Kevin McCarthy

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, having served as both the majority and minority floor leader, I have understood the pressure of the job. Scheduling the floor, handling procedural fights, and getting legislation passed is truly 24-hour, 7-day-a-week work. And on the other side of the aisle, no one knows that better than Shuwanza Goff. It has been my privilege to get to know her during her 12 years on the Hill, the last 7 of which as floor director for Leader Hoyer. Without a doubt, she has done this job as well as or better than any staffer I have ever known. She has put in her time and effort to build strong working relationships with Members and staff on both sides of the aisle. Shuwanza has earned our respect because of her skills, her work ethic, and her expertise on the floor. There are times I have lost the debate because of her expertise. I certainly like to think that we have tested her abilities over the past 2 years with some of our motions to recommit. There are times that I have heard, and it has been conveyed to me, the differences of opinion with me in the strongest of terms, but never did she ever do it in a personal way. The House is better because of her service. But even if we haven't made her job easy, we always knew we had to be prepared, because we saw the impact that her expertise could have. Many a time to many of us, people across this country ask if we have friends on both sides of the aisle. I refer to Shuwanza as my friend. She will be my adversary, but she is my friend. She has my respect because she earned it. She has my friendship because she has earned it. She has respect from both sides of the aisle because of the way she carries her life and the character of who she is. She has left an impression on this side of the aisle, and I can tell you she has certainly left an impression on this institution. We get elected and we come here, but her character is one of having a servant's heart and of caring for this Nation. There are things that divide us in our philosophy, but we are not divided because we are Americans. We do not divide ourselves because we care to serve. I know Shuwanza believes in a more perfect Union because of the devotion that she has had and despite the times and frustration that this body can give, but she does it because of what she believes in. Finally, Shuwanza, speaking as a father, I know that you have brought immense joy and pride to your parents and to your sister along the way. I know they have rooted for you and watched every step of your career, a career that has seen you walk in the well of the House of Representatives on a daily basis and serve as a trusted adviser to our Nation's leaders, and you have done it well. My hope for you is that you do not give that up, that you continue to serve the Nation that you love so greatly. On behalf of myself, my team, and the Republican Conference, I want to say thank you. There are times I wouldn't say thank you that you beat me on the floor, but I respected how hard you worked at it. I am a better Member because you made me prepare more, knowing you were on the other side. I thank you for your counsel and for your friendship. You will be missed on this floor, but we will still be friends.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, for months, Democrats have used an unconstitutional scheme to allow Members to vote from home. They call it proxy voting. I call it exactly what it is: shadow voting. Mr. Speaker, Democrats are turning away from their responsibility to their constituents by staying home and handing their voting card to Nancy Pelosi. They are handing over their voting card and not coming to work. But why? What is so important that they can't show up? Do you know what we found? Because they wanted to attend a space launch that never took off, or they want to hang out on their boat. Who knows what else they have done. Mr. Speaker, they don't have to show up to vote because, guess what. Someone else will do it for them. Maybe if we renamed Congress ``The French Laundry,'' they all might show up here. This has been going on for months, and Democrats have worked overtime to hide it from the American people. Mr. Speaker, to date, there have been 4,836 votes cast in this body by lawmakers who weren't even here. Think about that: 4,836 votes cast in this body by Members who weren't even here. Over a dozen lawmakers have given their vote to Nancy Pelosi on every single bill since this scheme was in place. Last night, the number was over 60 Democrats. Nearly one-third of the entire conference of the Democratic Party did not show up for work. I promise you, each and every one of them will get their paycheck. Mr. Speaker, Americans are working hard to keep their businesses open, to keep food on the table and their kids in school. They deserve a Representative who will show up for the job, the job that they said they would do, the job they asked people to vote for them so they would come to Washington to give their voice to Congress, not to give it to Nancy Pelosi. Mr. Speaker, this is embarrassing. This week is only about cats and cannabis when it should be about COVID. Think for one moment of what we are going to do in this body with the history of what has happened on this floor: the battle of civil rights; the question of whether to end World War I or World War II; the question of whether every man and woman is equal. Those are the things that we debate on this floor. And they were debated in the times of need. But what is of need to the American public? We all know the challenges faced before us. We have been fighting it for months. But 40 times on this floor the Democrats have said no. Mr. Speaker, our own Speaker of the House said we would not leave this body until we voted on COVID relief. They had 40 times to do it, and they said no. Mr. Speaker, 4,836 times a Member didn't even show to cast a vote, and they still got paid. What about all those businesses that are shut down now permanently? There is more than $130 billion sitting to go to the workers for small businesses. Mr. Speaker, 23 Democrats on the other side signed a letter in September and said: If we do not get a COVID relief bill, we will sign that discharge petition. And what does that do for the American public? It goes around the Speaker of the House so the voice could actually come to the floor and the bill could be here and voted upon. And they said they would sign it if nothing happened. I wonder if their word will be kept, because I looked at the book and it hasn't. The Speaker of the House said we would not leave unless we had COVID relief. But they call us back, and what do they call us back for? The post office. Well, Republicans put up COVID relief on the floor that day, but Democrats said no. They call us back this week when people are hurting, people are losing their jobs. Maybe that is why one-third of the Democrats don't show, because they don't want to show their face to the constituents, that the only thing they are going to do on the floor this week is vote about cats and cannabis. Mr. Speaker, that is wrong, and you know it. Everybody in this body knows it. It is despicable. If Democrats want to waste the American people's time with these ridiculous bills, they will need to show up to do it. Republicans won't be a party to this unconstitutional, undemocratic mess any longer.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I just listened to the last speaker, Mr. Speaker. He said that he had a bill that he thought and hoped maybe the Republicans could support, and he used the word, ``united.'' Do you know the easiest way to know if the Republicans support it? Ask them. Let them in the room. Actually work with them. That is probably a quicker way. The united part is a little difficult if you want to unite people and you leave them out. So let me recap. Having been the leader on this side of the aisle and having worked on numerous COVID relief bills, let's recap what we have gone through each and every time we try to bring America relief. Mr. Speaker, do you know what? Let's not take my word for it. Let's just read the headlines. I think that will work best. March 22, The New York Times: ``Emergency Economic Rescue Plan in Limbo as Democrats Block Action.'' Yes, that was The New York Times. That was March 22. So let's go to April 9. Let's go to the NPR: ``Senate Democrats Block GOP Effort to Boost Small Business Aid.'' A week later, we watched the Speaker of this House appear on ``The Late Show,'' bragging about blocking the relief while eating high-end ice cream. For reference, there were 22 million unemployed Americans at that time. August 3, CBS News said: Democrats Reject White House Offer for Short-Term Extension of Unemployment Benefits.'' Let's go to September 10, Politico: ``Senate Democrats Block Republican COVID Relief Proposal.'' That is weird. All those headlines, and I never heard ``united.'' I did hear ``blocking.'' I did see the Speaker. Now, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you a little bit of my personal experience. When we wanted to do the CARES Act, the Senate worked with Republicans and Democrats by committee. They put the bill together. You listened to Leader Schumer, that night, say: Yes, we are ready to go. The bill is prepared. I took the red-eye and flew back. The Speaker did, too. We went into the meeting together. And do you know what, Mr. Speaker? Just read one of these headlines. The Speaker was able to stop it for another whole week. How many people were laid off that week? But do you know what? There was change in the bill. The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts got a little more, but that was the only thing, and then we were able to pass it. In there, we were able to produce the PPP for small businesses. It allows you to pay your rent and your utilities. But you took that money and you paid your employees. Why were you paying your employees? Because government shut down your business. Was it successful? Whoa, was it successful. Did it go to the owner? No. It went to the people. It went to the workers. Fifty million workers were saved. It was so powerful and so successful that the money was running out. So do you know what, Mr. Speaker? The Treasury Secretary sent a letter to us and said: You don't need to change anything. Just add a little more money because it is so successful at saving so many jobs. Well, we got our answer. One person stopped it all, and she did it on ``The Late Show'' for all of America to see. Mr. Speaker, do you remember her smiling as she opened that refrigerator and denied those 22 million people, that they were going to join those unemployment lines, and she was going to smile about it because she had her ice cream. Do you know what happened, Mr. Speaker? I listened to the Speaker's words. She said: Do you know what? We are going to get this done. We are not going to leave. Because she has all the power of whether we stay in here and do our job or not. It doesn't matter if one-third on the other side stays home and votes by proxy and still gets their paycheck. She had everybody leave. But then I had hope. I had hope for those who were unemployed. I had hope for those who wanted to go back to school and needed the money, because the Speaker called an emergency meeting and forced us to come back here. So I thought maybe she changed, maybe actually what she said she meant this time. So she was going to force Congress back, and she did. Do you know what? One-third on other side didn't show because they didn't think it was an emergency. Was it about COVID relief? Was it about the American people who were hurting? No. No. No. No. No. No. It was about the post office. It was political. So we should have everybody come back. When you are in the minority, there are only certain rules you have and certain options to put something on the floor. So do you know what the Republicans chose to do that day, Mr. Speaker, when the Democrats chose to talk about the post office? We put COVID relief on the floor. So there was an option. There was an opportunity. The power of the Speaker rose again. She put her thumb down and everybody else on the other side followed. So do you know what, Mr. Speaker? The American public lost that day, too. They lost one more time. The facts speak for themselves. The common denominator in holding up relief for the American people is very simple: Speaker Pelosi. She spent the last several months stonewalling negotiations instead of working to solve problems. You know why we are here today, Mr. Speaker? It is because Republicans put a discharge petition on the floor. I wonder why we got out early last Friday. Hmm. The discharge petition must have become ripe where people could sign it. When her Members revolted, she responded by recycling an old, unrelated liberal wish list from her first bill. Now, at a time when 837 more Americans are filing for unemployment and small businesses are closing permanently, she is wasting Americans' time on yet another multitrillion-dollar special interest bailout that rewards K Street and not Main Street. Today's so-called compromise isn't realistic or responsible. It is the Pelosi pipe dream 2.0, and it is filled with the same radical, reckless, and ridiculous ideas as the first bill. Instead of prioritizing new money for small businesses through the Paycheck Protection Program, it provides a massive tax break to the millionaires and billionaires who are totally unrelated to the coronavirus. Now, let me give you an example. Let's take one person in America who is going to benefit from this. Mr. Speaker, you actually ought to rename this bill the Mike Bloomberg bill. Mike Bloomberg is reported to have made $3.5 billion last year. He lives in New York. So if you take the State and local taxes and you combine it, it is 12.5 percent. So that would mean, if this bill passes, you just gave him $160 million in his pocket. That is an interesting number, 160 million. I wonder if $160 million is how much he would save. How would that affect him? Well, I just read a couple reports, Mr. Speaker. Do you know Michael Bloomberg just put $100 million into Florida to win it for Joe Biden? In another interesting report, he had given the Democrats $60 million to help them try to keep the majority this year. What is even more interesting, Michael Bloomberg ran for President, and when he was on stage, do you know what he said? He said he bought the Democrats the majority. He said he spent $100 million. He bragged about the individuals that he was able to spend that money on. Hmm. Some people would wonder if that was money well spent. Some people might wonder if they read that bill: Hmm, $160 million. What does that mean to the person who is unemployed? I don't think Mike Bloomberg needs that. I know a lot of small businesses and I know a lot of unemployed workers who need the money, but you chose somebody else to respond to. You chose somebody else to reward. Shame on you. Instead of guaranteeing commonsense protections against frivolous lawsuits for schools, for small businesses, for childcare, and for churches, it gives amnesty, work visas, and taxpayer-funded stimulus checks to illegal immigrants. Lots of times when you read a bill, you see what you prioritize. Instead of boosting jobs, it bails out the cannabis industry. Mr. Speaker, have you read your own bill? In fact, it mentions cannabis more than it mentions jobs. Did you read the bill? It mentions cannabis more than it mentions jobs. I would challenge anybody in this body to name me one time in their district in one meeting that it mentioned cannabis more than it mentioned jobs with what you are going through right now. Our districts may be different, but I don't believe anybody has that. Instead of reopening the economy, it releases criminals to our communities. Democrats think the economy should be locked down, but they don't think serial killers should be locked up. But the Speaker's latest bill does have a noteworthy difference from the original. At a time when the leftwing mobs are creating chaos in our cities, the bill unequivocally embraces the left's defund the police agenda. In fact, it removes $600 million of the emergency funding for State and local enforcement and community-oriented policing that was in the first bill. That is where they cut. Democrats actually believe the top priority of Congress is fewer cops and more criminals. Again, sometimes when you read the bills, it lets people know their priorities. I listened to the Speaker before. She always told me that bills show your values. I heard the Speaker recently say that the Democrats' values are different from Republicans'. These are your values. Yes, they are. Yes, they are. Another striking difference is the tens of billions of dollars for public education to combat misinformation about the coronavirus vaccine. Mr. Speaker, I was happy to hear my colleague on the other side speak a little earlier about the vaccine. I was excited because the Democrat nominee for President and the person he choose to be his running mate don't think that people should take the vaccine even though it is going to be safe and effective and save people's lives. It is interesting. The individual who is running for President on the Democrat side said that he is the Democratic Party. Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and Speaker Pelosi actively spread in public, over the last few weeks, misinformation about an ability to save lives. American families, workers, and small businesses will continue to pay the price for Democrats' refusal to take this crisis seriously. It doesn't have to be this way. That is the worst part of all of this. It doesn't have to be this way. As the past several months have proven, targeted and timely relief related to COVID hardship actually works. Fifty million people are without a paycheck because of PPP. I can't tell you how many people got laid off for every time Speaker Pelosi has delayed our bills. I can't tell you how many households and how many businesses have gone bankrupt because she didn't keep her word and say that we would stay here and do it. I can't tell you how many more people wonder if their kids can go to college because Nancy Pelosi, our Speaker, called us back for an emergency, but it wasn't about COVID. Instead of using American's suffering as leverage to pass a socialist agenda, Congress should be working on getting the American people back to work safely and back to school safely. Republicans have spent months using every tool available to the minority to build on the CARES Act and get support to Main Street. The American public actually ought to see how people vote here, because just yesterday we put on the floor a vote for PPP. Every single Democrat voted ``no.'' Every single one. It is something they have already supported before. Money is already sitting there--more than $130 billion. This month, our efforts culminated in a discharge petition to reopen the Paycheck Protection Program, which I have said, has already saved 51 million jobs. Mr. Speaker, to the American public, what does a discharge petition mean? You see, the Speaker, whoever he or she is, has all the power. They can determine what comes to the floor. But a discharge petition gives the power to the Members. All it takes is 218 Members to sign it. The public knows what it is. All it would do is take the money that is there for the Paycheck Protection Program and make sure the bill comes to the floor and could be voted on. It will be really telling to know how many people back home say they support it and how many times they come here and are fearful, fearful if there are threats if they sign the discharge petition. The petition is being led by Ranking Member Steve Chabot, and Jaime Herrera Beutler. I thank both of them. Because you know what they have done? They put the American people first. Steve Chabot, ranking member of Committee on Small Business, when we were crafting the CARES bill, where the PPP was created--yes, it was him who worked so hard to make sure the small businesses, those who are employed by them, got resources. He did an amazing job. Jaime Herrera Beutler is probably one of the most bipartisan Members in this body. They didn't do it for political gain. They did it because they listened to their district. As of Friday, this commonsense solution officially became open for signatures--just 218 to earn a vote on the floor. I think it deserves a vote. I think if you took it to the public, they would pick that a lot sooner than they would pick what this bill is doing. Mr. Speaker, every Member of this body must make a choice tonight. Members who endorse the Speaker's reckless actions can vote ``yes'' on this recycled liberal wish list. Then they can go home and explain to small businesses in their district why they prioritized politics over people. They could stand up and say, No, we worked hard for cannabis, a lot harder than we worked for jobs. We made sure the police got cut, and we made sure Mike Bloomberg got paid back. Now that $160 million that he is spending in the campaign today, he will get it all back because the taxpayers will pay him for it. That is exactly what this bill does. It could be the Michael Bloomberg, Cannabis, Cut-the-Cops bill. That is power. That is real power. You can make sure Michael Bloomberg does not lose $1 of the $160 million he has invested to make sure that Joe Biden and the Democrats stay in power. If you are that proud of this bill, why don't you name what it does? It makes sure all Americans know that cannabis is your number one priority, not jobs. It makes sure that you take care of those who take care of you in a campaign--Michael Bloomberg. And it makes sure everybody knows you do not care about the safety of our streets, that you are going to cut the police by $600 million. That is one heck of a campaign. That is amazing. What is interesting, so many times the leaders, people have said here, the Speaker of the House, she is the Speaker for all of America. And she always tells us, This will tell you what your values are. And I remember what she recently said, That our values are different. I want to agree with the Speaker. Our values are different. On this side of the aisle, we believe in a commitment to America. We believe that we will defeat this virus because we will create a safe and secure vaccine. The other difference in our values? Our commitment to America. You can read it. You can go to CommitmentToAmerica.com. And we actually reject defunding the police. We say we will spend $1.75 billion more on the police, not cut by $600 million. You know what we will do with the money? Community policing, more training, and 500,000 body cameras. We also have a plan. We can tell you how many jobs we are going to create. We are going to create 10 million new jobs. I don't know how big you will expand the marijuana business, but in here, it mentions that more than jobs. We are going to end the dependency on China. We don't just say it, we actually do it. We just came out with a task force that not only shows you the problem, it shows you the solution. Mr. Speaker, you know what we did different than what you did with this bill? We didn't produce something and say, Well, we think the Democrats might like some of this. We actually invited you to join us. Mr. Speaker, a year ago, I went to the Speaker, and I asked her if we could create a bipartisan committee dealing with China. China is representing its 71st anniversary. There is no more freedom in China today than there was 31 years ago in Tiananmen Square. It took me 8 months of negotiation with the Democrat leadership until they finally said, yes. We actually picked the people who were going to be on it. And right before we went to name it, they decided no. They didn't want to be a part of it. This was before COVID. I just don't understand it. I just don't understand why our values are that different. Members who want to bring an end to the Speaker's excuses, who believe this is a moment to work for Main Street not K Street should vote ``no'' and sign the Herrera Beutler-Chabot discharge petition. By adding your name, you will be advancing a fair process towards making bipartisan law for American families. That is what our neighborhoods need. They need us to legislate for them, not posture for November. Mr. Speaker, I urge all my Democrat colleagues to join us. Make a commitment to America, not to Michael Bloomberg, not to cannabis. Focus on who actually voted for you to get here. Do not be so intimidated because somebody supplied so many millions of dollars to try to persuade people to vote a certain way. Listen to those who have been laid off. I know what it is like to have a dream to open a small business. I know what the hardships are like, but I have not witnessed personally the hardship of what the virus has done when they have been shut down. The least I would expect is this body would act, would put people before politics. But, unfortunately, yes, the values of one side are different than ours. Every chance we have we have put forth relief for the American public, and the only opportunity we have now is the discharge petition, because no one definitely can vote for this.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say thank you and pay tribute to our friend and this Chamber's Parliamentarian, Tom Wickham. Since the creation of the position in 1927, Tom is just the sixth Parliamentarian in the history of this body. While Representatives come and go, and majorities change from session to session, one constant is the Parliamentarian's office and their commitment to uphold the rules and traditions of this very Chamber. The Parliamentarian advises not only the Speaker, but serves with an open door to all Members, majority and minority, so our voices and our constituents' voices can be heard in this legislative process. I speak for all Republicans when I commend Tom for his professionalism, sound judgment, and steady demeanor in carrying out his duties. You see, Mr. Speaker, America was founded on an idea. Our Founders determined that a deliberative body governed of, by, and for the people would best serve the interest of this Nation. Our Congress, a literal coming together of people and ideas from every corner of the Nation, is tasked with debating the issues of the day. And it is up to Tom and his staff to make sure that we do so in a way that is consistent with the enduring rules and precedents of this institution. Looking out for the institution is not exactly a glamorous job. Most of the Parliamentarian's work goes on behind the scenes and without public recognition. But it is essential to our democracy and it embodies the very best of civil service. Tom has served this body and this country for 25 years. Some of my staffers refer to Tom as Dumbledore from Harry Potter--he knows all the answers, you just have to ask the right questions. I know Members will continue to seek out Tom for advice, and I encourage all of them to extend the same courtesy to his successor, Jason Smith. Now, let's not be confused, it is not Representative Jason Smith from Missouri, it is a different Jason Smith. I want to especially thank Tom's wife, Heather, and his children, Brady and Elizabeth, for sharing Tom with us for all those years and all those late nights, through too many late-night voting sessions and last-minute negotiations to count. Tom, you have served well. We wish you the best in retirement, and hope you get to watch lots of Iowa football now that the Big Ten has resumed play. But on behalf of a very grateful Nation, I want to say thank you. I know times get heated. I know people are passionate about their ideas. I know your decisions cannot be made based upon who is in the majority or who is in the minority. I have watched you make some of the most difficult decisions, but they are always the right one. This country could only imagine being a Parliamentarian when a decision is being made whether a Speaker has broken the rules or not. It would be easy to fold to the pressure of the majority, and I am proud to say Tom always held with the people of this Nation. That is what we look for in a Parliamentarian. That is what we ask for, and that is exactly what you gave us. Thank you for your service, and we appreciate all that you have done for this Nation.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the DELIVER Act, a bipartisan veterans legislative package that includes two bills that I have introduced this Congress, the VET TEC Expansion Act and the Reducing Veteran Homelessness Act of 2020. I believe that a nation's character can be judged by how well it treats its veterans when they complete their service and return home. Providing veterans with flexible education benefits to meet current workforce needs and protecting our most vulnerable veterans from homelessness is the least that we can do as a country to repay our debt of gratitude. The VET TEC Expansion Act, which I introduced with my colleague from California, Ro Khanna, builds upon the success of the existing VET TEC pilot program, which was created by the original VET TEC Act that I introduced and which President Trump signed into law in 2017 as part of a broader bipartisan veterans bill. Upon realizing the potential that non-traditional, ``nanodegree'' educational programs have for our veterans after visiting such a program in 2017, I discovered that GI Bill benefits did not cover the cost of enrolling in these types of programs, which is why I introduced the VET TEC Act. The VET TEC pilot program began accepting veteran applications in May 2019, and in seeking to keep the program aligned with its mission to provide veterans with access to technology-oriented and industry- responsive educational courses, I introduced the VET TEC Expansion Act just under one year after the pilot's official launch. This bill would allow the VA to accept more course providers into the VET TEC pilot program, expand VET TEC pilot program eligibility to include certain servicemembers who are starting the transition to civilian life--so they may get a jumpstart on obtaining new skills that can help them secure a job--and would allow the VA to accept education providers that offer part-time courses, such as night classes, into the pilot program. All of these provisions were developed in consultation with feedback from veteran organizations and I am confident that these changes will allow the VA to provide even more veterans with access to the most up- to-date, non-traditional educational courses possible. The VET TEC pilot program is incredibly popular, so I am pleased that the DELIVER Act also authorizes $30 million in additional annual funding for this pilot program until its expiration in Fiscal Year 2023. This funding increase appropriately responds to the current overwhelming demand from veterans who are seeking to participate in non-traditional educational courses that prepare them for employment in our dynamic, technology- centric economy. An August 2020 VA report to Congress recently found that thousands of veterans who applied to participate in a VET TEC- approved course received a ``Certificate of Eligibility'' to participate beginning on October 1, 2020, the start of the 2021 Fiscal Year, as VET TEC's popularity caused it to run out of funding in its first pilot year. To me, this is a strong testament to the demand for flexible educational benefits from our nation's student veterans. The Reducing Veteran Homelessness Act of 2020, which I introduced with my colleague from California, Mike Levin, just last week, provides solutions to address issues that homeless providers have raised with me in recent years. The successful HUD-VA Supportive Housing Program (or HUD-VASH Program) has long been plagued by understaffing of case managers, which prevents supportive housing vouchers allocated through the program from reaching veterans in need. My legislation requires the VA to contract out HUD-VASH case manager services to community experts when these VA case manager positions remain unfilled for a long period of time and HUD-VASH housing vouchers in the region remain unutilized. It also modernizes the VA's Grant and Per Diem program so that homeless providers that participate in this program receive pay that is based on local or regional conditions rather than a standard across-the-board rate, in order to prevent providers operating in parts of the country with higher living costs from having to reduce services. I would like to thank Subcommittee Chairman Levin, Committee Ranking Member Phil Roe and the members of the House Veterans Affairs Committee for ensuring that our nation's veterans receive the supportive services that they deserve by including these two pieces of legislation in the DELIVER Act. Accordingly, I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting this bill so that we may better serve the veterans who have so valiantly served our country.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. The gentleman makes a very good point. Are we here condemning two sheriffs from California getting shot while sitting in their car? No. Are we here talking about the innocent lives that are being killed night after night in Chicago or other cities? No. Are we here, in the last hours before this body rushes to the airport to leave, to debate the help that we need for COVID, for those who are unemployed, or the small businesses that are going to continue to lay off somebody or are wondering whether they can survive the next day, or for the schools wondering if they will have the resources they need, or the States? No, we are not doing that. We are not doing any of that. But I will make this one promise to you: If the majority was on the other side, we would have already done that. Madam Speaker, Democrats are neglecting the real issues. Month after month, they have refused to end our dependence on China or even acknowledge that the Chinese Communist Party is a national security threat. I have read it in the paper. We have heard it out in the public domain that the Communist Chinese Party wants to influence the election even. They have picked a side. Now, in January, Democrats were too busy impeaching the President to pay attention to what was happening in Wuhan. There is a common denominator here. Let's just go through the calendar. In January, they were too busy with impeaching. In February, they backed out of what should have been a bipartisan China Task Force. They actually said yes. The Washington Post actually had the article written. The members were already chosen. But the hour came, and the Democrats thought that was wrong. Then, let's move to May. Speaker Pelosi said focusing on China is a diversion. I look forward to hearing what the Speaker says about this resolution. Is that a diversion from solving the COVID relief that we need? In June, Chairman Smith of the Committee on Armed Services on this very floor, just over at that mic, said this about China: It is not actually their job to tell the American people about the coronavirus. Seriously? Those were the words that were spoken by the chair of the Armed Services Committee. In July, Chairman Schiff--remember who he is and what role he has. He is the chairman of the Committee on Intelligence. He said it was an escalation for the Trump administration to close down the Chinese consulate that was, according to the Secretary of State, the hub of spying and IP theft in Houston. He was the only one who thought that. And now, today, while Democrats deny the real threat of Communist China, they are delaying a coronavirus relief package because they despise the President. I heard a Member here, Madam Speaker, who said we are adults, so we think differently. You know what adults do? They give adult supervision, and they focus on things that are important. We only have a few hours left before people leave. I know Madam Speaker told us before August that we will not leave unless we get a COVID relief package. I am not sure if I should believe her then or believe her now, because I know people are going to leave in a few short hours. I know, as the majority, you have the power to schedule what comes to the floor. That was one of my jobs. So this is what they picked? This is what we are doing? Seriously? My question to the Democrats is simple: Is debating a nonbinding resolution the best use of our hour? Apparently, you have made that decision. You thought long and hard long before we came to this moment in time. You spent hours on this. I will promise you this: There is no kitchen in America that thinks this is the priority. What makes today's resolution so harmful is it does not stop discrimination. It simply spreads disinformation. At the heart of this resolution is an absurd notion that referring to the virus as the Wuhan virus or the China virus is the same as contributing to violence against Asian Americans, which I will tell you nobody on this side of the aisle supports. In fact, we have heard time and again--I just heard from my colleague on the other side. The Democrat-led Foreign Affairs Committee held a hearing titled ``The Wuhan Coronavirus'' in February. Should we put an ethics complaint? Are Democrats saying that their own committee members are encouraging discrimination against Asian Americans? Likewise, CNN, The Washington Post, NPR, The Guardian, all other major media outlets were referring to COVID-19 as the Wuhan coronavirus long before most Americans knew what it was. Now, let's put this in contrast, because you are wasting our time; you are spending hours on it. You think it is the most important thing, when someone is sitting there in the unemployment line or a small business is questioning whether they can stay open. So let's take this moment in time on this floor talking about it. Republicans condemn crime and discrimination in all forms. Listen to what the President said in March: ``spreading of the virus is not their fault in any way, shape, or form.'' But I guess you can't take his word for it, so let's waste another hour on this floor on a nonbinding resolution. Madam Speaker, I wonder--because every Member who comes here works hard to get here, I wonder the number of times Members in a debate said they would take their time to have nonbinding resolutions on the floor. I wonder the number of promises they made. Because I listened, Madam Speaker, to the Speaker up there when I handed her the gavel on what they said they would focus on. I have spent a lot of time trying to wonder what one problem this Democrat majority has solved. I have actually asked Democrats: Name me one that you solved. I haven't read a tweet from probably the most prominent of the new party's chief of staff. They had the same question. They couldn't answer it. The President's words express what every good and decent American has known from the beginning: Asian Americans are not responsible for COVID-19. Let me be very clear. Let me state that again. The President's words express what every good and decent American has known from the beginning: Asian Americans are not responsible for COVID-19. Now, let me tell you everything else every American understands. We have an economic problem. We have people unemployed. We have small businesses questioning whether they can stay open. We have schools that are wondering could they have the money to be able to open again. But you chose an hour of this time on the last day before we leave to debate a nonbinding resolution. Congratulations. Well done. You fought hard for a majority, and this is what you decided. Unfortunately, while Democrats waste an hour of the House's time on this ridiculous resolution, the opportunity costs of the inaction are rising. And do you know who is paying the price? The American people. For months, every reasonable American has understood that America must end our dependency on China; we must move our supply chain out of China for critical needs like medicine. Do you realize we don't make penicillin? We don't make vitamins here, personal protective equipment that we strive so hard to get, and technology. The American people want safety and security. They want to return to the American way of life. I am not sure what this nonbinding resolution does, but I know we have done a lot of them since you have taken the majority. Unfortunately, the Chinese Communist Party is trying to hack our vaccine research at this very moment. That is why I introduced legislation earlier this summer to sanction these cybercriminals. My bill had real consequences. And you know what is so unique? I introduced the bill because there were reports out there that Russia, China, Iran wanted to hack our universities, our businesses to get that vaccine, not to work with us, but to steal it. Do you know what happens when they do that? It slows the process down. Do you know what happens when it slows the process down? It takes longer before people have a safe vaccine that would cure this virus. It is very interesting. That moment on the floor, the day after I introduced it, we actually--the FBI found two Chinese who were doing this, coming into our country, slowing the process down. We had the opportunity to have a motion to recommit on this floor. Nobody in America thought that bill would be partisan. It would only sanction those people who were caught, about right and wrong, about the safety, the security, a safe and effective vaccine being slowed down because of a foreign country coming in. So, as one, we had an opportunity to do something about it. Do you know what happened? The Democrats voted against it and defeated it. Not only did they defeat it, let me tell you, again, what the chairman of the Armed Services Committee said about it. He stood up at that microphone. He literally said it is not actually their job to tell the American people about the virus, referring to China, while they are hacking our own companies working to provide a safe and effective vaccine. You wouldn't spend 1 minute on that, but you are spending an hour on this. Sadly, this is not an isolated incident. Madam Speaker, the majority won't even work with the Republicans to protect our vaccine research from hackers, and they will attack the very companies that are working around the clock to provide that safe and effective vaccine for the American people. They won't work with Republicans to restore American manufacturing to rebuild the American medical supply right here, but they will call the House back into session to debate conspiracy theories about the post office. And while we were here in that emergency meeting--and, Madam Speaker, I should probably talk about it, because there were a lot of Democrats who didn't come even though it was an emergency meeting called by the Speaker. I think it was one-third of all of them did not come. But while we were here, that one moment, the one opportunity that the Republicans had, we offered a motion, a motion to recommit, to put up funding for COVID relief. Once again, the Democrats did the exact same thing. Instead of stopping the hackers from China, what they said no to, instead of giving another COVID relief bill that opportunity--because we were in an emergency, it was the only time we were coming back, even though, Madam Speaker, the Speaker said we would not leave--they voted it down. They voted it down, the only window that we had. They won't even work with Republicans on what was supposed to be a bipartisan China task force, but they wasted an hour on a nonbinding resolution. Is this how you expect to manage the Chamber? Is this why you took the majority, to waste the American people's time? Madam Speaker, it is time for us to stop acting like the House of resolutions and start acting like the House of Representatives. Make no mistake: China aims to displace America as the world's economic superpower. If they succeed, we will have more than viruses to worry about. The stakes are too high for petty partisanship. If we want safety, if we want independence, we know what we have to do. We have to rebuild our economy, bring back our supply chain, protect our vaccine research and, yes, end our dependency on China. Our President is doing that. House Republicans have made a commitment to America to do just that. We have done it time and again, bringing the idea to the floor. Unfortunately, the majority has thought otherwise. Madam Speaker, I make this promise to you: If the sides change, if we have the opportunity and the privilege to determine what comes to this floor, we will not waste America's time in a time of crisis. We will not tell people they will not leave and then let them go. We will not have Members call it an emergency meeting and let them stay home. We believe Congress is essential. We believe the American public expects that. Madam Speaker, we have a COVID crisis. We have an economy crisis. We have a dependency on China that harms us when it comes to our health issues. We have hackers from foreign nations trying to slow a safe and effective vaccine. We have schoolkids that continue to learn from home, not in school. We have veterans who want to be able to pick their own doctors. We have an infrastructure that is crumbling, but a 5-year plan to make a difference. These are all the problems that, if the majority would switch, would be addressed. But no, today, on our last day this week, we will once again have a nonbinding resolution. I hope you fought hard for this majority. I hope you spent a lot of time and a lot of hours deciding what would come to the floor. But if this is what it is, you have fallen well short of what America expects of this Chamber.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. ``I urge everyone to be calm. . . . The Postal Service is not incapacitated. It is still fully capable of delivering the mail.'' Those are not my words I speak. Those aren't even words of a Republican. They are the words of Ruth Goldway, a Democrat, a former Postal Commissioner and Clinton appointee who served for 18 years under three Presidents. Based on the facts, Goldway says the Postal Service is perfectly capable of handling election mail. Unfortunately, we have got bad news for her. This majority didn't get the message. Instead of listening to the experts or following the facts, Democrats are wasting precious time spreading Speaker Pelosi's mailbox myths. You had an opportunity to have bipartisanship. I have heard words on this floor today, Mr. Speaker, ``essential,'' ``critical'' that we are here. I applaud the few Democrats on the other side who were willing to show. I know if you cannot make it today, you have to sign paperwork that your health will not allow you to be here. And the Speaker is bringing us back on a Saturday because it is so critical to be here right now, in this moment, in this time, but one-third on the other side must think otherwise. Now, let's go through some of the myths versus facts. Myth no. 1: The Postal Service is being sabotaged. The Postal Service is properly funded for the election and beyond. We said it many times here. It is funded completely through August 2021. That is according to the Postal Service. The Postal Service has long-term challenges, but they predate anything about this administration. It isn't being sabotaged. Myth no. 2: Removing mailboxes from public places is uncommon and cause for alarm. This is shocking. We have got country-western stars putting this up on Instagram. We need to rush back here on Saturday. But little did we know that, during the Obama-Biden years, nearly 12,000 mailboxes were removed from communities. Never once did we rush in on a Saturday to have a bill that you didn't have marked up and one-third of the Democrats would not show. The Postal Service is actually constantly moving mailboxes from low- to high-volume growth areas, kind of a smart thing to do. In some cases, they replace them with more modern versions. I saw a picture where they actually had a lock in the front. If you have townhall meetings, you will find out a lot of mail gets stolen, so they were protecting the packages but still allowing you to put the letter in. This isn't voter suppression. It is routine maintenance. Myth no. 3: The Postal Service doesn't have the capacity to handle more absentee ballots. The Postal Service delivers 471 million pieces of mail on an average day. Little known fact: People mail less every single year. With all of the advancements we put in the Postal Service, with the technology of our own life, do you know what year equalled 471 million? About exactly what we did in 1985. But we do it different than 1985. We have more technology. And because of that, the Postmaster General actually refuted the capacity in no uncertain terms to the Senate yesterday. The Postal Service released this: If all Americans vote by mail, 330 million ballots over the course of this election, it would only be 75 percent of what they deliver in a single day. Now, I don't want to claim, Mr. Speaker, that all the Democrats think this is a myth. Maybe that is why one-third didn't show today. I am not sure. They said their health was bad. I am not sure if that is the case either. Even The New York Times isn't buying the House Democrats' obvious untruths. As it was reported earlier this month: Experts agree that the Postal Service has the raw capacity to absorb the additional ballots, even if 150 million people decided to vote by mail. Myth no. 4: The Democrats' legislation will make the Postal Service fiscally sustainable. You are not fixing any of the fundamentals. You are not even taking the bill that you spent years on, with a Republican and a Democrat, with Elijah Cummings and Mark Meadows, two who would say they come from different walks of life, from a philosophy, but found common ground when it came to the post office, to really fix the core of what the problems are. But that is not why we are here today. So, as the Democrats perpetuate this sad political stunt, unfortunately, there is serious business that goes unmet. But it shows real priority. This week, we learned that 71 percent of small businesses have used their entire paycheck protection loan--they spent it all--and 46 percent anticipate that they will need more financial support over the next 12 months. But that wasn't critical enough to be here, because these are real people with real families. They don't expect miracles from us, but they do expect us to at least care. Unfortunately, not one piece of legislation in this so-called emergency session is about the families or their future. Nor are we working to protect vaccine research and support Operation Warp Speed. No, House Democrats are doing what they have done for the last 2 years: They are putting politics before people. Last month, Speaker Pelosi said to us: We can't go home until a coronavirus relief package is complete. I guess we know that is not true. I wonder if she wants to keep her word this time as well, but I guess we will go home this Saturday. But good news for one-third of the Democrats: They don't have to go anywhere. They are already home. When she did not get her liberal wish list, she sent Members home. And I guess good news for some Americans: Those who stayed home and voted, they still got paid. But those small businesses that are running out, that we are here in this body right now that we could do something about, or those who are on unemployment we could do something about--you have the majority; we don't. We are not allowed to bring it to the floor; you can. But you picked a crisis of something that is already funded. They can't spend the money you want to give them. Why? Because they have got $14 billion sitting in the bank and another $10 billion they could pull from. But the small businesses don't. The families that can't pay their rent, they don't. And what about the vaccine? But you did do something this week. You extended the shadow voting scheme, granting yourselves permission to vote from home until October 2. Mr. Speaker, I will take a bet. I will make a bet on this floor right now, maybe even a prediction. I bet that gets extended again and probably goes a few days past the election in November. Who would like to take that bet with me? How much do you want to get that extended all the way through? What does that mean to the American people? Well, it means the majority party, the Democrats, have cast over 2,520 votes--and counting--from home. That is just unconstitutional. It doesn't matter that it is such a big crisis that we are called back. There is plenty of room on the floor on the other side. It means a Democrat Member can dial in from his boat to vote. I am not making that up. That actually happened. It means another Democrat can play hooky to go watch a space shuttle launch that isn't even in his own district. It means Democrats collect a paycheck while the hardworking taxpayers have to pay for their vacation. And today, it means that 68 Democrats--one-third of their Caucus-- didn't even care enough to show up for this so-called emergency session. It is critical. I have heard you say it. We cannot wait. We cannot wait one day. We need to be here and now. Now, I believe that is true, but not about the post office; about those millions of Americans who need us to act. Every time we brought legislation to this floor dealing with the COVID situation, it seems to me the Speaker has been able to hold it up. I don't know. Maybe you want to try to hold it up past the election. It seems to me that would be playing politics. It seems to me that would be a dereliction of duty. It is not how you empower the people's voice in Washington; it is how you dilute it. This is leadership malpractice. This is shameful and this is embarrassing. Mr. Speaker, our first Postmaster General, whom I have heard people speak of, Ben Franklin, could have been talking about this majority when he said: ``Lost time is never found again.'' As a majority, Democrats have been more focused on distractions than solutions for the American people, from the weakest, most partisan impeachment in American history to politicizing the pandemic and stopping relief for workers and families and, now, spreading a debunked conspiracy theory about the Postal Service. Mr. Speaker, Democrats have failed the American public. They have failed the laid-off workers, the families, the students who are waiting for help; the small businesses, the doctors, the nurses, they are waiting for help; the researchers, the scientists who are developing a vaccine, they are waiting for help. But this majority said no. They did, however, say yes to China. On this floor, just a few weeks ago, there was a bill to sanction anyone who would hack into our companies, into our institutions that are working on a vaccine faster than ever before--that would only slow it down--to save lives. We had an opportunity to tell those countries: Work with us; don't steal from us. But your voice was heard loud and clear, all the Democrats who showed up that day. More than two-thirds of you voted ``no'' on the same day that it was reported that two Chinese were hacking into our vaccine. That is what you said. I heard the majority leader say it was an MTR. Yes, it was. Why was it an MTR? Because you don't give us an amendment. Why was it an MTR? Because at the moment in time, it was essential, it was critical. It was reported on that day. You could act that day. The country needed us to act, but you said no. You stood up for the Chinese that day. I do not know what the Chinese Communist Party has on the Democrats, Mr. Speaker, but it must be powerful. It must be so powerful. I know there are bills in the Senate that have passed that would hold them accountable, but they can't come to the floor. I have read the reports from the FBI that they are playing in this campaign, that they do have a person they want to win, to put a new person in office, but that is not critical to you. It is critical that we come today to provide $25 billion to an organization that Republicans and Democrats, that are the commissioners, say they do not need. Why do they not need it? Because they looked at their own bank account and realized they have $14 billion. They do not need it because, in the CARES Act, we gave them another $10 billion to sit there. They do not need it because they said they could deliver every piece of mail, that it would be only 75 percent of what they do in a single day. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to say all the Democrats feel that way, because one-third of them didn't show up for work today even though their own leader, the Speaker, said they needed to come, even though, when we passed on this floor something different than we haven't done in more than 230 years, to let somebody stay home, be on a boat, call in, and still get paid, you said you could not do that. You could only do it if your health was at need. I am not quite sure a hospital is on a boat in a lake, but to Democrats it must be. They won't vote on a bill that I propose to sanction Chinese- affiliated hackers who attack our vaccine research. I am not sure that is partisan. I thought that was pure American. They won't help working Americans. They won't help protect our vaccines. But, yes, they stood that day proudly supporting of the Chinese Communist Party. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. America's too great for a vision so small with our challenges before us. We showed up. But you know why we showed up? We showed up for the small businesses. We showed up for those who are unemployed. We showed up for those school districts that want to find a way to open safely. We showed up for the doctors and the nurses. I know, when I look up on the board, there will be a lot of Democrat votes. I don't know where those one-third are. Maybe they are on the boat. Maybe they are watching a spaceship. I am not sure. Maybe some are watching Oprah. But one thing I do know, it is essential that we are here. But we should be here for other reasons. We should be here for the reasons that the American public expect us to. Mr. Speaker, we can do so much better. This country needs us. We should rise to the occasion, not fall for a vision so small as what I see today.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, in ``The Columbian Orator,'' a collection of speeches that Frederick Douglass read as a young man, there is a speech that says: ``Let it be remembered, there is no luxury so exquisite as the exercise of humanity, and no post so honorable as his, who defends the rights of man.'' Now, I don't know if Douglass read those exact words, but I do know a man who embodied them better than anyone else in my lifetime: John Lewis. John's legacy is his love of country and humanity. He rose above prejudice and responded to force with forgiveness. In his time, there was a lot that he couldn't love about America, but he never gave up on it or wanted to destroy it. Instead, he used what is right with America to fix what was wrong with it. Because of his patriotism, our Nation has come a long way, not perfect, but more perfect, as we must always strive to be. John was unquestionably one of the great champions of freedom in the modern age, and he secured his place as a giant in American history long before his career in Congress even began. Born on a farm without running water or power, the son of a sharecropper rose to become a founding leader of the civil rights movement by the age of 23. As a young student, he showed courage and patience and dignity beyond his years. From his lunch counter sit-ins, to the Freedom Riders, to Bloody Sunday in Selma, Alabama, his unflinching example of nonviolence was a powerful call to arms. It was made irresistible by the fact that he, like Dr. King, sought to vindicate the core ideas of our founding documents by applying them to everyone. Today, our task is to continue to uphold these timeless principles for all people. It will not be easy, but I am confident we will succeed, because we have the memories of leaders like John to guide us and inspire us. I have several memories of my friendship with John that I will always treasure. I remember my last time speaking with him, just 2 weeks before he passed away, talking about the latest uprising in America. I asked if John would spend a moment in time and do a conference call with the freshmen. They had not had the opportunity to walk through Selma with him to give them the example of which he lived. You see, my family and I have joined John many times in Selma, but the one that I will remember the most is on the 50th anniversary. To think for a moment that 50 years before, John came very close to death, and on that day 50 years later, he was introducing the President of the United States. Not only the idea that John would stand for all, he always had the patience to tell a student about what it was like before. I remember at the State of the Union of 2015, there was Amelia Boynton Robinson. You see, she was with John that day 50 years prior, and she came here in hopes of meeting President Obama. She came by my office. And before, we stopped by John's office. I told Amelia: Just wait right outside the Chambers here, because the President has an escort party, and in that escort party, I am one of them, but stand there and we will make sure when the President comes out, you will greet. She had a picture of that day, and you will see John leading. When John would tell you the story of the march across the bridge, he would walk you up to one certain place, then he said: I can tell you no more, because I cannot remember. You see, they beat him unconscious, almost to his death, on that Bloody Sunday. I remember sitting with Tim Scott, watching John speak about what happened that fateful day. I will never forget what he said. When he would tell the story of the march, he would stop at a moment, as I said before, and say: I cannot remember past this point because I had been beaten. And I was carried back, and I almost died. Reflecting on the violence he endured, he said with humility that he ``gave a little blood.'' In fact, John gave so much more than that. He gave his country his all, and he was willing to give his life to make America a more perfect Union, but he never gave himself over to anger or allowed himself to harbor hatred in his heart for those who persecuted him. In a true mark of his character, he famously forgave George Wallace, saying: ``. . . to do otherwise--to hate him--would only perpetuate the evil system we sought to destroy.'' John continued: ``Our ability to forgive serves a higher moral purpose in our society. Through genuine repentance and forgiveness, the soul of our Nation is redeemed.'' This, he said, was the ``very essence of the civil rights movement.'' Mr. Speaker, as I reflect on John's life, those words sum up why he was a great man and why we will always honor him. It was truly the privilege of my life to call him my friend. We are a better country because of him. His legacy of change will last as long as America does. Everyone should strive to honor his incredible life. More importantly, we should all strive to learn from it. But today, we mourn his loss, celebrate his life, and thank Almighty God for sending a great man who helped change a nation and serves as the highest example of courage, compassion, and moral character.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank the gentleman for his work and the work of his committee. I thank Congresswoman Karen Bass--I served with her in the State assembly--for the work as we go forward. Today marks 1 month since George Floyd was tragically killed. As we all agree, Mr. Floyd, Pat Underwood, and countless others should be alive today. Republicans have listened closely to calls for justice, and we have responded proactively. Leading our response has been Senator Tim Scott and Congressman Pete Stauber. We could not ask for a better pair to work on this important issue: a Black Senator who has personally experienced racial discrimination and a retired law enforcement officer, wounded on the job, for more than 23 years with the State of Minnesota, who now serves in the House. Their thoughtful efforts have produced something that is too rare in this town: a bill that actually tries to solve a problem, not just score political points. It is truly a bipartisan plan, with over 80 percent of the policies in the bill supported by Democrats. It builds on previous Republican- led civil rights efforts, such as in the majority when we did criminal justice reform, opportunity zones, and school choice. In fact, it could be on its way to becoming law today in a more sensible environment. It would pass on the merits with overwhelmingly bipartisan support. But we don't live in sensible times. When I looked George Floyd's brother in the eye and told him that George will not have died in vain, I meant it. To those on the other side of the aisle, I believe you meant it, too, but there are questions that arise: Did you work in good faith across the aisle or did you choose to go it alone? Did you choose to make a point rather than make a difference, all while putting politics before people and slandering Republicans in the process? First, you dismissed the JUSTICE Act as ineffective before one single word was read. I never once said that the Democrat bill was a nonstarter, not once. I was asked at a press conference to name one thing that I oppose. I went back to the reporter and said, no, I will not, because this is a moment in time the country expects us to rise to the occasion. I am not going to point to something that I disagree with because I believe we can get to the point together. I had hoped that on this floor we probably would be debating amendments. Not one single amendment was allowed. Not one single amendment was allowed. I listened to the Democrats on the other side because they are in the position the Republicans are here in the minority. They were offered 20 amendments, but they felt they shouldn't go forward--not to vote on the bill, but not even to debate it. Would it be too much to offer the minority one vote to do a bill together? Then you tried to diminish its author. One Senate Democrat who is White went so far as to say on the floor of the Senate that Senator Scott, a Black Republican, was taking the token approach. I don't know if you have ever served with Tim, but there is no one who has higher character than the man I know. I don't know what it is like to walk in other people's lives, but Tim is a good friend. He has told me the stories. Tim did not start working on this bill a month ago. He has been working on it his entire life, like others, as well. Tim did not ask to do the bill on the Senate side with no input from the other side of the aisle. Tim offered amendments and others, but it can't even move the bill forward. Now you are defaming its supporters saying, as Speaker Pelosi absurdly claims, that we are trying to get away with murder, the murder of George Floyd. She knows she should have apologized, but she doubled down on her remarks yesterday. That was a very sad state of affairs. Think for one moment. The Speaker of the House is second in line to the President of the United States. That job is too big for words so small, especially in this moment and in this opportunity. So much for meeting the moment and working together to solve a problem. We have reached a new low in this body, and it is not one that I want to be a part of. Democrats in the Senate had the opportunity to add 20 amendments to address their concerns about the JUSTICE Act, but they chose to walk away. Meanwhile, Democrats in the House haven't given the Republicans the opportunity to offer a single amendment on the floor. I have been in the position of being a majority leader. I understand you let a few make a decision, but I do not believe it is the will of the other side of the aisle to shut out voices on this side. I do not believe that you think you have all the answers or are afraid to even have a debate when you know this is an issue that all of America on the streets is rising up and wants to have a voice heard. I don't understand why anybody is afraid to have amendments. We didn't stop participating even though we had been shut out. We have been to every hearing. We have been to every place. We want to make law. We don't want to make politics. I think our country deserves more. Worse yet, Democrats are now trying to distract from the party's failures in governing major American cities. You are complicit in the chaos and its consequences. While you stall serious reform, your allies in the leftwing mob are engaging in looting, destruction, and violence, attacking people, property, and public monuments to American heroes. The latest incident, I guarantee you, will not be the last. It was in the city of Madison, Wisconsin, not a Republican stronghold, but a Democrat, for decades. There, local officials stood by as a mob tore down several statues that are publicly owned and entirely unoffensive. The first statue they tore down was of Lady Forward, a symbol of progress in the women's suffrage movement. Next, they tore down a statue of Hans Christian Heg, an abolitionist who died fighting to end slavery during the Civil War. But it wasn't just statues they attacked that night. The mob also assaulted a sitting State senator, a self-described supporter of the protestors. This lawless and unjustified violence must be stopped. But their own Wisconsin Lieutenant Governor seemed too surprised by the attacks to do anything about them. Their fatal mistake is to assume that Democrats will be safe because, as the Lieutenant Governor said, they are on the ``proper'' side. But here is the reality: Mobs don't care about your political affiliation. Mobs won't draw any lines because they can't draw any lines because they are mobs. They don't want peace, justice, or reform. They want destruction, upheaval, and, most of all, control over you, over others, and over our past, present, and future. In this country, no one is above the law no matter how proper the coastal elites or mainstream media deem their cause. As elected officials, it is our responsibility to condemn these acts with passion, force, and moral clarity. It doesn't just happen in Wisconsin. It happens in California. It happens in the Speaker's district. Just a few short years ago, the Pope spoke from these Chambers. As he left, the leadership stopped at Saint Serra and prayed together. There was a statue in San Francisco that the mob tore down. I am not sure, but I have not seen any comments from the individual who represents that district. In fact, their so-called solutions, such as dismantling and defunding police would only make the problem worse, especially for our vulnerable communities. By giving their leftwing allies a pass, the Democrats are giving the mob more power, more license, and more ambition. That is a recipe not for justice, but for more chaos. Mr. Speaker, Abraham Lincoln knew riots, mob rule, and defunding the police present serious threats to the American way of life. As a young man, he warned that ``lawlessness in spirit'' quickly becomes ``lawlessness in practice.'' He knew, if it was proper and you ignored it, it would become a practice. Today, we are witnessing the situation that Lincoln feared: a war on civil society that is quickly escalating. We must summon the courage to protect law-abiding citizens against lawlessness. Our choice is clear: civil society or chaos. Those are our only options. Republicans know which side we stand on. We will stand up, hold the line, and fight until the mob is stopped. Enough is enough. Today, on this floor, 1 month ago, I thought we would show the country that we are worthy of the office they let us serve in. We may be of different parties. I am proud of mine. You see, I was not born into the Republican Party. I came from a party of Democrats. In my office, I keep portraits. I keep a portrait of Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican President. I love what he stood for. I love what he stood against. Malice towards none. I wonder what this Nation would be had he not been assassinated? Would we ever have had Jim Crow laws or the KKK? Would we even be standing here today? But I think George Floyd would be, and so would Pat Underwood. In my office, in my chambers, I have Frederick Douglass as my newest portrait, a man born into slavery, worked his way out. Even though he had every reason to criticize this Nation, he loved it for its bruises, its sores, and all because he believed in a more perfect Union, adviser to a President and believing tomorrow would be better than today. Inside my conference room, I keep a very big portrait of Washington crossing the Delaware. If the mob was allowed in, they would probably tear it down. You see, that portrait is painted not by an American, but by an immigrant who lived here because America is more than a country. America is an idea, an idea about liberty and freedom. And he thought if he painted this painting, he would inspire others to believe in the freedom that we stand for. He gets it historically incorrect. He puts Washington in a rowboat with 13 people, but he only shows you 12 faces. You look at Washington. He is in his ceremonial uniform with his hand on his chest, bigger than life. You think that man had never lost a battle, but history told us he had not won one yet. See, that was the night we surprised the Hessians with our first victory. But if you look at the portrait and see who is in it, you look at the second rower, it is a Black American. The one next to him is Scottish. You come down, and the woman in the very back is a Native American. I do not know if they were in the boat that night, but to this young immigrant, that is who he believed, having lived in America, would be there. To the back you see this man, a farmer, with his hand across his face. The hand of the 13th person nobody sees. You see, to this young artist, he said here we are not even a nation but an idea, an idea based upon that we are all equal. Having never won a battle, we are willing to risk everything, where people would say on the holiest of nights, of Christmas: We will go to a challenge in a rough water and cross that we have never won before. Here is a hand. Would you get in and join us? That is as true today as it was then. You see, in that portrait, they didn't say only one party to join; they wanted all. They didn't say one had all the ideas; they said we were collective. And they were willing to do things they hadn't done before. They knew they were not perfect, but they strived to become a more perfect Union. I had hoped that that is what we would see today. Today, that will not be the answer, but that can also not be the end. I would hope both of us would rise up on both sides and ask us to go to conference. Let's not miss this window of opportunity to show that we are worthy of the cause we strive and the responsibility people give us. Let's not call each other names of murderers and others. Let's believe in the goodness of one another, and let's understand that we can solve this problem once and for all.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I thank the majority leader for his comments. It reminds me of the days when I was the majority leader and he was minority whip and we used to be able to have colloquies. I yearn for those days again. But let me respond to much of what the majority leader has said. I respect the gentleman greatly, but I just think he is wrong. When I walked in the room, the gentleman said we did not want to meet. He knows that is not true. Simply look at the board today, how many Republicans are here and how many Democrats. We will give the gentleman an easy answer to that question of who wants to meet. Or why not look to simply a month ago. Only one side put a plan out of how to bring Congress back. We don't have a schedule. We don't know when we are supposed to come. One day they say ``yes,'' the next day they say ``no.'' I think it is very clear which side wants to meet. It is very clear, and based upon 231 years of history. For those Members not in the Chamber and sitting in their office watching on television, they ought to pay attention to this very next vote. They are going to do something that no Member has ever been allowed to do before. They are going to change history, but not for the better. While millions of Americans are going to be tuned in to their television to watch us put people in space, we are going to watch more than 70 Members on the Democrat side stay home and say they could not make it, but they still want a paycheck. We just listened to the majority leader question the Republicans on whether they want to meet. I watch my home State of California. Now we get to go to church, now we can get our hair cut today, but in Congress, what do we get? We get no accountability. You see, the one thing the majority leader said that is true is that people vote for us. Yes, they do. They vote for us, expecting us to vote for them. They do not expect us to give that vote to somebody from another State. Our Constitution, our country expects us to convene, just as history has shown every time before in any crisis we have. I heard the majority leader question, not going through the Speaker, but one of our own Members on a speech that he gave just a few minutes before, Congressman Chip Roy, about whether he wanted to meet. Well, let's look at some facts. We are called back here to vote on a bill authored by Chip Roy, the Congressman, to help small businesses, but his name will no longer be on it. The only reason we are going to get a vote on it is because the Speaker had to pledge to somebody to vote for the $3 trillion bill that we would vote on. Once we found out everybody loved the bill, lo and behold, we can't let a Republican have their name on the bill, so we have changed the bill number. We didn't change the bill, but took his name off of it. He is no longer the main author of the bill, even though it was his idea. It is something the Members can be proud of on the other side. They played politics well that day. Chip Roy will tell me, though, he doesn't care who gets the credit; he just wants to help small businesses. I look forward to seeing the Member who took his name try to campaign on that. That is a lot of character on the other side, by far. I hope they are proud of that, because I don't think anybody in the country is. Now, let's just look at some facts. I respect the chairman of the Rules Committee. I read his reports. Even in April, he wrote a report about proxy voting, and he questioned the constitutionality of it. I don't know if the Constitution changed between then and now, but I don't believe it has. Let's look at exactly the facts of what we have. Now, I think many Members will say in their own States that things are getting better. I know in my home State, we can go to church; yes, we can get our hair cut; restaurants are opening up. But 2 weeks ago, people would probably argue it was a little worse. At that time, only 12 Democrats couldn't make it here to vote for their $3 trillion bill. Now there are more than 70 who are supposedly signing something to say they physically can't make it here now. I wonder if any of them are having a fundraiser today. Let's go through the facts. The Constitution requires in-person assembly. If we hang our hat on the notion that the House can make their own rules, then why don't we make a rule that Republicans can't vote? Why don't we make a rule that women can't vote? We can make the rules, but we can't make unconstitutional rules. The Constitution deals with this and tells us we should assemble. Yes, that is why, on August 14, after this building burned in 1812, the War of 1812-1814, they still convened. It wasn't here, but it was in a hotel. Some might think, oh, modern history allows us to do this. Well, do you know what modern history allows people to do? If the Member can't vote on the proxy, this rule allows the staff to do it. That is literally what the rule says. If the other side doesn't have it, I will put it in the Record right here. I will underline it, and I will provide it to the other side. If they want to read it out loud, they are more than welcome. If a Member cannot provide electronically, a staff is allowed to put the vote across. That is what is written. That is what was passed. Even one proxy vote dilutes the voting power of every Member. We have an unbelievable country. The people lend their power and voice to Members of Congress, be it a Congresswoman or Congressman, and they hold us accountable every 2 years. We are going to have people on this floor voting for more than five Members from five different States. In California alone, the largest delegation, more than half of the Democrats stayed home. I will guarantee they all cashed their check this month. That means 19 million people in California will not have their voice heard. Maybe somebody from Connecticut will vote for them. More than 70 Members will vote by proxy. That is 49 million Americans who did not count because we gave it to somebody else. The other side should be proud of that. Proxy votes have never been allowed to count towards a quorum, but what are we going to do on this rule? There will be more bodies voting ``no'' than voting ``yes,'' but the other side is going to win because they have got a vote in the pocket. The Democrat plan permits a staffer to vote by proxy on behalf of a Member who is unavailable. That is totally true. It is in the rules right here, and I will provide it to the other side. Let me read it into the Record since they have a hard time reading: If a Member is unavailable to email or send a text message, a staff member may transmit the instructions at the direction of the Member. Is that a staff member? Does that say anywhere in there that only a Member can vote? I have not yielded my time, but I have read these words. A Member can vote by proxy while attending a political fundraiser under this plan. A Member could be at a fundraiser watching on television and say: Well, let me pause for one moment. I didn't want to go back to D.C., even though you asked me to, but I need to put my vote in. It is okay. I will get somebody from another State to do it. The McGovern regulations state that Members can only vote using proxy voting if they are physically unable to make it to the Capitol. I don't know what happened in the last 2 weeks when only 12 could not make it, but now there are more than 70. I am concerned for them. It must be something very serious. All Members had nearly 2 weeks' notice ahead for this vote; 2 weeks we had to plan. For 231 years, Members found a way to get to D.C. If this rule or bill passes, it will only be because of proxy votes that will make up the difference. So my friend over there thinks someone is going to vote differently. Yeah, they are. Even on the Senate side, they have told us: Whatever you are passing here under these rules is not constitutional. If we can make this type of rule, we could make anything: People with glasses can't vote--unheard of. Yes, we raised a lawsuit. Yes, we believe in a previous question, that people should vote ``no'' on this. It is a violation of the Constitution. It is a dereliction of the duty of elected officials. It will silence the voice of people, the same constituents that you took the oath to represent. I think of all the things this country had challenges with. Never did this body not find it was essential to meet. Never did they question to change the rule to empower one over another. But they have done just that. They have done just that. If you are a Member of Congress, if you are home, sitting there because you cannot make it, and you think you are going to send your message to your staffer to send it in, you might want to change because maybe McGovern will change the rules now. When you were sworn in, you held up your hand to uphold the Constitution. This is your moment. This is your time. Read Article I, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6. We even compel people to go gather you to bring you to these Chambers. What is interesting to me is that the other side is willing to endanger our Constitution just to empower more power to the majority itself. It will be interesting to see those who go back to their constituents and say, I will represent you because I can just phone it in. I deserve to be reelected because I passed us off to another Member to vote for you. It is interesting to find that maybe when you raised your hand, maybe when you thought the Constitution changed, it hasn't. So, yes, just as the majority leader said, he wants you to look into your heart to how you are going to vote. Do that. I hope we all come back to this floor and we all look up. I am not sure how the vote will go. Will you have a little P by the name that says a proxy? Will we be able to tell by proxy that somebody from another State voted for you so the rest of the country can see? How will you tell the country today that is opening up more, that is sending astronauts to space, that you want to close Congress further, and you want to deny their voice one last time? This is not about opening a campus. This is about restoring the voice to the American public that we have done for 231 years. And for you to ever question who wants to meet, let the public just see the scoreboard at the end of the day. I think it is easy to answer that question, not by voice, but simply by your feet, who is willing to show and who is willing to work for them.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, in the last 230 years, dating back to the founding of our Republic, fewer than 11,000 Americans have had the privilege to stand here as a Member of Congress. Today it is my honor to welcome one of the newest, Mike Garcia. As a veteran, a businessman, a family man, and a first-generation American, Mike has shown a driven-approach to everything he has taken. If you ever want a definition of America, look to Mike's life. First generation, many like our fathers, mothers, grandparents, wanted something better for their children so they came to America. Mike dreamed, at age six, that one day maybe he could become a Navy fighter pilot. He knew it would not be easy, so he strived, applied himself, and was nominated to the Naval Academy from this body itself. Not only did he excel, he graduated in the top 3 percent, becoming a fighter pilot, something many of us always look to the skies to dream and wonder what it takes to become one. As he became a fighter pilot, his Nation called upon him to defend our freedoms, those that we uphold, that he just raised his hand to defend the Constitution a few short moments ago. He excelled at that because he believes in service. After his service into the Navy he worked as a businessman. He has a beautiful family, Rebecca, sons Preston, who is with us on the floor, and his son Jett, up with his wife Rebecca, and his brother, and sister-in-law. George Washington once said: ``Remember that it is the actions and not the commission that makes an officer, and that there is more expected from him than the title.'' Washington was speaking about being a military officer. But his advice perfectly describes what it means to be a Member of Congress. We are a small group with a big responsibility, to represent the voice of the people in Washington. Ultimately, it is our actions, not our titles, that matter. Mike's feat today is not something people just assumed. Yes, you have to run. Yes, you have to unite people. But he did something that people on my side of the aisle have not done in more than 22 years. He did it in a manner where an election was bigger than most people had thought, and they had to run these races in a time of a crisis in America that they held the elections to be different. He changed the course in a few short times. If there is one person that I believe can unite this body, unite this Nation, it is a man whose life actually defines America. Family comes here, the dreams of a life better for their children. He strives and excels in public education to get nominated by the United States House of Representatives and his own congressman to go to the Naval Academy. He excels at the academy to become a jet fighter pilot and defends our Nation in a time of need. And one more time his Nation called upon him to serve, he rose to the occasion, and unbelievable obstacles that many did not believe he could achieve by uniting a district to help unite a Nation and help unite Congress itself. Madam Speaker, I congratulate Mike, and I look forward to what he is able to achieve in this body, much that he has been able to achieve before he came here.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Speaker Pelosi called scrutinizing China a diversion. That could not be further from the truth. First, China lied to the world about the virus. According to a recent study, 95 percent of this crisis would have been contained if China had been honest. All they had to do was be honest. Imagine all the lives and livelihoods that would have been saved. Second, during the crisis, China leveraged its stockpile of personal protection equipment for their own political gain and at the expense of our frontline workers. Third, just this week, it was reported that China is now hacking our companies and universities to try to undermine our effort to find a cure to save lives. Speaker Pelosi should withdraw her comments. Instead, she withdrew her Members from what was supposed to be a bipartisan task force on China, one that we had planned and worked for for more than a year, long before this virus came from the distant land. Mr. Speaker, I would say to Speaker Pelosi that addressing China is not a diversion. Justice for Americans is not a diversion. It is what we must do to protect our country. The real diversion is the proposal on the floor today. This 1,800-page, $3 trillion proposal isn't a serious attempt at making public policy. Mr. Speaker, I listened to the talk which you had before your conference. I listened when Speaker Pelosi told your conference to ``go big.'' Instead of going big, it seems you went crazy. This is a political messaging bill that has no chance of becoming law. That is not my opinion. That is the opinion from your own Members and from the media itself. Why do they have that opinion? Let's look at the flaws in the bill itself. Its central demands were written behind closed doors, predates the crisis, and are not targeted to the coronavirus. Changing election laws won't speed up the development of treatments or cures. That was the Democrats' number one bill, H.R. 1. Does anyone remember back when they introduced that, the very first bill in Congress, long before anyone ever heard of coronavirus? Bailing out mismanaged pensions won't keep cash-strapped Main Street afloat as Americans practice social distancing. Suspending the cap on SALT tax deductions for millionaires and billionaires won't reach the 36 million Americans who are now unemployed. The Democrats promised to do that in their campaign, not when the virus came forth. This bill has more references to the cannabis industry in it than it does to jobs, even though it is jobs, not dispensaries, that are going up in smoke. Millions of more dollars earmarked for the National Endowment for the Arts won't stop China from hacking our companies and universities who are working toward a vaccine. America is in a serious crisis, but unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the House Democrats see it as leverage to pass their socialist agenda. Mr. Speaker, Majority Whip Clyburn, who runs what I refer to as the 2.0 Impeachment Committee, called it a ``tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision.'' Mr. Speaker, you have a Member on the other side of the aisle, who authored the Green New Deal, who said, ``you absolutely love to see it'' while she was cheering the loss of good jobs in the energy industry. There is another Member on the other side of the aisle, the co-chair of the Progressive Caucus, who said about passing more legislation, the concern, she said, ``For me, the leverage is that there is enormous suffering.'' Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the American public that those are not the views from this side of the aisle. We do not view the coronavirus as an opportunity to reshape and restructure government. We do not smile and cheer when people lose their jobs. We do not think to use as leverage the fact that people are suffering. We do not see that as an opportunity to grab every philosophical idea we have that has nothing to do with the coronavirus and put it into a bill. That is not who we are. Today's partisan spectacle continues a trend by, unfortunately, the Democrats that has strained Congress' relief efforts from the very beginning. History will write that in January, Democrats were too busy impeaching President Trump to pay attention to what was happening in Wuhan, China. In March, Speaker Pelosi delayed passage of the bipartisan CARES Act for 5 days. Her obstruction caused millions to lose their jobs and politicized the process but changed little in the bill. In April, Democrats dragged their feet over replenishing the crucial Paycheck Protection Program for 14 days, allowing millions of jobs to be lost in the meantime and creating greater uncertainty for cash- strapped small businesses. It is time for the political games to end. It is time to put politics on lockdown and get back to legislating. 1,800 pages. I won't ask who has read it, because I know nobody saw it in committee. We will vote on the largest bill in the history of Congress with not one committee hearing. But Democrats might argue back because H.R. 1, their election law bill that they passed more than a year ago before the crisis, they didn't want to put it in here. Democrats took the time to change the rules of the floor. There are not many of us sitting on the floor today, Mr. Speaker, because of this virus. But there are more sitting on the floor today than can actually pass a bill after the rules they want to change. You see, the American public, they might not understand that when they lend their voice for 2 years to the person they vote for to represent them in Washington, that may no longer be the case. You see, now, after today, it only takes 20 people. Twenty Democrats could each hold ten proxies to themselves and pass anything they want, much like what we talked about here. It won't stop China from hacking our universities to slow down our ability to have a vaccine. It won't bring a new job. It may help the cannabis industry, but it won't help Main Street. Maybe it helps you in an election because you are going to take an opportunity to try to change that as well. I will warn you, though, the American public is smart. We just saw, Mr. Speaker, just this Tuesday in a seat in California where you changed the election law there. You made it an all-mail ballot. That was okay. But when you saw the returns were not coming in the way you wanted, you protested, so you changed it. You actually put a place where people could walk in and vote, but not throughout the district. You picked one area. Where did you pick? The most Democrat precinct in the entire district. It didn't turn out like you saw just a short time ago where a Democrat won by more than 9 points. No. It actually flipped. It flipped because the American public is frustrated. They are tired of these type of games they are seeing. They are tired of what they are seeing happening, Congress not working. There are so many Americans, millions, who are no longer getting a paycheck, but Congress is for not working. What do you say to the Starbucks employee who works just two blocks from here that shows up to work every day, but not Congress? What do you say to the drivers who bring the food to the grocery stores or those who restock them every night? That that is essential. Or to the medical community who care for us? That that is essential. What do you tell your constituents when you are going to ask them to vote for you again? That it wasn't essential for you to work, that you could have given a proxy to one of your friends who could vote for them, whom they do not know, whom they did not vote for, whom they did not lend their voice to? What will you say to the constituent in a time of need? That you wrote an 1,800-page bill, but you didn't write it? It was a select few, not in a committee. It had no oversight, and that is why it ended up talking about cannabis more than it ever mentioned a job. Yes, this bill is up in smoke, and it should end that way. But we should get back to what the American people expect of us: first, to work to earn your paycheck; and second, to make sure China never has the ability to do this again. For more than a year, I worked with the other side to create a bipartisan committee. They actually said yes. We went down to the date. We named the people. It was February. We were going to announce it, but they backed away. To the American public, I want them to know we welcomed Democrats to join us on this committee because we know and we understand 95 percent of this would have never happened had they not lied. We did not invite this virus; we did not welcome it; but we will defeat it if we work together. The first thing is to work together to defeat this bill, this rule, and bring the country back in this Congress, what we were supposed to do so long ago.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his work, and Rodney Davis' as well. Unfortunately, it did not come to the place where we could have a bipartisan agreement. Now, Mr. Speaker, today isn't just a day for debate. It is also a day for remembrance. It is Peace Officers Memorial Day and the second-to- last day of Police Week. So, before I begin, I want to say thank you to everyone who serves as a police officer or is a family member of a police officer, including our wonderful Capitol Police and their families who do an incredible job protecting this campus, its employees, and its visitors. As the guardians of peace, they are on the front lines every day. Despite the danger, they are undeterred from performing their duty. As the son of a firefighter, I know that they do not do their job for recognition or praise, but they truly deserve our gratitude, especially now. So, I thank them for everything they do, from a very grateful Congress. Now, Mr. Speaker, the work of our frontline heroes is the definition of ``essential.'' It cannot be done remotely or by proxy. Why should Congress be any different? We are supposed to represent the people. We should strive to show a level of determination in our important work that is worthy of the police officers we honor today. The American people expect us to do our part to defeat this virus just like they are doing on a daily basis. Mr. Speaker, Speaker Pelosi said in this exact Chamber just a few weeks ago: ``We are captains of the ship. We are the last to leave.'' But proxy voting calls on Congress to abandon the ship and be the first to leave for months or possibly for the rest of the session. The Speaker is on the brink of launching the most significant power grab in the history of Congress. It runs counter to 230 years of House rules and even the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, our Founders would be ashamed that we aren't assembling. I want every American to understand what it means for their Member of Congress to whom they lend their voice in Washington. It means that you can stay home for the rest of the year but still get paid for the rest of the year. Many Americans will not be paid. It means that they can let someone else--Speaker Pelosi--consolidate power and do their job for them when they could do it for themselves. It means that they will participate only in legislative theater while shutting your voice out for the real lawmaking process. A virtual Congress would be a Congress that is connected to the internet but disconnected from the American people. That isn't fair to our constituents, our colleagues, or our country. It undermines the very purpose of representative democracy as our Founders designed it. Roger Sherman, the only Founder to sign all four great state documents, said, in 1789: ``When the people have chosen a representative, it is his duty to meet others from the different parts of the Union and consult and agree with them to such acts as are for the general benefit of the whole community.'' Sherman was right. Especially in a pandemic, our presence here, our Congress together, matters. It matters to our constituents; it matters to our institution; and it matters to all those who will come after us. This pandemic has claimed too many lives and livelihoods already. We must not allow this great body that we are charged with safeguarding to be the next casualty if you pass this bill. In fact, aren't we proving today that we don't need a virtual Congress? In the middle of this virus, the House is conducting its business while following the health guidelines. We can do that at a committee level, too. Our Republican colleagues, Mr. Cole and Mr. Davis, had submitted that ``Plan for the People's House'' for the committees to work in a safe manner. It is the only side that has produced a plan, and it was a bipartisan plan to move forward. It is about more than reopening a campus. It is about restoring America's voice. We don't have to choose between the health of our Capitol community and the health of this institution. We can continue to work in a safe and effective manner without overturning 230 years of constitutional and legislative tradition. Remote voting should be the final and last option, not the first and only. Unfortunately, rather than allowing the most reasoned voices to prevail on this crucial matter, my friends across the aisle have surrendered to the loudest voice. Mr. Speaker, as I look at this reckless proposal, I am reminded of what the great American author James Fenimore Cooper said in 1838. He said that the most dangerous attacks on freedom are made by ``the largest trustees of authority, in their efforts to increase their power.'' Mr. Speaker, I believe that is worth hearing again. It was said in 1838 that the most dangerous attacks on freedom are made by ``the largest trustees of authority, in their efforts to increase their power.'' Cooper was correct, and that should concern each and every one of us today. By changing the rules to increase the power of a select few, Democrats will forever alter our institution for the worse. That will be the legacy that is left this Congress, a Congress that is a voice of people who have lent their voice throughout this Nation to 435 Members that will now shrink to 20. We were warned that the dangers of freedom will come from those who are the trustees of authority. We were warned so maybe today would never happen, but now we are witnesses of it. In a few minutes, we will be given the opportunity to make that choice. Mr. Speaker, will your legacy be what Cooper had warned the Nation about? I hope it will not. Mr. Speaker, if you are okay with overturning 230 years of tradition and allowing 20 Members to control Congress, then vote for this resolution. Mr. Speaker, if you enjoy being cut out of the lawmaking process, then vote for this resolution. Mr. Speaker, if you ran to get a title but are willing to give your vote in return, then vote for this resolution. But if you think our Congress still matters, and if you think the people's voice still matters, then I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no.'' Mr. Speaker, I know each and every one of you will honor the police for doing their job. Each and every one of you will honor all those in the medical community for doing their job. I know Members will honor the delivery driver, will honor the cashier, and will honor those who are behind the check stands at Home Depot or in the grocery store because Members think what they are doing is essential. I hope that Members look deep in their hearts because when they asked their constituents to vote for them because they believed the job they were running for was essential for the Nation--because I think it is--I want them to look at their vote. Because, Mr. Speaker, if you believe 20 should have the power, if you believe you should have the title and not do the job, and if you believe you should be paid while you stay home, I think we have a difference of opinion. I believe our work is essential, and I believe we are proving we can do it. I believed the Speaker when she said just a few weeks ago that we are captains of the ship and that we will be the last to leave, not the first to abandon it like you will today. A vote for this resolution is a vote to abandon this House, to abandon the Constitution, to abandon 230 years of tradition. You will still have your title. You will have no power. And worst of all, your constituents will have no voice.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his service. Before I begin, I want to thank all of us for spending the time to be here today. Madam Speaker, I want to say to the families who are battling this virus or to the families who have lost a loved one, if we would all pause to think about that, not only did they lose a loved one, but they couldn't even be near them or with them in their time of need. I want them to know, from a Republican and Democrat side, for the entire Congress: You are in our prayers, and you will stay in our prayers. I also want to give a sincere thank-you to all of the essential workers on the front lines of this crisis, not from the Republican leader, but from a very grateful nation. For the medical professionals, the doctors, the nurses, the receptionists, we thank you for going to work. We know the fear that it brings; we know the fear that it brings when you go home to your families; and we are grateful. To the farmers who make sure we have food grown in America that is safe and the truck drivers who drive through the night to replenish the stores that we walk in and keep our distance to have the food; to the postal workers, the warehouse workers, the clerks inside those stores who every day go to work, you are making a meaningful and measurable difference in the lives of our entire Nation. We will be forever grateful for those who kept us safe, kept us healthy, and kept us fed. They deserve a government that strives to meet that very same level of dedication. That is the promise I will make: that we will bring the same dedication that you bring to help others that you don't even know, and we should rise to that occasion. This is a commitment we make to every American. We will fight this virus together until we defeat it together. We did not ask for this virus. We did not invite it. It came from a distant land. But together, we will defeat it, not only for our country, but for the world. To do that, Congress must act, and we will continue to act even if some in this body want to play politics. Even if we get something held up, we will stay at the table until we bring people together. We want to put people before politics. Our entire effort will be bipartisan. After all, public health and a strong economy are not a Democrat or Republican issue. Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, we watched the other side within our own Speaker of the House interject politics where it did not belong: into an oversight body of our necessary relief funds. Now I want everybody to understand what the CARES Act did, the CARES Act that got held up for more than a week. Yes, at the end of the day it changed from that one Sunday night. Kennedy Center and others got some more money, but it didn't change for what the work was going to be done, for the people who needed it. Yes, some people, unfortunately, got laid off because it was delayed. It wasn't a bright moment for this body that week. But inside that CARES Act, not only did we provide resources, we provided accountability. You see, every single committee in Congress has an oversight. We have a committee just designed for oversight. But we wanted to make something to make sure it was bipartisan, so we created three new entities in the CARES Act just for oversight. The first is called the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee. It is made up of inspectors general, not Republicans or Democrats. They are independent and professional. The second is a Special Inspector General for Pandemic Recovery. This individual is appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and lasts for 5 years. And we gave $25 million to make sure they had the resources to make it happen. But that wasn't enough. We created a third one. Now, this one is the Congressional Oversight Commission, with commissioners. This body is appointed by congressional leadership. On our side of the aisle, we appointed French Hill. Why? First, he is a statesman. He worked at the Treasury Department. He knows things backwards and forwards, so they can't ever fool French Hill. I was very excited when I heard, on the other side of the aisle, they appointed Donna Shalala, the former Secretary of HHS. You see, this body won't be weighted by one side or the other. All four leaders, Republican and Democrat, appoint one, so it is equal. And then you know what happens for a chair? Mitch McConnell and Speaker Pelosi decide who to become the chair. I think the American public says that is right. But they don't go and hide inside a corner. They literally report to Congress every 30 days. I was proud of that accomplishment. That is what America expects from us: no politics, but the very best on there, and report back. But today, when we come back because it was delayed, to give small business the resources it takes to keep people employed, now we added a little politics to the game. You see, today, we will vote on a new Oversight Committee. Will it be equal? Will it be the same number of Republicans and Democrats like the congressional one? No. Will it be the same when it comes to the inspectors general, where it won't care about politics? No, sad to say not. You see, this committee will be the only committee weighted politically. There will be seven Democrats and five Republicans. This committee was announced before they even told the mission of what this committee should do. They even announced the chair of the committee. Now, I respect the chair greatly, Madam Speaker. He has one of the best political minds I know. Joe Biden will tell you that. You see, our dear friend Congressman Clyburn should be credited with getting Joe Biden the nomination. While he failed in all the other States, South Carolina was critical. He did politics very well in the endorsement. He turned the tide of the Democrat nomination. And they will have a nominee, and a lot of that will go to Jim Clyburn, and he deserves the credit politically for what he was able to accomplish. We do not question his political abilities. He is the majority whip. He knows how to gather votes. He knows how to make the political argument. But, Madam Speaker, this is the same individual who said that the pandemic presented the perfect opportunity to restructure things to fit our own vision. I do not question his appointment. I wonder why this committee. If that was his view, why wasn't he put on the congressional oversight that was equal with the number of Republicans and the number of Democrats? The public does not want to see politics. Why would we waste our time bringing people back to create a political committee? I guess the vote will tell us differently. It is interesting to know why we are here. At 8:30 today, we actually found the reason, 4.4 million more reasons why we are here. How many of those 4.4 million would not have gotten a pink slip last week had we listened more than 2 weeks ago, on April 7, when we said the program we created that was so successful, that was able to do the number of loans in 14 days that it took the SBA to do in 14 years, that there was such a need out there that maybe we would overcome politics for that one moment. Could it be too much to read that it was one simple page? I thought there was a moment in time it would happen. I thought we could say yes on a unanimous consent, this is a program we all had just voted for and surely just 2 weeks before. Yes, that was tough to get that bill through. Yes, we had to have it held up on the other side. That was wrong that other millions were laid off. But this was the moment to learn from that mistake on the other side before. We did not learn. It was played again. To those 4.4 million Americans who were laid off this week: Congress owes you an apology. You did not have to have that happen. To the small business owner: I understand this greatly. At age 20, I created my first business. I know where you make these decisions. You make these decisions on the kitchen table. If you ever had a small business, you realize you are the first to work, you are the last to leave, and you are the last to be paid. You know those who work with you are not just employees, they are your family. You know their children's names. You are there at their weddings; you are there when they graduated; and you are proud of them. You never want to have to say you are going to lay them off. They put everything into their business to succeed, and government told them they had to shut down for the health of the Nation. They made a sacrifice. But they got sacrificed for politics last week. Shame on this body. I have listened to this debate thoroughly. I have listened to the other side. When you look at what we accomplished in those 14 days alone, we saved 30 million jobs. We all could have put a tweet out today not having to be in here and say we saved 34 million jobs, but, no, 4 million more lost because somehow people felt good with politics. I listened to debate on the other side. Some actually said they don't want to be here today: We shouldn't have folded and actually came together. We should have used leverage even further, used that political leverage to hold people up. I have even seen some people on the other side of the aisle say they loved to see it when the price of oil dropped, when no one had seen it before, and the idea that millions in our energy industry are going to get laid off, too. It doesn't matter about politics. There will be Democrats and Republicans both that get laid off. Then I listened as we come back here, Madam Speaker, and I tried to listen to the other side. I tried to understand: Why would you hold it up? What is different? I listened to the debates. I listened to the leadership talk. It was amazing to me. In listening to it, the only thing I could think is what Shakespeare would say: ``The lady doth protest too much, methinks.'' If you have to explain as hard as you can and spin with as much political might as you can why you laid 4.4 million people off because you felt better to tell Mitch McConnell that a program that put out funds and saved 30 million jobs, that you were going to hold it up to prove a point, that is not what I would want to hear in history. Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, it is our responsibility to act, to put our differences aside and do what is right for the American public. Now more than ever, the American people deserve a Congress that acts with leadership, dedication, and resilience. Anything we do in this Chamber that deals with COVID should be bipartisan, from legislation to deliberation to voting. Yes, I stayed up until 2 a.m. to see what the majority wanted to put forward. We all work hard to get here. We all almost have about the same size districts, because every 10 years we take a Census to figure that out. Our constituents make a decision every 2 years to lend their voice to the person they want to represent them. They did not lend their voice to give that proxy to somebody else they cannot hold accountable. They did not lend that voice to wait until 2 a.m. to change more than 200 years of history because somebody wanted to have more power than the job of the majority themselves. We are living in one of the greatest turning points in history. This is not a time for indifference, selfishness, or division. We are going to help America get through this. We are going to do this together. In the end, we are going to be stronger, healthier, and more united than ever before. Why? Because we are Americans, and that is who we are. This body will raise debates. This body plays politics many times, but now is not the moment for politics. Now is not the moment to say: Let's hold something up even if somebody is going to be punished, because somehow I will get a political advantage. Finally, when people come together, the statement should not be: Let's hold more leverage, because it is okay because, when we come to the floor, we will spin it and say it was not us. But when we are long gone, history will write about this day. They will write about that day on April 7 when America witnessed something they have never seen before, when one stood before the Chamber in the Senate and requested to add exactly what we are doing today to a program to keep people hired in all the places we know and love in our neighborhood, and one party sent two people, in the middle of COVID, onto the floor to raise a simple hand to say they object. That was the only thing holding the money up between the American public and those 4.4 million who unfortunately went to a different job today: the unemployment line. I don't know how anybody could be proud of that, but, Madam Speaker, I am always an optimist. I know what has been before us. I know the challenge. Today, we are going to display to the American public that we can work just as those truck drivers, those medical professionals, the checkers at my local Vons, or the paramedic who comes when the call is requested. They are essential. I think it is essential to this country to show we can do our job not in a partisan way. So when the moment comes, you will have two votes. You have already voted, all of us here in the Chambers, to add three more committees that are bipartisan for the accountability of this money going forward. The country is asking you to keep that together. So you will have a choice. Now you can cast a new vote to put in something partisan that we have never seen before with an individual who is one of the best political minds around, who believes that this virus is more about restructuring government in their view than solving a problem. Then you are going to have another vote, a vote to continue the funding that we already asked for more than 2 weeks ago. This time, after twice holding up money from the American public, I just ask all in this Chamber to learn from this. Let's not hold up again our ability to help and work in a bipartisan manner to not only open this Chamber, but to work for the American public and solve this problem once and for all.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, had there been a recorded vote on H.R. 748, the CARES Act, the Republican Members listed below would have voted as follows. Abraham, YEA; Aderholt, YEA; Allen, YEA; Amodei, YEA; Armstrong, YEA; Babin, YEA; Bacon, YEA; Baird, YEA; Balderson, YEA; Barr, YEA; Bergman, YEA; Biggs, NAY; Bilirakis, YEA; Bishop (NC), YEA; Bost, YEA; Brady, YEA; Brooks (IN), YEA; Buchanan, YEA; Buck, NAY; Bucshon, YEA; Budd, YEA; Burchett, YEA; Calvert, YEA; Carter (GA), YEA; Carter (TX), YEA; Cole, YEA; Collins, YEA; Conaway, YEA; Cook, YEA; Crawford, YEA; Crenshaw, YEA; Davidson, YEA; Davis (IL), YEA; DesJarlais, YEA; Diaz-Balart, YEA; Duncan, YEA; Dunn, YEA; Emmer, YEA; Ferguson, YEA; Fitzpatrick, YEA; Fleischmann, YEA; Fortenberry, YEA; Fulcher, YEA. Gallagher, YEA; Gianforte, YEA; Gibbs, YEA; Gonzalez (OH), YEA; Gooden, YEA; Gosar, YEA; Granger, YEA; Guthrie, YEA; Hagedorn, YEA; Hartzler, YEA; Hern, YEA; Herrera-Beutler, YEA; Hice, NAY; Higgins (LA), YEA; Hill, YEA; Holding, YEA; Hudson, YEA; Huizenga, YEA; Johnson (OH), YEA; Joyce (OH), YEA; Joyce (PA), YEA; Keller, YEA; King (NY), YEA; King (IA), YEA; Kinzinger, YEA; Kustoff, YEA; Lamborn, NAY; Lesko, YEA; Luetkemeyer, YEA; Marshall, YEA; Mast, YEA; McCarthy, YEA; McCaul, YEA; McClintock, YEA; McHenry, YEA; McKinley, YEA; Miller, YEA; Mitchell, YEA; Moolenaar, YEA; Mullin, YEA; Murphy (NC), YEA; Newhouse, YEA; Norman, YEA. Nunes, YEA; Olson, YEA; Palazzo, YEA; Pence, YEA; Posey; YEA; Ratcliffe, YEA; Reed, YEA; Reschenthaler, YEA; Rice (SC), YEA; Riggleman, YEA; Roby, YEA; Rodgers, YEA; Roe, YEA; Rogers (KY), YEA; Rogers (AL), YEA; Rooney, YEA; Rose (TN), YEA; Rouzer, YEA; Roy, YEA; Rutherford, YEA; Scalise, YEA; Schweikert, YEA; Scott (GA), YEA; Shimkus, YEA; Simpson, YEA; Smith (NE), YEA; Smith (NJ), YEA; Smucker, YEA; Spano, YEA; Stauber, YEA; Stefanik, YEA; Steil, YEA; Thompson (PA), YEA; Timmons, YEA; Tipton, YEA; Upton, YEA; Van Drew, YEA; Wagner, YEA; Walberg, YEA; Walorski, YEA; Waltz, YEA; Watkins, YEA; Weber, YEA; Webster, YEA; Wenstrup, YEA; Williams, YEA; Wilson (SC), YEA; Yoho, NAY; Young, YEA; Zeldin, YEA.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the job you have done in the chair today. We thank you for the work that you are doing. Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to say to everyone watching us at home right now, we hear your concern; we feel your anxiety; and we know what we need to do. When this year began, Americans were enjoying a level of peace and prosperity unheard of in modern times. The economy was at record highs. Unemployment for American workers was at record lows. Take-home pay was rising, and business closures were falling. Our brave men and women in uniform were protecting us from threats across the globe. But a few weeks ago, we learned about an invisible enemy from a distant land, an enemy like we have never faced before. Now, the virus is here. We didn't invite it. We did not ask for it. We did not choose it. But we will fight it together until we win together. We will win because we have the best of our country on the front lines. We will win because of the other people in uniform: our doctors, our nurses, our lab technicians, and our hospital volunteers. Take one moment and imagine where we would be without their fortitude. They have the toughest jobs in the world, but they are truly the best in the world. You, our medical professionals, are our heroes. We, this entire body of the Members of Congress, salute you. We will always win because of our truck drivers, grocery store clerks, postal workers, farmers, and warehouse workers. You are working night and day. You are making a meaningful, measurable difference in the lives of everyone you serve. You are the foundation of everything we will do today. We will win because of our scientists. Their bright minds and faster cures should give every American peace of mind. We are developing a victory vaccine faster than ever in the history of any virus. On behalf of all Americans and on behalf of all Members of Congress, I thank those on the front lines for their professionalism and dedication. Another critical front in our war against this virus is the home front, literally. To slow the spread, the government is asking--and in some cases requiring--millions of small businesses and families to put their daily lives on pause and remain at home. I am overjoyed that so many have taken the imperative of social distancing so seriously. Flattening the curve is the most important activity any American citizen can do today. It is even more important now that the virus has arrived in full force. We are asking you to continue to remain at home as much as possible. I know this action carries substantial circumstances. We all saw that tragic news just this week. Mr. Speaker, 3.3 million Americans filed for unemployment benefits. We have never experienced that before in our lives, not even in the Great Depression. What can we do for the hardworking taxpayers, their families, and small businesses, the pillars of the American life that are doing their part but facing economic disaster through no fault of their own? First, we can recognize that their sacrifices are an invaluable service to their fellow citizens. They deserve our eternal gratitude and prayers. Second, and more importantly, we can give them our financial support now, today, so they can weather this brutal storm in the weeks ahead. That brings me to the rescue package before us today, the CARES Act. If developing tests, treatments, and vaccines is America's new arsenal of democracy, the CARES Act is our modern-day, all-American Marshall Plan. It is the largest assistance measure in American history, and it is going directly in the pockets of hardworking taxpayers, their families, and small businesses. For everyone affected by this virus, we will be your voice. For those who are battling the virus or who lost your job or who do not know if you will have one a month or 2 from now, I want you to know we are listening; we hear you; and we are working for you. I give Leader McConnell a lot of credit. From the beginning, he was committed to a bottom-up, bipartisan, and bicameral process. He honored his commitment, and it shows. The Senate passed this bill by a unanimous vote, every Republican, every Democrat. It is bold, truly bipartisan, and targeted to achieve the mission at hand. Our top priority is to keep Americans at work. So we aim the efforts to keep Americans employed through two measures. For small businesses and nonprofits, the bill provides 100 percent federally guaranteed loans for 8 weeks. If that loan is used to pay your employees, pay your rent, or pay your utilities, it is no longer a loan. It is a grant because we know what government has asked you to do. Other businesses get a retention credit to keep employees on. If, unfortunately, American workers find themselves out of work, this bill offers an additional 13 weeks of unemployment insurance and dramatically expands eligibility. It also makes benefits more generous by adding another $600 per week across-the-board payment increase through the end of July. The CARES Act also expands unemployment insurance to cover gig workers and self-employed and nonprofit employees. Additionally, for American families that might need a little extra support, you will start receiving and seeing those checks in 3 weeks. You won't have to wait for months for financial help. Payments will be as much as $1,200 for an individual taxpayer and $500 per child. Finally, this legislation provides critical resources to American healthcare workers and hospitals, over $140 billion in appropriations to support our health systems. We don't just talk about our respect for the medical heroes among us. We are going to give them the equipment to save lives and the tools they need to protect themselves. The reason for this legislation is to protect American workers, protect American jobs, and protect hardworking American taxpayers. We are providing targeted, temporary, and timely relief to Main Street, not Wall Street. We are not underwriting bad business practices or priming the pump. Ultimately, we are laying the foundation for a rapid economic recovery. This bill is not only a rescue package; it is a commitment, a commitment that your government and the people whom you elected to serve will do everything we can to limit the harm and hardship you face, both now and in the foreseeable future. To the American public, if you do your part, I promise we will do ours. Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, it is our responsibility to act, to put aside our differences, and to do what is right for the American public. Aid must be robust, rapid, and resilient, just like its recipients. We are going to help Americans through this. We are going to do this together. In the end, we are going to be healthier, stronger, and more united than ever before, because, as Americans, that is who we are.

Mr. McCARTHY. I will take it back.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. And I apologize if I jumped ahead in any way, shape, or form. I appreciate the opportunity to speak. Madam Speaker, with all that is going on this week, Democrats have still found time for their favorite pastime, voting on partisan legislation that would actually make our country weaker. Democrats could not have picked a worse week to try to undermine American travel restrictions. President Trump's quick decision to restrict travel to countries like Iran and China; now that was smart. It was a smart response, and it is helping to keep America safe. The President's actions, then and now, are clearly within his rights. But today, I want to talk about the rights of this Congress, of this body, and how Democrats want to take those away. For the second time this Congress, the House is considering two important pieces of legislation by attaching them to completely unrelated shell vehicles, thereby preventing the minority from offering a motion to recommit. Now, the last time this occurred, Representative Ro Khanna actually admitted the maneuver was intentionally designed to silence dissenting opinions. He didn't just admit it, he bragged about it, that they would be able to deny the voice of Congress. And now, with last week's passage of the sixth motion to recommit this Congress, Democrat leadership is once again choosing to restrict debate on an issue of national security. It is not only that this is bad for America, it is bad for the tradition of fairness and free debate that, you know what, Democrats promised to uphold. Don't take my word for it. I listened to my friend, Chairman McGovern of the Rules Committee say, in September 2018, and I quote, Madam Speaker, he boasted on this very floor: ``If Democrats are trusted with the majority, we will have a more accommodating process. This place will be run like professionals. Ideas will be allowed to come forward, and the House of Representatives will actually debate again.'' If there is one thing we know about this Democrat majority, it is that they overpromise and under-deliver. Today is no exception. The right that Democrats want to take away is an important right, maybe one of the most important in all of Congress. It is the last chance for a minority party to offer amendments on legislation. It is called the motion to recommit. As you know, the motion to recommit has been a hallmark of the House for more than 100 years. It was created to give the minority party the right ``to have a vote upon its position upon great public questions.'' I have got to be very clear. Eliminating this would be a nuclear option. That is why I sent a letter--actually two letters--to Democrat leadership to stop this madness. Unfortunately, my last letter to Leader Hoyer on this subject went unanswered, so did my letter this week to Leader Hoyer and Chairman McGovern. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record both of the letters at this time. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, January 27, 2020. Hon. Steny H. Hoyer, Majority Leader of the House, Washington, DC. Dear Majority Leader Hoyer: I am writing to request that you suspend consideration of this week's Iran-related legislation until basic and essential rights of the minority are observed. As we both can agree, the decision to go to war is the most significant choice Congress can make, followed only by impeachment. No matter what one thinks of the 2002 AUMF, there are weighty consequences--both real and symbolic--when the House debates overturning military authorization and possibly cutting funding for American troops serving in a volatile theater. I would hope that such an extraordinary step would be taken with a careful eye towards promoting full and thorough deliberation. Unfortunately, the manner in which you intend to bring these measures to the floor is anything but full and thorough. Specifically, by attaching these items to an unrelated Gold Medal bill, you purposefully eliminated the last opportunity afforded to the minority party to amend legislation--the Motion to Recommit--a maneuver Representative Ro Khanna recently admitted was intentionally designed to silence dissenting opinions. Simply put, this is wrong--and I believe you know it to be in bad faith. In fact, we are unaware of the House ever debating matters of war and peace in such an unprecedented, irregular, and restrictive way. From its inception in 1909, the Motion to Recommit was created with the stated purpose of giving the minority party the right ``to have a vote upon its position upon great public questions.'' Certainly, the issue before us this week meets the standard of a great public question. More recently, you, yourself, stated: ``More members, from across the ideological spectrum, need to have input into the work we do.'' I would respectfully ask that we strive towards that standard and immediately remedy this overreach so the minority may be allowed to offer input on the legislation before us, as has been tradition for over one hundred years in the House. It had been my hope that in this new year. we would begin to move on from the numerous abuses or power we witnessed on the part of the House majority during the impeachment proceedings. If, however, we can no longer count on fundamental safeguards to minority rights being guaranteed, I fear your decision this week will only serve to further erode trust, fairness, and comity in this institution moving forward. I look forward to your response on this critical matter. Sincerely, Kevin McCarthy, House Republican Leader.

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I believe the Members of this House deserve a public response about this situation. Will Democrats commit to ending this abusive practice, or do they plan to follow the lead of their freshmen and end the use of the motion to recommit entirely, to end a 100-year history of the body of this House? MTRs not only promote full and thorough deliberation, but they also improve legislation. Think for a moment, just within this Congress, 6 out of 60 MTRs have been adopted by this Congress. Think about that. That means a bipartisan majority of this House felt the need to improve 10 percent of the bills put forward on which MTRs were offered. That should show you how vital the last amendment is and always should be. Madam Speaker, though we may not serve in the majority right now, our Members still represent millions of Americans who lend us their voice and count on us to fight for their priorities in Washington. Madam Speaker, the last 8 years this House had a different majority. I happened to have the privilege of serving as majority leader. Not once did we ever consider taking away the MTR, because we believed in the minority's rights and the traditions of the institution in which we are privileged to serve. We believed that the power of the idea should win. We believed in the promises that we made and that is why we kept them. We would not make promises while in the minority, and when we captured the majority, in less than a year, break them time and again. We would not go unanswered, a question from the minority as well. There is something bigger than politics. It is the voice of the American public--to use the sheer power of politics to silence millions of Americans is just wrong; to change a tradition that has been around more than 100 years; to make sure a bill cannot become better simply because you want the partisan side; or to be so afraid of the debate to deny it to happen, we are so much better than that--the rights and the traditions of this institution in which we have always been privileged to serve. I wish I could say the same for this new Democrat majority.

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, my dear friend raised an issue that is very interesting, because he knows this. At any time that it was used it was in consultation with the minority. Even when it was taken away, you know what we did, we added back an amendment so you could have the debate on the floor. It was only during appropriations consultation with you to be able to move something in a timely manner. He understands that. Madam Speaker, my only question to my friend on the other side is: Will the gentleman answer the letter? When the minority leader of the House sent the Rules Committee chairman a letter--the simple question is--with three simple questions: Will the gentleman take this opportunity to answer the letter? That is all I ask.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, before I begin, I want to thank the gentleman, the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee. He warned the American public when he was chair. He warned them and told them that FISA was not used correctly, that the power of the government overstretched their arms. But even when the other elements of government said no, they did not, even when others got on to that exact same position and told us everything was fine with FISA, it was not until the inspector general got his report that the truth was known. I thank Congressman Devin Nunes for being the truth, telling it to the American public, and staying with it when others wanted to lie. That is why we are here today. That is why this will not continue or ever happen again. Madam Speaker, at the heart of our Constitution is a simple idea, the idea of checks and balances. These principles protect Americans' freedoms by creating safeguards against the potential of government overreach of power. Unfortunately, in 2016, those checks and balances were not in place to stop individuals at the highest level of the FBI and Justice Department from spying on Carter Page, an American citizen who could have been one of us. They used the secretive FISA courts, which are meant to keep Americans safe from foreign enemies, to attempt to undermine their domestic political opponent at that time, then-candidate Donald Trump. After years of thorough and independent investigation, we now know the truth: what happened in 2016 was politically motivated; it was completely unjustified; and it must never happen again. This bipartisan legislation addresses the need for greater accuracy and accountability in the FISA process. It does not damage the legitimate authorities our intelligence community relies on to keep us safe, but it does strengthen protections for civil liberties. Among its many reforms, this legislation increases the punishment for unauthorized disclosure of FISA applications, authorizes an amicus to be appointed to cases involving political activity, and enhances oversight by Congress and creates a new Office of Compliance. These reforms are an astonishing accomplishment in a period of divided government. That just tells you how important FISA reforms and checks and balances truly are. Outside this Chamber, there are quotes from famous Americans who dedicated their lives to preserving American freedom. One of those individuals, Patrick Henry, was so passionate about his defense of freedom that he famously said: ``Give me liberty or give me death.'' We can learn a lot from Henry's total devotion to the American cause. We can learn a lot from those who are willing to stand up to oppressive Big Government, who would use an arm illegally against the check and balance just to try to have an outcome in a political race. We could thank those like Devin, who stood for the American public and the truth, or those in other committees who helped work on this, the Jim Jordans, the Doug Collinses, that we would not be here today and getting a new compliance office, a check and balance to make sure what happened in 2016 cannot happen again. I do urge all my colleagues to vote ``yes.'' I do urge that this is a turning point, that even though in these committees they could have told us, and they did, that there was nothing wrong, that we had to continue to fight to get an inspector general to have the truth. Now, we have a check and balance that we will not have to wait for that. Even if somebody tries to use it in the wrong manner, it cannot happen again.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, we heard a great speech by the President last night, who spoke to the strength of our country and the courage and character of our fellow citizens: People like 100-year-old Tuskegee airman Retired Brigadier General Charles McGee and his great-grandson, the 13-year-old who dreams of going to space; People like single mother Stephanie Davis and her lovely fourth grade daughter who received an Opportunity Scholarship. Who in this room does not remember the look on Stephanie's face as she realized that her daughter was going to get an opportunity that she sacrificed so greatly for; And people like Sergeant First Class Townsend Williams, who surprised his wife, Amy, and two beautiful children in the gallery last night. As I looked around, I saw tears in many people's eyes from the emotion that they felt at that time. Unfortunately, Speaker Pelosi was unmoved and chose to tear up the House copy of that speech. She had no right to destroy this document, especially one filled with such impactful stories of American patriots. The record was presented before the people's House and it belongs to the American people. That is why I am here today. In my hand, I have an official copy of the President's State of the Union address signed by the President, given to me at the White House today. It will be delivered to the House Clerk to be archived and preserved for posterity, whether she likes it or not. These great American stories will be remembered by history, not erased by the Speaker. We are better because of them, and we should learn from them and we should be proud that they will shape our future.

Mr. McCARTHY

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, to clarify, was that document provided from the President to the Speaker of the House a document of the House?

Mr. McCARTHY. So to be clear, your answer is: That is a document of the House, and the President provides one to the Speaker for the House, and the President provides one to the President of the Senate, the Vice President, for the Senate?