[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 68 (Tuesday, April 20, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H1968-H1976]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 51, WASHINGTON, D.C. ADMISSION ACT; 
  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1573, ACCESS TO COUNSEL ACT OF 
 2021; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1333, NATIONAL ORIGIN-BASED 
    ANTIDISCRIMINATION FOR NONIMMIGRANTS ACT; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 330 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 330

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 51) to 
     provide for the admission of the State of Washington, D.C. 
     into the Union. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. The amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute recommended by the Committee on Oversight and 
     Reform now printed in the bill shall be considered as 
     adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill, as 
     amended, are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto, to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Oversight and Reform or their 
     respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1573) to 
     clarify the rights of all persons who are held or detained at 
     a port of entry or at any detention facility overseen by U.S. 
     Customs and Border Protection or U.S. Immigration and Customs 
     Enforcement. All points of order against consideration of the 
     bill are waived. The amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in 
     the bill shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as 
     amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 
     as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or 
     their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 3.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1333) to 
     transfer and limit Executive Branch authority to suspend or 
     restrict the entry of a class of aliens. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     the Judiciary now printed in the bill shall be considered as 
     adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill, as 
     amended, are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto, to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective 
     designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 4.  House Resolution 316 is hereby adopted.
       Sec. 5.  House Resolution 188, agreed to March 8, 2021, is 
     amended--
       (1) in section 11, by striking ``April 22, 2021'' and 
     inserting ``May 20, 2021'';
       (2) in section 16, by striking ``calendar day of April 22, 
     2021'' and inserting ``legislative day of May 20, 2021''; and
       (3) in section 17, by striking ``April 22, 2021'' and 
     inserting ``May 20, 2021''.
       Sec. 6. (a) At any time through the legislative day of 
     Thursday, April 22, 2021, the Speaker may entertain motions 
     offered by the Majority Leader or a designee that the House 
     suspend the rules as though under clause 1 of rule XV with 
     respect to multiple measures described in subsection (b), and 
     the Chair shall put the question on any such motion without 
     debate or intervening motion.
       (b) A measure referred to in subsection (a) includes any 
     measure that was the object of a motion to suspend the rules 
     on the legislative day of April 19, 2021, or April 20, 2021, 
     on which the yeas and nays were ordered and further 
     proceedings postponed pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX.
       (c) Upon the offering of a motion pursuant to subsection 
     (a) concerning multiple measures, the ordering of the yeas 
     and nays on postponed motions to suspend the rules with 
     respect to such measures is vacated to the end that all such 
     motions are considered as withdrawn.
       Sec. 7. (a) House Concurrent Resolution 30 is hereby 
     adopted.
       (b) For purposes of the joint session to receive the 
     President of the United States on April 28, 2021, former 
     Members, Delegates,

[[Page H1969]]

     and Resident Commissioners shall not be admitted to the Hall 
     of the House or rooms leading thereto.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Reschenthaler), pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is 
for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
be given 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, today the Rules Committee met and reported 
a rule, House Resolution 330, providing for three measures.
  First, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 51, the 
Washington, D.C. Admission Act, under a closed rule. It provides 1 hour 
of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Reform and provides 
for one motion to recommit.
  The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 1333, the NO BAN 
Act, and H.R. 1573, the Access to Counsel Act of 2021, both under 
closed rules. The rule provides an hour of debate on each bill equally 
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary and provides one motion to recommit on each 
bill.
  The rule deems as passed H.R. 316, providing for the expenses of 
certain committees, and H. Con. Res. 30, providing for a joint session 
of Congress to receive a message from the President of the United 
States. The rule also restricts former Members' access to the House 
floor during the joint session.
  Additionally, the rule provides authority through April 22 for the 
majority leader or his designee to move to en bloc postponed votes on 
any suspension bill considered on April 19 or 20 on which the yeas and 
nays were ordered.
  Finally, the rule provides for recess instructions, same day, and 
suspension authority through May 20.
  Madam Speaker, Tocqueville wrote in ``Democracy in America'' that in 
our country voting rights and democracy are always either contracting 
and retreating and shriveling away or voting rights and democracy are 
growing and expanding.
  What a proud day for the United States Congress when we get to keep 
the trajectory of American democracy moving forward by voting to admit 
a new State to our beloved Union.
  America began with 13 original States, and we in Congress have 
exercised our powers under Article IV, Section 3 37 different times to 
admit 37 new States to the Union, which means that nearly 75 percent of 
the States in America today were admitted after the original 13.
  Today, we can keep the dynamics of democratic political growth and 
inclusion going in America by beginning the process of admitting 
Washington, Douglass Commonwealth to the Union by passing H.R. 51.
  We have the opportunity to do something that hasn't happened here 
since 1959, when Alaska and Hawaii were admitted to the Union in 
January and in August of that year.
  We can vote to admit a new State to the Union, and what a State it 
will be: A community of 712,000 taxable, draftable, law-abiding 
American citizens who actually pay more Federal taxes per capita now 
than do the people of any State, more in hard dollars than the people 
of 22 States combined. It is a community of people who have fought in 
every war that the Union has ever fought, going all the way back to the 
American Revolution.
  And it was a community, significantly, that came to the aid of 
democracy, that came to the aid of the Union, that came to the aid of 
this Congress when we called on January 6, 2021.
  More than 850 officers in the Metropolitan Police Department came and 
fought shoulder to shoulder with our Capitol officers in what has been 
described as waves of medieval violence by insurrectionists and 
Fascists attacking them with bats and sticks and American flagpoles and 
Confederate flagpoles and Trump flagpoles. They sent more than 150 
National Guardsmen from Washington, D.C., 154 D.C. National Guard, 850 
Metropolitan Police Department to come and defend a democracy that they 
are not yet a part of.
  Now think about that. We had people who came and stormed the Capitol, 
laid siege to the Congress of the United States with fictionalized 
claims about a denial of their right to vote, and right in this city 
there are 712,000 American citizens who we know have their voting 
rights denied every single day, their rights to representation denied 
every single day, and they came to defend us against those who would 
have torn down the very citadel of democracy.
  Think about that when we are deciding how to vote on H.R. 51.

                              {time}  1445

  The current status of the people in Washington, D.C., subjects them 
to two different forms of political domination and exclusion.
  On the one hand, all of their locally adopted laws ultimately can be 
overturned by a Congress which they are excluded from, and it has 
happened many times throughout the history of the District of Columbia, 
as Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, the nonvoting Delegate, will 
tell you. Congress has tampered with the laws of adoption, laws of 
marriage, criminal justice laws, and voting laws in the District of 
Columbia.
  But it is not just that. It is not just that the rights of democratic 
self-government are subject to the will of other people. It is also 
that this community of taxpaying, draftable American citizens is 
excluded from participating in Federal legislation because they don't 
have voting representatives in the House and in the Senate.
  That means on matters relating to war and peace, the confirmation of 
U.S. Supreme Court Justices and other Federal judges, the development 
of Federal budgets, the regulation of commerce domestically and 
internationally, Federal criminal law, and Federal civil law, the 
people of Washington, D.C., are dealt out. They are excluded. And they 
want in. They want to enter the Union.
  Most of us in Congress represent communities that were not part of 
the original 13 but then came in later. Now, I come from Maryland, 
which was one of the original 13, but most of the people in Congress 
represent States that came in later.
  So, this is an act of fundamental democratic and civic self-respect 
on their part to be asking for equality and inclusion, and it is a 
matter of basic constitutional patriotism and democratic respect that 
we vote to admit them today.
  I am very happy that we are kicking this process off by bringing this 
rule to the floor.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman 
from Maryland for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, the rule before us today provides for consideration of 
three pieces of legislation.
  The first bill, H.R. 1333, limits the President's existing authority 
to restrict entry of foreigners into the United States.
  Border Patrol is encountering more than 5,500 individuals per day at 
our southern border. Let me say that again. They are encountering 5,500 
individuals per day at the southern border.
  Over the weekend, President Biden finally acknowledged the situation 
for what it is--not a challenge but a crisis. Yet, House Democrats are 
moving forward with a bill that does nothing to stop the surge of 
migrants at the southern border and, instead, actually weakens our 
national security.
  Along the same lines, House Resolution 330 provides for consideration 
of H.R. 1573, which requires access to counsel for all travelers 
referred to a secondary inspection at airports and other ports of 
entry.
  Again, this bill does nothing to address the Biden border crisis. It 
would

[[Page H1970]]

actually complicate the job of Border Patrol agents while costing 
taxpayers $825 million over the next 5 years.
  With a 233 percent increase in fentanyl seizures at our southern 
border, it is a shame that my liberal colleagues across the aisle are 
actually creating more work for Border Patrol. Instead, we should 
provide these brave men and women with much-needed resources to address 
the national security and public health consequences of the Biden 
border crisis.
  Lastly, this resolution makes in order H.R. 51, legislation admitting 
the present District of Columbia as the 51st State and authorizing 
special elections for two Senators and one Representative.
  This is nothing more than an unconstitutional power grab by Democrats 
to gain two ultraprogressive D.C. Senate seats and force radical, far-
left policies on the American people.
  Our Founding Fathers never intended for D.C. to become a State. In 
Federalist No. 43, James Madison argued that if the Capital City were 
situated within a State, the Federal Government would be subject to 
undue influence by the host State. As such, Article I, Section 8, 
Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution establishes a neutral district for 
our Nation's representatives to meet and vote on equal ground.
  Further, the 23rd Amendment grants three Presidential electors 
specifically for the District. The original meaning of the ``district'' 
in the Constitution, and the necessary repeal of the 23rd Amendment, 
requires an amendment to the Constitution in order for D.C. to even 
become a State.
  Just don't take my word for it, though. Since 1963, every Justice 
Department, Republican and Democrat, that has addressed the issue of 
D.C. statehood has concluded that Congress does not have the authority 
to alter the status of the city legislatively.
  Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy thought it was inconceivable that 
D.C. would be granted statehood without repealing the 23rd Amendment 
and that the result would ``produce an absurdity.'' Again, those are 
the words of RFK.
  Finally, the legislation before us today does nothing to address the 
financial implications of D.C. statehood. According to a 2020 study, 
D.C. ranked 150th out of 150 of the largest cities for its lack of 
operating efficiency--150 out of 150.
  The Federal Government provides billions of dollars to D.C. each year 
for everything from the judicial system to the pension system. Yet, 
House Democrats are so desperate to jam this measure through that, 
under H.R. 51, the Federal Government will remain responsible for 
funding many of the new State's functions.
  There is absolutely no incentive for the new State to work toward 
financial self-sufficiency, meaning Americans in other States would be 
forced to fund D.C. Democrats' priorities.
  Again, House Democrats are pushing ahead to admit a new State to the 
Union purely for partisan gain while ignoring the constitutional, 
practical, and legal challenges in doing so. That is why I urge my 
colleagues to oppose this rule.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me address a couple of the specious constitutional objections 
that have been raised by our colleagues on the other side.
  To begin with, it would be unconstitutional to turn the District of 
Columbia into a State. It would almost certainly be that, but that is 
not what the proposal is. The proposal is to redraw the boundaries of 
the District of Columbia to cede the residential lands to the new State 
to admit it. For that, there is both sound constitutional and 
historical precedent.
  For one thing, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 says that Congress 
shall ``exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever'' over 
the district that is to become the seat of government, meaning that 
Congress has the authority to modify the boundaries of the District of 
Columbia, which it has done.
  It did that, actually, in 1791. Not long after the original 
boundaries were set, James Madison and 13 other Founders themselves 
voted to alter the boundaries. But our colleagues seem to believe that 
the boundaries of the District can't be altered by Congress.
  In 1846, most significantly, Congress gave one-third of the District 
of Columbia to the Commonwealth of Virginia at the behest of slave 
masters, who correctly anticipated that the slave traffic would be 
abolished within the District of Columbia. It was given back, 
demonstrating that the authority of Congress to change the boundaries 
of the District exists.
  If Congress can alter the boundaries of the District of Columbia in 
1846 in order to serve the slave masters and to protect their 
institution, surely the Congress in 2021 can modify the boundaries of 
the District of Columbia in order to admit a new State and empower 
hundreds of thousands of people to live in political equality in the 
country.
  My distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania invites us to believe 
that the 23rd Amendment is a constitutional impediment to adopting 
statehood for Washington, D.C. He doesn't explain why it is 
unconstitutional. He just asserts it would be unconstitutional.
  The 23rd Amendment was adopted in order to give people living within 
the seat of government the possibility of voting for President and to 
have electoral college votes in a manner decided by Congress and then, 
in Section 2, requiring Congress to act in order to organize the 
electoral college in the manner of a State legislature organizing the 
electoral college for the State.
  As I understand H.R. 51, introduced by Congresswoman Norton, this 
problem is taken care of at the moment of statehood admission because 
it repeals the statute which organizes the electoral college for the 
District of Columbia.
  In other words, the moment the new State comes into being, the 
current statute that organizes the Presidential electors is repealed, 
so there is nothing to worry about. I agree that there is a certain 
kind of messiness in still having the 23rd Amendment on the books, but 
Congresswoman Norton has said she will be the first to introduce a 
formal constitutional amendment to repeal the 23rd, and who would 
oppose it?
  Our colleagues have not been able to find a single person who would 
oppose it. Everybody would agree it would be simply nonsensical to keep 
it within the Constitution once the 712,000 people have negotiated an 
exodus from the Federal seat of government in order to become their own 
State.
  So, I think that that is a red herring. It is an irrelevant 
distraction to this journey toward statehood and political equality 
that we are on.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District 
of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding and 
for his support of H.R. 51.
  The rule before us is not ordinary. It is the prelude to history, and 
I use that word advisedly. Last Congress, the House passed the D.C. 
statehood bill, the first time either Chamber of Congress had passed 
the bill. This Congress with Democrats controlling the House, Senate, 
and White House, D.C. statehood is within reach for the first time in 
history.
  As a result of education from House proceedings like today's, 54 
percent of the American people support D.C. statehood according to a 
wide-ranging poll that has just been released, and we predict that with 
increasing exposure, that percentage will continue to rise.
  For the 220 years since D.C. became our capital, District residents, 
who have had all of the obligations of citizenship, including paying 
full Federal taxes and serving in the Armed Forces, have been excluded 
from much of American democracy. The citizens who live in our Nation's 
Capital have never had voting representation on the floor of either 
Chamber of Congress, and Congress has always had the final say on their 
local affairs. This is uniquely un-American. It is undemocratic.
  For me, it is deeply personal. My own family has lived in D.C. since 
my great-grandfather Richard Holmes as a slave walked away from a 
plantation in Virginia and made his way to D.C. almost 200 years ago. 
Richard Holmes made it as far as D.C., a walk to freedom but not to 
equal citizenship so far for our family.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.

[[Page H1971]]

  

  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from the District 
of Columbia an additional 1 minute.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia is recognized for an additional 1 minute.
  Ms. NORTON. During debate on D.C. statehood Thursday, we will make 
the case that Congress has the constitutional authority to admit the 
State of Washington, D.C., and that the State would meet all the 
elements Congress has considered in admission decisions.
  For now, it is sufficient to note that throughout its existence in 
the United States the United States has flattered itself as a 
democracy, even though it is the only democratic country that denies 
voting representation in the national legislature to the residents of 
the capital. With passage of this rule today and the D.C. statehood 
bill on Thursday, the United States will be one step closer to 
deserving the term democracy.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentlewoman very much for her comments, and I want to 
reemphasize the point that she made at the end, which is that Congress 
has the exclusive authority to admit new States.
  Congress has admitted 37 new States. None of them have ever been 
struck down by a court, despite serious constitutional objections being 
raised against almost every State.
  Everyone knew that Hawaii and Alaska could not be admitted because 
they were not contiguous. Everyone knew that Texas couldn't be admitted 
because it was a separate republic, and there was no authority to admit 
a republic to the Union. It was said Utah couldn't be admitted because 
they were practicing polygamy there. And so on.
  There have always been constitutional objections made, but the courts 
have always deemed this to be a political question, which means that, 
in the juridical context, it is up to Congress to decide. And Congress 
has always been guided, in the final analysis, by the overriding 
dynamic of American political history, which is democracy has to govern 
for people who live here.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, my colleague may have said that these are merely my 
assertions. They are certainly my arguments, but they are also 
supported by others, particularly well-known members of the liberal 
party.
  The former Mayor of D.C. himself, Mayor Walter Washington, said: ``I 
would have problems with statehood in terms of exacting from it some 
enclaves, or little enclaves all around the city. Ultimately, it seems 
to me that would erode the very fabric of the city itself and the 
viability of the city.''
  Again, that was the former Mayor of Washington, D.C., who was talking 
about the enclaves that are being called for in this bill.
  Additionally, the former D.C. Delegate Walter Fauntroy himself said 
that a bill like this would be in direct defiance of the prescription 
of the Founding Fathers.
  As far as the constitutional argument, it is not just me making the 
assertion that this would be unconstitutional because there is an 
issue, and that is the 23rd Amendment. Don't take it from me. Look at 
the Carter administration DOJ. They said that to provide statehood for 
the District would have to be by constitutional amendment. Otherwise, 
it would ignore the Framer's intent.
  John Harmon, Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal 
Counsel during the Carter administration, said that this would have to 
be accomplished through constitutional amendment.
  Further, RFK, Robert Kennedy, said that Congress likely did not have 
the authority under Article I, Section 8, clause 17 to shrink the 
Federal district to essentially the same size that is being discussed.
  The argument that the Federal district constituting the seat of 
government is a permanent part of our constitutional system is 
substantially strengthened by the adoption of the 23rd Amendment. 
Thinking that we can merely repeal an amendment through legislative 
action, that is not how the Constitution works; otherwise, you wouldn't 
have had the 21st Amendment, which was needed to repeal the 18th 
Amendment. We could have just merely repealed it.
  Additionally, there are talks about this not being a political 
exercise. My colleague has been quoted, actually, in The Washington 
Post saying that ``there is a national political logic for it''--``it'' 
being D.C. statehood. Because the Senate has become the principal 
obstacle to social progress on a whole range of issues--not my words; 
my colleague's words--this issue is all about a power grab.
  We are talking about another issue that is on this rule, immigration.
  Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to immediately consider H.R. 2321, the Border 
Surge Response and Resilience Act. For far too long, Democrats denied 
the crisis caused by Biden's open-border rhetoric. This bipartisan bill 
will ensure that DHS develops a plan and has the resources it needs to 
address migrant surges and secure our border. Something is clearly 
missing from the current administration.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with any extraneous material, 
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Katko), the lead Republican on the 
House Committee on Homeland Security, my good friend and colleague, 
here to explain the amendment.
  Mr. KATKO. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to moving the previous 
question so that we can consider the bipartisan legislation I 
introduced, along with several of my colleagues, to address a crisis 
along the southwest border and provide resources for the men and women 
of the Department of Homeland Security who are serving on the front 
lines of this security and humanitarian nightmare created by the 
policies of this administration.
  Madam Speaker, the Border Surge Response and Resilience Act is a 
commonsense approach for preparing for future migrant surges and is a 
direct response to a recommendation of the bipartisan and effective 
Homeland Security Advisory Council, which I hope will be reconstituted 
by the current administration.
  I often hear from my friends on the other side of the aisle accusing 
Republicans of complaining about problems rather than offering 
solutions. Well, today, we are providing the opportunity to vote on a 
commonsense, bipartisan, and thoughtful solution.
  I just returned from my second trip to the border in recent weeks. 
Any of us who have traveled there recently can observe what is 
happening and can attest to just how bad the crisis on the ground 
really is.
  At the border itself, it is wide open. The wall construction has 
stopped. Border Patrol agents have told us if the wall is constructed, 
80 percent of the drug-trafficking activity is focused and funneled to 
other areas where they can easily interdict the drug traffickers.
  Madam Speaker, I was a Federal organized crime prosecutor for 20 
years before coming to Congress, and I worked on the border as a 
Federal organized crime prosecutor going after cartels. I can tell you 
that they own the border.
  If someone wants to cross the border, they have to pay. Chinese are 
paying $50,000 to $70,000 per person. Mexicans and Central Americans 
are paying $4,000 a person to come across.
  Every single day that this crisis goes on, the cartels are being 
enriched to the tune of at least $15 million a day. In the last month, 
it is highly likely they were probably enriched to the tune of close to 
$1 billion in a month.
  The Border Patrol agents are despondent. They are being pulled off 
the line, at least 40 to 50 percent at a time, in the Rio Grande sector 
alone to deal with the crisis. The drug traffickers

[[Page H1972]]

are smart enough to know: If I throw 100 people across the border over 
here, all the agents have to come off and deal with them. And then that 
place that they came off from, we are going to go right across there 
with the drugs.

  In the Rio Grande Valley sector alone is a 2,000 percent increase in 
fentanyl coming across the border. Fentanyl is killing our kids all 
over this country. It is mixed with heroin; it is killing our kids. 
That is what the Border Patrol agents are telling us because all they 
want to do is to be able to enforce the laws on the books and to have 
the ability to do so. They do not have the ability to do so because of 
the administration's change of policies on January 22. They say there 
is a direct correlation.
  Yes, there are problems in Central America. They have been there for 
20 to 30 years; they haven't changed. If I had kids down there, I would 
bring them up to the border, too. But there is a right way to do 
things, and there is a wrong way. Running across the border and 
creating this crisis is the wrong way.
  Madam Speaker, let me tell you what I saw at the detention centers 
like Donna.
  People are put in pens, for lack of a better term. Thirty, forty 
people are supposed to be in there. I saw hundreds. I sent a picture to 
my wife. There are so many kids. They were all wrapped up in aluminum 
blankets. You couldn't see anything other than the aluminum blankets. 
They were literally stacked next to each other like cordwood.
  Not a single child was tested. They are released from that facility 
because they just can't keep them there, and they are released without 
being tested.
  When we were at the border, we encountered a couple of people at the 
border at midnight. The next morning, on a flight to Dallas-Forth 
Worth, they were on that flight. No ID. No idea who they were.
  They put them on a plane without identification. They put them on a 
plane highly likely without testing because they said they are not 
testing right away. But when they do test, they know that 10 to 15 
percent of these kids test positive for COVID.
  They are putting people in our communities all across this country, 
not telling those communities that they are coming, and they are 
coming. They are oftentimes not being tested for COVID and, obviously, 
probably positive.
  That is what is going on. In the Donna facility alone, we are 
spending millions of dollars a day to deal with this. There is nothing 
more tragic than seeing an 11-year-old girl who was sexually assaulted 
on her way up to the border and who is pregnant there.
  That is what is going on. That is the reality of the situation, and 
it is an unforced error that we didn't need to have.
  The administration, candidly, was caught short. But candidly, too, 
previous administrations were caught short with border surges.
  So, I am not here to complain about the situation. I am here to offer 
a solution, and the solution is our bill, which I mentioned.
  In addition to ensuring future preparedness along the border, this 
provision will create a $1 billion fund to be made available in support 
of our frontline enforcement personnel. It requires transparent metrics 
that were triggered when certain events happened, and it supports 
border security and law enforcement professionals. This funding would 
help prevent a humanitarian crisis from spiraling out of control, as it 
has on this one and on others before it, candidly.
  If you don't know this, I will tell you: The money that is being 
spent to deal with this crisis now is being taken away from the funds 
set aside for the salaries of our law enforcement professionals on the 
border. That is a fact. We are going to need a massive supplement just 
to make sure that our Border Patrol agents can get paid.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues, in a bipartisan fashion, to 
support the security of the United States. This is not about arguing 
over what President Biden did on January 20. This is about saying, 
going forward, when we have these crises--and they will occur again--
that we are ready next time, that there is money set aside, that there 
is a plan, and that when certain things happen, the money kicks in and 
we are ready to go.
  That is what I am asking my colleagues, to support the frontline men 
and women by supporting this provision.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I want to say a word in response to my 
colleague about the national political logic of statehood.
  There is both powerful constitutional principle and national 
political logic that infuses every statehood admission going back to 
the very beginning of the Republic.
  The constitutional principle is simply that of no taxation without 
representation and the consent of the governed. People who are part of 
the American Nation should be able to participate equally as complete 
citizens.
  That is why Thomas Jefferson set out in the Northwest Ordinance that 
once a community got to be of a certain size--60,000, which, of course, 
is less than 10 percent of the size of Washington, D.C., today--that it 
would be eligible to come into statehood, to petition for statehood. 
The only real constitutional prerequisite is a republican form of 
government, that is the Republican Guarantee Clause.
  That is the high-minded political ideal of constitutional principle, 
but it is also the case, as I have tried to argue with my colleagues 
across the aisle, that there is a hardcore political logic that is 
operated, and we see it in their arguments that they don't want to 
admit two Democratic Senators to the Republic, which is what former 
President Trump said in objection to D.C. statehood. He said there is 
no way we would accept two new Democrat Senators.
  Actually, although I consider it a degradation of the process and a 
sort of tawdry form of argument, nonetheless, it has been very much 
part of American political history, which is why States have tended 
to enter the Union in pairs, like animals boarding Noah's Ark together.

  That was the situation with Kansas and Nebraska, in the Kansas-
Nebraska Act; that was the situation of Missouri and Maine in the 
Missouri Compromise; that was Vermont and Kentucky; that was Alaska and 
Hawaii back in 1959.
  So, I say to my friends, okay, they don't see the problem of taxation 
without representation in Washington. They don't see the problem of 
governance without representation. They don't see the irony or the 
paradox or the contradiction of people putting their lives on the line 
to defend this Congress, this Union, on January 6 who don't get to vote 
for voting representatives in Congress.
  They don't want to see that, fine. But they can at least see this: It 
has been in the Republican platform since 1940 that Puerto Rico should 
be admitted as a State. Every 4 years, they have said that the millions 
of people, American citizens, who live in Puerto Rico should be 
admitted as a State. It was in the platform in 2016. It would have been 
in 2020 if they had had a platform. They decided not to have a platform 
for the American people in 2020. But in any event, they have taken a 
very strong position--Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, you name it.
  In fact, the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico is a Republican 
who has introduced statehood legislation in this Congress, who is 
fighting for statehood.
  So, fine, there is the basis for common ground. Let's get together. 
The Democrats have been arguing for statehood for Washington, D.C., for 
a long time. The Republicans have been arguing for statehood for Puerto 
Rico for a long time. I assume everybody means it. Let's get together 
and do it the way this has happened periodically, systematically, 
throughout American history. That is the national political logic of 
allowing both of these states to come in together.
  Not everybody gets everything that they want, and I do think that it 
is antithetical to the democratic form of government to say you don't 
want people to be represented because you don't like the way they are 
going to vote because they disagree with you on issues. I think that is 
fundamentally undemocratic and un-American.
  Madam Speaker, in any event, we have the grounds for a compromise, 
and I am still looking for some colleagues across the aisle to stand up 
and say they will stand for the position

[[Page H1973]]

that they have embraced for decades, to say these two states should 
come in together.

                              {time}  1515

  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Pennsylvania 
(Ms. Scanlon).
  Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule 
providing for consideration of the NO BAN Act, the Access to Counsel 
Act of 2021, and the Washington, D.C. Admission Act. All three bills 
advance important policies that I am proud to support.
  I will never forgot the night in January 2017 that the Trump 
administration's ban on travel from Muslim countries went into effect. 
I was not yet in Congress, and my job involved coordinating free legal 
services across the U.S., including representation for immigrants.
  As foreign citizens landed in the U.S., they were told that their 
travel papers were revoked while they were in the air, and some were 
taken into custody and some were immediately deported. Families were 
separated, and friends and relatives arriving to pick up loved ones at 
U.S. airports frantically tried to get information about them. Many 
were denied the right to counsel, who were trying to reach them.
  Attorneys and immigration agencies across the country immediately 
mobilized to help those impacted by the illegal and ill-conceived ban. 
I spent the next few weeks working around the clock, dispatching 
volunteers to airports, mobilizing translators, and organizing legal 
efforts.
  Having seen the chaos and cruelty caused by the Trump 
administration's ill-fated ban, I am particularly pleased by the 
opportunity to pass the NO BAN Act and the Access to Counsel Act.
  First, the NO BAN Act would ensure that no future administration 
would have the authority to discriminate against people based on their 
religious background or national origin when choosing to restrict the 
entry of immigrants into our country.
  Having witnessed the chaos and cruelty of the Muslim ban, I 
wholeheartedly support this legislation, which would prevent future 
administrations from similarly abusing their executive authority.
  I am also proud to support the Access to Counsel Act, which would 
ensure that individuals at ports of entry can seek legal advice, 
whether from volunteers or at their own expense, during the screening 
process. Access to counsel is critical for ensuring the fair and 
equitable enforcement of our laws, but especially in immigration 
matters where the law is so complicated and the consequences so grave.
  Madam Speaker, I support these three bills, which would make our 
immigration laws more fair and protect due process.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, we hear a lot about no taxation without 
representation. But there is representation. We forget that D.C. has 
three electoral votes. That is the 23rd Amendment. They have a Delegate 
in Congress. They also have local government and a mayor. They have the 
Home Rule Act.
  But taxation does bring up a serious issue because D.C. would need to 
raise taxes if it were to become a State. It simply is not self-
sufficient economically. In fact, D.C. takes more from the Federal 
Government than any other area in the United States; $73,000 per 
capita, to be exact. That is astronomical when you think about it. The 
second highest State is Virginia at $16,000 per capita, followed by 
Maryland at $15,000 per capita. Again, D.C. takes $73,000 per capita.
  If this were to go through, D.C. would need to raise revenue. Because 
of the massive amount of Federal land in the District, you would then 
have to have more taxation, presumably through two ways: One, a 
commuter tax, taxing people that come into the District from other 
areas; or, two, you would have to have tolling of roads leading into 
the District. Both of these are incredibly problematic.
  The first one, a commuter tax, would actually create the problem my 
liberal colleagues are saying exists in the first place, no taxation 
without representation, because you would have the District of Columbia 
taxing people from, presumably, Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia, 
where have you, for commuting into the District. They wouldn't have 
representation here. That is actually taxation without representation.
  Further, if you were to toll roads leading into the District, you 
would infringe upon people's constitutional rights to petition the 
government. Imagine how much a tour bus would have to pay if they 
wanted to come here in the District.
  But I was talking about the Home Rule Act and I was talking about the 
23rd Amendment, and it reminded me that there was an allegation that 
Republicans somehow don't care about this issue. It is actually the 
opposite. Republicans are the ones who have advanced more rights for 
the District of Columbia. Think about it.
  It was actually the Kennedy and the Carter administrations, both 
their Departments of Justice concluded that, for D.C. to be a State, it 
would require a constitutional amendment. They were on our side of this 
argument. Historically, it was President Eisenhower who pushed through 
the 23rd Amendment to get D.C. three electoral votes. And just a side 
note, it was Republican, Prescott Bush, grandfather of George W. Bush, 
who was instrumental in passing the 23rd Amendment. They were both 
Republicans. And it was President Nixon who signed the Home Rule Act 
into law. This has been Republican-led since the very beginning.
  There was also an argument about D.C. residents, that this is somehow 
a civil rights issue. Civil rights, that is an actual term of art. 
Civil rights is a violation when the rights are denied because a person 
is who the person is. D.C. residents don't have a lack of 
representation in Congress because of who they are, but, instead, of 
where they choose to live.
  And this isn't just me making this argument. The late Democrat, 
Representative John Dingell, made a similar argument, and I will quote 
the late Representative Dingell: ``I have supported every single civil 
rights measure that has passed this Congress since 1955, but we have to 
look at the facts before us. No citizen in Washington, D.C., is chained 
to the pillars of the U.S. Capitol. They can leave any time they want. 
To say this is somehow a civil rights violation is insulting to actual 
civil rights violations.''

  Then let's go back to the three electoral votes issue. If we do 
follow this course of action and not repeal the 23rd Amendment before 
enacting D.C. statehood, you are going to have, as my colleague from 
Maryland just admitted, a sloppy and messy situation where the new 
State gets three electoral votes, and then the Federal enclave gets 
three electoral votes.
  Well, who lives in the Federal enclave?
  It would be the First Family.
  So you would, presumably, give the incumbent three electoral votes in 
the election, and then D.C. itself three electoral votes.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma 
(Mrs. Bice).
  Mrs. BICE of Oklahoma. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the combined rule and to 
the underlying measures, including H.R. 51, the Washington, D.C. 
Admission Act.
  Once again, our friends across the aisle are making an attempt to 
gain more control in Congress, this time in the Senate, by trying to 
hide behind the guise that residents of the District of Columbia do not 
have the means for adequate representation in Congress.
  While Americans deserve full voting representation from their 
national government, our forefathers never intended for the Federal 
seat of government to serve as a State. The Founders intended the 
Capitol to be a neutral ground for equal sovereign States to work 
together to conduct the Nation's business.
  This bill does not at all follow what our forefathers envisioned. 
H.R. 51 overlooks the U.S. Constitution in which Article I, Section 8, 
Clause 17 designated Washington as a Federal district, not a State. 
That alone should make this legislation unconstitutional.
  Because the District of Columbia's status is spelled out, it would 
take a constitutional amendment to grant permission for this Democratic 
power play. There have been several alternative proposals and 
amendments put

[[Page H1974]]

forward by Republicans, none of which have been heard.
  My colleague, Representative Dusty Johnson from South Dakota, has 
proposed the District of Columbia-Maryland Reunion Act, which I have 
cosponsored, that would revert the majority of D.C. residential areas 
back to the State of Maryland. The National Mall and other Federal 
buildings would remain as the District of Columbia. Before we create a 
new State, we should return D.C.'s residential areas back to the 
original State they were served.
  With H.R. 51, Democrats have yet again failed to examine the 
consequences of their rushed actions to gain more control in Congress. 
The District of Columbia has received billions of dollars from the 
Federal Government to fund its entire judicial branch of government, 
among other things, which would end under statehood.
  But Democrats weren't thinking about how to make D.C. a State before 
proposing H.R. 51. The only thought in their minds was two more Senate 
seats, more control of the government, more control of the American 
taxpayer dollars, more out-of-control spending, more Federal overreach 
into the lives of everyday Americans.
  We have been down this path many times in Congress, voting yet again 
on a bill that has had no input from Republicans, nor has had much 
chance of receiving any Republican support on the floor.
  President Biden was elected on the premise of working together with 
Republicans, extending a hand across the aisle to do what is best for 
the American people. I have struggled to find many examples of that 
bipartisanship to share with my constituents in Oklahoma. But what I do 
have are plenty of examples of Democratic power plays, an unwillingness 
to let the voices of Republicans be heard, and H.R. 51 stands as a 
prime example of both.
  Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to oppose the combined rule 
and to oppose H.R. 51.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, the gentlewoman invites us to return the 
District of Columbia to Maryland, which, of course, debunks the 
argument that Congress cannot modify the boundaries of the District of 
Columbia.
  But, in any event, that is not what the people of Washington, D.C. 
have asked for. They have used their rights as American citizens under 
the Ninth Amendment of the Constitution to organize a new State and to 
petition Congress for admission to the Union. Neither has the Maryland 
General Assembly asked for a return of the land to Maryland. So that 
certainly answers a set of political conditions that don't exist in the 
real world.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland 
for yielding. And I particularly thank the gentlewoman from Washington, 
D.C., the 51st State, the Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton for her hard 
work.
  Madam Speaker, breaking news: The people of Washington, D.C., pay 
taxes. Breaking news: They wear the uniform of the United States of 
America. And, breaking news: The legislation my friends on the other 
side of the aisle are proposing is to propose a dictation, as usual, 
from the United States Federal Government on the people of Washington, 
D.C.
  Is anybody in Washington, D.C., raising their hand to be able to 
participate in the legislation that my friends are offering on this 
floor, which is to partition--we know what partition means--colored 
people in dominance and put them wherever the Federal Government thinks 
that they should belong?
  I think they need to think twice about that.
  And, really, if this is a country of the people and for the people, 
if this is a House of Representatives, then the people of Washington, 
D.C., deserve to be represented, and they deserve to be represented by 
the four squares of the dictates and vote of the people of the United 
States Congress.
  I am appalled that we would, over the decades, ignore the blood that 
was shed by those from Washington, D.C., the history that was made by 
those from Washington, D.C., and the service that was given by those 
from Washington, D.C.

  So I rise to support the legislation that provides for the 
Washington, D.C. Admission Act, H.R. 51. I thank the leadership for 
that legislation. In the rule, we have a combination of restoring 
rights. That is what H.R. 51 does, restoring and igniting rights.
  H.R. 1573, Access to Counsel Act, of my friend and colleague from 
Washington State, is a commonsense initiative.
  We are a nation of laws.
  Do we not respect the right to counsel?
  Yes, these are persons who are noncitizens, but they have the right, 
if in secondary detention, to call a relative, to call a lawyer, which 
they pay for.
  What about little Ali?
  As I rushed to the airport on that fateful day when the President of 
the United States, President Trump, declared that all Muslims were 
banned, what an outrageous experience; and an outrageous experience 
that I have had with other entries that have been detained, where they 
couldn't call an uncle or aunt, they couldn't call their mother, their 
father, their wife.
  Well, little Ali could not call his relatives that were outside the 
gate waiting for him.
  Where did that 15-year-old Egyptian with documented papers wind up?
  He wound up in Chicago, in a children's detention facility.
  So I support the right to counsel, H.R. 1573, the Access to Counsel 
Act.
  And, finally, H.R. 1333. Ali came under the Bagram ban by President 
Trump; let's just say it, an outrageous act. We literally got off the 
plane, Members of Congress who were flying in from Washington, and 
rushed to the airport because of what was happening to our 
constituents.
  I support the NO BAN Act under H.R. 1333, and I ask my colleagues to 
support this legislation. The Constitution reigns.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, there was talk about retrocession. 
There can be arguments that the former retrocession was actually 
unconstitutional. In fact, the House of Representatives tried to pass a 
bill to say just that. It passed, and it, unfortunately, sat in the 
Senate Judiciary Committee without passing and challenges to the 
Supreme Court were dismissed on procedural grounds.
  Additionally, we have to remember the many reasons why the District 
is just that, a district. It is because the Founding Fathers did not 
want to create an imperial State that would have too much influence and 
control over the Capitol.
  My colleague from Maryland actually wrote about this in 1990 in a law 
review article published in the Catholic University Law Review. ``The 
Representatives from the new State, likely living minutes from their 
offices, will theoretically devote more time to institutional and 
committee politics and less to constant travel back and forth across 
the country, increasing their importance and influence on Capitol 
Hill.''
  That was my colleague from Maryland. That is not my assertion.
  If D.C. does become a State, Madam Speaker, you will create almost by 
definition a super Congressman in this body and two super Senators that 
yield much more influence than others who have to travel back and forth 
to their district.
  Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko).
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, the underlying legislation we are 
considering in this rule is extremely alarming. We have two out-of-
touch immigration bills that do nothing to address our current 
immigration crisis, and then we have a partisan priority that reeks of 
the swamp and is simply unconstitutional.
  H.R. 1333 restricts any President's authority to suspend entry into 
the United States from certain foreign nationals for national security 
or public health reasons putting the safety of Americans at risk.
  With H.R. 1573, it appears my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle plan to address the crisis at our southern border by sending in 
the lawyers. President Biden created this crisis with his policies, and 
this bill just continues to encourage more people to come and cross our 
border illegally.

[[Page H1975]]

  We wrap up this rule with the most ridiculous legislation of all, the 
unconstitutional H.R. 51. Our Founders envisioned our Nation's Capitol 
set apart from the States and enshrined that in our Constitution. No 
action by this body can make Washington, D.C. a State, nor is there a 
reason to take such action other than to ensure the Democratic Party 
receives two more seats in the United States Senate.
  Madam Speaker, I stand in opposition to the underlying bill, and I 
urge my colleagues to vote against the rule.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, first of all, I rise in strong support of 
this resolution. It makes in order that we will not discriminate 
against people based upon their religion or the State from which they 
come or the nation from which they come. It says not at our cost, but 
at their cost they have the right to consult counsel. That seems to me 
to be a basic premise in America.
  Then, thirdly, which we hear so much lamentation about, it gives to 
700,000-plus people in the District of Columbia equal status with the 
500,000 people in Wyoming. How terrible. Now, perhaps if my friends 
from the other side of the aisle, Madam Speaker, thought that there 
were going to be two Republican Senators elected, they would be for it. 
I say perhaps, but I believe there is no doubt about that.
  I am proud to be a strong supporter of that legislation, and I will 
tell my Republican friends who talk about human rights around the world 
so often--properly so--that Washington, D.C., is the only capital in 
the free world whose residents do not have a representative in the 
parliament of their country--the only one.
  There is no reason why the gentlewoman who sits in front of me, 
Eleanor Holmes Norton--who is an extraordinary American and an 
extraordinary patriot who serves her Nation so incredibly well and is 
elected by those 700,000 people--why she is less than we because 
Eleanor Holmes Norton cannot vote on final passage of a bill.
  Now, I did, as the majority leader, at least give her the respect and 
the respect to others who are representatives of their particular 
areas--Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana 
Islands--the right to vote in the Committee of the Whole to let them 
know at least in that small way we wanted to give voice to the folks 
they represent.
  So I rise in strong support of this rule. We have passed these bills 
before. Republicans opposed them before, and they will oppose them 
again. I am not surprised.
  Madam Speaker, before I sit, however, I want to speak about another 
issue. We are expecting the Republican leader to offer a privileged 
resolution at the conclusion of the debate on this rule. I am 
disappointed at that news. His resolution is being used by Republicans 
to posit a moral equivalence between a comment by the gentlewoman from 
California about standing up for justice and peaceful protest and 
remarks by Representative Greene who directly threatened violence by 
retweeting a tweet. I understand it was not her words, but she 
retweeted those words which said that if you want to shut Pelosi up, a 
bullet to the head will accomplish that objective. She didn't say it. I 
want to make that clear. She retweeted a tweet that said that.
  Even more egregiously, it is being used to twist reality to suggest 
that somehow Congresswoman Waters' remark is as condemnable a remark as 
rhetoric that incites a violent attempt to overthrow the government of 
the United States on January 6, an action that Republicans refuse to 
condemn. There is no equivalence.
  Chairwoman Waters' remarks reflect the very profound anger and sense 
of hopelessness that she and so many others--myself included--feel when 
we see African Americans being killed during encounters with our law 
enforcement and their families not seeing justice.
  It is my understanding we are going to get a ruling almost perhaps 
any minute. We will see.
  It is, however, irresponsible to take Chairwoman Waters' remarks out 
of context just to hold a gotcha partisan vote, particularly when no 
action was taken by her party regarding Mrs. Greene's remarks.
  It is, frankly, exploiting the pain of so many families and 
communities to turn Chairwoman Waters' concern for justice into a 
partisan cudgel.
  As my friend, the dearly departed Elijah Cummings used to say and 
would surely say now, ``We are better than this.''
  So when the minority leader offers his motion, I will offer a motion 
to table and urge all my colleagues to support that motion.
  I urge all of my colleagues to pick up their dictionary, turn to the 
Cs, and look up confront. Confront is to face the facts. Confront is to 
face the truth. Confront is to face the challenges that we have, and 
that is what Ms. Waters urged.
  I would suggest to my friend, the minority leader, Madam Speaker, 
that if confrontation is subject to sanction, then we are going to have 
a lot of people on his side of the aisle who we believe are 
confrontational every day.
  Confront is not violence. Confront is not waving guns and some 
groups' biggest fear. Confront is not to say to be violent in 
confronting the facts, the truth, the opportunities, and the 
challenges, and, yes, the alternatives that we all take.
  So if one of us stands up and says that we need to confront this and 
we need to be confrontational and we need to get up in people's faces 
and say: This is the truth and we need to act and that would be subject 
to admonition, then I suggest to my friend, Madam Speaker, and my 
friends in this House, that we all confront.
  We came here to represent people and to confront their needs, to 
confront their fears, and to confront their wants. Now, yes, you could 
say, well, that is advocacy. Of course, it is. So I ask my friends not 
only to vote for this rule, but to vote for the motion to table my 
friend's motion that I anticipate.
  We could spend all our time here, Madam Speaker. We have been on this 
side of the aisle, as my friend, the leader knows, and we haven't had 
all the resolutions that have been introduced on my side of the aisle. 
This makes it harder, however, not to proceed on numerous resolutions 
on my side of the aisle. Let us table this resolution on behalf of this 
institution and every Member in it.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve 
the balance of my time to close.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Madam Speaker, it is interesting to hear my colleague from Maryland's 
newfound positions because, in the 1990s, I believe the majority leader 
actually had the opposite viewpoint and took the opposite vote. But 
then again, things can change, and so can opinions.
  It is also interesting to hear my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle use D.C.'s population as some justification for D.C. statehood. 
We know that the Founding Fathers knew that D.C. would grow into a 
large metropolis.
  George Washington, when he was laying out the land use of the city, 
he actually used Paris as the example for the city, which was at the 
time 800,000 residents. They used one of the biggest cities in Europe 
as an example of the city because they knew the District of Columbia 
would grow into a thriving metropolis. Yet, they still wanted to carve 
out D.C. as an independent district, not as a State. The argument that 
there are now some 700,000 residents of D.C. is a nonstarter if you are 
going back to the historical intent of the Founding Fathers.
  But let's talk about the border crisis. There has been a 400 percent 
increase in illegal border crossings compared to March 2020. Yet, 
today, we are considering a rule bringing up two immigration bills that 
do absolutely nothing to address this crisis.
  Again, we are calling up a rule on H.R. 51 that is the Democrat's 
unconstitutional attempt to ram through D.C. statehood for their own 
political gain. What is that gain? It is very simple. It is bringing in 
two ultraliberal Senators. D.C. is the most liberal city, second only 
to San Francisco, and this bill bringing two ultraliberal Senators into 
the Senate with the idea of abolishing the filibuster is to what end? 
To pack the Supreme Court to ram through a far-left, radical agenda.

[[Page H1976]]

  For those reasons, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' 
on the previous question and ``no'' on the underlying measure. I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, let me start by saying that the majority leader hardly 
needs me to defend him, but I know that he was a strong supporter of 
the D.C. voting rights constitutional amendment where there was 
actually bipartisan support.
  In those days, Republicans understood the grievous injustice being 
perpetrated against the people of Washington, D.C., and they supported 
granting people in D.C. two Senators, or what my colleague would call 
two ultraliberal Senators, as well as the Representatives in the House 
to which they were due.
  There were certainly people who were saying there were other ways of 
accomplishing it. Now, unfortunately, that bipartisan consensus 
collapsed even though it passed the Senate and the House back in the 
day. I don't hear any of my colleagues saying they are for it now.
  Mr. Hoyer, the majority leader, is supporting the only viable vehicle 
for getting equal rights for people in Washington, D.C., that exists 
today, which is statehood, which is how 37 new States entered the Union 
with Congress' exercise of its powers under Article IV of the 
Constitution.
  The gentleman waxed eloquent about the vision of a great Capital 
City, but being a strict textualist, I assume that he wants to pay some 
attention to the text of the Constitution. Article I, Section 8, Clause 
17, the District Clause, sets a maximum, a ceiling that the District 
may be no more than 10 miles square, but there is no minimum there. It 
didn't say it must be at least 6 miles square or 2 miles square or 3 
miles. No, that is up to Congress. In other words, it is a political 
question within congressional power, our plenary power, over the 
District of Columbia.
  Finally, the gentleman, I suppose, gets to the heart of the matter 
when he says that, for him, it is all about two ultraliberal Senators. 
I would ask every Member of this body to think about that for a second, 
reflect on that. In America, I don't think we deny people voting rights 
based on how they are going to vote. I don't think we deny entire 
States and political communities representation based on predictions of 
who they might elect.
  In fact, there is a Supreme Court case about that called Carrington 
v. Rash. When armed services members in Texas were disenfranchised 
because it was suggested they would vote in a way more identified with 
the national government than with local cultural values in Texas, the 
Supreme Court struck it down and said that, in American democracy, we 
do not allow government to disenfranchise people based on predictions 
of how they are going to vote or who they are going to elect.
  That is precisely what the gentleman invites us to do here, to deny 
712,000 taxpaying, draftable U.S. citizens, who came to our aid on 
January 6, to deny them their equal rights under the Union, under the 
flag, because he predicts that they are going to elect people whose 
policy views are contrary to his own.
  Madam Speaker, I would suggest that is totally antithetical to the 
meaning of American constitutional democracy. Everyone should take a 
walk around Washington. You will see flags in the yards of all the 
people here, yards that we pass by every day when we come to 
Washington, and they say, ``D.C. 51.'' They want their statehood. Let's 
listen to the people of Washington.
  If you can't quite stomach that, then read the Republican Party 
platform itself, which calls for Puerto Rican statehood, and let's see 
if we can do it together. Let's bring in millions of disenfranchised 
people in America.
  Still, I get radio silence from my colleagues on that. Not a single 
one will opine about whether or not the people of Puerto Rico should be 
admitted as a State.
  Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the 
rule and the previous question.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Reschenthaler is as 
follows:

                   Amendment to House Resolution 330

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 8. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the 
     House shall resolve into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     2321) to direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to 
     establish a plan to respond to irregular migration surges at 
     the border, to establish an irregular migration surge border 
     response fund, and for other purposes. The first reading of 
     the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Homeland Security. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill are waived. When the committee rises and reports the 
     bill back to the House with a recommendation that the bill do 
     pass, the previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
     the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit. If the 
     Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to 
     no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day 
     the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of 
     business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the 
     Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 9. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 2321.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question 
are postponed.

                          ____________________