homeland security. These working men and women depend on biweekly paychecks to make ends meet for themselves and their families. For them, personally, work without pay is disruptive and demoralizing. Even worse for our people are the public statements by some that make light of a shutdown, which disregards DHS employees' personal sacrifices and dedication to our Nation's security. Second, approximately 30,000 men and women of the Department must be furloughed and sent home without pay. Our financial management, human resources, procurement and contracting, and information technology teams--the institutional backbone of the Department--will be reduced by 90 percent, from over 2,000 to just 208 people. My own immediate headquarters staff will be cut by about 87 percent. Our Science and Technology team, which is intensely focused on developing non-metallic explosive detection capabilities as well as other technologies to counter threats to aviation, will be cut 94 percent, from 448 to 26 people. Our Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, which is our Nation's primary research and development lead for development of advanced nuclear detection technologies and technical forensic capabilities, will also be cut 94 percent, from 121 to just 7 people. Third, contracting services across the Department, including those for critical mission support activities, will be disrupted and/or interrupted altogether. Depending upon the length of a shutdown, contract awards and major acquisitions could be impacted. In the event of a shutdown, negotiations to construct the United States Coast Guard's 8th National Security Cutter will be delayed, potentially leading to an increase in costs. Fourth, our $2.5 billion-a-year grant-making to state, local, tribal, and territorial governments, to assist them in preventing, responding to or recovering from terrorist attacks, major disasters and other emergencies, remains at a standstill (it has already stopped because the Department is currently funded by a Continuing Resolution). Of particular note, the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Emergency Management Performance Grants, which contribute 50 percent of the salaries of state and local emergency management personnel, cannot be funded. Fifth, public assistance disaster recovery payments to communities affected by previous disasters will grind to a halt. Though these payments are funded with prior-year money, the Federal Emergency Management Agency's staff that processes them must be furloughed. Sixth, depending upon the length of a shutdown, DHS will no longer be able to support state and local authorities with planning, safety, and security resources for special security events such as the Boston and Chicago Marathons. Seventh, depending upon the length of a shutdown, work to complete construction of the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility in Kansas, which will replace the aging 1950s-era Plum Island facility in New York, could be disrupted. Eighth, new hires across the Department must be halted, disrupting critical missions to secure the border, protect millions of daily airline passengers, strengthen security at the White House, and deploy new ICE investigators. Routine attrition hiring would cease across the Department, seriously undermining our homeland security frontline staffing needs. Our plans to increase CBP staffing at our ports of entry by 2,000 officers, and to maintain the Transportation Security Administration's workforce of airport screeners and air marshals will be undermined. Our plans to hire additional Secret Service uniformed officers and special agents will also be disrupted. Ninth, without funding, all training at the Federal Law ``Enforcement Training Centers'' will cease. Up to 2,000 local, state, and federal law enforcement trainees from across the country will be sent home. Finally, as I have noted many times, mere extension of a continuing resolution has many of the same negative impacts. A short-term continuing resolution exacerbates the uncertainty for my workforce and puts us back in the same position, on the brink of a shutdown just days from now. I urge Congress, as soon as possible, to pass a clean, full-year Fiscal Year 2015 appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security. The American people are counting on us.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I join her in thanking Mr. Carter and Mr. Rogers for bringing to the floor in December a Homeland Security bill that was appropriate and that funded at the levels that were agreed upon by both parties. All we are asking is that we pass Mr. Carter's and Mr. Rogers' bill. The Republicans pledged to not mingle controversial issues and allow each issue to stand on its own merits or demerits. That was their pledge to America in 2010. This action is inconsistent with that pledge. The Senate has just voted, Madam Speaker, 68-31 to pass the Rogers- Lowey-Mikulski-Shelby bill. This is not a partisan bill that we are arguing about. This is the bill that we have agreed upon, Republicans and Democrats--and we can't even pass that--with the knowledge that if we do not, the future funding of America's homeland security will still be in question. Yes, we can do it for 3 weeks. I call it our cul-de-sac strategy, going into a cul-de-sac over and over and over again and feeling somehow a pathway is going to open. The Senate is now voting on the Collins amendment. Now, as I understand the strategy of the Republican Party in the House, Madam Speaker, it is to add the bill that has been rejected four times on the floor of the United States Senate. They went in the cul-de-sac once, it didn't open up. They went in the cul-de-sac twice, it didn't open up. They went in the cul-de-sac a third, fourth time, it didn't open up. And now the proposal is to go into that cul- de-sac a fifth time while we focus on whether or not we are going to fund Homeland Security, not on the objectives of homeland security.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I urge Republicans and Democrats who have all said not funding the Homeland Security Department now for the balance of the year is--Mr. Rogers didn't quote this, he was talking about sequester--is ill-conceived and wrong. I therefore, Madam Speaker, urge my colleagues to vote against this short-term CR and to vote for the Senate bill that will be sent to us in just a short period of time, today, which passed the United States Senate with over a two- thirds vote. Democrats only have 46 Members, so almost a majority of the Republicans are voting for it as well. Madam Speaker, that is the responsible thing to do. That is the right thing to do. That is the regular order to do. Let's do it. Let's put aside our partisan differences and our partisan strategies and vote as Americans to fund the Department of Homeland Security for the balance of the year.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Chair, this bill is complex and could be discussed for a long period of time. Mr. Scott doesn't have a long period of time, and I will be brief. I want to point out that when we passed, at the request of President Bush, No Child Left Behind, which everybody has recognized does not have some of the components that it ought to have and has some components that it ought not to have--and Mr. Scott's substitute fixes that which is broken--I will point out that that bill passed 384-45. This bill has, essentially, been on the floor before and got no Democratic votes. How sad it is that on an issue so important to our country, we don't have a bipartisan bill. Now this bill had no hearings, notwithstanding the fact there are 63 new Members. I am very pleased--and I thank Mr. Scott--that the Democratic alternative includes the full service community school program that I have been promoting for years. These full service community schools bring the successful model of the Judith P. Hoyer Early Childhood Centers to K-12 nationally. Opportunities--there are 33 Judy Centers in Maryland, and there will be another three opening later this school year. My wife, for whom Judy Centers were named, was a strong proponent of this highly successful model, which has helped in closing the achievement gaps for thousands of students in Maryland. Sadly, H.R. 5 does not include provisions for those services, which will make a difference. I thank the chairman for his leadership and the ranking member for his leadership and contribution.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this motion. I also rise to lament the fact that we had an opportunity just a few hours ago, or an hour ago, to do what the Senate rationally did. After four opportunities of trying to adopt the House position, the Senate failed to do so. Now, I heard my young friend from Texas talk about the Constitution. I have heard a lot of people say we ought to read the Constitution. I agree with that. The Constitution has provided for the resolution of the injury of which you speak so passionately, and that is Article III of the Constitution. Marbury v. Madison said that the Supreme Court had the authority, whether it was the President or the Congress, to say that that is not constitutional. Frankly, by our passing a law and saying this is constitutional, as has been attempted and done in the past by my Republican friends, to say, ``we say, by legislative fiat, this is constitutional,'' unfortunately, today, we gave up the opportunity to act responsibly. My friend Mr. Rogers, for whom I have great respect, and Mrs. Lowey know we are going to be back here some 20 days from today with this same debate because the Senate has already said they are not going to conference. When I say ``the Senate,'' the Democrats are not going to give 60 votes as the Republicans would not give 60 votes to go to conference on other bills in past years. What we did was we reversed the order of the legislation we are considering. Had we done the original order, we would have done this motion to go to conference and the motion to instruct first. As a result, we would have still had the Senate bill in the House of Representatives so as to act responsibly, but there apparently was a fear that we might do that, so that bill was sent back to the Senate before we considered the CR for 21 days. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion to instruct. Vote ``yes'' to, at some point in time, do what is the responsible and doable alternative. It is not a question of whether you like it or I like it. It is the alternative that we in the Congress can do, and that is why 68 Members of the United States Senate--Republicans and Democrats--voted to say we have tried for 6 weeks to do what we all need to do, and that is to fund the Department of Homeland Security to keep America safe. We are going to delay that; but, at a minimum, we ought to say to the conferees--and few of us on this floor believe there will be any conference. Again, the Senate will not vote to go to conference. Let us vote at least for this responsible motion made by the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. The Rules Committee is going to meet tonight at 9:30 tonight, is that the--8:00. Somebody said 8 o'clock over here--a member of the Rules Committee. Was it at 8:00 or at 9:30?

Mr. HOYER. Eight o'clock. Will the gentleman yield again?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Leader, we have been now--you are correct--6 weeks leaving the Department of Homeland Security twisting in the wind. We have done that as the gentleman knows----

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. What can we expect to be on the floor tomorrow, Mr. Leader?

Mr. HOYER. Can the majority leader tell us, in light of fact that is less than 24 hours from now, what we might be considering with respect to keeping the Department of Homeland Security operating on a permanent basis through September 30?

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the gentleman has just said about those challenges and threats, along with the undermining of our national security, but it is further at risk this week by our own hand; that is, the Congress of the United States. The Department of Homeland Security will not be funded. There are 230,000 people who work at that Department, and 30,000 of them, mostly administrative personnel, will be laid off. The others, known as critically important--essential employees who are on the front line-- will work, but they won't get paid. We can lament what others have done to undermine our national security and share--I think in a bipartisan way--the conclusion that we ought not to further those enterprises, but as I said, Mr. Speaker, by our own hand we are about to shut down the Department of Homeland Security. We have but 4 days to pass a bill continuing its funding. I will say with all due respect, Mr. Speaker, to my friends on the other side of the aisle, shutting down the government is a strategy they have employed on a number of occasions. In 1995, we shut it down twice, for almost a month, maybe a little longer. Just a few months ago, we shut it down again as a strategy--not as a happenstance, but as a strategy. Again, Mr. Speaker, there are those who are saying in this House: Well, it won't matter if we shut down the Department of Homeland Security. Some of the folks are funded on fees, others will be required to work anyway, so let's just keep playing this Russian roulette with America's security and the safety of Americans. Mr. Speaker, we are approaching the eleventh hour, and the House has not yet been given the opportunity to vote on a bill that, essentially, was agreed to by the Republican Appropriations Committee and reported to this floor, and we essentially passed it, but we passed it for a short period of time. There was no debate on funding levels, Mr. Speaker. There was no debate on whether this provision and that provision should or should not be in the bill. We passed it. Then the Republicans, Mr. Speaker, to accomplish another objective, have done what they said in the pledge to America they would not do, and that is put two different issues in the same bill. Well, they have put a poison pill in this bill. If we fail to act and send the President a bill he can and will sign, a bill free from partisan policy riders, then thousands of our Homeland Security agents will be furloughed, and almost--as I said--200,000 others will be forced to work without pay. Is that what America has come to? Surely not--the impact on our border security, law enforcement, and homeland security will be serious and make our country more vulnerable to threats. I came to the rostrum after a gentleman on the other side of the aisle correctly expressed concerns about the threats that confront us. I would hope he would join me in advocating and urging the Republican leadership to bring to the floor a clean--and by clean, I simply mean a bill on which both parties have essentially agreed. Chairman Mike McCaul, the Republican who leads the House Committee on Homeland Security said yesterday--Mr. Speaker, this is the Republican chairman of the Homeland Security Committee: ``I fully believe we should not be playing politics with the national security agency like the Department of Homeland Security, particularly given the high threat environment that we're in right now.'' What American would say it makes sense to play politics with Homeland Security in light of what the gentleman has just referenced and which all of us know to be the case? We have people who want to harm us as a people and as a nation. Mr. Speaker, this body has a responsibility to the American people to do everything we can to make them as secure as we can and to make our country as secure as we can. Senator Lindsey Graham, with whom I served in this body who now represents South Carolina and is a Republican Member of the Senate and an expert on national security, he told his Republican colleagues this--and, again, I quote: ``The worst possible outcome for this Nation is to defund the Department of Homeland Security, given the multiple threats we face to our homeland, and I will not be part of it.'' None of us ought to be part of it. 435 of us ought to vote to fund the Homeland Security Department starting on Friday. I urge the Republican majority to heed this advice of Mr. McCaul, of Mr. Graham, and, frankly, countless other Republicans in the Senate and some in the House to do the responsible thing and let this House work its will on the single subject of our national security. If a clean Homeland Security appropriation bill were to come to the floor, I am confident--and I tell my friend and the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, every Democrat will vote for it. We are 188 strong. Surely, there are 30 responsible Republicans who care more about our national security than their politics who would join us in voting for that bill--I am confident of that--many more, I think, than 30, but at least 30 would be needed, with 188, to get to the 218, and we would fund the Department of Homeland Security, and we could do it tomorrow. We could probably do it today by unanimous consent--well, no, I don't think we could do it by unanimous consent because there are some who continue to play politics with our national security. If the majority is dissatisfied with our immigration policy which they articulate and legitimately can have an alternative view to express and to try to enact, that is the democratic process. Offer a bill to change that which they do not like, not hold hostage the Department of Homeland Security until hopefully, from their standpoint, the President is bludgeoned into signing a bill that he does not agree with and he does not believe is good for our country and believes is bad for our economy. If the majority is dissatisfied, bring a bill to the floor. Former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, also a Republican with whom I have served when he was a Representative from Pennsylvania, subsequently the Governor of Pennsylvania and then our first Secretary of Homeland Security, I want to quote him as well as I have quoted the other two Republicans that I have quoted. ``Political folly'' and ``bad policy,'' that is Tom Ridge, former Republican Governor and mentioned for President. He went on to say: ``I think the political repercussions could be severe. And, on top of that, the men and women of Homeland Security deserve better.'' Who wants to work for an employer that simply takes them hostage every few months and says to them: You may or may not get paid, you may or may not be able to come to work, you may or may not be able to do your job. It depends upon whether or not our political ends are served. I urge Republican leaders to keep the pledge they made to the American people to consider issues one at a time. Bring a comprehensive immigration reform bill. If you don't like what the President has done, bring a bill that changes that. We have the power to do that. Do it. We can work in a bipartisan way to change our immigration policies through legislation and fix what everybody in this body believes is a broken system. Bring a clean appropriation bill to the floor to fund the Department of Homeland Security, and then, as well, bring a bill to the floor on comprehensive immigration reform or the bill that our Republican friends think is the appropriate bill to fix a broken system, and we will vote and debate on that. But let the Department of Homeland Security do its job for America, for Americans. Let's exercise responsible, adult legislating this time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the Congress has 5 legislative days left until February 27. We have 5 days to meet and send the President an appropriations bill that he can sign to keep the Department of Homeland Security from shutting down. The Republican leader in the Senate says the House ought to act. The Speaker says the Senate ought to act. Somebody needs to act. Somebody needs to act like an adult. Somebody needs to fund the security and safety of the American people. Their own Senate colleagues disagree with their strategy of holding national security hostage to their political goals on immigration. We face, as all of us know, very real threats, which is why we cannot let the Department's funding lapse. If Republicans want to debate immigration policy, then bring an immigration bill to the floor. Don't hold our security hostage. I ask my Republican colleagues to end their games and instead work with us to keep America safe.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Terrible policy. I don't know about you, but I am for Simpson-Bowles. The problem with Simpson-Bowles for some people is it paid for what it did, just like the Camp bill. The Camp bill made tough choices, and it was a zero-sum game in the sense that it cut taxes and it paid for them--a zero-sum game--just like you had to run your business because, if you didn't run your business that way, you would have gone bankrupt. Now, I fought for that for a very long period of time and voted that way, as I say, one of 18 with my friend from Wisconsin, but I tell my friend, yes, we are following bad policy. This bill, you can argue for the merits. I get that. The next bill, you can argue for the merits, and the bill after that and the bill after that and the bill after that, and you have then caused $600 billion in deficit spending that your kids and my kids will have to pay for because we are too old to be around long enough to pay for it. So I rise against this bill not because I am against fighting hunger. Everybody ought to be against fighting hunger.

Mr. HOYER. But when you talk about fighting hunger, don't cut food stamps $40 billion. Don't suggest the way we pay for this tax cut is to cut $125 billion from food stamps over the next 10 years, as the chairman did. I disagree with that policy, and I respect the chairman.

Mr. HOYER. No, I have done longer when I had the minute, believe me. I want to tell the gentleman, in all sincerity, I look forward to being able to support a bill that is comprehensive, paid for, and gives our citizens and individual taxpayers the certainty they need to have the confidence they need to grow our economy. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. HOYER. The ranking member didn't write my speech, so I am not sure what my answer to the distinguished gentleman's comments is, but I will say this to my friend, I am not for 1 year. I may vote for 1 year, but that is not what we ought to do. It ought to be paid for if it is 1 year, 2 years, permanent. There is no free lunch. You are in the automobile business. People come into your automobile store, and they would say, I would like to have that car for $10,000. And you say, Now, look, I paid $20,000 for that car. I can't sell it to you for $10,000. There is no free lunch. Unpaid tax cuts are a free lunch, a pretense that somehow it is just free, but I will tell my friend it is not free. The chairman, who was the chairman of the Budget Committee, offered a budget which cuts food stamps $125 billion. This bill is called the Fighting Hunger Incentive Act--$125 billion cut in food stamps. I tell you my friend voted for a $40 billion cut in food stamps in the farm bill. I am not for free lunches. I am for a lot of these tax cuts, but I am not for taking it out of the mouths of children, I am not for taking it out of NIH, and I am not for taking it out of our national security. We have got to pay for what we buy, and I vote that way. The chairman and I were one of 18 people one time that voted against a very popular bill that had to do with Social Security. We thought it was not paid for and not fiscally responsible, and he and I were one of 18 people in this House that voted against it.

Mr. HOYER. I don't have much time, but maybe we can get some more. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I used to have a magic 1 minute. I don't have that now. I would be glad to participate in debate. We have had bad policy, I tell my friend.

Mr. HOYER. No, I can't yield any more because I am running out of time. Mr. Speaker, this is one of two bills that we are considering on the floor this week to make tax cuts permanent, and it is unfortunate that neither of these bills is paid for 1 year or permanently. Together, they would increase the deficit by $93 billion. Nobody is suggesting we are going to pay for that, so our kids will pay for it. Democrats support extending many of the preferences we are talking about, but we are also deeply concerned about America's fiscal future. And I voted that way, not just talked that way. I hear a lot of talk from my friends in the majority about the debt, but that talk too often fails to translate into fiscally responsible policy. It didn't in 1981 when we cut taxes deeply and increased the national debt from the time I came in under Reagan 189 percent, more than any President that has been President during my term in the last 34 years. We have seen these two tax bills before--when Republicans brought them to the floor last Congress, along with several other permanent tax cuts, which, together, would have ballooned the deficit by more than $600 billion. That is twice what we will spend on medical research at NIH and 10 times what it would cost to expand community college access. I also hear a lot of my friends on the other side of the aisle talk about a broken tax system. I tell my friend, that system is going to remain broken. That system is going to remain broken unless we do what Camp did. Did I agree with everything that Camp did? No. But I respected him for putting together a package of tax reform that gives what Mr. Ryan says we need, and I agree with him--certainty. People need to know. These ought to all be permanent. The R&D tax credit ought to be permanent so people can plan.

Mr. HOYER. America's businesses and families deserve the certainty that comes from tax reform, not partisan piecemeal reform bills that undermine--undermine--tax reform. That is what Roy Blunt was talking about. Roy Blunt has already been quoted, so I won't repeat the quote. But what he said is, as long as the Finance Committee feels there is an opportunity for overall tax reform, I think you are not going to see a quick response to individual bills coming over. That is why this is bad policy; because you are not going to get from here to there unless you have a comprehensive bill that makes the tough tradeoffs and summons the courage of this Congress to pass meaningful, permanent, paid-for tax certainty for our citizens.

Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I will say to my friend from Michigan, today we are all members of the Congressional Black Caucus, one people with one commitment and one idea. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill, of which I am a cosponsor, honoring the brave men and women who marched in Selma. This will be my 10th year participating in the Faith and Politics Institute's pilgrimage to Selma with my friend from Georgia, John Lewis. I thank the gentlelady from Selma for leading this debate. Those folks who marched across that bridge on March 7, known as Bloody Sunday, were met with the power of the State to prevent them from voting. This Gold Medal would be a tribute to John and to all those who marched alongside him and all those who marched along 2 weeks later with Martin Luther King, Jr., those thousands who walked that 5-day journey from Selma to Montgomery. We ought to pass it unanimously. I hope we will. But Martin Luther King, Jr., would not be happy with us if we just looked back in awe and reverence and did not look at today--I tell my friend from Michigan--for he would say that Congress should go further than simply honoring those who fought for their rights a half a century ago. We should pay tribute to their sacrifices and the scars they still carry by restoring the full protections of the Voting Rights Act, which the Supreme Court weakened in 2013. Martin Luther King, Jr., was about principle, but he was also about ensuring that protections would be in place. I hope that this House will allow bipartisan legislation to restore these protections, which is cosponsored by the gentleman from Wisconsin, Jim Sensenbrenner, the former chairman of the Judiciary Committee on the Republican side, and the gentleman from Georgia, John Lewis, a hero of Selma. These protections should move expeditiously through the House once the legislation is introduced.