Committee on House Administration Full Committee Markup of Various Measures

The Committee on House Administration will come to order. I note that a quorum is present. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. Today, the Committee on House Administration will consider two separate pieces of legislation. These bills will increase transparency with the American people, establish a new location for the Smithsonian Museum. In consultation with my colleague, the ranking member, we'll be pulling off the Legislative Branch Agency Reform, but working to remedy that and come back with what I think will be a great piece of legislation that will address some of those concerns. First, we'll consider H.R. 5891, the Withhold Member Pay During Shutdowns Act. This legislation prohibits members from collecting pay during a lapse in appropriations. Last fall, I think as everybody here recalls, we had the longest government shutdown in history. We're now in a partial shutdown. The Department of Homeland Security hasn't been funded since February 14. It's been 32 days since TSA agents have been fully and properly compensated. This is at a time during which we should be securing and protecting the homeland. Schumer and Democrats in the Senate are playing politics with DHS funding. We all know the spending process in Washington is broken, and the Withhold Member Pay During Shutdowns Act starts to fix the broken system. The bill ensures that no members collect a paycheck while hardworking federal employees are being forced to work without their pay. I'm thankful to my colleagues on their feedback on this common sense legislation and look forward to discussing it further today. Next, we'll consider H.R. 1329, the Smithsonian American Women's History Act. The Smithsonian Women's History Museum Act. This legislation allows the Smithsonian to move forward with construction of the future museum to recognize and honor the contributions of American women. It's all the more exciting that we're considering this legislation during our nation's 250th anniversary. Finally, we were going to be considering H.R. 6028, the Legislative Branch Agency's Clarification Act, which was introduced by my colleague, Morgan Griffith. That process, in consultation with my friend, the ranking member, Mr. Morelle, we're going to pull that legislation, work towards some amendments and adjustments, and then come back to this committee with a final product that I think has a real opportunity to pass in a bipartisan way. These are the types of reforms I think that this committee historically has done a great job of, finding ways where all of us across the aisle can look and determine how we can make improvements in the operation of legislative branch agencies, from GPO to Library of Congress and including the Copyright Office. And so I thank my colleagues for being here today, appreciate their engagement in all of these important pieces of legislation on both sides of the aisle, and look forward to discussing the legislation further. I'll yield back and I'll now recognize the ranking member, Mr. Morelle, for five minutes for the purpose of making an opening statement.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening us today, and I'll have a little bit more to say about the bills that we're considering. First, I want to thank you for your consideration and taking off, at least for a short time, the conversation around the Library of Congress appointments, et cetera. And I do note that even when we had the conversation about one of the bills on the calendar today, the withholding pay of legislators during shutdowns, that you were very helpful in pulling that. I think we were going to consider that several weeks ago. We pulled it down and now have a bipartisan agreement. And so I think wherever we can on issues that all of us care deeply about, come together in a bipartisan way and demonstrate that we can, in fact, move ahead on many issues that our committee, the Congress, and more importantly, the American people care about. So I'm really grateful to you for your continued indulgence and hopefully we'll have a product that I think we all can be supportive of and that serves the needs, again, of the Congress and of the American people. I did want to take a moment, if I can, using my time just to talk about congressional capacity because some of the issues that we're talking about involve that. And you know, it, I think about this a lot and I appreciate the modernization committee efforts led by Ms. Bice and our ranking member, Ms. Torres, because we're in an era, particularly given the Supreme Court, and I talk about this probably ad nauseam, but the decision in Bright-Loper to end Chevron deference means that the court is really pushing us to offer more detailed and technically precise laws. And we're doing it without more legislative attorneys and without more subject matter experts and being forced to do more with less. Someday I'd like us to do more with more, and I'll continue making that advocacy here and in the Appropriations Committee. But using the various agencies we're aligned with, whether it's the Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, et cetera, do allow us to have that expertise and access to information that maybe we can't quite do right now given the financial constraints that we face. But it is going to become more important, and if we're going to fulfill the mandate that the Supreme Court has given us and we avoid having every legislative decision determined ultimately in district and circuit courts and ultimately by the Supreme Court, we need to be much more adept at utilizing outside resources when available and hopefully in some way at some point being able to give more resources to the Congress itself. So a number of these touch on it, particularly the bill that we are going to try to come back and see if we can't get agreement on. But I think it is important just looking at the big picture. This institution, the Congress, Article I, in which we bear such responsibility to the American people, we are, as you know, no one on this panel needs to be reminded, closest to the people. Every other year they get to make a decision on their representatives and we're the closest thing to the people in this government. And so while more is being asked of us, if we're going to fulfill our obligations and our duties and our responsibilities, we're going to need to make sure we have access to the best minds, the brightest minds, and we do it in a way that is entirely consistent with our mission. So appreciate that, appreciate the time, and grateful again for your willingness to continue to work on these important issues to reach compromise and make sure we end in bipartisan agreement.

Gentleman yields back. Appreciate my colleague's comments, and I think we, although we don't always agree on all policy areas, I think we both agree on the importance of Article I powers of the Congress and appreciate your work in that regard. I'll now call up H.R. 5891, the Withhold Member Pay During Shutdowns Act. The clerk will please report the bill.

H.R. 5891, to reduce the annual rate of...

Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with, and also without objection, the bill should be considered as read and open to amendment at any point. I have an amendment in the nature of a substitute at the desk. The clerk will please report the amendment.

Amendment to H.R. 5891...

Without objection, the amendment in the nature of a substitute is considered as read and will serve as base text for the purposes of further amendment. I'll now recognize myself to speak on the ANS. So let's set the stage. Last Friday was payday for millions of federal workers. Unfortunately, over 100,000 of those hardworking federal employees did not get paid, but they were still required to show up for work. That's not a problem for lawmakers, of course, who under the Constitution get paid even when there's a shutdown. So while federal workers are required to show up to work and not get paid, members of Congress are under current law receiving their paycheck if they don't defer their pay. That's not right, it's not fair, and the Withhold Members Pay During Shutdown Act fixes it. This bill makes clear your member of Congress will not receive a paycheck if hardworking men and women of the federal government are required to show up for work and not get paid. Right now, as I think everybody knows, we're in a partial government shutdown. All the while, American forces are actively engaged in armed conflict with Iran, the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism. And our homeland's under serious threat, but the Department of Homeland Security has not been funded since February 14. Again, over 100,000 Department of Homeland Security employees are working without pay. It's impacting Americans across the board. It's impacting American travelers who are showing up to airports and finding long lines because some of those TSA workers are calling in sick so that they can go do another job and actually get paid. Many of us, many of us likely felt the impact ourselves when traveling to Washington, D.C., depending on what airport you came in from. Some people are reportedly sleeping in their cars to wake up early to get into the airport so that they can make their flight. Some of these TSA workers have health concerns, one is battling cancer, couldn't keep up with their payments for their insurance. These are real substantive problems that have been created by the Schumer shutdown. Last fall, we went through the nation's longest government shutdown in history. Federal law enforcement then, in addition to air traffic controllers and countless of other federal employees, went without pay for over a month. But again, unless you're a member of Congress asked for their pay to be withheld, they still got paid. To me, that's unacceptable. Now, the spending process in Washington is completely broken, but this bill is common sense and it's one step that we can take to start to break the gridlock here in Washington, D.C. And while my colleagues and I, I suspect, disagree on the cause of the shutdown, and probably viscerally so, I think we can all agree that changes need to be made. That members of Congress should not be receiving their pay while hardworking federal employees are required to show up but aren't receiving their pay. And I want to just take a pause and thank not only the ranking member for his work on this legislation, we came forward before with similar text and we dialogued through this and despite some of the partisan gridlock that exists on the Hill and probably our disagreement on why there is a lapse in pay for hardworking TSA agents, I think we, I appreciate his work on this that we both agree, and I think all of us here agree, that members of Congress shouldn't be receiving their pay when hardworking Americans are required to show up and not receive theirs. And I think this is a real opportunity for us to make real reforms, force members of both sides of the aisle to come together, reach a resolution on behalf of the American people, and the preventing members from receiving their paychecks while hardworking Americans aren't receiving theirs, I think is a meaningful step forward in breaking the gridlock in Washington, D.C. I'll yield back and ask if there's other members that seek recognition. I recognize the ranking member for five minutes on the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do support this measure and am grateful for the opportunity to dialogue with you, and I know that Ms. Bice had a great deal of input into this as well, I want to thank her because we had conversations about some earlier drafts. But I do support this. I want to make a couple of observations about it. I think we do probably vehemently disagree on the reasons. My good friends on the other side of the aisle control the entire entities of the federal government, both the White House, both branches of the United States Congress, and despite that, we had one of the longest shutdowns in American history. A shutdown that hurt people and families in ways that I suspect we haven't even fully appreciated or realized yet, and we should do everything we can to make sure it doesn't happen again. And I agree, I think the appropriation process is in many, many ways broken, and maybe there's more that we can do in that space to structurally change the way it's done to avoid this. Right now, we're in shutdown because we cannot get members across the aisle to recognize that there needs to be reforms to ICE and the agents which have caused no end to problems around the United States that led to the deaths of U.S. citizens who protest some of the worst abuses of ICE agents. And we think there are ways to get to a reasonable place here in reforming that and having them act in ways that every single law enforcement department across the United States behaves. And I think we're going to continue to push that. And in fact, the way to resolve the issues that my friend talked about is to sign a discharge petition that Rosa DeLauro, who's the ranking Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, will have on the floor today, which will fund TSA, which will fund the Coast Guard, which will fund FEMA, but still require us to have a negotiation about the reforms that we, not only we believe on our side of the aisle, but the American people believe ought to happen. So, so, and we'll, that, that debate will continue outside of this room. But, and frankly, to, to your point, no one sitting in this committee room decided that members should collect their regularly scheduled salaries regardless of the operating posture of the federal government. The Constitution made that decision 239 years ago. Personally, I don't like it, and I sympathize with our staffs and other federal employees who bear the financial consequences of Congress's failing to do its most basic duty. And in the state legislature, when I was in Albany, I helped pass a law which did the same thing at the state level and had my pay withheld as my colleagues did during periods where there were budget impasses. So, and, and a number of us already have our pay voluntarily withheld. I do it, I know a number of others do. So this is our basic responsibility, and we should have to bear the consequences that our, our colleagues, whether it's our staff or other federal employees, do. I will say this, just in, in, to, and I'm musing a little bit about this, but I do worry a little bit about the other branch because this takes two branches of government to have an appropriation bill signed into law. If a president, not this one, but any future president, would make the decision that they wanted to be punitive because they're upset about what's in the appropriation bills or they're upset with Congress about other things, could withhold, and then we would have done our job, House and Senate agree and sent a congressionally approved funding bill to the president who could be vetoed and only would have to veto one of the 12 appropriation bills in order to make certain that members were, were, had their pay withheld. I would hope that wouldn't happen, but suggesting some things that I thought would never happen in America are happening, and some things that I would never have thought a White House would do is, is, is being done. So it doesn't take a lot of imagination anymore to think about things that are without precedent. But, and I do think ultimately the American people need to trust in this, and I think that trust only comes when we're prepared to submit ourselves to the same rules that other people are submitted to. So I support the measure, I recommend my colleagues vote yes on the issue because damage to the country caused by a government shutdown is significant, and the trust of the American people is vital if we're going to continue to function and serve in the, in the manner that our founders intended. So I will support it, I appreciate again your indulgence and your, your hard work to make sure that this was a, a bipartisan approach, and with that, I'll yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Do other members seek recognition for amendment or debate? Ms. Lee is recognized on the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it is significant to take just a moment and speak to some of the factual underpinnings of the current government shutdown. It has been said that Republicans control both chambers of Congress and the White House and that somehow that is related to the current shutdown. And I feel it is very important to clarify the actual factual background of what got us here because it is true that this shutdown is incredibly damaging to the American people and in fact dangerous for the American people because it's not just ICE that is affected. It's not just the policy dispute about best practices and the attempts to negotiate reforms that's affected. It's so much deeper than that. The Department of Homeland Security was created in the wake of 9/11 to help protect the American homeland from future attacks, to help protect the American people. There is no more important job that we have. Embedded within the Department of Homeland Security is not just ICE, and not even just ICE and TSA. There are other places, other things that are happening there, including CISA, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, including the Coast Guard. All of those components are right now being understaffed and in many cases not paid. And when we come to the discussion about why, facts matter. The reality is that Republicans and Democrats in Congress negotiated a bipartisan appropriations bill that funded the Department of Homeland Security. If we go back and look at the vote history, what has happened? Ultimately, we were able to pass this bill out of the House because a handful of Democrats voted with us, but look at the board. Who voted in support of funding the Department of Homeland Security and who didn't? And the same is true in the Senate. Who has supported funding the Department of Homeland Security and who has not? And the facts are crystal clear. This is, from beginning to middle to end to this moment, a Democrat-driven shutdown. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

The gentlewoman yields back. Do other members seek recognition? Ms. Torres seeks recognition for five minutes to speak on the bill.

Thank you, Chairman. I would not miss an opportunity to be able to discuss this important issue. I serve in the United States Congress, a body where a 911 dispatcher can be elected and hold the same voting power as the wealthiest member in Congress, someone who might have bought their way to Congress because they could fund their own campaign. So let's look at the bigger picture of what is happening here. It started with the falsehood of a SAVE Act because Republicans have said that there are cheaters, that there are people that are voting in elections and making changes that should not be elect, electing certain members to Congress. Who are they talking about? Are they talking about the richest members of Congress, or are they talking about the 911 dispatcher who had to struggle and campaign and go door-to-door to get here? Are they talking about the teacher who in between teaching in a classroom was able to get themselves here? So while we're talking about setting the stage, let's look at setting the stage where the richest members of Congress who have been allowed to trade in the stock market while influencing bills that are passing, that are getting passed through the House and passed through the Senate. These are the people that Republican, the Republican majority is prioritizing yet again. Now, let's set the record straight about why the Department of Homeland Security is not, has not been funded. Yes, Democrats are fighting to bring back civility in the streets of America. But Republicans have prioritized violence and the murdered of American citizens by federal agents. Why? Because dissent. Because these brave Americans dared to stand up against the policies that they continue to shove down your throats. The price of milk is up, the price of eggs is up, the price of insurance is unaffordable, and here we are sitting in Congress talking about things that are not the top priority of American families. While we can agree that no one should get paid during a government shutdown, and I have been to this dance before, Chairman, as a former state legislator in California, for seven months I took a payday loan to, to get, to be able to pay for my mortgage because we were in a government shutdown. I agree, these brave Americans that are on the front line of security, keeping the flying, the travelers safe, should be getting paid. So shame on those who tried to once again take a cheap shot as to the reason why we are in a shutdown. We are in a shutdown absolutely because I refuse to allow the federal agents to continue to murder Americans on American soil. And with that, I will yield back to the Chairman.

The gentlewoman yields back. Does any other member seek recognition for amendment or debate? Ms. Johnson seeks recognition for five minutes to discuss the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are, I want to address a few points that were made. You know, we're in a government shutdown right now with the Department of Homeland Security because ICE is out of control, because Republicans refuse to rein them in, because they're consistently violating the due process rights of Americans in this country over and over and over again. And Democrats are, we're not going to fund it. Now, this notion that FEMA, TSA, the Coast Guard deserves to be funded, absolutely. And Democrats have offered five different times to fund these independently because these agencies are important. They are fundamentally important. Our air traffic control is important. And Republicans have refused time and time and time again. And today, we're going to have a discharge petition by Representative DeLauro on the floor that funds all of these very important agencies, that funds FEMA, that funds TSA, that funds the Coast Guard. And Republicans, I bet you every single one of you are going to refuse to sign it. So this is just hollow notion of talk about how important these agencies are when you're refusing to fund it when you have an absolute opportunity to do so. ICE must be completely overhauled. And Republicans have refused to engage in that meaningful debate, and that is why we are here, and that is why we are in a shutdown. And Democrats are having pathways to get the American people out of this process, and Republicans are refusing to do it. And that is, that is the truth, American people. That is why we are here. And but we're not going to tolerate the gross abuses that are happening. I had a man die in my district over the weekend. He was from a, he's an Afghan hero who served bravely alongside our American forces and was part of an Afghan evac program when the U.S. military left Afghanistan. He's been here in this country. He was picked up. He has no criminal convictions. He has six kids. He was working in Dallas. He was picked up on a, on a morning driving his kids to school, and he was dead 24 hours later. That is not okay, and that is not supposed to happen in this country. And as long as that kind of stuff is happening, we will not fund ICE. Period, full stop. We will not do it. But we do want to fund FEMA, we do want to fund TSA, we do want to fund the Coast Guard, and we have vehicles to do that, but Republicans are going to refuse to do it, so their talk doesn't mean anything. Thank you, and I yield back.

The gentlewoman yields back. Do any other members seek recognition for amendment or debate? There being no further amendment or debate, the question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, nay.

Nay.

The opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted. The question now occurs on ordering H.R. 5891, as amended, reporting favorable to the House. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, no.

No.

The opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The ayes have it, and the motion to report is agreed to.

A roll call vote is requested.

A roll call vote is requested, and the clerk will please call the roll.

Chairman Steil.

Aye.

Chairman Steil votes aye. Ms. Lee.

Aye.

Ms. Lee votes aye. Mr. Loudermilk.

Aye.

Mr. Loudermilk votes aye. Mr. Griffith. Dr. Murphy.

Aye.

Dr. Murphy votes aye. Mrs. Bice.

Aye.

Mrs. Bice votes aye. Mr. Carey. Mrs. Miller.

Yes.

Mrs. Miller votes aye. Mr. Morelle.

Aye.

Mr. Morelle votes aye. Ms. Sewell.

Aye.

Ms. Sewell votes aye. Mrs. Torres.

Aye.

Mrs. Torres votes aye. Ms. Johnson.

Aye.

Ms. Johnson votes aye. Mr. Chairman, for this vote...

Does any member wish to change their vote? All members voted. The clerk will report the tally.

Mr. Chairman, for this vote, there are nine ayes and zero nos.

Thank you very much. H.R. 5891, as amended, is adopted. Majority having voted in favor of H.R. 5891, as amended, the bill is reported, is ordered favorably reported to the House. Without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. I'll now call up H.R. 1329, the Smithsonian American Women's Museum Act. The clerk will please report the bill.

H.R. 1329, to permit the Smithsonian American...

Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with. Also without objection, the bill shall be considered as read and open to amendment at any point. Representative Miller has an amendment in the nature of a substitute at the desk. The clerk will please report the amendment.

Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 13...

Without objection, the amendment in the nature of a substitute is considered as read and will serve as base text for the purposes of further amendment. Representative Miller is recognized for five minutes to speak on her amendment.

Thank you, Chairman Steil, for hosting this markup. For 250 years, American women have made significant contributions to our nation's history, economic prosperity, and greater society. It is time that these women have a dedicated museum in the nation's capital to honor their achievements. The original bill allows the Smithsonian to move forward with construction of the future museum. Importantly, the bill also puts guardrails in place to ensure this museum does not represent history in a partisan way. My amendment specifically ensures that only biological women are honored and celebrated in this museum. The accomplishments of real women should never be overshadowed by biological men pretending to be women. In addition to this important language, in addition to the important language changes this amendment makes, it also marks a specific location for the museum on the National Mall. The American Women's History Museum is an important addition to the Mall that will recognize the countless women who have given so much to our country. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment to begin the construction of the new Smithsonian American Women's History Museum. Thank you, and I yield back.

The gentlewoman yields back. Do other members seek recognition for amendment or debate? For what purposes does Mr. Morelle seek recognition?

To offer comments on the amendment.

Mr. Morelle is recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me begin by stating what I hope is obvious to everyone, the Smithsonian American Women's History Museum is long overdue and it absolutely deserves a place on the National Mall. And I will say, you know, we call the Mall, it's goes by the, you know, the term is often used that it's America's front yard. And I personally, and I suspect I share the view of all the members, absolutely love the Mall. Walking late at night sometimes you can go by and see folks playing kickball or touch football and people just out with families, flying kites. I mean, the Mall is an amazing place. Anybody who hasn't been to Washington to appreciate it should come and of course the memorials and monuments on the Mall are breathtaking as are so many Smithsonian institutes which are line the Mall. And the National Mall is also where our nation's story gets told. The triumphs and its struggles and American women have shaped every chapter of that story from my hometown's hero Susan B. Anthony and Abigail Adams to Rosa Parks and Dolores Huerta. That's why I support H.R. 1329 as introduced by my colleague from New York, Representative Malliotakis, as well as her companion bill H.R. 1330, which would make the same technical legislative fix to the National Museum of the American Latino Act. Together these bills correct a statutory anomaly that has stalled both museums and allow them to move forward on the Mall as Congress and this committee intended. Unfortunately, that is not the bill before us today and I'm extremely disappointed that the majority has needlessly politicized what has for years been bipartisan and a patriotic process. The bill we are considering today fundamentally alters Representative Malliotakis's legislation in four key ways and I'd like to take a moment to talk about the four different things that have happened in this bill that make this far less bipartisan and will lead me unfortunately to oppose the bill. First, it completely omits the National Museum of the American Latino. An egregious omission which we will address in more detail shortly, but it is so disappointing as those both of those museums have been moving along alongside one another and both are critically important to telling America's story. Secondly, it grants the president unprecedented, unilateral, unchecked authority to disregard the Smithsonian's recommended site and pick his own. And frankly, the president has I think contrary to the wishes of the American people stepped into the Smithsonian. He is trying to regulate history. He's trying to whitewash history and so I think letting the president make determinations about America's history is something we completely reject. Third, it turns control over the museum's design and construction over to boards that are stacked now with political loyalists who have already shown they will rubber stamp whatever the president wants as we've seen with the desecration of the White House and the destruction of the iconic East Wing. Done without outside counsel, the president apparently thinks that America's house is his house and he'll do whatever he wants to it and that is something we simply cannot allow here as it relates to the Smithsonian. And fourth, it inserts a politically charged poison pill intended to dictate what the museum can and cannot say about women's history. This is especially unfortunate in light of the bill's legislative history. In 2019, the committee first authorized the Women's History Museum. Democrats accepted an amendment from our colleague Representative Loudermilk requiring the museum to, and I'm quoting, to reflect the diversity of the political viewpoints held by women of the United States. That same language appears in this bill and in the Latino Museum legislation. But we are considering today makes clear what viewpoint diversity really meant, only viewpoints that House Republicans agree with. Hardly diversity. Let's be honest what's happening here. If the goal were to truly move the museum forward, we would not be abandoning the bipartisan process that has brought us to the brink of construction. We would not be considering a bill with an ideological poison pill. We would not exclude the Latino Museum and we would not be giving Donald Trump of all people the authority to pick a location, building design, and dictate what kind of history we remember and we reflect on. Just consider the broader context for a moment. Last year the White House issued a so-called executive order pressuring the Smithsonian to rewrite history as the president sees fit, suggesting museums should avoid telling the most uncomfortable chapters of our history. It's Orwellian and it's fundamentally misunderstands both the role of museums and the preeminent status of the Smithsonian Institute. So the question before us is simple. Who should decide what appears in the Smithsonian? Who decides what the museum goes and what it looks like? Should it be historians, scholars, and curators or should it be somebody who complains publicly that the Smithsonian focuses too much on how bad slavery was and who was taking a literal wrecking ball to some of the most dignified and important landmarks in America? So I'll I'll I'll cut to the chase. I wish this was bipartisan. I wish we could pass it. I wish we could support it, but sadly these amendments have made it impossible to do and frankly if this doesn't become law I promise you this, once the Democrats retake the majority we will pass both bills and we'll do it the right way. With that I yield back.

The gentleman yields back. Do any other members seek recognition for amendment or debate? Ms. Sewell, for what purposes does Ms. Sewell seek recognition?

I seek recognition to talk about this amendment.

The gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes.

The significance of women in our nation's story has long been overlooked, underappreciated, and even outright ignored. It was Eleanor Roosevelt who said no one can give you or make you feel inferior without your consent. By having a women's museum, we are standing up and saying we do not consent to the fact that the story of women, all women, being told on the National Mall is so important that we are moving forward with the bill that was introduced by Nicole Malliotakis that would actually get this done. I sit on this committee because I know how important administration is, but you know, I have to say I was very disappointed in this particular bill because it didn't have to have a poison pill. You didn't it didn't have to have give the the the the president unilateral authority to choose the spot in which it's going to actually be housed. That's just unacceptable, especially given the fact that this particular president has already shown himself to to not really care about real history. I should say his he is he is about his story, not her story or history as we know it. The construction of the Smithsonian Women's Museum is an opportunity to to accurately capture and tell the full narrative of how women have made real and indelible contributions to our country at every turn and corner since its inception. Women everywhere continue to break barriers and defy odds across all sectors of our nation and we do so, do so proudly as Americans. I am glad to be a co-sponsor of H.R. 1329, a bipartisan bill that would actually put the Women's Museum on the National Mall. Very close to actually being passed. I feel like this particular bill and as amended would stymie that process and I unfortunately will be voting no on this bill. Look forward to getting back on the right track and and supporting H.R. 1329, the bipartisan bill. I think that when we think about the Mall as my colleague said, the Mall tells a story of America and it should tell the complete story of America. And to do so would require us to have not only a Women's Museum on the National Mall, but a Latino Museum on the National Mall as well. And Mr. Chairman, it took so long for the African American Museum that we now have on the nation's Mall for that bill to be passed. And I would hope that given the I think unanimous, you know, support of having a Women's Museum that we won't have take as much time to actually pass a bill to get that done. In fact, I just want to go on the record as saying that this is an imperative. Getting a Women's National Museum on the National Mall is an imperative as well as that of a Latino Museum. And I look forward to this to this committee approving bills that are not political statements but rather are really, really dedicated to getting the job done of of memorializing the amazing contributions of women. Thank you, with that I yield back the balance of my time.

The gentlewoman yields back. Do other members seek recognition for amendment or debate? Representative Lee, for what purposes do you seek recognition?

Move to strike the last word.

The gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I speak today in support of the creation of the Smithsonian museum dedicated to the history of American women. Before coming to Congress, I had the privilege of serving as Florida's Secretary of State. In that role, I oversaw our state's cultural and historical resources, including museums, artifacts, and archives that preserve the story of Florida and the people who helped shape it. That experience gave me a deep appreciation for how important it is that we preserve our history carefully and tell it well. Museums are not simply a collection of objects. They are places where we remember who we are, where we came from, and the values that guided our country forward. The story of America cannot be fully told without the story of American women, because women have always helped shape this nation, even when their contributions were not fully recognized. From the earliest days of our country, women have contributed in extraordinary ways, often without recognition and sometimes without even the right to participate fully in civic life. Women led families, built communities, served in times of war, advanced science and medicine, strengthened our economy, and helped expand the promise of liberty for our next generation. Yet for much of our history, their stories too often have been told only in the margins. Today, women serve in leadership roles across every field of American life, but the progress has been hard-won. In Congress, for example, the numbers tell a remarkable story. Since the founding of our nation, roughly 12,000 Americans have served in Congress, yet only about 450, a little less than, have been women. That statistic is striking. It reminds us that the full participation of women in our national institutions is something that has largely unfolded within our lifetimes. And as someone who has spent much of her career in male-dominated professions, as a prosecutor, as a judge, and now here, I know personally how meaningful it is when young women can look and see the stories of those who came before them. Representation matters, but so does remembrance. The stories we preserve shape what the next generation believes is possible. A museum dedicated to the history of American women would not simply celebrate famous names. It would tell the broader story of the countless women, teachers, entrepreneurs, scientists, soldiers, mothers, and public servants whose perseverance and courage helped shape this nation. Those stories deserve a permanent place among the institutions that tell the American story. When we preserve these stories, we are not simply looking backward. We are helping the next generation see what is possible. As the mother of a teenage daughter, I often think about the examples that she sees and the stories that she learns about the women who helped shape our country. May they know us. May they see what is possible. And may they go further than we ever dreamed. When young girls walk through the doors of the Smithsonian and see the contributions of women woven into the fabric of our national history, they will understand something important, that they too are part of that story. For those reasons, I am proud to support this effort. I commend my colleague on her efforts here today, and I look forward to the day when Americans from across the country can visit a museum that honors the remarkable legacy of women in the United States. Thank you, and I yield back.

The gentlewoman yields back. For what purpose does Representative Torres seek recognition?

Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

The... we will pause while the amendment's distributed. The clerk will report the amendment.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature...

Without objection, the amendment is considered as read.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

The gentlewoman from Florida reserves a point of order. The gentlewoman is recognized on her amendment for five minutes.

Thank you, Chairman. My amendment combines two bipartisan bills authored by Representative Nicole Malliotakis, H.R. 1329, the Smithsonian American Women's History Museum Act, and H.R. 1330, the Smithsonian National Museum of the American Latino Act. Together, they correct the exact same legislative anomaly that has been used to stall both museums. The amendment removes those barriers and finally allows design and construction to move forward on the National Mall. From their inception, Congress has treated these two museums as paired efforts. They were authorized in the same law, and every legislative fix has addressed them together because they belong together. We cannot tell the story of America fully or honestly while treating the contributions of American women and American Latinos as an afterthought. To advance one without the other or delay both is a direct dismissal of the hardworking Americans who built this country. The National Mall is where American stories belong. To suggest otherwise or to let these bills languish ignores the overwhelming bipartisan mandate this body has already established. The original Women's History Museum authorization had 293 cosponsors and passed the House on suspension with 374 votes. The National Museum of the American Latino enjoyed similarly strong bipartisan support. Today, the bills fixing the law restricting both museums from being built on the Mall are led by a Republican and include a combined 356 cosponsors, including 139 Republicans. It is no secret that we are deeply divided as a country and as a Congress, but this one should be easy. We hear a lot about a lot of talk about unity and bipartisanship in this room. But if we cannot come together to honor the hardworking Americans who shaped this nation, then those words are hollow. This is an opportunity, members, for us to work together. I urge the adoption of my amendment, and I yield back.

The gentlewoman yields back. Is there additional debate or amendment on the amendment? The gentleman from New York, for what purpose do you seek recognition?

Yes, speaking on the amendment, I move to strike the last word, and I just would note that in the amendment from Ms. Miller on page two, the President may designate an alternative site for the museum within 100 days of the date of the enactment of this subsection. So the whole point of it being on the National Mall, which is the point of what we're trying to do, her amendment actually takes that away from us. So we'd be agreeing to put it on the Mall except President Trump can, within six months of the enactment of this, do whatever he wants. It basically eliminates the whole point of the bill and what the bipartisan agreement was and what Ms. Malliotakis, who I spoke to yesterday, and I certainly wouldn't represent what she said, but I said to her, you know, the whole point of this was to make sure this museum and the Latino museum are on the Mall. This amendment, Ms. Miller's amendment, which Ms. Torres's amendment seeks to strike, would remove the President's ability to have unilateral say over where these extraordinary institutions ought to go. And so for that reason, I will support Ms. Torres's amendment. And with that, I yield.

Is there further debate on the amendment? The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for five minutes to strike the last word.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with Ms. Lee. Women need to be honored in this country. The historic contributions that women have made should be honored and should be on the National Mall. The historic contributions of the Latino community should be honored and should be on the National Mall. These are important stories to contribute to the legacy of the American story. And the fact that we have bipartisan legislation with hundreds of cosponsors from both sides of the aisle is demonstrative of the significance of this effort. But what is happening today in this moment is the worst of partisan politics, where somebody who's not the author of the bill swoops into a committee, offers a very partisan poison pill amendment to destroy the intent of the legislation, to destroy the intent of the bipartisan cooperation, to put in this to stop in its tracks telling the story of women and Latinos in this community on the National Mall. It's a disgrace to politics. It's something that we should all be embarrassed about. We should be passing out of this committee the bipartisan effort to get this important things done. And indulging one member to come swoop in politically and sabotaging the efforts of another is unacceptable. I applaud my colleague Ms. Torres for trying to fix this and put this back on track. We should all adopt her amendment, put this, the intent of this legislation, back in the forefront in the bipartisan spirit by which it has been so carefully and painstakingly negotiated and presented through this Congress. Because this work, the story of women, the story of the Latino community, the story, the journey of how they've contributed to the robust fabric of our country, needs to be told. And it needs to be told by the Smithsonian, a nonpartisan entity that tells the story fairly. The story should not be presented in a partisan lens by either party. And that's why we have the Smithsonian to tell the accurate story, not from the viewpoint of a Republican and not from the viewpoint of a Democrat, but from the viewpoint of the American history. And that is what we should all be supporting and that's what we should all be fighting for. So I vehemently oppose Ms. Miller's amendment that's trying to sabotage this very, very important effort, and I strongly support Ms. Torres's amendment to restore the purpose of what we have here, to bipartisanly tell the story that's so important, and I yield back.

Gentlewoman yields back. Is there further debate? Is there further debate on the amendment? Does the gentlewoman from Florida request on a point of order?

No.

The gentlewoman withdraws her point of order. The question now occurs on the amendment offered by... Ms. Torres, who I was debating Ms. Torres just so I apologize, I did not not write it down on my notes, by Ms. Torres. All those in favor of the amendment shall signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, nay.

No.

In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it, the noes have it, and the amendment is not agreed to. The gentleman seeks a recorded vote. A recorded vote is so ordered. All those in favor of a recorded vote raise your hand. Now it's... now it's actually so ordered. The clerk will please call the roll on the amendment.

Chairman Steil?

No.

Chairman Steil votes no. Ms. Lee?

No.

Ms. Lee votes no. Mr. Loudermilk?

No.

Mr. Loudermilk votes no. Mr. Griffith?

No.

Mr. Griffith votes no. Dr. Murphy?

No.

Dr. Murphy votes no. Mrs. Bice?

No.

Mrs. Bice votes no. Mr. Carey? Mrs. Miller?

No.

Mrs. Miller votes no. Mr. Morelle?

Aye.

Mr. Morelle votes aye. Ms. Sewell?

Aye.

Ms. Sewell votes aye. Mrs. Torres?

Aye.

Mrs. Torres votes aye. Ms. Johnson?

Aye.

Ms. Johnson votes aye.

Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will please report the tally.

Mr. Chairman, for this vote, there are seven noes and four ayes.

The amendment is not agreed to. Is there further amendment and debate on the underlying amendment offered by Ms. Miller? Is there any further amendment or debate? There being no further amendments or debate, the question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye. All those opposed, no.

No.

In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted. The question now occurs on ordering H.R. 1329 as amended reported favorably to the House. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye. All those opposed, no.

No.

In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the ayes have it, and the motion to report is agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, I request a recorded vote.

A roll call vote is requested. The clerk will please call the roll.

Chairman Steil?

Aye.

Chairman Steil votes aye. Ms. Lee?

Aye.

Ms. Lee votes aye. Mr. Loudermilk?

Aye.

Mr. Loudermilk votes aye. Mr. Griffith?

Aye.

Mr. Griffith votes aye. Dr. Murphy?

Aye.

Dr. Murphy votes aye. Mrs. Bice?

Aye.

Mrs. Bice votes aye. Mr. Carey? Mrs. Miller?

Aye.

Mrs. Miller votes aye. Mr. Morelle?

Sadly, no.

Mr. Morelle votes no. Ms. Sewell?

No.

Ms. Sewell votes no. Mrs. Torres?

No.

Mrs. Torres votes no. Ms. Johnson?

No.

Ms. Johnson votes no.

Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change their vote? The clerk will report the tally.

Mr. Chairman, for this vote, there are seven ayes and four noes.

H.R. 1329 as amended is adopted. This concludes the order of business for today's markup. Without objection, pursuant to House Resolution 9, clause 2L, committee members can file with the clerk of the with the clerk of the committee supplemental, additional, minority, and dissenting views on each of the items marked up today. Also without objection, the staff is authorized to make necessary and conforming changes. I'm going to go back and realize that I did not note that a majority having voted in favor of H.R. 1329 as amended, the bill is ordered ordered favorably reported to the House. Without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. That does now conclude our formal business, and there is no more formal business. I thank the members for their participation. Without objection, the Committee on House Administration stands adjourned.