Skip to main content

tv   U.S. House of Representatives U.S. House of Representatives  CSPAN  April 20, 2021 2:15pm-6:24pm EDT

2:15 pm
time in months. not years. parents going back to work. and teachers safely back in the classrooms. more than 159 million americans have received an economic impact payment of up to $1400. so far. and they are pumping that money back into our communities. and into our local economies. helping businesses open their doors and get paychecks in workers' pockets. in fact, our economy added more than one million jobs just last month. that's just the beginning. from the childcare funding that president biden announced last week to a new program to support restaurant jobs at the s.b.a. began this week, to the child tax credit that will start putting money in hardworking families' pockets over the summer. the american rescue plan will continue making life better for the american people for months to come. and house democrats will continue spreading the message about all the ways in which we
2:16 pm
are here -- >> watch this entire briefing at c-span.org. we are leaving this now in order to continue our long time commitment to bring you live gavel to gavel coverage. the rule for three bills including d.c. statehood coming up next. live now to the house floor on c-span. of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on april 20, 2021, at 12:26 p.m. appointments. united states holocaust memorial council for the 127th congressional. signed sinl serial -- sincerely, cheryl l. johnson. the speaker pro tempore: suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. the house will resume proceedings at later time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. takano: madam speaker, i ask the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2523, as amended.
2:17 pm
the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 2523, a bill to make certain technical corrections to the johnny isakson and david p. roe, m.d. veterans health care and benefits improvement act of 2020 and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. takano, and the gentleman from illinois, mr. bost, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. takano: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on h.r. 2523, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. takano: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. takano: madam speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 2523, as amended, the training in
2:18 pm
high-demand roles to improve veteran employment act, or thrive act. h.r. 2523, as amended, builds off the work of the american rescue plan to deliver employment training quicker and more effectively to veterans who have lost their job due to covid-19. the american rescue plan was one of the most important pieces of legislation many of us will ever have the chance to vote on, making generational investments into veteran health care, homelessness, and job training programs. following the passage of that legislation into law, the department of veterans affairs highlighted some improvements to the law to deliver job training benefits quicker and more equitably to all americans, regardless of where they live. . the legislation before us will get those benefits out quicker to veterans and improve their record keeping of the department of veterans affairs and the department of labor to ensure veterans are aware of
2:19 pm
options available to them to find quality employment. the thrive act will also see v.a. partner with local business groups to facilitate job placement. madam speaker, in addition, the department shared with our committee ways to improve the johnny isakson and david p. roe veterans health care and benefits improvement act of 2020 to improve the experience for student veterans who are still being impacted by classroom experiences due to covid-19. this is why this legislation offered by economic opportunity subcommittee chairman mike levin and ranking member mike bost is so timely and important. this legislation is endorsed by many including the student veterans of america, the national association of state approving agencies, and
2:20 pm
paralyzed veterans of america and disabled veterans of america. i wish to thank speaker pelosi and leader hoyer for bringing h.r. 2523 as amended to the floor so quickly. i urge the rest of my colleagues to support this legislation to ensure v.a. can deliver assistance to our veterans as quickly as possible. madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you. madam speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 2523 as amended. the training high demand roles to improve veterans employment or thrive act, as amended. this legislation would make needed improvements to the american rescue plan of 2021. it would also make several technical corrections to the
2:21 pm
johnny isakson and david p roe m.d. veterans health care and improvement act of 2020. mr. bost: covid-19 has had a profound impact on our economy. it has closed small businesses across the country and left millions of americans unemployed. that includes an estimated half a million veterans. before the pandemic, the veterans' unemployment rate was at a near record low. today it's almost double that. we must help our veterans get back to work. i introduced the veterans economic recovery act earlier this year to do just that. that bill created the veterans rapid retraining assistance program or v rap. v rap allowed veterans who are unemployed because of covid-19 to receive rapid retraining to compete for in high demand jobs. the bulk of the veterans recovery act was enacted as part of the american rescue
2:22 pm
plan. unfortunately, because speaker pelosi used the reconciliation process to pass the arp there are several provisions of vrap not included. that's why i was pleased to work with chairman levin on the bill before us today. it would finish the job and ensure that vrap is set up for success. specifically the thrive act would allow the v.a. to add jobs to the in-demand occupations list so that the training leads to meaningful employment. requiring a v.a. to work with the department of labor and nonprofit organizations to ensure that v rap participants are provided employment services once their training is over. requiring g.a.o. to report on the overall effectiveness of vrap and make changes to how v.a. pays schools for training
2:23 pm
that participants receive so that it can be used by the veterans very quickly. while i'm glad the changes are being made, it is unfortunate they were not initially addressed in the a.r.p. the thrive act also includes the text of the bill by representative torres of california. her bill would add information to the g.i. bill comparison tool to let the veterans know if schools have a religious affiliation or have a history -- historical service as a particular minority population. this will help veterans be better informed when they decide where to use their g.i. bill benefits. i thank the representative torres for her work and i'm glad that we were able to include her legislation in this bill. and i'm grateful to chairman takano and congressman levin
2:24 pm
for working with me on the thrive act. i am confident that it will help veterans get whack on their feet -- back on their feet. i urge my colleagues to support it. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. takano: madam speaker, at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to my good friend and fellow californian, the chairman of the subcommittee on economic opportunity, and also author of the bill, representative mike heffin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. levin: thank you, madam speaker. thank you so much to our great chairman, chairman takano, and to our ranking member for their great work. it's an honor to continue serving our veterans in a bipartisan manner and to chair the relevant subcommittee. as a representative for marine corps base camp pendleton and thousands of military families in the region, i'm proud of the work we have accomplished in the past few years for our nation's vet rabs. back in january of this year,
2:25 pm
the johnny isakson and david roe health care veterans and improvement act was sipped into law. it was a historic omnibus bill for veterans that strengthen many benefits and services for those who served our country. it was a great bipartisan accomplishment. again i'm grateful to all my colleagues for getting it across the finish line. it included provisions to improve services for homeless veterans, to protect g.i. bill benefits, improve the transition assistance program for service members returning to civilian life, and so much more. it was the product of bipartisan, bicameral work proof we can do things on a bipartisan basis in washington, d.c., and i was proud to help lead that bill. most recently we passed the american rescue plan. a landmark piece of legislation to help americans get through this pandemic. including our veterans who have struggled to get back on their feet during this difficult time. a key piece of that bill was nearly $400 million for a rapid retraining program for veterans who are unemployed as a result
2:26 pm
of this pandemic and don't have access to other veterans' education benefits. both of these bills were huge accomplishments. but like all legislation, they weren't perfect and there are still steps that we must take to make these programs work even better for the veterans they are intended to soifment that's why i was proud to introduce legislation with the ranking member, mike bost of the house veterans' affairs committee, amending the american rescue plan and the isakson-roe legislation to emprove job training and education programs for our veterans. for example, our bill makes changes to the rapid retraining assistance program so we are focusing on high demand occupations. it will also improve the v.a.'s communication was veterans -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. takano: madam speaker, i yield another minute and a half, please. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. levin: thank you, madam speaker. it will also improve the v.a.'s communication veterans about employment placement services.
2:27 pm
clarify veterans' eligibility for housing stipend and ensure v.a. works with qualified nonprofit business associations to facilitate the employment of participating veterans. nothing in this bill is controversial. it's all about improving existing veterans programs so they can get back to work and make the most of the services they have earned and deserve. i hope we can pass this bill without delay. and i urge all my colleagues to support it. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. bost: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. takano: madam speaker, i have no more speakers at this time. prepared to close. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. bost: thank you, madam speaker. at this time i would like to recognize the gentleman from north carolina, representative cawthorn, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for two minutes. mr. caw thon: --
2:28 pm
mr. caw thon: -- mr. cawthorn: the speaker pro tempore: the
2:29 pm
gentleman is recognized. mr. cawthorn: madam speaker, american veterans are facing an unemployment crisis that threatens their livelihoods. while this current government focuses on giving jobs to illegal immigrants, approximately half a million veterans are out of work as of march, 2021. americans often talk about about the love of our troops. as politicians we often take victory lapse through our victories, meeting veterans and pledging to work for them. now it's time for us to act on that pledge. the thrive act represents a commonsense step to empower both veterans and educational institutions who provide much needed work force training. i come from a family of veterans. for six generations the men of my family have served their country proudly in the armed forces. i represent the first generation to enter a different type of service. while i cannot say i have experienced the trauma and sacrifice our men and women have sacrificed on the battlefield, i have witnessed the brutally difficult task of transitioning back to the home front. if we as elected
2:30 pm
representatives can ease that process and reduce veteran unemployment in one fell swoop, then i firmly believe that we are obligated to do so. the thrive act will ensure that additional authorities -- that the additional authorities and funding congress provided for unemployment veterans work as intended to help veterans in need to find good well paying jobs. let's enable our veterans to transition back into civilian life. those who have given so much to this nation deserve nothing less. i urge my colleagues to support this bill and with that i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. takano: madam speaker, i have no further speakers. i'm prepared to close. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. bost: thank you, madam speaker. i want to thank all the members who were involved in moving forward with this legislation, especially chairman takano, and i encourage all of my colleagues to support this bill, and with that i yield back the balance of
2:31 pm
my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. takano: madam speaker, i appreciate the bipartisan way in which we move forward this bill. i want to thank all my colleagues, and i urge all of them to join me in passing h.r. 2523, as amended. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 2523, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. >> madam speaker, i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. pursuant to section 3 of house resolution 8, pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings are postponed.
2:32 pm
2:33 pm
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. raskin: madam speaker, by the direction of the committee
2:34 pm
on rules, i call up house resolution 330 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 14. house resolution 330. resolved, that upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house the bill h.r. 51, to provide for the admission of the state of washington, d.c., into the union. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on oversight and reform now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. the bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except, one, one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on oversight and reform or their respective designees, and 2 one motion to recommit. section 2. upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider
2:35 pm
in the house the bill h.r. 1573, to clarify the rights of all persons who are held or detained at a port of entry or at any detention facility overseen by u.s. customs and border protection or u.s. immigration and customs enforcement. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on the judiciary now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. the bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except, one, one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary or their respective designees, and 2 one motion to recommit. section 3. upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider
2:36 pm
in the house the bill h.r. 1333, to transfer and limit executive branch authority to suspend or restrict the entry of a class of aliens. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on the judiciary now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. the bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except, one, one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary or their respective designees, and 2 one motion to recommit. section 4. house resolution 316 is hereby adopted. section 5. house resolution 188, agreed to
2:37 pm
march 8, 2021, is amended, one, in section 11, by striking “april 22, 2021” and inserting “may 20, 2021”, two, in section 16, by striking “calendar day of april 22, 2021” and inserting “legislative day of may 20, 2021”, and three, in section 17, by striking “april 22, 2021” and inserting “may 20, 2021." section 6. a, at any time through the legislative day of thursday, april 22, 2021, the speaker may entertain motions offered by the majority leader or a designee that the house suspend the rules as though under clause 1 of rule 15 with respect to multiple measures described in subsection b, and the chair shall put the question on any such motion without debate or intervening motion. b, a measure referred to in
2:38 pm
subsection a includes any measure that was the object of a motion to suspend the rules on the legislative day of april 19, 2021, or april 20, 2021, on which the yeas and nays were ordered and further proceedings postponed pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20. c, upon the offering of a motion pursuant to subsection a concerning multiple measures, the ordering of the yeas and nays on postponed motions to suspend the rules with respect to such measures is vacated to the end that all such motions are considered as withdrawn. section 7. a, house concurrent resolution 30 is hereby adopted. b, for purposes of the joint session to receive the president of the united states on april 28, 2021, former members, delegates, and resident commissioners shall not be admitted to the hall of the house or rooms leading thereto.
2:39 pm
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for one hour. mr. raskin: madam speaker, for the purposes of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. during consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. raskin: madam speaker, today the rules committee met and reported a rule, h.r. 330, providing for three measures. first, the rule provides for h.r. 51, the washington, d.c., admissions act under a closed rule. it provides one hour of debate controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on oversight and reform. and provides for one motion to recommit. the rule also provides for consideration of h.r. 1333, the no ban act. and h.r. 1572, the access -- 1573, the ak ak -- access to
2:40 pm
counsel act. it provides one hour and provides one motion to recommit on each bill. the bill is deemed passed providing for the certain expenses of certain committee and h.con.res 30, a joint session of congress to receive a message from the president of the united states. the rule restricts former members' access to the house floor during the joint session. additionally, the rule provides authority for april 22 for the majority leader or his designee to move to en bloc postponed votes on any suspension bill considered on april 19 or 20 on which the yeas and nays were ordered. finally, the rule provides for recess instructions, same-day and suspension authority through may 20. madam speaker, in democracy in america, voting rights in
2:41 pm
democracy are either contracting and retreating and shrivelling away or democracies are growing and expanding. what a proud day for the united states congress when we get to keep the trajectory of american democracy moving forward by voting to admit a new state to our beloved union. america began with 13 original states, and we in congress have exercised our powers under article 4, section 3 37 different times to admit 37 new states to the union which means that nearly 75% of the states in america today were admitted after the original 13. today, we can keep the dynamics of democratic political growth of inclusion going in america by including the process of
2:42 pm
introducing washington, douglas commonwealth. this has not happened since 1959 when alaska and hawaii were admitted to the union in january and in august of that year. we can vote to admit a new state to the union. and what a state it will be. a community of 712,000 taxable, draftable, law-abiding american citizens who actually pay more federal taxes per capita now than do the people of any state. more in hard dollars than the people of 22 states combined. it's a community of people who have fought in every war that the union has ever fought going all the way back to the american revolution. and it was a community significantly that came to the aid of the democracy, that came to the aid of the union, that came to the aid of this congress when we called on january 6,
2:43 pm
2021. more than 850 officers in the metropolitan police department came and fought shoulder-to-shoulder with our capitol officers in what has been described as waves of medieval violence by insurrection iss and -- insurrections and fascists by tacking them with flagpoles and confederate flagpoles and trump flagpoles. they sent more than 150 national guardsmen from washington, d.c. 154 d.c. national guard. 850 metropolitan police department to come and defend a democracy that they are not yet part of. now, think about that. people who came and stormed the capitol laid siege to the
2:44 pm
congress of the united states with fictionalized claims about denial of their right to vote and right in this city there are 712,000 american citizens who we know have their voting rights denied every single day. their rights to representation denied every single day, and they came to defend us against those who would have torn down the very citadel of democracy. think about that when we're deciding how to vote on h.r. 51. the current status of the people in washington, d.c., subjects them to two different forms of political domination. an exclusion. on the one hand, all of their locally adopted laws ultimately can be overturned by a congress which they're excluded from. and it's happened many, many
2:45 pm
times throughout the history of the district of columbia, as congresswoman eleanor holmes norton, the nonvoting delegate, will tell you. congress has tampered with the laws of adoption, the laws of marriage, criminal justice laws, voting laws in the district of columbia. . it's not just that. it's not just that the rights of democratic self-government are subject to the will of other people, it's also that this community of tax-paying draftable american citizens are excluded from participating in federal legislation because they don't have voting representatives in the house and in the senate. that means on matters relating to war and peace, the confirmation of u.s. supreme court justices and other federal judges. the development of federal
2:46 pm
budgets. the regulation of commerce. necessaryic -- domestically and innationally -- internationally. the people of washington, d.c., are dealt out. they are excluded. they want in. they want to enter the union the way that most of us in congress represent communities that were not part of the original 13 but then came in later. i come from maryland which was one of the original 13. but most of the people in congress represent states that came in later. this is an act of fundamental democratic and civic self-respect on their part to be asking for equality and inclusion, and it's a matter of basic constitutional patriotism and democratic respect that we vote to admit them today. i'm very happy we are kicking this process off by bringing this rule to the floor. and i -- with that i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the
2:47 pm
gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker. thank you to the distinguished gentleman from maryland for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker. the rule before us today provides for three consideration -- consideration of three pieces of legislation. the first bill h.r. 1333 limits the president's existing authority to restrict entry of foreigners into the united states. border patrol is encountering more than 5,500 individuals per day at the southern border. they are encountering, 5,3500 individuals per day at the southern border. over the weekend president biden finally acknowledged the situation for what it is. not a challenge but a crisis. mr. reschenthaler: house democrats are moving forward with a bill that does nothing to stop the surge of migrants
2:48 pm
at the southern border. instead actually weakens our national security. on the same lines, house resolution 330 provides for consideration of h.r. 1573 which requires access to counsel for all travelers referred to a secondary inspection at airports and other ports of entry. again this bill does nothing to address the biden border crisis. it would actually complicate the job of border patrol agents while costing taxpayers $825 million over the next five years. with a 233% increase in fentanyl procedures at our southern border, it's a shame that my liberal colleagues across the aisle are actually creating more work for border patrol. instead, we should provide these brave men and women with much needed resources to address the national security and public health consequences of the biden border crisis.
2:49 pm
lastly, this resolution makes in order h.r. 51. legislation admitting the present district of columbia as the 51st state and authorizing special elections for two senators and one representative. this is nothing more than an unconstitutional power grab by democrats to gain two ultraprogressive d.c. senate seats and force radical far left policies on the american people. our founding fathers never intended for d.c. to become a state. in federalist number 43 james madison argued that if the capital city were situated within a state, the federal government would be subject to undo influence by the host state. as such, article 1, section 8, clause 17 of the u.s. constitution establishes a neutral district for our
2:50 pm
nation's representatives to meet and vote on equal ground. further, the 23rd nmed grants three presidential electors specifically for the district. the original meaning of the district in the constitution and the necessary repeal to the 23rd amendment requires an amendment to the constitution in order for d.c. to even become a state. don't take my word for it, though. since 1963 every justice department, republican and democrat, that has addressed the issue of d.c. statehood has concluded that congress does not have the authority to alter the status of the city legislatively. attorney general robert f. kennedy thought it was inconceivable that d.c. would be granted statehood without repealing the 23rd amendment. and the result would, quote, produce an absurdity, end quote. those are the words of r.f.k. finally, the legislation before
2:51 pm
us today does nothing to address the financial implications of d.c. statehood. according to a 2020 study, d.c. ranked 150th out of 150 of the largest cities for its lack of operating efficiency. 150 out of 150. the federal government provides billions of dollars to d.c. each year from everything from the judicial system to the pension system. yet house democrats are so desperate to jam this measure through that under h.r. 51 the federal government will remain responsible for funding many of the new state's functions. there is absolutely no incentive for the new state to work towards financial self-sufficiency, meaning americans in other states would be forced to fund d.c. democrats' priorities. again, house democrats are pushing ahead to admit a new
2:52 pm
state in the union purely for partisan gain while ignoring the constitutional, practical, and legal challenges in doing so. a that is why i urge my colleagues to oppose this rule. with that, madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. raskin: thank you, madam speaker. let me just address a couple of the specious constitutional objections that have been raised by our colleagues on the other side. to begin with it would be unconstitutional to turn the district of columbia into a state. it would almost certainly be that. that's not what the proposal is. the proposal is to redraw the boundaries of the district of columbia to cede the residential lands to the new state to admit it. for that there is both sound constitutional and historical precedent. for one thing article 1, section 8, clause 17 says that congress shall exercise exclusive legislation in all
2:53 pm
cases whatsoever over the district that is to become the seat of government. meaning that the congress has the authority to modify the boundaries of the district of columbia which it has done. it did that actually in 1791, not long after the original boundaries were set. james madison and 13 other founders themselves voted to alter the boundaries. but our colleagues seem to believe that the boundaries of the district can't be altered by congress. in 1846 most significantly congress gave 1/3 of the district of columbia to the commonwealth of virginia at the behest of slave masters who correctly anticipated that the slave traffic would be abolished within the district of columbia. and it was given back, demonstrating that the authority of congress to change the boundaries of the district exists. and if congress can alter the boundaries of the district of columbia in 1846, in order to serve the slave masters and to
2:54 pm
protect their institution, surely the congress in 2021 can modify the boundaries of the district of columbia in order to admit a new state and empower hundreds of thousands of people to live in political equality in the country. my distinguished colleague from pennsylvania invites us to believe that the 23rd amendment is a constitutional impediment to adopting statehood for washington, d.c. he doesn't explain why it's unconstitutional. he just asserts it would be unconstitutional. the 23rd amendment was adopted in order to give people living within the seat of government the possibility of voting for president and to have electoral college votes n manner decided by congress and then in section 2 requiring congress to act in order to organize the electoral college in the manner of a state legislature, organizing the electoral college for the state. as i understand h.r. 51,
2:55 pm
introduced by congresswoman norton, this problem is taken care of at the moment of statehood admission because it repeals the statute which organizes the electoral college for the district of columbia. in other words, the moment the new state comes into being, the current statute that organizes the presidential electors is repealed. there is nothing to worry about. i agree there is a certain kind of messiness in still having the 23rd amendment on the books, but congresswoman norton has said she would be the first to introduce a formal constitutional amendment to repeal the 23rd and who would oppose it? our colleagues have not been able to find a single person who would oppose it. everybody would agree it would be simply nonsensical to keep it within the constitution once the 712,000 people have negotiated an exodus from the federal seat of government in order to become their own state. i think that that's a red herring. it's an irrelevant distraction from this journey towards
2:56 pm
statehood and little equality that we are on. and with that i would yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from the district of columbia, ms. norton. the speaker pro tempore: the the gentlewoman from district of columbia is recognized for two minutes. ms. norton: i that can my good friend -- thank my good friend for yielding and his support of h.r. 51. the rule before us is not ordinary. it is the prelude to history and i use that word advisedly. last congress the house passed the d.c. statehood bill, the first time either chamber of congress had passed the bill. this congress with democrats controlling the house, senate, and white house, d.c. statehood is within reach for the first time in history. as a result of education from house proceedings like today's, 54% of the american people
2:57 pm
support d.c. statehood. according to a code that has just been released, wide ranging poll. and we plea dict that with increasing exposure that percentage will continue to rise. for the 220 years since d.c. became our capital, district residents who have had all of the obligations of citizenship, including paying full federal taxes, and serving in the armed forces, have been excluded from much of american democracy. the citizens who live in our nation's capital have never had voting representation on the floor of either chamber of congress. and congress has always had the final say on their local affairs. this is uniquely un-american. it is undemocratic. for me it is deeply personal.
2:58 pm
my own family has lived in d.c. since my great grandfather, richard holmes, as a slave walked away from a plantation in virginia and made his way to d.c. almost 200 years ago. richard holmes made it as far as d.c.. a walk to freedom, but not to equal citizenship so far for our family. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. -- the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. norton: thursday -- mr. raskin: i grant an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for an additional minute. ms. norton: i thank my good friend. during debate on d.c. statehood, thursday, we'll make the case that congress has the constitutional authority to admit the state of washington, d.c., and that the state would meet all the elements congress has considered in admission decisions. for now it is sufficient to note that throughout its
2:59 pm
existence in the united states -- the united states as touted itself as a democracy even though it is the only democratic country that denies voting representation in the national legislature to the residents of the capital. with passage of this rule today and d.c. statehood on thursday, the united states will be one step closer to deserving the term democracy. i thank my good friend. i yield back. mr. raskin: i thank the gentlelady very much. i just want to re-emphasize the point that she made at the end which is the congress has the exclusive authority to admit new states. congress has admitted 37 new states, none have ever been struck down by a court despite serious constitutional objections being raised against almost every state. everyone knew that hawaii and alaska could not be admitted because they weren't contiguous. everyone knew texas couldn't be admitted because it was a separate republic and there was
3:00 pm
no authority to admit a republic. it was said utah couldn't be admitted because they were practicing polygamy there, so on. there have always been constitutional objections made. the courts have always deemed this to be a political question which means that it's up to congress to decide, and congress has always been guided in the final analysis by the overriding dynamic of american political history which is democracy has got to govern for people who live here. i will reserve the remainder of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman is recognized. mr. reschenthaler: the gentleman says these are my assertions. they are also supported by others, particularly well-known members of the liberal party. the former mayor of d.c. himself, mayor walter washington, said, and i quote, i would have problems with statehood in terms of exacting from it some enclave or little
3:01 pm
enclaves all around the city. ultimately, it seems to me that that would erode the very fabric of the city of itself and the viability of the city, end quote. again, that was the former mayor of washington, d.c., who was talking about the enclaves that are being called for in this bill. additionally, the former d.c. delegate, walter, himself said a bill like this would be in direct defiance of the prescription of the founding fathers. as far as the constitutional argument, it's just not me making the assertion that this would be unconstitutional. because there's an issue. that's the 23rd amendment. but don't take it from me. look at the carter administration d.o.j. they said to provide statehood to the district will have to be by constitutional amendment. otherwise, it would ignore the framers' intent. john harman during the carter administration said that this
3:02 pm
could not be accomplished in our view by -- this would have to be accomplished through constitutional amendment. further, r.f.k., robert kennedy said that congress likely did not have the authority under article 1, section 8, clause 17 to shrink the federal district to essentially the same size that's been discussed. the argument, and i'm quoting, the argument of the federal district constituting the seat of government is a permanent part of our constitutional system is substantially strengthened by the adoption of the 23rd amendment. thinking that we could merely repeal an amendment through legislative action, that's not how the constitution works. you wouldn't have the 21st amendment which repealed the 18th amendment. we could have repealed it. additionally, there are talks about this not being a political exercise. my colleague has been quoted, actually in "the washington post," saying there is a national political logic for it. it being d.c. statehood.
3:03 pm
because the senate has become the principal obstacle to social progress on a whole range of issues. not my words. my colleague's words. this issue is all about a power grab. talking about another issue that's on this rule is immigration. madam speaker, if we defeat the previous question, i will offer an amendment to the rule to immediately consider h.r. 2321, the border surge response and resilience act. for far too long, democrats denied the crisis caused by biden's open border rhetoric. this bipartisan bill will ensure that d.h.s. develops a plan and has the resources it needs to address migrant surges and secure our border. something clearly missing from the current administration. madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the record along with any extraneous material
3:04 pm
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. reschenthaler: thank you, madam speaker. and here to explain the amendment is the lead republican on the house homeland security committee, my good friend and colleague, john katko from new york, and i'd yield him as much time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. katko: thank you, madam speaker. i rise in opposition to moving the previous question so that we can consider the bipartisan legislation i introduced, along with several of my colleagues, to address the crisis along the southwest border and provide resources for the men and women of the department of homeland security who are serving on the front lines of this security nightmare and humanitarian nightmare created by the policies of this administration. the border surge response act -- excuse me -- the border surge response and resilience act is a commonsense approach to preparing for future migrant surges and is direct response from the bipartisan and
3:05 pm
effective homeland security advisory council, which i hope will be reconstituted by the current administration. i often hear from my friends on the other side of the aisle accusing republicans of complaining about problems rather than offering solutions. well, today, we are providing the opportunity to vote on a commonsense, bipartisan and thoughtful solution. i just returned from my second trip to the border in recent weeks, and any of us who have had -- traveled there recently can observe what's happening and can attest just how bad the crisis on the ground really is. at the border itself, it's wide open. the wall construction has stopped. border patrol agents have told us that if the wall is constructed, 80% of the drug trafficking activities focused and fumd to other -- funneled to other areas where they can easily get them. i worked on the border as a
3:06 pm
federal organized crime prosecutor going after cartels and i can tell you they own the border. and if they -- if someone wants to cross the border, they have to pay. chinese are paying $50,000 to $70,000 per person. mexicans and central americans are paying $4,000 per person coming across. every single day this crisis goes on, the cartels are being enriched to the tune of $15 million a day. a day. and that the last month is highly likely -- enriched to a tune of close to $1 billion in a month. the border patrol agents are despondent. they're being pulled off the line at least 40%, 50% in the rio grande sector alone to deal with the crisis. the drug traffickers are smart enough to know, if i throw 100 people across the border over here, all the agents got to come off and deal with them. that place they came off from, we'll go across to get the
3:07 pm
drugs. in the rio grande sector alone, 2,000% increase of enter national. fent -- increase of fentanyl. it's mixed with heroin. it's killing our kids. that's what border patrol agents are telling us. all they want to do is be able to enforce the laws on the books. we'll have an -- they're not having an ability to do so because the administration change of policies on january 22. they say it's a direct correlation. yes, there are problems in central america. they've been there for 20, 30 years. they haven't changed. if i had kids down there, i'd bring them, too, up to the border, but there is a right way to do things and a wrong way. running across the border and creating this crisis is the wrong way. let me tell you what i saw at the detention centers. like donna. people are put in pens, for lack of a better term. 30, 40 people are supposed to be in there. i saw hundreds. i sent a picture to my wife there were so many kids they
3:08 pm
were all wrapped up in aluminum blankets, you couldn't see anything but the aluminum blankets. they were literally stacked together like cardboard. not a single child was tested. and they're releasing that facility because they can't keep them there and they're released without being tested. when we were at the border, we encountered a companile of people at the midnight. on a flight to dallas-fort worth, they were on that flight. no idea. no idea who they were. they put them on a plane without identification and highly likely without testing because they said they were not testing right away. when they do test they know 10%, 15 fathers of -- 15% of these kids test positive for covid. they are telling them not where they're coming. they're coming in oftentimes not being tested for covid. probably positive of the that's what's going on. we're spending -- in the donna facility alone, we're spending millions of dollars a day to
3:09 pm
deal with this. and there's nothing more tragic than seeing an 11-year-old girl sexually assaulted on her way up to the border who is pregnant there. that's what's going on. that's an unforced error that we didn't need to have. and the administration candidly was caught short but candidly, too, previous administrations were caught short with border surges. i'm not here to complain about the situation. i'm here to offer a solution. and the solution is our bill. which i mentioned. in addition to ensuring future preparedness along the border, this provision would create a $1 billion fund to be made available in the support of our front line enforcement personnel. it requires transparent metrics that were triggered when certain events happen and that it supports border security law enforcement officials and prevent a humanitarian crisis from spiraling out of control as it has on this one and it has on others before it candidly.
3:10 pm
and if you don't know this, i will tell you. the money that's been spent to deal with this crisis now is being taken away from the funds set aside for the salaries of our law enforcement professionals on the border. that's a fact. we are going to need a massive supplement just to make sure that our border patrol agents can get paid. so i urge my colleagues in a bipartisan fashion to support the security of the united states, and this is not about arguing with president biden -- what arguing what president biden did on january 20. this is about going forward with these crisis that will occur again that we're prepared. there's money set aside, there's a plan. when certain things happen, the money kicks in and we're ready to go. that's what i'm asking my colleagues to support. the frontline men and women by supporting this provision. thank you, madam speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. raskin: thank you, madam
3:11 pm
speaker. i just want to say a word in response to my colleague about the national political logic of statehood. there's both powerful constitutional principles and national political logic that infuses every statehood admission going back to the very beginning of the republic. the constitutional principle is simply that of no taxation without representation. and the consent of the governed. people who are part of the american nation should be able to participate equally as complete citizens and that was why thomas jefferson set out in the northwest ordinance that once a community got to be of a certain size, 60,000, which, of course, is less than 10% of the size of washington, d.c., today, that it would be eligible to come in to statehood. to petition for statehood. the only real constitutional prerequisite is a republican form of government. that's the republican guarantee clause. that's the high-minded political
3:12 pm
ideal of constitutional principle. but it's also the case, as i tried to argue with my colleagues across the aisle, that there is a hardcore political logic that's operated and we see it in their arguments that they don't want to admit two democratic senators to the republic, which is what former president trump said in objection to d.c. statehood. he said there's no way we would accept two new democrat senators. that actually, although i consider it a degradation of the process and a kind of toddry form of argument, it's a major part of american history. states continue to enter the union in pairs, like animals boring noah's arc together. that was the situation with kansas and nebraska. in the kansas and nebraska act. that was the situation of missouri and maine in the missouri compromise. that was vermont and kentucky. that was alaska and hawaii back
3:13 pm
in 1959. and so i say to my friends, ok. they don't see the problem of taxation without representation in washington. they don't see the problem of governance without representation. they don't see the irony or the paradox or the contradiction of people putting their lives on the line to defend this congress, this union on january 6 who don't get to vote for voting representatives in congress. they don't want to see that, fine. but they can at least see this. it's been in the republican party platform since 1940 that puerto rico should be admitted as a state. every four years, they have said that the millions of people, american citizens who live in puerto rico, should be admitted as a state. it was in the platform in the -- in 2016. it would have been in 2020 if they had a platform. they decided not to have a platform for the american people in 2020. but in any event, they have taken a very strong position. ronald reagan, gerald ford, you name it. in fact, the resident
3:14 pm
commissioner from puerto rico is a republican who is -- who's introduced statehood legislation in this congress, who's fighting for statehood. so, fine. there is the basis for common ground. let's get together. the democrats have been arguing for statehood for washington, d.c., for a long time. the republicans have been arguing for statehood for puerto rico for a long time. i assume everybody means it. let's get together and do it the way this has happened periodically, systematically throughout american history. that is the national political logic of allowing both of these states to come together. not everybody gets everything that they want. and i do think that it is ant theycal to the democratic form of government to say you don't want people to be represented because you don't like the way they're going to vote because they disagree with you on issues. i think that's fundamentally un-democratic and un-american. but in any event, we have the grounds for a compromise. and i'm still looking for some colleagues across the aisle to stand up and say they will stand
3:15 pm
for the position that they have embraced for decades to say these two states should come in together. with that i yield two weeks to my colleague from pennsylvania, ms. scanlon. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from pennsylvania is recognized for two minutes. ms. scanlon: thank you. i rise today in strong support of the rule providing for consideration of the no ban act, the access to counsel act of 2021, and the washington, d.c., admission act. all three bills advance important policies that i'm proud to support. i'll never forget the night on january, 2017, that the trump administration's ban on travel from muslim countries went into effect. i was not yet in congress and my job involved coordinating three legal services across the u.s. including representation for immigrants. as foreign citizens landed in the u.s., they were told their travel papers had been revoked while they were in the air. some were taken into custody and some were immediately deported. families were separated and friends and relatives arriving to pick up loved ones at u.s. airports frantically tried to
3:16 pm
get information about them. many were denied the right to counsel who were trying to reach them. . people mobilized to help those impacted by the ban. i spent the next few weeks working around the clock dispatching volunteers to airports, mobilizing translators and organizing legal efforts. having seen the chaos and cruelty caused by the trump administration's ill-fated ban, i'm particularly pleased by the opportunity to pass the no ban act and the access to counsel act. first, not ban act would ensure that no future administration would have the authority to discriminate against people based on their religious background or national origin. when choosing to restrict the entry of immigrants into our country. having witnessed the chaos and cruelty of the muslim ban, i wholeheartedly support this legislation which would prevent future administrations from similarly abusing their executive authority. i'm also proud to support the access to counsel act which would ensure that individuals at ports of entry can seek
3:17 pm
legal advice, where from volunteers or at their own expense, during the screening process. access to counsel is critical for ensuring the fair and equitable enforcement of our laws, but especially in immigration matters where the law is so complicated and the consequence is so grave. i support these three bills which would make our immigration laws more fair, protect due process -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. ms. scanlon: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. reschenthaler: thank you, madam speaker. we hear a lot about no taxation without representation. but there is representation. d.c. has three electric thunderstorm votes. we forget -- electoral votes. we forget that. they have a delegate in congress. they also have local government, a mayor, they have a home rule act. but taxation does bring up a serious issue. because d.c. would need to raise taxes if it were to become a state. it's simply not self-sufficient
3:18 pm
economically. in fact d.c. takes more from the federal government than any other area in the united states. 73 -- $73,000 per capita, to be exact. that's astronomical when you think about it. the second most -- the second highest state is virginia at $16,000 per capita, followed by maryland at $15,000 per capita. again, d.c. takes $73,000 per capita. if this were to go through, d.c. would need to raise revenue. because of the massive amount of federal land in the district, you would then have to have more taxation, presumably through two ways. one, a commuter tax, taxing people that come into the district from other areas, or you would have to have tolling of roads leading into the district. both of these are incredibly problematic. the first one, a commuter tax, would actually create the problem my liberal colleagues are saying exists in the first place. no taxation without representation. because you would have the district of columbia taxing
3:19 pm
people from presumably virginia, maryland, west virginia, where have you, for commuting into the district. they wouldn't have representation here. that's actually taxation without representation. further, if you were to toll roads leading into the district, you would infringe upon people's constitutional rights to petition the government. imagine how much a tour bus would have to pay if they wanted to come here into the district. but i was talking about the home rule act, i was talking about the 23rd amendment. there was an allegation that republicans somehow don't care about this issue. it's actually opposite. republicans are the ones that have advanced more rights for the district of columbia. think about it. it was actually the kennedy and the carter administrations, both their departments of justice concluded that for d.c. to be a state it would require a constitutional amendment. they were on our side of this argument. and historically it was president eisenhower who pushed through the 23rd amendment to get d.c. three electoral votes.
3:20 pm
just a side note, it was representative prescott bush, grandfather of george w. bush, who was instrumental in passing the 23rd amendment. they were both republicans. and it was president nixon who signed the home rule act into law. this has been republican-led since the very beginning. there was also an argument about d.c. residents -- this is somehow a civil rights issue. civil rights -- that's an actual term of art. civil rights is a violation when the rights are denied because a person is who the person is. d.c. residents don't have a lack of representation in congress because of who they are, but instead of where they choose to live. and this isn't just me making this argument. the late democrat representative john dingell made a similar argument. i'll quote the late representative dingell. quote, i have supported every
3:21 pm
single civil rights measure that has passed this congress since 1955. but we have to look at the facts before us. no citizen of washington, d.c., is changing the pillars of the -- is changed -- chained to the pillars of the u.s. capitol. they can leave any time they want. to say this is a civil rights violation is insulting to actual civil rights violations. then let's go back to the three electoral votes issue. if we do follow this course of action, and not repeal the 23rd amendment before enacting d.c. statehood, you're going to have, as my colleague from maryland just admitted, a sloppy and messy situation. where the new state gets three electoral votes and the federal enclave gets three electoral votes. who lives in the federal enclave? it would be the first family. so you would presumably give the incumbent three electoral votes in the election and then d.c. itself three electoral votes. madam speaker, with that i would like to yield three
3:22 pm
minutes to the gentlelady, my good friend and colleague from oklahoma. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. mrs. bice: thank you, madam speaker. and thank you to the gentleman from pennsylvania for yielding. i rise today in opposition to the combined rule and to the underlying measures, including h.r. 51, the washington, d.c., admission act. once again our friends from across the aisle are making an attempt to gain more control in congress. this time in the senate. by trying to hide behind the guise that residents of the district of columbia do not have the means for adequate representation in congress. while americans deserve full voting representation from their national government, our forefathers never intended for the federal see the of government to serve as -- seat of government to serve as a statement the founders intended the capitol to be a neutral ground for sovereign states to work together to conduct the nation's business. this bill does not at all follow what our forefathers
3:23 pm
envisioned. h.r. 1 overlooks the u.s. constitution, in which article 1, section 8, clause 17, designated washington as a federal district, not a state. that alone should make this legislation unconstitutional. because the district of columbia's status is spelled out, it would take a constitutional amendment to grant permission for this democratic power play. there have been several alternative proposals and amendments -- >> madam speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house will be in order. the gentlelady may proceed. mrs. bice: thank you, madam speaker. there have been several alternative proposals and amendments put forward by republicans. none of which have been heard. my colleague, representative dusty johnson from south dakota, has proposed the district of columbia, maryland reunion act, which i have co-sponsored, that would revert the majority of residents of d.c. back to the state of maryland. the national mall and other
3:24 pm
federal buildings would remain as the district of columbia. before we create a new state, we should return d.c.'s residential areas back to the original state they were served. with h.r. 51, democrats have yet again failed to examine the consequences of their rushed actions to gain more control in congress. the district of columbia has received billions of dollars from the federal government to fund its entire judicial branch of government, among other things, which would end under statehood. but democrats were thinking -- weren't thinking about the nuts and bolts of -- were thinking about the nuts and bolts of how to make d.c. a state before h.r. 51. the only thought this their mind were two more senate seats. more control of the government. more control of american taxpayer dollars. more out of control spending. more federal overreach into the lives of everyday americans. we've been down this path many times in congress. voting yet again on a bill that has had no input from republicans, nor has had much chance of receiving any republican support on the floor. president biden was elected on
3:25 pm
the premise of working together with republicans, extending a hand across the aisle to do what is best for american people. i have struggled to find many examples of what that bipartisanship i share with my constituents in oklahoma. what i do have are plent of -- plenty of examples of democratic power plays and unwillingness to allow the voices of republicans be heard and h.r. 51 stands as a prime example of both. i encourage my colleagues to oppose the combined rule and to oppose h.r. 51. madam speaker, i yield the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. raskin: thank you, madam speaker. the gentlelady invites us to return the district of columbia to maryland, which of course debunks the argument that congress cannot modify the boundaries of the district of columbia. but in any event, that's not what the people of washington, d.c., have asked for. they've used their rights as american citizens under the ninth amendment of the constitution to organize a new state and to petition congress
3:26 pm
for admission to the union. neither has the maryland general assembly asked for a return of the lands to maryland. so that certainly answers the set of political conditions that don't exist in the real world. with that, i'm going to yield three minutes to my friend, the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for three minutes. ms. jackson lee: breaking news, as i thank the gentleman from maryland, and particularly thank the hard work of the gentlewoman from washington, d.c., the 51st state, the honorable eleanor holmes norton. the people of washington, d.c., pay taxes. they wear the uniform of the united states of america. and the legislation my friends on the other side of the aisle are proposing is to propose a dictation as usual from the united states federal government on the people of washington, d.c. is anybody in washington, d.c., raising their hand to be able to participate in the legislation that my friends are offering on this floor, which
3:27 pm
is to partition, we know what partition means, partition colored people, in dominance, and put them wherever the federal government thinks they should belong. i think they need to think twice about that. and really if this is a country of the people and for the people, if this is a house of representatives, then the people of washington, d.c., deserve to be represented. and they deserve to be represented by the four squares of the dictates and vote of the people of the united states congress. i'm appalled that we would over the decades ignore the blood that was shed by those from washington, d.c., the history that was made by those from washington, d.c., and the service that was given by those from washington, d.c. so i rise to support the legislation that provides for the washington, d.c., admission act, h.r. 51. i thank the leadership for that legislation. in this rule we have a combination of restoring rights. that is what h.r. 51 does, restoring and igniting rights.
3:28 pm
h.r. 1573, access to counsel, of my friend and colleague from washington state, is a commonsense initiative. we are a nation of laws. do we not respect the right to counsel? yes, these are persons that are noncitizens. but they have the right if in secondary detention to call a relative, to call a lawyer of which they pay for. what about little ali, as i rushed to the airport on that fateful day when the president of the united states, president trump, declared that all muslims were banned? what an outrageous experience and an outrageous experience i've had with other entries that have been detained, where they couldn't call an uncle or aunt, they couldn't call their mother, their father, their wife. little ali could not call his relatives, they were outside the gate waiting for him. where did that 15-year-old with e-- egyptian with documented papers wind up? he wound up in chicago in a children's detention facility.
3:29 pm
so, i support the right to counsel. h.r. 1573. access to counsel act. and finally, h.r. 1333, ali came under the muslim ban, by president trump. let's just say it. an outrageous act. we literally got off the plane, members of congress who were flying in from washington, and rushed to the airport because of what was happening to our constituents. i support the no ban act under h.r. 1333. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. ms. jackson lee: and ask my colleagues to support this legislation. the constitution reigns. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. reschenthaler: thank you, madam chair. there was talk about retrosession. there can be arguments that the former retrosession was unconstitutional. the house of representatives tried to pass a bill to say just that. it passed and unfortunately it sat in the senate judiciary committee without passing and
3:30 pm
challenged the supreme court -- and the challenge of the supreme court was dismissed on procedural grounds. we have to remember the many reasons the district is just that, a district. it's because the founding fathers did not want to create an imperial state that had too much influence and control over the capitol. my colleague from maryland actually wrote about this in 1990 in a law review article published in a law review and i quote. the representatives from the new state likely living minutes from their offices will theoretically devote more time to institutional and committee politics unless the constant travel back and -- and less to constant travel back and forth across the country, increasing their importance and influence on capitol hill, end quode -- end quote. that was my colleague from maryland. that was not my assertion. if d.c. does become a state, you will create almost by definition a supercongressman in this body, two supersenators that yield much more influence
3:31 pm
than others who have to travel back and forth to the district. . madam speaker, i yield as much time as she may consume, to the gentlelady from arizona. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from arizona is recognized. mrs. lesko: thank you, madam speaker. and thank you, mr. reschenthaler. the underlying legislation we are considering in this rule is extremely alarming. we have two out-of-touch immigration bills that do nothing to address our current immigration crisis. and then we have a partisan priority that wreaks of the swamp and is simply unconstitutional. h.r. 1333 restricts any president's authority to suspend entry into the united states from certain foreign nationals for national security or public
3:32 pm
health reasons. putting the safety of americans at risk. with h.r. 1573, it appears my colleagues on the other side of the aisle plan to address the crisis at our southern border by sending in the lawyers. president biden created this crisis with his policies. and this bill just continues to encourage more people to come and cross our border illegally. we wrap up in this rule with the most ridiculous legislation of all. the unconstitutional h.r. 51. our founders envisioned our nation's capital set apart from the states and enshrined that in our constitution. no action by this body can make
3:33 pm
washington, d.c., a state nor is there a reason to take such action other than to ensure the democrat party receives two more seats in the united states senate. i stand in opposition to the underlying bills, and i urge my colleagues to vote against the rule. and i yield back. mr. reschenthaler: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. raskin: madam speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from maryland, my colleague, the majority leader, mr. hoyer. i'll reserve. i'm curious, do you have any more speakers on your side?
3:34 pm
mr. reschenthaler: we're prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland. reserves? the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. reschenthaler: i reserve. mr. raskin: ok. i will yield one minute to the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. the majority leader is recognized for one minute. mr. hoyer: i thank you, madam speaker. first of all, i rise in strong support of this resolution. it makes in order that we will not discriminate against people based upon their religion or the state from which they come, the nation from which they come. it says not at our cost but
3:35 pm
their cost they will have the right to consult counsel. that seems to be a basic premise in america. and then thirdly, which we hear so much about, it gives to 700,000-plus people in the district of columbia equal status with the 500,000 people in wyoming. how terrible. now, perhaps, if my friends from the other side of the aisle, madam speaker, thought there were going to be two republican senators elected, they'd be for it. i say perhaps, but i believe there's no doubt about that. i am proud to be a strong
3:36 pm
supporter of that legislation. and i will tell my republican friends who talk about human rights around the world so often, properly so, that washington, d.c., is the only capitol in the free world whose residents don't have a representative in the parliament of the country. the only one. there is no reason why the gentlelady, who sits in front of me, eleanor holmes norton, who is an extraordinary american, an extraordinary patriot, who served her nation so incredibly well, and is elected by those 700,000 people, why she is less than we. because eleanor holmes norton cannot vote on final passage of a bill. i did as majority leader at
3:37 pm
least give her the respect and the respect of others who are representatives of their particular areas, puerto rico, american samoa, guam, the northern marianas the right to vote in the committee of the whole. to let them know at least in that small way we wanted to give voice to the folks they represent. so i rise in strong support of this rule. we passed these bills before. republicans opposed them before. and they'll oppose them again. i'm not surprised. madam speaker, before i -- i want to speak about another issue. we're anticipating the republican leader to offer a privileged resolution.
3:38 pm
his resolution is being used by republicans to deposit a moral equivalence between a comment by the gentlelady from california standing up for justice and peaceful protests and remarks by representative greene who directly threatened violence by retweeting a tweet. i understand it was not her words. but she retweeted -- retweeted those words which said that if you want to shut pelosi up, a bullet to the head would accomplish that objective. she didn't say it. i want to make that clear. she retweeted a tweet that said that. even more egregious, it's going to twist reality to say that somehow congresswoman waters' remarks is a condemnable remark as rhetoric that insites a --
3:39 pm
incites a violent attempt to overthrow the government of the united states on january 6, an action that republicans refused to condemn. no, i will not. there is no equivalence. chairwoman waters' remarks reflect the very profound anger and sense of hopelessness that she and so many others, myself included, feel when we see african-americans being killed during encounters with our law enforcement. and their families not seeing justice. it's my understanding we'll get a ruling, perhaps, almost any minute. we will see. it is, however, irresponsible to
3:40 pm
take chair waters' remarks out of conduct -- context to just hold a gotcha partisan vote. particularly when no action was taken by their party, by her party regarding mrs. greene's remarks. it is, frankly, exploiting the pain of so many am if a lease and communities -- families and communities to turn chairwoman waters' concern for justice into something partisan. as my friend, the dearly departed e-lidgea cummings -- elijah cummings would used to say and would surely say now, we are better than this. so, when the minority leader offers his motion, i will offer a motion to table and urge all my colleagues to support that
3:41 pm
motion. i urge all of my colleagues to pick up their dictionary. turn to the c's. and look up confront. confront is to face the facts. confront is to face the truth. confront is to face the challenges that we have. and that is what ms. waters urged. and i would suggest to my friend, the minority leader, madam speaker, that if confrontation is subject to sanction, then we're going to have a lot of people on your side of the aisle whom we believe is confrontational every day.
3:42 pm
confront is not violence. confront is not waving guns and say some groups' biggest fear. confront is not to say be violent in confronting the facts and the truth and the opportunities and the challenges. and, yes, the alternatives that we ought to take. and so if one of us stands up and said, we need to confront this and we need to be confrontational, we need to get up in people's faces saying, this is the truth and we need to act, and that would be subject to admonition. then, i suggest to my friend, madam speaker, and my friends in
3:43 pm
this house that we all confront. we came here to represent people. and to confront their needs, to confront their fears, to confront their wants. now, yes, you could say that's advocacy. of course, it is. and so i ask my friends not only to vote for this rule but to vote for the motion to table on my friend's motion that i anticipate. we could spend all our time here, madam speaker. we've been on this side of the aisle as my friend, the leader, knows. we haven't had all the resolutions that have been introduced on my side of the aisle. this makes it harder, however.
3:44 pm
not to proceed on numerous resolutions on my side of the aisle. let us table this resolution. on behalf of this institution and every member in it. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland reserves. mr. raskin: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. reschenthaler: thank you, madam speaker. i would just like to confirm that my colleague across the aisle has no further speakers. mr. raskin: we have no further speakers, and we're prepared to close. and i would reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. reschenthaler: thank you, madam speaker. i'm prepared to close, and i i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. reschenthaler: thank you, madam speaker. it's interesting to hear my colleague from maryland's new found positions, because in the 1990's, i believe the majority leader actually had the opposite viewpoint and took the opposite vote. but then again, things can change and so can opinions.
3:45 pm
it's also interesting to hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle use d.c.'s population as some justification for d.c. statehood. we know that the founding fathers knew that d.c. would grow into a large metropolis. george washington, when he was laying out this city, when he was laying out the land use of the city, actually used paris as the example for the city, which was at the time 800,000 residents. . they used one of the biggest cities in europe as an example for this city because they knew that the district of columbia would grow. yet they still wanted to carve out d.c. as an independent district, not as a state. the argument that there are now 700,000-some residents of d.c. is a nonstart father you're going back to the historical intent of the founding fathers. but let's talk about the border crisis. there has been a 400% increase in illegal border crossings
3:46 pm
compared to march, 2020. 400%. yet today we're considering a rule bringing up two immigration bills that do absolutely nothing to address this crisis. and again, we're calling up a rule, on h.r. 51, that is the democrats' attempt at unconstitutional -- attempt, an unconstitutional attempt, to ram through d.c. statehood for their own political gain. what is that gain? it's very simple. it's bringing in two ultraliberal senators. d.c. is the most liberal city, second only to san francisco, bringing in two ultraliberal senators into the senate with the idea of abolishing the filibuster and to what end, to pack the supreme court, to ram through a far-left radical agenda. for those reasons, madam speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question and no on the underlying measure. thank you, and i yield back the
3:47 pm
balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. raskin: thank you, madam speaker. let me start with this, the majority leader hardly needs me to defend him. but i know that he was a strong supporter of the d.c. voting rights constitutional amendment , where there was actually bipartisan support in those days -- support. in those days republicans understood the grievous injustice being perpetrated against people in washington, d.c. and they supported granting people in d.c. two senators or what might colleague would call two ultraliberal senators, as well as the representatives in the house to which they were due. so there were certainly people who were saying there were other ways of accomplishing it. now, unfortunately that bipartisan consensus collapsed, even though it passed the senate and the house back in the day. i don't hear any of my colleagues saying they're for it now. so, mr. hoyer, the majority leader, is supporting the only
3:48 pm
viable vehicle for getting equal rights for people in washington, d.c., that exist today, which is statehood, which is how 37 new states entered the union with congress' exercise of its powers under article 4 of the constitution. the gentleman waxes eloquent about the vision of a great capital city, but being a strict tectualist, i assume that he wants to pay some attention to the text of the constitution. article 1, section 8, clause 17, the district clause, sets a maximum, a ceiling, that the district may be no more than 10 miles square, but there's no minimum there. it didn't say it must be at least six miles square, or two miles square or three miles. no, that's up to congress. in other words, it's a political question within congressional power, our power over the district of columbia. now, finally, the gentleman i suppose gets to the heart of the matter when he says that for him it's all about two
3:49 pm
ultraliberal senators. and i would ask every member of this body to think about that for a second. reflect about that. because in america, i don't think we deny people voting rights based on how they're going to vote. i don't think we deny entire states and political communities representation based on predictions of who they might elect. in fact, there's a supreme court case about that called carrington vs. rash. when armed service members in texas were disenfranchised because it was suggested that they would vote in a way more identified with the national government than with local cultural values in texas and the supreme court struck it down and said, in american democracy, we do not allow government to disenfranchise people based on predictions of how they're going to vote or who they are going to elect. and that's precisely what the gentleman invites us to do here, to deny 712,000 tax paying, draftable u.s. citizens
3:50 pm
who came to our aid on january 6, to deny them their equal rights under the union, under the flag, because he predicts that they're going to elect people whose policy views are contrary to his own. and i would suggest that's totally antithetical to the meaning of american constitutional democracy. everybody should take a walk around washington and you will see, in the yards of all of the people here, we pass through every day when we come to washington, and they have flags up that say d.c. 51. they want their statehood. let's listen to the people of washington. and if you can't quite stomach that, then read the republican party platform itself, which calls for puerto rican statehood. and let's see if we can do it together. let's bring in millions of disenfranchised people in america. and still i get radio silence from my colleagues on that. not a single one will opine about whether or not the people
3:51 pm
of puerto rico should be admitted as a state. so, with that, madam chair, i would urge all of our colleagues to vote yes on the rule and the previous question. i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the previous question is ordered. the gentleman from pennsylvania -- pursuant to section 3-s of house resolution 8, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that -- pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> madam speaker, i rise -- mr. mccarthy: madam speaker, i rise to a question of the privileges of the house and offer the resolution, house resolution 331, censoring
3:52 pm
representative maxine m. waters. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 331. whereas on the evening of april 17, 2021, representative maxine m. waters of california joined protesters in brooklyn center, minnesota, who were gathered outside the brooklyn center police department, whereas representative maxine m. waters said, we're looking for a guilty verdict in the trial of derek chauvin. whereas representative maxine m. waters said that if there was not a guilty verdict, protesters on the streets should stay on the streets and we've got to get more active, we've got to get more confrontational, we've got to make sure they know we mean business. whereas on april 19, 2021, the judge in the trial of derek chauvin, judge peter cahill, said in reply to derek chauvin's defense attorney said, i give that chairwoman waters may give you something on appeal that will overturn the trial.
3:53 pm
whereas judge cahill stated, i wish elected officials would stop talking about this case, especially when it's disrespectful to the rule of law and the judicial branch. whereas judge cahill stated, i think if they want to give their opinions they should do so in a respectful manner, in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the constitution, to respect the co-equal branch of government. their failure to do so i think is abhorrent. now therefore be it resolved that, one, representative maxine m. waters of california be censured. two, representative maxine m. waters forthwith present herself in the well of the house for the pronouncement of censure. and, three, representative maxine m. waters be censured with the public reading of this resolution by the speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the resolution qualifies. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? mr. hoyer: i have a motion at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. hoyer moves that the resolution be laid on the table.
3:54 pm
the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to lay the resolution on the table. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. mccarthy: madam speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 3-s of house resolution 8, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
3:55 pm
3:56 pm
3:57 pm
3:58 pm
3:59 pm
4:00 pm
4:01 pm
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> as the member designated by ms. bonnie watson coleman, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mrs. watson coleman will vote yes on the motion to table. as the member designated by mr. donald payne, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. payne will vote yes on the motion to table.
4:02 pm
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> as the member designated by ms. stefanik, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that ms. stefanik will vote nay on the motion to table. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from massachusetts
4:03 pm
seek recognition? >> as the member designated by ms. meng, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that ms. meng will vote yes on the motion to table.
4:04 pm
4:05 pm
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from washington seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by ms. sewell, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that ms. sewell will vote yes on the motion to table.
4:06 pm
4:07 pm
4:08 pm
4:09 pm
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> as the member designated by ms. leger-fernandez, pursuant to
4:10 pm
house resolution 8, i inform the house that ms. he jer fernandez will vote yes on the motion to table. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek to be recognized? >> as the member designated by mr. wilson soft south carolina, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. wilson will vote nay on the motion to table.
4:11 pm
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by congress member costa, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that congress member costa will vote yes on the motion to table. and madam speaker, as the member designated by congress member napolitano, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that congress member napolitano will vote yes on the motion to table.
4:12 pm
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. gibbs, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. gibbs will vote no on the resolution to table.
4:13 pm
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> thanks, madam speaker. as the member designated by mr. moulton of massachusetts,
4:14 pm
pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. moulton will vote yes on the motion to table. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from connecticut seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mrs. wilson, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mrs. wilson will vote yes on the motion to table. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. welch of vermont, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. welch will vote yes on the motion to table.
4:15 pm
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mrs. kirkpatrick, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mrs. kirkpatrick will vote yes on the motion to table. the speaker pro tempore: for
4:16 pm
what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. connolly: madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. mfume of maryland, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. mfume will vote yes on the motion to table. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. palazzo of mississippi, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. palazzo will vote nay on the motion to table. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> madam speaker, thank you. as the member designated by mr. crenshaw, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr.
4:17 pm
crenshaw will be voting nay on the motion to table. thank you very much. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> as the member designated by representative cardenas, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that representative cardenas will vote aye on the motion to table. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. evans: madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. lawson of florida, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. lawson will vote yes on the motion to table.
4:18 pm
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from virginia seek recognition? ms. wexton: madam speaker, as the member designated by mr.
4:19 pm
allred, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. allred will vote yes on the motion to table. as the member designated by ms. porter, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that ms. porter will vote yes on the motion to table. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois seek recognition? ms. underwood: as the member designated by mr. rush, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. rush will vote yes on the motion to table.
4:20 pm
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. garcia: madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. grijalva, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. grijalva will vote yes on the motion to table. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. lynch: good afternoon, madam speaker. as the member designated by the honorable mrs. trahan of massachusetts, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house
4:21 pm
that mrs. trahan will vote yes on the motion to table h.r. 331. and as the member designated by the honorable mr. langevin of rhode island, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. langevin will also vote yes on the motion to table h.res. 331. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from missouri seek recognition? ms. bush: as the member designated by ms. omar, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that ms. omar will vote yes on the motion to table.
4:22 pm
4:23 pm
4:24 pm
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? >> thank you, madam speaker.
4:25 pm
member -- mrs. cammack: thank you, madam speaker. as the member designated by mr. donald of florida, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. donald will vote nay on the motion to table.
4:26 pm
4:27 pm
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. beyer: as the member designated by ms. barragan,
4:28 pm
pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that ms. barragan will vote yes on the motion to table. as the member designated by mr. lieu, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. lieu will vote yes on the motion to table. as the member designated by mr. lowenthal, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. lowenthal will vote yes on the motion to table.
4:29 pm
4:30 pm
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 216. the nays are 210. the motion is adopted. without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on ordering the
4:31 pm
previous question on house resolution 330 on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 14, house resolution 330, resolution providing for considering of the bill h.r. 51, to provide for admission of the state of washington, d.c. into the union. providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 15 3, to clarify the rights of all persons who are held or detained at a port of entry or at any detention facility overseen by the united states customs and border protection or united states immigration and customs enforcement. providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 1333 to transfer and limit executive branch authority to suspend or restrict the entry of a class of aliens, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question. members will record their votes by electronic device.
4:32 pm
[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] >> for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. mcgovern: as the member designated by mr. welch of vermont, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. welch will vote yes on ordering the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. wilson of south carolina, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. wilson will vote nay on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from virginia seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. allred, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. allred will vote yes on ordering the previous question. ms. wexton: as the member designated by ms. porter, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that ms. porter will vote yes on ordering the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? >> thank you, madam speaker.
4:33 pm
as the member designated by mr. donleds of florida, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. donleds will vote nay on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> as the member designated by representative cardenas, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. cardenas will vote aye on ordering the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. grijalva, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. grijalva will vote yes on ordering the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> as the member designated by ms. kirk patic, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mrs. kirkpatrick will vote yes on ordering the previous question.
4:34 pm
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by congress member costa, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that congress member costa will vote yes on ordering the previous question. and madam speaker, as the member designated by congress member napolitano, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that congress member napolitano will vote yes on ordering the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition?
4:35 pm
>> madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. palazzo of mississippi, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. paw law zoe will vote nay on -- mr. palazzo will vote nay on the previous question. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from massachusetts seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by ms. meng, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that ms. meng will vote yes on ordering the previous question.
4:36 pm
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by ms. barragan, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that ms. barragan will vote yes on ordering the previous question. as the member designated by mr. lieu, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. lieu will vote yes on ordering the previous question. as the member designated by mr. lowenthal, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. lowenthal will vote yes on ordering the previous question.
4:37 pm
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman rise? >> as the member designated by ms. la jay fernandez, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that ms. leger fernandez will vote yes on ordering the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. lynch: good afternoon, madam speaker. as the member designated by mrs. lori trahan of massachusetts, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mrs. trahan will vote yes on the motion to move the previous question on house res. 330. madam speaker, as the member designated by the honorable mr. james langevin of rhode island, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. langevin will also vote yes on the motion to move the previous
4:38 pm
question on h.r. -- house resolution 330. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from connecticut seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mrs. wilson, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mrs. wilson will vote yes on ordering the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member
4:39 pm
designated by mr. moulton, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. moulton will vote yes on ordering the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. lawson of florida, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. lawson will vote yes on ordering the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from missouri seek recognition? >> as the member designated by ms. ill hand omar, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that ms. omar will vote yes on ordering the previous question.
4:40 pm
4:41 pm
4:42 pm
4:43 pm
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> thank you, madam speaker.
4:44 pm
as the member designated by mr. dan crenshaw, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. crenshaw will be voting nay on the previous question. thank you.
4:45 pm
4:46 pm
4:47 pm
4:48 pm
4:49 pm
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois seek recognition? ms. underwood: as the member designated by mr. rush, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. rush will vote yes on ordering the previous question.
4:50 pm
4:51 pm
4:52 pm
4:53 pm
4:54 pm
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. pallone: madam speaker, as the member designated by mrs. bonnie watson coleman, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mrs. watson coleman will vote yes on ordering the previous question. as the member designated by mr. donald payne, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. payne will vote yes on ordering the previous question.
4:55 pm
4:56 pm
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. connolly: madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. mfume of maryland, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. mfume will vote yes on ordering the previous question.
4:57 pm
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by ms. stefanik, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that ms. stefanik will vote no on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from washington seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by ms. sewell, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that ms. sewell will vote yes on ordering the previous question.
4:58 pm
4:59 pm
5:00 pm
5:01 pm
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 216, the nays are 206. the previous question is
5:02 pm
ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. >> madam speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 3-s of house resolution 8, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
5:03 pm
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. grijalva, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. grijalva will vote aye on h.res. 330. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. lynch: as the member designated by the honorable ms. lori trahan of massachusetts, pursuant to house resolution 8,
5:04 pm
i inform the house that mrs. trahan will vote yes on h.res. 330, the rule providing for consideration of h.r. 51, the washington, d.c. admissions act, h.r. 1573, the access to counsel act of 2021, and h.r. 1333 the no ban act. and madam speaker, as the member designated by the honorable mr. james langevin of rhode island, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. langevin will also vote yes on house res. 330, the rule providing for consideration of h.r. 5 , the washington, d.c. admission act, h.r. 1573rk the access to counsel act of 2021, and h.r. 1333, the no ban act. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. lawson of
5:05 pm
florida, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. lawson will vote yes on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from washington seek recognition? >> as the member designated by ms. sewell, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that ms. sewell will vote yes on h.res. 330. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition?
5:06 pm
mr. connolly: madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. mfume of maryland, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. mfume will vote yes on h.res. 330. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. rush, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. rush will vote yes on h.res. 30. -- h.res. 330. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by congress member
5:07 pm
costa, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that congress member costa will vote yes on h.res. 330. and madam speaker, as the member designated by congress member napolitano, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that congress member napolitano will vote yes on h. resolution 330.
5:08 pm
5:09 pm
5:10 pm
5:11 pm
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? as the member designated by ms. leger fernandez, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that ms. he jay fernandez will vote yes -- ms. leger fernandez will vote yes on h.r. 330. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from connecticut seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mrs. wilson, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mrs. wilson will vote yes on h.res. 330. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does does the gentlewoman from missouri seek recognition? ms. bush: as the member
5:12 pm
designated by ms. ilhan omar, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that ms. omar will vote yes on h.res. 330.
5:13 pm
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. moulton of massachusetts, pursuant to house resolution 8,
5:14 pm
i inform the house that mr. moulton will vote yes on h.res. 330. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from virginia seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. allred, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. allred will vote yes on h.res. 330. as the member designated by ms. porter, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that ms. porter will vote yes on h.res. 330.
5:15 pm
5:16 pm
5:17 pm
5:18 pm
5:19 pm
5:20 pm
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from massachusetts seek recognition? ms. clark: madam speaker, as the
5:21 pm
member designated by ms. meng, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that ms. meng will vote yes on h.res. 330. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. welch of vermont, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. welch will vote yes on h.res. 330. the speaker pro tempore: for
5:22 pm
what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? mr. fleischmann: madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. palazzo of mississippi, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. palazzo will vote nay on h.res. 330. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. beyer: madam speaker, as the member designated by ms. barragan, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that ms. barragan will vote yes on h.res. 330. as the member designated by mr. lieu, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. lieu will vote yes on h.res. 330. as the member designated by mr. lowenthal, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. lowenthal will vote yes on h.res. 330.
5:23 pm
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition?
5:24 pm
mr. timmons: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. wilson of south carolina, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. wilson will vote nay on h.res. 330. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. katko: mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. stefanik, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that ms. stefanik will vote no on h.res. 330.
5:25 pm
5:26 pm
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. fallon: thank you, madam speaker. as the member designated by mr. dan crenshaw, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. crenshaw will be voting no on h.res. 330. thank you.
5:27 pm
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. pallone: madam speaker, as the member designated by mrs. bonnie watson coleman, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mrs. watson coleman will vote yes on h.res. 330. and as the member designated by mr. donald payne, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. payne will vote yes on h.res. 330. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. stanton: as the member designated by representative cardenas, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that representative cardenas will vote aye on -- mr. gallego: as the member designated by representative cardenas,
5:28 pm
pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that representative cardenas will vote aye on h.res. 330. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does -- for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? mrs. cammack: thank you. as the member designated by mr. donalds of florida, pursuant to
5:29 pm
h.res. 8 pursuant to h.res. 8 -- i inform the house that mr. donalds will vote nay on h.res. 330.
5:30 pm
5:31 pm
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> as the member designated by ms. kirk pat rig, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mrs. kirkpatrick will vote yes on h.res. 3 306789
5:32 pm
5:33 pm
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 214. the nays are 207. the resolution is adopted.
5:34 pm
without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. hoyer: madam speaker, the house is not in order. mr. hoyer: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman
5:35 pm
from maryland seek recognition? mr. hoyer: madam speaker. pursuant to section 6 of house resolution 330, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 367, h.r. 370, h.r. 396, h.r. 397, h.r. 408, h.r. 490, h.r. 965, h.r. 1251, h.r. 1395, h.r. 1491, h.r. 1528, h.r. 1532, h.r. 1565, h.r. 1602, and h.r. 2523, and agree to house resolution 124. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the titeles of the bills and reresolution. the clerk: a bill to amend the
5:36 pm
homeland security oosket 2002 to establish a professional career program and for other purposes. h reform 370, a bill to amend the homeland security act of 2002, to make technical corrections to the requirement that the secretary of homeland security submit quad renall homeland security reviews and for other purposes. h.r. 396, a bill to amend the implementing recommendations of the 9/11 commigget act of 2007 to allow certain allowable uses of funds for transportation security assistant grants and establish periods of performance for such grants and for other purposes. h.r. 397, to bill to amend he te homeland security act of 2002 to establish chemical buy y logical, radiolonl call and nuclear intelligence and sharing functions with oh office of intelligence and analysis of the department of homeland security and require dissemination of such information to entities
5:37 pm
with responsibles relating to homeland security an for other purposes. h.r. 408, a bill to amend the homeland scuct act to establish a mentor-protege program and for other purposes. h reform 490, a bill to amend the homeland security act of 2002, improve morale in the department of homeland security by confering new responsibilities to the chief human capital officer, establishing a steering committee, requiring action plans, and authorizing an annual employee award program and for other purposes. h.r. 965 a bill to establish a comprehensive united states government initiative to build a capacity of young leaders and entrepreneurs in africa and for other purposes. h.r. 1251, a bill to support the united states international cyber diplomacy and for other purposes. h.r. 1395, a bill to require the secretary of housing and urban development to discount f.h.a.,
5:38 pm
single family mortgage insurance pames for first-time home buyers who complete a financial literacy housing programming. a bill to amend the fair dect collection act to prohibit harassment of members of the armed services. h.r. 1528, a bill to require this securities and exchange commission to carry out a study of rule 10-c-5-1 trading plans and for other purposes. h.r. 1532, a bill to require to a review of the effects of f.h. ample mortgage insurance policies, practices and products on small dollar mortgage lending and for other purposes. h.r. 1565, a bill to create and interdivisional task force at the securities and exchange commission for senior investors. h.r. 1602. a bill to direct the commodity futures trading commission and
5:39 pm
securities and exchange commission to jointly establish a digital asset working group and for other purposes. h.r. 2523, a bill to amend the american rescue plan act of 2021 to improve the covid-19 retraining assistance program to make certain technical crecks to the johnny isakson and david p. rowe benefits imprusme act of 2020 and for other purposes. house resolution 124, resolution supporting the people of belarus and their democratic aspirations ancon democratting the election rigging and subsequent violent rkdowns on peaceful protesters by the ill legitimate lukashenko regime. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section g, house resolution 32340erk ordering of the yace and nays on motions to spralls with respect to such measures is vacated to the end that all such motions are
5:40 pm
considered as withdrawn. the house will be in order. the question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from maryland. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended -- the gentleman from texas. >> i ask for the yeas and nays. recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 3-s of house resolution , the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
5:41 pm
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mrs. kirkpatrick, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mrs. kirkpatrick will vote yes on the motion to suspend. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. beyer: as the member designated by ms. barragan, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that ms. barragan will vote yes on the motion to suspend. as the member designated by mr. lowenthal, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. lowenthal will vote yes on the motion to suspend. as the member designated by mr. lieu, pursuant to house
5:42 pm
resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. lieu will vote yes on the motion to suspend. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? >> good afternoon, madam speaker. as the member designated by ms. lori trahan of massachusetts pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mrs. trahan will vote yes on the motion to pass certain bills and agree to a resolution. as the member designated by mr. james langevin of rhode island, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. langevin will vote yes on the motion to suspend the rules and pass certain bills and agree to a resolution. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. wilson of south carolina, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the
5:43 pm
house that mr. wilson will vote yea on the suspensions en bloc. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by congress member costa, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that congress member costa will vote yes on the motion to suspend. and madam speaker, as the member designated by congress member napolitano, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that congress member napolitano will vote yes on the motion to suspend. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> as the member designated by ms. stefanik, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that ms. stefanik will vote yes
5:44 pm
on the suspensions en bloc. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from missouri seek recognition? >> as the member designated by ms. ilhan omar, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that ms. omar will vote no on the motion to suspend. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. palazzo of mississippi, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. palazzo will vote yea on the suspensions en bloc. thank you.
5:45 pm
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by ms. fernandez, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that ms. fernandez will vote yea on the suspensions en bloc. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. fallon: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. crenshaw, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. crenshaw will vote aye on the
5:46 pm
motion to suspend the rules. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? mrs. cammack: thank you, madam speaker. as the member designated by mr. donalds from florida, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. florida will vote nay on the suspension en bloc. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from virginia seek recognition? ms. wexton: mr. speaker -- madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. allred, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. allred will vote yes on the motion to suspend. as the member designated by ms. porter, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that ms. porter will vote yes on the motion to suspend.
5:47 pm
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. welch of vermont, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. welch will vote yes on the motion to suspend. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does -- for what -- for what purpose does the gentlewoman from massachusetts seek recognition? ms. clark: madam speaker, as the member designated by ms. meng, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that ms. meng will vote yes on the motion to suspend. foip for what purpose does -- the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. pallone: madam speaker, as the member designated by mrs.
5:48 pm
bonnie watson coleman, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mrs. watson coleman will vote yes on the motion to suspend. and as the member designated by mr. donald payne, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. payne will vote yes on the motion to suspend. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. garcia: madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. grijalva, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. grijalva will vote yes on the motion to suspend. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from connecticut seek recognition? mrs. hayes: as the member designated by ms. wilson, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that ms. wilson will vote yes on the motion to suspend.
5:49 pm
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. connolly: madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. mfume of maryland, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. mfume will vote yes on the motion to suspend. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. evans: madam speaker, as the
5:50 pm
member designated by mr. lawson of florida, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. lawson votes yes on the motion to suspend. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. perlmutter: madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. moulton of massachusetts, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. moulton will vote yes on the motions to suspend.
5:51 pm
5:52 pm
5:53 pm
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois seek recognition? ms. underwood: as the member designated by mr. rush, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. rush will vote yes on the motion to suspend. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from washington seek recognition? ms. delbene: madam speaker, as
5:54 pm
the member designated by ms. sewell, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that ms. sewell will vote yes on the motion to suspend.
5:55 pm
5:56 pm
5:57 pm
5:58 pm
5:59 pm
6:00 pm
6:01 pm
6:02 pm
6:03 pm
6:04 pm
6:05 pm
6:06 pm
6:07 pm
6:08 pm
6:09 pm
6:10 pm
6:11 pm
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 355. the nays are 69. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. objection is heard. for what purpose does the gentleman from men marriage penalty seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i have a motion at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. philips of minnesota moves to reconsider the haute vote on adoption of the motion to suspend the rules. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from minnesota seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i have a motion at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: ms. mccollum of minnesota moves to lay the motion to reconsider on the table. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to table. so many as are in favor say aye.
6:12 pm
those opposed, no. the ayes have it. pursuant sew section 3 of house resolution 8, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i rise to inform the house i hereby remove my name as a co-sponsor of h.r. 2091. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's request is ordered.
6:13 pm
the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the speaker: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i rise with my colleagues from the state of colorado to honor the 10 precious lives lost at the king super grocery store in my congressional district in boulder, colorado, on march 22. mr. neguse: there are no words to express how the boulder community is feeling in the wake of this tragedy. our hearts are broken. the loss of life are heartbreaking. 10 lives taken too soon, daughters, sons, neighbors, spouse, co-workers, community members. each of whom left a profound impact on our community. officer eric tali, denny, neffvin, ricky, suzanne, terry, kevin, lynn, and jody. today may we remember them and
6:14 pm
honor them as we lift their names and express our deepest condolences to their families. i hope everyone in the house would now join me for a moment of silence. spoibling thank you, mr. neguse. the chair asks all those present in the chamber as well as members and staff throughout the capitol to please rise for a moment of silence.
6:15 pm
the speaker: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from minnesota seek recognition? >> madam speaker, on behalf of the minnesota delegation, i offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker: without objection, the resolution is agreed to -- the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 333. resolved, that the house has heard with profound sorrow of the death of the honorable walter f. mondel, a former vice president of the united states of america. resolved, that the clerk communicate these resolutions to the senate and transmit a copy thereof to the family of the deceased.
6:16 pm
resolved, that when the house adjourns today it adjourn as a further mark of respect to the memory of the deceased. the speaker: without objection, the resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. pursuant to section 1-b of house resolution 188, and pursuant to house resolution 333, the house stands adjourned until noon tomorrow as a further mark of respect to the memory of the late honorable walter f. mondel, former vice president of the united states.
6:17 pm
>> a jury in minneapolis this afterknoop found former police officer derek chauvin guilty of second degree murder, third degree murder, and second degree manslaughter in the death of george floyd on may
6:18 pm
25, 2020. we will be airing briefings on the verdict coming up from the congressional black caucus. we are also likely to hear from the minnesota governor and president biden and vice president harris expected to speak and make spent comments on the verdict later this evening. up next we'll take you to the six-minute verdict announcement and mr. chauvin being taken back to jail. >> for the jury.
6:19 pm
please be seated. members of the jury, i understand you have a verdict. members of the jury, i will now read the verdict as they will appear in the permanent record of the fourth judicial district. state of minnesota county of hennepin district court, state of minnesota plaintiff ver dust derek michael chauvin defendant. verdict, count one, court found
6:20 pm
number 27 c.r. 2012646. we the jury in the above entitled manner as to count one unintentional second degree murder while committing a felony find the defendant guilty. this verdict agreed to this 20th day of april, 2021 at 1:44 p.m. signed, juror foreperson, juror number 19. same caption verdict count two, we the vir in the above entitled matter count two, third degree murder, perpetrating a dangerous act find the defendant filth gilti. this verdict agreed to this 20th of april 2021 at 1:45 p.m. signed by jury foreperson juror number 19. same caption, verdict count three, we the jury in the above entitled matter as to count three second degree manslaughter culpable negligence creating an unreasonable risk find the defendant guilty. this verdict agreed to this 20th day of april 20, 21 at 1:45 p.m. the jury foreperson, 019.
6:21 pm
members of the jury, i'm now going to ask you individually if these are your true and correct verdicts. please respond yes or no. juror number 2 are these your true and correct verdicts? >> yes. >> juror number 9, are these your true and correct verdicts? >> yes. juror number 19 are these your true and correct verdicts? >> yes. juror number 27, are these your true verdicts? >> yes. >> juror number 44 are these your true and correct verdicts? aee. >> juror number 52 are these your true and investigate crer designates >> yes. >> juror-n number 55. >> yes. >> juror number 79 are these your true and correct verdicts? >> yes. >> juror number 85 are these your true and investigate verdicts? >> yes. juror number 89 are these your true and correct verdicts? >> yes. >> juror number 91 are these your true and correct ver designates? >> yes. juror number 923 are these your true and investigate verdicts? >> yes.
6:22 pm
>> are these your verdicts so say you one, so say you-all? >> yes. >> members of the jury i find that the verdicts as read reflect the will of the jury and will be filed accordingly. i have to thank you on behalf of the people of state of minnesota for not only jury verviss but heavy duty jury service. i'm going to ask you to follow the deputy back into your usual room and i will join you in a few minutes to answer questions. and to advise you further. all rise for the jury. >> be seated. with the jilty verdicts returned we are going to have blakley, you may file a written argument as to blakley factors within one week.
6:23 pm
the court will issues findings on the blakley -- factual findings one week of that. p.s.i. immediately returnable in four weeks. and we will also have briefing on after you get the p.s.i. six weeks from now and then eight weeks from now we'll have sentencing. we'll give you the exact dates in a scheduling order. is there a motion on behalf of the state? >> we would move to have the court revoke the defendant's bail and remand him into custody. >> bail is revoked. bond is discharged. the defendant is remanded to the custody of the hennepin county sheriff. anything further? thank you. we are adjourned.

33 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on