Skip to main content

tv   U.S. House of Representatives U.S. House of Representatives  CSPAN  April 22, 2021 8:59am-2:45pm EDT

8:59 am
there. we are not there yet. we are moving there. i am looking forward to the report that comes out next. i am excited, as i hope all americans are, that we are moving in the right direction. host: congressman emanuel cleaver, the crack of missouri, chairman of the financial services housing -- democrat of zurich, chairman of the financial services housing. we always appreciate your time when you stop by "washington journal." that will do it for "washington journal" this morning. we will be back tomorrow at 7:00 a.m. eastern, 4:00 a.m. pacific. in the meantime, the house about to gaveling for the day. we will take you live to the house floor for gavel-to-gavel coverage.
9:00 am
the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, chaplain kibben. chaplain kibben: would you pray with me. the earth is the lord and fullness there of. the world and all who live therein. holy god you founded it on the seas and established it on the waters. creator of the earth and skies to whom all truth and power belong, we ascend our prayers to you. we are humbled to stand in your presence. redeem us that we would be given clean hands and pure
9:01 am
hearts, trusting not in idles of our own making, nor swearing to gods who seek to deceive. give us your blessings, o lord, make things right, o god our savior. may ours be the generation that seeks you. then may we find you in our work, in our living, and in our world. in your sovereign name we pray. amen. the speaker: pursuant to section 11-a of house resolution 188, the journal of the last day's proceedings is approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from ohio, mr. davidson. mr. davidson: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to five requests for one-minute speeches on each
9:02 am
side of the aisle. for what purpose does the the gentlewoman from from texas seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. garcia: madam speaker, i rise today to recognize the one-year anniversary of a death, vanessa was one of my constituents before she was transferred to the fort hood military base for her army training. she was a rising star before her life was cut short. as members of congress and as a nation, we have the moral obligation to honor vanessa's memory and enact change that will end violence in our military installations.
9:03 am
her story has captivated americans of all backgrounds. it brought much needed attention to sexual assault in the military and it has led to changes being implemented at fort hood and at military bases throughout the world. i will not rest until there is justice for vanessa and her family. my thoughts and prayers are with them today. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek wreck any -- recognition? mr. thompson: mr. speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today to celebrate earth day and recognize mrs. sweeney's sixth grade class at ferndale elementary scrool in cambria county, pennsylvania. they read an article called students of the environment and they were starting the every bottle back. as of today they collected
9:04 am
1,486 bottles. they keck rated recep tickals, spread the word. the students kept track of their progress with a tally sheet and every two or three days educators took the plastics to the recycling center. the actions of these sixth graders continue to inspire others in the community. in fact these sixth graders have inspired a local high school to start a similar program. they set a great example proving the littlest of actions can make a big difference. thank you, ferndale elementary area elementary school. let us use them as an inspiration to reduce, reuse, and recycle. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the the gentlewoman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker.
9:05 am
before coming to congress i served as a pennsylvania state representative. the legislation i was most proud to be a part of was the bipartisan act 89 infrastructure bill that helped fix some of pennsylvania's crumbling roads and bridges. signed into law by governor core bit in 2013, act 89 was a serious investment in our infrastructure, but it is not enough. nationwide we know that an out-of-date infrastructure system is costly, energy inefficient, and dangerous. today in a moment of low interest rates and historic need, and a rapidly warming planet, we have an opportunity and obligation to invest in a stronger, greener, and better connected future. the american jobs plan is that chance. a chance to build back better and make a generational investment for our grandchildren's future. this includes roads, bridges, public transportation, drinking water, broadband, and good clean energy union jobs. i worked with a republican legislature and a republican
9:06 am
governor to help pass pennsylvania's infrastructure bill. i hope we can get together and work together across the aisle for infrastructure investment for the next generation. thank you, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from iowa seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i rise to aaddress the house for one minute. and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you. since march i have traveled my district administering covid-19 vaccines. as a doctor and former director of public health i combat vaccine hesitancey by discussing the safetyness and benefits of returning to normal lives, removing our masks, fathering together, and reopening businesses and schools by attaining herd immunity. the deepening mental health crisis has become a epidemic within the pandemic. yesterday i read of yet another youth suicide. 18-year-old star quarterback dillon with plans to attend m.i.t. committed suicide on january 7. his father said that the
9:07 am
illinois extended stay-at-home orders and school closures greatly contributed to his suicide. as leaders it is our responsibility to encourage and incentivize vaccinations. one instance is by removing our masks and returning to normal. despite having reached the traditional level of herd immunity by our members, our chamber does not reflect a return to normal. i implore our physician to follow science and the c.d.c. guidelines. incentivize and show the public that a world beyond the pandemic exists. not another minute should go by where children as young as 9 commit suicide because they see no hope of a future beyond the pandemic. we cannot waste another second or another young life. let us remove our masks and show america there can be a light at the end of the pandemic tunnel. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from oregon seek recognition? >> i seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore:
9:08 am
without objection, the gentlewoman from oregon is recognized for one minute. ms. bonamici: thank you, mr. speaker. northwest oregon raging wildfires have made air unhealthy to beat. ocean acidfication, hypoxia threaten our fisheries. droughts jeopardize the livelihoods of our farmers. there is hope. by recognizes the scale and urgency of the climate crisis, we can take meaningful action to address t today the biden-harris administration is convening a group of world leaders to commit to ambitious action. we stand ready to work with them to enact policies that reduce emission, create jobs, and support frontline communities. last year i joined my colleagues on the select committee on the climate crisis in reducing our bold, comprehensive science-based climate action plan to reach net zero emissions no later than mid century and net negative thereafter. it includes bills like my bipartisan blue carbon for our planet act which i'm reintroducing today to help
9:09 am
capture the power of the ocean and coastal ecosystems in mitigating the climate crisis. the climate action plan is our road map. now on this 51st anniversary of earth day, we must all reaffirm our commitment to the earth. and to taking bold action to solve the climate crisis. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? >> i ask for one minute the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for one minute. >> john adams said our constitution is fit for a moral and religious people and holy inadequate to the government of every other -- any other. mr. grothman: the average american watches 30 hours a week on broadcast tv and what starts there wind up on other screens as well. the federal communications commission is tasked with keeping indecent content off the airways.
9:10 am
broadcast tv affects the moral norms of nation. i receive complaints in my office about cardy b. and the cramies. they are wondering why we are mage the fcc if this should be in living rooms. i realize kamala harris used her forum to like the performer. wake up fcc and begin to do your job. the moral of america is due to your utter come placency. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois seek recognition? >> i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman from illinois is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. as a registered nurse and member of the veterans' affairs committee, i spent my time in congress fighting to ensure that northern illinois veterans and veterans across the nation have full access to the benefits and support that they have earned. a critical part of that work
9:11 am
has been focusing on ending the veterans by crisis. providing them with the resources they need and eequipping v.a. employees and community partners with the training necessary to support veterans in crisis. that's why this week i reintroduced the bicamera lethal means safety training act with senator blumenthal and representatives brownley, mrvan, and pappas. this is an evidence-based approach to prevent suicide and creates valuable time and space between a veteran in cry cries is ena potentially lethal means. suicide proveengs experts including the american foundation for suicide prevention, minority veterans of america, american association of suicide allergy, and many more. i urge my colleagues to support the lethal means safety training act and join me in the urgent mission of ending our
9:12 am
veteran suicide crisis. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from ohio is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to honor the life and memory of david kern. david recently passed away at the age of 79 following a long fight with cancer. i'm particularly extending my condolences to his beloved wife, katie, his four children, and 11 grandchildren. david was a veteran of the united states army, a volunteer firefighter, small business owner, and he served as liberty township trustee for 32 years. he was chairman of the butler county republican party. he was avid hunter, fisherman, and conservationist. more than all that, however, he was a friend and someone who gave me sound advice and used his influence as a mentor. david kern was a very good man and his presence will be sorely
9:13 am
missed by his family, our community, and all who know and loved him. i yield. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from minnesota seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman from minnesota is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, as a member of congress it is such an honor to have the ability to help my constituents back home. by solving problems and making our government work more effectively for them. earlier this year a man named jorge chavez mesa from farmington, minnesota, reached out to my office for help enlisting in the u.s. marine corps. you see, jorge came to our community from costa rica. in hopes of serving our country in the u.s. military. but his permanent residence card was lost in the mail. this could have prevented jorge from serving our nation.
9:14 am
but fortunately my office was able to work with the u.s. cis to expedite getting jorge a replacement card. i'm so glad to announce he received it and just took his oath of enlistment. stories like his are the most rewarding part of public service and i'm so proud of his commitment to serving our nation. thank you, jorge, for your service. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. lamalfa: mr. speaker, yet another blatant political power grab is under way. on the heels of h.r. 1, nationalizing all that is wrong with our elections, now the packing of the supreme court grab, we have h.r. 51, an unconstitutional bill to create a state of washington, d.c. the founders were very clear and specific to leave our
9:15 am
district out of the coercion and tentacles of a state trying to influence it. no, this is yet another naked power grab to ensure two new democrat senators in a 90% democrat district. that's the results they are trying to get this. new state would be 117th the size of rhode island and about the same population as fresno, california. 1847 the virginia retrosession act took some of the excess land that they weren't using and put it back into virginia. we can do the same thing with the bill i'm co-authoring taking the unneeded part and putting it back into maryland instraight ahead of trying to create a state against the constitution. this is a power grab that must be stopped. it's unconstitutional. and it goes against the grain of what our founders had in mind to have separation. i yield back. .
9:16 am
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. maloney, seek recognition?
9:17 am
mrs. maloney: mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 330, i call up the bill h.r. 51, the washington, d.c., admission act, and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 6, h.r. 51, a bill to provide for the admission of the state of washington, d.c., into the union. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 330, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on oversight and reform printed in the bill is adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered as read. the bill, as amended, shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the committee on oversight and reform or their respective designees. the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. maloney, and the gentleman from kentucky, mr. comer, each will control 30 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from new york, mrs.
9:18 am
maloney. mrs. maloney: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on h.r. 51, the washington, d.c., admission act. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. maloney: thank you. thank you very much, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. maloney, is recognized. mrs. maloney: thank you. i thank the gentleman from -- the gentlewoman from the district of columbia, and my dear friend, congresswoman norton, for her years of dedicated leadership on this bill. she is not only the author of the bill, but of this moment in history. today, for the second time in two years, the house will vote to overturn the wrongs of over 200 years of political
9:19 am
repression in the district of columbia. we will vote to honor the most fundamental principle of this nation -- that all people have a right to full and equal representation in their government. our nation has not always lived up to its promise of full and equal representation. but that has not stopped those dedicated to equality from fighting to ensure that all people are fully represented in their government. this fundamental right is denied to the more than 712,000 americans living in the district of columbia. for more than 200 years, the district has been fighting for equal rights. despite 86% of its residents voting for statehood in 2016, congress has still not acted to ensure that the district shares in the blessings of liberty, promised by the founders in the u.s. constitution. the united states is a republic,
9:20 am
but the people of its capital lack representation. the united states is the only democratic country that denies both voting rights in the national legislature and local self-government to the people of its capital. that is wrong and violates everything we stand for as americans. the district pays more in federal taxes than 21 states, and more per capita than any state. think about that. it pays more than nearly half the states in this country, yet, d.c. residents have no vote in congress. that is wrong. unfortunately, so far republicans have opposed our efforts to ensure equality for district residents. but let me be clear what republican opposition is really about. partisanship. they would rather deny voting rights for hundreds of thousands of american citizens than even
9:21 am
consider the possibility that representatives from the new state could possibly be democrats. think about that argument. they're willing to violate the core principles of our democracy merely because the new state might elect representatives from a different political party. i strongly urge every member in this house to vote yes on h.r. 51, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. maloney, reserves. the gentleman from kentucky, mr. comer, is recognized. mr. comer: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. comer: thank you, mr. speaker. america's federal government should be of the people, by the people, and for the people. but with h.r. 51, america's government will become of the democrats, by the democrats, and for the democrats.
9:22 am
let's be clear what h.r. 51 is all about. it's about democrats adding two new progressive u.s. senators to push a radical agenda, championed by the squad, to reshape america into the socialist utopia they always talk about. if you doubt me, just listen to what our colleague, congressman jamie raskin, recently told "the washington post." he said, and i quote, there's a national political logic for d.c. statehood. the senate has become the principal obstacle to social progress across a whole range of issues, unquote. so there we have it. h.r. 51 is not really about voting representation. it's about democrats consolidating their power in washington. there are numerous problems with h.r. 51. mainly, it's flatly unconstitutional. every justice department from
9:23 am
president kennedy's to president obama's has been consistent that a constitutional amendment is needed to grant the district statehood. robert f. kennedy said granting d.c. statehood without a constitutional amendment was inconceivable. he also said, granting d.c. statehood as attempted by 51 would -- h.r. 51 would produce an absurdity. this absurdity is the 23rd amendment, which acknowledges the existence of a federal district warranting three electoral college votes. while h.r. 51 includes an expedited process for the 23rd amendment's repeal in congress, the problem is this would not happen until after d.c. becomes a state. this would create mass confusion as h.r. 51 was reviewed by the courts for years. the constitution is the foundational document upon which all the laws of our country rests, and congress cannot
9:24 am
simply dismiss it with sham legislation. but that's what h.r. 51 attempts to do. democrats want to rewrite the constitution without going through the proper process of doing so. during our committee's markup of h.r. 51, i offered an amendment that would assure the 23rd amendment's repeal prior to statehood being granted, but democrats opposed this amendment. why are democrats pushing such a problematic bill through the house? why are they working so hard to advance d.c. statehood instead of pursuing a constitutional amendment that would engage the entire country through a process intended by our founding fathers? because they know americans have firmly rejected d.c. statehood. i urge my colleagues to vote with the vast majority of americans and reject this unconstitutional and impractical bill.
9:25 am
i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. maloney: i now yield five minutes to the gentlelady from the district of columbia, the author of this bill and moment in history, the great elinore holmes -- eleanor holmes norton, five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. norton: thank you, mr. speaker. and i thank my good friend, the gentlelady, for her leadership on this d.c. statehood bill. congress has both the moral obligation and the constitutional authority to pass h.r. 51. this country was founded on the principles of no taxation without representation and consent of the governed. but d.c. residents are taxed without representation and cannot consent to the laws under which they, as american
9:26 am
citizens, must live. the state of washington, d.c., would consist of 66 of the 68 miles of the present-day federal district. the federal district would be two square miles, and congress would retain mrenery -- plenary authority. the admission clause, the district clause, and the 23rd amendment -- the admission clause gives congress the authority to admit new states. all 37 new states were admitted by congress. no state was admitted by constitutional amendment. and no state would have to consent to the admission of the state of washington, d.c. the district clause gives congress plenary authority over the federal district and establishes a maximum size of the federal district 100 square
9:27 am
miles. it does not establish a minimum size or a location of the federal district. congress will reduce the size of the federal district by 30 -- reduced the size of the federal district by 30%. and it will allow the state to be part of the electoral college. h.r. 51 repeals the enabling act for the 23rd amendment, and the 23rd amendment itself would be quickly repealed. in any event the 23rd amendment does not establish a minimum size or a location of the federal district. the constitution does not establish any prerequisites for new states, but congress generally has considered three -- population and resources, support for statehood, and commitment to democracy. the state of washington, d.c., would meet each. d.c.'s population of 712,000 is
9:28 am
larger than that of two states. d.c. pays more federal taxes per capita than any state and pays more federal taxes than 21 states of the union. d.c.'s gross domestic product is larger than 17 states. in 2016, 86% of d.c. residents voted for statehood. d.c. residents have been petitioning for voting representation in congress and local autonomy for 220 years. congress has a choice. it can continue to exclude d.c. residents from the democratic process, forcing them to watch from the sidelines as congress votes on federal and d.c. laws and to treat them, in the words of frederick douglass, as aliens, not citizens, but
9:29 am
subjects, end quote. or it can live up to our nation's founding principles. join the 54% of americans. that is 54%, mr. speaker, and growing who support d.c. statehood and pass h.r. 51. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from the district yields back. the gentlewoman from new york reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. comer: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the republican leader of the government operations subcommittee from georgia, mr. hice. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. mr. hice: i thank the ranking member. i don't even know where to begin to respond to what we just heard. to imply that washington, d.c., has no representation is absolutely false. it does have local representation. also has a delegate right here in the house of representatives. and has electoral votes for the
9:30 am
president election. seems like -- something no other city in this country has. h.r. 51 flies in the face of what our founders intended. they never wanted the seat of our government to be a state, and they specifically framed the constitution to say so. and yet, what the democrats really are trying to do, that they will not admit, is gain even more representation by creating a city-state whereby they get two more senators. again, this is absolutely against what our constitution, our founders intended. and this ought to be soundly rejected, permanently rejected, and with that i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. maloney: mr. speaker, in this historic moment i now yield one minute to the distinguished the gentlewoman
quote
9:31 am
from california, the first female speaker in history, and our speaker of the house of representatives, nancy pelosi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized. the speaker: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentlewoman, madam chair, for yielding, and salute her for her leadership in bringing this historic legislation to the floor. all of us join in saluting congresswoman eleanor holmes norton who has been the patron saint of d.c. statehood since she came to congress. she has been tireless, persistent, and dissatisfied. she has built historic support for this bill which passed in the previous congress with 235 votes. i rise the speaker of the house of representatives who join the colleagues on this momentous day for american democracy as we write an historic injustice by passing legislation to finally grant washington d.c. statehood.
9:32 am
statehood for the district of columbia is about showing respect for our democracy, for the american people, and for our constitution. that constitution begins with our preamble, we, the people. setting out our founder's vision of a government of, by, and for the people. yet for more than two centuries the people of washington, d.c., have been denied their right to fully participate in their democracy. d.c., as the gentlewoman from mentioned, congresswoman norton mentioned, pays more federal taxes per capita than any other state. it's budget is larger than 12 states. it's population is larger than two states. its people have fought in every american war since the revolution. the residents have been fighting for voting rights for 220 years, with a full 86%
9:33 am
recently voting for statehood. it is well past the time to grant them the rights that they have been fighting for and that they deserve. as i said, mr. speaker, i rise as speaker of the house on this momentous occasion, but it is an official honor to do so, but it is also a personal privilege to join congresswoman eleanor holmes norton, the distinguished chair of the committee of jurisdiction, congresswoman maloney, and others of my colleagues, distinguished majority leader, mr. hoyer, who has made this part of his life's work in the congress. to join in the fight for statehood. as i say, a personal privilege because when i was born my father was a member of congress from baltimore, maryland, thomas d'alesandro, jr. he served as chairman of the district of columbia appropriations subcommittee. that position made him the
9:34 am
unofficial mayor of washington because of the authority that the committee had over the district of columbia and their every decision. however, my father did not agree with that. he was a proponent for home -- what was then called home rule, often say statehood for the district of columbia is in my d.n.a. it went from home rule, then finally having a mayor, and now we want statehood. there is not -- we have always wanted statehood but now we finally are able to pass it in the congress. there is nothing theoretical or abstract about statehood. for example, last summer the country watched in horror as federal agents and out-of-state national guard troops were deployed against peaceful protestors in the district without residents' approval. and then on january 6, as our capitol was being defiled and our capitol police assaulted and killed, and members and
9:35 am
staff terrorized, d.c. leaders did not have the authority to call in the national guard to protect its people. granting d.c. statehood means ensuring its leaders have the tools they need to keep people safe. the governor of any one of our states has the authority to call in the national guard. that is not an authority that is afforded to the mayor of washington, d.c. if that were the case we would have had protection much sooner. statehood is also a matter of civil rights. the residents of the district have a right to self-governance and control over their lives and futures. and is particularly meaningful that we pass this legislation just days after the anniversary of president abraham lincoln signing the district of columbia compensation emancipation act, freeing enslaved people in the district. today by passing h.r. 51 to
9:36 am
admit the state of washington, douglass commonwealth to the union, the house will finally address this unjust, unequal, and undemocratic situation. we look forward to a swift vote in the senate on this essential legislation so that we can send this important legislation to the president's desk. at the same time house democrats will continue our work to protect every american's right to be heard at the ballot box. with that i urge a strong vote for d.c. statehood 51, h.r. 51, 51 states, easy to remember, and for its citizens' civil liberties, security, and right to have a say in our democracy. as i yield back, i once again want to commend representative eleanor holmes norton for her long dedication to justice for every person in our country.
9:37 am
starting with the people she represents in the district of columbia. hopefully soon-to-be the 51st state of the union. with that i urge an aye vote and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california yields back. the gentlewoman from new york reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. comer: i yield one minute to the gentleman from arizona, mr. biggs. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for one minute. mr. biggs: thank you, mr. speaker. let me tell you what democrats dem support is really about of h.r. 51. democratic partisanship, democrat power, democrat policy. democrat progressive issues. no state has been admitted by the constitution, but no state was created from a territory which was crafted in the constitution. that's what you want to obviate. even federalist 43 quote the indispense able necessity of the seat of government carries
9:38 am
-- it is a power exercise for every legislature of the union, i might say the world, without it not only the public authority by the mite be insulted and proceedings interrupted with impunity. but the dependence of the general government for protection and exercise of their duty might bring on the national -- that is what was -- is at stake here. h.r. 51 is bad for -- according to the founders, also violates the 23rd amendment. that is clear as well. and it's time that the democrats realize it, and vote this thing down. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yield back. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. maloney: i now yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from virginia and chairman of the government operations subcommittee, gerry connolly. the speaker pro tempore: the
9:39 am
gentleman from virginia is recognized for three minutes. mr. connolly: i thank the distinguished chair woman of our committee and my good friend, eleanor holmes norton, the congresswoman from the district of columbia who soon, i hope, will have the right to vote on the floor of the house. today, mr. speaker, we come together to right a wrong. 750,000 fellow americans are denied the right to representation in their congress. in the very place in which congress is located. ironically. the only capital in the democratic world that denies its own citizens the right to vote to be represented. we heard a lot of subterfuge here today and we'll hear about the constitution. the constitution that clearly gives congress the right of admission of a state.
9:40 am
mr. comer comes from kentucky, kentucky was composed of territory claimed by my state, virginia. and they were a bunch of whigs. we didn't object. and congress, not a constitutional amendment, admitted kentucky into the union. and they elected whigs, if you can think about that, mr. speaker. but we didn't make how you might vote a condition. but we do in this case. and i got to say there's a lot of smokescreen to coat what's really at stake here. when some say this is not about race or partisanship, you can be sure it's about race and partisanship. a city with a minority majority population that apparently might vote in a different way
9:41 am
from some. so what? how somebody votes cannot be a test of whether they have the right to vote in a democracy. will we right this wrong today? will we rise above our petty partisan perspectives and fears and empower and enfranchise people who are fellow citizens simply because of their race or party identification or their geographic location? that is not the america i know and love. it's gone on too long. when the constitution was written, this place didn't exist. nor did the founders and writers of the constitution know that it would. the first capital was new york. the second capital was philadelphia. and there was a lot of back and
9:42 am
forth about where would it finally be. it ended up here. let's right this wrong after 200 years and give our fellow americans voting representation here in the united states congress by granting statehood. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from new york reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. comer: mr. speaker, if this bill is about race i wonder why your majority leader, steny hoyer, voted against this very bill in 1993. but with that, mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. jordan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for two minutes. mr. jordan: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, democrats started last week with one of their members saying we should get rid of the police all together. they ended last week with another one of their members being admonished by the trial judge in minneapolis for saying ridiculous things. and what did they do in between? they passed this bill out of committee which gives two new
9:43 am
democrat senators to the district of columbia and less than 24 hours after that bill passed in committee, they introduced legislation to pack the supreme court. in three months of democrats being in control of the federal government, they have increased the debt by $2 trillion. they created a crisis on the southern border. and they continue their push to defund the police. and now so they can continue their radical policies, think about what else they passed out of this body. a bill to federalize our voting laws, federalize our election laws, a bill to pack the court, as i said. they introduced that, the chairman of the judiciary committee of all people introduced that bill. here we are today pure power grab to give two democrat senators to district of columbia. there is a crisis on our southern border. the american people want us to focus on the crisis, even the president called it a crisis. let's stop the power grab. let's deal with the issues the american people want us to deal with. that's what we should be focused on.
9:44 am
i hope, i hope we vote this bill down. i urge a no vote. yield back to the gentleman from kentucky. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio yields back. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. maloney: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to clarify that this should be a bipartisan issue. republicans used to support voting representation in congress for d.c. residents. then president eisenhower called for equal political rights for d.c. residents in three state of the union addresses. then president nixon said, and i quote, it should offend the democratic senses of this nation that d.c. residents do not have voting representation in congress. in 2007, then representative mike pence said on the floor, i quote, the fact that more than a half million americans living in the district of columbia are denied a single voting representative in congress is
9:45 am
clearly a historic wrong. with that i now yield three minutes to the gentleman from maryland and chairman of the civil rights and civil liberties subcommittee, jamie raskin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for three minutes. . mr. raskin: the consent of the governed. no taxation without representation. no conscription without representation. a republican form of government for american citizens. all of our most essential democratic principles underwrite the trajectory of the american political development which has been the admission of 37 new states since the original 13 launched the union. all of these states were admitted by one mechanism and one mechanism only -- an act of congress. exercising congressional power
9:46 am
under article 4, section 3, to admit new states. there has never been a new state admitted by constitutional amendment. there has never been a state admission struck down by the united states supreme court because the admission of new states is a political question in the juritical sense. it's vested exclusively in congress to decide whether or not to admit new states. it's an exercise of the plenary power in judgment of the congress, the people's branch. it's up to congress to act. the opponents of democracy for 712,000 tax-paying, draftable american citizens right here in washington, d.c., have now focused on the 23rd amendment as the basis of their opposition. the 23rd amendment is no obstacle in any way. the purpose of the 23rd amendment was to make sure that the local population got to participate in presidential elections. the admission of the new state
9:47 am
vindicates that constitutional purpose. h.r. 51 itself would immediately repeal the federal statute that organizes the electoral college for the district of columbia. taking care of the problem that our friends are concerned about. so why don't they support h.r. 51? well, the floor leader gave the game away when he said for him this was all about two new progressive liberal democrat senators. it's all about two new liberal democrat senators. they don't see taxation without representation. they don't see military service without representation when tens of thousands of people from the nation's capital have served america in every war that we've ever had going back to the revolutionary war. they don't see governments without representation, without the consent of the governed. all that they see is two new liberal democrat senators. but that cuts against everything that we believe in about
9:48 am
american democracy. we do not deny people the right to vote based on our expectation of how they will vote. we don't disenfranchise people because we disagree with who they might elect. i would defend with my life the right of the people in kentucky and arizona to send my friends here even to represent them even though i disagree most of what i stand for, including their rejection of the rights of people from washington, d.c. and i would never disenfranchise them just because of that. the people of washington -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mrs. maloney: i yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. raskin: the people of washington came to our aid on january 6, when we were being attacked by violent, fashionists, insurrection iss in this chamber -- insurrectionists in this chamber, in this capitol, they sent the national
9:49 am
guard to defend us. the people defend our democratic rights. the question is, will we defend them? let's pass statehood for the people of washington. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland yields back. the gentlewoman from new york reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. comer: i yield one minute to the gentleman from texas, mr. roy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. roy: my friend from maryland makes an excellent closing case in court because he knows that this is going to be in court because he knows that this is constitutionally infirm, and he's trying to make the case that's going to have to be made in court on the losing side of the argument because it is clearly unconstitutional to add d.c. as a state by statute. and what we have here today is a simple question -- is anybody in this room believe that if lubbock, texas, had been set up
9:50 am
as the capital seat of the united states of america that my colleagues and others on the other side of the aisle would be arguing to give it the position of statehood? no. of course not. this city was set up by the founders to be the capital seat of the united states of america. it was not set up to be a state. and when my friends said that every other state has been added by statute, none of those had been specifically set up as the capital seat of the united states of america. this should be rejected. it is unconstitutional. d.c. has never been a state. it shouldn't be a state. and it's not going to be a state. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. maloney: i now yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from illinois, congressman danny davis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. mr. davis: thank you, mr. chairman. let me thank you for yielding to me. and also, i want to commend you, chairman maloney, on your
9:51 am
outstanding leadership on this committee. i also want to take a moment and commend my colleague, who has been championing d.c. statehood before i even came to congress. you know, i listen intently to all of the arguments. it always gets back to one -- how are the people in d.c. more likely to vote? and they're going to vote more likely democratic. are three going -- are they going to vote for democrats? let me tell you, i have people in my district who vote for republicans. can you imagine that? they vote republican. but we don't deny them the right to vote. we don't deny them the right to representation. all that we're seeking and all that we're asking for is simply the principle that no taxation
9:52 am
without representation. i think we learned that in grammar school when we took u.s. history, when we first learned how great this country is and how great it can be. well, i look forward to the people of washington, d.c., having all rights of citizenship as a member of a state, voting in the greatest state in the country when it becomes one, washington, d.c. thank you, madam chairman, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new york -- the gentlewoman from new york reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. comer: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. keller. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. mr. keller: thank you, mr. speaker. in 1964, then-attorney general robert f. kennedy summed it up best as to why the framers put the capital outside the borders
9:53 am
for control of any state. it was indispensably necessary, this is his quote, to the independence and the very existence of the new federal government to have a seat of government which was not subject to the jurisdiction or control of any state. as true as that was when this was said, as true as that was when the nation -- when the capitol was moved here, it's that true today. and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle -- i'm glad remember history -- when the seat of the federal government was in new york city and in philadelphia, the birthplace of america, they didn't want it in control of a state. therefore, the district of columbia was created. the district of columbia, under the control of the united states congress, because that is -- who should be determining what happens for the 50 states. our colleagues on the other side
9:54 am
want to change an amendment to the constitution with law. what about other amendments to the constitution and how they read those? will they try to change those with law? this is not taxation without representation. this is about a democrat power grab. let's call it what it is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. maloney: i now yield one minute to the distinguished gentlelady from texas, congresswoman jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: i thank the distinguished chairwoman, and i thank distinguished member, congresswoman from the district of columbia. in the judiciary committee right now we're holding hearings to fight against the scourge of voter suppression and the unfortunately abolishment of section 5 by the shelby case. i have heard shoutings of hallelujah when that case was abolished. the reason is because we are
9:55 am
here today -- denying citizens of the united states the right to be represented fairly in the united states congress. the 23rd amendment, well, i can cite for you the 14th amendment and the 15th amendment, not depriving people of their liberty and justice. what about those soldiers who shed blood from the district of columbia? those who are paying taxes from the district of columbia? but the very citizens who worked to move the engine of government living in the district of columbia. my friends know the capital will be separated. my friends know there is a basic constitutional unfairness when you deny people the right to vote. and i wonder whether or not the problem is that when i first arrived here many years ago it was called chocolate city. let us not make this a racial issue. let us make this a justice issue, a constitutional issue. it is important, mr. speaker, vote for this legislation for the 51st state. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentlewoman from new york
9:56 am
reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. comer: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. grothman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for one minute. mr. grothman: d.c. statehood is a ridiculous idea which would shock our forefathers. it's a government city. no minimal manufacturing, agriculture, or natural resources. with all its government jobs and universities, it's a rescission- -- recession-proof city and should be one of the easiest cities to govern. let's see how the local people are doing. this is the second highest spending area in the country per person. how do they do? tide for worse at fourth grade reading scores. worst in the country eighth grade writing scores. second worse in the country in eighth grade math. they have more homeless here than 29 states. of the cities with at least 600,000 people, they have the
9:57 am
sixth highest murder rate. if they were to become a state, it would immediately be the state with the highest murder rate in the country. right now, by comparison, only 49% of the parents, newborn children in the district of columbia are married. by comparison, again, great foreign capital taipei, 96% of the parents are married. this is a government city and it would do a horrible job as a state. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. maloney: mr. speaker, under the admissions clause of the constitution, congress has the authority to admit new states. and that's why all 37 new states have been admitted by simple legislation. no state has ever been admitted by a constitutional amendment. and the republicans want d.c. to use an admissions process that
9:58 am
has never been used in the history of this country. the district clause of the constitution gives congress authority over the federal district and establishes a maximum size of the federal district, 100 square miles. it does not establish a minimum size. h.r. 51 would maintain a two square mile federal district. and with that i reserve and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves from new york. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. comer: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from south carolina, ms. mace. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from south carolina is recognized for one minute. ms. mace: thank you, mr. speaker. i've seen more damage done in the first 100 days of this administration than i thought possible in four years. rather than unity it's been division. rather than working together it's been partisanship. we're hearing even today in the comments that we're trying to
9:59 am
stoke racial division in this country. this is nothing but a naked power play today. that's all this is about. people who can't get their radical agenda passed under this system our framers set out now want to blow it up. they're nothing -- this is nothing but ideological terrorism by those willing to completely ignore the constitution and system of government. whether it's a tax on the first, second, third, or fourth amendment, or turning our federal seat to two more far left senators, they simply do not care. they want what they want. this is not about a balance of power. this is about more power. this is about government-run health care, the green new deal, higher taxes and a less efficient form of government. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from south carolina yields back. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. maloney: mr. speaker, i now yield one minute to the gentlewoman from illinois and senior chief deputy whip,
10:00 am
congresswoman schakowsky. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from illinois is recognized for one minute. ms. schakowsky: i rise in strong support of ending the disenfranchisement of over 700,000 people, including most of the staff that works for us every single day. our nation is the only democratic country in the world that denies full democratic rights to the citizens living in its nation's capital. . that's more than 700,000 american citizens who pay federal taxes, who fight and die in wars, who serve on our juries, and yet have no vote in the senate or the house of representatives. that is the definition of taxation without representation. it is 219 years overdue for the city -- citizens of the district of columbia to have their right to vote. let me thank and commend my
10:01 am
colleague, eleanor holmes norton, for all of her decades of work. it is time to vote yes on statehood for the district of columbia. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from illinois yields back. the gentlewoman from new york reserves. the gentleman from kentucky virginia tech. mr. comer: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. making d.c. a city state is unconstitutional, it's impractical, and supplies in the face of the founder's intent. james madison said it simheff in the federalist papers. unfortunately our colleagues across the aisle are trying to make this about race. i thought it was inevitable and sad and unfortunate. let's look at data. in 1800 this was -- this city was a white majority. 10,600, 4,000 african-american residents. then 150 years later in 1950, 517,000 white residents to 280
10:02 am
thousand african-american residents. so for 150 years this was a white majority city and there was no serious effort to make it a state. mr. fallon: there is a way we can solve this issue. no taxation without representation. it's flawed because there is local government. and they have a delegate here. but with retrosession making washington and putting it back into maryland would give them add add seat and would address that very issue. the g.o.p. is acting in good faith because we know that seat will be a democratic seat. but it's the right thing to do. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. maloney: mr. speaker, i now yield one minute to a champion for equality and the 51st state, to the distinguished gentleman from maryland and house majority leader, steny hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. hoyer: i thank the chair.
10:03 am
i rise in very strong support of this legislation. i want to just briefly respond to the remarks of the gentleman who preceded me. by retrosession. retrosession is an interesting idea that my republican colleagues have. it has to do with the issue of two united states senators. one could say that has to do on both sides of the aisle, two united states senators. the history of adding states has been a history where focus is on those two united states senators that would be added. and the party that one of them, the party that didn't want them. but retrosession, frankly, is an interesting idea except for the fact that the gentleman talked about the founding
10:04 am
fathers. and james madison, the federalist papers, one of the articles of debate were, if you had a state, i.e. maryland, whose land, of course, the federal city is located on, virginia gave some but they took it back. you would have a state surrounding the federal enclave. no difference. except it would be maryland and not washington douglass commonwealth. so that argument limps. it fails. because you are suggesting the same thing that some have said is of concern to them. so the only difference is two senators. so this isn't about politics.
10:05 am
throughout history people have guessed as to what the new states were going to be. some knew absolutely. we have north and south dakota. i don't know whether any of you know why we have north and south dakota. two senators versus four senators. and the republicans who were in charge wanted to have four senators to assure their majority in the senate as opposed to the democrats in the south. ironic how things change. so if you are voting on politics, i get it. but on principle nevada was added and taken from utah, by the way, because the republicans who were then in charge back in the day wanted
10:06 am
to have two additional senators. and they got them. with less than 10,000 people living in the area that was taken from utah, wyoming, and colorado. and formed nevada. so let's not get mired in these principled votes because this is about two senators. we get it. it is not about principle. because there are over 700,000 people, 712 to be exact, maybe more when we get the crepe suss reports, -- census reports, who are unequal citizens in america. i want to thank the incomparable eleanor holmes norton for her hard work and tireless advocacy for so many years as the leader of this cause. on behalf of equal rights for
10:07 am
the citizens she represents without a vote. why? are they lesser citizens? is she a lesser representative? surely not. if a president of the united states, republican or democrat, asks somebody to come to the district of columbia and work for the u.s. government, bring your talents, your energy, and your focus to work for your country in washington, d.c. but, oh, by the way, you have to give up your vote in the congress of the united states. three your representative. no other democracy are residents of the national capital excluded from representation. none. i think the founders had no concept of how big this city would become, how vibrant it would become. none.
10:08 am
yet nearly 700,000 americans are denied full representation. the founders of our union of states set forth a simple process for the admission of new states to that union. they believed the 13 of them that adding new states would be positive for the country. and that they would want people represented in the territories in the congress when they became states and qualified to be such. they saw that process with an expansion both healthy and workable and they believe it would strengthen our democracy. through the years, however, the admission of new states has been a very contentious process. on both sides of the aisle. and there was a time in our history in the latter half of the 19th century when republicans effected the admission of a number of new states in order to increase the numbers in the senate. they accomplished that objective in some respects. in one note the examples i just mentioned nevada in 1864, less
10:09 am
than 10,000 people. the criteria at that point in time, theoretically, was 60,000. but it was ignored. it was ignored, two senators. that's what this issue is about. two senators. it is not about whether on a principleled may bayhcies we caught to give 712,000 of our citizens the right to be equally represented in the congress of the united states. no, if they live here we ask them to give up that right. that same process, as i mentioned, was repeated in the admission of north and south dakota. they had hardly any people living there. they can hardly qualify if you put all the dakota territory together, but what the republicans did was they were in charge at that point in time, they divided it. north and south dakota. what happened?
10:10 am
two extra senators. it wasn't about principle. about how many people, what the economic status was. it was about how many senators. my friends across the aisle complain that this bill would lead to the election of two additional democratic senators, so what? is that the criteria? the political judgment of the citizens of some entity seeking to become a state? there is nothing in the constitution about that. zero. it is the politics of it, i get it. but it is not the principle. i hope people vote on principle. if they believe that their fellow citizens who happen to live within this -- used to be
10:11 am
a square, but a square minus that to the south of the potomac, this legislation is very different than when they admitted those states in the 19th century. it is different because it is based on the demonstrable need to provide representation to hundreds of thousands of americans who deserve to have their voice heard in our democracy. and they have determined they want to be a part. our founders were offended, indeed, outraged that they were forced to pay taxes but were afforded no representation by the body that set those taxes. wouldn't all of us have been there, the tea party, saying you cannot tax us, england, without us having representation in the parliament. i'm sure you have heard the argument from many people on this floor, i won't repeat them, about the level of taxation that is paid by the
10:12 am
citizens of the district of columbia. but they have no say in the level of those taxes which so outraged our founders. moreover, this legislation would end the unjust practice of treating d.c. residents differently than their fellow citizens in the 50 states when it comes to allocating resources or providing covid-19 relief under the cares act last year. mr. speaker, when president eisenhower, republican president, pu but not a very partisan president, unlike today, where we have seen a very partisan president, no longer there, mr. speaker, when president eisenhower addressed
10:13 am
the question of admitting hawaii as a state in the 1950's, he said the following, by the way i think all of you probably know that when alaska and hawaii were admitted not too far apart in years, alaska was perceived to be a democratic state and hawaii was perceived to be a republican state. so the assumption that somehow the district of columbia will automatically elect two democrats, which may be accurate, but it may not always be the case. the principle is what eisenhower articulated. he said this, you have an economy that is self-supporting. there is a large population. and i would like to see the case handled clearly and specifically on its merits. by that metric, washington, d.c., earned its right to statehood a long time ago.
10:14 am
and today we can take a major step toward that goal when we pass this bill which we passed last congress as well. as the retrosession, again, i wonder if nevada would like to be back to utah or to wyoming, to colorado, or whether wyoming, that has 200,000 less citizens, approximately, than the district of columbia, would like to be subsumed by one of the surrounding states. because of the few numbers. vermont as well. which was taken from another state, as wes west virginia. -- as was west virginia. took part of virginia. i hope the senate will take up this bill when we pass it and consider the question of d.c. statehood on its merits not on politics. maybe that's too much to ask.
10:15 am
not on partisan -- this is not a partisan math problem or electoral prediction, which as we have seen may or may not come to pass. but on the merits alone. on the conviction that taxation without representation is not fair now as it was not fair in 1776. the people of this city, our nation's capital, deserve full and equal representation in congress. . mr. speaker, i hope this bill will pass with bipartisan support. it's going to pass, but i hope we have some bipartisan support. based upon the principle that every citizen in our country ought to enjoy the same representation of the congress of the united states as every other citizen. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from new york
10:16 am
reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. comer: mr. speaker, i must admit i'm disappointed in the remarks from the majority leader. when i saw him approach the podium, i thought he would give us a detailed explanation as to why he voted against this very bill in 1993. but instead, he lectures us on having the exact same position today that he had in 1993. mr. hoyer: if the gentleman will yield? mr. comer: the hypocrisy runs deep in this chamber, mr. speaker. mr. hoyer: if the gentleman will yield? mr. comer: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from louisiana, mr. higgins. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. higgins: thank you, mr. speaker. how is it unconstitutional? h.r. 51 violates our founders' intent. the actual writ of the constitution. the land itself which should rightfully be returned to maryland if its original purpose is land for our nation's capital is discarded by congress. and finally, the required repeal of the 23rd amendment.
10:17 am
i've explained these constitutional barriers for two years in committee. but there is more. d.c. does not perform many of the roles of a true state. a prime example -- unlike every other state in the union, d.c. is not responsible for its prison system. about 8,000 d.c. residents are inmates in federal prisons, and the federal government absorbs the huge expense. these are inmates who would normally be in a state prison, but d.c. only has the capacity to house inmates awaiting trial. three times in committee i've offered an amendment that would transfer this normal state responsibility to d.c. my amendment was rejected by democrats three times. so let's look at how d.c. has handled their inmates awaiting trial. according to "the washington post," d.c. is essentially tore during these inmates with what experts say is mass solitary confinement. 23 hours a day of solitary. for every d.c. inmate ongoing
10:18 am
for over 400 days. that is certainly a violation of the eighth amendment. these are human beings awaiting final adjudication. many will ultimately be found not guilty, yet, they've been held in solitary confinement for 24 hours every day for almost a year. is this what we can expect from a d.c. state? d.c. is our nation's capital, was intended to be our nation's capital, and must remain our nation's capital. mr. speaker, i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. maloney: mr. speaker, how much time remains on each side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york has 8 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from kentucky has 16 minutes. mrs. maloney: i reserve the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the time. the gentleman from kentucky is
10:19 am
recognized. mr. comer: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. sessions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, i'd like to revise and extend. mr. speaker, i rise today in opposition to h.r. 51, the washington, d.c., admissions act. in many respects, america seems to be at the same point we were in the 1930's and 1940's -- calling for a single party rule from washington, d.c. supreme court justice louis brandeis at the time observed, the greatest dangers of liberty is the insidious encroachment of men with zeal, well-meaning, but without understanding. these words might offer some inspiration with us today. whenever a people or an institution forgets its hard beginnings, it is beginning to decay, by carl sandberg. mr. speaker, both of these
10:20 am
sayings are on the halls of our capitol. addressing people's ability to vote is important. addressing a party's desire for singular political control of a nation is another matter. our constitution outlines the process for admitting new states to the union and rules regarding the formation of the district of columbia. in 1961, 36 states voted to ratify the 23rd amendment to the constitution, ensuring that district of columbia had representation and taxation. that was done out of fairness. these 36 states did this out of fairness. we've already heard what the attorney general robert kennedy said. mr. speaker, today we're doing the inconceivable and will produce the absurdity. legislation does not overrule a constitutional amendment. legislation is subject to the constitution and all of its
10:21 am
amendments. if you want to make d.c. a state, have a process that overturns the 23rd amendment and then ratify a 29th amendment which then repeals the 23rd amendment. this was done during prohibition. this is the standard by which we take care of the constitution and the amendments thereon. this government is predictable on the rule of law and following procedure, but today's bill abandons that procedure -- i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. maloney: i yield one minute to the gentleman from texas and chair of the financial services subcommittee, representative al green. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. green: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, and still i rise,
10:22 am
and today i rise with love of country at heart, and i rise to announce that i will not allow this issue to become so complicated that the american people might be confused. because the truth is, we will be voting for one thing -- whether we are for taxation without representation or whether we are against taxation without representation. it's really that simple. and as for me, i will be voting with the patriots. i will be voting with those patriots from 1773 who confronted the government. those patriots who were there at the boston harbor. those patriots who were there for the boston tea party. i will be voting against taxation without representation. i believe that this is what the american constitution and the
10:23 am
american way is all about. since 1773, it's been said, and today i will respect it with my vote. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from new york reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. comer: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from texas, mr. pfluger. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. pfluger: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to this unconstitutional measure. our founders debated the merits of statehood and a federal district, and rightly concluded that no state should have supremacy over others and enjoy benefits while also being our nation's headquarters. they got it right. this bill gets it wrong. if d.c. becomes one of 51 equals, why should it enjoy being the federal district? federal agencies like energy or usda should move to places like
10:24 am
west texas where we produce food and energy for the nation and beyond. eliminate the filibuster, keep occupation of the white house, all while controlling our election law are one thing. they are for one thing -- more power for them. oppose this unconstitutional measure. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. maloney: the gentleman describes as many on the other side, this is a political issue, a power grab. he cites all these other political actions. but the real power grab is denying 712,000 tax-paying american citizens the right to vote. that's the power grab. this isn't about politics. it's a fundamental voting and
10:25 am
civil rights issue. and it is outrageous that republicans would play partisan politics just to block 712,000 americans from having full equality in our democracy. every american deserves a voice in their government. taxation without representation, fundamental belief in our democracy. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. comer: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from virginia, mr. good. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one minute. mr. good: thank you, mr. speaker. and thank you to the gentleman from kentucky. i rise in opposition to this latest attempt by the democrats to increase their power at the expense of long standing american traditions in the
10:26 am
constitution. sadly, this is not at all surprising. democrats have made it clear that american institutions don't stand in their way of advancing their political agenda at all costs. they want to pack the supreme court. eliminate election integrity. defund our police. keep our borders open. and prohibit debate in this very house. and d.c. statehood is just the next step. this legislation is an unconstitutional power grab designed to give democrats more votes to pass their radical socialist agenda. as the majority leader just said, this is about two senators, it's not about principle. the district of columbia has served as the federal district for over 200 years. the framers understood the importance of federal and state governments having separate authority and recognize that states would be ill-suited to house the federal government. and this was long before the democrats started making everything about race. now democrats want to disregard the founders' vision, again, in order to grab two more votes in the senate. political advantage is no justification for policy that
10:27 am
disregards precedent and the constitution and, therefore, i oppose this bill. i yield my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. maloney: mr. speaker, i now yield one minute and a half to the gentleman from virginia, chair of the joint economic committee, congressman don beyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. beyer: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in strong support of h.r. 51, d.c. statehood. my mother and father met at d.c.'s western high school in 1940 before my father went off to west point and korea. i was raised in the potomac palisades of washington and went to high school a few blocks from the capitol. my children are fifth generation washingtonians. we have been confounded and confused that the united states citizens who live in the district of columbia have been denied. the right to self-determination is the defining principle on which this nation was founded. and yet, this very right is
10:28 am
denied to those who reside in our nation's capital. taxation without representation sparked our own war of independence from the great britain. today, the same cry for democracy pressed on every d.c. license plate calls for the peaceful passage of h.r. 51. the american citizens of the district of columbia want to pass statehood. it passed in 2016. my opponents say it's too small, it's not rural enough, because it has insufficient logging, manufacturing, agriculture, mining. because it's not well-rounded. because its residents are not real americans. d.c. does, by the way, have a tesla car dealership. the real reason my republican friends oppose statehood is because they disagree with the political views of today's washingtonians. this is terrible short-term thinking. texas voted democrats for generations. california elected many republican governors and
10:29 am
senators. the pendulum swings both ways. this view betrays our democratic principles of which our nation was founded. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from new york reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. comer: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from south dakota, mr. johnson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. johnson: mr. speaker, i am opposed to d.c. statehood, but i am not opposed to suffrage. if your goal is truly suffrage rather than increasing democratic control of the senate, boy, do i have a plan for you. my bill would reunite the residential areas of the district with maryland, as was done with virginia in 1847. this plan would give full voting rights that we have heard so much about this morning, without ignoring the constitution or the practical realities of what constitutes a state. and so i say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if your goal is truly suffrage,
10:30 am
then let's do this together. let's set aside the divisive rhetoric we have heard and work together to craft an appropriate and bipartisan solution to give representation to the people of d.c. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yield it's back. -- the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. maloney: mr. speaker, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. . mr. comer: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. it was good to hear the majority leader say this is about politics. we knew that. but for some of us it is about principle. and if it were about taxation without representation, i would
10:31 am
a slew of democrats co-sponsoring the bill i have been filing for many terms to eliminate federal income tax in the district of columbia. but i was told years ago, we are not going to join in with your bill because it will weaken our chance to get a representative full voting from d.c. that's what this has been about. for some of us, principle is a big deal. when the bush justice department was violating constitutional rights, some republicans got furious. when the obama administration did that, they circled the wagons and protected. this is about principle for some of us. and we got a tiny taste when the mayor of d.c. of an opposite party of president trump wasn't sure she was going to provide the police to protect the white house. this is about the constitution and principle. vote against this. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.
10:32 am
the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. maloney: mr. speaker, may i inquire about the remaining time on both sides. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman has five minutes remaining. the gentleman from kentucky has 10 minutes remaining. mrs. maloney: i now yield one minute to the gentlelady from michigan, chairwoman of the committee on science, space, and technology subcommittee on research, technology, haley stevens. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from is recognized for one minute. ms. stevens: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of h.r. 51 in the esteemed tradition, the responsibility that we have of legislators of this body to evaluate adding a 51st state to this union. to form a more perfect union, yes. in the tradition and in the written words of our constitution because when my
10:33 am
native michigan became the 26th state in 1837 added to this union, the president recognized that we will admit michigan on equal footing. but we know that the founders and their originators of our beautiful nation did not know a michigan when they were writing our constitution. they did not know a wyoming. so we ask ourselves here as the ambassadors of democracy, what message we send to the world when we deny over 700,000 people the right to vote. when we tax them without the proper representation. this, my friends, is an exciting and profound and welcomed day in this body that deserves debate and this legislation deserves to pass. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. comer: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. lamalfa. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is
10:34 am
recognized for one minute. mr. lamalfa: thank you. i'm amazed at the smoke and mirrors and fog of obfuscation surrounding the debate on this bill. what republicans are doing here today is defending the constitution. what was put in place by the founders that washington, d.c., the district, would not be part of a state where it could be coerced or leveraged by a state to get things from it. i just heard the last few minutes solutions offered by two of my colleagues that could probably be passed in six weeks or less. to allow what it is they claim they are saying. holding those 700,000 residents through a maryland secession would accomplish the goal of the same type of representation they are talking about. no, the politics is over on that side of the aisle because they have turned down a constitutional solution that this would be, instead, for an unconstitutional one that ply
10:35 am
flies in the face and produces a 66 square mile state that is 1/18th the size of rhode island with a population a little larger than the city of fresno, california, because they want to accomplish a little goal while we defend the constitution. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. maloney: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. comer: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from maryland, mr. harris. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for two minutes. mr. harris: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i guess it's appropriate for someone from maryland to speak on this issue because this is maryland's land we are talking about. this land was given for the purpose of a federal enclave by maryland. how dare the congress take maryland's land from it. that's not why it was given. mr. speaker, let's talk about the unconstitutional -- you
10:36 am
heard about the unconstitutionality we don't need to talk about it anymore. i urge everyone watching us on c-span today go get your copy of the constitution. it's written in black and white. this is very blaine. this is clearly unconstitutional. -- very plain. this is clearly unconstitutional. i hope america was paying attention to the majority leader's speech. that one line where he said this is all about politics. in fact, he even gave the history. he said, well in the past the republicans wanted senators and so and so wanted senators. so they made -- we don't live in the past. we live in the present. mr. speaker, is this what america wants? do they want pure politics? that's what -- not my words. that's what the majority leader said. this is all about politics. mr. speaker, let's ask why did our founders do what they did? every american is watching
10:37 am
think about what you saw last summer. you saw a white house under siege. you saw a mob. we know members of this house have promoted mobs. they did it last weekend. it will happen again. if we put the boundary next to the federal buildings, it will be subject to a mob. a mob controlled by a state. not a federal enclave. that is the last thing this country needs. it's the last thing the federal government needs. i see my colleagues on the other side shaking their head. how else would one describe the group outside the white house? it was an uncontrolled mob. thank god that federal troops were allowed to be there. federal forces. federal law enforcement to stop that mob. that's why we need the district of columbia to be the federal enclave. i oppose the bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. maloney: i now yield one minute to the gentleman from
10:38 am
the great state of new york, congressman jones. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. mr. jones: mr. speaker, i have had enough of my colleagues' racist insinuations that somehow the people of washington, d.c., are incapable or even unworthy of our democratcy. one senate republican said that d.c. wouldn't be a, quote, well-rounded working class state. i had no idea there were so many sill labbles in the word white. one of my white house republican colleagues said d.c. shouldn't be a state because the district doesn't have a land phil. -- landfill. my goodness, with all the racist trash my colleagues have brought to this debate, i can see why they are worried about having a place to put it. the truth is there is no good faith argument for disenfranchising over 700,000 people, mr. speaker. most of whom are people of color.
10:39 am
>> point of order. mr. speaker, i move the gentleman's words be taken down. the speaker pro tempore: the is gentleman's point was not timely. the gentleman from new york will proceed. the debate has proceeded and the man was not timely. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. jones: the truth is there is no good faith argument for disenfranchising.
10:40 am
does the gentleman from new york ask for unanimous consent to withdraw the words? mr. jones: mr. speaker, that's fine. you have my consent to withdraw. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman withdraws his words. debate will continue. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. jones: thank you, mr. speaker. the truth is there is no good faith argument for disenfranchising over 700,000 people. most of whom are people of color. these desperate objections are about fear. fear that in d.c. their white supremacist politics will no longer play. soon enough white supremacist politics won't work anywhere in america. fear that if they don't rig our democratcy, they will not win. today democrats are standing up for a multiracial democracy. to demock cra advertise all 51 states in this country. i yield back.
10:41 am
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from new york reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. comer: i yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. griffith. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. griffith: thank you, mr. speaker. d.c. statehood is unconstitutional. both republican and democrat administrations of the past have long interpreted the constitution in that fashion. one of the problems with d.c. statehood is that two states, my home state of virginia and maryland gave land for the seat of government and they did not do so with the intent to create a new state. when virginia's land wasn't used for the seat of government, congress ceded it back to virginia. it did not create a new state. as it was thefpblet retrosession is our best course of action today. shrinking the seat of government which is permitted
10:42 am
by article 1 and returning the rest to maryland for the purposes of representation offers d.c. residents a voice in the federal legislative branch. and keeps faith with maryland's original session of land for d.c. it also works within the bounds of the constitution. i have introduced a bill and it's later going to be a motion to recommit, i have also taken great care as a part of that to make sure retrosession and the transfer of administrative function from d.c. to maryland run as smoothly as possible. if you are worried about the details of d.c. government, this bill, this motion to recommit, takes care of them. as the old prego commercial say, it's in there. congressional representation, it's in there. the courts, it's in there. the national guard, it's in there. commitments to retirees, it's in there. tuition assistance, it's in there. preventing the remaining federal district from casting the three electoral votes meant for d.c., it's in there.
10:43 am
my motion to recommit, which i'll offer in a bit, is the most practical solution to giving d.c. residents a voice in congress. to give them a right to vote. mr. speaker, if we adopt the motion to recommit, we will instruct the committee on oversight and reform to consider my amendment to h.r. 51. to provide for the retrosession of land to the state of maryland rather than to create a new state. i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. maloney: mr. speaker, i now grant a minute and a half to the distinguished constitutional scholar, congressman raskin, from maryland. the speaker pro tempore: the
10:44 am
gentleman from maryland is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. raskin: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, madam chair. i hope that our distinguished colleagues don't flatter themselves to think that they are the first members of congress who oppose other americans' democratic rights to wrap their arguments in constitutional clothing. because this has actually been the standard in american history. with texas it was said texas could not be admitted because it would be unconstitutional because it was its own country anti-constitution nowhere gives congress the power to admit a foreign republic as a state. it was said hawaii and alaska could not be admitted because they weren't contiguous. west virginia everyone knew couldn't be admitted because it used to be part of virginia just like kentucky was part of virginia. oklahoma it was said was too poor and therefore did not meet constitutional wreck which sits. utah was too morman. new mexico was too catholic. this is very much in the mainstream of partisan political opposition to vindicating the rights of
10:45 am
american citizens. colleague from virginia invites us to say, just give it -- just give washington d.c. back to maryland. thereby conceding that congress has the power to modify the boundaries of the district of columbia as was established in 1847 with the retrosession of virginia. there is one problem with his argument. the people of washington, d.c., haven't asked to go back to maryland and maryland has not requested that the land be given back to maryland. instead, what we have is american citizens exercising the rights under the 9th amendment to the constitution organizing the new state and petitioning for admission to the union. that is how america has grown. they have demonstrated their commitment to our democracy by defending us against violent insurrectionists on january 6. let's show our commitment to their democratic rights. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from new york reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. . mr. comer: mr. speaker, i have
10:46 am
no further speakers. i am ready to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. maloney: we have no further speakers. we're prepared to close if the other side is. we reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. comer: thank you, mr. speaker. i wonder listening to the debate if our friends on the other side of the aisle was so passionate if washington, d.c., were 90% republican as 90% democrat? h.r. 51 goes against the founding fathers' intent and is unconstitutional, impractical, and a blatant power grab. the founding fathers created the federal city, this federal city to be separate and apart from the states which it would serve as the seat of government. they designed it this way so there would be no superstate that could undoly influence affairs and elections. now, i understand the people of
10:47 am
d.c.'s concern. it's not a new one. if democrats truly wanted to grant the wishes of d.c. residents, then they would address the constitutional issues with h.r. 51 since it does not stand a chance in court. we all know that. this does not stand one chance in court. additionally, democrats could explore other options other than statehood. but they're not interested in any of them since they don't add two new progressive senators to the u.s. senate. serious policy proposals, like retrosession, allowing d.c. residents to vote in maryland, federal elections, and most importantly, the passage of the constitutional amendment, have been called for by many of my republican colleagues. no state has required a constitutional amendment to be admitted to the union. not one.
10:48 am
but d.c. is unique. the 23rd amendment guarantees the district three electoral college votes. there's no precedent for granting statehood to a territory with electoral college votes or such a special place in our constitution. h.r. 51 is an unconstitutional bill. d.c. is also massively unprepared to assume the cost of the programs and benefits it receives by being the federal seat of government. the new state will very likely levy a commuter tax to make up the funding gaps currently backed by the federal taxpayers. h.r. 51 provides no guarantee to the american people that they will not be on the hook funding the new state for years, if not decades. this bill is nothing more than an attempt to ignore the constitutional process and gain
10:49 am
an advantage in the u.s. senate. all to advance a radical agenda that continues to come out of this house and stalls in the senate. democrats know a constitutional amendment, granting d.c. statehood, would be rejected, just as has been in the past. h.r. 51 is intentionally designed to circumvent the constitution and the will of the american people. i urge my colleagues to reject this unconstitutional and impractical legislation. i urge a no vote and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. maloney: thank you, mr. speaker. statehood for d.c. is about fairness, justice, and ensuring that all americans have an equal stake in our republic.
10:50 am
it is not unconstitutional. it is constitutional. this is not about politics. it's a fundamental voting and civil rights issue. the real wrong is denying 712,000 tax-paying american citizens the right to vote. our nation is founded upon the principle that all people should have a voice in their government. no taxation without representation. but without voting representation in congress, the people of d.c. are denied that most basic fundamental right. today's debate forces us to confront the fundamental question of who we are as a nation. do we believe in the right to full and equal representation,
10:51 am
or are these just empty words? d.c. residents are americans, and they deserve the equal rights our national ideals promised them. i want to, again, thank the outstanding congresswoman for her tireless and selfless advocacy to ensure that d.c. residents finally gain full representation they deserve. i join many and thank the leadership of the democratic caucus, speaker nancy pelosi, majority leader hoyer, james clyburn, and i urge a yes vote in favor of this critical civil rights bill. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. pursuant to house resolution 330, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended. the question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.
10:52 am
the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to provide for the admission of the state of washington, d.c., into the union. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the clerk: mr. griffith of virginia moves to recommit the bill h.r. 51 to the committee on oversight and reform. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 19, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. the noes have it. the motion is not agreed to. mr. griffith: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. griffith: mr. speaker, i request 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
10:53 am
prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
10:54 am
10:55 am
10:56 am
10:57 am
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. timmons: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. wilson of south carolina, i inform the house that mr. wilson will vote aye on the motion to recommit. as the member designated by mr. gonzalez of ohio, pursuant to
10:58 am
h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. gonzalez will vote aye on the motion to recommit.
10:59 am
11:00 am
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois seek recognition? miss underwood: as the member designated by mr. rush, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. rush will vote no on the motion to recommit.
11:01 am
11:02 am
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from missouri seek recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mrs. walorski of indiana, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mrs.
11:03 am
walorski will vote yea on the motion to recommit.
11:04 am
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. beyer: as the member designated by ms. barragan of california, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that miss bira began will
11:05 am
vote no on the motion to recommit. as the member designated by mr. lieu of california, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. lieu will vote no on the motion to recommit. as the member designated by mr. lowenthal of california, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. lowenthal will vote no on the motion to recommit.
11:06 am
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. raskin: as the member designated by mr. ruppersberger, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. ruppersberger will vote no on the motion to recommit.
11:07 am
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. correa: as the member designated by mr. khanna, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. cana will vote no on the motion to recommit.
11:08 am
-- mr. gomez: as the member designated by mr. khanna, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. khanna will vote no on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? a good morning, mr. speaker. as the member designated by mr. doyle of pennsylvania, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. doyle will vote no on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for
11:09 am
what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. grijalva, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. grijalva will vote no on the motion to recommit.
11:10 am
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. evans: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. lawson of florida, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. lawson votes no on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from massachusetts seek recognition? ms. clark: as the member designated by ms. meng, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that ms. meng will vote no on the motion to recommit.
11:11 am
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. nunes of california, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. nunes will vote
11:12 am
yes on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. stanton: as the member designated by mrs. kirkpatrick, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mrs. kirkpatrick will vote no on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. babin, the great state of texas, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. babin will vote yes on the motion to recommit.
11:13 am
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition mr. connolly: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. mfume of maryland, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. mfume will vote no on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from washington seek recognition ms. delbene: mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. sewell, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that ms. sewell will vote no on the motion to recommit.
11:14 am
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. lynch: good morning, mr. speaker. as the member designated by the honorable mrs. trahan of massachusetts, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mrs. trahan will vote no on the motion to recommit, h.r. 51. the washington d.c. admissions act. mr. speaker, as the member designated by the honorable mr. james langevin of rhode island, i'd like to inform the house that mr. langevin will vote no on the motion to recommit h.r. 51. thank you.
11:15 am
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? -- the gentlewoman from georgia seek recognition. >> as the member designated by, mr. gosar of arizona, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. gosar will vote aye on h.r. 51.
11:16 am
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. correa: mr. speaker, as the member designated by congress member napolitano, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that congress member napolitano will vote no on the motion to recommit. mr. speaker, as the member designated by congress member costa, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that congress member costa will vote no on the motion to recommit.
11:17 am
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 no on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. speaker. as the member designated by mr. moulton of massachusetts, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. moulton will vote no on the motion to recommit.
11:18 am
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 no on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the
11:19 am
gentlewoman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> as the member designated by ms. speier, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that ms. speier will vote no on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, thank you. as the member designated by mr. crenshaw, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. crenshaw will vote aye on the motion to recommit.
11:20 am
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from virginia seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. allred, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. allred will vote no on the motion to recommit. as the member designated by ms. porter, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that ms. porter will vote no on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. leger fernandez, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that ms. leger fernandez will vote no on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from missouri seek recognition? ms. bush: as the member designated by mrs. omar, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that ms. omar will vote no on the motion to recommit.
11:21 am
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. bonnie watson coleman, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mrs. watson coleman will vote no on the motion to recommit. and as the member designated by mr. donald payne, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. payne will vote no on the motion to recommit. and finally, as the member designated by mr. sires, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. sires will vote no on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> as the member designated by
11:22 am
representative cardenas, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that representative cardenas will vote no on the motion to recommit.
11:23 am
11:24 am
11:25 am
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. speaker. men many -- as the member designated by mr. donald of the state of florida, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. donald will vote yea on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. speaker. as the member designated by mr. mchenry of the state of north carolina, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. mchenry will vote yea on the motion to recommit.
11:26 am
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 205, the nays are 215.
11:27 am
the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. >> mr. speaker -- >> mr. speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. >> mr. speaker. 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.]
11:28 am
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. khanna, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. khanna will vote aye on h.r. 51. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. crenshaw, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. crenshaw will be voting nay on house resolution 51. 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 h.r. 51. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. connolly: as the member designated by mr. welch of
11:29 am
vermont, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. welch will vote yes on h.r. 51. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. donald of the state of florida, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. donleds will vote nee on h.r. 51 -- will vote nay on h.r. 51. as the member designated by mr. mchenry of the state of north carolina, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. mchenry will vote nay on h.r. 51. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. connolly: 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.r. 51.
11:30 am
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from virginia seek recognition? ms. wexton: thank you, mr. speaker. as the member designated by mr. allred, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that allred will vote yes on h.r. 51. as the member designated by ms. porter, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that ms. porter will vote yes on h.r. 51. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. nunes of california, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. nunes will vote no on h.r. 51.
11:31 am
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from pennsylvania seek recognition? ms. scanlon: as the member designated by ms. speier, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that ms. speier will vote yes on h.r. 51. search for what purpose does the gentleman from -- the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. beyer: mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. barragan, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that ms. barragan will vote yes on h.r. 51. as the member designated by mr. lieu, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. lieu will vote yes on h.r. 51. as the member designated by mr. lowenthal, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. lowenthal will vote yes on h.r. 51. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman
11:32 am
from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by -- mr. cartwright: as the member designated by, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house by mr. doyle of pennsylvania, i will hereby inform the house that mr. doyle will vote yes on h.r. 51.
11:33 am
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 house resolution 8, i inform the house that ms. wilson will vote yes on h.r. 51. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. babin from the great state of texas, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. babin will vote no on h.r. 51. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the the gentlewoman from missouri seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. speaker. as the member designated by ms. ilhan omar, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that ms. omar will vote yes on h.r. 51. the speaker pro tempore: for
11:34 am
what purpose does the the gentlewoman from georgia seek recognition? mrs. greene: mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. gosar will vote no on h.r. 51. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. evans: mr. 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 passage. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. leger fernandez, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that ms. leger fernandez will vote yes on h.r. 51.
11:35 am
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. garcia: as the member designated by mr. grijalva, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. grijalva will vote aye on h.r. 51. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. stanton: as the member designated by mr. cardenas, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house representative cardenas will vote aye on h.r. 51.
11:36 am
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from washington seek recognition? miss dell binny: mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. sewell, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that ms. sewell will vote yes on h.r. 51. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from missouri seek recognition? mrs. wagner: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mrs. walorski of yip, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mrs. walorski will vote nay on h.r. 51. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. lynch: good morning, mr. speaker. as the member designated by the honorable mrs. trahan of massachusetts, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that miss -- mrs. trahan will vote yes on h.r. 51, the washington d.c. admissions act. mr. speaker, the honorable mr.
11:37 am
james langevin of rhode island, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. langevin will vote yes on h.r. 51, the washington d.c. admission act. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. perlmutter: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. moulton of massachusetts, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. moulton will vote yes on h.r. 51.
11:38 am
the speaker pro tempore: for
11:39 am
what purpose does the gentlewoman from massachusetts seek recognition? ms. clark: as the member designated by ms. meng, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that ms. meng will vote yes on h.r. 51.
11:40 am
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. raskin: as the member designated by mr. ruppersberger, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. ruppersberger will vote aye on h.r. 51, the washington d.c. admission act.
11:41 am
11:42 am
11:43 am
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by congress member costa, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house congress member costa will vote yes on h.r. 51. mr. correa: mr. speaker, as the member designated by congress women napolitano, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that congress member napolitano will vote yes on h.r. 51.
11:44 am
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. pallone: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mrs. bonnie watson coleman, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mrs. watson coleman will vote yes on h.r. 51. as the member designated by mr. donald payne, pursuant to house
11:45 am
resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. payne will vote yes on h.r. 51. as the member designated by mr. sires, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. sires will vote yes on h.r. 51.
11:46 am
11:47 am
11:48 am
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman
11:49 am
-- for what purpose does the gentleman -- for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, 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 h.r. 51. mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. gonzalez of ohio, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. gonzalez will vote nay on h.r. 51.
11:50 am
11:51 am
11:52 am
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
11:53 am
h.r. 51. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does -- for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. stefanik, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that ms. stefanik will vote no on h.r. 51.
11:54 am
11:55 am
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. gibbs, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. gibbs will vote no on h.r. 51.
11:56 am
11:57 am
11:58 am
11:59 am
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 216. the yeas are 208. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause of rule 20, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to table the motion to reconsider the mote on the motion to suspend the rules
12:00 pm
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. 65, h.r. 1602, and h.r. 2523. and agree to house resolution 124. on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill and the resolution. the clerk: h.r. 367, a bill to amend the homeland security act of 2002, to establish an acquisition professional career program and for other purposes. h.r. 370, a bill to amend the homeland security act of 2002 to
12:01 pm
make technical corrections to requirement that the secretary of homeland security submit quad renall homeland security reviews and for other purposes. . to clarify certain allowable uses of funds for public transportation, security assistance grants and establish performance for such grants and for other purposes. h.r. 397, a bill to amend the homeland security act of 2002 to establish chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear intelligence and information sharing functions of the office of intelligence and analysis of the department of homeland security and to acquire dissemination of information analyzed by the department to entities with responsibilities related to homeland security and for other purposes. h.r. 408, a bill to amend the homeland security act of 2002 to establish a mentor protege program, and for other purposes.
12:02 pm
h.r. 490, a bill to amend the homeland security act of 2002 to improve morale within the department of homeland security, responsibilities to the chief human capital, establishing a steering committee, requiring action plans and offering an annual award program and for other purposes. h.r. 965, a bill to establish a comprehensive united states government initiative to build the capacity of young leaders and entrepreneurs in africa and for other purposes. h.r. 1251, a bill to support 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. single family mortgage insurance for first-time home burs homebu. a bill to amend the fair debt
12:03 pm
cleks collection act, to stop harassment of members of the armed forces and for other purposes. h.r. 1528, a bill to require the securities and exchange commission to carry out a study of rules 10-d-5-1 training purposes and for other purposes. h.r. 1532, a bill to require a review of the effect of f.h.a. insurance policies, practices on small-dollar mortgage lending and for other purposes. h.r. 1565, a bill to create an interdivisional task force at the securities and exchange commission for senior investors. h.r. 1602, a bill to direct the kvts kvts and -- securities and exchange commission and for other purposes. a bill to amend the american rescue plan act of 2021 to
12:04 pm
improve the covid-19 rapid training program, to make technical corrections to the johnny isakson improvement act and for other purposes. house resolution 124, resolution supporting the people of belarus and their democratic aspirations and condemning the election rigging and crack down of protesters on the lukashenko regime. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to table. members will record their votes by electronic [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 proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. perlmutter: 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 motion to table.
12:05 pm
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from missouri seek recognition? mrs. wagner: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mrs. walorski, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mrs. walorski will vote yea 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. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from virginia seek recognition? ms. wexton: 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 table. and as the member designated by ms. porter, prerz, i inform the house that -- 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 missouri seek recognition? ms. bush: as the member designated by ms. ilhan omar, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that ms. omar will vote yes on the motion to table. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman
12:06 pm
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 yes on the motion to table. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from washington seek recognition? ms. delbene: mr. speaker, as 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 table. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. nunes, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. nun yes, sir will vote no -- neeness on the -- nunes will vote no on the motion to table. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from virginia seek recognition? ms. scanlon: as the member
12:07 pm
designated by ms. speier, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that ms. speier will vote yes on the motion to table. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from georgia seek recognition? mrs. greene: mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 8, as the member designated by mr. gosar of arizona, i inform the house that mr. gosar will vote no on the motion to reconsider. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. connolly: mr. 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.
12:08 pm
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. calvert: as the member designated by mr. nunes, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. nunes will change his vote to yea on the motion to fable. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition?
12:09 pm
mr. gomez: as the member designated by mr. khanna, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. khanna will vote aye on the motion to table. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? mrs. cammack: as the member designated by mr. donalds of florida, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. donalds will vote nay on the motion to table. as the member designated by mr. mchenry of north carolina, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. mchenry will vote yea on the motion to table. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. beyer: mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. barragan, 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.
12:10 pm
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. lynch: good morning, mr. speaker. as the member designated by the honorable mrs. lori trahan of massachusetts, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mrs. trahan will vote yes on the motion to table, motion to reconsider. and 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 table, the motion to reconsider. thank you. 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 table. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? ms. jacobs: mr. speaker, as the
12:11 pm
member designated by ms. leger fernandez, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that ms. leger fernandez will vote yes on the motion to table.
12:12 pm
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does -- for what purpose does the gentlewoman from massachusetts seek recognition? ms. clark: 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 table. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? 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 aye on the motion to table. as the member designated by mr.
12:13 pm
gonzalez of ohio, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. gonzalez will vote aye on the motion to table. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. evans: mr. 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 tabling the motion to reconsideration. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. garcia: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. grijalva, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. grijalva will vote aye on the motion to table. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. doyle of pennsylvania, pursuant to h.res. 8, i hereby inform the house
12:14 pm
that mr. doyle will vote yes on the motion to table. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. stanton: 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.
12:15 pm
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. raskin: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. ruppersberger, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. ruppersberger votes aye on the motion to table.
12:16 pm
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. correa: mr. 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 mr. speaker, as the member designated by congress member napolitano, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that congress member napolitano will also vote yes on the motion to table.
12:17 pm
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. stefanik, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that ms. the fanic will vote no on the motion to table.
12:18 pm
12:19 pm
12:20 pm
the speaker pro tempore: frup does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. pallone: 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. sires, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. sires will vote yes on
12:21 pm
the motion to table.
12:22 pm
12:23 pm
12:24 pm
12:25 pm
12:26 pm
12:27 pm
12:28 pm
12:29 pm
12:30 pm
12:30 p.m. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. mcgovern: as the member designated by mr. welch of vermont, as the member designated by -- pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. welch will vote yes on the motion to table.
12:31 pm
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition?
12:32 pm
mr. gallego: as the member designated by representative cardenas, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that representative cardenas will vote yes on the motion to table.
12:33 pm
12:34 pm
12:35 pm
12:36 pm
12:37 pm
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 292. and the nays are 123. the motion is adopted. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from oregon seek recognition? ms. bonamici: i rise joined by my colleagues from the oregon congressional delegation and others to announce the passing of our esteemed former colleague, congresswoman elizabeth who represented the first district of oregon, the district i'm honored to represent, from 1993 to 1999. she was not only a friend but a mentor, my first experience was
12:38 pm
during her re-election in 1994. she enspierd dedication to -- inspired dedication to worthy causes including co-founding the oregon peace institute. she met the needs of the community and drive meaningful change. our world is a better place because of elizabeth's tireless devotion to improving the lives of those around her. on behalf of the oregon delegation and all who served with elizabeth and all who are present, i express our sincere condolences to her family and friends and i ask that the house observe a moment of silence in her memory.
12:39 pm
the speaker pro tempore: the
12:40 pm
chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> madam speaker, it's good to be able to stand on the house floor and speak not about the crisis of the day or even my hopes for tomorrow but about something this congress has done to deliver to make people's lives better. when i first ran for this job, the number one demand i heard from voters was make health care more accessible and the affordable care act more affordable. with the american rescue plan, that's what we have done in a major way, by increasing a.c.a. subsidies and capping premiums, we are enabling the typical middle-class family with marketplace coverage to save hundreds of dollars a month. 60-year-old couple making $75,000 a year will save almost $1,400 a month. that's life changing.
12:41 pm
now we just have to make this permanent. to keep the promise that no american should be crushed by the cost of their health care and to give people hope that if they continue to vote for better government, they will continue to get it. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> madam chair, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, i rise today to honor luis, a minister and evangelist from argentina who eventually called the united states home. luis passed away leaving behind a legacy of safe, hope, and love. his work as a passionate representative for christ in one of the most influential international evenge lists in history earned him the nickname
12:42 pm
the billy graham of latin america. he shared with graham the conviction to make disciple of all nation as scripture demands. his home country of argentina, much of the spanish speaking world, and the united states came to know and respect him because of his faithful preaching, evangelism, and work to unite christians and reach all peoples of all backgrounds. with the career that spanned over half a century, he shared the good news of the gospel of jesus christ to millions through television, print. he was able to speak with and influence many military and political leaders. in spite of all that he once said, quote, i never thought of myself as someone special. mr. cloud: i'm just a kid from a cow town in argentina. he said god grabbed my heart at a young and let me use his word.
12:43 pm
humble yourselves before the lord and he will lift you up. it's a good reminder for all of us. may his family be comforted during this time. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: sorry. got that one. try it one more time. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> i seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, the time for action is now. no longer can we substitute slogans for solutions, the protection of the environment offers america its best hope, achieving the goal of a clean and healthy environment must be done by every american. we can reach that goal in this decade and in reaching it we can trigger a chain reaction of confidence and hope. those are the words of bill
12:44 pm
ruckelhaus, a republican, the first administer of the e.p.a. under richard nixon and fifth administrator of the e.p.a. under ronald reagan, a man who implemented the clean air acts amendments. mr. casten: his successor was bill reilly, a global -- who established a global trade program. they knew our obligation to future generations is not negotiable. they tolerated no conflict between conservatism and conservation. 60% of all the greenhouse gas emissions we have ever emitted as a species have been released since that speech bill rucklelhaus gave 50 years ago today. madam speaker, the time for action is now. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? >> ams ma, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without
12:45 pm
objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i thank the speaker. i rise today to draw attention to what's become the new normal here in washington, d.c. despite talks of bipartisanship and unity, democrats have turned into a partisan top-down rampant spending style of governing. with president biden's infrastructure vision as the latest example. the fact is that the president's $2.3 trillion infrastructure vision really isn't about infrastructure at all. only 5% is proposed for roads and bridges, and only 2% for airways, waterways, and ports. mr. hill: instead, democrats have proposed spending over half a trillion dollars on the green new deal-style programs to fulfill a far-left wish list. and their solution is paying for all this -- increasing your taxes. the tax hikes to fund this spending spree will only hurt workers and result in lower wages and suppressed economic
12:46 pm
growth. i encourage my friends on the other side of the aisle to stop posturing and work with us on this side of the aisle. we're ready to work with you across the aisle on a package that will truly make a difference to my constituents in arkansas and people across our great nation. thank you, madam speaker, and i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, on this earth day, i rise to recognize the crucial significance of president biden's international climate summit. after four years of neglecting our responsibilities to the planet, and to future generations, the u.s. is back on the world stage and ready to take the bold and urgent action that the climate crisis demands. there is no go it alobe approach -- go it alone approach when it
12:47 pm
comes to climate change. to mitigate the impacts of the climate crisis, the entire world must come together with a common goal of stopping pollution, protecting public health and building a clean and just economy. the consequences of neglecting our duty to protect the planet have never been more clear. i look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to advance the ambitious climate plans of the summit and come together to create a cleaner and better tomorrow. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. flurp does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and hethheth my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. i rise to recognize the 106th anniversary of the armenian
12:48 pm
genocide. saturday, april 24, is american -- armenian genocide remembrance day. on the anniversary of armenian genocide we mourn the innocent lives lost and renew our call to recognize these events for what they were, a genocide. the armenian people were removed from their homes an fell victim to mass murder campaign between 1915 to 1916. it is estimated that over one million armenians were killed in this tragedy. so many years later, people still do not call these events a genocide. if we do not teach an accurate history, we are doomed to repeat it. it is our responsibility to recognize these tragedies and to mourn them. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition?
12:49 pm
>> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. the killing of adam shook the nation. the video shows a 13-year-old boy chased by an officer complying with instructions to drop it and shows his hands up. still, the officer shot adam in the chest. he complied and still died. it's hard to watch the video and not imagine a son or a nephew in his place. it brought very powerful, personal emotions for people, i know it did for me. it was around the same time, same age as adam i moved to the neighborhood of little village. i have known countless youth who died on our street, whether it was gun violence from gangs or in this case the police. we must pass the george floyd justice in policing act and end
12:50 pm
qualified immunity but in black and latino communities we know the police play by a different set of rule taos often. change requires more accountability, we must invest in families and youth rather than violent policing. [speaking spanish] i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. the gentleman will provide the translation to the desk. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to honor the life of dave rock from hospers, iowa. he recently passed away from a long and courageous battle with
12:51 pm
a rare organ condition. dave dedicated his life to serving his community his great grandfather starting the telephone company in the early 1900's and dave took over the company from his dad and worked tirelessly to ensure that rural communities served hi h.t.c. communications had quality telecommunications services. dave was instrumental in building the fiber network in the 1990's across iowa, which now serves as a back done of our economy by connecting rural iowa to the world. above, dave also leaves behind his wife of 54 years arlene, and their children, ruth, rachel, and paul. along with their many grandchildren. dave was truly a family man. please join me in praying for his loved ones as they say good-bye. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek
12:52 pm
recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> prip 30 we commemorate the 46th anniversary of black april or the fall of saigon. on this day we are reminded of the pain of losing your homeland and the sacrifices made in search for freedom from tyranny. when saigon fell in 1975, thousands of families were forced to flee their home or be brutalized in re-education camps -- camps. today the refugees from vietnam are proud americans who are very important part of our community and our country. the united states must always be a beacon of hope to those without hope. we must continue to stand up for human rights and religious freedom around the world. thank you, madam speaker, and i yield. the speaker pro tempore: thank you.
12:53 pm
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek reck to be recognized? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise to say fiemy final good-bye to alcee hastings. someone will be elected to fill his seat but alveasey is irreplaceable. his life was full, complex, and extraordinary. born in 1936, alcee spent his formative years in my district. he lived in altamont springs and attend the academy in sanford. this was the segregated south where opportunities available to african-americans were few and the obstacles to success were many. but alcee was a force of nature. he rose to become an attorney and then a state judge and then a federal judge. judge hastings suffered a setback but he rose again becoming a member of congress.
12:54 pm
admired by his colleagues and beloved by his constituents. as congressman hakeem jeffries put it, alcee loved the people he served and he always fought for the least, the lost, and the left behind. the book of alcee's life contains challenging chapter bus ultimately it's a story of redemption. written by a warrior for justice and equality who left the world a far better place than he found it. rest in peace, congressman, you've earned it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, as a proud father of two daughter, genevieve and scarlet, i was honored to join my colleagues last week in voting to support the passage of h.r. 7, the
12:55 pm
paycheck fairness act. it is deeply regrettable that despite the enactment of the equal pay act of 1963, there remain serious wage gaps based on gender. according to the american association of university women in the first district of indiana, a woman earns just 63 cents for every dollar a man earned for performing the same job. there must be equal pay for equal work and i am pleased that the house has taken action to right this wrong. i encourage our senate colleagues to move forward with the addressing this wage gap so that every individual, regardless of gender, can receive a fair wage for work they do. thank you, madam speaker, and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: thank you.
12:56 pm
for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: i ask to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: thank you very much, madam speaker. we've had a tull mutts you but invig -- a tu mull us to but invigorating two weeks. just a week ago we were able in the judiciary committee to pass h.r. 40, the commission to study and develop reparation proposals. those who voted for it came from all parts of the country and represented all racial groups. it was a wonderful experience of understanding the cruciality of recognizing the slave history of african-americans and further developing a proposal to deal with the dastardly impact on african-americans.
12:57 pm
we are delight to have had the support of japanese americans, hispanic americans, asian pacific americans, and of course white americans. because they understand the healing power of h.r. 40. then we just recently had a judgment, as i said on this floor, i know the floyd family. they are america's family. we had a judgment on tuesday. that showed the strength of america and her justice system. and the recognition that we are all created equal and each one has to be held accountable for his actions. so this has been a good week. america needs to know that we look forward to passing h.r. 40 on this floor. in celebration of commemoration of juneteenth when slaves were finally freed and passing the george floyd justice in policing act. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. under the speaker's announced policy of january 4, 2021, the gentleman from texas, mr.
12:58 pm
gohmert, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. gohmert: thank you, madam speaker. at this time, it is my honor to consume such time as she might consume to my friend from florida mrs. cammack. mrs. cammack: last week, the press, not the department of agriculture, reported that the trump administration's farmers to families food box program would come to an end. in subsequent reporting, and in an unapologetic email from the usda, it was made clear the only reason for its termination was because of the man who created it. it had open eligibility, making certain anyone and everyone in need regardless of status, income or household size had supplementary access to fresh meat, dairy and produce. since may, 2020, this program has provided more than 156 million boxes to households
12:59 pm
across the united states. farmers to families provided an alternative market for food intended for restaurants and food service, creating outlets for supply chains and due to this covid and due to covid, this food could not easily be realign to retail markets quickly enough to prevent spoilage. even today, farmers to families provides fresh products in greater quantities that traditional emergency feeding programs. items like dairy, meat, fresh produce, which have always presented unique challenges for distribution. it provided work for those whose work was halted by the closure of restaurant, hotels an other food service industries due to covid. in my district, l&m farm a participant montana program,ing mored to supply more than 600,000 boxes of fresh produce to those in need. regardless of the various hiccups heard during the usda's listening sessions in previous hearings and from members of
1:00 pm
this very house, the program worked exactly as intended. as a lifeline for consumers and producers alike during a challenging time. nine hours nine hours after the press broke the story usda relayed via email it will continue to occur to reliable charges of distribution. this leads me to believe that locally focused producers and distributors who benefited greatly from farmers to families are being traded in for billion dollar organizations who have already received billions in government aid to perpetuate dependence instead of eradicating it. madam speaker, i hope this body comes together to voice their strong opposition to the termination of this small piece of salvation that had a positive impact to all of our local communities. particularly those in rural areas. thank you. with that i yield back to the gentleman from texas. mr. gohmert: i thank my friend
1:01 pm
from florida. truly is my friend. at this time it's my privilege to yield such time as he may consume to my friend from indiana, mr. baird. mr. baird: i appreciate my good friend from texas allowing me to have this time in order to share with this body the program that i have for today. madam speaker, i rise today to call attention to the overwhelming challenges plaguing a community in my district. it's located in white and carroll counties of west central indiana and the communities surrounding lakes shafer and freeman are a recreation destination for hoosiers from all across the state. and from americans across the country. the twin lakes as they are known straddle the small community of monticello. in the really -- in the nearly 100 years since the two reservoirs were created by
1:02 pm
damming up the tippy canoe river, their far-reaching attraction has create add flourishing local economy built on tourism, recomplete with the trappings of a family vacation, including its own amusement park, cruise boat, resort marina, and much more. despite all the buildup of amenities of this hoosier destination, the lakes remain the focal point of the community. and the driving force of the regional economy. unfortunately, lake conditions can also have a negative impact on the local area. at the hands of mother nature an outside forces, these crown jewels of the region have been tarnished. on multiple occasions lake freeman because of drought conditions has been drained to the river bed that flows at the bottom. unfortunately, these episodes of diminished lake levels have come at increasingly frequent
1:03 pm
rate in recent years, and in times of even moderate drought conditions. these droughts caused the lake to be almost completely drained. and result in devastation to the natural ecology and the local economy. businesses, homes, property both real and personal, tax revenue, and the loss of family time are all impacted. the past seven months have been one of those times. as drought conditions last summer once again caused lake freeman's water level to plummet by more than 13 feet. completely draining the vast majority of this 1500 acre reservoir. one victim of this devastation is the disruption of local ecological balance. during the worst parts of the episode, area residents walked the lake bed only to find dead turtles, fish, must mussels, and more that had succumb to the lack of water. safety also became a tremendous
1:04 pm
challenge for locals and boaters. as water levels sank, exposing stumps, sharp objects, and other items usually covered by the water. these impacts on the lake quality are especially disappointing to a community that has prided itself in their conservation stewardship of the lake. members of the commute has banned together to -- banded together to -- banned together to courtroom sflecc. this volume tour group raises thousands of dollars every year to fund this summer lakes cleanup projectment over the years, this group has volunteered over 17,000 hours in helping preserve the beauty and natural environment of the lake. residents are facing tremendous economic costs as well. property values have plunged. local drinking water and wells have dried up.
1:05 pm
retaining walls have buckled. threatening the collapse and boats stranded and unable to be winterized. the financial cost to solve these issues are too high for many residents. even if they wanted to move, the values of their homes have dropped considerably. one resident who moved to the lake freeman after she retired said, we build a retirement home on 10 years ago, it's probably not worth half of what it was at that time. it's very depressing. another resident sold tolled our office the difficulties that face -- they have faced after their water well dried up. in order to use any water, they have to drive miles away to purchase their water from a grocery store. small businesses are facing the same tough financial decisions. a cruise boat and entertainment venue struggled significantly to keep their business above water, literally. because of the dried up lake,
1:06 pm
the owners of the vessel had to dock their boat that usually sails year-round. it's almost as bad as it can get, the co-owner told me. tall timbers, a marina that helped prepare and store boats for the winter saw a dramatic drop in their business. and in an advantage year they process around 500 boats. and winterize them. but we are only able to house around 200 boats this year due to them being unable to access the customer's boats. susan wagner, who owns a convenience store and gas station on the shores of the lake, described the situation as bleak. she had to let her employees go earlier than usual because of the lack of business. i'm proud of the resiliency that the hoosiers of this magnificent community have shown. they have exhausted many options to find a solution to this constant problem. while i am disappointed and
1:07 pm
saddened for these hoosiers by their difficulty that these conditions have created, i am happy to report that conditions have finally been restored to normal just recently because of the rains. after more than seven long months of this kind of condition. i want the hoosiers in my district and all those impacted by lake freeman's challenges to know that i hear their concerns. that i am here on their behalf. and that i will do everything i can to remedy this problem. and with that, i yield back the balance of my time. mr. gohmert: i thank the gentleman. obviously an important issue. and we have been taking up such issues but not necessarily the best way to proceed. for one thing the bill that was passed today to make the
1:08 pm
district of columbia a state it, it flies in the face of the bailans of the -- brilliance of the founders when it came to setting up our federal government. yet before we had the constitution ratified in 1789 and our first president sworn in under the new constitution in 1789, george washington, first vice president john adams, and they were all sworn in in federal hall there in new york city. so that was technically the first capital under the new constitution, but before that, under the articles of confederation they used philadelphia, obviously new york. but in the constitution itself
1:09 pm
there was provision for a federal district 10 miles by 10 miles square and it included land that was ceded from maryland that was on the east side of the potomac river, as well as a little bit less land from the west side of the potomac from virginia. the reason the founders felt it was so important to have a separate federal entity that was not wholly contained within a state, not contained within a city, but a federal enclave as the capital was -- big reason no state, no city government could try to extort or hold the capital hostage, for example if
1:10 pm
the capitol got its water from or through a state or city, then they would be subject to having their water turned off. of course that was a rather big issue back in the day. we know that new york city had a problem with disease and lack of water to put out fires. and a guy named aaron burr, who was vice president, ended up being vice president, hoped to be president, he and some partners made a proposal for legislation that would create the manhattan water company that would provide all the water that was needed, and it would be clean. that would help stop the
1:11 pm
disease. they would provide water free to put out fires. and so that seemed very attractive. the thing is they needed -- they said they needed a monopoly so that they could afford to pay for what all they were going to do. they had alexander hamilton review it, they got him to sign on that it was worthy, honorable project. and somewhere after alexander hamilton reviewed the language for that, other words were inserted not only to provide for the manhattan water company, water business, but also such other economic practices or businesses they felt appropriate. that was a seem the whole time to create a bank that was not created under other federal law. so manhattan bank was created.
1:12 pm
aaron burr and his partners let manhattan suffer without the water. so even back then in the late 1800's -- late 1700's and early 1800's, water was a big deal. electricity was be, obviously, not a big deal yet. but same thing. if you have to get things you need to subsist through another state or city, then there is always a possibility that you could be extorted. and we saw the brilliance of the founders back last summer when we had a democrat mayor that did not like the president of the united states. and some of us were wondering is she going to authorize
1:13 pm
washington, d.c. police to protect the white house itself? obviously she didn't provide much help to stop fires from being lit at the historic church right there catty-corner to the white house. but some of us observed what was going on and a mayor that didn't seem to care too much about the president, wow, what if you saw that play out it's exactly what the founders wanted to avoid, the u.s. capitol, the u.s. government being held hostage, it could easily -- you see how it could very easily played into that situation. so it was brilliant. the federal enclave, the federal district that was
1:14 pm
provided for in our constitution would not be part of any state, would not be part of a city. it would be the district of columbia. it was brilliant. and now as the majority leader pointed out, purely for politics that this was all about politics, the majority decided they wanted to make the district of columbia a state unto itself. if that were to become a part of our system here, then this government would be totally subject to the whims of the state of columbia. we could be prevented from going into session.
1:15 pm
we could be prevented from leaving. we could -- it creates a situation down the road for when things could truly get out of hand. and even though the mainstream media and our friends across the aisle refer to the $2 billion of damage, the deaths, shooting, looting, government buildings being burned, refer to that as peaceful demonstrations they certainly weren't. . in the areas where stores were being looted and destruction was the lot. but that could come back again and you could have people that would be that active.
1:16 pm
obviously b.l.m. is more concerned about making this a socialist country, an orwellian totalitarian country. than they are any race, it certainly appears. antifa is all about creating chaos. because out of chaos they figure will come a totalitarian orwellian government. so this time we're going through right now will be looked at historically in other countries and whatever this country becomes, and this will be pointed to as a very, very important time. now, we were accused of playing politics with this issue on the republican side. and i can't speak to -- for
1:17 pm
everyone, but i can speak for all the republicans i've talked to. this is still an important concept that we not have a capital subject to being held hostage. and if d.c. becomes a state, that scenario is then set up and it's not good for the country. in wrestling with these issues after i got here, you know, i saw the license plate, i mentioned this before in years past, but at first when i saw taxation without representation, you know, i didn't get it. didn't seem appropriate. but then you find out that actually every territory that does not have a full voting member of the house of representatives that is a territory of the u.s., whether
1:18 pm
it's puerto rico, guam, samoa, u.s. virgin islands, a number of places, if they don't elect a full voting representative, they do not pay federal income tax. and in going back to the revolution. i put this in what in this congress is h.r. 1295, but i filed it back several congresses ago and i filed it, i think, in most every congress since, because i believe it's the right thing to do. it's not to me a matter of politics. it's a matter of being consistent with an ideal, as ben franklin said, if we don't elect one member of the british parliament, they have no right to tax us. and that was a righteous concept. and it still is. and as a matter of principle,
1:19 pm
i've had to agree with that. the people of d.c. are right. they shouldn't have to pay a federal income tax. but as i put in my bill and have in all these different congress sessions we've been through, as i filed it each time, no taxation without representation was a rallying cry of many american collinnists during british rule in the 1760's and early 1770's. the slogan gained widespread noterize -- notoriety after the passage of the sugar act on april 5, 1764. american colonnists increasingly reeventualitied -- resented having taxes levies against them without having legislators in parliament in london. the idea there should be no taxation without representation dated back even further.
1:20 pm
this issue became even more defined in 1765 with the passage of the stamp act. which was the first true attempt to levy a direct tax on the american colonies. ultimately that tax was repealed but the idea of no taxation without representation persisted. article 1, section 2, clause 1 of the united states constitution says, house of representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states and that's why, unless someone was from a state, then under the constitution they didn't get a full voting member of the house. but by the same token, if we're going to be consistent with the founding principles, the residents of the district of
1:21 pm
columbia should not be paying federal income tax, just as those in puerto rico and other territories, they don't pay federal income tax. so, bill goes on and it points out puerto rico, the u.s. virgin islands, guam, commonwealth of the northern mariana islands, american samoa, all these don't pay federal income tax. and so the rest of this bill in this congress, 1295, just says, residents -- in fact the residents of d.c. shouldn't have to -- and don't have to pay federal income tax. now, since i've been here, this issue has been coming up, just as it has over the centuries, about the district of columbia
1:22 pm
representation. it came up back in 1847. the federal government was not really uteligse the land west of the potomac and the people there were saying, look, we want to elect two senators, representatives as our population allows. and you're not using our land, let us go back to being part of virginia. so in 1847 congress, the house and senate, signed by the president, they ceded land back to virginia, the state from which it came, because to do otherwise would have been to cheat virginia. because virginia gave that land for the purpose of being used as part of the federal enclave, the federal capital. so the u.s. government had done
1:23 pm
anything besides use it as a federal enclave for part of the u.s. capital without virginia's permission, basically the federal government would have stolen that from virginia. the right thing, the proper honorable thing to do if it wasn't going to use the land is give it back to virginia. now, some of us can see why it might have been nice if they had said, no, we're going to use it so we're not going to cede it back. but you don't have to -- when federal nks tax came along, you don't -- income tax came along, you don't have to pay that. but that's not what happened. it was ceded back to virginia. that's why when anyone sees a map of the district of columbia, it's not a perfect square. on the west it follows the potomac river. so i have that bill. i've had it for many congresses
1:24 pm
now. and i wish when republicans were in the majority, i could have gotten our leadership to bring it to the floor. because it should have been brought to the floor and it should have passed. but i really thought that at some point, and i'd even offered to redo the bill and put any democrats, including delegate eleanor holmes norton, have it as her bill. she has not chosen to ever be part of this bill. and then we hear today, well, it's all for -- because of politics. well, i'm not -- i've not ever proposed this for politics. i'm proposing it because i know
1:25 pm
our history and i know this is the right thing to do. they should not have to pay federal income tax. and what i've offered in prior years was, look, you know, you're trying to have d.c. have a full voting representative with just legislation, well, that will be unconstitutional at some point. why don't you at least go ahead and get this bill passed, especially while democrats are in the majority, so that until such time as d.c. has a full voting representative, you at least don't have to pay taxation without full representation. but i've never gotten democrats to agree to do that. so, it probably, quite probably was not brought to the floor by republican leaders over the years. that may have well been for political reasons.
1:26 pm
but it's being pushed by me and has all these years as a matter of principle. and it still is. why wouldn't democrats agree to go ahead and do this bill until such time when and if it becomes unnecessary? why would democrats continue to allow taxation without representation to go unchanged? been trying to do this, what, 13 years or so? but, apparently there's a problem on both sides of the aisle. i wish people would quit playing politics and just be fair to the people of washington, d.c. but back when i first proposed a bill to eliminate the income tax, federal income tax, as puerto rico knows, you know, there's no federal income tax, but they have a very, very
1:27 pm
substantial local tax which is what happens when you have approaching 30% of the workers working for the government, you're going to have a lot of taxes to pay. but on the other hand, since 1847 land was ceded west of the potomac back to virginia, if you're bent on giving people two senators to vote for as well as at least one representative, then the proper thing to do would be to cede the land back to the state from which it came, don't cheat that state, the federal government should not be in the business of cheating people or cheating states, and so this bill, which in this congress, it's had another
1:28 pm
number before, but in this congress it is 2651, and it's cited as the district of columbia-maryland reunion act and it goes through and gives some history, kind of big on that, important to know where we came from so we know where we should go. and it cites some of the things i've already mentioned. but then it gets into actually drawing a descriptive line around the federal buildings to include the capitol and the white house and the important federal buildings, and so that would still be federal property. and then ceding the rest of the land back to maryland. now i prefer just to keep the district of columbia and the
1:29 pm
residents not pay federal income tax, but rather than trying to do what's unconstitutional, seemed pretty clear to me, cheat maryland out of the land they gave, i mean, it's a bait and switch. yeah, you gave it for the federal enclave, but we're going to take it and make it a separate state, and, yes, each time you create a new state it weakens the power of those states already in existence because their two senators' votes aren't quite as important as they once were, but this would be a constitutional and appropriate solution if the majority chose to go that way. i still think, regardless, even as a majority persists in trying
1:30 pm
to create a state, which i think should ultimately be struck down , why not go ahead and give the residents of the district of columbia the relief they deserve and say, in the meantime, congress has full authority to say who's taxed and who isn't and the residents of the district of columbia do not elect a full voting representative yet, so they don't pay any income tax. and again i will extend that offer, you know, i was told by state senators bill ratliff and i can't remember whow quoted, but -- remember who he quoted, but it's amazing what you can get done if you don't care who gets the credit. i've often i have off been willing to say put whoever's name will help this bill gets through. sometimes i made my own leadership mad enough that i
1:31 pm
would -- if i had a good idea i would provide it to somebody on the committee of jurisdiction and say this is a good bill. why don't you lead on it? why don't you do it? because it's you are on the committee of jurisdiction and i made republican leaders mad. so it's got a better chance if you do it. it's been nice to see people make good use of their authority in that way. there's been plenty of things written about this issue. one from a blog of the national archives, unratified amendments. d.c. voting rights. interesting article there. national review has an article from march of this year, d.c. statehood, it's an idea whose time should never come. another from david concerning
1:32 pm
d.c. statehood, the founders have already spoken. that's from march of this year also. something called a wayback machine, article on constitutional amendments not ratified. of course d.c. statehood is one such as is the idea of giving full representation, though the constitution says it will come from several states. that was something vote on in a prior congress since i have been here. there's a great letter from the attorney general of south carolina, alan wilson, on this issue. and he makes a great argument, article 4, section 3, provides
1:33 pm
new states may be admitted, but goes on to explain why the only lawful way to provide statehood to the district of columbia is to amend the constitution. the district of columbia's creation traces to article 1, section 8, clause 17 of the constitution. and it goes on and makes a very compelling case. i don't know what the senate's going to do. i hope that at least some of the democrat senators will understand that this is no time to be violating our constitution when things have been going out of control. you got even some people right
1:34 pm
in our own house of representatives that are calling for and have called for confrontation, get in people's face, making them miserable, intimidating, threatening, making sure they don't -- they aren't feeling welcome. this is a tragic time. the founders would normally quote voltaire, some say attribution lies elsewhere, but the statement was i disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it. and nowadays it seems like the majority power in congress and the white house more takes a position, i disagree with what you say, and i'm woke so i want
1:35 pm
you fired. i want you never be able to get work again. i want your children harassed. we are going to threaten to rape, kill, destroy, do all kinds of damage to your family. and we hope that your family is destroyed and no longer exists very soon. that's a long way from where we came. we have come so far, and in each century made major steps forward so that the constitution would mean exactly what it says. and now we are arriving at a time where instead of reaching what dr. king dreamed of, people being judged by the content of their character not the color of their skin or anything else, we are going back to being a more racist society.
1:36 pm
we do want segregation. there was a time when segregation was considered evil. you shouldn't segregate people by their skin color, yes. frankly roosevelt believed in it. democrat that he was. democrat woodrow wilson believed in segregation and did so. used segregation inappropriately. and now we are coming back to a time where people on the left are advocating for segregation, advocating for judging people by their skin color. it's still wrong. it's always been wrong. it still is. one of the beauties of a country founded on judeo-christian principles was regardless that slavery
1:37 pm
existed, if this country was going to continue under the principles on which it was founded, there was going to have to be a day of reckoning when people who were leaders in this country said, look, we were endowed by our god, our creator, with certain unalienable rights. and it doesn't matter what your skin color is. those things don't matter. god loves every human being. there are some things we are told in the bible god hates. lying lips is one that god detests. and that's easy to understand. but god doesn't want for any of us to stumble. and he doesn't want people causing others to stumble. and we seem to have been approaching that more closely than ever in our history.
1:38 pm
it took the civil war, it took a christian minister named king preaching nonviolence, peaceful demonstration, not getting in people's faces and intimidating them or using violence. we were making so much progress . we'd come farther than any country in the history of the world. heard somebody this week say we are really probably the most racially diverse country, and we don't penalize people for their race. that's been a problem throughout history for the world. and yet we made so much progress and now we have people on the left advocating for segregation and advocating for
1:39 pm
judging people by characteristics instead of by the content of their carketemplet -- character. it was also shocking this week in debate in the if judiciary committee to hear somebody across the aisle saying that no democrats have ever advocated for defunding the police. and i'm sure it was intended as an honest statement, the trouble is it's simply not true. and you don't have to do much of an online search even with google and facebook and twitter covering for the democratic party, you still don't have to
1:40 pm
work too hard to find so many democrat-controlled cities that are defunding the police. they are cutting funds to the police. it's easy to find. there are more even in this body itself that are advocating just completely do away with the policing like we have. and having dealt with the justice system for most of my adult life, i -- the police are not immune to having bad apples. but it always struck me that there were a whole lot fewer bad apples percentage wise in law enforcement than there were most any other area of life,
1:41 pm
any other profession. and they are owed our respect. it that's why it becomes very unpleasant when anyone in control ends up using law enforcement as a political battering ram against those who are not in the majority. we have known for many weeks now that there was and is, according to the chief of the capitol police and sergeant at arms, no intelligence from any source that any member of congress is a threat to any other member of congress. which means the metal detectors that the speaker's had installed around the west,
1:42 pm
east, and north entrance were totally unnecessary. and then, of course, after i pointed out that i was being fined $5,000 for going to the rest room right out that door, where there was no metal detector there, or at the other end of the speaker's lobby, and i didn't avoid the metal detectors. i went through the metal detector on the west. and did so satisfactorily, and for days when i was in here for a long period of time, could go right there through the rest room, the guard's right there at the entrance of the speaker's lobby, could see you go in. see you come out. they checked out the rest room. it's not even a tank where you could do like was done in the godfather where a gun was put in the tank of the toilet. not even a tank to do that in
1:43 pm
in there. and so i had never been told you need to be wanded or checked or anything. that was totally new. but since i raised that now metal detectors have been put there so that democrats can go after republicans. i say that because we now have examples of even the speaker and others who have gone through metal detectors set up, metal detector and refused to be wanded and have not been fined. i understand minority whip -- the majority whip may have done that today. and very sorry for mr. clyburn, may have to make an example of him, just to keep the pressure, to deep me -- keep me from
1:44 pm
getting out of my fine. but it doesn't change the fact that to this time it the it use of the metal detectors has been very arbitrary and capricious and the enforcement of the metal detectors has been very arbitrary and capricious. and hopefully those being utilized to harass members of congress, especially since a couple have -- our folks have missed votes if they hadn't had to go through the metal detector they would have gotten in here in time to vote. so it's time to open things up. then we get word, well, we are going to start opening up but you have to go through us, tell us anybody you are proposing to
1:45 pm
meet with, and what the purpose is, this kind of stuff. i mean it's -- we are not letting a good crisis go to waste. we are going to be very orwellian here and we are going to use this as an excuse to control who members of congress can see. who they can talk to, and just really have an iron grip on what people can do. . it's just gotten really sad around this place. here's an article from stephanie vigonis. cities such as austin, l.a., minneapolis, new york city, portland have shifted funds from police departments. and so obviously this lady, stephanie, knows that when
1:46 pm
democrats have said they're not defunding the police, that that's not true. democrats around the country are pushing for and actually getting budgets slashed for police departments. cities in parts of the u.s., she said, that slashed their police department funding last year, in part as a result of police-involved shootings, have seen an uptick in certain crimes over the past year. according to data analyzed by fox news, cities such as los angeles, minneapolis, new york city, portland, oregon, austin, texas, have shifted funds from police departments to social service programs. such cuts have led some of the departments to lay off officers. cancel recruiting classes. or retreat from hiring goals. as the police departments were left to make do with shrunken budgets and less support, some big cities have seen sometimes
1:47 pm
drastic upticks in murders and other violent crimes. the defund the police movement is not necessarily about gutting police department budgets, though some groups have tried. and budget cuts were already expected as a result of alternative needs for funding because of the coronavirus pandemic. but then the article goes on and looks at the cuts that some of these cities have had. article about democrat representative maxine waters, demanded special police motorcade and escort before calling for violence at anti-police events. that by jordan davidson at the federalist . -- at "the federalist." "daily caller" henry rogers reports the squad pushes to defund the police while spending thousands on private security to
1:48 pm
protect themselves. you've got to have some protection from somewhere, otherwise you're not going to be able to maintain a position of authority in government. there are always going to be evil people in this world at least who are going to attempt to bring down people in authority. this article from matt palumbo from december 30, 2020, 2020 homicide surge sets record amid defund the police hysteria. it's got facts and figures on that. and then one other thing i want to touch on. since we have some people that believe climate change is the most pressing issue of our time, i was surprised to hear the
1:49 pm
former leader of nasa say that they have found that our moon, erlt's -- earth's moon, is slightly changing its orbit. because i had not read that or seen that anywhere. and that even earth's orbit around the sun is slightly changing. and of course i'd seen previously that the ice caps were melting, and some people say it's because of the cars, pollution. but it still doesn't explain to me why the ice caps on the planet mars have melted or been melting for cow flat lance or different things here on earth, how is that causing the ice caps on mars to melt?
1:50 pm
-- flatulence or different things here on earth, how is that causing the ice caps on mars to melt? but here's an article from nasa from february 27 of 2020. and it says, our lives literally revolve around cycles. series of events that are repeat regularly in the same order -- repeated regularly in the same order. there are hundreds of different kinds of cycles in our world and in the university -- universe. some are natural, such as the change of the seasons, that's one form of climate change, annual animal migrations are the rhythms -- or the rhythms that govern our sleep patterns. others are human-produced like growing or harvesting crops. musical rhythms or economic cycles.
1:51 pm
and it goes on to point out something called the cycles that include the shape of the earth's orbit, the angle, earth's axis is tilted with respect to earth's orbital plane, and the direction of earth's axis of rotation is pointed. and goes on to discuss this and that there apparently -- another article from "forbes" from april of last year, that earth is spiraling away from the sun for now, but eventually will crash into it. and i had not heard or read that
1:52 pm
before about our moon's orbit changing at all or the earth's orbit around the sun changing at all. i don't know what if anything could be done about that. but there is no question the moon's orbit changing or earth's orbit changing around the sun, it can't help but have significant effects on our climate. now, this one article, the headline says that earth will eventually crash into the sun. well, it's amazing, i mean, i remember in the 1970's reading that, you know, we were at the beginning of a new ice age. and it was very early in the new ice age, but eventually earth would be covered by ice and it would mean the end of life as we
1:53 pm
knew it. and as a christian i was thinking, that's not how the earth is going to end. and i didn't really believe that . and lo and behold, wasn't too many years later we find out or we're told, well, the earth is warming. and the earth's warming is going to destroy the plan et -- planet. it's global warming. and then of course global warming, since we found out some places it was cooling, and as one witness said, some years back, actually the northern hemisphere is not near as warm as it was back when the norse were coming over and having these big farms in what we now call greenland, but they're
1:54 pm
cycles. and there is something that could come into play in the great design of our creator that would keep earth from crashing into the sun. but in the meantime it is important that we not run around like chicken littles and destroy the rich blessings we have out of fear that we may miss out on other blessings. let's use the wisdom and common sense that most of our constituents have. and in the meantime, i think we really need to find out more about the changing orbit of earth around the sun and the changing orbit, if any, of the moon around the earth. so a lot to learn. but if we're going to help contribute to the downfall of
1:55 pm
the greatest experiment in self-government in the history of the world, then making our nation's capital where it can be subject to being extorted, held hostage, then these other things may not matter anyway. but in the meantime, we have a responsibility to the nation, to our oath, to the constitution, to ensure that we keep this experiment in self-government going. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.
1:56 pm
under the speaker's announced policy of january 4, 2021, the gentleman from texas, mr. green, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. green: thank you, madam speaker. and still i rise, madam speaker. and i rise today because i am deeply saddened, i'm satened because -- saddened because today represents the day in the life of a constituent that she will never forget. her husband will never forget. i rise to call to the attention of the world the words of a constituent. these words were printed in the houston kroll condition -- chronicle. i'm grateful to the chronicle for publishing this story because this story speaks to a
1:57 pm
circumstance unlike that with george floyd. i'll say more about that in just a moment. but i rise grateful to the chronicle with the word of a mother. here are her words. our son was killed before george floyd but we are still waiting for answers. their son lost his life one year ago today in houston, texas. in my congressional district. he lost his life several houses down from his home. the home of his parents. he lost his life while
1:58 pm
house-sitting for a neighbor. he was 35 years of age, well liked. i spoke to many of his neighbors, many of his friends, many of the people in the neighborhood. i never had one unkind thing said about him. he was always a person who was there to be of service. he lost his life while house-sitting, trying to help a friend, a neighbor. he served in the military, here's a photo. served in the military, graduate of a local high school, west berry high school. he loved the dallas cowboys. he was a typical young person. his name was joshua johnson.
1:59 pm
joshua's parents, the berries, mr. and mrs. berry, are -- berrys, mr. and mrs. berry, are grieving. they have been grieving since he lost his life a year ago. they've been grieving because the circumstances are questionable. but these circumstances, unlike the circumstances that we had with george floyd, are circumstances where there was no body camera, there was no witness to record what happened. these circumstances occurred early in the morning, perhaps around 6:00 a.m. one year ago. the parents were not present.
2:00 pm
mr. berry took his wife to work. he returned home. and she received the phone call. here are her words. it was april 22, 2020, around 7:30 a.m., when my husband, richard, who had just dropped me off at work an hour earlier, called me and said the words that changed my life and his forever. he said, someone shot and killed josh. . they would go as close as they could to the actual scene, which is just a few houses down from where they actually lived. and they would encounter a peace
2:01 pm
officer -- i like the term peace officer as opposed to police officer. both are good terms, but to me the term peace officer carries with it something that i think is important for us to consider as we consider the great issues of our time. and policing is one of the great issues of our time. and that is a peace officer is always there to make the peace, to help us acquire peace, to help maintain the peace, to do the peaceful thing whenever possible. i know it's not always possible, but whenever possible. so they went as close as they could to the scene, and they encountered an officer who was investigating. and they wanted to know what happened to their son, which is what any parent would want to know, what happened to my son, not an unreasonable question.
2:02 pm
not unusual, by the way, for parents to have some emotional characteristics at the time they are posing questions, because they just lost their son. they don't know what happened. this officer proceeded to explain to them that their son approached an undercover officer, that their son approached this officer who was seated in a vehicle. that when he approached this officer, he had his phone in one hand, and he had a gun in the other hand. there were persons who were with them at the time the officer was explaining this, and these persons sought to intercede and say he had a bb gun.
2:03 pm
the officer acknowledged it was a b.b. gun. and they were told by this officer that the officer who was seated in the vehicle, the officer who was undercover, around 6:00 a.m., that he told the son to lower his b.b. pistol. didn't say b.b. pistol. but to lower what he thought was a gun. and the story gets murky, but the officer who was undercover said to the son, lower your pistol, your gun. said their son, josh, did not do
2:04 pm
so. that he in fact raised it, and the officer responded by shooting him, not once, but twice. and the parents were obviously moved by what they were hearing. by the way, all of this is recorded. what i'm saying to you now was being recorded. i have the recording. so they were moved by what was said. and they were wanting more answers. and this officer told them that this is how it happened. maybe not in these exact words, but ms. berry says -- and she quotes him as saying, this is how it happened. and there's no reason to believe it will happen any other way.
2:05 pm
well, let's examine that statement. no reason to believe that it happened any other way. investigator -- officer investigating said this, without the benefit of a body camera. unlike the george floyd case where there were multiple cameras and we saw different angles. no body camera. no camera recorded by some person who was a witness standing by. no camera available to the officer who now within a few hours at most is giving this rendition of what happened to their son. he said what he said without the benefit of speaking to a medical examiner. the medical examiner had not arrived. he came to his conclusions. without the benefit of what would ordinarily be an autopsy that would be performed at a later time. no autopsy had been performed so he couldn't have come to these
2:06 pm
conclusions after perusing an autopsy report. he came to these conclusions without speaking to the officer who shot her son. no autopsy report. no ballistics report. no conversation with the medical examiner. no body camera. but he indicated that this is how it happened. and there's no reason to believe it happened any other way. no other way. you haven't had a conversation with a medical examiner. you haven't talked to the person who actually did the shooting. you have no body camera. no other way. you have no ballistics report.
2:07 pm
no other way. that story became the actual story that has been published and republished and it causes great grief for this family. because they believe that there has to be a better investigation, that this officer was too quick to draw these conclusions. in court we call these things a rush to judgment. rush to judgment. within just a few hours without having completed an investigation. didn't do a walk-through. hadn't done the walk-through. for those who may not be familiar with walk-throughs, this is where the officer gets with the person involved, the
2:08 pm
officer that was in the car and they walk through and point out certain things that may have happened. couldn't had the walk-through because he didn't talk to the officer who did the shooting. the family, desperate for help, finally contacted my office. i was, quite frankly, amazed myself when i heard the recording of this officer who was investigating. by the way, before we go any further, i need to say this. this is not an indictment of all police officers. not an indictment of all peace officers. we're talking about a circumstance that happened in my congressional district. so they came to me. and i decided that i would, at
2:09 pm
very minimum, go out and see what they were trying to call to my attention. i was a judge for a quarter of a century of a lowly justice small claims court. i was known to go out and look at things. to go to the scene of things that occurred. so i went. thank god i did. because after going out to the actual site, things became even more murky. as i was there and getting an understanding as to where the officer was supposed to have been at the time the encounter with their son took place -- son is joshua -- i'm not going to call the name of the officer. but the officer who did the shooting, at the time the encounter took place and the
2:10 pm
shooting occurred, it became difficult to comprehend some evidence that was found in a location many feet away over behind some cars, near a garage, across streets -- a street -- behind not one, not two, but three cars. it became difficult to understand how this peace of evidence -- how this piece of evidence was at this location. difficult to understand because the piece of evidence was a bullet. a bullet that was fired from the
2:11 pm
shooter's weapon and made its way to this very difficult location and hit the garage, bounced off on the pavement. this was found the same day that the investigation was taking place. difficult to comprehend how it got there given the angles involved and the location of the garage. difficult to understand. later on, after talking to more people, we concluded that it would be appropriate to ask the sheriff for a visit. the sheriff was very generous with his time. he did visit with the family, and he brought others with him. another person with him. they had a visit.
2:12 pm
we talked. and the sheriff gave assurances there would be a thorough investigation. after having that conversation with the sheriff, something else was discovered. this family had a camera. we didn't know about the camera at the time. they heard from the initial officer who was investigating. so there was a camera that monitors the street that runs past their home. this camera picked up what appears to be the shooting officer who was undercover parked on the street, picked him up as he left the scene.
2:13 pm
this is important. their son is shot twice. apparently, based upon what has been said and what the evidence seems to reveal, he walked away after he was hit twice and he went over to a car, his car parked some feet away. he made his way into his car, sat on the driver's side under the steering wheel, and apparently, having done this -- this is without question he did these things -- apparently he shot twice, the officer drives away after shooting him twice.
2:14 pm
leaves the scene and the person who shot to go out to some other location. now, if this is true -- and i say apparently because you look at the cars and you have to draw conclusions. but if this is true, what kind of officer -- assuming that all of what he said was the case -- do you really leave the scene? do you leave a person who is armed, if you believe the person to be armed, to you believe this person who you believe to be armed to be out such that
2:15 pm
someone else might be harmed? there are a lot of questions to be answered. the family needs to know. i have some of the questions that the family would like to have answers to. i want to share a few of these questions with you. because it's a year later. they have not had any indication that they will receive justice in the near future perhaps, but not the kind of indication that they're looking for. here's a question. how could an investigating officer present an accurate assessment of the facts to mr.
2:16 pm
and mrs. berry near the scene within a few hours after joshua, their son, was killed before having done the walk-through, without talking to the deputy who did the shooting, without the benefit of a camera recording, before the medical examiner examined the body of their son, before an autopsy report was completed, and in fact an autopsy was performed, before a ballistics report was produced? how could he present an accurate assessment? and this assessment has been published and republished many times. second question. how did the bullet hit this garage of the neighbor across
2:17 pm
the street with no clear path from where the shooter indicated the shooting took place? or where it was indicated by someone that the shooting took place? the third question, why would the deputy leave the scene immediately or sometime shortly after firing those shots? this is a questionable circumstance. it's not comparable to what happened to tim floyd. -- to george floyd. and the question we're going to have to grapple with is what happens when the cameras are off?
2:18 pm
and no witnesses are available and you have evidence that seems to contradict the story of the investigating officer that was given before he had an opportunity to perform a fair and accurate investigation. what happens when you don't have what we had in the george floyd case? notwithstanding all that we had in the george floyd case, i don't know of a single person who thought that there would be a guilty, guilty, guilty, who thought that the officer would be found guilty on all three of the charges. i don't know of a single person. perhaps you do. but notwithstanding all of the evidence that we saw, all of the
2:19 pm
testimony that we heard, there were people -- i was among them -- who literally had great concern for what the verdict would be and how it would be responded to. i had my concerns. i think they were legitimate concerns to have. given our history in the case of questionable shootings, police, civilian encounters, and a person ends up losing his life, in this case. i heard with my colleagues right here on campus in this facility,
2:20 pm
i heard the verdict and i believed it after a moment of disbelief. it wasn't something that you just had -- you just automatically believed. but it was something that i believed but i had a moment of disbelief. but i knew that that verdict could be a seminole moment in time that will impact the rest of time. i believe that those jurors will be treated very kindly by history. i think history is going to show that they were people who rose to the occasion. jurors do this, they can rise to the occasion. these did. and i'm grateful to them.
2:21 pm
i believe that those officers who testified, they rose to the occasion. they separated themselves from that which is perceived to be egregious, and that's being kind, but they separated themselves from that conduct. history will be kind to them. but there was overwhelming evidence and we know what happened with overwhelming evidence. this case has not been ruled upon or judged by a grand jury. and as a result we don't know what will happen. all we know is that this family is still grieving, that's been
2:22 pm
-- that it's been a year since their son lost his life, a year today. around 6:00 a.m. that they are still waiting for a decision. i have some concerns now about the decision. here are my concerns. let us assume that it goes before a grand jury, this case, when i say it, this case goes before a grand jury. and let's assume that it results in what's called a no bill. the grand jury does not indict. does not return a true bill which would be an indictment. let's assume that there's a no bill in this case. what happens before the grand jury stays with the grand jury. this family won't have answers. there was supposed to be a ballistics report. will they have the opportunity
2:23 pm
to read the ballistics report? i hope so. but the grand jury works in secrecy. it's shrouded in secrecy. and i'm not antithetical to grand juries. but my point is will this family get answers if there is a no bill? the system's got to change. you cannot leave a family under these circumstances with more questions than answers after the case has made its way through the judicial system. you can't leave them like this. they will suffer the rest of their lives. they've got to know what happened.
2:24 pm
the system has to change. there has to be a way for these families to know more about what happened when the cameras are off, no witnesses are available. there has to be a way for them to at least know what happens when the case is presented. they're not allowed to be there when the grand jury deliberates. i'm not going to war he will with this -- quarel with. this i understand that grand jurors have a degree to some protection because what they do can bring harm to them. but what i don't understand is why we don't have a system that allows for the evidence to be made available to people who
2:25 pm
have lost someone near and dear, someone that they lo -- someone that they love. in texas there is another way that would be perceived as novel. it is only in texas, by the way. only in texas. there's something called a court ofier -- inquiry. if you believe in texas -- of inquiry. if you believe if texas that a crime has been committed, you can take your evidence to a district court judge and you can ask that judge to review what you have. and if that judge believes that there may have been a crime committed, that judge would go to an administrative judge. we'll call this person a presiding judge. and then that judge can require if that second judge, so you have two judges involved, happens to concur.
2:26 pm
and then witnesses can be called and we can examine what happened. but this is only in texas. i'm looking at legislation to give us the opportunity at a national level to do something similar to what we can do in texas. because people need to know. these parents would feel much better and get through the grieving process, something that we all will go through at some point in our lives, if we live long enough, it would give them -- if they had the transparency, if they could just know what was said, what was the decision really based upon, if there is not a true bill. an indictment. they need to know. but they represent many other families who have circumstances
2:27 pm
where they've lost someone, questionable circumstances, no camera, no witnesses. and in some cases where there are witnesses who are not believed. in some cases where the camera reveals what others would have us not believe when we see it with our own eyes. there are some cases where we've had video but we're told that we can't believe our eyes. thank god that jurors in the george floyd case believed their eyes. believe what had they saw. believe those officers who gave testimony. i hope that we'll at some point
2:28 pm
in our history reach a time when you won't have a member of congress having to engage with family members under these circumstances. but some things have to change before we will get to this time. one of the things that will have to change is a belief that has been called to our attention by some people who have been demeaned and vilified. and the belief is that black lives matter. this is a powerful movement. are there some persons who associate with the movement who may have done some things that i don't approve of? yes. many have. but this is a powerful movement. we've got to have persons believe those who are armed, those who have the power of life
2:29 pm
and death, we've got to have them believe that black lives matter. we've got to have them believe that you don't have the right to punish a person after you've arrested the person. notwithstanding what you heard a former president say, you don't have the right to punish after you've arrested. and you know he said it. he told peace officers, i like peace officer as opposed to bliss -- police, he told police officers, when you're arresting a person you don't have to be nice. once you have a person within your care, custody and control, that person's well-being is in your hands. you don't have the power or the right to punish, you may have
2:30 pm
the power, but you don't have the right to. you don't punish, nine minutes and 29 seconds, knee on a neck. cruel and unusual punishment. you don't have the right to do this. you may have the power, but you don't have the right. and if black lives matter, you wouldn't do it. . not all police officers, not all pearce officers -- i -- peace officers -- i prefer peace officers to police -- not all but those that do, they have to be punished. because we got to let the world know that black lives matter. and you got to treat people with the same level of dignity and respect that you want your child to receive, that you want your mother to receive.
2:31 pm
same level of dignity and respect, because black lives matter. i will be with the berrys this weekend. there will be a vigil in houston. and i will be there with them. my hope is we will have heard something about their son's demise from the officials that are charged with the responsibility, duty, and obligation to perform a just and fair investigation. my hope is that this will happen, and they will have some closure. mr. and mrs. berry, i want you
2:32 pm
to know i'm never going to give up on this. your son's life mattered to me. i never met him, but his life mattered. i'll be with you. i will be with you until the end. his life mattered. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. under the speaker's announced policy of january 4, 2021, the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. franklin, for 30 minutes. mr. franklin: thank you, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, you have the hour. mr. franklin: thank you, madam speaker. i yield to my colleague from pennsylvania. >> i thank my colleague from florida. this has been a confusing time period, i think, for most of america. and why the confusion is
2:33 pm
becoming so cluttered among us all is we're using definitions that sometimes don't seem to make sense for the situation that we're in. mr. kelly: i was thinking back, and not too long ago we were told we don't have to worry about our borders because we really don't have a crisis there. what we have is a challenge. and we seem to constantly redefine or put different labels on what we know to be true. i think it's time for a moment of clarity. i went to oxford language to find out just what a crisis is. so this is not my definition. this is what oxford languages said. crisis is a time of intense, difficulty, or trouble or danger. a time when a difficult or important decision must be made. so what is it that i'm talking about? i am talking about our crisis at our border. so why would a guy who lives in western pennsylvania worry about
2:34 pm
what's happening on the borders in texas and arizona? that's almost 2,000 miles away from where i live. that's almost 2,000 miles away from the people i represent. how could it possibly impact them? so i would tell my friends -- and if you don't think this is going to have an impact in the community you live in, this is coming to a town real close to you real soon. in erie, pennsylvania, we are now housing about 150 young girls that have come from the border. now, i don't know where their starting point was. i know where their entry came, and i know now that these unaccompanied young raidies -- ladies -- they're 7 to 12 years old -- have now been shuttled to erie, pennsylvania, to housing that is better than at the border. i don't know if they know what this relocation means to them. i've been told of those people that have come in, those little
2:35 pm
girls that have come in, approximately 30 of them have covid. we sit in this house, the people's house, and we debate issues that are sometimes very confusing and very conflicting and separate us as a people. this is not an issue that should separate us. and if we really believe that there is a humanitarian crisis, we should fix it in a humanitarian way. i have often been told you can't beat something with nothing. previous administration under president trump had a very clear policy about how we were supposed to handle the surge at our borders. very clear process. very clear of what was to take place. that all changed. the biden administration came in. they said, no, this policy from the previous administration is untenable. it's not humane.
2:36 pm
and it's no longer going to be in existence. again, you can't replace something with nothing. my question -- my question to the administration through several letters, through several requests to h.h.s. and the office of regee resettlement -- refugee resettlement is answer with no answer at all. if you have no policy you have no answer. and to continue to say we really don't have a crisis at the border, then you were either unaware or just choose not to say what you really have in mind. and you can only do that if you don't have anything in mind. look, i think that in the people's house -- and we always define who is in the majority and who's in the minority and who represents whom are being upheld and i would just suggest this is the people's house. it's not called the republican house or the democrat house. it's the people's house.
2:37 pm
the american people need to have an answer to what is our policy on the border. what is our policy going forward? how are we going to relocate these children, and they are children. my wife and i being the mother and father of four children and the grandparents of 10 grandchildren. i cannot imagine in my life handing over my grandchildren or my children to somebody i don't know and say, would you please get them to america where i know they will be safe and sound and well treated? this is truly a crisis. more importantly, this is a dereliction of duty by the current administration. i am requesting that the biden administration answer, not just me from westerly pennsylvania, the congressional 16th district, but the people of america who deserve to know what this policy is, how it's going to be administered, and what do these contracts look like when we're transporting these children from one location to another and ultimately, where are they
2:38 pm
supposed to land? where are they supposed to find refuge? where are they supposed to find a loving family to take care of them? i have been told that 90% of these unaccompanied children are going to end up with family members. and my question is, where did you collect that data? i have granddaughters who are 12. i have granddaughters who are 7. i think it would be a difficult question to ask them what their future looks like whenever they've been shuttled off to someplace far away from home by people they don't know and then being told, don't worry, everything''s going to be fine -- everything's going to be fine and 90% will end up with family. where is this data? i will close and i appreciate the gentleman for giving me time. it's time that the americans stand up and demand an answer to what our policy is at our border. what are we going to do with these children? if we are trueing calling it -- truly calling it a humanitarian crisis, then we need to have a humanitarian answer. no answer, no process is
2:39 pm
absolutely not the way america works. i'm calling on the administration today to please answer our questions. i will be in erie, pennsylvania, on saturday, where i will be able to physically examine where these children are. i will come back to congress with an answer. i thank the gentleman for yielding me time. mr. franklin: madam speaker, i also rise to address the self-inflicted disaster occurring at our southern border. i, along with nine other republicans on the house oversight committee, visited the border last week to see for ourselves the national security and humanitarian disaster that's wreaking havoc on our nation. when our border patrol agents are pulled from their posts to deal with the swarms of children
2:40 pm
at the processing facilities, the remote border is left wide open for the really bad folks to stroll right in. these aren't people that we see on television wearing biden t-shirts looking for the nearest border patrol agent so they can surrender to them. these folks are in full camouflage with ski masks and usually armed, often with automatic weapons. these intruders who breach the remote parts of the border illegally are referred to as get-aways. because our agents are outnumbered, they just document these groups as they pass on by. a notation for the record is 20-plus, even though there are 40, 60, or even 80 more people. in january and february alone, there were 61,000 reported getaways. that's a staggering amount. because of 20-plus documentation grocery underestimates the real figures, agents told us the real
2:41 pm
numbers were probably close to 120,000. left unchecked, we're looking at 750,000 getaways breaking into our country alone. again, these are not asylum seekers surrendering at the border. they are dangerous criminals, drug smugglers, human traffickers, and terrorists who are willing to do anything to get into america and not be caught. and once they make it to interstate 10 just a few miles north of the border, they can have easy access to anyplace in the country. this isn't a border state problem. it's an unfolding national disaster of unprecedented scope that must be addressed for the security of our country. yet, the biden administration and my colleagues across the aisle refuse to even acknowledge the problem. so far neither the president or vice president have bothered to visit the border. we can stop this manufactured crisis. first, we need to complete the border wall.
2:42 pm
we have construction materials laying idle in the desert. president biden used to think the wall was a good idea. he needs to stop cowering and complete the work. it's just sitting there. just finish the job. second, end the practice of catch and release and reimplement the migrant protocols -- migrant protection protocols that proved so successful in reducing the number of border incursions. officers shared only 10% of those that come seeking sigh r asylum is relegitimate mate. the roughly 90% that know their case isn't bogus won't risk the journey and those that have legitimate causes to seek the journey will have it granted more expeditiously. that will be the more humane
2:43 pm
course of action. we are indeed a nation of immigrants. many of my companies in my district depend on a steady flow of legal immigrants in order to function. but for america to remain the world's brightest beacon of hope, we must acknowledge that a fundamental part that makes us so attractive is our adherence to the rule of law. honest, law-abiding citizens like the johnsons, coopers, and those we met at the border are asking us to tell their story. they are not confident. they are asking our government not to look for special consideration. they are tough people who want to live and work their land in peace and security without having to live in fear. they want to know we will not forget about them. we promised we'd share their stories and we must not let them down. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: all right. the gentleman yields. pursuant to section 11-b of
2:44 pm
house resolution 188, the house stands adj

115 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on