Andy Harris

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Madam Speaker, this bill, the Equality Act, is nothing more than an identity politic sellout, a thinly veiled attempt to attack and coerce individuals who hold serious and legitimate concerns or objections to things like parental rights to make healthcare decisions for their children; the ability of women to compete on an equal athletic playing field; and even medical procedures like sterilization and abortion. I am a physician and I have been practicing medicine for over 35 years. This bill, if enacted, would mandate that healthcare practitioners and even facilities like Catholic hospitals would be forced to provide and participate in procedures like abortion, which ends a human life. We should all be able to agree that a Catholic hospital should never be compelled by the government to offer procedures like abortion that they morally object to in the strongest possible terms. Furthermore, if society continues to support politically correct gender identity politics, the science is becoming clearer that gender dysphoria, especially in children, is a psychiatric condition that in most cases will resolve itself with time. Instead, however, this bill would require parents to allow irreversible medical interventions for their children, children who may even be prepubescent, resulting in sterilization, and oftentimes later regret. Scientific data confirms that many who undergo gender transition continue to deal with serious depression, even after full transition. And the poorly named ``Equality Act'' would mandate that medical professionals accept and support the desire of their patients to undergo these invasive procedures, even if they have professional or conscience objections. Madam Speaker, in response, I will be reintroducing the Conscience Protection Act this week. My bill will protect healthcare providers from being required to perform abortions or sterilizations and allow them to continue practicing medicine without duress or coercion from their employer or perhaps even their patients. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor my bill, and I oppose the so-called Equality Act on the floor this week.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Madam Speaker, I regret to inform you that I was unable to vote on January 13, 2021, due to an unavoidable conflict. Had I been present, I would have voted NO on Roll Call No. 17.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. The oath I took is very simple. Madam Speaker, you administered it. It is to support and defend the Constitution. Now, as you walk back to the office buildings, you will walk by that wall that has when the various States accepted that Constitution. Remember, when a State accepts the Constitution, it agrees to accept every part of the Constitution. It doesn't get to pick and choose. Pennsylvania was there when it was written. They were so enthusiastic about the Constitution, they approved it in 1787. My State, Maryland, is a little further down the wall, 1788. They were there when it was written. The clause that gave the legislature the power over the elections was there when they accepted it. It has been there since. How dare the judicial branch or the executive branch of that State usurp the legislative authority. That is a clear violation of the Constitution. Now, we heard there is no evidence. Evidence? The Pennsylvania Supreme Court unilaterally extended the deadline to receive absentee and mail-in ballots. Does anybody contest that over here? Does it say the legislature did that? No, it doesn't. It says the court did it. That is a violation. That is what the Texas lawsuit was all about. We disadvantage other States when States like Pennsylvania, the executive branch and judicial branch, cheat on the Constitution; and that is what they did here. But there is more evidence. But wait, there is more. The Democrat secretary of the Commonwealth eroded integrity by dismissing signature authentication on a ballot. Does anyone here believe the Pennsylvania legislature would have agreed to create a separate system for mail-in ballots and in-person ballots? That if you mail it in, you don't need a signature? But if you vote in person, you do and it has to be authenticated? Of course not. The legislature clearly wouldn't have agreed to that. But that didn't stop the usurpation of constitutional authority. Madam Chair, I vigorously support this objection, and I include in the Record the objection to counting the electoral votes for the State of Arizona additional signers. Objection to Counting the Electoral Votes for the State of Arizona Additional Signers Jeff Duncan SC-3 Matt Gaetz FL-1

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Madam Speaker, I regret to inform you that I am unable to vote due to an unavoidable conflict. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 247.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, is it useful for that group? Is CBD useful for that group of pediatric patients with seizures? Yes, it sure is. Is it useful for people with glaucoma? Yes, it sure is. Is it useful for spasticity with multiple sclerosis? Yes, it sure is. But there are 40 or 50 other claims that we don't know about. We deserve to know about it. Those claims are simply not founded on science. Look, let's do the science. Let's see what medical marijuana is useful for. As a physician, anything it is useful for, I want to provide for patients. Let's do the science. Let's pass H.R. 3797.

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your concern about addiction and all the problems. This is an ancillary problem that deals with that. I thank you for your concern about that. I thank the chairman of the committee and the ranking member. This has been years in the making. I thank them for bringing this across the finish line. I thank my cosponsor from across the aisle. The gentleman from Oregon is absolutely right. He and I will disagree, probably the most two people can disagree, about recreational marijuana. We agree 100 percent that we need to do this research and that we need this bill. Now, because of the discussion about COVID and the vaccines and therapeutics for that, Americans realize how medical research has to be done and how important it is to be done. They expect purity, safety, and efficacy for anything that has a claim of a medical product. Now, unfortunately, because of the public policy we have had in place with marijuana and its scheduling, this simply couldn't be done. The unfortunate consequence is that legislatures in general across the States, and, unfortunately, this legislature last week, took a ready- fire-aim approach: Let's go ahead and legalize it, even for recreational use, without a medical basis. But I am only going to talk about medical marijuana. We need good studies. Understandably, because of current scheduling, we can't do it. I get it. I did research, as a physician, on drugs. You can't do it under the current scheduling, but we need to do the research. As the chairman pointed out, Dr. Volkow, who has appeared before our committee many times, has said that the claims of medical usefulness are simply greatly exaggerated because we don't have the science. Many claims are made; very few are proven. We don't tolerate that for other medications. We certainly don't tolerate it for COVID vaccines and therapeutics. We shouldn't tolerate it for medical marijuana. This research just simply hasn't been done, for a variety of reasons, most of which get cured by this bill. Now, could medical marijuana be useful for PTSD for my fellow veterans? Absolutely. It might be useful. We have no idea. What we have done is, instead, the public press has said it is useful for PTSD. That is not the way we treat medicine in this country. We actually do the research. Our veterans deserve for us to do this research. It couldn't be done, because of the scheduling, because of the rules--the rules, by the way, that Congress made. This is on us. We shouldn't have taken so long to get to this point. Could it be useful for non-neurogenic chronic pain? Yes, it might be, but I don't know. The last thing we should do to our chronic pain patients, as you know, Mr. Speaker, because of the problems with treating chronic pain, is make false promises to them about something. If this works for it, oh, my gosh, that is great. We have a potential solution for part of our addiction problem. If it doesn't work, those people deserve to know.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank Dr. Roe for his service. Congress will miss him next year. We will miss his expertise especially in this time of crisis in the Nation. But I am going to make my remarks very brief to remind the American people who are watching what we were talking about back in spring about the possibilities of how this pandemic comes to an end. The possibilities really were, well, the virus weakens on its own, but we haven't seen that at all, or a vaccine is developed. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, because I have had NIH grants, an NIH grant is usually written for a 3-year period with a renewal because that is usually how long it takes to even begin to make a discovery. With vaccines it is typically 5 to 10 years. What we are talking about now, because of what this administration has done, is to have a vaccine being administered, being declared safe by the FDA potentially within 10 months of conceptualizing a vaccine. As Dr. Roe knows, I sit on the Health Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee, and foundations for Operation Warp Speed were laid by this administration years ago when they increased funding to the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority which we call BARDA. One of the things they did is decide to heavily invest in vaccine technology and vaccine production, because it is one thing to discover the vaccine and to prove it is safe, it is another thing to make hundreds of millions of doses. Think about it, Mr. Speaker, you actually have to make the glass vials and you have to have the facility that can produce that. That is exactly what this administration has done through BARDA over the last few years, have those facilities in the United States. This isn't like some of the PPE that we have to outsource overseas. We have the ability in this country to create hundreds of millions of vaccines, and we likely will by next year. Again, this is very, very unusual. Mr. Speaker, as you will hear from a lot of the doctors tonight, it is very unusual to be able to do this within months, to be able to tell the American people that there is light at the end of the tunnel and that we see the end of this pandemic because, again, as the American people know, your own local school board may have said: We really can't go back to school full-time until there is a vaccine. Well, Mr. Speaker, we are going to have that vaccine because this administration has cut through the red tape with Operation Warp Speed, ensuring a safe and effective vaccine that can be produced for hundreds of millions of people. That is really phenomenal. Because once we take care of the United States, then we can actually take care of the world health and this pandemic. That will be truly a wonderful thing. I want to thank Dr. Roe for leading this tonight and for giving me the opportunity to remind the American people that from the very beginning we said the vaccine was the solution, and this administration is delivering that solution.

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, if you think about it, the herd is h-e-r-d, just like a herd of critters. In this case we talk about humans. If you think about it, Mr. Speaker, your chance of contracting, in this case, a respiratory virus is proportional to the number of people you come in contact with who could spread it to you. Conventional wisdom is that if 60 or 70 percent of the people have had the virus or are immune to the virus, either naturally by having the virus or by having a vaccine, then your chance of contracting it goes way down because your chance of coming in contact with someone who has that virus or is not immune to it has gone way down. You achieve functionally what is called herd immunity; that is, your chance of developing that virus is much, much lower. So it means that you can begin to do some of the things, to draw back on some of those restrictions that we have now that people are so upset with. That is what a vaccine promises to deliver because certainly a percent of the population now has immunity by having had the virus, but a much larger percent will have immunity because they are vaccinated and therefore can't get it nor can spread it to someone else. It is a very important public health concept. It looks like if these vaccines are approved by year end or early next year, by next summer--I tell this to people in my district--we could actually have a normal summer. Wouldn't that be nice? We could actually have a normal summer.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I regret to inform you that I am unable to vote today due to my attendance of my mother's funeral. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 162, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 163, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 165, and ``nay'' on rollcall No. 166. Personal Explanation

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I hope America is watching what is going on on the floor today, and they are paying careful attention to this debate. We hear speaker after speaker from the other side of the aisle say things like, ``It has been done before.'' The majority leader: ``Clear precedent.'' Yeah, there is clear precedent. We know the person who was in the Chair just before comes from the State that actually was the clear precedent: In 1847, when retrocession occurred. You know, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say this isn't politics. This is about getting voting rights. This is about things like this. I would suggest that perhaps the people watching go to Wikipedia and see what the history is about the support for retrocession back to Maryland. Mr. Speaker, because, you see, this is not Congress's land. This is Maryland's land. Maryland gave it to the United States for the sole purpose of a permanent, Federal enclave. The nerve of hundreds of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle thinking it is their land. It is Maryland's land. And if you want voting rights, it is simple: Do exactly what occurred in 1847 and give the land back to Maryland. But, whoa, wait a minute. That is not what this debate is about, because retrocession has been proposed many times with no Democrat supporters. In fact, the majority leader was in Congress when these bills were proposed. If what he really wants is voting rights, he should have cosponsored the bill. Mr. Speaker, you know that if retrocession occurs, every single resident--except those ones in the White House--because of the amendment to the Constitution they actually get three electoral votes under this proposed legislation, every single one of those residents would have representation in Congress. And, yes, Eleanor Holmes Norton could sit in Congress representing people from the State of Maryland. This is a pure political ploy. That is why none of my colleagues from Maryland are going to vote against this bill today. That is why none of my colleagues from Maryland have put in a retrocession bill. That is why all of my hundreds of colleagues across the aisle are going to pretend this is Congress' land. This is not. The Constitution is clear. If this land is given back to Maryland, Maryland has to accept. Well, the argument is that Maryland doesn't want it back. That is interesting. I sat in the Maryland legislature with my colleague, who is sitting across the aisle right now. If our representatives from Maryland are so concerned about getting voting rights, it is very simple. Go to their colleagues in the Maryland General Assembly, fully controlled by the Democrats, and say: ``Let's take it back. Let's give those 700,000 people voting rights.'' Mr. Speaker, that is the correct approach. Don't steal this land from Maryland.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Madam Speaker, as Co-Chair of the Congressional Hungarian-American Caucus, I rise today on the occasion of the 100th Anniversary of the Treaty of Trianon with Hungary signed on June 4, 1920, at the Paris Peace Conference at the end of the First World War. The non-negotiable treaty cost Hungary over 70 percent of her territory and one-third or three million of her indigenous ethnic- Hungarian population. For the last one hundred years, these ethnic Hungarian minorities have had to live in neighboring countries, with their cultural and political lives suffering at times. The Hungarian-American Caucus is a bipartisan group of distinguished House members, which seeks to represent the interests of Hungarian American constituents; foster bilateral relations between Hungary, a strong NATO ally, and the United States; and protect the rights of Hungarian minorities in Europe. To that end, I include in the Record the following statement by the American Hungarian Federation, the oldest American Hungarian association in the United States, founded in 1906 in Cleveland, Ohio, and based in Washington, D.C., on the occasion of this 100th Anniversary of the Treaty of Trianon. american hungarian foundation Akos L. Nagy, President of American Hungarian Federation. Paul Kamenar, Chair, Executive Committee. Frank Koszorus, Jr., Chair, International Relations Committee. The Treaty of Trianon: A Hungarian Tragedy ``Ancient poets and theologians could not imagine such suffering, which Trianon brought to the innocent. In their eyes, that was for the damned in Hell.''--Sir Winston Churchill One hundred years ago, June 4, 1920, the Hungarian delegation to the Paris Peace Conference was forced to sign the punishing Treaty of Trianon, arguably the most severe of all the post-World War I settlements concluded at the conference. Led by the Big Four--the United States, Great Britain, France and Italy--those treaties were collectively designed to conclude the First World War and make the ``world safe for democracy,'' according to President Woodrow Wilson. The ``peacemakers'' instead concocted a hazardous brew. The ostensible ``peace'' turned out to be only an armistice as World War II erupted merely 20 years later. Tens of millions of civilians and members of the military died in that war; the Holocaust devastated the European Jewish community; a murderous Stalin occupied Central and Eastern Europe; and the world was thrust into a costly and dangerous Cold War. Supposedly in the name of national self-determination, Trianon dismembered the thousand-year-old Kingdom of Hungary, a self-contained, geographically and economically coherent and durable formation in the Carpathian Basin, boasting the longest lasting historical borders in Europe. The resulting non-negotiable treaty cost Hungary over 70 percent of her territory and one-third or three million of her indigenous ethnic-Hungarian population. Add to this the loss of all her seaports and up to 90 percent of her vast natural resources, industry, railways, and other infrastructure. Millions of Hungarians woke up one morning and saw borders arbitrarily redrawn around them without plebiscites, ignoring Wilson's lofty goal of national self-determination. The ``absurd'' treaty, as Wilson later referred to it, was never ratified by the United States; ignored a millennia of nation building and age-old cultural affiliations; created new and enlarged countries; and produced millions of new minorities who today struggle for survival of their ethnic identity. To this very day, Hungarian minorities have been subjected to discrimination, intolerance and violence. Schools in the successor states limit students from studying in their native Hungarian language; Hungarian church properties have been confiscated; and cemeteries and cultural monuments have been vandalized. The ``peacemakers'' did insist that the new successor states, Romania, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, sign various international instruments that included provisions for the protection of minorities. But those promises are largely unkept. Despite these promises and the fact that Romania obtained Transylvania from Hungary under Trianon--more territory than remained as Hungary--Romania continues to ignore its obligations. Just recently in April, Romania's president incited animosity against its ethnic Hungarians by making inflammatory statements resulting in tensions between Hungary and Romania, two NATO allies. The Hungarian historical communities in Romania, particularly the Szeklers, are denied a range of rights that threatens their very cultural existence. Hungarians in Serbia, Slovakia, Romania, and Ukraine have all requested semi-autonomy by peaceful and democratic means. Such local governance would ensure democracy to beleaguered Hungarians, fulfill promises made to them one hundred years ago, and strengthen the democratic process by serving as a model of how majorities and minorities can work together to redress past wrongs. Considering the far-reaching implications of discrimination, intolerance, and animosity directed at the Hungarian minorities, the response from the European Union and the United States to date has been tepid. Stronger measures must be taken to remedy the ongoing abuses of minority rights that contravene numerous European Commission standards. Together, the European Union and United States must ensure that democratic principles and international norms and practices relating to national minorities will finally prevail in Central and Eastern Europe and bring regional tension to a just and lasting end, all of which is in the strategic interests of the United States and the American people. Only then will the Tragedy of Trianon be addressed.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, we are here a week too late, not because we didn't know what our citizens and businesses needed, but because too many in the congressional swamp felt that you never let a serious crisis go to waste: filling this important bill with pork and earmarks, like $25 million to the Kennedy Center, $57 million to NPR, $75 million to the National Endowment for the Humanities instead of more masks and ventilators. But, Mr. Speaker, many Americans do need our thanks: Thank you to the frontline healthcare workers who selflessly and compassionately care for victims of the Wuhan virus. Thank you to President Trump for his leadership and for his transparency with the American people in this time of crisis. Thank you to my anesthesiologist colleagues who have stepped up to the challenge. They are trained in intensive care, and the ventilators on their anesthesia machines could prove critical if this fight escalates. Finally, thank you to all those Americans who followed the President's recommendation on 15 Days to Slow the Spread of the Wuhan virus.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, no wonder Americans elected a President who struck a chord with voters disappointed with business as usual in Washington and with the fake news media. This week, after the President released his budget plan, his opponents here on the floor and in the media breathlessly are spouting fake news, falsely claiming that the President's budget cuts Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. But just like seeing the impeachment phone call transcript for themselves that exposed the impeachment as a hoax, every American should look at the budget for themselves and see how fake the claims are that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are cut. In fact, what they would see is a budget that doesn't touch Social Security and Medicare benefits, and they would see a Medicaid budget that not only isn't cut but increases 3.1 percent per year. By controlling other spending, the President's budget, like all of his three previous budgets, actually sets us on a path to finally balancing our budget. That is much better than the last administration, which, in 8 years, never, ever submitted a budget that would balance.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Madam Speaker, thanks to the Trump Administration, the American economy is booming. Job growth surged by 225,000 positions in January, and the unemployment rate remains near the 50 year low. These are just the latest indicators of a resurgent American economy under President Trump. With Mr. Trump in office, the U.S. economy has added more than 100,000 new jobs for 34 of the 38 months and the unemployment rate has been at or below 4 percent for 23 consecutive months--nearly two years. Americans of all backgrounds have benefited from this economic boom with the unemployment rates for African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Asian Americans all hitting record lows in 2019. The labor force participation rate is at 63.4 percent, the highest level since 2013 and nearly three quarters of new positions are being filled by individuals previously outside the labor force. Wage growth is holding at or above 3 percent for the 18th consecutive month and, under President Trump, workers' wages are rising faster than managers' wages. With all of this success, it is easy to forget that this booming economy has also brought labor shortages throughout the economy, particularly for seasonal businesses. Right now, there are simply more seasonal jobs open than there are Americans willing, able and qualified to fill them. On behalf of seasonal businesses from industries such as seafood processing, tourism and hospitality, landscaping, fairs and carnivals, golf courses, reforestation, contractors and horse racing, who continue to struggle with seasonal labor shortages, I rise to urge the administration to release adequate supplemental H-2B visas, as authorized by the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act 2020, to meet these seasonal businesses' temporary seasonal labor needs. As a member of the Committee on Appropriations, I coauthored the amendment in the FY 2020 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill that authorizes the administration to release additional H-2B visas. In January, I sent a letter with 188 of my colleagues, both Democrat and Republican, from both the House and Senate, urging the Administration to exercise that authority and release additional H-2B visas. The bipartisan support for this program demonstrates the significant economic impact these workers have across our country. The temporary guest workers provided by the H-2B program are vital to the American economy and the economy of Maryland's First District, particularly on the Eastern Shore, and support tens of thousands of down-stream American jobs. While it is ultimately the responsibility of Congress to provide a long term solution to the chronic shortage of H- 2B visas, I strongly urge the administration to use the authority granted to them to continue to support these seasonal businesses and release an adequate number of additional H-2B visas to meet the labor demands of seasonal employers nationwide.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Madam Speaker, great news on the economy this week: The economy added 225,000 jobs in January, and unemployment for Americans is at a 50-year low. But the booming economy has resulted in worker shortages throughout the economy, whether it is for Aubrey Vincent of Lindy's Seafood in my district or for Alan Jones at Manor View Farms. Right now, there are simply more seasonable jobs open than there are Americans available to fill them. And tens of thousands of full-time American jobs rely on the availability of sufficient temporary H-2B visa workers to meet temporary seasonal labor needs. Today, I rise to thank the Trump administration for its past decisions to release extra temporary H-2B visas. I realize that Congress should have determined the number needed and included that in legislation, but Congress failed, and that is why, Madam Speaker, I rise to ask the administration to continue to support these seasonal businesses and release an adequate number of additional H-2B visas.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Smith, the co-chair of the Pro- Life Caucus, for the work he has done over the decades to protect unborn life. Next week, I am going to have a birthday, but 61 million Americans aren't. Now, let that thought sink in for a second because that is the population of California and Florida together. That is the number of Americans who didn't get a chance to be born since Roe v. Wade was passed. I have spent over 30 years as an anesthesiologist on the labor and delivery suite. I was in charge of the labor and delivery anesthesia at Hopkins for decades, seeing the birth of literally thousands of babies, not even beginning to comprehend the magnitude of the 61 million lives that never had that opportunity to be born. Next week, we are going to have the March for Life. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Americans who are watching to tune in to one of those channels that shows that March for Life because what you will be struck by are the number of young people who have not believed the lie about abortion, the lie that it is a blob of tissue, that it is not a human life, that somehow that human life does not have the right to life. I believe there are a lot of young people who march because this is the generation that knows that it was legal for them to be aborted. I think they appreciate the fact that they weren't. Like Mrs. Roby, I am on the Appropriations Committee, and I am glad to have fought to get Planned Parenthood defunded by tax dollars because Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the United States. That means it is responsible for the taking of tens of millions of lives over the years. Not only that but they actually promote using American tax dollars to provide abortions overseas as well. I am proud of our President because our President reestablished what we call the Mexico City policy, which is very simple, Mr. Speaker. It says that American tax dollars, hardworking American taxpayer dollars, should not be spent on providing abortions in foreign countries. Oh, my gosh. It is bad enough that we still fund Planned Parenthood here in this country, but, my gosh, spending tax dollars to pay for abortions in foreign countries? Thank goodness our President stands firmly pro-life, some people suggest the most pro-life President we have ever had, and at such a good time to be the most pro-life President. As the death toll climbs to over 60 million, it is rapidly approaching the time to say enough is enough. This is the largest and most important human rights issue we face. This country has faced human rights issues before. We have to face this challenge, and we have to turn back the legalization of the killing of millions of Americans before they are even born.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Madam Speaker, it is unbelievable to the few Americans who are going to be watching this because they know what the outcome is. We all know what the outcome is. They are wondering: Why are we trying to negate the vote of 63 million Americans instead of talking about the things that Americans care about: prescription drug coverage, the high cost of prescription drugs, the high cost of healthcare, securing our borders, keeping our economy going? These are the things we should be talking about. No, instead, we are going to pass this resolution tonight and then go home for Christmas vacation instead of doing the job of America.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. I object.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the motion to lay on the table.

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the motion to lay on the table.

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HARRIS

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, when a Member of the minority rises to object to a motion to lay on the table, the motion to reconsider to lay on the table, whose discretion is it to recognize that standing Member making the objection?