tv U.S. House of Representatives U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN July 22, 2021 8:59am-2:46pm EDT
in the world in my district. california is not declining, it is actually growing. it is a leader in many of the technologies. biopharmaceutical, bio egg or culture, everything including the electronics industry. california is not about to go away. we are the leading state, we will remember the -- we will remain the leading state. we always will have challenges, and we will always overcome those challenges. host: we welcome you on the program talking about that and other issues, talking with our viewers. commerce me john garamendi of california, thanks for being with us. guest: my pleasure. thanks, bill. host: that will do it for the program this morning. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2021] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]
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. gracious and loving god, hear our prayers. we come to you in faith hoping that you would receive our concerns spoken and unspoken, personal and professional. from the depths of your infinite mercy listen to us and molest all that troubles us. then enable us to listen for your response. in a time when so much noise and messaging is coming from every direction, words of counsel and criticism, voices of guile and guidance, give us reason to pause and listen to your word as you speak into our
lives. give us ears to hear and spirits willing not just to hear but to put your counsel into practice. that this house would be built on the foundation you have established. and in our dealings with one another, in our interactions with the people who depend on our integrity and faithfulness, may we be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to become angry. with humility, patience, and forbearance, may we reveal your righteousness this day. for it is in your saving name we pray. amen. the speaker: pursuant to section 11-a of house resolution 88, the journal of the last day's proceedings is approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. grothman. mr. grothman: 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 side of the aisle. for what purpose does the the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? >> madam speaker, unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. garcia: madam speaker, i rise today to celebrate the child tax credit checks arriving to families in my district and across the country. it's been 200 days of this congress and 200 days of house democrats delivering for the people. last week thanks to the american rescue plan child tax credit monthly payments began arriving to roughly 39 million households and covering almost 90% of children nationwide. in my district, the child tax
credit will been fit almost 95% of our children. in texas, the families of nearly six million children got their checks totaling $1.5 billion in aid. unfortunately, about 46,600 children in the houston area still have not received the check. the good news is this, nonfilers can still apply on the i.r.s. portal. caregivers just need their social security number or their p.i.n. number. and it's important to remember these benefits will not affect snap, medicaid, s.s.i., or any other public assistance program. madam speaker, i'm hopeful and sincerely believe we can build back better and your children's future can be assured. thank you madam speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania 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. >> mr. speaker, actions and results speak louder than words. in the months since president biden first called for unity and bipartisan cooperation, the president's and speaker's reckless tax and spend policies have hurt middle class families and small businesses. these are the very people they profess to want to help the most. for the third straight month, the cost of living in america has continued to increase. the highest rate of infacial we have witnessed since 2008. compared to last year, gas prices are up 45%. mr. keller: food prices have increased 2 1/2%. the price of an automobile is up 45% for a used car. americans know they are paying more for what they need to live every day. while their paychecks have decreased by almost 2%. americans are spending more and
getting less. this inflation is a hidden tax and a pay cut on every american family. and the effects of this -- these are felt hardest by our senior citizens and people living on fixed incomes. the cost of living adjustment for social security this year was barely 1%. but rising consumer prices have outpaced that increase by more than four times. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired much -- the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. takano: thank you for yielding, mr. speaker. i rise today to remember an inland empire resident and an excellent public servant, lois carson. lois was a beloved member of my community and a passionate advocate for childcare, education, and welfare reform. lois served as the president of the sam bernardino community
college district board of trustees while i served on the riverside community college board of trustees. i have fond memories of working with her at trustee conferences where we'd collaborate on emproving the lives of inland empire students. during her 30 years as the executive director of community action partnership of riverside county, lois provided services for low-income residents. under her leadership the agency ran suck successfully and received the first public sector commune action service award in 2005. i'm honored to have known her and believe her legacy will live on in the lives -- many lives that she touched. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today and honor the life of private walter straka.
at 17 he lied about his age to serve in the army national guard. in 1941, his unit, the 194th tank batalon arrived in the philippines months before the attack on pearl harbor. and the fall of bataan, they were forced on a brutal 65 mile track now known as the bataan death march. he was forced to walk in intense heat at the hands of the japanese army. by his own did the he should have been dead 1,000 times. he not only survived the six-day march, he also survived three years as a prisoner of war before returning home to minnesota. mr. stauber: wince home he ran a successful business, raised a family, and active member in his community. he died this year at the age of 101. with his passing the state of minnesota said goodbye to its last survivor of the bataan death march. he's an american hero whose unforgettable story has inspired me and so many others. our nation is stronger because
of his exceptional service and courage. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does 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 gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. dean: mr. speaker, last week marked a year since our country lost a giant and a friend to all, john lewis. and republicans and democrats have both chambers rightfully used our platforms to memorialize a man who gave so much and as many say, he was the conscience of our caucus. mr. lewis lost his -- nearly lost his life at the age of 25. to those on the other side of the edmund pettus bridge in march of 1965, as he nonviolently protested voter suppression laws. he dedicated the rest of his life to justice, equality, and protecting the right to vote. mr. speaker, 66 years later we
are again on that bridge. 17 states have passed 28 laws to make it more difficult to exercise our constitutional right to vote. we must act. i say to my colleagues that stand in the way of the john lewis voting rights act, would you also have stood on the other side of that bridge? mr. lewis understood we could not wait for those on the other side of the bridge to join us. we must secure, protect, and expand the right to vote for all americans. to truly honor mr. lewis' life, legacy, and our democracy. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? >> i'd like to speak for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. growth: man i'd like to address the cuban crisis just south of our border. cuba is a very progressive marxist state. the government runs the economy with all the restrictions of freedom means. no freedom of press.
the state department, international religious freedom report shows numerous violations of the freedom of religion as believers in god are harassed. there is no free trade agreement of movement. and now with protests people are disappearing, people are -- how does the united states respond? there was a free cuba mural put up in washington, d.c., and the mayor of our nation's capital responds by saying -- who said in the past that cuba has an education system we should learn from and had the mural disappear. i beg president biden to do what he can to restore internet service so the people in cuba can communicate with each other. please don't lift the embargo. and above all, provide a little bit of moral leadership and show that you are opposed to the marxist can ball around the world. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition?
>> mr. speaker, i seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman venged for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today ahead of the 2021 tokyo olympics to recognize the olympians from north carolina agricultural and technical state university. the largest hbcu in the nation located in my district in greensboro, north carolina. it gives me great pride to recognize trevor stuart and randolph rush jr. who will represent the united states on the track and field team. randolph rush jr., a sophomore, is competing in the men's 400 meter, four by 400 meter relay, and trevor stewart a senior will compete in the men's four by 400 relay. two other aggie runners will compete in the events. ms. manning: daniel stokes will compete for mexico. with all four of these young men qualifying, the entire
aggie four time 400 meter relay team will run in the olympics. i would like to recognize director of track and field programs ross. his leadership has propelled his team forward to success. congratulations to the athletes and coach on this tremendous achievement. on behalf of north carolina's sixth district, i am sending them the best of luck in tokyo. go, aggies. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yield back. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. mchenry: today the purple heart homes nonprofit is celebrating their 750th completed project. headquartered in statesville, north carolina, it's a none profit founded by combat wounded veterans to help aging and service connected disabled veterans and their housing needs. founded in 2008 they
established purple heart homes with a mission to help those that have given so much to our nation. whether it's building ramps or constructing new homes, they step in to fill the void in programs designed to serve our deserving veterans. i congratulate john and his diverse team on their incredible accomplishments to serve our heroes. i recently met with john and his team and while they have unique backgrounds, they bring to this mission, they are all united by one thing. they were called to serve. i want to congratulate john and his team and say congratulations to purple heart homes. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yield back. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia 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 is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker.
mr. connolly: after 20 years the united states is winding down its involvement in a long protracted war in afghanistan. but we have an obligation to the men and women who have served with allied forces, put themselves at risk, especially the interpreters. i'm proud of the fact that the first 2,500 of those people will be at located in virginia for processing as we try to protect them and their families for their service in a noble cause. i look forward to voting for the bill that will be coming up think the lather this morning. i -- i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition -- california seek recognition? mr. lamalfa: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without
objection. mr. lamalfa: inflation, president biden said to some restaurant owners, well, you're going to be in a bind for a while, because it's going to still be hard to get workers. when people are paid not to show up because of overgenerous benefits, we'll put all of our small businesses in a bind. when you pay people not to work, you get inflation. so for few maybe getting a wage increase because the restaurants are in a bind, everybody receives higher prices. prices are up, we know it on fuel, on food, lumber, many things. this is what happens when the government spends too much, puts too much money in the economy all based on debt. so what are we going to do about that? will we set a course here to put people back in business or have, like we saw last month, another 5.4% of inflation, which is really a tax on every american?
i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. nadler: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. nadler: mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 535, i call up h.r. 3985, the allies act, and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 3985, a bill to amend the afghan allies protection act of 2009 to expedite the special immigrant visa process for certain afghan allies, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution
535, the amendment printed in part c of house report 117-95 is adopted, and the bill, as amended, is considered as read. the bill, as amended, is debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the judiciary or their respective designees. the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, and the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: 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. 3985. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, h.r. 3985, the averting loss of life and injury by expediting s.i.v.'s act of 2021, or the allies act, makes essential changes to the afghan special immigrant visa program to ensure that the lives of those who
served faithfully alongside troops in afghanistan are protected. the special immigrant visa program allows those individuals who work for or unbehalf of the u.s. government in afghanistan or for the nato international security assistance force in support of the american mission to seek lawful permanent residence in the united states. to be eligible, applicants must establish qualifying employment in afghanistan for two years, receive approval from the chief admission, and undergo rigorous background checks and national security vetting, a process on average takes three years. a 20-year mission in afghanistan will formally come to an end in just a few short weeks. each day that we continue to draw down our military presence in afghanistan, threats to the lives of afghans who supported our cause are increasing exponentially. the biden administration is committed to relocating certain applicants to a third country. some who have passed the national security vetting process will be transferred to the united states to complete
visa processing. these evacuations, which are scheduled to begin at the end of this month, are a critical component of our withdrawal strategy. but evacuations alone are not enough. congress must do our part to protect those whose lives are at risk because of their support and service to our nation. first and foremost, we must ensure that enough visas are available for eligible applicants. h.r. 3985 increases the number of visas that may be issued to qualifying afghans by 8,000, which would ensure that all qualified applicants who are currently undergoing processing can immediately receive a visa if they are approved. second, we must streamline visa processing to the greatest extent possible. without compromising national security or program integrity. h.r. 3985 does this by reducing duplicative paperwork requirements and proving the existence of an ongoing threat
of their lives. to reflect the fact that afghans who worked in support of the u.s. mission now face an obvious threat as the direct result of their work. third, the bill strengthens protections for certain groups of afghan nationals, including surviving spoutses and children -- spouses and children of deceased principal applicants, individuals employed by nato in support of the u.s. mission, and individuals whose work was funded by u.s. government cooperative agreement or grant. collectively, these changes will ensure that no one life is at risk is abandoned while congress supports more visas. i want to thank representative crow for championing the cause of our afghan allies and working across the aisle to build consensus and support to this legislation. we must keep our promises to these brave men and women. their lives depend on it. i ask my colleagues to support
h.r. 3985, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mcclintock: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcclintock: mr. speaker, this bill is the culmination of 20 years of policy failures in afghanistan, and it comes at the same time that our southern border has been recklessly opened to the world. this measure is only re -- this measure's only redeeming feature is that the alternative is worse. let's talk about the debacle of our southern border, finally secured by president trump's policies. on his first day in office, president biden reversed those policies. he stopped the mexico protection -- remain in mexico protocols that require asylum claimants to remain there while their claims can be adjudicated. he stopped all construction on the nearly completed border wall, leaving construction gaps
that make it all but useless. and he ordered our enforcement agencies not to faithfully execute the law. the result is that over a million foreign nationals have illegally entered our country this year with a projection of two million by the end of the year. now, that's the entire population of wyoming, alaska, and vermont combined. and the gal lineup organized -- gallup organization says that more is to follow. the attack on september 11, 2001, was our generation's pearl harbor. it was conducted by al qaeda, which was acting as an organization of the taliban.
the president pledged to win through to absolute victory. days after the attack on new york and washington on september 11, congress voted a tepid use of military force and the president told us to go shopping. for 20 years we twinnedled -- twiddled, put brave troops in harm's way without our leaders having a clear objective, much less not having the will to win. it is from that podium that general douglas mcarthur said in war there is no substitute for victory. that's a lesson our leaders have failed to learn time and again. so this debacle is now coming to the shame, sad solution.
to encourage afghans help we passed the afghan protection help of 2009 which created a special immigrant visa, or green card program for afghan nationals who worked with the united states government for at least a year and face retribution from the taliban. this program also provides green cards to their spouses and the children. now, during the 20 years that our troops have been in afghanistan, tens of thousands of afghans have worked for or on gaffe of the u.s. -- behalf of the u.s. government and 15,500 green cards have been issued to the principled applicants and for each principal applicants, 3 1/2 have been issued to their
family. many more are still there. so we have before us h.r. 3985, the allies act. it makes changes to the afghan special immigrant visa program to accommodate the accelerated withdrawal that president has ordered. the emergency created by this order means that we will not be adequately vetting arrivals under this am practice. those already admitted -- under this program. those already admitted have had to meet eligibility requirements and undergo security and background checks. if we've been able to develop this legislation the old-fashioned way, through real face-to-face meetings and good-faith discussions, i think we could have protected the american people and the afghan families that sided with our government. but alas that's not to be under this majority. instead, h.r. 3985 authorizes 8,000 more green cards on top of the 10,000 authorized but still unclaimed. now, given that 15,500 principal
green cards have been processed over the 20-year life of this program, the odds of processing a like number in a matter of months is pretty slim. unless, of course, the administration cuts processing and vetting corners, which i think is a given. h.r. 3985 also increases the eligibility pool for the afghan special immigration visa program two ways. first, it removes the requirement that afghan nationals who worked with the u.s. coalition forces must have performed sensitive and trusted activities for u.s. personnel. this provision was added several years ago with the understanding that there must be limits on the number of people who come to the u.s. and in an attempt to ensure that the limited number of green cards available actually goes to those afghan nationals who are most in danger. now, we asked the administration how many individuals may be eligible once this language is removed from statute? their answer -- they don't know and they don't care.
second, this bill extends program eligibility to afghans whose employers received grant funding from the u.s. government or were in cooperative agreements with the u.s. government and who, quote, contributed to the united states mission in afghanistan. while i am concerned we do not know exactly what can be considered as contributing to the united states mission in afghanistan or how many people to whom this could apply. the bill also eliminates the requirement that an applicant has experienced an ongoing serious threat as a consequence of his qualifying requirement. this is one of the main reasons for the creation of the program, to help ensure the safety of those in danger because of working with the u.s. this means that among the worthiest asylum seekers, we'll see those without merit or worse to seek to do our country harm because the vetting process is effectively abandoned by this bill. and this as the united states is
being a mockery by thousands of meritless claims a day showing up on our border and being admitted in our country. i wish we could have an honest and open discussion about eliminating this requirement in committee. unfortunately, the democrats chose to bypass the committee process. but with the american withdrawal fast approaching, we're left with this deeply flawed bill on the one hand or the very real prospect of watching afghan patriots being hunted down and seeing their families being hung by construction cranes. i say this bill is the least bad option that the democrats have left us. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i now yield four minutes to the distinguished gentleman from colorado, the sponsor of this bill, mr. crow. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for four minutes. mr. crow: thank you, mr. speaker. and thank you, chairman nadler, for the time.
the allies act is a chance for congress to ensure that america honors its promise to our afghan partners and friends. the phrase, life and death, gets tossed a lot in this chamber, but this bill is truly that for thousands of our afghan friends. the taliban is intent on hunting down and killing afghans that served alongside americans the past 20 years. . some members of this body, including me, may not be here today without the service and sacrifice of afghans who answered the call to serve shoulder to shoulder with us. those afghans knew the risk their service posed to them and their families, yet they signed up to help because they believed we would have their back. they have already demonstrated unwavering courage and loyalty by working alongside us. they have demonstrated their commitment to america and they have earned a path to safety. the u.s. combat mission in afghanistan will come to an end
in a matter of weeks. at the same time, the threat to our afghan partners, who served alongside american men and women, is increasing drastically every single day. simply put, we are running out of time. they are running out of time. we must streamline the afghan special immigrant visa process and increase the number of visas to match the pipeline of applicants. the allies act does just that. it removes several administrative barriers to expedite visa processing and makes these changes without weakening the important security vetting of applicants. the bill allows family members of deceased s.i.b. applicants to continue the process if the applicant is killed before ease visa approval. the bill clarifies that afghans who worked to benefit the u.s. mission under federally funded cooperative agreements and grants also qualify for the program. this includes afghans who performed critical democracy, human rights and governance work on behalf of the u.s. lastly, the allies act raises
the visa cap by 8,000 visas to meet the current number of applicants. before i close, let me thank the honoring our promises working group, a bipartisan group. the biden administration, leader hoyer, and the judiciary committee for their partnership in crafting this bill and getting us to the vote today. this is personal to any of us who served with the men and women who will be saved by this bill. but it is also a moral and national security issue for america. it's a moral issue because the american handshake must matter. we must be a country had a honors our promise it is we are to be a beacon of hope and democracy for the world. it's a national security issue because america's strong not just because we have aircraft carriers and fighters and bombers, but because we have friends and allies. we don't go it alone. we face many threats and we will continue to in the future.
and we will need friends to help us face those he threats. if we -- face those threats. if we turn our back on the afghans who served with us the last two decades, it will be hard to find future friends. mr. speaker, this is our chance to do the right thing. so i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the allies act, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mcclintock: i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from florida, a veteran of the afghanistan war, mr. walz. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for three minutes. mr. walz: thank you, mr. speaker. and for me as well this is a very personal indid he ever and very personal bill. speaking as a combat veteran of the afghan war, the afghans supporting our troops weren't just interpreters. they became our brothers and sisters on the battlefield. we depended on each other for
survival. and they fought with us. they bled with us. and in many cases they died with us. all for the dream of a better afghanistan. for a safer world. for prosperity for their families. and for ripping out the dangerous and sick extremist ideology that's tormented their country, taken their society back ward, and threatened the united states of america. unfortunately, the biden administration's reckless withdrawal is allowing the taliban to once again seize control of afghanistan. the urgency of the situation on the ground is not hyperbole. just yesterday the chairman of the joint chiefs said the taliban appear to have strategic momentum in their offensive. i hope that this congress can continue supporting the afghan security forces to help them halt that advance and in the wake of it al qaeda and isis' inevitable rise. no one is safe from the taliban
reprisal. we have seen in recent weeks the mass execution of surrendering afghanistan security forces and the interpreters who worked with our troops to stop -- that worked with our troops that are now at the top of the taliban's target list. the united states made a commitment to our allies in this conflict, and these individuals have lived up to their end of the bargain. now we have an obligation to honor ror our promises to them -- honor our promises to them. according to the state department, the average processing time for applicant is over 700 days. this is unacceptable. given this urgency. i want to be clear. the legislation before us, which i strongly support, does not diminish or circumvent the convenient screening process. trust me, before these men and women were allowed to work with our units, they were heavily vetted. that's before this 700-day process that they are now going through. i support the increasing the number of the special immigrant
visas by 8,000. i support streamlining this process. and if it comes to it, i support taking care of the families of those who didn't make it back like one of my interpreters who we called spart cuss who -- spartacus, who was found with american information on him, taken back to his village, and beheaded along with members of his family to send a message. it is notable, mr. speaker, that in 1975, then senator biden did not support the evacuation of our south vietnamese allies. i hope now president biden will erase that sin. it's not just a moral obligation. it is a national security obligation. when our soldiers have to go back to deal with the rising al qaeda, which i sadly predict they will have to, we will need local allies once again. we are sending a message right now by our conduct, i strongly urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation and ask the senate to swiftly pass it.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, how much time do we have? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york has 23 minutes remaining. the gentleman from california has 19 1/2 minutes. mr. nadler: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i now yield three minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from california, ms. lofgren. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for three minutes. ms. lofgren: mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of this bill. as it's been mentioned it makes key changes in the afghan allies protection act to ensure that the special immigrant visa program, which is part of current law, works as congress intended, to protect the lives of afghan nationals who served honorably alongside u.s. troops in afghanistan. for the past several years many of us have expressed grave concerns about the challenges our allies face in navigating the special immigrant visa process. it currently takes an average
of three years to complete the process, which includes numerous forms. applications, detailed documentary requirements, lengthy criminal background, and national security checks. this bill makes important changes to streamline the application without compromising the national security interests or the integrity of the program. i think back when we voted after 9/11 and i don't think any of us, i'll certainly speebling for myself, believed -- speak for myself, believed we were starting a 20 year war, the longest war in america's history. during that war afghans stepped forward to serve beside our brave military. and i'm proud that veterans in this congress, both republicans and democrats, have stepped forward to work together to make sure that this bill moves forward so that we can honor our commitment. as you know, we are finally
leaving afghanistan after 20 years. our longest war. we have a moral obligation to ensure that our allies can safely and more quickly be removed from harm. so we need to stand by these brave men and women and pass this bill. it's in the national interest. if we can't keep our promises to our allies, who is going to believe us in the future? i want to thank representative crow of colorado in particular for leading on this important legislation. i urge my colleagues to support the bill. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields. the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mcclintock: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. jacobs. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. jacobs: mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 3985, the allies act. for almost two decades the american troops have fought the war on terror in afghanistan.
over the course of the war, thousands of native afghans put their lives on the line to support our american service members. they stoifed as translators, guides, contractors, and more. their support was critical to the safety of our service members and the success of our operations. they showed true bravery and risked their lives in pursuit of an end to the taliban's regime and a free nation. now their decision to help americans is seen as traitorous by the taliban, and many of these afghans and their families have been marked for death this. danger has only been compounded by the biden administration's hasty withdrawal from afghanistan. no plans were originally put in place to help these individuals evacuate. and now many face dire consequences. we have a moral imperative to support those who served alongside our men and women in uniform and cannot leave them behind.
while the administration has announced plans to evacuate some of our afghan allies, they should not have been an afterthought. i call on the administration to expeditiously process s.i.v. application and expand their efforts to get these individuals and their families out of harm's way immediately. in addition to those efforts, i am pleased the house is considering the critical legislation today. it expands and amends the special immigrant visa program to better support our afghan allies and their families. these combined efforts -- actions are the least we can do to help them and their service to us. anyone who puts their life on the line to stand alongside american service members deserves not only our gratitude but they deserve our protection. that is why i am proud to vote in favor of the allies act of 2021, and i urge my colleagues to do the same. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i now
yield a minute and a half to the distinguished gentlelady from texas, ms. garcia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. ms. garcia: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 3985, the allies act of 2021. first, thank you, mr. chairman, for bringing this bill forward. thank you to my friend, mr. crow, for bringing -- sponsoring this bill. recently i met with combined arms, a local organization that works with veterans and s.i.b. recipients in houston. they shared their harrowing stories of the sacrifices they and their families have made, and of the fear they have of being put to death. they are also shared -- they also shared with me the times they have been waiting to receive their s.i.v.'s. in some cases they have waited for 10 years. this is unacceptable. i call on my colleagues to support this legislation so that we can protect our allies
and reform the system, but also to support immediate evacuation of our allies in afghanistan to the u.s. soil where we can assure their safety. we can't wait any longer. we need to act now. we need to evacuate all 18,000 allies with pending s.i.v. applications and their immediate families who are in danger. mr. speaker, i met with a young man who is now safely in houston. but sadly his father has already been murdered by the taliban. at least 300, i'm told, have already been murdered just like his father by the taliban. the more we delay, the more we put families at risk. we need to support this bill. we need to support an immediate evacuation, and we need to make sure that our friends stood with us that we now stand with them w that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentlewoman yields. the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mcclintock: i now yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. roy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. roy: i thank the speaker. i thank the gentleman from california. i stand here alongside my colleagues in solidarity that we should be standing with the afghanees who stood with our men and women in uniform. there is zero question we should do that. every veteran i represent in the district in texas 21 shares that. as we have heard here on this floor. i am supportive of that underlying principle. however, a self-executing manager's amendment was included that i have serns with. it expands the program to include nonprofits and grantees. private organizations that, quote, contributed to the united states' mission in afghanistan. we don't know who would be included. we don't know how many people would now be eligible. it expands the program to individuals that worked for the international security assistance force without the immediate to have performed sensitive and trusted activities for the united states forces. these people do not have to be
afghaneings. we don't know how many people this would be. if we can-- it weakence standard for qual if i case. an alien has to verify they have quote exspeern or experiencing ongoing threat as a consequence of the employment by the united states government. the new stapped is, quote, has asserted a credible basis for concern about possibility of an ongoing or serious threat, end quote. a credible basis for concern about the possibility of is a concerning low standard, lower than the credible fear standard of significant possibility we currently employ. . we agree we want to help those principal aliens. there are 10,000 currently unused. that would be about the 18,000 number. we have 3 1/2 people come in per person on average. we have about 125,000 to 130,000 folks come in. this would be another 175,000 to
180,000. that does not include the n.g.o.'s. we're going to be back down here at the well talking about new numbers and more expansion based on nebulous standards with respect to n.g.o.'s and private entities that aren't individuals who worked for the united states government alongside directly our men and women in uniform. that is more than concerning. it brings me back to my final point. we have got to restore regular order in this body. we're not amending this. we're not debating this in committee. we didn't debate about the specific amendments. it was put under the title of something that everyone supports. which means that you are put in the position of figuring out whether you'll support the underlying matter while all these things are added to this which have serious concerns. we should have debated in committee and debated on the floor. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i now yield 1 1/2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from arizona, mr. stanton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is
recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. stanton: mr. speaker, i stand in support of the allies act. i believe, as my colleagues have stated so eloquently, that we have a moral obligation, a duty to take care of those who protected and safeguarded american troops in afghanistan. future allies will look at how we treated those who put themselves in harm's way. the thousands of interpreters and others who aided our mission when they are asked to help us in other times of need. there is one particular group i'd like to call special attention to. the afghan female tactical platoon. this small group of elite afghan women sought a better future for their country. they were trained by our country's special forces and supported our special operation missions during the war. they gathered essential intelligence and help protect the lives of innocent civilians and american troops. we owe these brave women more
than our gratitude. we owe them what they gave us -- loyalty and protection. because of their gender, they're marked for especially heinous retaliation and punishment by the taliban. without our help, they will almost certainly be raped, sold into sex trafficking, tortured, or executed, all because they helped the american people. i want to thank representative crow for his steadfast leadership on this critically important issue, and i urge my colleagues to approve this essential bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mcclintock: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm now pleased to yield three minutes to the ranking member of the house foreign affairs committee, mr. mccaul of texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. mccaul: thank you, mr. speaker. there's a saying, no man left behind. no one left behind. that is the commitment, that is
a promise that we made to the interpreters to our afghan partners. we will not leave them behind in the dust to be slaughtered by the taliban. they have a bull's-eye on their back. i've talked to them. i talked to our special forces who they protected in this 20-year war. they will be killed if we don't get them out of there. our defense department is on a fast track. that entire country, the taliban's on the offensive, and it's likely going to fall to the taliban. the decision to withdraw completely has been made, but we have to be prepared for the aftermath. the refugee crisis, humanitarian crisis that will occur. the women in afghanistan that will be tortured, will not be
educated. we had a school of 200 women, girls that were blown up, little girls blown up. that, mr. speaker, is the taliban. that will be the safe fate for our afghan partners if we don't get them out of there now. i urge the administration -- they have 700 now come to fort lee in virginia. i urge the administration to get the rest of them. there are 9,000 interpreters. probably 20,000 total when it comes to our afghan partners. please, mr. president, get them out before they are killed by the taliban. our i.s.r., intelligence surveillance cognizance capability is out. bagram fell to the afghans in a very sloppy transition, and the taliban is going to take that
over, too. now, we can't see what china, russia, and iran are doing. we can't see what isis and al qaeda are doing, mr. speaker. we are going dark, mr. speaker, because we can't see anything on the ground. i will tell you this, the moral obligation we have to save those who we promised we would protect them has to be fulfilled, and that's precisely what this bill does, mr. speaker. and i want to thank the judiciary committee for bringing this forward. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i now yield 1 1/2 minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from pennsylvania, ms. dean. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. ms. dean: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. nadler, for offering me this minute and a half. i rise in support of the allies act. this bill will save lives and protect our allies. it will also honor our commitment to the region.
thousands of afghans have served as interpreters, drivers, guides to assist u.s. troops. their service and commitment has been consistent over 20 years. that now marks the longest u.s. war in history. the afghanistan special immigrant visa, or s.i.v.'s, allows people who worked for or on behalf of the united states government to seek lawful permanent residence in the united states. but as we prepare to remove our troops, the taliban continues to target our friends. the allies act of 2021 provides for an additional 8,000 s.i.v.'s to accommodate everyone who currently could be eligible -- an eligible candidate in the pipeline. we have an opportunity and a moral obligation to save the lives of those who saved us. as we draw down our military presence in afghanistan, many who served alongside our troops continue to face increased threats because of their service to us. we must do the right thing by our brave allies. i thank representative crow for
his service and his leadership on this bill. i urge all of my colleagues to support the bill, and i yield back with thanks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields. the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mcclintock: thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. dunn. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for two minutes. mr. dunn: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i came to speak on this bill because it means a lot to me. my war was vietnam, and i remember the end of that war. i remember the friends that we left behind. i remember the families that were torn apart, and it still weighs on me. and now i have a son who spent years in afghanistan, and when he talks to me, he does not talk about taxes or health care. he talks about the people he left behind in afghanistan. what are we doing for them? and we cannot do this again. we must not do this again. we have to rise and bring back,
repatriate those that were so important to us in combat. and i know you understand that. please do not abandon friends of america again. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i now yield two minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for two minutes. ms. jackson lee: i, too, want to add my appreciation to the chairman of the judiciary committee for his leadership in moving this bill forward and certainly to our friend and one who has served this nation in many ways, congressman crow, for his continued consideration of our friends in afghanistan. as a co-chair and founder of the afghanistan caucus, who has gone to afghanistan many, many times in the early years, i know the people of afghanistan truly love democracy. i know the women, children want
education. and i know that in the midst of our decision on the longest serving war, we must find that pathway to be able to ensure democracy prevails. both in terms of the democratic leadership of government but in the lives of the people. i hesitate to read this language, gunfire erupts. at least a dozen men are seen shot to death amid the cries of allah akbar, god is great. the members were part of an afghan special forces unit. the executioners, the taliban. the killings took place june 16 close to afghanistan's border with turkmenistan. it is, of course, a difficult thing to read and to understand. but as we begin to write the democratic principles of a constitution some many years ago, prior to this nation going to iraq, people were interested and excited about their life.
women were elected as parliamentarians. in fact, they prided themselves and a number of -- in a number of parliamentarians who happened to be women. in that instance of leaving afghanistan the first time, we found that those women, many going to their districts, were killed. schools that girls were in, schools i took books to, were actually burned to the ground. so those who stood by us, those who guided our troops, those who translated for us, those who took us into the village, because many of you know the stories of our soldiers going in with money. that was a policy at that time. this bill specifically acknowledges their leadership. i support the afghanistan special immigrant program, and i support its increased numbers, and i ask my colleagues, don't stop here. let's keep going. these are our friends. democracy must prevail. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mcclintock: mr. speaker, ilacontinue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from -- mr. mcclintock: mr. speaker, i will continue to reserve.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from connecticut, mr. himes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. himes: i thank the gentleman from for his leadership and the two minutes, which may be the most important two minutes i've had on this floor in a very, very long time. because what we debate here today is not an ideological disagreement. it's not a question of whether you're a republican or a democrat. it is a fundamental question of who we are as a country. and will we abide about the values that not only make us successful in times of war but which distinguish us as a people and allow us to say we are an exceptional nation? when our troops, troops like jason crow, the sponsor of this legislation, go to engage in combat in foreign lands, they are armed and equipped with the very best technology money can
buy. but from the human standpoint, from the all-important human and cultural standpoint, they are blind and deaf. and that is fixed by locals who risk everything, not necessarily for the money, but because they believe in who we are. and this is the moment where we return the favor, by saying, if you stood with us, we will stand with you. this is smart from a national security perspective because, god help those who go into a country if we don't care of those who helped us in afghanistan. but more importantly, it's about our values. mr. speaker, you know very well that our military has at its core the value that we leave no one behind. now we decide whether we live by that value or whether we take the cheap, the easy, the quick, and ultimately, the dangerous way out. dangerous for the next conflict we find ourselves in and
dangerous because what that will tell the world about our commitment to loyalty and the values that make us exceptional. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mcclintock: mr. speaker, i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i now yield one minute to the distinguished majority leader of the house, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for one minute. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. it's appropriate that my colleague from maryland, the distinguished anthony brown, is presiding having served in iraq and served in the u.s. army for a 30-year stint. madam speaker -- mr. speaker,
colonel speaker, congressman speaker, i want to thank my friend, representative crow, for his leadership on this issue and in offering this legislation. representative crow, like congressman brown, speaker brown, is one of the members of this house from a new generation of service who wore the uniform of our country in a post -- in the post-9/11 conflicts. these veterans of the war in iraq and afghanistan, like representative crow, understand what we must do to support our friends who stood with us, who risked their lives and the lives of their families with their american partners. . the mission of our armed forces in afghanistan over the past 20 years has been clear, although very extended. destroy the terrorists who
attacked us on 9/11 and deny al qaeda a safe haven from which to threaten global security in our country. today, osama bin laden is dead. al qaeda has been routed. terrorism, however, has not gone away. our troops are now coming home. the fate of the afghan people will surely be determined by them. with our help. with us standing by. america will continue to support the afghan government and its security forces, but it's up to them to show the taliban that there is no military solution and that their resolve is evident by their defense of their nation. as american personnel return from afghanistan, that country's civil war will continue, and we cannot leave our afghan partners behind.
we talk about leaving no american behind. that is an absolutely essential premise as we send our men and women into harm's way. nor should we leave behind any of those who facilitated our efforts. who stood with us, who risked their own lives and put themselves in jeopardy. no one has any allusions about what the taliban would do if they had their way and what they would do in those places they already control. they will take it out. they will, in fact, literally take out those who stood with us and facilitated our efforts. there can be no doubt the punishment they would inflict on afghans who stood along the united states and our allies. we can only imagine the horrors that would befall their
families in retribution. this legislation recognizes that these afghan allies have earned safety in our country, for themselves and for their loved ones. it would expand the visa program and expedite processing to help ensure there is a path to america for afghans who worked side by side with our troops, our diplomats, our development professionals, and our partner forces in carrying out our missions there. while president biden is already taking executive action to bring some of these allies here, legislation is needed to ensure that all of them can make it safely out of harm's way. it should be said, of kearse, -- of course, that they will all be vetted to assure that, in fact, they are coming to the -- their coming to the united states will be consistent with the security of our country and our people. i urge my colleagues to vote for this bill today in a very
bipartisan way. this is not about democrats. it's not about republicans. it is about an effort that republican and democratic administrations pursued. and received help in doing so. each vote is not only an ascent for this sound policy but a gesture of our deep appreciation for the service of our allies. let this vote remind the world that our country's steadfast foundation, our highest ideal, remains our bonds of friendship , loyalty, and trust. let us remind our friends and foes alike that americans keep faith with our allies. and let us practice that in this body and at the white house. i ask my colleagues, democrats and republicans alike, vote for this bill. we can argue about difference
of opinion and our effort in afghanistan, but when we do something, whether we argue one side or the other, when we ask people to help us in that effort, help us, america, our men and women in uniform in harm's way, when we ask those to help us, it is important for us to keep the faith with those who do. vote yes. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mcclintock: mr. speaker, i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from michigan, mr. myer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for two minutes. mr. mire: i rise in support of the allies act. there is a moral obligation to honor the promises we made to our afghan allies and ensure those who risked their lives for the u.s. mission are safely relocated. but it's clear that the special
immigrant visa program as it currently exists is not up to the task. staffing shortages and bureaucratic hurdles have resulted in years long delays in the process. and backlog of over 18,000 applications. the allies act will help steed speed up the process by streamlining duplicative procedures and removing unnecessary retirements by maintaining the necessary security and vetting procedures. it expands eligibility for those unfairly left out of the program. most critically surviving spouses and children of applicants who died or killed by the taliban before visa approval. mr. speaker, i am encouraged by the recent news of the plans to begin evacuating some of these afghan interpreters, but make no mistake, there is much more to be done. we have a responsibility to ensure that those who risk their lives serving alongside u.s. and coalition forces are both swiftly evacuated and given a path to safety. this bill is a significant step towards that goal and will help
ensure that america lives up to the promises made to those brave individuals and their families. i'm proud to support this bill and i call on all of my colleagues to do so today. i urge passage. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i now yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for two minutes. mr. blumenauer: i appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this bill. i never served in theater, but i have worked on this issue for 14 years. we started with senator john mccain and senator kennedy. and it moved forward on a bipartisan basis, both the house and senate, with the special immigrant visa. but sadly, it always was too slow, too bureaucratic, and there really wasn't the sense of urgency that was necessary to make sure that the people who put their lives on the line to help americans in these difficult circumstances.
something's changed. first of all, president biden has made an extraordinarily difficult call that we are going to wind down that presence of the united states in terms of military. it's a difficult call. it was one that needed to be made. because the circumstances were not going to change if it was five years, 10 years, it would just be more billions of dollars and more lives putting off the day of reckoning. and i admire the president for doing so. i hope he brings that same sense of urgency to deal with the people we can't afford to leave behind. another thing that's
changed is the energy of new members of congress who served in the theater. my colleague, jason crow. we just heard from peter peter mire. they helped us craft this legislation that will solve the problems if we are willing to implement it in full force.
i call upon the administration to expedite the transition. i call on all of us to continue to make sure that we provide the resources, the attention, and urgency to make the program successful. but make no mistake, we have a lot of work to do to protect people who helped us. being a friend should not be fatal. and i urge approval of this legislation as an important next step and that we redouble our efforts to make it successful. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yield. the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mcclintock: mr. speaker, i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman
from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i now yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from massachusetts, mr. moulton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for two minutes. mr. moulton: thank you, mr. chairman. 51. that's how many days until our official withdrawal from afghanistan.
800, that's how many days it takes to process a single special immigrant visa. 21,000, 21,000, that's how many of our afghan allies who put their lives on the line not just for their country but for ours. are at risk of being beaten, tortured, beheaded, slaughtered by the taliban. and make no mistake, if they can get their hands on our friends, that is what the taliban will do. so the math is clear. we are out of time. the stakes are clear. our reputation as a country. our ability to find allies and future conflicts, the willingness all over the globe
to work for america because they trust us to uphold our own values. that's what's on the line. we have to pass the allies act. the administration needs to conduct a full evacuation because we do not leave people behind. we are the united states of america. let's remind the world of that today. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mcclintock: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i'm prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mcclintock: thank you. mr. speaker, this is a tragedy in so many ways. the loss of so many of the best and brightest of our youth because of political and
military leaders who were willing to put them in harm's way, but without a commitment to victory and without the willingness to back them with the full might of the united states. and for fing -- afghanistan, it means the best and brightest of that contry, the people willing to risk their futures for freedom, are the ones now being forced to flee. driving afghanistan of the most patriotic citizens who could otherwise have formed a core of a free government if we had finished the job we started. it is to be greatly hoped that like the iranian diaspora, they will focus their energy from abroad to support the resistance movement that is sure to emerge under the yolk of -- yoke of thele taliban of oppression. it is greatly hoped our nation will finally return to a tradition that served us well for nearly 200 years. that there is no substitute for
victory and no excuse for waging war without the absolute commitment to swiftly win it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yield back. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i'm heartened to see members on both sides of the aisle speak in support of this important bill. it is vital that we pass this legislation. and it is vital that we do so quickly. as we speak, nearly 20,000 of our afghan allies are facing increasing threats from the taliban and insurgent groups. the administration will begin evacuating some individuals at the end of this month. as members of congress, we must also do our part to honor the sacrifices made by these brave men and women and pass the allies act. it is much too bad that we cannot do more, but this is the least that we can do. i urge my colleagues to vote in support of this bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution
535, the previous question is ordered on the bill as amended. the question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend the afghan allies protection act of 2009 to expedite the special immigrant visa process for certain afghan allies, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on passage of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the bill -- for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. nadler: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 3-s of house resolution 8, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house
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 h.r. 3985. and as the member designated by mr. grijalva, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. grijalva will vote yes on h.r. 3985.
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 h.r. 3985. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. evans: mr. speaker, representing mr. lawson from
florida, as the member designated by mr. lawson, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. lawson will vote yes on final passage. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. calvert: mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. granger of texas, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that ms. granger will vote yes on h.r. 3985. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. garcia: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. garcia of illinois, i advise the house that pursuant to house resolution 8, mr. garcia will vote aye on h.r. 3985. thank you, mr. speaker.
mr. connolly: mr. speaker. as the member designated by ms. titus of nevada, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house ms. titus of nevada will vote aye on h.r. 3985. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from georgia seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. jones, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. jones will vote yes on h.r. 3985.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from virginia seek recognition? ms. wexton: as the member designated by mr. mceachin, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. mceachin will vote yes on h.r. 3985. 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. 3985.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mrs. lawrence, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mrs. lawrence will vote yea on h.r. 3985. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by representative chris stewart, utah 2, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. stewart will vote yes on h.r. 3985.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the the gentlewoman from illinois seek recognition? for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois seek recognition? ms. underwood: as the member designated by mr. rush, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. rush will vote yes on h.r. 3985. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. pallone: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. donald payne, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. payne will vote yes on h.r. 3985.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. buchanan of florida, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. buchanan will vote yes on h.r. 3985. thank you. 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 ruiz, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. congress member ruiz will vote yes on h.r. 3985. mr. speaker, as the member designated by congress member napolitano, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house, mrs. napolitano informs the house that she will vote yes on h.r. 3985. thank you.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. representative-elect of pennsylvania, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. reschenthaler will vote yea on h.r. 3985. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. desaulnier, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. desaulnier will vote yes on h.r. 3985.
what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. jeffries: as the member designated by chairwoman eddie bernice johnson, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that chairwoman johnson will vote yea on h.r. 3985. as the member designated by congresswoman grace meng, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that congresswoman meng will vote yea on h.r. 3985.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. speaker. as the member designated by mr. comber of the commonwealth of kentucky, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. comer will vote yes on h.r. 3985. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back.
what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. speaker. as the member designated by ms. salazar, the state of florida, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that ms. salazar will vote yea on h.r. 3985. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. stanton: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mrs. boebert from -- >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mrs. boebert of colorado, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mrs. boebert will vote no on h.r. 3985.
the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. members, please take your conversations off the floor. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? mr. scalise: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for the purpose of inquiring to the majority leader the floor schedule for next week. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. scalise: thank you. so mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. scalise: with that, mr. speaker, i'd now like to yield to my friend, the majority leader, and welcome back the
majority leader to the colloquy and good to see you. with that, my friend, the majority leader, i yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman from louisiana, mr. scalise, for yielding. monday, the house will meet at 12:00 p.m. for morning hour and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business with votes postponed until 10:30 p.m. on tuesday, the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. that's an acceleration from 12:00. we have a lot of business to do next week. we have a lot of appropriation bills so we want to make sure we're not meeting late, late into the night. on tuesday the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and 12:00 p.m. for legislative business. on wednesday the house is expected to meet at 11:00 a.m. for legislative business. on thursday, 10:00 a.m. for legislative business. and on friday, 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. the house will consider several bills under suspension.
in addition, the house will consider at least seven of the 12 appropriation bills for fiscal year 2022. recognizing the importance of completing our work well in advance of the deadline at the end of september. i'd let the members know that unfortunately -- well, first of all, let me say we marked up all 12 bills, and they have been reported out of committee. . the senate has not reported out or considered a single appropriation bill. we have 60 days before the end of the fiscal year, approximately, give or take. the house will consider a seven bill mini bus h.r. 4502. that will include seven appropriation bills. the labor-health and human services an education bill, the agricultural bill, the rural development -- agriculture and rural development, energy and water development, financial
services, and general government. interior, environment, military construction, and veterans' affairs. transportation and housing and urban development appropriations acts. there will be additional bills on the appropriation obviously after the seven five additional appropriation bills that will be available for consideration. three of those bills, as i understand t. have been noticed by the rules committee for amendments to be filed. so they will be ready to go next week, and i'm hopeful that we will be able to move some of those bills next week. they will be the legislative branch appropriation bill, the commerce, justice, science and related agencies appropriation bill. and the department of state and foreign operations and related programs appropriation bill. that will leave the defense bill and the homeland security
bill. lastly, additional legislative items are possible. that will be our schedule for the week to come. i expect it to be long days, which is why we are going in at 10 a.m. and 11 -- on one day, 10 a.m. on two of the days which we usually go in at 12. i would hope that that would preclude us from going very late at night, but i think everybody ought to expect that we will be here into the evening. i yield. mr. scalise: i thank the gentleman for yielding. as we look towards this appropriations process coming to the floor next week, i would hope it doesn't take the same tone that it took in committee and that is a hyper partisan approach, which, in years past, you have seen republicans and democrats come together to ultimately determine how best to fund this united states government. any bill that's going to get sent to the president's desk is
going to ultimately be a bipartisan bill, unfortunately that's not the bill that's going to be coming to the floor. there are a lot of very extreme radical elements that were put in that bill. there is also something very alarming, that was a break, departure from over 40 years of bipartisan agreement on what is known as the hyde amendment. henry hyde in the 1970's was able to get agreement between republicans and democrats to say on all the things we may disagree with, let's agree that taxpayer funding should not be used for abortions. overwhelming majorities of republicans and democrats have supported that going back to 1976. this appropriations bill guts the hyde amendment. and why this democrat majority decided to break from decades of bipartisan agreement on hyde is perplexing, but i would hope among many other things we would be able to have that full debate on the house floor. that amendments like restoring hyde would be made in order. not a closed process.
not a very narrow process where the goal would be to push a hyper partisan bill out of the house that won't become law, which means it would be a very foot ill exercise we would be -- futile exercise that would be doing next week but come to an agreement on to properly fund the government. i'm not sure that's being anticipated with the seven bills coming in this bloated bus, but i would hope that the majority as the rules committee looks to determine which amendments would be made in order would go to an open process and let things like the hyde amendment be debated. frankly, to be supported in the bipartisan way that it's always enjoyed going back over 40 years. maybe the gentleman could shed light on that but i would yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. he is certainly accurate that the hyde amendment has been in our bills for a very long period of time.
what i think is not completely accurate that it's been bipartisan support. it has enjoyed bipartisan support in that there were democrats who obviously supported the hyde amendment. and i realize that this has made it controversial. having been left out of the bill. i don't know what the rules committee is going to do. we'll have to wait and see what they do. but in any event i want to tell you that large number on our side of the aisle believe that a actually protected -- that a actually protected health care matter for women ought not to be determined by their financial ability. there is controversy with respect to hyde. there is also controversy with respect to federal employees as well that i know well because i chaired that subcommittee. we give to federal employees
the health care benefit, but then we say they can't use it for some things. actually, that money is their money, it's not our money. it's given in compensation for their services. but in any event there are controversies i would tell the gentleman. i'm not sure what the rules committee will do. and therefore don't want to speak for them. mr. scalise: the gentleman yield back. mr. hoyer: sure. mr. scalise: hopefully we get that opportunity to have the open debate process so we can bring amendments like restoring hyde to this floor. i'd also like to ask about something that is going to be coming up next week, that is this january 6 commission that the speaker created is expected to meet next week. yesterday we saw an alarming departure from congressional tradition, and that is speaker pelosi unilaterally made a decision to remove minority members from that committee.
you go through the history of congress. prior to this year, never has the speaker denied the minority the ability to choose who they are going to put on committees. and not only did it happen yesterday with multiple members, a ranking member of a standing committee was removed, an officer in the united states navy was removed from that committee without explanation. that first of all undermines all credibility that this committee will have. it's clear that now it's an attempt by the speaker to just completely politicize that committee. why the majority chose to abuse power in that way and deny minority rights in that way is perplexing, but it doesn't bode well for the institution. it surely doesn't bode well for the impartialality and the
credibility of this committee. i don't know if the majority is looking at reconsidering that decision, but obviously it's unprecedented. and the gentleman wants to explain that, i would be happy to yield. mr. hoyer: well, i think the gentleman can explain it. i think, frankly, your party is hoisted on his own pi tard -- pitard. we brought to this floor with mr. katko and mr. thompson agreeing on the process, offering to the house an equally divided five-five commission. the five being totally in the republican -- republicans being totally in the hand of the minority leader. we brought to the floor the subpoena power being equally divided between the parties and
having to cooperate in accomplishing the issuance of a subpoena. and very frankly although there was some discussion of it, there was no doubt that the staff would have been resolved question of being equal staff on the republican and democratic side would have been resolved in the senate. i see the gentleman shaking his head. i can tell him i know it would have been resolved. period. and the republican party objected to that commission. equally divided 5-5. with the minority leader strenuously lobbying against it being passed in the united states senate. it was not passed in the united states senate. the press asked me if it's defeated in the senate what are you going to do? i said we are going to move forward, of course. that's what we are doing. we are moving forward. now, the makeup of that committee, three of the persons
who are appointed by the -- were recommended by the minority leader were accepted by the speaker. two -- i'm not going to spend a long time going into the quotes of the two or their premises, but all i can say is when asked the question, miss cheaney -- ms. cheney, who i know you kicked out of leadership because she tells the truth, said -- mr. scalise: i would ask the gentleman -- that was not the reason that ms. cheney was removed as chair. nothing to do -- mr. hoyer: that's one opinion. now, she said -- mr. scalise: we don't share that's not accurate. mr. hoyer: i clearly know we
don't share that view. but it was referenced that, well, she may tell the truth but she ought to stop telling the truth. that was one of the references made as you replaced her as your third in line because she, from our perspective, and from i think a large perspective of the american people told the truth. and she continues to at the time truth. she was asked the question, what do you think about this nonpartisan investigation? she said i am absolutely confident we will have a nonpartisan investigation, that it will look at the facts. that it will go wherever the facts may lead. there are three members from the minority leader proposed that the speaker has agreed to. or did not object to. she's objected to two members. and the rhetoric around this from minority leader and from those two members has been disgraceful. thus this must be an investigation.
the idea that any of this has become politicized really unworthy of the office that we all hold and unworthy of our republic. i don't blame you, i probably would have taken the same reaction as you have taken, but from the speaker's perspective and from others, this needs to be a commission that does, in fact, commit itself to going where the facts lead. and determining the who, what, where, , when and why. i have some very strong feelings as to why the insurrection or as some say the tourist visit on your side of the aisle, mr. whip, the tourist visit that resulted in the death of a number of people , terrorizes members of this house who thought their lives were in danger because people were trying to break into the house chamber.
the rationalization of that activity has been rampant by many on your side of the aisle. we have some strong feelings on this and we are going to get to the facts. the american people will make the ultimate judgment, obviously. and we want to see that commission, again, hoist on your own pitard the overwhelming majority of you voted against, mr. speaker, they voted against a commission , five republicans appointed by the minority leader, appointed by, not recommended by, and five democrats. subpoena power shared. and notwithstanding the fact that some of you apparently don't agree, i guarantee you it would have been equal staffing. that would have been resolved. that was not a big issue.
it was a make up issue to vote no in the united states senate because in our view, so you understand, donald trump didn't want the commission. so donald trump was saluted and we didn't get a commission. which was a commission that almost exactly to the jot and diddle as mr. katko said, what the minority leader asked for. so you don't like the result now, i get it. but i believe as ms. chaney said this is going to be -- as ms. cheney said, this is going to be a fact-finding select committee. witnesses will say what they're going to say. by the way, one of the people that was rejected by the speaker may well be, and maybe both, witnesses before the select
committee. i don't know that. nobody's told me that. but that may be the case. so we're going to proceed. i know there's disagreement. that's not surprising. but you looked the opportunity that you asked for in the eye and rejected it. so here we are. >> that is not what -- mr. scalise: that is not what we asked for. the majority leader said, there were a number of things that need to be cleaned up that were just not accurate if you look at the members kicked off from the minority side yesterday, still no explanation given by the way that includes a ranking member of a committee and an officer in the united states navy who was
removed yesterday by speaker pelosi with no reason given, in an unprecedented way, maybe speaker pelosi, maybe this majority don't want to see all the facts come out. they were surely raising those two members who were removed yesterday, those -- were raising questions. whatever those facts are, they were publicly raising questions. maybe because they raised those questions that might be uncomfortable for the majority they were removed if the committee with no explanation given. that had never happened before in the history of this congress if you want toe the facts, don't sit there and say you want the facts if you're removing people who are trying to get facts who raising serious questions that should be answered. they raised them publicly and were going to raise them in the committee and maybe because they were going to raise those tough questions they were removed by the speaker.
members of the minority. who were removed by the speaker. i don't know if that's the new precedent that the majority leader wants to see in the future but i'll tell you, since the gentleman likes quoting liz cheney, i'll read this quote from liz cheney, quote, speaker pelosi and the democrat majority have no business determining which republicans sit on committees. that is from liz cheney, if the the gentleman wans to quote. mr. hoyer: is that a quote about ms. greene? mr. scalise: it is a quote about ms. greene. there were member that committee who voted on january 6 to reject electors. maybe not this year'sian 6. but as the gentleman knows, every republican president this century has had democrats on this house floor object to electors being seated.
including multiple members of the january 6 committee on the majority side. they weren't removed. in fact they were appointed by the speaker. yet two of our members who raised very serious questions about facts that should be answered, wherever those answers lead, were removed, because maybe the majority doesn't want all the facts to come out. maybe they only want a certain narrative to come out. that's not an investigation. that's a kangaroo court if that's the approach that's going to be taken. the action taken yesterday by the speaker, the unprecedented action, undermines the credible of that commission and it's a shame for the institution because the members we appointed were going there to fine the facts, to help participate in finding the facts, and clearly that's in the the interest now of this committee. that was exposed yesterday in the speaker's unprecedented action. not something that this institution, whether it's republicans running it or
democrats, and as the the gentleman know that pendulum swings both way, but never before this year had a majority move moved members that minority leader submitted for committees. that's not what's happened in this institution but now it seems to be the norm because maybe some people that are asking tough questions are asking too tough of questions that this majority doesn't want to be answered. kind of why this majority won't have a hearing on the origins of covid. it was mr. jordan who, along with myself and other, has raised serious questions that have been backed up by many medical experts around the country that covid-19 very likely started in the wuhan lab and was leaked out. medical experts from every walk of life have looked at the genetic makeup of this covid-19 various and said it couldn't have been transferred from bats to animals to humans, in fact, it was likely modified
genetically in the lab in wuhan. and yet there is not a single hearing that's been held by this majority on whether it was gain of function research, possibly funded with taxpayer money, all of those questions should be raise bud maybe the majority doesn't want those facts to come out. we should want the facts to come out wherever they lead. so don't pound the desk and say you want the fact whence you remove people who are asking questions to get at the facts. shouldn't be a one-sided question and argument. i would yield. mr. hoyer: the legislation we passed said said the speaker would appoint all the members. these members were not kicked off, they never got on. liz cheney was asked whether that was the appropriate thing to do and her response was, so you had her quote, i agree with what the speaker has done. now the reason she agreed, yes, they've raised questions.
and on your side you want to raise questions. you want to look at everything but january 6. maybe january 6 as well but you wanted to look at this incident, that incident the other incident, the incident over here are. they relevant incidents? sure they are. but not to january 6. but why not look at all of them? do i have the time in mr. scalise: the gentleman has the time. mr. hoyer: when you were in charge you didn't look at some of the ince dens that happened while you were in charge that were similar in nature. very frankly, i think those incidents ought to be looked at, not by this commission, because they were incidents that did not involve insurrection. did not involve stopping the work of the congress of the united states, did not terrorize members of this house. now i know that some of you have had pictures taken of you in
this house. you look pretty terrified to me. you thought there was something serious happening. and this stuff that this was a tourist visit is absurd. and the issue of dissembling is not new. president trump put that in an art form he didn't like what was going ohere. he created something over here with a tweet or a comment or an action that he took. that's shell game. the issue is, what happened on january 6? what was the insurrection about? what were people coming into the capitol saying let's hang the vice president of the united states? not from our party. people shake their heads. i'm not sure why they're shaking their heads. they saw it on television. they see it on the tapes. over and over and over. they see people being convicted.
i happen to think the sentences are too short. it was treason. it was treason. based upon a lie. we need to get to the bottom of it. what the speaker has done is made sure that we're going to get to the bottom of it, not withstanding the fact, and i'll repeat again, all of you had the opportunity to vote, 5-5, shared subpoena, and the leader was empowered to appoint anyone he wants. the legislation that passed this house said the speaker would appoint. the speaker. did she consult with the minority lead her she did. did she disagree with two he appointed? she did. she did not appoint them. that was in her power. i agree with her. liz cheney agreed with her. why? because that would have been
dissembling, not looking for facts. mr. jordan has said over and over again he believes the election was stolen. court after court after court after court said no proof. no proof. so we are where we are. we're going to proceed. we're going to proceed, if the speaker decides to withhold the three and name two others be it. we're going to proceed. we're going to proceed and we're going to get the facts and we're going to get those facts known to the american people. it's going to be widely covered. there are going to be a lot of witnesses. and we're going to find out the who, maybe that's the problem. the who. and the what.
and the where. and the why. for the first time in history, americans, trump signs waving, stopped the business of the congress of the united states. an insurrection. and from my view a treasonous act. so we're going to proceed. i yield back. mr. scalise: and again, if the facts were what the majority want, the majority wouldn't be afraid of certain members asking tough questions that may be -- that maybe the majority doesn't want. since the gentleman brought up mr. jordan i'll tell you a question that mr. jordan has been raising publicly. one of the questions mr. yordan has been raising is why weren't
the capitol police better equipped when there was intelligence prior, weeks prior, to january 6? that there may be large crowds? may be threats? why weren't the capitol police more equipped? were national guard offered to the capitol that were rejected? and at what level if that's the case, were they rejected? maybe he was starting to ask those questions. maybe he should have just sat back and not raised those questions until after the committee started, but he started raising those questions. and by the way, they're important questions to be answered. but he won't be able to ask those questions about why the capitol police weren't better equipped because speaker pelosi yanked him off the committee when he was selected by the minority leader. you can talk about the power of the speaker and brag that's her power but just because you have the might doesn't make it right. what she did was an a abuse to say i'm just going to choose who on the republican side i'm going to allow but boy, if some other members are going to ask
tough questions i have the power to take them off. that's not what power is used for. this house, this democracy, we should want the facts. and if some members are going to ask tough questions you should want everybody to be asking tough questions. if the facts lead there, you go there if the facts don't lead there, go somewhere else and ask tough questions. if some members are going to ask tough questions that the majority doesn't want to be asked that undermines the credibility of that commission to remove them from asking those questions and i would yield. mr. hoyer: does the gentleman believe that the three members that the speaker accepted and was willing to appoint would not have asked those questions? i yield mr. scalise: they haven't said publicly whether they would or not mr. jordan sure did. maybe he was punished for raising tough questions in advance of the hearing and should have waited. but again, those are questions. sheriff nehls, also one of our selections, was right there with
these braif capitol police officers, holding down the house of representatives so the chamber wasn't breached. but again if the integrity of that commission is undermined because speaker pelosi chose to remove people who are going to ask tougher question, ultimately it proves that this this is in the a commission set on finding the facts it's a commission set on establishing a narrative. regardless of the facts. that is a disgrace for this constitution to -- for this institution to go down that road. there is still time to reconsider. i urge the majority to reconsider how they use or abuse the power that's vested upon them. i would yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. your side had an opportunity to support the capitol police. your side had an opportunity to support law enforcement. your side had the opportunity to increase the capability of the
capitol police to respond to insurrectionist violence, criminal agents. your side had that opportunity and what did it do? to a person, voted no. and we passed it. we passed support of the capitol police. we passed support to spenten our defenses. we passed legislation to try to make the capitol more secure and our capitol police safer. we passed that legislation. not with a single one of your votes. and it went to the senate. and it sits. and you read what that's doing to the morale of the capitol police. and some of your comments about the capitol police. so you had that opportunity, i'd say to the speaker, the
republicans had that opportunity. and just as they rejected the five and five, they rejected support of the capitol police. and 17 of them voted against giving them a gold medal. why? because the insurrection was mentioned in the resolution. and of course there was no insurrection, it was a tourist visit. as they ambled politely through the halls of congress. saying how appreciative they were of the efforts being made by their democratic representatives. if you saw it that way, if you believe that, it is impossible for me to understand why. so i tell the whip, mr. speaker, that the republican
party has had two opportunities to have an even, fair commission. they rejected, apparently, according to what the whip says, because we didn't want to look at seattle. we didn't want to look at this city or that city or the other city or this, that, or the other. by the way, vice president biden made it very clear that those who committed criminal activities were not demonstrators, they were criminals. biden said that. and i agree with him. what they didn't want to look at is who recruited the crowd that came in here. who riled that crowd up? and who deployed them to the capitol of the united states
for the specific objective of stopping the steal? what he meant of course is us acting. and his vice president, who he talked to on numerous occasions about stopping the election, concluded that that was not legal. that was not within his authority. so he acted consistent with the law. that really annoyed mr. trump. so here we are. we should have had a bipartisan commission. we should are moved that forward. and, yes, we should support the capitol police by adopting a supplemental. by the way, the senate supplemental is more, in terms of dollars, than the house supplemental. so it's not a question of the we spent too much money to do this, to make the capitol safe, to make the capitol police
armed, to give them opportunity to get intelligence that they need to conceive. what a distraction that the capitol police weren't prepared . the question is not whether were they prepared, the question is why did american citizens try to commit insurrection and treason in the capitol of the united states? and topped our work. not for very long. we came back. we did our work. and we got it done. to the benefit of our country and our democracy and our image around the world. our democracy was resilient. and nobody was angrier, i will tell you, and i think, mr. scalise, you were there, mr. speaker, nobody was angrier at what was happening that night than mitch mcconnell, the leader of the senate.
who said, he believed subsequent to his voting against impeachment that notwithstanding that he believed the president bore responsibility. as the minority leader said. not all responsibility but bore responsibility. we are going to look ive. you can talk all you want. your leader has now decided he's going to withdraw the three. and not participate. we regret that. but it's not going to stop us. it's not going to stop us getting at the truth. not going to stop us at having the american people know the who, what, where, , when and why of the first time since 1812 when a foreign power invaded our capitol. that the capitol of the united states was invaded by people who were seeking to undermine the democratic processes under
our constitution. i yield back. mr. scalise: i thank the gentleman for yielding. it's unfortunate that as that commission starts it will not include other members, republican members, who wanted to ask some of those tough questions. in terms of supporting the police -- i don't think the gentleman has seen any stronger support for police than on this side of the aisle. i have been maybe more vocal than anyone about support for the united states capitol police because i wouldn't be here alive today without the bravery and heroism of the capitol police. i think we all stand with them and ultimately when you look at the supplemental, when it came through the house in may, there were a number of members on the democrat majority side who voted against that supplemental who have been vocal about defunding the police. in fact, we have been trying to bring up h.res. 352, which
expresses support for police in opposition to this crazy radical idea of defunding the police. where many of these cities that have actually defunded police are seeing rapid increases in crime. even more, and i know i held round tables with sheriffs from the new orleans area, as many of my colleagues have met with law enforcement, they'll tell you the biggest challenge today in addition to the growing crime wave they are seeing is the demoralization around the country for police because they see these efforts to defund the police and they see elected officials speaking out publicly against police. it's not coming from the republican side. i think the gentleman knows where it's coming from. but why won't this bill be brought to the floor to just express support for police? the fact that the majority on the democrat side will not bring a resolution to express support for police, h.res. 352, by miss mallin tackies --
mallin -- but an increase in resignations, people leaving the great work of law enforcement because they see in those communities that have defunded the police a lack of support. most sheriffs will tell you they are having trouble recruiting people because of the attacks on police all around the country that we saw from the summer, through where cops were murdered, shot, beaten. yet a resolution to express support to let them know we have their back still won't be brought to the floor by this majority. i hope the gentleman would look at bringing h.res. 352 to the floor so we can actually express to all police that we support them and that we do have their back. and i would yield on that. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. you had an opportunity to support the police and you voted with those who wanted to defund the police. all of you. you had an opportunity. just a few weeks ago.
we had a bill on the floor to support and to fund the capitol police to make them safer, more effective, and better able to enforce the law. and you-all, to a person, voted no. you had the opportunity. so -- and you voted with those who you say on our aisle didn't want to do that. but it passed. why? because the overwhelming, overwhelming, overwhelming majority of democrats, that's the only reason it passed, voted to support the police. our capitol police. and i will tell you, that is also true of members in terms of supporting law enforcement at the federal, state, and local levels. are there some who say some things? yes. there are some people who say some things on your side. i have quoted a couple of them.
that i'm sure you don't support. but having said that, the proof is in the eating of the pudding. we had a bill on the floor that supported the police. you voted against it. every one of you. mr. speaker, you can talk all you want about supporting it, but very frankly the bills you vote on next week support the police. they are not defunding. unlike the trump budgets, if you look at the trump budgets, who cut law enforcement funding? trump budgets. check me on that. then come to the floor and say hoyer was not telling the truth. check me. you had an opportunity, mr. speaker, the minority had an opportunity to support the
police. they voted no. the senate's doing the same. it's a shame because it's undermining the morale of the capitol police. you have seen this reported in the newspapers. this is not me saying t they don't understand why -- mr. scalise, is absolutely right. the capitol police have kept him in particular and others who were attacked by a crazed, apparently left wing, but a crazed bad person. maybe mentally defective, but did a very bad act and he was targeting republicans. and we all stood up and -- when mr. scalise was in the hospital and thanked the capitol police for protecting him and others on that site. that was a terrible, terrible criminal act.
the guy was probably a democrat. i don't know. and we call him out for being that. that's what we ought to all do. and on january , some very bad criminal people acted in this congress, in this capitol against our democracy, against our democracy, against our constitution. and we want to study it. we want to get the facts. so it doesn't happen again. and so we know who is fomenting this insurrectionist psychology. who rationalizes that on this floor? now. i yield. mr. scalise: i thank the gentleman for yielding.
just to point out president biden himself a year ago said he supports efforts to divert money away from police. which by the way is the same thing as defunding the police. if you are diverting money away from police you are defunding police. again there is a resolution that's been sitting out there for a while now to -- express support, i hope we would bring that to the floor and express that support. there are also a number of other issues dealing with inflation. we are seeing a dramatic increase in inflation across this country. everything somebody buys from going to a grocery store we are paying more for things like eggs and milk. if you try to go on a summer vacation right now, you are paying over 40% more for gasoline. you are seeing it across the board. and that increase in inflation, dramatic increase, is a tax. it's a tax on hardworking families. that shows for the gentleman, so many of those things, used cars up 45%. if you can even find a car to buy because there is such a
shortage. when the government's paying people not to work. the borrowing, by the way, and spending of trillions of dollars, which is some of the items that are going to be coming to the floor next week and beyond, trillions more, much of it deficit spending, is part of the reeb we are -- reason we are seeing inflation. gas up 45%. home prices 15% up. milk, 5%. laundry machines, 29%, if you can get one. you might have to wait six months to get a washer and dryer. all of this is a tax on hardworking middle class families. what we should be doing is bringing legislation to the floor to confront these problems. not to keep spending trillions and trillions more in deficit spending and higher tax that is ultimately would lead to a more evaporation of middle class jobs, which is what the majority's bringing. but i would hope that the gentleman would look at legislation, working with republicans, to start
addressing some of these problems that are affecting household families all across this country. republican, democrat, independent, doesn't matter. they are seeing this problem. and they would like to see this congress confront it, not make it worse with more deficit spending. with more multitrillion dollar spending bills and higher taxes that will ship more jobs overseas. shutting down energy production in america while the president's signing or authorizing agreements with russia to use pipelines to ship their energy to other countries, he's shutting down pipelines in america so that we can use more of our natural resources. again, leading to higher prices across the board. things that are adversely affecting families. i would hope we could bring legislation to confront these challenges to the floor. . i would yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. we have brought them to the floor, we will continue to bring them to the floor, we hope you'll support them
we created three million new jobs, more jobs in our first five months than any administration in history. you forgot to mention that figure. at double the monthly rates of the five months prior to that. under the trump administration. the average number of new unemployment insurance claims has been cut in half. last week that number was about 400,000. the same week last year it was 1.5 million. under the trump administration. small business optimism has returned to its 2019 average. the economy grew at 6.4% in the first quarter. independent reports forecast america this year reaching the highest level of growth in nearly four decades. furthermore, as you know, the
director of the federal reserve has opined that he thinks that yes, there is a surge in inflation, yes, we're concerned about it. federal reserve is watching it. we are watching it. we want to keep inflation in check. the gentleman referenced that we're paying people not to work. let me remind the gentleman we had four bills which did similar things that were passed in overwhelming bipartisan fashion last year. overwhelming bipartisan fashion. and none of them would have become law without the signature of president donald trump. what happened? donald trump left. bipartisanship left with it. not because he was so bipartisan, but he thought that doing what we were doing was good for the people and therefore i think he thought good politics. i think that's accurate.
the fact is that this economy is now doing exactly what we want it to do. it's growing. now it's surged, there's no doubt about that, and that surge has resulted in inflation hiking at a higher rate than we'd like. including the products that the whip mentioned, mr. speaker. we need to contain inflation. it does rob those, particularly on fixed incomes. but the multitrillions spent last year, one of which, the cares act, was spend almost a unanimous vote in this house. $2 trillion. so we did that because we believed that the magnitude of the challenge confronting us with covid-19 both to the health of our people and the health of our economy demanded such a robust response.
one of our members, who had been vaccinated, some members hadn't been vaccinated, has come down now, hopefully the vaccinations that he has will moderate any adder haves impact of this delta various. but i would say to the gentleman it's a little bit like the commission. you want to focus on the bad news, not focus on the good news. you want to focus on other news, not the central news of the insurrection. and i understand that strategy but there's a lot of good news happening in america. there's some bad news too. part of it is because people haven't gotten vaccinated. your state has that problem.
mississippi has that problem. south carolina ha some -- south carolina and some other states have that problem. my state has that problem. not to the extent of some other states but all 50 states are seeing a surge. so that getting up and getting off the field at this point in time is not appropriate. and i think that we're going to find that the president's program that he suggests, as he says, and i agree, will have a generational impact for decades to come in making sure that our economy continues to grow, that our people are educated, that we expand the middle class, lift people out of poverty, as we did with children who are now 50% of them are going to be lifted out of poverty. that's good news for america. it's good news for all of us.
those kids are going to be better educated and make more productive contributions to our society. so i hope a number of you will support pieces of legislation that will carry that vision of the montana's into -- of the president's into fruition. will work toward that end. i yield back. mr. scalise: i thank the gentleman. as we look at the bills coming to the floor next week, frankly they would make those problems worse. i know when we talk about the inflation side, talk about inflation because it's the thing we hear the most, when we talk to our constituents back home, because regardless of the statistics, the data is little solace if you see your dollar going less far. you see your dollar not going as far. because whatever you're making, you're spending even more money that you were -- than you were spending before and waiting longer to get things because of these policies.
in fact, the spending itself is part of the problem that is leading to inflation. people get that. so they look at these multitrillion dollar spending bills and they're starting to ask the questions, what's really in those bills? if it's not things to help my family, because i'm paying more with all this new spending, what is in it? we just found out today there's millions of dollars in the bill coming to the floor next week, there's millions of dollars for one entity. planned parenthood of san jose. so not only is hyde being discarded, the mutually agreed upon bipartisan and not just henry hyde with a few other people, henry hyde passed this in the 1970's under a democrat majority. democrats and republicans said, taxpayer funding shouldn't be used to provide abortion and it had always been sack ro sacrosanct in spending bills
that this congress passed, republicans and democrats since that time, until now. so not only are they gutting hyde in the bill but they're putting millions of dollars into planned parenthood by name. this is what drives people nuts when they see that kind of spending and a disconnect because they're pay manager money forking rehousehold goods and instead of us confronting that on the floor they see this kind of spending that is generational because it's the next generation that will have to pay for it. as much as it seem this is majority wants to raise taxes to spend more money, even all the taxes that would run more jobs out of this country don't cover all of this radical spending. i would hope we go a different direction. we surely will be opposing that kind of radical spending and it surely won't be helping those families who just want answers. who just want to see relief from the problems that they're
facing. i would yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. it was not radical spending in 2020 because trump signed the bills. trump left and it became radical spending. that's situational ethics, mr. speaker. i'll leave it at that. mr. scalise: the final point i'd like to bring up to the leader is, we're seeing something that is very encouraging in cuba and that is the people of cuba taking to the streets to demand freedom. something that's been decades in the making. i would hope that we see all government leaders, plunker democrat -- plunker democrat -- republican, democrat, everyone, expressing support. i think one of the most heart felt signs i saw and my colleagues saw just a week ago for not only people taking to
the streets to call for freedom, they were carrying the american flag. in cuba. and we see this all around the world. it's one of the things that for all of our differences brings us together and that is that here in this united states congress, we're not only working to promote freedom in this country and preserve it for future generations but this freedom that we work to preserve inspires people all around the world. and whether it's cuba or in iran, which we saw years ago, or any other country, when people see freedom there's only one flag they wave. that's united states flag. and our colleague, mario diaz-balart, whose family fled cuba, like so many of our colleagues, some first generation, carlos gimenez, personally fled cuba seeking freedom. talk about the american dream. first generation who fled a socialist nation who is now a sit, voting member of the united
states congress and wants to express support for the cuban people there's a resolution, h.res. 527 that express ours solidarity standing with the people in cuba seeking free dom. i would ask the gentleman to look at bringing that to the floor. as the people of cuba are trying to get that freedom, for being oppressed, many may be being murdered right now as they've shut down the internet, shut down the media because there's no freedom of the press, we are hearing stories that are alarm larming, if we can express our support that we're standing with people in cuba who seek freedom as well, i think it would be a strong signal. i would ask the gentleman if we could look at bringing that to the floor. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. the president of the united states has strongly expressed support for those seeking liberty and freedom in cuba. he said shortly after the demonstrations occurred, he has maintained that position. i share that opinion with him.
we are discussing what action we might be taking here in this house. i yield back. mr. scalise: i thank the gentleman and appreciate that. hopefully we can work together to get that brought to the floor and express that support in uniform. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman from washington is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker.
as we prepare to bring american troops home from afghanistan, it's important to recognize those who weren't able to make it home. with that in mind, i rise to honor our nation's gold star families, mothers, father, husbands, wives, sib lynns and children -- siblings and children with a loved one who died severing our country. i have deep gratitude for the families who have suffered such a great loss. families like that of captain schultz killed in afghanistan in 2011. captain schultz's mother betsy channeled her grief over losing her only child into action forming a nonprofit rest at home for other gold star families, the captain joseph house in port angeles, washington. captain joseph house and organizations like it provide a network of support and comfort for surviving family members. their work matters and we should be grateful for it. mr. speaker, i offer my gratitude to all who have lost a loved one in service to our
country. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? >> seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i rise today in support of the pro-life hyde amendment. typically during appropriation season democrats and republicans debate our differences but we have always historically rallied together in opposition to taxpayer funded abortions and we have adopted the bipartisan hyde amendment. however, for some inexplicable reason, this year is different. in 1994, then-senator joe biden famously stated, quote, those of us who are opposed to abortion should not be compelled to pay for them. of course he was right. but the president's position has changed now, giving fuel to the fire of democrat leadership here in this house to follow suit in their own funding bills.
it's time to make these hyde amendment protections permanent. it's true, hyde saves lives. today i'm asking my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to recognize the inherent dignity of every single human life. rejecting this blatant attack on the hyde amendment. i ask that the committees on energy and commerce, ways and means and the judiciary be discharged from further consideration of h.r.18 and ask for its for immediate conversation in this house. >> under the guidelines consistently issued by successive speakers as recorded in section 956 of the house rules and manual, the chair is constrained not entertain the request unless it has been cleared by the bipartisan floor and committee leadership. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> i request unanimous consent to address the house for one
minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. >> i stand with the cuban people in their struggle for freedom. today i ask that the cuban government respect basic human rights, basic religious freedoms, freedom of speech, freedom of association and the freedom to be heard. and today i ask that the cuban government listen to the plight of the cuban people. deteriorating living conditions, rising health care concerns, covid-19, all of these factors have left the cuban people hungry, vulnerable and very angry. after decades of oppression, thousands of men and women have taken to the streets of cuba demanding that the cuban government respond to their pleas for help. and in -- instead they halted internet access and beating and
arresting people who are calling for freedom. the cuban government has arrested more than 100 young people. if the government of cuba wants normalized relations with the united states, the first thing the cuban government has to do is respect human rights and religious freedoms. with that, i yield. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> address the house for one minute. without objection, the gentleman from ohio is recognized. >> i rise in support of the cuban people and against the illegitimate dictates. this photo here behind is my two heroes. in 1960, they and their children were forced from homeland for
saying no to castro and his thugs. 60 years later that same ideology wreaked terror on the people as the people marched in the streets knowing that what awaits them. some in this body wish to blame america. let me say that the cuban people are suffering and crying out for freedom because the communists have spent 60 years destroying their country and trying to break the spirit of their own people and they will not succeed. i stand firmly against the castro regime and i stand with the cuban people who are crying out for freedom. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without
objection. . >> i have worked to protect vulnerable populations. yesterday i supported the consumer protection act which will protect consumers including the ell deerly who are oftentimes at rick. the federal trade commission has to safeguard consumers from businesses who are bad actors. i appreciate the leadership of the house energy and commerce committee to ensure that the f. f.t.c. can protect individuals from fraud and i encourage the senate to consider this important legislation as soon as possible. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> nearly 20 years ago i introduced legislation in this house which passed the house and the senate, president bush signed into law and went to the
u.s. supreme court and now the law of the land and banned partial birth abortion. it is more important than ever that we protect innocent unborn life. over a month ago, the city of lebanon became more of 30 cities in the country to become a sanctuary city for the bun born. mr. chabot: i supported legislation which would defend get rid of the funding for planned parenthood and its affiliates and supported legislation like h.r. 18, which codifies the hyde amendment to ensure that federal taxpayer money does not fund abortions and why, mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the committees on energy and commerce, ways and means and the judiciary be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 18, the no taxpayer funding for abortion act and ask for its immediate consideration in the
house. we should not allow tax dollars to go to funding other people's abortions. the speaker pro tempore: as the chair previously advised that request cannot be entertained absent appropriate clearance. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan seek recognition? >> i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. stevens: i rise today in opposition to the gun violence plaguing in this country and the elected officials who stand by and watch content on not passing new laws to address its scurge on the american people. i rise for the nine-year anniversary of the mass shooting that took place in a movie theater nine years ago this week. 12 lives gone, 70 injured. i rise for all of those who were at the baseball game just this
last weekend around the corner running for their lives because they heard there was a shooting. your gun rights are not under attack when 23 million firearms were sold in the united states of america in 2020 alone. but what is under attack is your ability to live freely in this country without the threat of gun violence in a movie theater, in your place of worship, in your school or driving around at night. i rise with the students who marched for their lives and i rise because the need to pass a law for gun safety is of fierce urgency of the now. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker, this past december, america lost
another hero from our greatest generation, herb halp emp rn. he enlisted in the air corps and flew 35 missions during world war ii and earned the flying cross for saving the lives of his crew after the plane was hit. following the war, he worked in sales and real estate before being named president of the cincinnati board of realtors. herb's service did not stop after the war. he devoted later years in his life to travel united states of america with his best friend johnny leer. they reached out to teach students the importance of respect and racial tolerance and friendship. herb was a member of our community always appearing at veteran events proudly in his
uniform. he passed away at the age of 100. it was a privilege for me to call herb my friend. may we all honor him for his life of service and dedication to his country, to his community and to his family. and may he rest in peace. i introduced a bill to name a post office after herb and john and urged the house to pass it without delay. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from missouri seek recognition? >> i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today with a heavy heart since the beginning of july, we have lost three civil rights gipets in our communities, mrs. hazel urban, betty tom son. they were trailblazers breaking
down barriers for black women and to be leaders in st. louis and beyond. the doors they opened up for me. dr. harry gibbons led a state university and his leadership transformed that i attended from a small college with one building into an hbcu that it is today. we will miss them all dearly, but together, we are st. louis strong. we will carry their work forward to build a more just future for all of us. thank you. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i request 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. >> i seek unanimous consent to address the house the house for
one minute. the biden administration announced it would extend the u.s.-canada border closure for nonessential travel until august 21. this is yet another example of the president's failure on this issue. his second day in offers office signed an executive order calling for a plan that have never happened. we have sent letters from my office calling for answers and have gone unanswered. reporters have asked for clarity. families and small businesses have pleaded for action so they can reunite and recoupe lost revenue. canada has announced they will allow fully vaccinated americans in the country starting in august. this is long overdue but still light years ahead of our president. this extension is unacceptable, ignores the science and extends the suffering of families and
small businesses in my region. reopening the border for nonessential travel can be done safely. the time for stalling is long past. the biden administration needs to reopen the shared border. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> i request 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. >> mr. speaker, as elected representatives, we are obligated to handle taxpayer dollars in a manner that is responsible. for decades legislators like the hyde amendment have shielded hard working tax dollars from the unethical practice of abortion. countless legislative proposals prove that my colleagues across the aisle are not interested in preserving good government
provisions upon which our constituents depend a as they have eliminated the hyde amendment by removing pro-life providings like hyde we are subjecting funding practices that violate the sanctity of life. the simple fact of the matter is taxpayer dollars should never financially support abortion and we should always protect the conscience and the rights of our constituents. as such, mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the committees on energy and commerce, ways and means and the jish area be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 18 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. i stand up for the lives of the unborn and i urge my colleagues to do the same. the speaker pro tempore: as the care previously advised that request cannot be sbained absent appropriate clearance. for what purpose does the
gentlewoman from minnesota seek recognition? >> i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, gentlewoman is recognized. >> most of minnesota is in an extreme drought and many of our farmers are facing a tremendous hardship. there are reports that it is being done around the region due to the lack of quality feed and farmers will be forced to make impossible i believe decisions. the situation is serious. i have asked the administration to allow emergency grazing on c.r.p. lands now. but that request was met with silence. if the drought continues, it worsens and if the administration does not act, the impacts on our economy will be far reaching. in the meantime, i stand ready to assist my constituents on navigating these challenges and
working towards quick recovery. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to talk about rising inflation and the burden this is having on the american taxpayers. president biden promised not to raise taxes on middle-class americans, but groceries, gas and appliances are making your paychecks worth less. gas in my home state of california gas is more than $# higher than the national average. we already pay some of the high -- is more than $1 higher than the national average we already pay some of the highest taxes in the country and make no mistake, this is a
rising tax on middle class americans. the american people are paying the price for. president biden insists the solution is to spend trillions more. american families are going to continue feeling the consequences as long as president biden's reckless tax and spending spree continues. we need to rein in spending and lower taxes for those we serve, not spend trillions and leave future generations in debt. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i ask -- i rise today to honor antonio "tomei -- "tony" rangel who is now the name sake of american leon post 227. mr. rangel served in the united states army during the korean
war and has spent more than half of his life as a member of the american legion. mr. rangel has not only served our nation but also has long been a pillar of our community. he was named our citizen of the year in 1989 and continues to live up to that title each and every day. it is only fitting that the post 227 building is officially the antonio "tony" rangel hall. thank you for your service to our country and to california's 39th congressional district. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. michael s. doyle for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted.
under the speaker's announced policy of january 4, 2021, the gentleman from texas, mr. green is recognized for 60 minutes as designee of the majority leader. the gentleman will suspend. under the speaker's announced policy of january 4, 2021, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. gohmert: i yield to mr. kelly. mr. kelly: i want to thank my good friend from the state of
texas, mr. gohmert. always a pleasure to be with you sir. today i want to talk about something that's near and dear to all of us, maybe i'm exaggerating when i say dear to all of us, but an agency that at one time former senator orrin hatch described as the most feared federal agency in our country. the i.r.s. i'm talking about right now the operations of the i.r.s. in recent months we have learned that the agency has yet to process millions and millions of tax returns filed over the past three years. people across this country have been waiting to receive money that is theirs far longer than is reasonable. and the agency should be working night and day to catch up. i want to take this opportunity also to thank my friends on both sides of the aisle because for most people in our districts, we are the i.r.s. we are the people answering those tough questions and helping them navigate in an
almost impossible federal agency in order to get things done. now at the same time as this backlog persist, the agency is doing things to take us back to the last time that mr. biden was in the white house and we have returned to those bad old dark days of the obama administration when loiz lerner and her cronied her cronies were targeting conservative, nonprofit organizations because of their political views. just weeks ago the i.r.s. was caught redhanded once again in a letter declining a nonprofit status to a christian organization. the agency decried biblical teachings as a nonneutral, politically oriented form of speech. these bureaucrats have the audacity to say the organization's bible teachings about the christian faith which are shared by millions upon millions of americans of all different political views were too aligned with the republican
party to warrant a nonprofit status. now, upon learning of this shameful decision, my friend from texas, kevin brady, and i joined americans across the country to demand answers as to how the i.r.s. could come to such an egregious conclusion. thankfully, and only because of this oversight and the exposure to what happened, our legislative oversight and the public's righteous indignation caused this agency to reverses its course. again, only because of our oversight and the exposure to what was actually taking place within this agency. this i.r.s. needs more oversight and accountability if we're to expect it to do the right thing. one thing i want to explain to all our citizens across the country if you get a call from the i.r.s. understand that that call is not from the i.r.s. the i.r.s. will only contact you by mail. when i go home and i think all
my colleagues are the same, i hear people say the i.r.s. called me. i say that's not the i.r.s., that's a scam. there's things we have to do. we have not only an obligation, we have a responsibility to improve all federal agencies. it's sad to say the only scandal entangling the i.r.s. this year isn't the one i just talked about. in an outrageous criminal act, someone, either inside or outside the i.r.s., breached i.r.s. systems and linked the confidential tax records of thousands and thousands of americans. to a left-wing propaganda outlet pro publica which proceeded to publish these private financial details in pursuit of a political narrative on tax policy. this is an astonishing breach of trust that should cause every american to wonder if his or her own tax information could be weaponnized against them.
it's not farfetched. when president donald trump's tax returns were leaked to the new york city times -- to the "new york times" last year i noted that this could -- if this could happen to the president of the united states it could happen to any american. mr. speaker, here we are. in 2019. the late representative john lewis and i worked together to figure out how we could reform the i.r.s. so that it would better serve our taxpayers. we worked as friends, set aside any political difference we may have had and authored the taxpayer first act which was passed with overwhelming support from this entire congress and signed into law by president trump two years ago in july of 2019. the primary intent of this legislation was to make the i.r.s. a customer service oriented agency. our tax system is a voluntary system.
after all this is one of the few federal entities that americans will interact with consistently for their entire lives. from their birth until their death. they will have actions within the i.r.s. there are few things more intimidating than having to resolve a dispute with the i.r.s. so making it a resource rather than an adversary was our chief plan. that was what we were trying to get to. but how can and sijt a-- agency that takes years to process tax returns, leaks private financial records to damage certain taxpayers and wields its vast power to punish people or organizations with certain political or religious views can be seen as anything other than an adversary? but the i.r.s. is one of the most powerful forces in our lives and i think all of us as americans, and i have heard this so many times, when i go back home, i'm sure you've heard it and feel the same way. people say i don't mind paying my taxes as long as the moneys i
put in get used the right way. but i do fear the agency with which i have to interact. let's work together to hold this agency accountable. not all members of the i.r.s. who we're criticizing or looking at right now, we're talking about there are certain things that happen within that agency that absolutely are terrifying to the average american. we, as a body, representing everyone in this country, needs to take a look at where it is that we're failing and where it is that this agency has failed and why it has become such an intimidating agency. you want to restore the faith in any of our agencies, or any of the things we do in our life, you do it by actually working within the framework of that agency and looking at what we can do as the personal representatives of the american
people to cure the situation as it is now and make the i.r.s. a service-based agency and not one of intimidation. thank you, mr. gem ert, for yielding me the time and i yield back. mr. gohmert: appreciate so much those observations. so important for everybody to understand, the i.r.s. is feared and we learn through people like lois lerner that it's not always honest. yet nobody has been held accountable. i'm hoping that at some point that will occur. but i'm so grateful to my friend from pennsylvania. at this time, i recognize my friend from oregon, mr. bentz, for touch same as he may utilize. mr. bentz: thank you, congressman gohmert for your time. mr. speaker, i rise today to call the nation's attention to a
tragic event unfolding in my state of oregon. the horrifically destructive bootleg fire this fire, now the third largest in my state's history, has consumed some 400,000 acres, about 660 square miles, of pricily beautiful landscape, pine, fir, sage brush, grass and meadows. the fire has taken millions of board feet of timber, the lives of thousands of forest creatures, cattle by the dozen, if not hundreds, horses, fences, buildings and homes. the fire has released hundreds of thousands of tons of carbon which could have remained sequestered for a into the future they have smoke plume has reached across the nation, more than 2,000 mile, including the -- including the air right here in washington, d.c. i have spoke within people whose homes and ranches were in the path of this fire. it moved so fast they could not gather and remove cat until time to save them. they have been sending me
pictures of animals that have perish and pictures of many others who had to be put down because of injuries they suffered in the flames from which they could not escape. these are truly some of the saddest pictures i have ever seen. howdied we get here? fires happen naturally in our western forests. they used to low to the ground at low temperatures. underbrush, vegetation and smaller tries would burn and in normal times larger trees would survive. then about 100 years ago our nation decided to put out and suppress the fires. er if years the trees and brush that grew unabated by fire were reduce to some extent by logging activities then allowed in the forests. in the 1970's, forests saw a steep reduction in forest management and -- and our forests began to grow unnaturally dense. regulations decimated the timber industry leave manager trees and brush on federal lands. fires fueled by this
ever-increasing am of woody mass grew in ferocity and danger and now after years of fire suppression and woefully inadequate forest management we are paying the price. the horrific infernos we're seeing out west are not the face offer centuries past. these terrifying, out of control wildfires become so immense they start burning from the top of tree, not from the underbrush, leaping from tree top to tree top, causing the fire to travel faster and burn hotter. the blame for our forest's deplorable conditions does not belong to any one person or group but i must call out the special interest lawsuit industry that profits from the access to justice act by knee scaaping almost every attempt toking many western forests. so what's the long-term solution? we're seeing some early evidence that managed forests fared far better than did forests that were not thinned or otherwise treated in anticipation of the fires that are sure to come. firefighters on the ground indicated that thinned areas
slowed down the fires so that firefighters had a fighting chance to bring the fire in those areas under control. this is good news because it means there is some hope, there's a way out of this if congress can find the political will to work toward a solution. i'm pleased to report i am working with ranking member bruce westerman whose resilient federal forest act will be a huge step toward giving the forest service the tools it needs to bettering many our vast public lands. today i introduced legislation included in that package, the commonsense coordination act. this will -- this bill will cut through some red tape agencies must overcome to complete critical forest management activities. i want to express my i express my staff and i have been on nonstop calls with county commissioners and ranchers and the sprnses they are sharing are
sad and we could have done so much better when protecting our nation's forests and those who live in and around them. i will do all i can to help. i thank the brave men and women who are out there fighting the fires, helicopter pilots and others. this is hot, dirty, difficult and dangerous work but their efforts are saving lives, homes, livestock and property. i yield back. and thank you, congressman gohmert for the time. mr. gohmert: i give a shoutout to mr. westerman. this very morning, we had a republican group that we couldn't get the whole committee to do it, but on that very issue of forest fires and maintaining healthy forests. and hopefully we'll get the
majority to understand it's not enough to just let nature take its course. the undergrowth, you have fire lanes so you can stop a fire when it gets started. there are so many things that republicans understand is just good forest management. so whether it's lightning or something else that starts a fire, we don't have to see 400,000 acres go up in flames. but this administration has determined not to do proper management of the forests. and so many people get hurt. and i'm proud to have a colleague like mr. bentz. this time, i would like to yield to my friend from georgia, mr.
clyde for such time as he may use. mr. clyde: thank you congressman gohmert. encounters at the southern border have reached a 20-year high of one million illegals trying to get into our country. this proves that the immigration policies are not working and re-ignited a crisis at our southern border previously contained by the trump administration. the border crisis is getting so bad that states not connected to the border are feeling the effects. last week i was traveling down i-24 and larger than day was huge yellow billboard that said crisis, biden fix the border. this was not some political party that put up that billboard, it was organic and home grown right in the heart of
the american people. the message is crystal clear and america should stand up and take notice. why am i seeing this sign in tennessee, a state that has no connection to the southern border, it's because the biden administration is flying illegals to every state in the union making every state a border state. this must stop. fufert complicating the crisis, the biden administration is considering the elimination of title 42, a public health authority that allows border officials to turn back illegals due to the danger posed by diseases. the biden administration is not only preventing u.s. border officials from doing their jobs but exposing american citizens to the dangers of covid-19. since the beginning of the crisis, the biden administration's reckless policies implemented by executive order have been
exposing communities to covid-19 by refusing to test every illegal that is apprehended. every the secretary my orca admitted to me that his agency has released illegals into the interior of the united states. local communities are then forced to deal with it. this is simply unacceptable. for these reasons i introduced h.r. 2076, covid-19 border protection act. my bipartisan legislation requires the department of homeland security in consultation with health and human office services to develop a strategy to test illegals at the border. with the rise of the new covid-19 delta variant, it is critical that every illegal alien who crosses the border be tested. h.r. 2076 has bipartisan support
including the support of all the g.o.p. members of the house homeland security committee. i will continue to push this effort to safeguard the american people and will introduce an amendment to the 2022 d.h.s. appropriations that will help accomplish the goals of h.r. 2076. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation. i thank my good friend and colleague from texas for holding this very important special order. and i yield back. mr. gohmert: thank you. i appreciate my friend from georgia so very much also help make the effort to stand up for rights, constitutional rights of members of congress not to be detained from getting onto the house floor. we have metal detectors still at each entrance. didn't used to have them at the
speaker's lobby. those have been added. but we are plaintiffs in a lawsuit that will hopefully result in those being removed so we won't continue to have republicans miss votes because they get detained even for a short time when the speaker has full discretion as to when to bring down the gavel. we have had a number of republicans that they missed were there would be no metal detector and no intelligence of any source of any member being a threat to another member. this is totally unprecedented, subjugating of house members below what their roles are and being sent by the same number of people that sent the speaker --
it's time to get rid of the metal detectors and get rid of the subjew gation back to the nation's business. at this time -- i have to say i'm so excited about the freshman class. we just heard from three fresh men. and these folks including and especially and including my friend from florida. and i'm thrilled. i have been so reassured by the fresh men class that has come in and the common sense. and i yield such time whatever time she may concern to my friend from florida mrs. cammack. mrs. cammack: it is an honor and
privilege to serve along side you, sir. and i look forward to so many more conversations on so many different topics. mr. speaker, i rise today to stand up for and support in support of our border patrol agents, national guard, the officers of the texas department of public safety and law enforcement officers and all those who have made securing our border their mission. my own florida national guard and several of our florida officers and deputies have become part of the mission to secure our southwest border. for our border patrol agents, they have been trained to do a job that this administration will not let them do. they have dedicated their lives and careers to upholding the rule of law, something that this administration will not do. they have continually put themselves in harm's way,
keeping their heads down and continuing to follow orders. and their reward to date, well, just look at the facts, look at the numbers. approximately 40% of our border patrol agents are baby sitting and processing, not patroling, not securing and not defending the homeland because that's not their mission today. 11 agents are currently in the hospital fighting covid from contact with untested illegals, three of whom who are in i.c.u. today. two are intubated. last month, month of june, agents apprehended 188,129 mige grants. 188,829. that's the highest number in
over 21 years. it's staggering, it's shocking, and it should frighten every single american today. you know, that doesn't include the got-aways. they are actively avoiding detection by border patrol or national guard or texas d.p.s. or any other assets we have on the border. those are 200,000 and those are the folks that have been seen by an agent or caught on camera running away. they are criminals, gang members, cartel members. they are now in our country and we don't know where doing god knows what. let's not forget the drugs, the narcotics that have been seized at the border and those who have
made it across. just in the month of june, 2% is what they estimate, fentanyl. the number in pounds over a,000 is enough to kill every man, woman and child in the state of florida 10 times over. 10 times over. that was just in the month of june. and that was just fentanyl and doesn't include the heroin, cocaine, meth and the weed and other narcotics that come. you talk about the money that is being made by the cartels every single month. last month, based on the numbers of apprehension that 188,829 that were apprehended, on average each one of those paid the cartels $6,000. 6,000. you do the math. that's over one billion in human
smuggling and doesn't include the narcotics and believe me, as those narcotics get across the border and into our communities, they get more expensive, more valuable and the crime and violence that goes along with them gets bigger and tougher and scarier. you know, the numbers are pretty staggering and as we stand here, i mentioned the agents that are currently in the hospital fighting for their lives because they came into contact with people who come from countries that don't test, don't vaccinate and now, today, we have a 900% in covid cases along the southwest border. and you know what happened? these people are not tested and checked for sca bmp inch emp s
and then on our dime released into our country. i'm so sorry that this administration does not have your back. i'm sorry those on the left don't have your back. my colleagues and i will always will. this is not about legal immigration but fighting against illegal immigration and the criminals that are profitting off of it. as we are laying down the facts of this crisis despite the fact that this administration cannot call it that, americans are wondering how this affects them, outraged, they are, for sure. but how are they impacted in their lives? every town in america is a border town. every town in america is a border town. the nearly one million individuals apprehend to date
are coming to our hometowns. in florida, they estimate that 70% of the illegals coming across are coming to florida. 70% are bound for my home state of florida. yes, every town in america is a border town. and you ask how are they getting to our hometowns? on our dime. you know, the the n.g.o.'s buy plane ticket, bus ticket, and submit rewomen -- reimbursements from fema, to our hometowns, on our dime. unchecked, unvetted, coming to a town near you. every town in america is a border town. as they're on these planes do they have to show i.d.? no. they d not. because t.s.a. have special guidance that these people are not subject to the same
requirements that every other american is when they board an airplane they don't have to show photo i.d. they don't have to prove who they say they are. yes, every town in america is a border town now and you wonder what happens when these folks get to our hometowns. they use taxpayer funded schools. tax payer funded medical facilities. public safety resources. the list goes on and on. it's about enough to make you sick. when the left decides that taking care of unvetted, untested, totally dependent illegals is more important than taking care of our veterans and some of our homeless veterans, i think that is when we as americans and particularly us, my colleagues and i, republican and democrats, need to stand up and say, enough. enough is enough. the left's agenda is dangerous. clearly they have turned every town in america into a border town and defunded our police along the way, the very people fighting to protect our hometowns.
drug, crime, bring it on, they say. never mind the 93,000 americans that lost their lives to drugs just last year. you know, i recently took about six sheriffs from my home state to the border. i wanted my sheriffs in my area to see exactly what they were up against. because when there's a leak, you can mop all day long but until you fix the leak the water will keep coming. and they saw first hand really what is at stake. our country is at stake. and they said right at the gate, every town now i see is a border town. and let me be exceptionally clear. you cannot protect your hometown if you cannot defend the homeland. and that starts with securing the damn border. yes, stopping this influx of
crime and drugs and illegal activity starts with securing our border. but if the crime, the drug, the negative impacts to our hometowns, our country, our culture, our kids, if the lack of support for our agents isn't enough to encouraging every single one of my colleagues to take action, perhaps the horrific humanitarian crisis unfoaling is. the trafficking of children. maybe that's what it takes to inspire action from those on the left. you know, next to me today you see this photo. this is a photo of a 3-year-old little girl. i took this photo. on april 11 at 11:46 p.m standing just outside mcallen. at the border. the man holding her told us,
standing right there, as he was being processed in the field, that that was his little girl. couldn't tell me her name. and she was so scared she couldn't even tell me her name or anyone else. with us. the man told me and my colleagues that he and his daughter had been traveling for two months. 12 hours later, while standing in the processing facility, border patrol agents who had processed and conducted an interview with this man told us that when they threatened a rapid d.n.a. test on him because red flags kept popping up in his story that he admitted that that little girl, this little girl, was not his daughter. she was someone else's daughter, someone who was willing to let their child be used, trafficked,
and in this case it's called recycling, because this administration has policies that encouraging children under the age of 6 to be recycled, where they get matched up with criminals so that they can be escorted across the border. that man this man, was turned back. this little girl today is somewhere in the united states in the custody of h.h.s., away from her family, future unknown. her story is not unique. this is a regular occurring event. the recycling of children, i ask my colleagues, are you ok with the recycling of children? is this administration ok with the recycling and trafficking of children? it's disgusting. it's disjusting -- it's
disgusting. there are stories like this that go on for days. i met 59-year-old girl who couldn't -- i met a 9-year-old girl who couldn't barely get the words out to tell me her name and where she was from because her vocal cords had given out from screaming so loud because she was being gang raped by cartels. if that doesn't make your stomach turn, i don't know what will. president biden, your administration has proven that while your words are dangerous, your actions are deadly. your administration has turned every single town in america into a border town and every american should be outraged at the carelessness, the lack of regard for public health, public safety, national security, and basic human decency. securing the boarder is not a republican or a democrat issue. this is an american issue. and it should be our top
priority. we need to extend title 42. we need to reinstate the m.p.b. policies. put the politics and egos aside and do what is best for our country for the first time. in this administration. until then, for myself and my colleagues who actually give a damn, we will continue to craft legislation and put the words into action and do the thing that you, mr. speaker, your colleagues, and president biden, won't do. secure the border. and with that, i yield back. mr. gohmert: i appreciate my
friend, member of congress, cat cammack -- kat cammack, she's expressed so articulately what i've seen, what i've experienced so many times, spending the night on the border, going down those dirt roads along the rio grande, it's incredible. and some would think, oh, well isn't it compassionate to encouraging people -- to encouraging people to come to the united states? it's the most unneighborly, uncompassionate thing that we could do. these are people who, other than the gang members, those who are part of the cartels, those coming from groups in the middle east and other places, that don't have u.s. interests at heart, but so many of them, they're looking for a better way of life.
why did they not have a better way of life where they are? including especially mexico? well, it's because of the unsecured border we have that allows the mexican drug cartels to make tens of billions of dollars every year coming from america for the drugs, for the fentanyl that kills. for the sex trafficking. for the human trafficking. we're funding the corruption in mexico. my wife and i had our honeymoon, we didn't have much money at all, $300 got us a five-night, six days in a fab fabulous place in mexico. but we don't go back because the drug cartels no longer say hands
off of the tourism. mexico is being devastated by the drug cartels. and it's america and administrations like this that are allowing them actually making it possible, not just allowing, making it possible, some might say they're truly accessories to the corruption, to the criminality, that is going on. and in fact, evidence of that comes from the fact that as border patrol have told me before, before this administration, when they used to talk to me and never, ever tried to prevent me from getting to the border and seeing exactly what's going on, that's all changed now. this administration is not -- did not allow me, two nights in a row, trying to get to the border, as i've done countless
times before, wouldn't let me get there. in fact, used the place where normally you get down from the embankment, go through the wall that's been constructed by the trump administration, go down through the flat area, and then you come up to the levee road and then that allows you to get miles and miles down the dirt roads along the rio grande, where thousands of people are coming across, and they didn't allow it this time they used the wall not to keep out illegal aliens but to keep me from seeing the outrageous travesties and tragedies that are going along our border because people are being lured to their detriment, in tort law
it would be called an attractive nuisance. like having a swimming pool and having no fence, so that a child is drawn in and then drowns. well this administration is luring people to their detriment. so many. i've been there many nights. it's not on the list of questions that's required to be asked. but so often the border patrol asks, how much did you pay, basically, the drug cartel, bring you into the united states? it was usually between $5,000 and $8,000. and then often they'd say you don't have that kind of money. where did you get that money? they'd indicate here and there, this much here, this much there, friends in the u.s. sent this much. what about the rest of the money? the drug cartels. they're going to let them work it off when they get where they're going. how do they get where they're going? at that point, it's either health and human services or
i.c.e. or border patrol. their job is along the border, once they transport to a facility that's usually the end of their transporting. but i.c.e., health and human services, and now we have the military that's also providing transportation. but as the border patrol have said, the cartels call us here in the u.s., federal government, their logistics. they get them across the boarer -- across the border and then they don't use u.p.s. or fedex or even the u.s. post office, they use the federal government and taxpayer money to ship these indentured servants of the drug cartels all over the country to cities all over the country wherever the drug cartels want them to be, selling
drugs, sex trafficking, human trafficking, the u.s. government actually makes that happen. they facilitate. that we've had so many border patrol, before this last visit to the border, when this administration wants to hide what they're doing at the border, they say, well, if you give us enough notice, then we will put somebody, and this is effectively what -- they want to put somebody, i'm supposed to supervise over me to watch what i'm doing, prevent me from doing proper oversight down where i'm supposed to, whether it's supposed to be doing their job -- where it's supposed to be doing their job. prevent that from happening, so that america does not see how absolutely tragic this invasion
is. yes, they're gang members, but so many are people coming in and the cartels know, taxpayers in the u.s. who are funding the drug cartels are also going to pay for the education, all the needs of those coming in. this t care. what they are looking at is future democratic voters, but they got to act quick, the longer the people are here, the more they realize, you know what, if i'm for hard work and i don't want to see babies killed in the womb, gee, i believe in working a full day, i do believe
in marriage and strong family and devotion to family and believe in god, they start thinking wait a minute, that sounds more like a republican. and they do have a faith in god, devotion to family. and if you read what b.l.m. said they believed in, destruction of what they call the western-style marriage is one of their biggest tenets. why? because they are marksists and to get to markism, you have to create chaos. paul harvey would say, one of the best ways and critically important way to create enough chaos so you can move toward
marksism is to destroy the family, the nuclear family. and b.l.m. has it wrong. it's not western-style marriage. it's not something that north america or south america or central america came up with, what is typically called the west, didn't come from this side of the planet except in the middle east. and a man named moses had a revelation from god and let people know here's what god says. a man shall leave their father and mother and get married. didn't originate here and it has been found throughout history to be the best building block of a
very strong society. and that's why surveys continue to find there are people that excel coming from broken homes and other avenues, the best chance a child has in succeeding in life is coming from a two-parent home and a strong music collar family. i have seen firsthand what marksism does. i have heard the director of what we would now call day care in the old soviet union bragging that these children don't belong to their parents, they are just temporary caretakers. we monitor what parents tell their children if they say anything about the government, we take the child away and give
him to more deserving caretakers. i thought at the time that i didn't grow up in the soviet union. thank god i grew up in east texas and i had a mother and father and they cared deeply about me. and i was so grateful for blessings that i had had. well, the soviet union. it failed because it was destined to fail. marxism is always to fail. it sounds wonderful. share and share alike. you have a very small ruling class. and then you have everyone else. and i have been in those stores. toilet paper, so often, no, it was not available. but i learned and i saw things
-- luxuries like real toilet paper, the store would get those in and would put those in the back. and if you were a government official, then when you came in they would get you some toilet paper. if it is a shoe store, they got good issues in. they kept them in the back for government officials. why? because they were sucking up to the government officials. and in russia, it was called blot, political pull. you wanted to have some so you kept the best of whatever you got in to sell, you kept that for people who had power and you would do favors for them so you might have a little power. and as one soviet told me
college student, in your country you can get ahead, no patter you can get ahead by hard work, making more money and money will help you make your way up in society. here, there's only really two ways to move up in society. one is to suck up to people who have political power. and i guess maybe it's a subheading of that but it is also ratting out other people. and as he told me, you can get ahead by working hard and making more money. here, the best way to move up is to step on other people. you see them do something inappropriate, then you rat them out and that will allow you to move up. except for the very top people that have everything they want,
other people mostly get the same amount of income. that was also tried in venezuela. it failed. it will always failed. and anybody who were so stupid and couldn't see what was emerging and that was a very strong powerful middle class in the united states or europe, marx couldn't see that coming. he was too blind and couldn't see the form age of labor unions that could stand up to greedy democrats, billionaires, such as we have here, the billionaires by the way who pay hundreds of millions of dollars to effect the election and who was able to vote and how ballots were
gathered. over in the soviet union, you don't have to worry about that as stalin pointed out, i don't care who votes, just cared about who counted the votes. and we will be seeing evidence continue to emerge from arizona and georgia and i think eventually pennsylvania. but to hear anybody say that there was absolutely no evidence of fraud, like john frund said, the biggest fraud about elections is the statement that there is no fraud in elections. there has always been. lyndon johnson certainly knew about that as did people that tried to research allegations of voting impropriety and the courthouse burned down destroying evidence.
these things have gone on. cook county, chicago, there's not been fraud in chicago? you have to be either crazy or dishonest to say there has never been fraud in elections in chicago. it goes on. the trick is to try to minimize the fraud so you don't disenfranchise so many people. but there is evidence of fraud. there's hundreds, maybe thousands of affereds, sworn testimony, about fraud in the last election and plenty in the media say it didn't happen and because they are saying that out of either ignorance or dishonesty, just feel comfortable, people right here on the floor would say, it is totally debunked and no fraud in the last election and that's a statement out of ignorance or out of being deceptive.
but we have got to clean up the elections. we have got to quick being a joke in the eyes of foreigners who have paper ballots or even as bad as things have gotten in iraq, there for a while, they had free and fair elections. and in 2005 having been over there right after the first election talking to one of the chiefs of police there, he was telling about how -- of course the voters, when they voted to avoid fraud, you get your finger into purple ink that would last for a couple of weeks. so you couldn't vote a second time and if you didn't dip your finger in there and have proof of who you were, you didn't vote
the first time. so he was telling me that a policeman who was monitoring the election saw someone suspicious and on checking he saw he had a bomb, suicide vest, threw the man down and jumped on top of him and both were killed and i said i thought the voters were fleing. he said no, he knew if they got out of line, the policeman died trying to secure fair opportunity to vote. and yet nowadays that is being belit willed. you shouldn't have to have a voter i.d., but that's the best
way to ensure there is no fraud in the election. just like it's the best way to ensure that someone is not illegally getting a gun or a cigarette or getting alcohol. people produce those all the time. let's quick disenfranchising people who are votely lawfully by creating the ability to create to vote legally. and we keep hearing about, that's not true and not allow people to speak or submit things online if they are not in conformance with what the liberal democrats high-tech industry or the liberal democrat media say is true or not true. we listened to four years of lies about the russian dosier
when it was produced by a former mi-6 agent in england who admitted, yeah my sources could have been working for putin. it was a manipulation and paid for by the hillary clinton campaign and the democratic national committee. and the f.b.i. was in cahoots and in fact lied to the fisa court. it really got my attention having been a judge to see fisa court judges had so little regard for their own status, their own courts, that they would not take action to hold in contempt, people who held the court in contempt, by lying, by defrauding the court in order to
spy on a political presidential campaign. my goodness. there's never been a presidential campaign treated as the trump campaign was and had a democrat official on tape admitting, we're the ones to get violence at trump campaign events so we could claim that trump is stiring up violence. that was in 2016. we needed a justice department that would be just. and we don't have it right now. for heaven's sakes, i heard from a constituent two days ago who that day was shocked to have two f.b.i. agents show up at her place of work in east texas.
she had not come to washington on january 6. she was at work in east texas. and the only reason those f.b.i. agents could have showed up at her place of work was because her nephew texted her a picture of someone who was here on january 6 in washington and asked, do you see anybody you recognized, because it looked like his aunt. and she said, i thought that was me. and then jokingly said, don't turn me in. unless the well, unless the f.b.i. was monitoring those text messages with a grant from the fisa court that in my opinion was breaking the patriot act, was breaking the law, to grant such a warrant, or they were
committing a crime and spying on people's text messages without authority. i mean, this is getting out of control here. and of course we don't hear any stories about the people that were looting and creating insurrections in cities around america last summer. we don't hear about them being arrested, having their homes wrongfully broken into by police or federal officials. no. but we're hearing about it and it needs the illegality, the brown-shirt tactics of the federal government. they need to stop. mr. hoyer says he was shocked eight months was all somebody got for disrupting an official proceeding. well that also happened on june
22, 2016, for 26 hours on this floor. and i'm surprised that mr. hoyer wants to see his fellow democrats going to prison for more than eight months for obstructing an official proceeding. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded to address their remarks to the chair and not to a perceived viewing audience. 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, mr. speaker. and still i rise, mr. speaker. and i rise today to recognize the more than 50 texas democrats, state representatives, who have taken a stand for liberty and justice for all. who have traversed thousands of
miles in the name of government of the people, by the people, for the people. i rise to commend and defend those who are making great sacrifices to protect free and fair elections. they have left their homes. they've left texas and they have come all the way to washington, d.c. they have left their families. can you imagine having to leave your home and your family on short notice? this is not something that they planned. this is not something that they had time to think through and to give all of the deliberations and considerations that one might give to leaving home for some extended period of time, to be quite quan did, not to know exactly -- candid, to not know exactly how long they will be gone from home. some unknown extended period of
time. they've left their homes and they've left their families. left their children. can you imagine simply saying to your child that you have a duty to perform, an unexpected duty. not something that you wanted to do. but something that you know that you must do in the name of government of the people, by the people, for the people. in the name of liberty and justice for all. leaving your children, coming to washington, d.c. some of them had to leave jobs. the texas legislature doesn't pay a huge sum of money to those who serve. some $600 per month. so they've left their homes, their families, their jobs to come to washington, d.c. not to have a vacation, not to have time to simply socialize
and enjoy themselves. they've come to washington, d.c., because they want to have those of us who had the ability to impact free and fair elections with h.r. 1, the for the people act. to impact the ability to make sure that elections are properly protected and that the persons who are going to vote have equal access to the polls. they want us to pass h.r. 4 once we filed it again, the john lewis voting rights act. one that would advance voting rights, i might add. so they've come their appeal to us to protect liberty and justice for all when it comes to voting. to protect government of the people, by the people, for the people. because it's the vote that accords us this opportunity to
govern in a fashion that lincoln called to our attention in the gettysburg address. they've come to washington, d.c., to the citadel of democracy in the united states of america. and they're prepared to stay as long as it takes so that they may do what many people will admire them for doing, but not everyone would do. they're here to break the quorum so that the texas state house cannot pass laws that are invidiously discriminating, a term that i like very much, invidious discrimination. because it means harmful discrimination. not all discrimination is harmful. but they're here to fight against the invidious discrimination. and they've come here asking us to take a stand with them. they're breaking a quorum. now, there are those who contend that what they are
doing is what we are contending that the senate should not do. not true. not true. they are breaking a quorum, they're preventing the state house in texas from going forward and they are doing it with a rule that requires at least 2/3 to be present for business to be lawfully conducted. well, here in washington, d.c., we have a filibuster rule. a filibuster. a filibuster, meaning very simply this. one member can decide that he or she would not have legislation go forward. and once that decision has been made by one member, you can only break that filibuster with something called cloture.
meaning you now have to get 60 votes before you can pass legislation with 51 votes. assuming all senators are present and voting. this rule, the filibuster rule, is something that is not necessary, it is something that has been employed by segregationists. it is a faverill tool of those who have -- favorite tool of those who have discriminated against us when it comes to civil rights and human dignity in this country. example. southern segregationist democrats, that's right, i said democrats, unified in opposition to civil rights regularly employing the filibuster and preventing cloture. they successfully employed the filibuster to thwart all -- nearly 200 anti-lynching measures. they prevented a vote several
substantial civil rights bills. senator thurman in 1957 took on a civil rights bill for 24 hours to filibuster. former senator richard russell, a leading filibuster, senator russell was an outspoken opponent of civil rights legislation. in 1935 he and his colleagues in the senate stopped an anti-lynching bill with six days of nonstop talking. in 1964, he filibustered for 60 working days in the senate, opposing civil rights legislation. later in 1964, russell and more than a dozen other senators boycotted the democratic national convention simply because president lyndon johnson signed the civil rights act into law. so this filibuster rule is a rule that i find no favor with.
it's a rule that has haunted those of us who seek equality and justice in this country for everyone. the filibuster rule is not something that is necessary. but that's what the senate can employ. so if there is an equivalentance of the filibuster rule in the senate as it relates to the house, then i would -- the texas house, i might not have a problem with it. but here's the problem. in the senate, to avoid having the necessary number to pass legislation constitutionally, you have to have 51 votes. you have to break, quote, break the ability to pass votes with 51. so if the senate in this united states capitol would do what those who have come here from texas would do, we would have
to have them bring 51 people away from the floor to prevent the number necessary to have a quorum. they would have to break a quorum. they don't have to break a quorum now. they would is -- would only have to indicate they would like to filibuster and in so doing, we would have to, in the senate here in washington, d.c., get 60 votes before we could vote to pass something with 51 votes. i believe that we ought to eliminate the filibuster. i think then, if the senate would want to do what these brave texas democrats have done, then they would have to break the quorum by having 51 people stay away from the senate floor. right now they don't have to have anyone stay away from the senate floor. it's easy to do what they've done. the texas democrats have done something courageous because they've come all the way from washington, d.c., more than 50 people have aligned themselves so that they can provide a
means by which we will have the opportunity to pass civil rights legislation here. h.r. 1, the for the people act. h.r. 4, once it is filed again, the john lewis voting rights advancement act. my hope is that we can pass both of these pieces of legislation. my hope is that at some point we will eliminate the filibuster. there are those who would say, if you eliminate the filibuster, at some point it will come back to haunt you. because the laws that you pass to eliminate it, others can pass laws to reinstate whatever you've eliminated. well, i believe that if you pass good laws, it will be very difficult to turn them over simply on a whim. i believe that a good example of this is the law that we passed to accord health care to people who didn't have it in this country. the obamacare, as it is called.
but more technically speaking, it's the affordable care act. the affordable care act has afforded people the opportunity to have good insurance, prior to the affordable care act there were people who thought they had good insurance. they paid their premiums timely. they thought they had good insurance until they had to use it. and it was at that point that they found out just how good their insurance was. or how poorly they had decided to buy policies that were what were called junk insurance. they didn't know because they didn't need it. and they were paying something that they thought was reasonable for what they thought was coverage that did not exist. when we passed the law that allowed for persons to have good insurance, the affordable care act, also known as obamacare, when we passed this law we then put ourselves in a position such that it could be
challenged. and for years it has been challenged. for years there have been efforts to overturn it. for years persons have said, we will repeal and replace. never, ever, ever thinking what the replacement would be. going forward with the repeal. and to this day the affordable care act still stands. if you pass good legislation, you don't have to concern yourself with the ability of others to, on a whim, simply overturn it because they don't like it. because it somehow has given people opportunities that perhaps they didn't foresee or believe were appropriate. the affordable care act is good legislation and as a result many people have had the opportunity to have health care that they ordinarily would not have. so i believe we should eliminate the filibuster as we have it here. i believe we should resort to what the state of texas has,
which is a requirement that you have x number of senators present to make a quorum. it's the quorum that the representatives from texas have challenged. in washington, d.c., it is a filibuster that one person can call to the attention of the senate and use to thwart legislation. . if we go to a quorum here in washington d.c., that would be the equivalent of what is happening in the state of texas. a quorum is being challenged. there is no filibuster being challenged, it's a quorum. and i congratulate them and commend them for challenging this quorum to prevent laws from being passed that will thwart the efforts of people to vote who sometimes don't have the opportunity to vote that i might have, that many of us would have
here. i see nothing wrong with having the ability to vote 24 hours a day. apparently some in the state of texas do. i remember when we had that opportunity in texas. and this legislation that is being proposed, it would be eliminated. i went out to the polls at midnight and i greeted people who were coming to vote. i saw people who were leaving work, people who found it beneficial to have the opportunity to come to the polling place at midnight and cast their votes because they are hard working people and they sleep during hours that others of us are awake. i thought it was a wonderful thing to see this voting 24 hours a day. it's a wonderful thing to know that people can have the opportunity to do this and go right home after work. not everybody gets off from work at 5:00. many people don't get off from
work 1 1:00, 12. this was good to constituents of mine in the state of texas. it was something that others didn't approve of and disapprove of it because it was something that was being done prior to covid. people are saying it was never done in any place. since when we will not do things because they were never done before. if we decide to only do things that have been done before, where we will have the opportunity to make progress. how can you move forward if you decide to stagnate yourself. we can still vote with paper ballots if we choose. but we have chosen to move forward. we haven't always had sunday voting, but we now have sunday
voting. and i contend we ought to have 24-hour voting. i contend dear friends that it is our duty and responsibility to make it easier for people to vote. this is what the people of state of texas say, it is making it easier. how are you making easier that you are going to limit the times that people can vote and make it harder for people to vote by mail. how are you making it easier if you don't have the boxes so people can -- safe and securely drop their ballots off in various places around the county. you are making it more difficult under the guise of making it more easier. these democrats who have come to washington d.c. as a means of showing the world that there are still people who will take a
stand for liberty and justice for all for government of the people, by the people and for the people and protect the right to vote. they are defenders of democracy when they do this because the very seat of democracy, the very thing that democracy resides upon is the notion of having a free and fair election and you can't have a free and fair election if you don't have equal access to the polls. you can't have a free and fair election if you don't have the opportunity to register and vote without certain impediments to your registering to vote. that would create a poll tax, let me explain. i went to the polls in texas to test the systems in place. i tried to vote with my congressional i.d. card, the card that i can use to vote on issues that relate to the budget of the united states of america, the card that i can use to vote.
the system required me if i'm going to acquire the i.d. in texas to vote, it required me to get my birth certificate. if you live in texas, you can get this. i was born in louisiana. persons who were born in texas, you can get the i.d. at no cost. i applied for my i.d. in louisiana. some complications with my birth certificatetive ate. i have not received the i.d. that i applied for and that was years ago. the point is this, if we are going to have i.d. card and contend that it is free to persons who cannot afford the cost of the i.d. card, we have
to make sure it is free for persons who are not born in texas, who don't have access to birth certificates and will have to go to out of state. we don't conclude you should pay a fee to vote, even if that fee is to get a birth certificate. this is a new form of having a poll tax. knowing that college students in the state of texas, to get a proper i.d. to vote if it is going to be a state i.d. or i.d. that they don't have for texas purposes, they will have to get some proof of birth in the state of tech as. they have to present it. and they know college students can't present it if they were from california and they're in texas and they have a california identification that does not
necessarily require the birth certificate, they don't accept it. there is a list of the things that can be accepted. and college student i.d.'s have been excluded from the list. i stand here today saluting them for what they have done, understanding that they are doing all they can to make a difference and they are appealing to us, the members of this house to help them, to be a part of their effort to get h.r. 1 and h.r. 4 passed here so as to prevent those in texas that would thwart the rights of persons to vote being able to do so if we pass our legislation. one piece of legislation, h.r. 4 is exceedingly important because h.r. 4 will bring back the opportunity for people in the state of texas to challenge changes in laws without a pre-clearance by the justice
department or a federal court that might be here in washington d.c. h.r. 4 will restore the voting rights act that was aadvice rated when h.r. 4 of the voting rights act was unconstitutional. when it was eliminated andp went to section 5. section 5 was a coverage area. section 4 was a coverage area so that section 5 could then require these other things that would help persons who are trying to prevent states like texas from doing things that were egregious as it relates to the right to vote. section 4 would be restored and as a result, we would have coverage for states like texas, states like texas, in harris county had these primaries and a
man named loney smith took the state of tech as to challenge white primaries. the white primaries were set aside. ajoining county, there were white pre-primaries. state of texas has been a bad actor for a long time. these persons who have come here, these nobel freedom fighters have come here to solicit our help. i hope the united states senate will eliminate the filibuster. but if not, i trust there will be 60 persons who will help us get to cloture to get to h.r. 1 and h.r. 4, laws that will help restore the right to vote without these impediments that are being imposed in states across the country. to honor them, we have a resolution that we are filing.
this resolution is going to honor them for what they have done in coming to washington d.c. it will honor them for the stand they have taken. this resolution will be signed by the members of the texas democratic delegation and filed with the house of representatives. and we are sending a letter to the united states, a second letter, asking the president to please meet with them, not in person, but meet with them virtually, meet with them and hear their cry, their appeal for help. i'm sure the president understands the issue. so it's not about convincing the president but about letting them having the opportunity to speak and letting the president know that they stand firm on the grounds of providing liberty and justice for all government of the people, for the people. and finally, i'm here because i
believe that more appropriately this afternoon, because i believe that we all have to be accountable for what we do. i believe that we all have to at some point answer for the positions that we have or have not taken. and i'm here representing not only myself but other democrats who could not be here. they are persons who support what we are doing. they are persons who are members of the texas democratic delegation. nevada demonstrated that they are standing in solidarity with the members from texas who are here representing those in texas who believe that there should not be these laws passed to thwart the efforts to vote. but the members of the texas democratic delegation are standing in solidarity with the
texas state delegation who are here. we will at some point achieve our goal and our goal is simply this, to make sure in texas we have free and fair elections. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 4, 2021, the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. calvert. mr. calvert: i ask unanimous consent that members may have five legislative days to revise and stepped their remarks. i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. speaker, i rise to pay tribute to our former colleague jerry lewis, the longest serving california republican in the history of the house who was my
good friend and mentor. on july 15, jerry passed from this life into the next. for the last 86 years, jerry lived a full life. made an impact through the inland empire community he loved so dearly. we are in a far better position when his decades of public service be began. when i was first elected in 1992, jerry was the first person i turned to. as i embarked on this new path, it just happened this time in my life could insided with a rare low point who lost his leadership position as conference chair following the election. well, jerry's loss turned out to be my gain as i was able to hire a number of republican conference staff members. from that moment forward, our offices shared a very tight bond both personally and prove neal
that would endure for decades. i couldn't ask a better person to learn from. jerry found opportunities to allow federal resources to address them. in order to achieve his goals, jerry recognized the importance of working across the aisle and being bipartisan. the realization that was aided by jerry's first 16 years in the house as a member of the minority party. jerry worked with whoever he needed in order to deliver results for the people who sent him here. he demonstrated if you don't care who gets credit depor it, you can get a lot accomplished here. his communities benefited because of his leadership. thanks to his efforts, veterans and other residents received better care at the v.a. medical
center. students have greater opportunities thanks to his support for stem education at the apple valley technical center which is renamed lewis center for educational research. the region is safer protected from flooding. i could go on and on. jerry may no longer be with us but the scope of his life will endure as he will continue to make impacts for many years and many generations. . . he was incredibly proud to fill this honored position. jerry understood that his time in that role was finite. he was determined to use that precious time to make a difference for his country, state and district. if may of 2007 i was fortunate enough to join jerry as a
member of the appropriations committee. in addition to his affection for the district, the body and the appropriations committee, jerry had a deep appreciation for his staff. his office was like a family. jerry had many long-time staff members, a clear sign of mutual admiration. jerry's greatest love, of course, was reserved for who he always affectionately referred to as his bride. arlene. along with their dog, bruin, the couple was inseparable. i will always treasure the time i spent together with jerry and arlene, especially wednesday nights at the capitol hill club for prime rib night. our regular get-together for mexican food at la almida here at capitol hill. i extend my heartfelt condolences to arlene, the family and all the former lewis office staff members, like all of you i simply cannot imagine my life without jerry and the incredible influence he had upon me.
but i know he's looking down at all of us with that smile and chuckle saying, enough, now. get back to work, kenny. god speed, jerry. we'll take it from here. mr. speaker, i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from california, gentlelady, excuse me, from california, speaker pelosi. the speaker: thank you, mr. calvert, for calling this special order in honor of our former colleague, jerry lewis. as fellow californians we know, we were his friends and know what a loss it is to us that he has now -- is now look down on us. maybe that's what's needed. that's the plus. mr. speaker, i join my colleagues from california, again, thanking mr. calvert, for honoring a fierce and fearless champion of the golden state, our late cherished
colleague, congressman jerry lewis. jerry lewis lived a life dedicated to california, from serving on the san bernardino city council board, to his decade in the california assembly, to his 34 years representing inland empire communities in the u.s. congress. it was when he was in the assembly that i got to know him over 40 years ago. i was the chair of the northern california democratic party and he was on the committee of jurisdiction of one of the committees, that was -- legislation of concern to voter participation in our state. he always had that smile. he was always very inviting of ideas. very welcoming. i was brand new in the political arena. i had hardly been involved in california politics. so his warm welcome then is something i'll always remember
and when we served together in congress, we both remembered it well. jerry and i have been friends for a long time. then in congress we served on the appropriations committee where he took great pride in being chair of the full committee. he was the first chair of the committee from california. how could it be? how could it be? which he described as a milestone beyond his wildest dreams. as you know, mr. aguilar, who was here, again, bipartisan remembrances of jerry, mr. aguilar's part of the appropriations committee. and we have our own culture and bipartisanship there over the years. jerry took great pride in running the committee. because he knew its power to make a difference in the lives of the people he represented. and it was always important to him to reach across the aisle because in his words, and these are his words, the more we can talk to each other as
individuals and human beings, the better off the institution is going to be and the more responsive the going to be. when we look around california, we see jerry's legacy. we see it in the cancer research center he established at the university medical center, in san bernardino national forest, which he helped to protect, and the lewis center for educational research, exploring the night sky. and we see his monument in so many tributes that bear his name throughout his community from highland to riverside. it's fitting that californians were able to say good-bye to jerry at the university of redland's chapel in the community he so loved. jerry's unique voice, core values and belief in the promise of america made a difference for california and indeed for our country. may it be a comfort to jerry's wife, arlene, their children, jennifer, jerry jr., jeff and dan, their grandchildren and
great-grandchildren, jerry's brothers, ray and john, and all the loved ones that so many people mourn their loss, pray for them at this sad time, and will always remember jerry as a great american, a great californian. with that, i yield back to the gentleman and thank him for the invitation to participate this afternoon. thank you. mr. calvert: i thank the speaker. very much. thank you. i now yield four minutes to the gentleman from kentucky, mr. rogers. mr. rogers: thank you, mr. calvert, for yielding this time. mr. speaker, i rise with a heavy heart to pay tribute to the memory of that long-time friend of ours and colleague on the appropriations committee, which he chaired. former congressman jerry lewis of california passed away july 15, this past.
after working in the insurance industry and serving in the california state assembly, jerry was first elected to congress two years before me, in 1978. and served his southern california district honorably until his retirement in 2013. serving together on the appropriations committee for 30 years, jerry and i became friends due to our respect and admiration for this body. the committee itself -- body, the committee itself, and our singular focus on doing all we could to serve our constituents back home in our respective districts. jerry was a true believer in our committee and it's wielding the power of the purse and ensuring that we were spending taxpayers' hard-earned tax
dollars wisely. he also prided himself in his ability to steer federal funding to his district, including funding for critical, life-saving flood control projects, important cancer research, protecting his southern california district from wildfires, and much, much more. jerry believed that one of the jobs of being a federal congressman was to be sure that his constituents' voices would be heard here and whatever problem they may be having. and that we should spend federal tax dollars fairly on those projects and matters. jerry and i actually found ourselves in direct competition twice, each vying for the gavel
as chairman of the house appropriations committee. and though he won in 2004, i won in 2010. so i succeeded him as chairman. but we never let those races affect our friendship. it was never personal. and regardless of the outcome, we continued to work together for the betterment of the country and our constituents. so i want to thank the gentleman from california, mr. calvert, fellow member of the appropriations committee. and especially the fact that he's the ranking republican on the defense subcommittee of the appropriations committee. a key slot fulfilling really, i think, the thoughts from jerry lewis himself.
that this gentleman from california has a great future in this body. and he's living up to it. and i also want to send my thoughts and prayers as well to jerry's bride, arlene, and the rest of chairman lewis' family as they go through this very difficult time. there are not many members of this body that is as mote -- was as motivated with good thoughts than jerry lewis. he was a gentleman. he was a forthright spokesman for his district in california. he was a patriot who believed on a strong u.s. defense and helped to achieve it -- in a strong u.s. defense and helped to achieve it and we will not see the likes of this man, i think, again in this body.
he was super and superior and i consider his friendship as one of the golden jewels that i will carry with me for the rest of my life. so, god speed, jerry lewis. our thoughts are with you. i yield back. mr. calvert: happy to yield three minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. aguilar. mr. aguilar: thank you, thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank mr. calvert for yielding some time. as mr. calvert can attest, jerry lewis was a larger than life figure and over the course of his four decades of public service, jerry was able to rise through the ranks here in the house to become chair of the house appropriations committee. i noticed a lot of appropriators here with us
today sharing their memories and paying their respects as well. mr. lewis earned the respect of members from both sides of the aisle and worked tirelessly to promote our national defense, care for our veterans and ensure folks back home in my community, his community, of san bernardino county received our fair share of resources. jerry was quick to remind people that he was a kid from san bernardino. maybe that's why he liked me a little bit more than he should have, mr. calvert. because i was a kid from san bernardino as well. but that kid went on to serve his community by advocating for it in sacramento and eventually here in these halls. too often our region in california is an afterthought. smaller than our neighbor -- to the west in los angeles and orange county, the inland empire has always been my -- my home was always jerry's home
and we always had to fight for our fair share of resources. but jerry dedicated his career to delivering resources for our community and his impact will be felt on the ground today and through the years ahead. he served as my family's representative in congress for many years and later i had the opportunity to represent him. first is his -- as his mayor and then as his representive in congress. he often called me, my mayor. he says, how's my mayor doing today? when he would see me around town, usually at his favorite spot downtown, where he was grabbing lunch with his bride. jerry and arlene were, and i've never shared this story with mr. calvert, jerry and arlene were the first individuals to call me after i was appointed to a city council vacancy. a bunch of years ago. they called the -- the council appointment happened in the
evening and they called early in the morning, pacific time. they didn't quite wake me up, but it was a morning hour on the west coast. they congratulated me on the appointment and jerry talked about the importance of local government making an impact in our daily lives. he reminded me that servings with a huge honor, -- serving was a huge honor, but also an immense obligation and responsibility. while our politics at times were different and he was quick to remind me of that, i'll always be grateful for the advice, for the friendship, for the time he and arlene spent with me over the years, meeting in his rayburn office, back in town, or at community events. he was always measured, he was always professional, and he always put his community first. it's a testament to his legacy that his colleagues from both sides of the aisle are here today to remember him.
and my thoughts continued to be with arlene -- continue to be with arlene and the family. i appreciate his contributions and his friendship and i thank the gentleman from california for offering me some time and i yield back. mr. calvert: i thank the gentleman. i'm now happy to yield four minutes to the democratic leader, the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer. mr. hoyer: gee, who was here last time? pretty tall. jerry lewis of california. if you mention jerry lewis of california, our jerry lewis wouldn't be the first one you would think of. you would think of dean martin's side kick. when i first met jerry lewis, of course, some -- i guess now -- how long has jerry been long? 32 years-plus, which is probably
some 40 years, i thought of jerry lewis. oh, jerry lewis, yeah. he's on the committee. i thought of the comedian jerry lewis. and to some degree, jerry lewis was a comedian. he was a wonderful guy. wonderful spirit. wonderful person. i served with him, as i said, for 32 years, both in the house of representatives and on the appropriations committee. actually, that's not really right. i served with him 32ers into. i was only on the committee for 23 years before i became majority leader in 2006 and then went off the committee. jerry lewis is coupled in my thoughts with a guy named vic fazio, who was also on the appropriations committee, who is
one of my closest friends. i think about the two of them because jerry lewis and vic fazio headed the appropriations subcommittee together, and they were a team, a positive team, a team that agreed that this institution was worth protecting and it was worth serving. and as i think of jerry lewis, i lament the fact, and in doing so, i want to thank ken calvert, also a member, for seeing me in the hall and saying you were doing this special order. ken, if you didn't tell me i wouldn't have been given this opportunity to speak. much of what -- what jerry lewis and vic fazio represented was
members that thought about the institution, not about party. and they were representative of a large number of people in this body who served when i came here in the 1980's and the 1990's. who shared that view. tom cole is sitting here. he's one of those members that shares that view. and as i think of jerry lewis, i lament the fact that we have lost the jerry lewises, not all of them, but too many, who made this body a collegial body. not a confrontational body. that doesn't mean we didn't have severe disagreements. i remember jerry lewis at one point in time said as chairman of the committee, some 3,000,
4,000 people in my district would move to california. barbara few kuls key ma kuls key chaired that in the senate. i doesn't believe he was real. he was sort of getting a little leverage. jerry lewis was a man of this institution and of the congress and of the constitution. he cared about this country. he cared about this institution. and he worked positively and constructively for both. and the fact that he was a republican and i was a democrat was somewhat irrelevant. that doesn't mean it wasn't relevant in terms of we had differences, the parties had differences. there were contentious times at that point in time. i was on one side. he was on the other. but i'm -- i like to think a man
of the house, but i am a man of the appropriations committee. i love the appropriations committee. i love the appropriations committee because compromise, frankly, was easier. philosophical differences are tougher to compromise on. money is not so tough. you get 100 bucks. i'm in the majority. i get 60, you get 40. now, it's much, much more complicated than that, but it's a committee on which you can decide priorities based on where you want to put your money. i think it's a little easier than on issues that are deep philosophically held beliefs. and i wanted to speak, and i thank ken calvert giving me a head's up of this special order, because we need to get back to the jerry lewises and vic fazio.
i lament the fact that there's so much tension in this body. everybody in this body has been elected by their neighbors and friends and people who don't know them because that's the only way you can get here. i, therefore, believe that everyone in this body is due respect, even those i vigorously disagree with, because they have been sent here by the people. but we've lost that sense of camaraderie and we've lost that sense that for the most part we're going to work together. when i came here when ronald reagan was elected president in 1981, i came here in a special election, even though we had contention and we had the bull weefls and -- bullweavels and etc., etc., there were those in the house, democrats and
republicans that felt like working together. now, it's interesting, one of the reasons for that -- i'll close with that -- i'm talking about jerry. i love jerry. he was my dear, dear friend. but what he represented, i think, was so important. but we lost the sense that we're working for the country, for the people. i don't mean we lost it individually. but it seems to me that the camaraderie -- camaraderie and cooperation that existed for a long time i served in this party is very tenuous at best now. and very, frankly, i think it was made even more tenuous in the last administration. i don't think we're going to get back there. part of it was because the democrats, when i came here, had been in charge for about 20
years. and there wasn't a real sense that everything one did would change the complexion of the -- the control of the house of representatives. now, that's the case. it's a lot more contentious and people are thinking, if we do this or do that, maybe we'll win the majority. that was not the case then. but i want to thank jerry lewis. i want to thank arlene. i want to thank their family for being the kind of people that made those of us on the other side of the aisle feel like that was we were americans together. members of the house of representatives together. working on behalf of our country and our people and to make the house of representatives the kind of institution of which the american people could be proud. thank you, jerry lewis. god bless you.
mr. calvert: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. calvert: mr. speaker, i apologize. i yield one minute to the gentleman from louisiana, the republican whip, mr. scalise. mr. scalise: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my friend from california, mr. calvert, for yielding. as we remember the life of jerry lewis, i remember the first time that i had the opportunity to meet with him. it was back in 2005. i was a state representative from louisiana and hurricane katrina had ravaged the whole
new orleans region. thousands of people were out of their homes. the city was decimated. the whole region was decimated. and we were starting to work on a plan to rebuild new orleans. obviously, there was a big federal role to be played. president bush had committed to help us, but it took action from congress to ultimately make that happen, to rebuild the levies so that the communities could be protected, to help people get back in their homes. that brought me to jerry lewis. and he met with me and a few other people, and he committed to do the things that needed to be done to help us get back on our feet at our lowest point. that's who jerry lewis was. the city of new orleans, the people of the new orleans region owe a great debt to jerry lewis for the things that he did, the real action he took to help build new orleans back after katrina. and with that, i'm happy to yield back. mr. calvert: i thank the gentleman.
i'm happy to yield two minutes to the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. cole. mr. cole: thank you very much, mr. speaker. and i thank my friend for yielding. you know, i think it says everything about jerry lewis if you just look who's come to speak on his behalf. the speaker and the majority leader of the house on the other heart -- in the other party. you have a man he squared off twice for chairmanship of the full committee. you have colleagues on both sides. it tells you he was a very unusual man with a broad appeal. i first met jerry lewis as a staffer. i was the new executive director of the nrcc and i got a call out of the blue from one of the most important republicans in congress and said, hey, you have time to come over and meet and i thought, boy, i'm either in trouble or something is big. turns out his deputy chief of staff was married to a good friend of mine and they happened
to meet at the wedding. hey, there is this kid from oklahoma am cooing up and you need to get to know him. jerry lewis is the type to reach out no matter what. we became firm friends from there, long before i was in this institution. i used to bring people by, particularly congress running for congress -- particularly friends running for congress, to meet him because he would give them good advice. by happenstance, i came to the congress of the united states. first person that helped me was jerry lewis. the first person that gave me good advice, tom, become an appropriator if you possibly can, was jerry lewis. and then he helped me get to that spot. he was then our ranking member, the republican leader on the committee, and guided my decisions in terms of what positions i would choose and where i would go and what subcommittees i would serve on. always got great advice. always got tremendous help. and there was always wisdom in any observation that he had.
so like my friends, i'm going to miss him very, very much. i extend my sympathies to arlene and the family. this institution lost a great champion. we lost a great american. and god bless him wherever he is now -- actually, i know where he is now. god bless him. so with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. calvert: mr. speaker, i'm happy to yield one minute -- the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? mr. calvert: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm happy to yield one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is not recognized. does the gentleman seek time? for what purpose does the gentleman, mr. mcclintock, to seek recognition?
under the speaker's announced policy of january 4, 2021, the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona, mr. schweikert, for 30 minutes. mr. schweikert: thank you, mr. speaker. and just so we can sort of finish up some things and for many of us who were very fond of mr. jerry lewis, i'm going to yield 90 seconds to my friend, mr. mcclintock from california. mr. mcclintock: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i thank congressman calvert for organizing the tribute to jerry lewis today. i knew of jerry lewis many, many years before i had the honor to know him personally. he was elected to congress the year i graduated from college in southern california, and he was a well-known name then because of his activism for air quality
which is at the time was a very serious concern in that region. i then had the opportunity to -- and honor to actually be able to work with him in the congress, and i have to say, i was a bit leery about him at first. he was a bit of the republican old guard that i had spent an entire career fighting that, but what i found was a man who was willing to listen as well as to be heard, a man who was so interested in the process and the give and take and the sharing of ideas that he really demonstrated what this institution is all about, how it did work and how it could work in the future if we could learn from his example and his life and i'm very honored to join in the tribute to him today on the floor. i yield back. . mr. schweikert: mr. speaker, i
would like to yield a couple minutes to my other friend from california, mr. nunes. mr. nunes: i want to thank the gentleman from arizona forgiving some extended -- for giving some extended time to recognize jerry lewis who was really a statesman, a congressman from the inland empire. a good friend to all of us. words that i wrote down was that jerry really was a one-man institution on capitol hill. served in the house for more than 30 years. he was extremely effective at serving his constituents. he always kept his constituents in the inland empire in mind. and he was always popular with them. he never lost, never received less than 61% of his vote in any of his congressional races. he was a veteran congressman and when i first came to the house in 2003, i actually already knew him. because, as typical of jerry, he liked to work with young people.
the time, in the 1980's and 1990's, he and the congressman from bakerfield would hold conferences to talk to young people about policy and politics and i went to many of those events, which i have fond memories of and i have to look back at that. that was -- those were really important events in my life that probably inspired me in some way to ultimately serve with jerry. i'll always be thankful for that. when i did come to washington as a representative, jerry became a close friend, a mentor, he taught me the ropes. and to assimilate and deal with sometimes the strange ways of doing things around here. also back home in california, the -- there were many times that i had the opportunity to visit both jerry, his wife, arlene, mr. calvert, memorable times at dinner, doing constituent events, getting to know his area and always
focusing as a whole on how we could do things better in california and work together. jerry ultimately became one of the most influential and well-respected members of the house. earning admiration and affection on both sides of the political aisle. and serving his long tenure with distinction. he was a good friend and a true statesman who will be missed not only in these halls of congress, but also as well in california. with that, i want to thank the gentleman from arizona for yielding and i also want to thank mr. calvert for organizing this tribute to mr. lewis. i yield back. mr. schweikert: i yield to mr. calvert to sort of give a closing good-bye to mr. lewis. mr. calvert: i thank the gentleman for yielding me time. i just want to say that we're all going to miss jerry. it was a privilege to serve with him. and god speed,iery.
i yield back -- speed, jerry. i yield back to the gentleman. mr. schweikert: thank you for yours patience with this, speaker green -- thank you for your patience with this, speaker green. you look good up there. maybe this is a harbinger of the future. but before i start, because there's some serious things here i want us to get our heads around on what's happening financially and some of the things i see that are -- i'm going to be brutal, a bit dishonest in the math on some of the tax proposals. i need to share something that's just been eating at me for now two days. this place has about a century-long tradition during the summer of us bringing our children here. you know, john boehner actually made -- put it into policy that children 12 and under, we could bring on the floor with us. we tried very hard in previous years to make this an
institution that loved and embraced our families and our children. because be honest, this is a tough job on the family. and so two days ago, a handful of us showed up here, my 5-year-old daughter, and we wanted to bring our children on the floor. and instantly representatives of the speaker, and know they're doing their jobs, i mean, they were brutal about it, but they were doing their jobs, you can't bring your children on the floor. why? why? well, it's against the rules. ok, i'll respect the rules. show it to me in writing. and they ran off and came back 15 minutes later. we can't find it in writing but we don't want you to have children. why? well, covid. ok, if i remember the whole science thing, a 5-year-old little girl is not a texas state democrat, they're not
superspreaders. why would you engage in such sort of distaupian cruelty to children? the math is the math. remember all the speeches that my brotherses and sisters on the left gave us -- brothers and sisters on left gave us that we need to follow the science, particularly when it came to covid? ok, i've been incredibly respectful of it. i'm someone who has never complained on this floor about wearing the mask when we wore the mask. going through the metal detectors. i figured the public is forced to do those sorts of things. but come on. if you're going to preach at us, we're going to follow the science, you know the science on children isn't our problem. why would you engage in such sort of cruelty to kids that one time during the summer we could bring our kids here to sit here and, you know, my little girl, as you know, she loves you because you've been incredibly kind to her over the years, mr. green, they get
marched off with a group of the floor staff from the speaker, scaring my little girl half to death. you got to get off of here. this is sort of the weirdness that this place has become under this leadership. and the cruelty, dystopian, and i love using that word, the ultimate explanation we got is it's not in writing, but we can do anything we want. when that type of cruelty is off the impulse of this leadership, you understand why this place is falling apart with hate. and the inability to show kindness to children, which aren't a problem, gives you an almost -- almost a poster of what's become wrong with this leadership and i don't know if it's vanity, i don't know if
they've become control freaks, i don't know if it's anything that -- they're republican children so therefore they must be punished. i thought it was a really crappy thing to do to my 5-year-old and the other little girls that were with that group, that just wanted to sit with their daddies and their mom. on the floor. that's what that -- that's what this place has become. dear heaven, i hope when we hit this august recess, there's some sort of soul searching evaluation of what we've turned this place into. because a year from now, year and a half from now, republicans are going to take back the majority here. and i hope this doesn't become so imbedded in our psyches that it's going to become the tit for tat see-saw where the types of cruelty that have been hoisted on our families, our kids, our members isn't handed back. but that's where it's going. so i needed to share that.
mr. speaker, i want to just get our heads around a couple things that are bothering me also. in regards to the spending and tax plans, and the belief that we're not -- excuse me, the democrat leadership. and i understand a lot of this is generated from the senate side so i'm not going to blame -- because some of the d's i work with on the ways and means committee here in the house, i mean, we have different views of the world, but they treat me very kindly, they're very respectful for the ideas. but some of the proposals being put together by the leadership are frauds. they're just mathematical frauds. and the very things that we would have been -- and should be and republican hands aren't completely clean on this. but this now has been industrialized. so here's the scam. the left wants to spend this much money on the infrastructure bills they have. the president, speaker pelosi,
democrats promised we're going to pay for all of it. ok. and then they've industrialized gimmicks that are frauds. so, first off, we need to deal with the reality of what we're about to do to my 5-year-old, but to everyone that's in retirement or heading toward retirement. understand over the next 30 years, and this was before the spending binge, this government is going to be $101 trillion in debt in today's dollars. and most of it is actually medicare. now, i've given presentation after presentation on how we can change that. using technology, changing the price of delivering health care. because the a.c.a., obamacare, the republican alternative, medicare for all, they're financing bills. they do not change the cost of health care. and instead this is the greatest fragility to our
retirement security, future of our society, because if you plan to borrow $101 trillion over the next 30 years, you've just sopped up actually more money than exists, borrowable money, in the world. this mathematically can't happen. and guess what our debate around here is, is how we're going to spend more money. so the left makes -- i'm going to show a couple examples of this. a promising, well, david, the american people, we're going to pay for everything. so let me show you one of the gimmicks, just to get our heads around something that my friends should be embarrassed about. president trump offered a rebate rule in regards to pharmaceuticals for people on medicare. and the idea was, and it's complicated but the punch line is pretty simple. we have a process right now where there's a rebate paid for
-- through the drug pharmaceutical companies to the purchasing managers and then it's done -- used to lower the price of the drug at the purchasing level. the trump rule was changing the path so the rebate would go right to the consumer. so instead of lowering the price of drugs, you would see it almost at the register. ok, fine. i had mixed feelings about it. but democrats absolutely hated it. it was never going to become policy, it was never going to become law. this was a proposal from a couple years ago. so what does this place do? well, first off, my democrat brothers and sisters spent lots of time attacking the idea, making it clear, we will never allow this to become law. this will never become part of the medicare financing system. we're never going to do the
trump rebate mechanism where the consumer gets it. ok. then why would they turn around and pretend it's a pay-for, a pay had been for for the it -- pay-for for the infrastructure spending? this is actually part of the democrats' financing. we're going to take $170 billion, $180 billion over next 10 years, and by not doing the rule that doesn't actually exists, we're going to pretend we get $180 billion from that, we're going to spend it. you wonder why the american people just realizes, our numbers are frauds here. and this is proposed with a straight face. our inability to tell the truth . it just -- i understand if there's an insatiable appetite
from my friends on other side to do different types of spending, if you're going to make a promise to the people in the country that you're going to pay for it, fine. ok. keep your promise. but lying -- because this isn't even an attempt to be cute. this is just blatantly -- these dollars don't exist. they were never going to exist. but we're going to -- because the c.b.o. will give us a score on it, because we're going pretend that this might have become policy, even though it was never going to become policy and the very people that are row moting it were -- made -- promoting it were -- made it clear they were never going to allow it, we just created another $180 billion of magic money. this is us? this is what this place has become? and we need to leave with a couple of the other things -- lead with a couple of the other things that are also in the tax proposals. ok. i understand my brothers and sisters on the left really, really, really want to raise corporate tax rates. ok. but be honest about the math. the best study right now says in the first 24 months you
unemploy one million americans. that corporate tax hike unemploys one million americans. and we still haven't found a good study and we're trying to do it ourselves, is you unemploy one million americans, what does that ultimately cost society? what did you just do to medicare, what did you just do to medicaid, because they're not paying their fica taxes? what did you just do to unemployment benefits? what did we just do to people's future income power because you pulled them out of the work force? because these are -- we talk about societal costs of policy around here. oh, no, we don't talk about societal cost to policy around here because we don't tell the truth about the math. . so a couple of us, and i did a fairly detailed presentation about a month ago saying if my friends on the left really need money, they want to keep their promise and say, hey, we'll spend all this, we found $1
trillion. actually, in one of our calculations of $1,400,000,000,000. cut spending, stop subsidizing the rich. my email -- no one responded to that. you got to understand, here's how the democrat financing washing machine is working. on this hand, we'll raise taxes on the rich. we want them to pay more. ok. that's the democrat policy. on the other hand, we'll turnaround and subsidize them to about $1.4 trillion over 10 years because we'll subsidize solar panels. we'll subsidize their new tesla. we'll subsidize their flood insurance on their house on the beach, health care. does that make sense? it's a washing machine. i'm going to raise your taxes over here. through the back door, because when i subsidize you over here, i get power. because these rich people need to get benefits from me.
i mean, is it that cynical anymore? wouldn't it be much more economically efficient, much more rational, much fairer to say i'm not going to do things that will distort the economy and economic growth and jobs and functioning my personal fixation of how you lift the working poor, but we're going to stop subsidizing the ultra-wealthy in the country with all these programs? we're just going to cut the spending over here. wouldn't that be a more rational way to find revenues or ask -- but once again, the dirty little secret is much of this rich live in democrat districts on the coasts. much of the dirty little secret is these are the people that write the checks. so it becomes sort of this washing machine fraud of wink, wink, nod, nod, of the ultra-wealthy. you don't pay yourself through income. you live all your assets.
so don't worry. it's not going to affect you. oh, by the way, we'll subsidize your multi-million dollar house on the beach with subsidized flood insurance. we're better than this. i don't know why this place doesn't own a calculator or, brothers and sisters, we might be too busy so we don't read the details of the proposals. one of the other proposals is something that's referred to as the tax gap. and the green book from treasury was saying, oh, we'll find $700 billion of undercollected taxes. except when you start to dig through it, that number isn't real. it doesn't hold up to any type of scrutiny. so is this another occasion we're going to do a placeholder, put a pretend number in here so we'll somehow meet certain c.b.o. scores that we all know is a fraud, because you actually
start to work through the actual -- if you actually sit and read what c.b.o. wrote, they even make it clear, hey, you can do all these things but within three years, those very people that you're chasing their taxes have changed their process. we're also using really outdated math. we're using math from before tax reform. so a lot of the very mechanics of how taxes are collected, what they are are very, very different, but we haven't updated our numbers. and we're going to spend $80 billion at the i.r.s., but one of the really creepy things we're also going to do is we're functionally going to turn the banking system into the i.r.s. officers. so almost everything you will do will now be part of the i.r.s. system to track you. and if you really read through the reports, it makes it clear what we're going to do is take a lot of the very tax revenues, receipts that we're after and we're going to force them into
other conduits. i don't know if you're about to create a whole new cryptobanking system that will run under the radar. be careful. if it's about finding the tax cheats, a number of us -- actually, we had some democrats on ways and means helping. we've been playing with a model that would use data but publicly available data that's there -- these data services you can buy, you bounce off, you see if, hey, here's what's reported. does it match what we find in these public records? yes, it will require a capital infusion to update the data systems. but there's this weird fixation in government they want to own and control everything. even though the very best data that would help us find the folks that are cheating actually isn't ever going to sit on a government server. it's actually on all these lists that are out there. but there's some great articles talking about how the $700 billion is fraudulent.
it's just not real. but once again, we'll build our spending and tax policy on it. i'm going to mix some metaphors on these last couple bits. and mr. speaker, can i ask you how many minutes i have? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has eight minutes remaining. mr. schweikert: i also apologize. i had a stunning amount of coffee already today. so if i -- i'm going to mix a couple metaphors. i'll talk about the cost and also the environmental impact. so a lot of my brothers and sisters on the left are fixated on high-speed rail. now, understand, rail is, what, a 300-plus-year-old technology so the infrastructure of the past is what we're about to fund. we're not funding the infrastructure of the future. you do realize one of those high-speed rails to work you have to run about 10 million people on it a year for the environmental impact. i'm not talking about the huge
amount of debt, the fact they'll never close to anything in the fair boxes. are you going to carry 10 million people a year? no. turns out it's virtue signaling once again where the math of the environmental impact doesn't actually match but we have a bunch of our constituents, those are choo-choos. fast ones. look what the chinese have done -- japanese. as you know, the japanese high-speed rail system is financially collapsing too. if you really want to have an impact in the infrastructure bill, one of the most powerful things we can do is we can change the cost structures, how long it takes to get through nepa, how long it takes to finance, how long it takes to get through all the litigation. it's almost unreadable. we'll try to put in up on our website. we're right now over $500 million per kilometer just to lay new rail. we're up here in the very top
tier. you look at the countries that are ahead of us, they have great geographical distances. are they going -- they're going through highly urbanized areas. we're not. something is terribly wrong in our cost structure. how many times have we have seen those promoting infrastructure, we'll put things on the clock. we'll make things more efficient so we can get this. i'll give you one of the great living examples. in new mexico they had this amazing wind asset, this place that produces tremendous amounts of wind industry, and california needs that green energy to meet their rules. they're now going on 15 years just to get the permit to lay the powerlines and they're still not done. they're about to go through their nepa again. one of the articles says they won't get it by 2025. i talked to one of the
executives -- consultants for it yesterday. they're optimistic they might get it by 2023. they started in 2006. to move power from this incredible wind area, if you're someone in a really says, i want green energy, but i'm terrified of getting cross-wise with my trial lawyers who are making a fortune suing on this. i'm tired of getting cross waves of environmentalists. i'm terrified to have to deal with the military, my tribal land, my state lands, my federal lands, all these others where the powerlines have to go. stop pretending you really want green energy if you're not willing to change the clock on getting a permit to move it. it just -- it's irrational we're allowing. we actually have a piece of legislation that actually would just put the clock on these things so it would help pull
substantially more money. because you actually knew what the investment of that powerline, for those things that move that green energy. but until my friends on the left start to adopt these nepa reforms, it's a fraud. we're going to put all this money into new wind or geothermal or this and that but we'll not allow the line citing to the urban areas that actually need it. i have more of these types of samples where if the public policy here is my brothers and sisters on the left really want more revenues from the wealthy, my pitch to them is stop subsidizing the rich because what you're talking about doing in raising capital gains, raising this -- you do realize that tax foundation said the
other day, the capital gains tax hike actually loses $33 billion. it loses $33 billion over 10 years. the only thing that actually makes money is raising what they call the basis. how much you're able to put into the different tax rates. and with inflation right now, have my brothers and sisters on the left realize what they're about to do with people with homes? how many of us have our homes gone up dramatically in value, how much of that is actually true appreciation, how much is actually inflation? how many of our kids, our friends will ever be able to buy their first home anymore because what we've done in skyrocketing the prices, but how about the person that's going to retire or trying to sell the house because that's their nest egg and we're now going to tax them on inflation? we're not going to tax them on
appreciation. because the other house they have to buy is also inflated. this is one of the math realities. we don't tell the truth that much of the capital gains that my brothers and sisters on the left are so excited about getting isn't actually capital gains on -- i made all this money -- it's the fact that we had a bunch of inflation and the values went up. mr. speaker, if you were to sell your house today and run down the street and go buy something similar or even better, that other one you're buying is also just as expensive. you didn't really gain anything. if the gain was over, what, $250,000 per person, you're going to pay taxes. you'll pay capital gains on it. this is absurd what we've put the -- the way we're approaching the financing of this. and i will argue, i think we have some proposals that would
make the environmental impact of infrastructure greener, more sustainable, financeable, workable, but so much of the bill right now reads as financing cash flow for those people that write checks to the left. we're better than this. with that, mr. speaker, i appreciate your patience with me, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. pursuant to section 11-b of house resolution 188, the house stands adjourned until noon on monday next for morning hour debate and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business.
>> the house committee investigating the january 6 attack on the capitol holds its first meeting tuesday. watch the hearing live tuesday beginning at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span3, online at c-span.org, or listen with the free c-span radio app. tagram, @. we will hear about those decisions. politico, the headline is a pelosi vetoes banks, jordan for january 6 select committee. they write that policy stunned that gop on wednesday by vetoing two of mccarthy's choices for a select panel investigating the january 6 attack. move all but aaron teed to spark a republican boycott. pelosi rejected jim banks of india,