Providing for Consideration of H.R. Washington, D.C. Admission Act; Providing for Consideration of H.R. Access to Counsel Act of Providing for Consideration of H.R. National Origin-Based Antidiscrimination for Nonimmigrants Act; and for Other Purposes

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source