state. so the assumption that somehow the district of columbia will automatically elect two democrats, which may be accurate, but it may not always be the case. the principle is what eisenhower articulated. he said this, you have an economy that is self-supporting. there is a large population. and i would like to see the case handled clearly and specifically on its merits. by that metric, washington, d.c., earned its right to statehood a long time ago. and today we can take a major step toward that goal when we pass this bill which we passed last congress as well. as the retrosession, again, i wonder if nevada would like to be back to utah or to wyoming,

to colorado, or whether wyoming, that has 200,000 less citizens, approximately, than the district of columbia, would like to be subsumed by one of the surrounding states. because of the few numbers. vermont as well. which was taken from another state, as wes west virginia. -- as was west virginia. took part of virginia. i hope the senate will take up this bill when we pass it and consider the question of d.c. statehood on its merits not on politics. maybe that's too much to ask. not on partisan -- this is not a partisan math problem or electoral prediction, which as we have seen may or may not come to pass. but on the merits alone. on the conviction that taxation without representation is not fair now as it was not fair in

1776. the people of this city, our nation's capital, deserve full and equal representation in congress. . mr. speaker, i hope this bill will pass with bipartisan support. it's going to pass, but i hope we have some bipartisan support. based upon the principle that every citizen in our country ought to enjoy the same representation of the congress of the united states as every other citizen. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from new york reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. comer: mr. speaker, i must admit i'm disappointed in the remarks from the majority leader. when i saw him approach the podium, i thought he would give us a detailed explanation as to why he voted against this very bill in 1993. but instead, he lectures us on

having the exact same position today that he had in 1993. mr. hoyer: if the gentleman will yield? mr. comer: the hypocrisy runs deep in this chamber, mr. speaker. mr. hoyer: if the gentleman will yield? mr. comer: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from louisiana, mr. higgins. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. higgins: thank you, mr. speaker. how is it unconstitutional? h.r. 51 violates our founders' intent. the actual writ of the constitution. the land itself which should rightfully be returned to maryland if its original purpose is land for our nation's capital is discarded by congress. and finally, the required repeal of the 23rd amendment. i've explained these constitutional barriers for two years in committee. but there is more. d.c. does not perform many of the roles of a true state. a prime example -- unlike every other state in the union, d.c. is not responsible for its prison system. about 8,000 d.c. residents are inmates in federal prisons, and

the federal government absorbs the huge expense. these are inmates who would normally be in a state prison, but d.c. only has the capacity to house inmates awaiting trial. three times in committee i've offered an amendment that would transfer this normal state responsibility to d.c. my amendment was rejected by democrats three times. so let's look at how d.c. has handled their inmates awaiting trial. according to "the washington post," d.c. is essentially tore during these inmates with what experts say is mass solitary confinement. 23 hours a day of solitary. for every d.c. inmate ongoing for over 400 days. that is certainly a violation of the eighth amendment. these are human beings awaiting final adjudication. many will ultimately be found not guilty, yet, they've been held in solitary confinement for 24 hours every day for almost a

year. is this what we can expect from a d.c. state? d.c. is our nation's capital, was intended to be our nation's capital, and must remain our nation's capital. mr. speaker, i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. maloney: mr. speaker, how much time remains on each side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york has 8 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from kentucky has 16 minutes. mrs. maloney: i reserve the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the time. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. comer: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. sessions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, i'd like to revise and extend. mr. speaker, i rise today in opposition to h.r. 51, the washington, d.c., admissions act. in many respects, america seems

to be at the same point we were in the 1930's and 1940's -- calling for a single party rule from washington, d.c. supreme court justice louis brandeis at the time observed, the greatest dangers of liberty is the insidious encroachment of men with zeal, well-meaning, but without understanding. these words might offer some inspiration with us today. whenever a people or an institution forgets its hard beginnings, it is beginning to decay, by carl sandberg. mr. speaker, both of these sayings are on the halls of our capitol. addressing people's ability to vote is important. addressing a party's desire for singular political control of a nation is another matter. our constitution outlines the process for admitting new states to the union and rules regarding

the formation of the district of columbia. in 1961, 36 states voted to ratify the 23rd amendment to the constitution, ensuring that district of columbia had representation and taxation. that was done out of fairness. these 36 states did this out of fairness. we've already heard what the attorney general robert kennedy said. mr. speaker, today we're doing the inconceivable and will produce the absurdity. legislation does not overrule a constitutional amendment. legislation is subject to the constitution and all of its amendments. if you want to make d.c. a state, have a process that overturns the 23rd amendment and then ratify a 29th amendment which then repeals the 23rd amendment. this was done during

prohibition. this is the standard by which we take care of the constitution and the amendments thereon. this government is predictable on the rule of law and following procedure, but today's bill abandons that procedure -- i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. maloney: i yield one minute to the gentleman from texas and chair of the financial services subcommittee, representative al green. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. green: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, and still i rise, and today i rise with love of country at heart, and i rise to announce that i will not allow this issue to become so complicated that the american people might be confused. because the truth is, we will be voting for one thing -- whether

we are for taxation without representation or whether we are against taxation without representation. it's really that simple. and as for me, i will be voting with the patriots. i will be voting with those patriots from 1773 who confronted the government. those patriots who were there at the boston harbor. those patriots who were there for the boston tea party. i will be voting against taxation without representation. i believe that this is what the american constitution and the american way is all about. since 1773, it's been said, and today i will respect it with my vote. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from new york reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. comer: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from texas, mr. pfluger. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is

recognized for one minute. mr. pfluger: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to this unconstitutional measure. our founders debated the merits of statehood and a federal district, and rightly concluded that no state should have supremacy over others and enjoy benefits while also being our nation's headquarters. they got it right. this bill gets it wrong. if d.c. becomes one of 51 equals, why should it enjoy being the federal district? federal agencies like energy or usda should move to places like west texas where we produce food and energy for the nation and beyond. eliminate the filibuster, keep occupation of the white house, all while controlling our election law are one thing. they are for one thing -- more power for them.

oppose this unconstitutional measure. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. maloney: the gentleman describes as many on the other side, this is a political issue, a power grab. he cites all these other political actions. but the real power grab is denying 712,000 tax-paying american citizens the right to vote. that's the power grab. this isn't about politics. it's a fundamental voting and civil rights issue. and it is outrageous that republicans would play partisan politics just to block 712,000 americans from having full

equality in our democracy. every american deserves a voice in their government. taxation without representation, fundamental belief in our democracy. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. comer: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from virginia, mr. good. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one minute. mr. good: thank you, mr. speaker. and thank you to the gentleman from kentucky. i rise in opposition to this latest attempt by the democrats to increase their power at the expense of long standing american traditions in the constitution. sadly, this is not at all surprising. democrats have made it clear that american institutions don't stand in their way of advancing their political agenda at all costs. they want to pack the supreme court. eliminate election integrity. defund our police. keep our borders open. and prohibit debate in this very house.

and d.c. statehood is just the next step. this legislation is an unconstitutional power grab designed to give democrats more votes to pass their radical socialist agenda. as the majority leader just said, this is about two senators, it's not about principle. the district of columbia has served as the federal district for over 200 years. the framers understood the importance of federal and state governments having separate authority and recognize that states would be ill-suited to house the federal government. and this was long before the democrats started making everything about race. now democrats want to disregard the founders' vision, again, in order to grab two more votes in the senate. political advantage is no justification for policy that disregards precedent and the constitution and, therefore, i oppose this bill. i yield my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. maloney: mr. speaker, i now yield one minute and a half to the gentleman from virginia, chair of the joint economic

committee, congressman don beyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. beyer: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in strong support of h.r. 51, d.c. statehood. my mother and father met at d.c.'s western high school in 1940 before my father went off to west point and korea. i was raised in the potomac palisades of washington and went to high school a few blocks from the capitol. my children are fifth generation washingtonians. we have been confounded and confused that the united states citizens who live in the district of columbia have been denied. the right to self-determination is the defining principle on which this nation was founded. and yet, this very right is denied to those who reside in our nation's capital. taxation without representation sparked our own war of independence from the great britain. today, the same cry for democracy pressed on every d.c. license plate calls for the peaceful passage of h.r. 51. the american citizens of the

district of columbia want to pass statehood. it passed in 2016. my opponents say it's too small, it's not rural enough, because it has insufficient logging, manufacturing, agriculture, mining. because it's not well-rounded. because its residents are not real americans. d.c. does, by the way, have a tesla car dealership. the real reason my republican friends oppose statehood is because they disagree with the political views of today's washingtonians. this is terrible short-term thinking. texas voted democrats for generations. california elected many republican governors and senators. the pendulum swings both ways. this view betrays our democratic principles of which our nation was founded. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from new york reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. comer: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from south dakota, mr. johnson. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman is recognized. mr. johnson: mr. speaker, i am opposed to d.c. statehood, but i am not opposed to suffrage. if your goal is truly suffrage rather than increasing democratic control of the senate, boy, do i have a plan for you. my bill would reunite the residential areas of the district with maryland, as was done with virginia in 1847. this plan would give full voting rights that we have heard so much about this morning, without ignoring the constitution or the practical realities of what constitutes a state. and so i say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if your goal is truly suffrage, then let's do this together. let's set aside the divisive rhetoric we have heard and work together to craft an appropriate and bipartisan solution to give representation to the people of d.c. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yield it's back. -- the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. maloney: mr. speaker, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. . mr. comer: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. it was good to hear the majority leader say this is about politics. we knew that. but for some of us it is about principle. and if it were about taxation without representation, i would a slew of democrats co-sponsoring the bill i have been filing for many terms to eliminate federal income tax in the district of columbia. but i was told years ago, we are not going to join in with your bill because it will weaken our chance to get a representative full voting from

d.c. that's what this has been about. for some of us, principle is a big deal. when the bush justice department was violating constitutional rights, some republicans got furious. when the obama administration did that, they circled the wagons and protected. this is about principle for some of us. and we got a tiny taste when the mayor of d.c. of an opposite party of president trump wasn't sure she was going to provide the police to protect the white house. this is about the constitution and principle. vote against this. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. maloney: mr. speaker, may i inquire about the remaining time on both sides. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman has five minutes remaining. the gentleman from kentucky has 10 minutes remaining.

mrs. maloney: i now yield one minute to the gentlelady from michigan, chairwoman of the committee on science, space, and technology subcommittee on research, technology, haley stevens. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from is recognized for one minute. ms. stevens: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of h.r. 51 in the esteemed tradition, the responsibility that we have of legislators of this body to evaluate adding a 51st state to this union. to form a more perfect union, yes. in the tradition and in the written words of our constitution because when my native michigan became the 26th state in 1837 added to this union, the president recognized that we will admit michigan on equal footing. but we know that the founders and their originators of our beautiful nation did not know a michigan when they were writing our constitution. they did not know a wyoming.

so we ask ourselves here as the ambassadors of democracy, what message we send to the world when we deny over 700,000 people the right to vote. when we tax them without the proper representation. this, my friends, is an exciting and profound and welcomed day in this body that deserves debate and this legislation deserves to pass. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. comer: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. lamalfa. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. lamalfa: thank you. i'm amazed at the smoke and mirrors and fog of obfuscation surrounding the debate on this bill. what republicans are doing here today is defending the constitution. what was put in place by the founders that washington, d.c., the district, would not be part

of a state where it could be coerced or leveraged by a state to get things from it. i just heard the last few minutes solutions offered by two of my colleagues that could probably be passed in six weeks or less. to allow what it is they claim they are saying. holding those 700,000 residents through a maryland secession would accomplish the goal of the same type of representation they are talking about. no, the politics is over on that side of the aisle because they have turned down a constitutional solution that this would be, instead, for an unconstitutional one that ply flies in the face and produces a 66 square mile state that is 1/18th the size of rhode island with a population a little larger than the city of fresno, california, because they want to accomplish a little goal while we defend the constitution. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky reserves.

the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. maloney: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. comer: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from maryland, mr. harris. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for two minutes. mr. harris: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i guess it's appropriate for someone from maryland to speak on this issue because this is maryland's land we are talking about. this land was given for the purpose of a federal enclave by maryland. how dare the congress take maryland's land from it. that's not why it was given. mr. speaker, let's talk about the unconstitutional -- you heard about the unconstitutionality we don't need to talk about it anymore. i urge everyone watching us on c-span today go get your copy of the constitution. it's written in black and white. this is very blaine. this is clearly unconstitutional. -- very plain. this is clearly

unconstitutional. i hope america was paying attention to the majority leader's speech. that one line where he said this is all about politics. in fact, he even gave the history. he said, well in the past the republicans wanted senators and so and so wanted senators. so they made -- we don't live in the past. we live in the present. mr. speaker, is this what america wants? do they want pure politics? that's what -- not my words. that's what the majority leader said. this is all about politics. mr. speaker, let's ask why did our founders do what they did? every american is watching think about what you saw last summer. you saw a white house under siege. you saw a mob. we know members of this house have promoted mobs. they did it last weekend. it will happen again. if we put the boundary next to the federal buildings, it will be subject to a mob.

a mob controlled by a state. not a federal enclave. that is the last thing this country needs. it's the last thing the federal government needs. i see my colleagues on the other side shaking their head. how else would one describe the group outside the white house? it was an uncontrolled mob. thank god that federal troops were allowed to be there. federal forces. federal law enforcement to stop that mob. that's why we need the district of columbia to be the federal enclave. i oppose the bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. maloney: i now yield one minute to the gentleman from the great state of new york, congressman jones. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. mr. jones: mr. speaker, i have had enough of my colleagues' racist insinuations that somehow the people of washington, d.c., are incapable or even unworthy of our

democratcy. one senate republican said that d.c. wouldn't be a, quote, well-rounded working class state. i had no idea there were so many sill labbles in the word white. one of my white house republican colleagues said d.c. shouldn't be a state because the district doesn't have a land phil. -- landfill. my goodness, with all the racist trash my colleagues have brought to this debate, i can see why they are worried about having a place to put it. the truth is there is no good faith argument for disenfranchising over 700,000 people, mr. speaker. most of whom are people of color. >> point of order. mr. speaker, i move the gentleman's words be taken down. the speaker pro tempore: the is gentleman's point was not timely. the gentleman from new york

will proceed. the debate has proceeded and the man was not timely. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. jones: the truth is there is no good faith argument for disenfranchising. does the gentleman from new york ask for unanimous consent to withdraw the words? mr. jones: mr. speaker, that's fine. you have my consent to withdraw.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman withdraws his words. debate will continue. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. jones: thank you, mr. speaker. the truth is there is no good faith argument for disenfranchising over 700,000 people. most of whom are people of color. these desperate objections are about fear. fear that in d.c. their white supremacist politics will no longer play. soon enough white supremacist politics won't work anywhere in america. fear that if they don't rig our democratcy, they will not win. today democrats are standing up for a multiracial democracy. to demock cra advertise all 51 states in this country. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from new york reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. comer: i yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. griffith. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. griffith: thank you, mr. speaker. d.c. statehood is

unconstitutional. both republican and democrat administrations of the past have long interpreted the constitution in that fashion. one of the problems with d.c. statehood is that two states, my home state of virginia and maryland gave land for the seat of government and they did not do so with the intent to create a new state. when virginia's land wasn't used for the seat of government, congress ceded it back to virginia. it did not create a new state. as it was thefpblet retrosession is our best course of action today. shrinking the seat of government which is permitted by article 1 and returning the rest to maryland for the purposes of representation offers d.c. residents a voice in the federal legislative branch. and keeps faith with maryland's original session of land for d.c. it also works within the bounds of the constitution.

i have introduced a bill and it's later going to be a motion to recommit, i have also taken great care as a part of that to make sure retrosession and the transfer of administrative function from d.c. to maryland run as smoothly as possible. if you are worried about the details of d.c. government, this bill, this motion to recommit, takes care of them. as the old prego commercial say, it's in there. congressional representation, it's in there. the courts, it's in there. the national guard, it's in there. commitments to retirees, it's in there. tuition assistance, it's in there. preventing the remaining federal district from casting the three electoral votes meant for d.c., it's in there. my motion to recommit, which i'll offer in a bit, is the most practical solution to giving d.c. residents a voice in congress. to give them a right to vote. mr. speaker, if we adopt the motion to recommit, we will instruct the committee on

oversight and reform to consider my amendment to h.r. 51. to provide for the retrosession of land to the state of maryland rather than to create a new state. i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. maloney: mr. speaker, i now grant a minute and a half to the distinguished constitutional scholar, congressman raskin, from maryland. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. raskin: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, madam chair. i hope that our distinguished colleagues don't flatter themselves to think that they are the first members of congress who oppose other americans' democratic rights to wrap their arguments in constitutional clothing. because this has actually been

the standard in american history. with texas it was said texas could not be admitted because it would be unconstitutional because it was its own country anti-constitution nowhere gives congress the power to admit a foreign republic as a state. it was said hawaii and alaska could not be admitted because they weren't contiguous. west virginia everyone knew couldn't be admitted because it used to be part of virginia just like kentucky was part of virginia. oklahoma it was said was too poor and therefore did not meet constitutional wreck which sits. utah was too morman. new mexico was too catholic. this is very much in the mainstream of partisan political opposition to vindicating the rights of american citizens. colleague from virginia invites us to say, just give it -- just give washington d.c. back to maryland. thereby conceding that congress has the power to modify the boundaries of the district of columbia as was established in 1847 with the retrosession of virginia. there is one problem with his

argument. the people of washington, d.c., haven't asked to go back to maryland and maryland has not requested that the land be given back to maryland. instead, what we have is american citizens exercising the rights under the 9th amendment to the constitution organizing the new state and petitioning for admission to the union. that is how america has grown. they have demonstrated their commitment to our democracy by defending us against violent insurrectionists on january 6. let's show our commitment to their democratic rights. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from new york reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. . mr. comer: mr. speaker, i have no further speakers. i am ready to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. maloney: we have no further speakers. we're prepared to close if the other side is. we reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is

recognized. mr. comer: thank you, mr. speaker. i wonder listening to the debate if our friends on the other side of the aisle was so passionate if washington, d.c., were 90% republican as 90% democrat? h.r. 51 goes against the founding fathers' intent and is unconstitutional, impractical, and a blatant power grab. the founding fathers created the federal city, this federal city to be separate and apart from the states which it would serve as the seat of government. they designed it this way so there would be no superstate that could undoly influence affairs and elections. now, i understand the people of d.c.'s concern. it's not a new one. if democrats truly wanted to grant the wishes of d.c. residents, then they would address the constitutional issues with h.r. 51 since it does not stand a chance in court. we all know that.

this does not stand one chance in court. additionally, democrats could explore other options other than statehood. but they're not interested in any of them since they don't add two new progressive senators to the u.s. senate. serious policy proposals, like retrosession, allowing d.c. residents to vote in maryland, federal elections, and most importantly, the passage of the constitutional amendment, have been called for by many of my republican colleagues. no state has required a constitutional amendment to be admitted to the union. not one. but d.c. is unique. the 23rd amendment guarantees the district three electoral college votes. there's no precedent for granting statehood to a territory with electoral college votes or such a special place in our constitution.

h.r. 51 is an unconstitutional bill. d.c. is also massively unprepared to assume the cost of the programs and benefits it receives by being the federal seat of government. the new state will very likely levy a commuter tax to make up the funding gaps currently backed by the federal taxpayers. h.r. 51 provides no guarantee to the american people that they will not be on the hook funding the new state for years, if not decades. this bill is nothing more than an attempt to ignore the constitutional process and gain an advantage in the u.s. senate. all to advance a radical agenda that continues to come out of this house and stalls in the senate. democrats know a constitutional amendment, granting d.c.

statehood, would be rejected, just as has been in the past. h.r. 51 is intentionally designed to circumvent the constitution and the will of the american people. i urge my colleagues to reject this unconstitutional and impractical legislation. i urge a no vote and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. maloney: thank you, mr. speaker. statehood for d.c. is about fairness, justice, and ensuring that all americans have an equal stake in our republic. it is not unconstitutional. it is constitutional. this is not about politics. it's a fundamental voting and civil rights issue. the real wrong is denying

712,000 tax-paying american citizens the right to vote. our nation is founded upon the principle that all people should have a voice in their government. no taxation without representation. but without voting representation in congress, the people of d.c. are denied that most basic fundamental right. today's debate forces us to confront the fundamental question of who we are as a nation. do we believe in the right to full and equal representation, or are these just empty words? d.c. residents are americans, and they deserve the equal rights our national ideals promised them. i want to, again, thank the

outstanding congresswoman for her tireless and selfless advocacy to ensure that d.c. residents finally gain full representation they deserve. i join many and thank the leadership of the democratic caucus, speaker nancy pelosi, majority leader hoyer, james clyburn, and i urge a yes vote in favor o

>> the launch of the spacex crew dragon endeavor happens friday morning. watch the prelaw firm live on c-span2 starting at 5:00 a.m. eastern with takeoff ski all-ed for 5:49 eastern from nasa's kennedy space center in florida. we'll bring you the post-launch news conference set for 7:30 a.m. eastern. live coverage on friday, 7:00 a.m. spmbingscrn 2, also online at c span.org or listen on the free c-span radio app. >> book tv on c-span2 has top nonfiction books and authors every weekend. sunday at 9:00 p.m. eastern on "afterwords," in his back "children under fire: an american crisis," jon wood roe cox looks at the effects of gun violence on children in america. he's interviewed by columbia university's professor sanali rajan. former speakerer of the house

john boehner talks about his book, "on the house chts --" which recounts his time as speak ore they have house and looks a the future of the republican party. and "high conflict" which talks about how people can avoid conflict. >> senate republicans have unveiled their own infrastructure plan as a counteroffer to the biden administration's $2 trillion proposal. this news conference with ranking members of the environment, transportation, banking, and natural resources committees is about 25 minutes. >> good afternoon. i'm very excited that