tv U.S. House of Representatives 117th House Rules Debate CSPAN January 5, 2021 5:09am-7:00am EST
by a partyline vote of 217-206, the house approved a rules package establishing certain procedures and guidelines for members to follow for the next two years, both on and off the house floor, under the adopted rules there is a change to have the minority party use what is known as a motion to recommit in their efforts to amend legislation before a final vote the rules package removes gender specific pronouns, exempt certain bills from deficit controls, and bands members from knowingly sharing distorted or manipulated images on official accounts. here is debate on the rules package before final passage. mr. hoyer: thank you very much, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent that time allocated to me be controlled by the gentleman from massachusetts, chairman of the rules committee, mr. mcgovern. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i want to thank the majority leader for yielding
me the time. for purposes of debate only i yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from oklahomaing, my good friend, mr. cole, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. i ask unanimous consent that all members be given five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on h.res. 8. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, a rules package is one of the most consequential things we will consider this entire congress. as we stand here on the opening days of this congress, i'm proud that the reforms before us -- the speaker pro tempore: the ouse will come to order. the gentleman may continue. mr. mcgovern: as we stand here in the opening days of this congress, i am proud that the reforms before us represent a collaborative process that began many months ago. we asked members on both sides of the aisle for ideas.
we listened to our many caucuses and coalitions. we spent hours in the rules committee listening to input during our member day hearing. and we spoke with the outside groups that study these issues. weeks and weeks of thoughtful discussion got us to this point. that process made the final product an even stronger one. not for one party or the other, but for this institution and for all those americans counting on us to represent them. not for special interests or the moneyed interests, but our workers and those struggling to get ahead. this is a rules package that encourages us to tackle the most pressing issues facing our nation today. like climate change through the continued work of the select committee on the climate crisis. i want to thank chairwoman castor for her leadership along with chairman pallone and kangwoman ocasio cortez who have encouraged us to think big when
confronting the threat of climate change. and we are confronting the pandemic without any waste or fraud. that's through the ongoing work of the select committee on the coronavirus crisis, under the stewardship of chairman clyburn. it makes reforms to our budget rules so we can deal with these dual chans through an all hands on deck approach while maintaining fiscal responsibility. and i want to recognize the many members especially the blue dog, the progressives and the new democrats, who worked together to make this compromise happen. we are also focusing on those who have traditionally been left behind through the creation of a new select committee on economic disparity and fairness in growth. i want to thank speaker pelosi for her commitment to making sure our policies lift up every single american. this new select committee will sharpen our focus on the income and wealth disparity crisis that plague ours nation today. this package honors all gender
identities by changing pronouns in the house written rules so they are gender neutral. look, we made this change for the sake of an inclusion, not exclusion. but i've got to be honest with you, i heard the distinguished minority leader say that this rules package was canceling mother's day. i mean, are you kidding me? he also claimed these rules make it so members can no longer say father, mother, son, or daughter. madam speaker, has he even read the rules in that's just not accurate. that's not how this works. and by the way, our founding fathers are still our founding fathers. you know, madam speaker, maybe this is meant as a distraction. maybe if we can create a controversy, then we're not talking about the ongoing pandemic which over 350,000 people have already died.
due to mismanagement. and incompetence. or maybe we're not talking about the attempted coup being planned at 1600 pennsylvania avenue. but the bottom line is, what has been said is just not accurate. i love this, someone just handed me this, a member on the other side from, i think, arizona, said, for instance, he tweeted, if i stand up and say that i'm a proud husband of my wife of almost 40 years now, then they would say i violated the rules because you can no longer use any version of husband or father or gender reference between man and woman. i don't know what the hell he is talking about, madam speaker. oh my god. that's my response to this. i mean, madam speaker, this is why people really are frustrated with congress. and with washington. and i think we in this chamber need to hold ourselves to a
higher standard when it comes to facts and reality. unlike the white house, this should not be a fact-free zone. we ought to focus on facts. if my republican friends want to disagree on policy, we candice agree on policy. there are lots of issues that separated us and we should debate those issues. and that shouldn't be a radical idea. but people shouldn't make things up. just to create a controversy. accuracy matters and it should come before saying whatever helps you get another hit on fox news. but anyway, madam speaker, for those who insist on trying to disparage what we have done in the written rules, i want you to bring the bill to the floor and show -- show many where it says in writing that we're canceling mother's day or you can't refer to yourself as a husband, father, mother, or grandmother.
give me a break. enough is enough. we have to stop this. we have to focus in on solving the problems that face the american people. this rules package also requires that oversight plans from committees include how they intend to combat race, gender and other inequities. and it makes the office of diversity and inclusion permanent. this will commit our institution to creating a diverse work force for many, many years to come. and as we tackle these issues, madam speaker, this rules package create ags more transparent process for ideas to be considered. it makes permanent the requirement that all bills come before the rules committee, get a hearing and markup first. it preserves the motion to recommit while making reforms so that it can no longer be used to hijack the legislative process for political gamesmanship. and we are also continuing temporary rules changes that have ensured that we completed the people's work as safely as
possible during this coronavirus pandemic. i'm impressed with how this progress was able to -- congress was able to adapt and find a way to function in the midst of a worldwide health emergency and during the pan democrat nick 1918, congress was not able to adapt, but we did. and i would just say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, that we need to listen to the speakers' -- speaker's recommendation that we all continue to follow the best and most current health and medical guidance. madam speaker, we acted and while we can -- while we can and while we should do much more for americans struggling today, i am proud of what we were able to accomplish in the last year. it is in no small part due to the implementation of remote voting by proxy and remote committee proceedings. congress isn't always known for being on the cutting edge of the digital world. this rules package seeks to change that even further.
it contains many reforms designed to help us better embrace technology to get our work done as efficiency and transparently as possible. congresswoman eshoo on the leadership in thought committee were instrumental these new changes. i want to speak candidly for a moment. as important as these reforms are, and as proud of them as i am, i know there is something even more important and that's the foundation they are built upon. ethical leadership must be the bedrock principle of this and every congress. if the american people do not begin to trust their fundamental institutions again, then division, conspiracies, and mistruths will continue to fester. this body, each of us, must do our part. no matter what side of the aisle you are on or who you vote for, we must hold ourselves to the highest standard of leadership. people can and should question our positions on the issues.
but we should never act in a way that invites anyone to question our motivation. that's why this rules package doesn't just tinker at the edges, it breaks new ground through transformative reforms. it removes floor privileges for former members convicted of crimes related to their house service or election. this will ensure we can do our work here without the undue influence of lawbreakers. . we trafficed the ethics committee to come up with a plan for deep fakes. we need to stop the spread, intentional or unintentional, of manipulated media that's created to mislead the public. i'll note that we initially planned to go even further, acommend mending our code of conduct with this -- amending our code of conduct with this rules package. we heard our colleagues' concern. we agreed to take more time to get the language just right and we'll do that through our bipartisan ethics committee. thanks to the leadership of congresswoman porter of california we strengthened
truth and testimony disclosures for witnesses that testify before congress. now the public and all members will have more information about those who appear before congressional committees. and our rules will further protect whistleblowers. this pack and prevents retaliation. it also makes permanent an office dedicated to ensuring our congressional offices know how to handle whistleblower complaints in a responsible and secure way. i want to recognize the tremendous work of many people from majority leader hoyer and congresswoman speier, to members of the progressive caucus. we are holding ourselves to a higher standard. not by changes developed in a vacuum among ourselves. we spoke with outside groups and experts and included their feedback. this is how the package was developed through conversation, collaboration, and consultation. my rules committee colleagues, including ranking member cole, offered input that was invaluable. our committee chairs and their excellent staffs worked with us
early in the morning, late at night as this package took shape. i'm deeply grateful for the work of all of our caucuses, including the congressional hispanic caucus, the congressional black caucus, the new democrat coalition, the lgbtq plus equality caucus, and congressional asian pacific american caucus, and the blue dog coalition. the problem solvers were once again involved with crafting this package. i always appreciate the chance to work with congressman gottheimer and congressman reid. we get to work with a new member of the problem solvers, representative van tailor. i could -- taylor. i could go on an on. input from members of the staff have made this stronger. this includes those with the offices of the parliamentarian, the congressional budget office, the clerk, the general counsel, the congressional research service, sergeant at arms, and chief administrative officer to name a few. many staffers worked through
the holidays on this and i'm deeply grateful for their efforts, especially the staff on the rules committee. democrats have entrusted -- have been entrusted by the american people to lead this institution. but the rules package is about more than party. it is about making this chamber work at its best for the people we represent. these reforms will do that. they will hold us to a higher standard so we can get it done for them. and in a way that makes the public proud. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support in passing this package. let's implement real reform so we can quickly get to work on behalf of the american people. before i reserve the balance of my time, i want to take one second, madam speaker, to thank my republican colleagues on the rules committee. we always don't agree on everything, but they are up in the rules committee diligently at every meeting making the case for their side of the aisle and i especially want to thank my ranking member, mr. cole, who cares deeply about
this institution. and while we probably will not agree on this rules package, we agree that we need to make this a better place. we need to hold it to the highest standards in terms of integrity. and to make sure the american people have trust in what we do here. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: thank you very much, madam speaker. madam speaker, i thank the gentleman from massachusetts, my very good friend, chairman mcgovern, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cole: thank you, madam speaker. we are here today, madam speaker, to address the majority's proposed changes in the rules of the house of representatives for the 117th congress. these changes are some of the harshest and most cynical i have experienced during my time in congress. democratic leadership is supporting minority rights and paving the way for -- suppressing minority rights and paving the way for the green new deal by intentionally
removing budgetary schecks that have been in place for over a decade. the most egregious of these changes is the complete gutting of the motion to recommit. the motion to recommit or the m.t.r., is the minority's right to propose a final amendment before moving passage. this is a right that has been guaranteed to the minority for well over a century. with today's changes, the majority's seeking to silence views they are afraid of with no regard for this institution or the american people's trust in our constitutional responsibility to govern and govern well. they are takingway the ability to debate a motion to recommit and the ability to offer a motion to recommit with instructions. this completely guts the minority's ability to offer a last amendment on the floor prior to passage of legislation. i would remind my colleagues that during the many years republicans were in the majority, we never even thought to deny the majority this motion. and the only reason democrats are doing so today is out of
embarrassment. they are embarrassed that the republicans were able to pass eight motions to recommit in the 116th congress. but rather than acknowledging that republicans sometimes have good policy ideas that should be incorporated into legislation, the majority leader is instead seeking to completely cut off this key right. that, madam speaker, is simply reprehensible. -- -- madam speaker, the motion to recommit has been around since the beginning of the house as an institution and been in its present form since 1909. in fact, in 1919, representative abraham garrett of tennessee noted, quote, the motion to recommit is regarded as so sacred it's one of the few rules protected against the committee on rules by the general rules of the house, unquote. and when speaker pelosi was herself in the minority, she equated the motion to recommit with the right of free speech enshrined in our constitution. how this majority can now decide that a procedure that's
so important is on par with the guarantee of free speech must be eliminated is beyond my understanding. madam speaker, it's simply shocking that democrats are so afraid of republican ideas they feel the need to rig the system against it. they don't want the house to work its will. they only want the speaker's will. we will all know -- we all know why that is. it's because the majority cannot effectively defend its policies against competing ideas. eight times in the last congress a majority of the house agreed that the republican policy idea had merit and should be included in the final bill. but that state of affairs is evidently so embarrassing to democrats that they can't stand it. now they have to completely shut down minority rightsless they be embarrassed further. especially after the november election dealt them a harsh blow and lost seats in their own ranks. i want to offer my friend on the other side of the aisle a
word of warning. majorities do not last forever. if there is one certainty we can take away from the history of american politics, it is that the party in power in the house of representatives today will not hold that position forever. i can also guarantee you that your efforts to shut us down will not shut us up. so instead of having bills that pass with slight improvements made through an m.t.r., bills will fail here on the house floor. for that reason among others i'm sure democrats will regret making this egregious change in the very near future. republicans are proud to debate our policies and proposals, unlike the majority today, whose record of promised openness and fulsome debate is an abject failure. now, madam speaker, while gutting the m.t.r. may be the worst piece of this rules package to many, i want to applaud my friends for removing an almost equally egregious piece of this rules package. when the majority released this package over the weekend, there
was a particularly noxious provision that would have empowered the speaker of the house to censor the free speech of members and employees of the house. what's worse, it would have empowered the speaker to act as the sole judge, jury, and executioner and included no clear guidelines for how this would be enforced. this proposed rule was down right un-american. fortunately, my friends on the other side of the aisle have listened to reason and removed that provision from this package. i wish they had further listened to reason and removed the provision taking away the minority's right to an m.t.r., which they -- why i offered a very reasonable motion to postpone for one day. i could go on all day about the m.t.r., madam speaker, but there are other changes in this rules package that need to be highlighted. slipped into the package is another change that will effectively eliminate the pay-go rule. pay-go is a useful budgetary control measure that essentially says we can't spend money we don't have. but if the majority gets their
way, pay-go will be eliminated for a broad category of topics, including for measures relating to climate change. this is doing nothing more than removing a key barrier to the green new deal and other liberal tax and spend policies. but never before has the majority tried to lift budgetary rules on something as absurdly as expansive as the green new deal, estimated to cost as much as $100 trillion over the next decade. should it be enacted. it is clear that the majority doesn't even want to have a conversation about the cost of the green new deal. and instead wants to ensure that the american people never find out about the cost of their extreme plans. there are other measures in this rules package that are just as absurd. not content with having investigated petroleum president trump throughout his presidency and subjected to him to pointest impeachment, now they are including provisions allowing them to send subpoenas
to former presidents, former vice presidents, and former white house staff long after their administration has ended. this provision is a continuation of the democratic majority's obsession with investigating president trump and his administration. and ensures they will be able to keep their investigative gravy train rolling along long after the president leaves office. there is a similar provision which will allow certain committee chairs to reissue subpoenas prior to the committee organizing for the 117th congress. thus ensuring that existing investigations into president trump, no matter how silly or pointless, will not have to slow down or even let the new congress consider their current merits or legislative justification. allowing a chair to issue subpoenas without any consultation with membership or with the minority is nothing less than an abuse of power. but i suppose i should not expect any less given the other provisions in this package. madam speaker, despite my affection for my friend on the other side of the aisle, i have
to tell him that this package stinks. it's deeply cynical, deeply shortsighted. it tramples on minority rights and it ensures a power grab by democratic leadership. it will change the nature of this institution and not for the better. so today, madam speaker, i call on all members to vote no on this rules package. i ask all of my colleagues, regardless of party, to reject these radical and at times ridiculous changes. i call on all my colleagues to protect majority rights, the future of this institution depend on it. with that, madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcp govern: i thank the speaker. i thank the gentleman for his comments. i put him down as undecided on this package. i'm sure we'll hear more about the motion to recommit throughout this debate. i do want to point out for the record, to be historically accurate, that the motion to recommit has been -- had many
different forms since its first inception. in fact it was very, very different when i first ran for congress. but having said all that, i would tell the gentleman that if those who initiated the motion to recommit way back when saw how it was being used today, i think they would object very strongly to it. they didn't see it as a tool for -- to play political gotcha games, to undermine legislation. i also remind the gentleman at quite frankly most of the motion to recommits in the past, all the republicans voted against final passage of whatever bill it was. so the issue is not one of adding -- being a constructive legislator, it's turned into a political gotcha game. i think we all talk about reading the bill. you don't get to see what it is you are proposing until a few minutes beforehand with the motion to recommit. i just want the record to
reflect that. on the issue of pay-go, i remind the gentleman when the republicans were in charge they had this thing in charge called cut-go. they exempted all kind of things. efforts to gut the affordable care act. they exempted tax cuts for billionaires and corporations. so i think what we are talking about is a modest exemption for two international emergencies. the covid pandemic and the climate crisis. and most people, except for a few in washington, actually believe that it's not only a national but international emergency. with that i want to yield one minute to the gentleman from florida, mr. crist. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. kris: thank you, madam speaker. thank you, mr. chairman. i rise to address an amendment that i placed in the bill and i want to thank the chairman for his grace in allowing that. it talks about addressing racial and ethnic impacts of legislation that we pass here.
america is known at the united states supreme court, equal justice under the law. equal justice. we struggle in our country with equality. why? the color of someone's skin, their ethnic background, who they might love. i think it's important to recognize that above me are the words e pluribus unum, out of many, one. we're all children of god. if we so choose, we can bring people together. we can start right here and we can begin right now. we need to remember the words kindness, respect, decency, compassion, empathy, and other words -- in other words, embrace the golden rule. i wear these yellow wristband on my hands every day, it says practice the golden rule every day. do unto others as you would have done unto you. that's what i'm attempting to
do. i yield back, god bless. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself 30 seconds to respond quickly to my friend. i remind my friend, you accepted eight m.t.r.'s or eight were improved because democrat december sided the republican proposals were good proposals an made the bill better. we couldn't have gotten -- done it on our own. you're limiting the choices among your own members. we may not feel so strongly about the m.t.r.'s, if we got more amendments. we got 18% of the amendments, when we were in the majority you got 41%. i would like to yield three minutes to my good friend, mr. davis of illinois. the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded to address their remarks to the chair and the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. davis: thank you, madam speaker. i appreciate my good friend, mr.
cole, for wielding. it's disappointing that house democrats have completely dismissed the first opportunity to work together in this new congress to instill voter confidence and protect the integrity of our election process. the purpose of h.res. 5 is to address many of the election administration problems that occurred in 2020. something i've encouraged the committee on house administration and this house to address long before the 2020 general election. the resolution would have required the committee on house administration to report out a bill that contains five main provisions. first, a provision to ensure this house's commitment to upholding the u.s. constitution and maintaining that it is states that have the primary authority to conduct elections. not the federal government. second, that en-- it ensures -- it would ensure ballot integrity for votes cast by mail. third, this provides a federal baseline for signature
verification. fourth, it includes measures to improve voter confidence and certainty in our election results by counting ballots in a timely manner. and lastly, a provision to ensure proper oversight of federal dollars provided to states to help them administer elections through the help america vote act. these issues are nonpartisan. they're problems both sides struggled with in the 2020 election. and as the committee with jurisdiction over federal elections, it's our responsibility to address them. arguably, the time to address these issues was before the 2020 election but it's never too late to do the right thing. in 2020, more than 65 million people voted by mail. more than ever before. just as we have baseline standards for administering in-person elections, we should have them for mail-in voting. baseline standards for these ball los -- ballots would help ensure every legal vote is counted. there were many last-minute changes made during the 2020
cycle in the name of covid-19 that chipped away at the integrity of our election system and it is important that we do not maintain this pandemic-style voting in the long-term. the worst thing that could happen to our government is for the american people to lose all confidence in our elections. there are bipartisan steps we can take to help restore public confidence in our elections and protect our republic. while it's disappointing that house democrats have dismissed the first opportunity in this new congress to work together to protect the integrity of our elections, i'm hopeful working with chairman mcgovern, ranking member cole, chairperson lofgren and others in this arena, i'm hopeful we can set politics aside to achieve this goal. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i ask unanimous consent to insert in the record a section by section of the changes h.res. 8 will make to the standing rules of the 116th congress and separate orders
taking effect for the 117th congress. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: i'm happy to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from the virgin islands, ms. plaskett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. plass celt: thank you, madam speaker. as we begin the 117th congress i am truly grateful to the democratic caucus for bringing the six representatives of the territories of the united states and the district of columbia, duly elected by four million americans collectively, to where we are today. that was done in the 116th congress when the rules package strengthened our democratic representation by returning vote -- floor voting rights to delegates and resident commissioners in committee of the whole. the principle that every american deserves to be represented by a vote on the floor of this house is important. and we have somewhat of a voice now. moving forward, i think it's high time that we continue to expand that. the constitution gives the fate, the right of all the
territories, solely to this body. to the congress. that being said, it's important that we respect those votes and i believe that -- that our system for remote voting should apply with respect to votes cast in committee of the whole in the same manner it applies to votes cast on the floor. that being said i commend the further strides we are making in this rules package. as a former prosecutor and council on the ethics committee i applaud the tightening of whistleblower laws. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. plaskett: as former council on -- counsel on the house ethics committee i'm pleased with the tightening of whistleblower laws and appreciate the economic fairness to recommend policies to make the economy work for everyone. i expect this to be a positive development and i urge my
colleagues to adopt this package. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: thank you very much, madam speaker. i yield three minutes to my very good friend, the distinguished gentleman from louisiana, the republican whip, mr. scalise. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. scalise: i thank you, madam speaker, i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise today to strongly object to this soviet-style rules package. if you look at some of the things being laid out here it is all designed to take away the voice of 48% of this house chamber. this is the people's house. it's one of the great things that we celebrate about serving in the united states house of representatives. a privilege for each of us who took that oath yesterday. to represent roughly 750,000 people. to bring their ideas, their hopes for america, to this house floor, to debate the things that they believe in, that we believe in, that we want to fight for.
we don't always agree, we don't always see eye-to-eye on what that is, but the beauty is we get to bring those ideas here, have that debate here. and yet the rules package is attempting to strip that away, to yank away more rights for hundreds of millions of americans. to be represented on this house floor. that's not who we are. that's not what the house of representatives is all about. and yet that's what will be voted on in this rules package. look at the motion to recommit. now, if the majority were allowing us, madam speaker, to bring amendments to the floor on a regular basis, you might not need a motion to recommit. but less than 20% of all amendments allowed on the house floor in the last two years were republican amendments. less than 20%. when we represent almost 49% of the members of this body. that's not what an open,
democratic institution is about. that's unbecoming of the house of representatives. and yet taking away that ability shows that the majority wants to shut down the debate of the other side. wants to shut down the voices not just of us, but of the millions of people all across this country we represent. think about the move to get rid of pay-go. pay as you go. which had been a hallmark of speaker pelosi's majority. she gets rid of that, debating things like the green new keel. -- green new deal. what does that tell you? they plan to bring the green new deal to the house floor but they know it would have de-stating consequences on american families. the hardworking peep, the ones who would be hit hardest by it, are low-income families who would end up paying thousands of dollars more in household electricity costs an they want to hide that. so they get rid of pay-go so you don't have to show what the cost to hardworking families would be
for radical ideas like that. this is not who we are. i'm a proud husband. proud father. of a son and a daughter. they don't even want you to be able to say that anymore. let's open up the people's house to real, honest discourse and debate. let's debate our differences and settle them here on the house floor. not try to hide the views of 48% of this country. i oppose opposition to this soviet style rules package and yelled back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: thank you, madam speaker. if the gentleman is interested in honest debate i hope he'll inform us where in the rules package it says you can't refer to yourself as a father, a son, a grandfather, a wife, whatever. there's nothing in the rules package that says that. this is not reality. i would also remind the gentleman that when he was in charge, this was the most closed congress in the history of the united states congress. and if we're worried about protecting our democracy, i hope
the gentleman and others will join with us in protecting the will of the american people. the millions an millions of voters who cast their votes for president-elect joe biden and vice president-elect kamala harris, and vote to make sure that we have a smooth transition to the next administration. at this time i would like to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from pennsylvania, a distinguished member of the rules committee, ms. scanlon. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. scanlon: in the two years i to been here, every motion recommit has been a poison pill, a gimmick to tsao division between members of congress. despite high-flowing rhetoric, not once have i seen it used to make legislation better. on occasions when it prevailed, our party voted against the underlying bill. since this legislative tool has not been used in good faith it needs to be reformed. but also, i wish to speak in
effort of favors -- in favor of efforts made to use gender neutral language. as a female member of congress and member of the committee to modernize congress i applaud efforts to drag the rules package into the 21st century and make it more inclusive as well as make it streamlined. the text changes allowed us to make the rules package more concise and that's a good thing. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: yield myself such time as i may consume. she said the m.t.r.'s that passed this house were poison pilled. by definition they weren't, they passed the house. democrats voted for them. fighting against anti-semitism is hardly a poison pill. with that, madam speaker, i yield two minutes to my very good friend, the distinguished gentlelady from the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time, ms. lesko. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. mrs. lesko: thank you, madam speaker. democrat's power has gone to
their heads. they're not satisfied just to have the majority and speakership, now they want to silence opposing viewpoints altogether. they are undoing minority rights that have been part of congress for over 100 years by taking away debate on the motion to recommit. something that while in the minority, now-speaker pelosi actually equated to spree feature -- free speech obviously now that she's in power she wants to take away that freedom of speech from us. and when you think things can't get more radical around here, they do. now the democrats' rule package takes out words like mother and father and brother and sister. in their quest to not offend anyone, they are offending almost all of america. if we're going to go down this path, i have some suggestions to be added to this rules package. how about we add members who
have a relationship with with the chinese spy should be removed from the intelligence committee. how about members should be punished if they leak classified information and private information after they leave the scif. how about members should be disciplined if they spread around false russian collusion information. of course, my democrat colleagues would never dream of adding that. madam speaker, i adamantly oppose this rules package and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker -- well, forget it. i'll yield to the gentlelady ms. castor., the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. castor: thank you to cgovern. m as we enter a new year,
americans are urging us to come together and tackle our toughest and that includes the costly climate crisis. in the previous congress, the a select cted that committee on the climate crisis develop a road map for america's future.ergy so with a broad cross section of deas and inputs, the committee developed a majority staff report that was a detailed road map for action. solving the d the climate crisis plan. most een described as the well thought out plan for addressing climate change that's politics.part of u.s. n extraordinary combination of expertise in scientific fields. adopted into law through bipartisan legislation, but we have much more work to do. rules package will allow us to continue our work in the 117th congress. bipartisan committee intends to advance clean energy olutions that unleash american innovation, promote environmental justice, and
family-sustaining jobs in all communities across the country. the urge members to support rules package, and i thank speaker peltz, chairman -- and i, chairman mcgovern, the rules committee for their work and for their vision. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: thank you, madam speaker. i yield one minute to my very ood friend, a distinguish gentleman from washington, former member of the rules newhouse., mr. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. hou you, madam : thank speaker. this rules package will rural america, plain and simple. like the for bills are new deal, democrats leaving out the motion to recommit. republicans motion to recommits have included things like restoring funding for rural broadband programs or allowing for
ffective wildfire mitigation and increased funding for our dous fuel reduction in nation's forests. also, an m.t.r. to protect our armers and agricultural employers from being sued out of businesses. this opportunity to amend legislation further iminishes the voices of rural communities and, frankly, madam speaker, it's a slap in the face americans. it's clear speaker pelosi's emocratic majority, albeit a heck of a lot slimmer than it nce was, is threatened by our reinvigorated republican conference. rural americans deserve better. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the massachusetts. r. mcgovern: madam speaker, i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: i thank the distinguished chair and all of up their opened thoughts to this very important
process. participated through the progressive caucus and i'm very grateful for the work that members.all i believe in democracy. i believe in the rights of the minority. want to applaud this rules package, in particular, because of the judiciary committee, i think it is extremely important of the protect to whistleblowers. the responsibility of congress though ight, and even this was not in the it wassional wheelhouse, shameful what happened to lieutenant colonel vindman, a army leader, if you will, who thought it was his patriotic duty simply to tell the truth. what happened to him as a executive, r in the he was fired. what happened to his brother, longer there.no no one protected them. applaud a rules committee that protects but as
committee package that also deals with diversity and gender and puts america's first.s vote for this package. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma. thank you, madam speaker. i yield three minutes to my very good friend, the distinguished from missouri and ranking member of the republican -- republican member of the budget committee, mr. smith. the speaker pro tempore: the recognized. mr. smith: thank you, madam speaker. i want to thank the gentleman from oklahoma for yielding. on only day two of the 117th congress, house are already attempting of the americans transparency that they deserve n order to push through an expensive progressive wish list. includes rules package three main provisions that will llow democrats to hide their plans to irresponsibly spend effort toollars in an satisfy their liberal base.
signaling esolution they do not plan on doing a budget. new broad exemptions to pay-go, toes, such as allow passage of socialist tags.es with large price and, three, they want to repeal house rule prohibiting reconciliation from increasing et direct spending, making it easier to advance a costly, radical agenda. been 733 days since took control of the house of representatives, and produce one to single budget. lete rules will continue to democrats shirk their duty to budget.d pass a don't forget, speaker pelosi is the budget stated, is a statement of values.
more.dn't agree i must ask, have democrats not they know et because revealing their true plans, will let the ors american people know how are?ular their ideas the people deserve to know, and they deserve a transparent to know how house emocrats plan to spend their hard-earned tax dollars and how increase theirto taxes. furthermore, by weakening fiscal rules, democrats clearly intend to drastically of the federalze government. this will only continue to drive federal sustainable debt while decreasing americans' liberties and freedoms. specifically, it includes a budgetary exemption for measures to prevent, prepare, or respond
economic, environmental, or ublic health consequences resulting from climate change. this exemption is responsible arguely it could apply -- arguably it could apply to any progressive, out-of-touch legislation dreamed democrats.house clearly, this exemption was designed as a mechanism to ram socialist policies, like the green new deal, and other american d at hurting workers, families, and farmers. ould i get -- mr. cole: i yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. smith: i thank the gentleman. this past november, the voters rejected a socialist agenda. this rules package is any ndication for how democrats plan to run the 117th congress, mid-term ait for the elections. these rules allow democrats to
american eceiving the people. adam speaker, i oppose the soviet-style rules package, and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i know where to begin. look, let repeat. is buildingr' doing in an -- what we're doing is building with an exemption to eal with two worldwide emergencies. one is the coronavirus pandemic which unfortunately this white mismanaged terribly. the second is to deal with the issue of the climate crisis, but a few body members in this chamber believe is a crisis. remind the gentleman that he's voted for exemptions when it omes to tax cuts for billionaires and corporations. he's voted for exemptions when taking people's health care away from them. so, yeah, obviously we don't values here, but i'm very proud of what is in this package.
now yield a minute and a quarter to the gentlewoman from florida, ms. wasserman schultz. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. wasserman schultz: thank madam speaker. i find the protestations of our friends on the other side of the rich when two days from vote ey plan to actually against -- vote in favor of overturning the results of an their party's nominee lost. us the e, spare protestations about the that ocratic process you're opposing here. further, i rise to urge adoption rules package for the 117th congress. this package includes innovative modernize the house and facilitate good policymaking. it will establish the select disparity n economic and fairness and growth, which will work to combat income critically nd require committees to address inequities in marginalized communities. creationy proposed the of an advisory panel on equity
federal spending. i'm glad this will dismantle the racism and tracks inequities. proponent of diversity and hiring, i'm glad we're making the office of inclusion nd permanent. and it exemptions climate -- it way for federal ambitions to help with climate change. i'm going to fight climate change and work towards environmental justice. finally, i applaud the inclusion of gender neutral language that embraces -- i had a minute and a quarter. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. mr. mcgovern: i yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds. thank serman schultz: you, madam speaker. finally, i applaud the inclusion f gender neutral language that embraces all gender identities and reflects this chamber is not anymore.n's world i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the oklahoma.from mr. cole: thank you, madam
speaker. thank you, madam speaker. yield one minute to the distinguished new member from ms. reat state of texas, van duyne, who will be making her first address on the house floor. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. van duyne: thank you very much, madam speaker. i rise today in opposition to house resolution 5. came to congress expecting to engage in vigorous debate with ensure agues to legislation was passed in its best form. i am ready to legislate with on both sides of the aisle. but the majority's not bipartisan n legislating or even permitting the free expression of ideas. republicans use made historic gains in the house, democrats are changing he rules to limit their own members from defecting. since the very first congress, has otion to recommit protected the rights of the minority, both republican and democrat alike. majority would overturn a century's worth of precedent by the motion to recommit, and also pave the way or reckless spending by forgo
critical pay-as-you-go requirements, to fund costly socialist policies. and the most ridiculous of all, democrats are banning father, e mother, daughter, son, from the house rules. ith so many tasks and obligations the american people expect us to undertake, this proposal demonstrates democrats' is to tentions, which advance radical liberal policies that have no meaningful impact american public. i urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. oklahoma.man from mr. cole: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the peaker pro tempore: gentleman is recognized. mr. cole: thank you. if we defeat the previous question, madam speaker, i will the rule mendment to to immediately amend the rules package to strike the complete m.t.r. of the my amendment will restore the sacred right of the minority to to the final amendment bill. madam speaker, i ask unanimous
consent to insert the text of my record along he with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on question.us to discuss this critical amendment in more detail, madam minute to yield one the distinguished republican leader, mr. mccarthy of california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mccarthy: thank you, madam speaker. if we defeat the previous rule on, we can amend the to save the right of every american be to heard on the congress. madam speaker, a tenet of silence all to opposition. the right to speak your mind and are often ur leaders the first casualties of socialist governments throughout history. not far behind are other important freedoms. to defend he right yourself and the right to earn a living. are impossible to protect without the freedom of speech. the onstitution lists freedom of speech as its very
first freedom. founding fathers, the reason was self-evident. franklin once said, without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as w wisdom. and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech. very first action of his majority is to take it away. from the very beginning of this a motion to we had recommit. minority. the if you listen to benjamin the17th tell me how congress -- how the 117th any wisdom or ve any public liberty or any reedom because you deny us speech. benjamin franklin was right then and was right now, but i noticed dangerous trend against free speech in recent years. betrays every other founding father who have lived,
fought, and died for. it began in schools and college campuses where students are taught that free speech is about power. then it jumped to the mainstream media and social media giants who use their power to protect their liberal friends and censor conservatives, including throughout the election and pandemic. now with today's vote that same socialist idea found its way onto the floor and into the rules of the u.s. house of representatives which will shape every law this chamber tries to make in the next two years. taking the same idea that the socialist governments have taken before, the fear that you might lose be based on an idea, take their voice away. whose voices are those? the constituents of millions of
americans. these changes will stop american voices from being heard. primarily by revoking the motion to recommit. the minority's long-term right to offer the last amendment to legislation. i see my good friend the majority leader across the aisle. he and i have switched jobs before, i was the majority leader. for eight years, never once, never once was it ever debated that we would deny the minority the right to an amendment on a bill. never once. i know the majority leader will stand up later and say this has been changed time and again, only by democrats. only by democrats. i know my friend is an institutionalist. i know he believes in this body. but he cannot believe about taking this away. why would you want to? you cannot pass a motion to
recommit on the floor unless you have the majority of the people of the body to vote for it. are you so afraid that you can't hold people that you want to ake it away? are your constituents better han somebody else's? to again quote ben franklin, free speech is a necessary tool for exposing and keeping in check narrow thoughts and narrow men. that is what the m.t.r. is all about. for our constituents taking away means freedom of speech is silenced and good ideas are stifled. house democrats have slowly chipped away at this right in the past. today's vote truly represents the nuclear option. it will prove once and for all who is truly an
constitutionalist in this body. is it no wonder that your majority is so thin, that you go to take away the m.t.r.? as the speaker vote too close? i can't imagine casting that . te at your very first action additionally these rules mirror the misplaced priorities of the last congress. democrat's 45-page resolution sfrips all mention of words like father, mother, son, daughter, brother. mother-in-law, daughter-in-law. i'm a proud father. i'm an extremely proud son. but we're going to strike them from the rules. first we take your speech away. then we take what you can say.
already in the race to wokeness, i listened to your opening prayer yesterday. you changed the words amen that has nothing to do with gender? today's vote is more -- is about more than organizing congress. it's about the american people's right to be heard by their government. this vote is important. it might be the most important vote we take after the vote for speaker. it signals our priorities, our vision for the entire two years. the fact that this is the democrats' first course of action as a majority in the new congress speaks volumes to what the lengths they will go to to silence the people's voice. i almost thought it would be the opposite.
i know what you thought the days, the weeks, the months before the election. you wondered if you'd have enough seats in here for how your majority would be. i listened to the speaker say she wasn't only going to win the majority, she was winning it for the next two, three elections because you were going to gain so many seats my dear friend predicted 15 seats gained by the democrats. but that's not what the american people told you. i probably would have reversed and said oh my gosh. if we are doing everything that the american people does not want, maybe we should change course. but you actually took the opposite approach. absolute power corrupts absolutely. let's deny people to even say more because they don't like what we're doing. i've watched this happen in other parts of the world. but i never thought in the
fundamental belief of the very first amendment of america, of the -- of the very belief of this body, where we debate, where the voices of america are supposed to be heard, where the m.t.r. has been around from the very beginning of this nation, of this body. but you will be the individuals, you will be the slim majority that took it away. you will cast that vote. you will have the history written about you. he fact that this is your very first course, you are setting the tone for the next two years. the political and moral stakes are high and the american people know it. if censorship replaces open debate on this floor, serious deliberation of the most
important issues confronting our country will become impossible. more importantly, congress will continue to waste time on unnecessary distractions. that have nothing to do with the needs of the american people. this damage will be immediate. and long lasting. but republicans will never give up our right to fully represent our constituents. voices here in washington. democrats' small thinking may limit how we can do what's right for our constituents but it won't stop us from doing what's needed. maybe we need a little history in modern history. you had the ability to control this body for 40 years before republicans ever won in 1994. you would try to shut it off now and then based upon certain bills. you know the very first thing republicans did when they had the chance to write the rules and be in the majority? they guaranteed it for the
minority. for you. when you were in the minority. they were not afraid. when we narrowed the majority. much to the same numbers we had today. was it removed then? because republicans were in power. it was not. it was guaranteed. my good friend was here during that time. the speaker served during that time. when we, the republicans, took the majority again and had it for eight years, not only did we never touch it, we guaranteed it again. you've been in power for two. you lost seats based on on -- based upon what you did on this floor. instead of changing course, you now denied people the voice. that's the history that will be written today. that's the legacy you will live with. i will promise you this. two years from today, when you are no longer in the majority, we will correct the course of
history. because we are not afraid to debate. we are not afraid of ideas. we believe it makes us stronger. we know it makes this country tronger. this choice will shape everything we do in the next two years and beyond. we have big challenges. we're going to have to work together but you deny us, you're going to have a hard time working with us. madam speaker, you and i travel a lot back to our districts. we fly often on the same plane. we see our constituents and i see you listen to them. i see you talk to them about issues. i've watch yud work across the aisle on some of the biggest issues even when 100% not in the majority. i want you to think one moment, madam speaker, what if those constituents you talk to, when you say you'll bring their voice to the floor, that you are going to be denied that.
you never were denied that when you were in the minority. but i just ask every member of this body, before you cast this vote, you may think a tough vote goes away, oh, no it won't. i will make you this promise. you have given me the passion to fight harder for my constituents. you have given me the passion to fight a better -- find a better opportunity for more of their voices to be heard. and you have given me the passion to win back the majority so i can win back the voices on this floor that they won't be denied. they might not be my constituents, they may be the voices of your constituents. because it's the right thing to do that's been here the entire time this body has been here. madam speaker, there are times we will disagree. but there are very few times i have ever been this embarrassed of this body. the hypocrisy of what i'm about to see, the hypocrisy of what
you think you will defend. everybody in this body knows it is wrong. but you feel you can grip power a little harder. you feel you can hold on to it a little stronger. i will tell you this. the power of free speech is so much stronger than the power of somebody trying to grip and hold on to the majority. with that, i yield back and strongly urge defeat of the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will remind all members, mr. minority leader, the chair ill remind all members of rule 17-1-a which says a member dell, delegate -- a member, delegate, or resident commissioner shall respectfully address the speaker and this chair intends to enforce this rule, it is the first rule of decorum, we are
entering into some difficult days and i will tell all members on both sides of the aisle, we will enforce the decorum of the house. and we will enforce rule 17-1-a, remarks will be made to the chair. with that, i'm pleased to recognize the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i appreciate your admonition here. i wish the distinguished minority leader would have remained. he talked a lot about debate, then he gave a speech and ran off the floor. but i would be careful, i would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle about using words like hypocrisy. because you know, i was here when you were in the majority. and you presided over the most closed congress in the history of our country. more closed rules than any other congress. you know, the motion to recommit arguably is a procedural motion. but when you chose rule after
rule after yule after -- after rule after rule, you block any substantive amendment you brought. my friends had no problem with that at the time and now they do. i would say to the distinguished minority leader who keeps talking about mind control and people banning him from being able to say that he's a father or a son or -- i don't know what he is talking about. please show me in the rules package where he can't say all those things. there's nothing. nothing in the rules package. and i would just urge my colleagues as i said at the beginning, you know, i get it, the white house is fact-free zone but we have to aspire to be different. we can have our policy disagreements, but we shouldn't be making things up. i mean, i'd like to think we're better than that, no matter how much we disagree on substantive issues. with that, i want to yield one minute to the gentleman from maryland, the majority leader
mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: before recognizing the majority leader, the chair will remind members if you refer to the person you are debating as you, chances are violating the rules. members are asked to address all remarks to the chair. with that i'm pleased to recognize the distinguished majority leader for one minute. mr. hoyer: madam speaker, i will continue to address my remarks to you, notwithstanding the fact that you ruled against me a ittle while ago on a vote. hich excited some. i am an institutionalist. i believe in this body. i believe in democracy. for your information, i believe in the free enterprise system. madam speaker, i listened to the
of the minority leader. outrage that the he expresses. i share the view of the rules chairman that he was a principal leader in the most closed congress in which i have course, ich was, of resided over by my republican colleagues. speech.d about free nothing in this rule undermines free speech of any member in house. nothing. and when they had closed rules, say, you areup and muzzled my speech, you my ability to make legislation, muzzle my not speech. he first amendment is
sacrosanct, hopefully for everybody in this body, will you i -- but i will tell you, i have been in this body when republican members, madam peaker, rose to their feet demanding that people do galleries.n the to m speaker, i am going show hypocrisy. from me. the gentleman -- the chairman of rules committee, madam speaker, mentioned that the inority leader mentioned hypocrisy. i presume his assertion was that being we were hypocritical. a little bit eak f time, and i intend to show hypocrisy. irst of all, the gentleman is
wrong in his facts. recommit was taken from the british parliament and first sent at the 1789.ss in interestingly enough, the motion used to correct something that had not been and was in the bill considered a friendly amendment. for a ained that way very, very long time. 1932 -- excuse me -- 1934, it ruled that instructions in a motion, which were present from time, was not necessary.
the rule way maintained essentially for the years. actually -- excuse me -- 60 years, until 1995. is correct when the republicans took office for long rst time in a very time, under the leadership of newt gingrich, madam speaker, rule.hanged the said you have to have a motion o instruct, as if they were giving us something, as if they something. us remember that phrase, because i'm going to show it meant nothing. it was an illusion. pretense. the speaker -- madam speaker, i to first go through -- through 34 examples, about 10
our republican friends, madam speaker, said about the motion to recommit. of all, the minority leader. eagle" rom "the wichita on may 12, 2013. the political book on mccarthy good job at es a counting votes, of knowing where 233 house republicans, unlike democrats in the previous congress, haven't lost a single vote.ural procedural vote. let me underline procedural vote. substance of the first amendment. not substance of free speech. vote.ural recommit.otion to a procedural vote.
hat are a test of floor control. that's what the minority leader about.gging floor control. he was not in the minority at time.oint in he was in the majority. whip.eve he was the or previous to the leader, eric ty amplify the on to republican perspective on the recommit. ajority leader eric cantor publicly went on the defensive thet an m.t.r. stating that m.t.r. was simply a gimmick. cantor, majority leader, party.can
in 2012. one of the ranking members -- he's no longer here. he left. he retired last year. r. speaker -- referring to an m.t.r. -- this is a procedural motion. bishop went on to say, it's just another delay tactic, madam speaker. tactic.elay he didn't say anything about the first amendment. e didn't say anything about substantive consequences of the m.t.r. he said it was a delaying tactic. representativ representative conway said, come this troerl esent trick -- procedural trick,
referring to the m.t.r. in the minority, we do it. he's correct. and when we are in the minority, it.o very frankly, madam speaker, you can take my words down in the this never came back, ever, it wouldn't bother me. because it is a charade of substance. pretense of legislating. representative goodlatte, who then chairman of the judiciary committee, i believe, thet some point chairman of judiciary committee, this is dilatory tactic. that's what the chairman of the judiciary committee. i am not sure he was at that time.in it was 2015. was.nk he adam speaker, a dilatory tactic, what the chairman of the
udiciary committee called the m.t.r. it seeks to distract from the needs. representative lamborn said mr. speaker, this motion to recommit is a procedural motion. the chamber's not full. it can't be full. i would have liked to speak to of the he members congress. nd they can judge on the hypocrisy of the arguments that are being made. motion to recommit is a procedural motion designed to this own consideration of important bill. procedural., purely not a little bit procedural. and a little bit substantive. it's purely procedural. olson, referring
in 2019, it fits a and obstruction that we simply cannot afford. hypocrisy. he didn't say anything had to do with free speech. a motion that we were offering thought, r. that we me, you think -- excuse madam speaker, as the gotcha ans think, is a amendment. it's politics on both sides. not substantive. speech.t free it's about politics and gotcha. i'm an institutionalist, and, yes, i think we need to not gotcha in a nonsubstantive way. obviously we disagree, madam speaker, on issues. offer an issue and they don't vote for it, we think
helpful to ically us, because we think it's for the people. they do the same thing, and they people.'s for the free of its s gotcha actions. is theirs. nor representative upton, one of the in this body, ts former chairman of the energy and commerce committee, epublican from the state of i higan, said this -- ppreciate the motion to recommit -- being kind as fred kind, madam speaker -- would just say to all my colleagues, our side certainly procedural s a issue, not a real amendment. adies and gentlemen of the
congress, i would say to them, speaker, who's hypocritical? who's hypocritical? their hypocritical when member, a valued senior member commerce rgy and committee says, this is a real ural issue, not a amendment? my goodness gracious, the rules taking away not a real amendment. horrific? how could they do that? when your side, madam speaker, republicans say, is not a real issue? it is not substantive. it's a gimmick. t's a delaying and obstruction tactic. that the e say republicans uniformly vote
m.t.r. the goodall was a member of the rules committee. he's no longer here. of georgia.e state goodall said, after being here for about 10 years, of the recommit, that he was told by the leadership, when he in this body, it is a aimed to motion obstruct and delay. vote no. what they tell you always vote no on. 2011, m.t.r. was offered. the motion to recommit would troops will get paid. the republicans defeated that
overwhelmingly. only one person on the republican side voted for it. walter jones. no longer in the congress. he was pretty icon klassic when here and he did pretty darn well as he pleased when the said, always vote no on the m.t.r. what they are complaining about, the speaker, is preconclusion of doing something they always owe potion -- preclusion of doing something they always opposed. hen they won those m.t.r.'s from time to time, very few, they then voted against the bill. no substance. a little while later, about a later, the motion to recommit that we offered ensured funding top priority in ur intelligence services is to do the complaampaign to disrupt
qaeda le and defeat al organization and its affiliates. raise your hand if you are speaker.o that, madam not your hand. but our colleagues ought to reflect on whether they're opposed to that premise. not a single republican voted m.t.r.t substantive assertion that our campaign and intelligence ought to be not their fight against al qaeda and affiliated organizations. a short time later, we offered m.t.r. the motion to recommit provides per month with $100 increase in combat pay. as you sit in your chairs, madam speaker, in this house, or you're watching on television these proceedings, i want you to
say to yourself am i against $100 for our troops who are at risk? because if you are, voting against the m.t.r. was just fine. every republican save, one more time, walter jones, voted against that amendment. that substantive amendment that we are stealing away from them. which they say we never vote for. if mr. mccarthy were here, madam speaker, i would ask him, have you ever voted for an m.t.r.? i ask him rhetorically. perhaps at some point in time he'll tell us. maybe he was against the substance of all these amendments i am speaking about. in 2012, the following year, the motion to recommit would prohibit the issuance of leases to any entity that is in violation of the iran sanctions act.
or the syrian accountability act, lebanese sovereign restoration act. not a single republican voted for that amendment. the substantive amendment that they're so aggrieved, and by the way, energizing their party to be partisan, more partisan, than they ought to be doing, madam speaker. we have all praised don young, the dean of the house, served here longer than anybody else. he said yesterday, why not come together and reach out our hands to one another and make this place work for the people? another motion to recommit would prohibit export of helium from the federal he helium reserve to iran, north korea, and syria.
madam ngle republican, speaker, voted for that. why? because it is procedural. it's a gimmick. it's obstructing. that's what we're taking away, that you're so aggrieved at. i have about 35 or 40 of these, the good news is i'm not going to read them all. but in 2014, the motion to recommit would ensure that the intelligence community continue to protect the united states, ear me, from chinese and other tate sponsored computer theft. i'm sure all of you would say, i'm against that. that's an awful thing. but everyone on that side of the aisle in the congress today
voted against that amendment. our new members didn't vote against it, obviously but people who were here, every republican who was here voted no on protecting ourselveses from the chinese. -- chinese theft of our computer technology. the next year, 2015, and i'm just taking a couple from each year, the motion to recommit would deter terrorist cyber attacks, homegrown terrorist attacks and strengthen america's cyber security by increasing prevention efforts to stop the recruitment and travel of -- of homegrown terrorists by al qaeda and other terrorist organizations. i know you're going to be shocked because you'll think, of ourse we voted for that. not one. not a single republican voted or that m.t.r.
so this aggrieved rhetoric that we hear about taking something being takenly thing away is their gotcha opportunities, and ours. now in the majority you don't have the motion to recommit, i get that. but we may be in the minority at some point in time. don't give it back to us. because it's a political game that undermines the integrity of this institution. and it's covered as a gotcha game for the most part by the press and media who know what it is. a game. 2015, the motion to recommit would require the department of homeland security to prioritize protection and technical assistance to stop cyber attacks on critical infrastructure such as election, power grid and nuclear power plants.
by now you know what i'm going to say. only one republican voted for -- voted for that it won't surprise you that it was walter jones. because walter jones really did treat it as a substantive piece of legislation. but the party that is so aggrieved today, madam speaker, instructs their republican freshmen and all of their members, vote no on the m.t.r. i'm available, madam speaker, to yield, to anybody who is going to tell me that's not the truth. no one has propounded that question to me. in 2015 again, about a month later, the motion to recommit would protect troop pay,
guaranteing a pay increase of 2.3% to our service members an ensuring no lapse in troop pay in the event of a government hutdown. there was my friend standing tall, walter jones, alone, but standing tall. not a single other republican oted for that. just three left. in 2017, i'm bringing you up to date because this has been a consistent pattern, madam speaker. this is not some one person said this, one person said that. it's a consistent pattern. of republicans dismissing the motion to recommit as not of substance, only a delay tactic, a gimmick, if you will, according to mr. cantor.
the motion to recommit in november, 2017, to ensure rural communities have adequate funding for education services, conservation projects and fire prevention programs. now, walter jones got a friend on this one, madam speaker. rod blum who is no longer here and tragically mr. jones died too early. they're not here. but they thought that was a good idea. no other republican thought that was a good idea. in 2018, just two years ago, a motion to recommit would amend the underlying bill to prohibit the administrator of the environmental protection agency from chartering a private plane or flying any class above coach. that was because a couple of secretaries clearly did not meet their responsibilities to the american taxpayer in the
expenditures of moneys in their departments. again, mr. bloom and mr. jones thought that was a good idea. but the republican leadership had instructed them, you recall, according to mr. good y'all, vote no because -- mr. goodall, vote no because this is just a delaying actiq, it's just a game. it's just procedural, it's not substantive. lastly, and people are now saying amen, the motion to recommit would ensure, in this case, that we would protect students and children from a person who has been convicted of a sex offense against a minor. secondly, prevent domestic violence. thirdly, prevent rape or sexual assault. or four, require criminal background checks for schools or ther employment. rod blum and walter jones stayed true to themselves and did not follow the instruction.
this is a game, this is obstruction. this is a gimmick. this is a way to delay and defeat. i've taken some time to discuss this because i don't like hypocrisy. i don't like wasting time. i don't like not respecting one another and playing a gotcha game, see if you guys are afraid of this amendment, then when we adopt the amendment, if we adopt, very few, vote against the bill because after all it was just a political game. we don't like the bill no matter what you have in it. madam speaker, i rise in strong support of this rule. i'm speaking to the people who are watching this debate, may not have the knowledge almost all of us have, almost invariably, almost invariably,
this is a partisan vote. republicans will vote against our rule, we'll vote against their rule. invariably we'll find some problem with it we can rationalize our vote on. i regret that we're starting to congress, and i'm going look at mr. ryan's speech, i'll look at mr. hastert's speech on the opening day, i'm going to look at all of the speakers with whom i've served. see what their comments were on the opening day. i regretted the minority leader's opening statement. i regretted it because as don young said we need to come together. we are at a time of pandemic. we're at a time of economic distress. we ought to be acting not for ourselves, not for our politics,
but for our people. i would urge every member to vote for this rule. and as they do so, be assured they are not denigrating or denying anybody's free speech, anymore than the republicans denied free speech in the most closed congress in our history just a few years ago. madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: madam speaker, i'd like to yield one minute to one of our new members, the gentleman from california, mr. i would like to speak on an aspect of the rules package that i find equally troubling, that's the provision that would upend nearly 30 years house tradition in exempting any legislation that can be tied in
any way to either response to climate change or response to the coronavirus crisis from the requirements of pay-go. in other words, the requirement that we consider how to pay for solutions to these problems in addition to how we solve these problems. now, admittedly, climate change and coronavirus are serious issues. but it would be irresponsible to, when debating these issues, not consider their effects on the national debt and the budget deficit which are also serious issues. in fact, the c.b.o. says that for the first time last year since world war ii, our national debt exceeded 100% of our gross domestic product. to fail to consider solutions that we debate in this chamber, the effects of those solutions on serious problems would be an abdication of our responsibilities to our constituents. i urge a no vote and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i will reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from oklahoma.
mr. cole: thank you very much, madam speaker. madam speaker, i yield one minute to my very good friend, the distinguished gentleman from texas, mr. roy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. roy: i thank the gentleman from oklahoma. madam speaker, i would just rise to say that we had this great speech by the leader of the democratic party about debate and about what we should do in debating on this floor. when will we debate? that's the question. when will we actually debate? the leader made good points about previous rules. about closed debate. we haven't had an open debate on an amendment on this floor since may of 2016. where i can come down as a republican member or as a democratic member and offer an amendment. we have no debates and amendments anymore, mr. leader. you know this is true. you've been here. you've seen the change in this body. and i would just suggest that i
address my remarks to the chair, i would suggest that we should have debate. that's what we're here to do. i reject this rules package. i have problems with it for the reasons my colleagues have already articulated. but i think we should engage in colloquy. let's actually have a debate about setting up rules for this body. it's filled with members and we're offering amendments. and doing what the people want us to do. this rules package, respectfully, does not do that the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: thank you very much, madam speaker. i yield one minute to my good friend, the distinguished member from arkansas, ranking member of the natural resources committee, mr. westerman:. mr. westerman:: this rules package is horrible. it's a progressive affront to america. it continues proxy voting and
remote hearing measures even though members of congress and staff now have access to the covid-19 vaccine. if congress can be first in line for the vaccine, then we must be first to go back to work. exactly how far democrats intend to take their attack on free speech is not clear. further than the extremism that included with awoman, which is illit rate and has nothing to do with gender. the way for paves democrats to spend unlimited dollars to promote a climate rural that will harm america and our economy while doing nothing to create a safer, and healthier environment. republicans want a better environment and economy, and rules package will facilita facilitate harm to both. i urge all my colleagues, and democrat, to resolution. this
we can do better than neglecting our responsibility to show up in taxpayer moneys on political idealism. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts. refer to rn: let me the office of the attending hysician to get the most up-to-date guidance. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma. yield to my friend from florida, mr. posey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. thank the true gentleman from oklahoma for yielding. evils of the new rules package, you already heard the comparative print is a single biggest damage you can do to transparency and accountability house. the comparative print requirement was a top priority to he bipartisan committee modernize congress. the number one top priority of the bipartisan committee. state in the country that i know of uses comparative
print. it shows you clearly what in a bill actually changes the law. this great o it but u.s. house of representatives just can't seem to do it. absolutely shameful to g, and i ask members oppose this horrible rules package that destroys transparency and accountability. you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: can i inquire from how many more speakers he has? mr. cole: i 'm prepared to clos is.ever my friend mr. mcgovern: i'm it for me. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cole: thank you very much, madam speaker. closing, i r, in want to urge all my colleagues to vote no on this rules package. majority's proposed package will only continue the ongoing on minority voices. the changes in this package with tely gut the m.t.r., all due respect to my friends, we disagree on that. i'm sorry you have a hard time or getting members where they want to go, but the
last s eight times in the congress democrats joined with republicans deciding that the republican proposal improved the bill. that simple. and taking that away, particularly when the record, i so bad in the last democratic congress, in granting to the t opportunities minority. i remind my friends when we were you got 45% of all the amendments made jord in the rules committee. rules rity in the committee. republicans got 38%. last time you got 2/3 of the amendments. 18%.t and the remainder were there. so when you're removing the top of not giving us very many amendments to begin with, we look on that as an ability to mit our openly in debate. this moves in the other direction. rules that have been here for over 100 years are inconvenient for the majority.
sometimes it's good to be inconvenienced when you are in the majority. limiting our ability to participate. frankly, it will find other outlets. does.ays i think that's a tragic mistake, i think you'll live to regret. obviously to that, we disagree in the proposed package eliminating pay-go. we think you can drive a truck through those. budgetary tool, and we do think it will be and its absence will be used to pave the way for the deal.new desire to , the continue subpoena presidents, vice presidents, and white house are no longer in office strikes us as clearly an to rt to just continue harass the departing administration. i regret that. too.nk you will, i think people want us to look forward, not backwards, so we that.see much use in nor do we see the automatic
bility to resubmit subpoenas from the last congress as a good thing. gain, it's looking in the rear-view mirror. with that, madam speaker, i urge rejection of the package and time.back my the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: thank you, madam speaker. this is aker, i think good rules package. as i said at the beginning, it reflects consultation with and republicans, almost every caucus you can this, f was consulted on and i think the end product is a quality product. i'm particularly proud of the reforms, banning members who are guilty of -- who have corruption.of protecting whistleblowers. making sure their identities revealed. i'm proud of the creation of the committee on economic disparity fairness in growth, select of the e, because one things this pandemic has demonstrated is there are great country and n this those disparities existed even
before the pandemic. that issue.ddress and, you know, in terms of the exemptions for pay-go, i mean, about two ng international worldwide emergencies. coronavirus pandemic and the climate crisis. i think every country in the orld has recognized they are emergencies. that we need to think big and issues.n these the unfortunate thing is we had an administration that's not handled the pandemic appropriately. gather today, well over 350,000 people, fellow citizens perished. let me just say, also, madam i was , that, you know, also inspired by the remarks of ur colleague, republican colleague, don young, yesterday when he talked about the need to work together. dismayed by the tone of leader's comments on the opening day.
never heard anything combiet so negative and -- quite so negative and combative. deal. the we need to work together to get things done. you don't need to agree on something to agree on and something we agree on we can move forward. we can fight about the other stuff. f we're going to get things done, facts have to matter. and i ought to be honest with you. critiques of he this rules package, one of the things i found particularly isheartening was the frankly, s and quite regard to ods with our getting our rules language to be more inclusive. just -- i don't understand why tryas necessary for some to to make things up. doesnow, it does not -- it not entice the kind of collaboration and the kind of ooperation to get that something done.
i am a great fan of my ranking cole, and this will probably get him in trouble but i think he's one of the finest institution.is we work together very well in the rules committee. very, very ing some difficult debates. but at the end of the day, i now he cares deeply about this institution. i know people like don young care about this institution. there are good members on the side who care about this institution. you know, we have a slim majority here. if we're going to get anything done, you're going to get anything done, we have to how to works things out. but we have to all agree that we want to get things done. spirit that n that i hope that this rules package ill cultivate the kind of atmosphere in which we can get some important things done. whether it's on the climate on economic s disparity or it's fighting to nd hunger in this country, whether it's to make sure we can expand health care protections for people, whether it's just and fairness in this country, we have a lot of
work to do. with a new administration coming in, there may be a different tone. it will be less combative. maybe more the discussions will be based more on fact. i pray that's the case. but we have to come together and done for get things the american people. so with that, madam speaker, i >> the house went on to pass the rules package on a party line vote. legislative work continues this weekend on wednesday, a joint session of congress to certify the election results in the 2020 presidential election. how -- follow the house and senate on c-span. ♪ >> you are watching c-span, your unfiltered view of government. c-span was created by america's cable television companies in
1979. today we are brought to you by these television companies who provide c-span2 viewers as a public service. c-span two viewers as a public service. the house returns for legislative business. members debate five bills from the government and oversight committee. at 8:00 p.m. we have life election coverage for george's two senate runoff elections. is expected torew wheeler announce new rules on epa scientific research. morning, women for america first executive director kylie jane kremer talks about tomorrow's